Skip to comments.Benghazi Impeachment Suddenly Not So Far-Fetched
Posted on 05/04/2013 11:09:12 AM PDT by jazusamo
On October 27th, 2012, only days before the presidential election, I wrote:
If Barack Obama is reelected, will he face impeachment over Benghazi a yet more unpleasant and far more wrenching result than to lose an election?
It could happen and in my estimation should happen the way revelations are playing out over the bloody terror attack that took four American lives and has led to weeks of prevarication and obfuscation.
The scandal thus far has at least tarnished and quite possibly implicated everyone from the CIA director, to the secretaries of State and Defense, to the UN ambassador and, of course, the president himself with no end in sight, because Obama, normally loath to expose himself and even less so in an election season, refuses to answer questions on the subject.
Its not the crime, but the cover-up, we learned in an earlier impeachment, only in this case the crime may be just as bad or worse.
That post was a follow-up to my item from the previous week saying thatObama should resign over Benghazi, which was linked to by Drudge, and created a minor brouhaha. Between those two posts, a number of people accused me of being overheated. I even started to feel that way myself. (Hey, Im a screenwriter. Dramatic license comes with the job description.)
No longer. Reading Stephen F. Hayes new article in The Weekly Standard The Benghazi Talking Points I am beginning to feel like Nostradamus. Im not ready to make any predictions, but lets put it this way
Barack Obama is bloody lucky hes a Democrat, because if he were a Republican, hed be in deep trouble right now, close to the brink of extinction. Only his increasingly pathetic loyal media claque can save him. It will be interesting to see if they do so at the expense of their own reputations.
Of course the reputations of the State Department need to be considered as well, that same State Dept that, according to Hayes (and this is corroborated by emails he publishes), bowdlerized and censored all references to al-Qaeda involvement in the Benghazi events before they could reach the fragile American public in an election year, almost even as they were happening. This was before Susan Rice made her dog-and-pony performance on the Sunday shows, asserting it was all caused by a video nobody watched, and long before the oleaginous Candy Crowley famously covered up for Obama on Benghazi at the presidential foreign-policy debate.
Hayes names the names of some of the State Department miscreants involved in this repellent anti-democratic censorship. Among them is one Victoria Nuland, who makes Pinocchio seem like Diogenes. (You can find a video of her as well as some droll tweets from the blogger Ace of Spades demanding an explanation for all this prevarication, and even a tweet from me, here.)
But its not just State. According to Hayes, on the CIA side, a fellow named Mike Morell, their deputy director, cut all or parts of four paragraphs of the six-paragraph talking points 148 of its 248 words. Gone were the reference to Islamic extremists, the reminders of agency warnings about al Qaeda in Libya, the reference to jihadists in Cairo, the mention of possible surveillance of the facility in Benghazi, and the report of five previous attacks on foreign interests.
So why did this all happen? Who were they covering up for, hiding Islamic terror involvement? Post-Boston, it seems particularly despicable, even if it was already bad enough with all the death and injury to U.S. service personnel who risk life and limb to defend our freedom.
But never mind. We are in a fascinating period of unraveling. Whistleblowers in the defense community are appearing. Im sure at State, some are looking over their shoulders, waiting for the Night of the Long Knives to begin. It probably has already.
How far will it go? We will soon, no doubt, be in the period of limited hangouts. (The attempt by Jay Carney, Obamas press secretary, to play the Benghazi happened a long time ago dodge on Wednesday arguably fits this definition.) Who will be the John Dean, the Erlichman, and Haldeman? Is Deep Benghazi Throat talking at this moment?
While we are making Watergate analogies, its worth noting this is far worse than that noxious moment in American history or the other recent impeachment episode Clinton. In the former, some dumb zealots broke into the campaign headquarters of the opposition party in an election that wasnt remotely close. Nevertheless, the paranoid Nixon destroyed himself by trying to cover up the idiocy. Clinton wagged his finger at us and lied about sex under oath, while his wife an important figure in Benghazi where she has already been caught dissimulating similarly lied by publicly blaming her husbands philandering on the great right-wing conspiracy. (What power!)
Creepy behavior all around and certainly nothing remotely presidential, but, compared to Benghazi, no one died or was even injured. As far as I know, no one even stubbed a toe.
Benghazi, on the contrary, was an important battle in the Global War on Terror, which has now reached our shores more than once. It will undoubtedly do so again. Those who take this casually in the slightest are conscious or unconscious traitors or fools or so self-interested as to be beneath contempt.
The Congress must be unstinting in pursuing the truth of Benghazi wherever it leads and however high it goes. If they do not, our country will be weakened, probably beyond recognition.
I dont know about you, but I will be watching closely on May 8, when Rep. Issa begins his public inquiry. These may be the beginnings of the most important hearings of our lifetime.
In the meantime, for some comic relief, lets do the Mashed Potato, BHO-style, and dedicate it to Jay Carney: Benghazi started long time ago / With a guy name Gaddafi / No one knew how to spell his name / Come on baby, gonna teach it to you
Video at link: "It's Mashed Potato Time"
“Those who take this casually in the slightest are conscious or unconscious traitors or fools or so self-interested as to be beneath contempt.”
Sounds like the 46%, congresscritters...and a few relatives of mine.
If we are (God willing) lucky enough to see him impeached wehad better be ready for riots that will make Watts look like a picnic. Martial law.
Regardless of a potential Senate impeachment vote.
This MUST receive MAXIMUM EXPOSURE.
That exposure to daylight is the only way to stop the assault on the nation.
The MSM must also be exposed for what it contributed and is. A party to a vast criminal fraud.
Intentionally leaving forty-one Americans to die IS.
“Its not the crime, but the cover-up, we learned in an earlier impeachment, only in this case the crime may be just as bad or worse.
But, the results will be the same as with Clinton —
There is no way the Senate could or would muster the 67 votes (IIRC) to remove the sitting president.
He’s Jesuit educated, just like Bill Clinton.
“Racist Congress to Take Up Impeachment Vote!”—Headlines across the world were this to happen. They’re (mostly) too cowardly to attempt it.
> The author needs to put down his bong. The race card trumps all.
Then why isn’t NASCAR the most watched sport in America?
Wouldn’t need martial law IF when it starts, tell them the police are ordered to shoot to kill. During a riot in Columbus, Ohio, the mayor roped off the riot area and did just that. He announced that for anyone who tried to pass the roped area, the cops were under orders to shoot to kill. End of riot.
I read the story somewhere. The mayor’s name was Maynard something back when there were riots going on all over the country.
We will be lucky if he and Hillary get one slightly negative article in the NYT’s..which will include a thousand mistakes made by other Pres..and a 30 spot on NBC evening news.
“”Regardless of a potential Senate impeachment vote.””
I agree - going through the motions is better than ignoring their criminal behavior!!
Nixon was never impeached or convicted. Public pressure can build. Not that with a compliant press we expect that, but it’s possible, remotely possible, that he could be forced to resign rather than face impeachment much less conviction in the Senate.
I know it is because that is what we are used to....a spineless “GOP Party”.
However, Issa DID NOT LET THIS GO. He went silent for a while, then BOOM, here come the whistle blowers.
If Issa had tried this during the election, barrys campaigning would have steam rolled over it.
Or perhaps, Issa was busy trying to get to the whistle blowers, or at least convince them to come forward (where the heck are the 32 survivor's????).
Who the heck knows what was being done during the silence. If nothing happens to us before May 8th I do believe this will blow the lid off their dark lies and the light of truth shall be shone upon ALL of them. It just may to TOO BIG NOT to impeach & arrest (I know, I'm pushing it) for treason.
I am SOOOO happy Wednesday's are my day off. I hope this will be aired on CSPAN!!
The republican leadership is sitting on Benghazi to use it for political ammunition before the 2014 congressional elections...
Impeachment is not the goal (even if we had a functioning government which we don't).. the goal is to mute the democrat loving media with hearings or associate democrat candidates to Obama incompetence...
Justice is the last thing on anyone mind in DC, both donkeys and elephants...