October 27th, 2012

Impeaching Obama

Roger L. Simon thinks that if Obama is re-elected he should be impeached over Benghazi, and that the offense is far greater than those occurring in Watergate and the Monica affair.

I think there may be grounds for impeachment (we still don’t know enough details from sources willing to go on the record), and that if it gets that far the offense is most definitely worse than the other two incidents. But although the House may vote to impeach, the Senate will never convict, and that would be true even if it were proven that Obama flew to Benghazi and murdered the ambassador and the others himself.

I am quite serious—not about the charge that he personally murdered the ambassador, but about the fact that impeachment is now so politicized, and the need to protect Obama on the part of the Democrats so great, that a Senate that is more or less evenly split will never reach the required 2/3 vote to convict.

101 Responses to “Impeaching Obama”

  1. gcotharn Says:

    “the need to protect Obama on the part of the Democrats [is] so great, that a Senate that is more or less evenly split will never reach the required 2/3 vote to convict.”

    If the facts show that impeachment is warranted – I say “if” – then impeach anyway (i.e. even if there is no chance of conviction). Each legislative group: House Repubs, House Dems, Senate Repubs, and Senate Dems, would be making a statement about who they are. The internet would ensure that a significant portion of the American people would notice the various statements.

    In 1998, the internet (Drudge) was able to break the Lewinsky story, yet Carville and friends were able to drive a media meme that Clinton was being prosecuted for having sex. The internet was too immature to drive a meme that Clinton was being prosecuted for misusing the power of his office in order to cover up his deeds and manipulate a court case.

    The internet is no longer immature: the internet can drive the truth into much of the public’s consciousness.

  2. Steve Says:

    If Obama is re-elected there may be a constitutional crisis. I doubt Republicans will want to work with him. They’ll push investigations on Benghazi and Fast and Furious. Obama will not just be a lame duck, he’ll be AWOL on national security and the economy.

  3. Jack Says:

    What do you do when something is so hopelessly broken that repairing it would cost more than making a new one from scratch? We are there. Who is John Galt?

  4. M J R Says:

    gcotharn writes, in part (1:08 pm):

    “Carville and friends were able to drive a media meme that Clinton was being prosecuted for having sex.”

    I agree, in the main, but I must add that forces on the anti-Clinton side too often didn’t help but hurt: too many were far too transfixed on Clinton’s sexual (mis)adventures, while not focusing on his witness tampering and related non-titillating legal issues.

  5. davisbr Says:

    If the majority of the general public are exposed to the information that most of us have become aware of in the past several days …including that General Ham of Africom was going to disobey orders and send in the strike force anyway, and was summarily “relieved of command” minutes prior to the strike force leaving for Benghazi …there’s not a Democrat in the Senate who won’t be forced to impeach by his outraged constituency.

    This time, criminal charges are in order. There’s no spin possible about it this time: this wasn’t about the sex or equivalent frivolity. This time its criminal negligence. People, the US Ambassador, Special Forces heroes, died. Unnecessarily. By command of the president. This. Is. Homicide.

    This president needs not merely to lose an election: this incompetent bastard needs to go to prison.

    This is going to explode when the general public finally wakes up. Partisanship be damned.

    …I’m so effing pissed my blood pressure is going to be an issue if I don’t calm down.

  6. Charles Says:

    Steve: “Obama will not just be a lame duck, he’ll be AWOL on national security and the economy.”

    I agree, but, with the exception that he is AWOL on issues NOW. My God, can things really get worse?

    As far as impeachement, Yes, Neo, it is/will be very political. But, I would like to see something, anything, done because of his mishandling and, more importantly, the cover up.

  7. Sam L. Says:

    Agree the Senate won’t convict.

  8. parker Says:

    The evidence and testimony of witnesses concerning the debacle in Benghazi would have to be clear and undeniable before the House would actually impeach the president. I too doubt the Senate would convict. However, if Obama is a lame duck senators would be in a predicament. The only thing to protect would be Obama’s reputation and that is already on shaky ground.

    Both F&F and the Benghazi disaster deserve in-depth congressional investigations. I believe both issues aired in the light of day will at a minimum disgrace BHO’s entire administration and taint a second term should he manage to squeak by Romney on November 6.

    BTW, in case you all have not visited Drudge, AP has put out a report on a poll that ‘proves’ Americans are now more racist than they were in 2008. There will be more and more reports making excuses for BHO’s defeat in the days leading up to the election. Lets all hope the excuses are needed and there is a real change.

  9. parker Says:

    “… I must add that forces on the anti-Clinton side too often didn’t help but hurt: too many were far too transfixed on Clinton’s sexual (mis)adventures, while not focusing on his witness tampering and related non-titillating legal issues.”

    I completely agree. Clinton’s sexual relationship with Monica was deplorable, but not an impeachable offense IMO. The real issues were witness tampering and perjury.

  10. Curtis Says:

    I hope for a real change, too. I believe there will be a real change, and if there is one, we should get down on our knees and thank God because we didn’t really deserve it. We let this Country go by cowardice, boredom, and selfishness.

    Not all of us of course, and many through the subtle pressure of threat and intimidation. But the latter forms my point.

    Fuck them.

  11. Tom Murin Says:

    I don’t see an actual crime here. He hasn’t lied under oath and the failure to attempt the rescue does not rise to the level of a crime. Morally wrong in my opinion, but many of his decisions and programs are.

    Otherwise, don’t forget the elephant in the room – BIDEN. Who would vote to impeach knowing that he was next in line?

  12. Ed Bonderenka Says:

    Parker: “‘proves’ Americans are now more racist than they were in 2008”.
    1) That’s because of their exposure to this clown and his rabid racist supporter.
    2) Even more of a reason not to vote for him, should that racism result in an unfortunate incident leaving us with president Biden.
    Curtiss: “real change, and if there is one, we should get down on our knees and thank God”.
    I mentioned in church that a year ago we’d never pray “God give us a Mormon for president!”.

  13. Curtis Says:

    Who:

    All the dumb ass rich Sean Penns. Fuck you, assholes!

    All the dumb ass hyper brainwashed lawyers. Fuck you, assholes!

    All the dumb ass teachers who brainwashed our childern. A super Fuck you, assholes!

    All the Muslim indoctrinated criminals recruited in prison and given a free pass for their crimes.
    Fuck you assholes!

    All the (oh shit) “journalists” who have no spine, couldn’t get a real story if their life depended. A more than special “fuck you, assholes,” with a “hope you die in pain.”

    All the municipal, county, state and federal bereaucrats elected because they’re lesbian fat wenches dedicated to the destruction of the U.S. of A.
    Fuck you, assholes.

    Here’s a good un. All you ministers, pastors, “Reverends” and religiouis pretenders who scorch the public for funds and bleat for the need for unity without ever a call for morality. Fuck you, assholes.

    All you blacks, and Mexicans, and immigrants and whites (fuck you too) who have sucked mightily off the welfare teat and your thanks has been not to get a job but to demand we take care of you more:

    Fuck you assholes.

  14. Lizzy Says:

    As disturbing as his apparent stand down order is (this paired with intentionally poor security & ignoring warnings), there’s also the part where he singled out a film maker as the one responsible for these murders (who is still in prison for “parole violation”) and set about undermining our 1st Amendment* for the sake of calming muslim emotions overseas. Not exactly fulfilling his duty to uphold the Constitution, is he?

    *He’s already undermined the 1st Amendment with the HHS contraceptive mandate.

  15. holmes Says:

    It’s not against the law to lie. It’s not against the law to be a craven coward. Those, so far, are the only offenses Obama has committed. I can’t agree with the impeachment calls, though I share Roger’s disgust.

  16. holmes Says:

    But, Hillary’s admission that they were going to have the video maker imprisoned as retribution IS evidence of a civil rights violation.

  17. Otiose Says:

    As emotionally satisfying as it might be to contemplate impeaching Obama, it should be off the table and reserved for only very serious crimes and not foolish judgements or ill-considered micromanagement of conflicts such as what just occurred in Libya.

    And any attempt to bring it about will only strengthen his position politically.

    The solution is to make the case to the voters and vote him out of office.

  18. gcotharn Says:

    Tom Murin says:
    “I don’t see an actual crime here. He hasn’t lied under oath and the failure to attempt the rescue does not rise to the level of a crime.”

    I am interested in Mr. Murin’s issue. I might agree with him.

    The constitutional language says impeachment is:
    “treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors.”

    Treason is:
    “levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

    re “levying war”, SCOTUS ruled:
    “there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war.”

    It is POTUS’ call as to what is and is not in the strategic interest of the U.S.A. POTUS has wide latitude to make strategic decisions such as:
    – withholding additional protective measures, or
    -withholding military rescue efforts,
    or
    – either disclosing or withholding information.

    For instance, it is not treasonous for POTUS to allow someone to die in the field. Rather, it is POTUS judgement that allowing such a death is in the strategic interest of the U.S.A.

    Sec. Def. Panetta has already launched a defense, of the administration’s actions, which is founded upon the administration’s alleged perception of the strategic interest of the U.S.A. I do not see a way to impeach the sincerity of such a claim in an official proceeding. We can impeach the claim in our own minds, and we can impeach the claim in the court of public opinion, but, so far as I can see, we cannot impeach the claim a lawful court.

    So, we are left with a remaining charge, against Pres. Obama, which is similar to the charges against Nixon and Clinton: misusing the power of the office in order to cover up the truth about events.

    Is this a high misdemeanor? Tough one. Very tough. For now, I will say yes. But, in an hour, I might have changed my mind.

  19. KLSmith Says:

    As tragic as Benghazi is, we are going to have bigger problems if Obama is re-elected.

  20. Gary Rosen Says:

    Does anyone remember the old “Sgt. Bilko” TV show with Phil Silvers? There is a very funny scene in one premised on Bilko having “borrowed” $100 from his platoon’s emergency fund to bet on a horse race which he of course lost. In the scene, Bilko first tries to conceal his theft with flim-flam and double talk. Then when the truth comes out he explains how he did it all for their own good.

    The handling by Obama and his administration of the attack in Benghazi reminds me of this scene. Only it isn’t so funny when it is not a TV comedy but real life. And it is not a sergeant lying to his platoon but a President lying to the nation. And it is not a horse race that was lost but the lives of four Americans serving their country.

  21. Curtis Says:

    Well, there’s no “actual” crime.”

    Ba ba ba ana one ana two ana I’m a two steppin with a monster.

    Wake up you coward, you keeper of the flim flam flame, you snausage. Wake up.

  22. gcotharn Says:

    Meanwhile, back to the real issue: voting and orgasm. Socialist Catalonia Party makes their contribution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc9eHI3ieQk

  23. Curtis Says:

    But I think I’m onto something.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2012/10/27/obama-as-father-figure/

    “Father Figure” as President. Need a Father do you?

    WTF. You’re a grown adult.

    And spins it as wise feminism.

    There isn’t anything to do but defeat these people in every way possible. Marginalize. Defeat. There’s no reaching out to them. Maybe we can offer them all tickets to Father Figure in North Korea or Iran.

    Dumb asses.

  24. expat Says:

    Isn’t it interesting how the Obamas are pushing for early voting? What are they afraid might change in the next week? I wonder what blacks in the miltary and their families will think. And Colin Poweel doesn’t count.

  25. James Says:

    gcotharn,
    Tom Murin says:
    “I don’t see an actual crime here. He hasn’t lied under oath and the failure to attempt the rescue does not rise to the level of a crime.”
    If it can be proved that an unauthorized person (political aide) was able to issue an order through the National Command Authority with Obamas’ knowledge that is probably impeachable.
    This is why I’ve been stressing the case for Jarrett, Ploufle, or Axelrod and why it cannot be admitted.

  26. parker Says:

    gcotharn says, “So, we are left with a remaining charge, against Pres. Obama, which is similar to the charges against Nixon and Clinton: misusing the power of the office in order to cover up the truth about events.

    Is this a high misdemeanor? Tough one. Very tough. For now, I will say yes. But, in an hour, I might have changed my mind.”

    I agree, this is the issue. Unless Panetta and Donilon are far more incompetent that I can imagine, they informed BHO that fighter jets were only an hour away and rapid action forces only 2 hours away. Right now it certainly appears BHO failed to act and attempted to cover this up with the whole spontaneous anti-video riot fantasy.

  27. parker Says:

    Mark Steyn provides a great take on Benghazi debacle and the campaign: http://tinyurl.com/8kf8wke

  28. parker Says:

    “WTF. You’re a grown adult.”

    We have tens of millions of adults still struggling with the emotional ups and downs of puberty.

  29. Wolla Dalbo Says:

    Things are starting to spin out of control fro the Great Obama.

    Extremely damaging leaks about Benghazi are apparently pouring in from a lot of sources.

    Yesterday there were the extremely damaging public statements by the father of one of the dead SEALS, about the duplicitous and disgraceful conduct, demeanor, and statements of Obama, Biden, and Clinton at the airport ceremony at the arrival of the caskets of the four men killed.

    Today, we learn that Adm. Ham, in charge of the Africa Command, and another high ranking officer have suddenly been replaced, with the rumor that Ham was told to “stand down”, ordered a rescue attempt in defiance of orders, and was immediately put under arrest/relieved of command by his second, one Adm. Rodriguez, who has been rewarded by being nominated by the White House to take over Ham’s command.

    This seems like an episode right out of corrupt Imperial Rome and “I, Claudius.”

    The members of our military do not swear a personal oath to the President, to Obama, a “Fuehrer Oath” like WWII German soldiers swore personally to Hitler. Our soldier’s oath is to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” not any particular President or regime.

    The patience of our military, while very great, is not infinite, and I am pretty sure they are really getting tired of being shit on. Thus, we are getting into very dangerous territory here.

    Then, there are the two recent repulsive and disastrous ads that reek of desperation–the one equating losing your virginity with voting for Obama, and today’s ad featuring zombie-like “Children of the Future,” singing about how a Romney future is one in which “people just die” and “the oceans are full of oil.”

  30. parker Says:

    Wolla,

    The children of the Future is far beyond creepy, it reeks of Hitler Youth.

    “Today, we learn that Adm. Ham, in charge of the Africa Command, and another high ranking officer have suddenly been replaced, with the rumor that Ham was told to “stand down”, ordered a rescue attempt in defiance of orders, and was immediately put under arrest/relieved of command by his second, one Adm. Rodriguez, who has been rewarded by being nominated by the White House to take over Ham’s command.”

    Please post a link, I want to see this for myself and pass it on to others.

    “The patience of our military, while very great, is not infinite, and I am pretty sure they are really getting tired of being shit on. Thus, we are getting into very dangerous territory here.”

    Indeed. Thanks for bringing all of this info to our attention. Thank you neo for providing your insightful analysis and consequently attracting a bunch of intelligent posters. I learn from all of you everyday that I read neo-neocon.

  31. Jenna Says:

    Benghazi debacle? What Benghazi debacle? We might well ask. For there’s not a single mention on the NYT website today of anything even remotely connected to the so-called Benghazi disaster that we loony Conservatives keep obsessing over. No mention of the four dead Americans or their cries for help that fell on Obama’s deaf ears. No mention of the still-imprisoned video maker or of the insults and dismissals endured by the grieving families of the dead. No discussion – not a word – about the ongoing cover up, the contradictions, reversals, blame game, lame excuses and flat-out lies tossed about by administration officials. No mention of the damning evidence offered up by the CIA.

    How many in this country will vote without having a clue about the White House’s culpability and corruption? I can barely think about it.

  32. parker Says:

    “How many in this country will vote without having a clue about the White House’s culpability and corruption?”

    Too many, but I predict not enough to carry the messiah over the finish line. Be of good cheer. If there are not enough Americans awake to send him packing, then we will eventually have either another civil war or a 2nd revolution. Should either be the case, my wish is to be alive and of sound enough body and mind to actively participate. I have grandchildren to protect. Be of good cheer.

  33. Wry Mouth Says:

    after election is too late; then, we would have to deal with President Biden.

    not a good prospect.

  34. holmes Says:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/losing-behind_657965.html

    It’s having an effect. And lest anyone seize upon this out of context to make it appear as though Conservatives are just playing politics with this issue, this is an America issue. Having a man who is willing to be this cynical about our national security, who will have someone arrested as a scapegoat for his mistakes, is a great danger to our country. He must go.

  35. parker Says:

    “Having a man who is willing to be this cynical about our national security…”

    holmes,

    It is not only an issue of ‘national security”. It is an issue of Americans in harms way that received no assistance when assistance was only an hour away. IMO that is the real issue.

  36. betsybounds Says:

    Just as an aside, I’m constantly amazed at the numbers of people who think Biden provides Obama with insurance against impeachment. Such a thing might be conceivable if it were clear that Biden would be a worse president than Obama is. Unhappily, that is not at all clear.

  37. Wolla Dalbo Says:

    Parker- Re: General Ham–among other places look here (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/has_general_ham_been_fired.html and here, http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/p/37144547/Interesting-Rumor-Concerning-General-Carter-Ham-and-Stand-Down-Order.aspx)

  38. Wolla Dalbo Says:

    Parker–A litle more information about this issue here (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/was-africom-general-replaced-for-his-efforts-to-save-benghazi-security-officials/) .

  39. Charles Says:

    For those saying there isn’t a crime; I can only add “yet!”

    If the senate really wants to start in-depth hearings and they ask the President to testify “what did he know and when did he know it.” Obama will decide that he is above all that and refuse.

    Well, good – Give him enough rope and he will somehow or other hang himself.

  40. RandomThoughts Says:

    Dear God, let’s not think of impeaching Obama. That’d give us batcrap crazy Biden as president. The man is seriously unbalanced, and he’d be the CIC. We can’t do that to our men and women in uniform.

  41. parker Says:

    Thanks for the links Wolla. My sweet wife is asleep and I’m going web surfing with a glass of shiraz.

  42. neo-neocon Says:

    At Ace’s, Drew M throws some cold water on the General Ham theories.

  43. Capn Rusty Says:

    The impeachment prosecution team could offer compelling evidence of Obama’s crime(s) in Benghazi, but the House of Representatives would never pass the articles of impeachment because they would be afraid of setting off a race war. Folks, the jury wouldn’t even convict OJ despite the dna match. They will never understand something as complicated as an AC-130 on station over a target painted by the laser of a doomed ex-Navy Seal. Instead, they will say that it’s racism.

  44. parker Says:

    Coincidences are exceedingly. After reading Wolla’s links and neo’s redirect, I will withhold judgement on the firing of Ham until I have more info. Nonetheless, coincidences remain exceedingly rare.

  45. rickl Says:

    Impeachment? Don’t be ridiculous.

    Obama is black. He can do whatever he pleases. Nobody will hold him to account. Republicans will sh*t their pants before even criticizing him for fear of being called racists.

  46. Bob From Virginia Says:

    One very good aspect of an impeachment, even if doomed to fail, is that testimony could be presented of all of Obama’s vile decisions, from Honduras and the failed SOFA for Iraq to be sued by the Catholic Church and beyond. At least that way some still besotted Obami would be made aware of the nature of the President whom they thought was the messiah. In short, an impeachment would serve as a much needed and long overdue civics course for cattle.

    BTW IMHO there is not that much that Obama has done over the last four years that does not warrant impeachment. He set a new standard for bad. In the future I’m sure we’ll hear phases like, “Obama could not have done worse”, or “who fixed this thing, President Obama”? and “don’t go President Obama on me”.

    And I think America is more than ready for a President Biden.

  47. csimon Says:

    Yes! YES! YES! YES!

    I’ve been thinking this for some time now, and, frankly have been somewhat surprised that no one else has mentioned it.

    But then, who would, except maybe usj? Fox is so busy mining new data (Thank Goodness) & no one in the networks and MSM (and certainly not The New York TImes!) will even mention it. Last week maybe a few outlets k felt they had to make a passing comment as it becomes more and more evidence that this is some major serious stuff and there’s no getting around the fact that O and Co. have made a mess of this (and no, I don’t for a minute believe it was due to incompetence even tho’ Obama’s supporters may now be realizing that just might be their best scenario!

    I wholly believe this was a deliberate decision based purely on politics — that is, to prevent the upending of Obama’s storyline that he got Bin Laden and Al Qaeda is now “on its heels.” What a stupid obnoxious jerk he is! Damn!

    I also think if the world were right, there would be no doubt that it is an impeachable offense, and the whole Obama Administration should go down in flames as hot and as fiery as those at the Embassy on that horrific day. (I’m really sorry and dismayed to say that this includes new CIA chief Petraeus. I would have bet a lot on his integrity, but from the word “go,” he “was wed” (as per Fox’s Catherine Herridge) to the spontaneous protest storyline of the Administration which we now know doesn’t even rise to the level of Biden’s “malarky.” And both are airing as many whistleblowers as are willing to speak publicly. Tonite I felt physically sick when one such person confirmed that a very reliable source confirmed that the President did indeed watch the feed into The Situation Romm at the Whitehouse. That feed that provided real time visual and audio of this terrorist attack. And then THREE TIMES the order was given to those at the annex who wanted to go and help and find the ambassador — like Tyrone Woods — to stand down. In my book, that’s about as close to committing the actual murders as O could get (espec. considering the fact that there is no way he’d ever be in Libya, in the first place. Heck! This is a guy who won’t even go to Israel as President even when he’s been in the MidEast.

    Tonite I watched both Huckabee and Judge Jeanine (Pirro) and I don’t know which is more outraged. Both have centered their shows for at least the last 3 weeks on this outrage. Clearly, the orders at Fox are to give this story the full court press — and GOOD FOR THEM!

    I don’t care how Left you are, how much you love Obama, how much you hate Bush — there is absolutely no way in which anyone rational can defend the actions of Obama and his Team. If you ask me, THEY are the real mob which is out of control! I can conceive of how the power of the U.S. Presidency could be intoxicating to many people, but essentially sanctioning murder to hang on to it is pretty frightening. But then, the whole Chicago gang has always given me the super-creeps, and more than once I’ve said to others when discussing them that I wouldn’t be surprised if murder lies somewhere in their reach for power (and in saying that, I mean “arranged” deals…but then, who knows with these guys).

    But I’ve gotten pretty far into the weeds. The way I’ve looked at this from the beginning, is that all those Americans in Libya (or posted anywhere in the world) represent all US Americans, and the man who is our President frequently includes in his rhetoric the fact that his main job is to keep Americans safe. If he didn’t keep this people safe — and I mean it is increasingly clear that he actually PREVENTED their safety and/or rescue — what does that mean to us. Also, after the murder of Bin Laden, if there is anyone who gets what Extremist Terroism is, and doesn’t think for even a minute that somewhere there is a group of Jihadists planning a major attack for payback, then there is zero understanding of who and what they are. They want to kill us just for not being Muslims and being “The Great Satan.” Add to that all Obama’s spiking of the football for his personal political agenda and you have a disaster in the making. And I don’t consider this Libyan attack to be even close. Not even equivalent to a practice run. After successfully killing 3,000 people on 9/11/01, they aiming for something a great deal more “spectacular.”

    Two last thoughts:
    1) As frightening a thought that our own President would be responsible for such reprehensible behavior followed by a very feeble cover-up, I find it just as chilling that we have a MSM, not only who is “in the tank” for a politician and have his back, but that they do so by sifting the news, determining what we should and should not know, and by happily furthering the obfuscation of truth. How far is that from totalitarian state-run news?

    2) Tonite for first time, Catherine Herridge added a new slant to this whole story, and that is that this whole scenario was set in motion by a plan involving the shipment of weapons for Syrian rebels via Libyan ship….

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/25/was-syrian-weapons-shipment-factor-in-ambassadors-benghazi-visit/

  48. csimon Says:

    The idea that Obama could be re-elected (G-d Forbid!) before most Americans even begin to have a clue about what really happened, and who is responsible — is just heartstopping.

    By the way, does anyone know what has happened to the schmo filmmaker who made the obscure, yet vile and reprehensible YouTube “film,” since he was arrested in big show of “Gotcha!” courtesy of our Federal Govt.?

  49. parker Says:

    rickl,

    BHO could be orange as far as I am concerned and no, he can not do whatever he pleases without escaping notice. Additionally, republicans can poop their pants, but not being a republican leaves me free to criticize mannish boy Barry until the cows come home without soiling my undies.

    You can’t do that: http://tinyurl.com/9bdkuw2

  50. parker Says:

    Caspn Rusty,

    Several things stand out:

    1. Which race would win a race war? Is this not readily known? Who has the numbers, the guns, and the abilities? Muslim, lesbian Afro-Eskimos lose in the first 20 seconds.

    2. The jury that refused to convict OJ does not reside on Main Street.

    3. AC-130s are brutal instruments of destruction and death. An AC-130 over Benghazi on 9/11/12 would have warmed the hearts of a vast majority of Americans.

  51. Ron Says:

    I hope and pray that enough Americans have woken up to reality and will not re-elect Obama. He had the chance to be the GREAT uniter. He failed miserably beginning with the Officer and professor in Cambridge, MA.

    In a nutshell, we have lost our sense of right and wrong. And that I truly don’t understand.

    re: the brainwashed part of our voting population: They would vote for Adolph Hitler if he were running and had a “D” after his name. I said this to my in-laws: They were shocked and taken aback by what
    I said. They both said, Knowing what we know now? No we would not. So I said to them, So you would vote Republican then. Right?
    The response was no. I said, In that case you are voting for Hitler.
    This time: No response.
    And that is precisely my point. Hitler was freely elected. People haven’t learned a damn thing which is a damn shame.
    And very sad.

  52. Papa Dan Says:

    Obama’s job approval has dropped 7 points in three days according to Gallup. People are finding out the truth regardless of the blackout by the MSM. As to impeachment . . . it would tear us apart. But four more years of this treachery and we will cease to function as a Republic.

  53. Capn Rusty Says:

    Parker:

    1. Which race would win a race war? Is this not readily known? Who has the numbers, the guns, and the abilities? Muslim, lesbian Afro-Eskimos lose in the first 20 seconds.

    Perhaps the term “race war” is too hyperbolic. However, we have seen during the last 4 years that the divisions between blacks and whites in this country have deteriorated to a frightening extent. That division has been exacerbated (encouraged?) by the Obama administration. If Obama were to be impeached, I have no doubt that there would be violence. I also fear the consequences if Obama were to win the popular vote but lose in the electoral college.

    2. The jury that refused to convict OJ does not reside on Main Street.

    My point about the Simpson jury is that it contained 9 blacks, 1 Hispanic and 2 whites.

    3. AC-130s are brutal instruments of destruction and death. An AC-130 over Benghazi on 9/11/12 would have warmed the hearts of a vast majority of Americans.

    Numerous sites are reporting that there was an AC-130 on staion over Benghazi. While that might warm your heart, the callous disregard for the lives of Tyrone Powers and Glen Doherty shown by the Obama administration by refusing to use that instrument of destruction sends a frightening chill through mine.

    Those two ex-Seals were in the CIA response team at the Annex in Behghazi and heard the gunfire. They sought permission to go to the compound, but were told to “stand down.” Being true Americans, they ignored that order and went to the aid of their countrymen. As they were battling the terrorists, they “painted” terrorist targets with a laser. That laser is not some mere ponter, it is a specialized piece of equipment which communicates with and directs munitions from overhead aircraft that are also equipped with specialized gear. The ex-Seals would not have painted the targets if there was nothing in the sky to blow up those targets. These two brave men battled hundreds of terrorists for hours, killing 60 of them before they were gunned down, abandoned by their country.

  54. Shouting Thomas Says:

    Although Obama’s conduct here has been awful, I don’t see the impeachable offense.

    What is it?

    Generally, I think of impeachment as a remedy for treason, or high crimes and misdemeanor.

    And, I’m a Romney supporter.

  55. Baklava Says:

    Shouting,

    As Simon said, “It’s not the crime, but the cover-up

    You can’t go misleading people about an act of terrorism because it’s inconvenient for your election.

    I’ll leave it there. It’s obvious to me he’s right.

  56. GoneWithTheWind Says:

    For what it’s worth Clinton faced impeachment for five felonies unassociated with Monica.

  57. thomass Says:

    Yep. No democrats will vote for it. All the public will remember is the negative drama and they’ll blame it on the republicans.

  58. Rachelle Says:

    I agree with Simon. The House should impeach whether the Senate is likely to convict or not.

    As more information is wrung out during the proceedings the Dems in the Senate may find they have little choice but to vote for conviction.

    But whatever the verdict, the corrupt Obama administration will be kept busy protecting itself and have less time to continue ruining the country.

  59. neo-neocon Says:

    GoneWithTheWind: what are these “five felonies”? Rumors that would not hold up in a court of law, or an impeachment trial?

    I’m no Clinton fan, but he didn’t even commit perjury during the Lewinsky debacle. He lied, but he did not commit perjury. And his Arkansas disbarment did not allege he committed perjury—mainly because he did not do so.

    I’ve discussed that fact on this blog before. Some day I may write a post about it. But to see the previous discussion, start here, and continue on reading down the thread, paying particular attention to all the comments of mine about Clinton and perjury. Also take a look here

  60. Occam's Beard Says:

    If it can be proved that an unauthorized person (political aide) was able to issue an order through the National Command Authority with Obamas’ knowledge that is probably impeachable.

    This is why I’ve been stressing the case for Jarrett, Ploufle, or Axelrod and why it cannot be admitted.

    Good point, James. Excellent point.

  61. neo-neocon Says:

    Ron: I understand your point, but I must correct your misunderstanding of the historical record. In fact, Hitler was NOT freely elected.

    You have stated an error that is so widely shared I despair of people ever learning the truth. The truth is that Hitler was appointed through a constitutional process in Germany, but he was NOT freely elected and in fact (until he became Fuhrer and elections became a joke, and not a funny one at that) his party never got more than about a third of the votes.

    Here’s a fairly short description of the salient facts. An excerpt:

    Hitler never had more than 37 percent of the popular vote in the honest elections that occurred before he became Chancellor. And the opposition among the 63 percent against him was generally quite strong…Hitler furthermore enjoyed an almost unbroken string of luck in coming to power. He benefited greatly from the Great Depression, the half-senility of the president, the incompetence of his opposition, and the appearance of an unnecessary backroom deal just as the Nazis were starting to lose popular appeal and votes…

    Read the whole thing and weep.

  62. Curtis Says:

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/27/steven-crowder-oppan-dunham-style/

    To counter the weeping.

    Or make the weeper into a hysterically laughing lunatic.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYLGdzZ5XkA

  63. Wolla Dalbo Says:

    The problem with Impeachment is that, despite our recent experience with Clinton, it is a very rare thing in our Republic–one with virtually no precedents and certainly none for trying a President on the charge of cowardice/dereliction of his duty as Commander in Chief or some such charge (or even Treason, if it could be proved that the evidence stacks up to show that Obama has been playing for the other Muslim side all along).

    As I wrote here several years ago, about the idea of a “new Template” to judge Obama’s behaviors and statements, back when Obama was campaigning for President–which seems now like a 100 years ago–Americans, without the long history of coups, constant intrigue, double-crosses, invasions, betrayals, conquests, constant insurrections and wars, dictatorships, tyrannies and despotisms that Europe and the rest of the world has had–are just not used to thinking in terms of betrayal by their leaders on a grand scale.

    They can’t get their heads around the idea, and have made no real preparations against it, or to prosecute it after the fact.

    So, for most Americans the idea of such cynical and thoroughgoing betrayal as has happened in Benghazi is still just “unthinkable,” and until such betrayal does become “thinkable” by a large number of citizens, such an Impeachment will not have sufficient steam and public support behind it.

    Moreover, as Pat Caddell said in a speech last week and reiterated on Fox last night, the MSM–in covering for the Left, for the Democrats, and for this Administration–in refusing to do their job of digging for information, ferreting out the truth, of honestly and fairly reporting all of the facts, keeping us informed so we can remain a free people–has become a threat to our Republic and to ourindividual and collective freedom.

    Then, of course, you have the fact that–from the evidence– today’s Congress appears to be one of the least morally informed, honest, intelligent, and perhaps one of most corrupt Congresses in our history; there’s a lot of skeletons rattling around in virtually everyone’s closets. So. hardly the ideal, righteous, unstoppable, un-corruptable, un-blackmailable, and determined jury.

  64. Wolla Dalbo Says:

    P.S. Take a look at this discussion of Impeachment and the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” from a legal dictionary web site (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/High+Crimes+and+Misdemeanors)

  65. Charles Says:

    Neo: “In fact, Hitler was NOT freely elected . . .”

    Thank you, thank you, thank you!

    This, along with several other “well-known facts” from history are repeated so often and taken as truth by so many, I share your fear that most folks will never learn the truth.

    I’m not faulting anyone here; But, I have even heard some college professors – who should damn well know better! – repeat this kind of nonsense.

  66. neo-neocon Says:

    Charles: it is puzzling to me that there is such widespread misconception about how Hitler came to power. After all, we’re not talking about ancient history here.

    I think the problem reflects several things. The first is plain ignorance of history, even fairly recent history. The second is that it is easier to just say the Germans asked for it than to realize it happened against their will (although many of them came on board later, when Hitler made the trains run on time and all that stuff).

    Which is more terrifying—to think that the Germans voted Hitler in and therefore “asked for” what they (and the world) got? Or to think it was a perfect storm of good fortune for Hitler (and bad fortune for the world) that he came to power, plus a series of astoundingly stupid decisions by those in power, who failed to understand the nature of the beast to whom they were handing the reins of power? I actually think the latter is more frightening, somehow, and that that fact is at least part of the reason that people resist the knowledge of what really happened.

  67. Steve Says:

    Ann Coulter wrote a book (her first?) about the case against Clinton and came down on the side for impeachment. I respect Ann’s understanding of law and intellectual insights. Ultimately it does not matter whether or not Clinton committed perjury. It is up to Congress to determine whether or not the abuses of power warrant impeachment. Clinton got caught lying under oath. He swore to uphold the Constitution. If he had any decency he would have resigned. But he is a self-important piece of crap who put himself first and the country second.

  68. neo-neocon Says:

    Steve: actually, I think the Clinton impeachment was a mistake. It lowered the bar for impeachment, IMHO. But I’m not arguing about whether he should have been impeached or not. My issue has to do with the widespread idea that he committed perjury. He did not. Follow all the links I gave and you will see on what I base that conclusion of mine.

    Lying under oath, by the way, is not the same as perjury (again, you need to follow the links to understand what I’m talking about and why).

  69. Steve Says:

    neo, history did not begin with Clinton. Nixon’s abuse of power was relatively minor but he was so hated by the left that they were ready to impeach him. The left lowered the bar first. Clinton didn’t think he could get caught so he lied to the public directly. I think he should have resigned immediately. Instead he tried to make it into a ‘right wing conspiracy.’ No class.

  70. Curtis Says:

    In 1689, John Locke had this to say about double standards:

    Now, I appeal to the consciences of those that persecute, torment, destroy, and kill other men upon pretence of religion, whether they do it out of friendship and kindness towards them or no?

    And I shall then indeed, and not until then, believe they do so, when I shall see those fiery zealots correcting, in the same manner, their friends and familiar acquaintance for the manifest sins they commit against the precepts of the Gospel; when I shall see them persecute with fire and sword the members of their own communion that are tainted with enormous vices and without amendment are in danger of eternal perdition; and when I shall see them thus express their love and desire of the salvation of their souls by the infliction of torments and exercise of all manner of cruelties.

    For if it be out of a principle of charity, as they pretend, and love to men’s souls that they deprive them of their estates, maim them with corporal punishments, starve and torment them in noisome prisons, and in the end even take away their lives — I say, if all this be done merely to make men Christians and procure their salvation, why then do they suffer whoredom, fraud, malice, and such-like enormities, which (according to the apostle)[4] manifestly relish of heathenish corruption, to predominate so much and abound amongst their flocks and people?

    The same objection still stands and the people’s repudiation of 2006 and 2008 is due to the fact that their own representatives, their Republicans, had been corrupted and were no longer support worthy.

    Thus, if there be no difference in morals and behavior, whether the one be outspoken and the other covered, there can be no power of appeal.

    It is Mitt Romney’s difference in morals and behavior which makes him hated but powerful. Obama hates him because he cannot be him but recognizes the fact that he should bow to him and give him honor and respect.

    Within Locke’s systems is saved the power of faith and excludes Kant’s dichotomy of reality. It is not God, but Kant who is irrelevant in Locke’s system and that became the American system which allowed the coordination of faith and science and still does.

  71. Occam's Beard Says:

    I am ambivalent about Clinton’s impeachment, but overall consider it probably was counterproductive to the political process, and helped to fuel partisan rancor.

    An honorable man in Clinton’s position would have resigned.

    Of course, an honorable man wouldn’t have gotten into Clinton’s position, so there’s that.

  72. neo-neocon Says:

    Steve: who said history began with Clinton? The bar was lowered for Nixon, and then lowered further for Clinton.

    Actually, the bar was probably lowered for Andrew Johnson as well.

  73. Curtis Says:

    Hitler did indeed have very fortituous events and so much so that many believe “magick” was involved.

    And that belief went away after 1945.

    But times they are a changin. And incorporating the past.

    The 1920’s and 30’s in Germany saw the huge increase in popularity of magical systems, including Madam Blatavasky, but which are basically identified as gnostic religions, ie., the belief and hope that man is becoming God.

    And I note an overwhelming popularity of shows like X-men, Alphas, Heroes, Medium, psychics and mind readers on Oprah and Montel, and a thousand others where men and women have powers.

    So that men and women, like the 1930’s, are reaching out past the boundaries established by Torah and traditional Christianity, both of which understood that the world beyond is real but beyond the proper reach, study, and apprehension of man. Therefore, the proper purview of man is his moral life in the here and now and renunciation of other gods, including himself. This is the message of Sinai and has proved worthy. That we should limit ourselves according to Those words is an act of faith, but a faith certainly not without reference to history, tradition, and an inner DNA.

  74. Curtis Says:

    Just for what it’s worth, I don’t believe in “magic,” but when a whole lot of people do, magic “seems” to appear.

    The Jews were slaughtered in the WWII Holocaust, but if not for those who survived and helped the West, we really don’t know who would have won, or who would have won the Cold War.

    If there is a bigger sign in history than the Jews, please tell me what it is?

    And why, why, is what should be such a little conflict of a land dispute over 60 years be so compelling for so long?

  75. Curtis Says:

    Strange Magic (ELO understood) jury dismissed

    You’re sailing softly through the sun
    In a broken stone age dawn.
    You fly so high.

    You’re walking meadows in my mind,
    Making waves across my time,
    Oh no, oh no.

    Oh, I’m never gonna be the same again,
    Now I’ve seen the way it’s got to end,
    Sweet dream, sweet dream.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28_unHqjVp0

  76. Steve Says:

    neo, I am not sure I agree that the bar was lowered more for Clinton than for Nixon. The case against tricky Dick was not much different than the case against slick Willy. Both were despised by political opponents for a pattern of deception. The impeachment came because they finally got caught. A big difference is that Republicans excuse away Nixon’s transgressions. Dems do. That is the big problem with the dems isn’t it? They are unaccountable. Their supporters (the people who vote them) largely remain silent. They are complicit. The left is rotten to the core. Jackson was the first president to be impeached right? I don’t think you can say the bar was lowered with the first. Lowering implies a comparison (ie, a precedent).

  77. Steve Says:

    sorry I meant to say Republicans did NOT excuse the failings of Nixon.

  78. neo-neocon Says:

    Steve: by “the bar was lowered” for Johnson’s impeachment, I meant that it was politically motivated, which I don’t think was the framers’ intent.

    I think Clinton’s offenses were much less serious than Nixon’s. One of the reasons—in fact, the main reason—was that his offenses were personal rather than anything having to do with politics or the carrying out of his office. And he would not have had to give the deposition (and lie and/or mislead about what he’d done with Lewinsky) if his enemies had not set up the Paula Jones case in the first place.

    The Watergate break-in was a political act. Clinton’s dalliance with Lewinsky was a personal failing and a betrayal of his marriage vows, but there was nothing political about it. And, as I said, he did not commit perjury. The whole thing was not only personal, but it was non-criminal as well.

    As you can see, I’m not really partisan in my point of view. I actually don’t think Nixon or Clinton should have been impeached (Nixon was not, of course, but he resigned before it could happen). Let me add that, at the time of Watergate, I very much disliked Nixon. Let me also add that I was never a big Clinton supporter either, although I voted for him. I thought he was a self-destructive risk-taking fool for doing what he did with Lewinsky, and I was very angry at the time. But I didn’t think he should have been impeached, and I still don’t think so.

  79. SteveH Says:

    Steve, if you think of republicans as adults and democrats as children it all makes sense. You don’t expect children to be held accountable to the same level as adults.

    It probably has something to do with democrats willingness to accept anarchy and throw tantrums if they don’t get their way.

  80. Steve Says:

    neo, I am not sure I agree with your assessment that Nixon’s abuses of power were worse than Clinton’s. The political break-in was inconsequential in terms of affecting the outcome of the election. It was a minor issue until the coverup. If Nixon had handled the situation differently, it would have gone away. Enemies list? Clinton’s filegate (500+ FBI files on political opponents) was outrageous. If Nixon had been caught doing this he would have been impeached for it.

    Clinton’s ‘personal failings’ were not just personal. Having sex with an intern would get any CEO fired. Clinton enacted the ‘Violence Against Women Act.’ The purpose of this legislation was to end sexual abuse, stalking, etc. The criticism of this law is that it treats women like victims and makes men out to be criminals. Guess good old Willy thought it was for other people not himself. Rich isn’t it given that he was accused of rape by someone on his campaign staff and he and Hillary had a bimbo squad to silence women. I could go on and on about his scandals. There was roughly one per week.

  81. neo-neocon Says:

    Steve: I’m talking about “worse” in the sense of impeachable offense. Nothing Clinton did rose to the level of an impeachable offense, nor were his acts crimes, nor was it perjury, nor were they even political. What would get a CEO fired is completely irrelevant for our purposes.

    What Nixon did involved both the crime and the coverup. First, the crime: a political burglary, it was literally a crime, and for political reasons, against his opponents (the office was the DNC, in case you’re forgotten). That is far more heinous than having sex (intercourse or other) with a 21-year-old intern, which is no crime at all. And that was the crime that Nixon’s coverup was about—the break-in of the DNC headquarters to get opponents’ political info.

    To refresh your memory:

    In January 1972, G. Gordon Liddy, general counsel to the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CRP), presented a campaign intelligence plan to CRP’s Acting Chairman Jeb Stuart Magruder, Attorney General John Mitchell, and Presidential Counsel John Dean, that involved extensive illegal activities against the Democratic Party. Mitchell viewed the plan as unrealistic, but two months later he approved a reduced version which involved burgling the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate Complex in Washington, D.C and placing wiretaps. Liddy was put in charge of the operation. He was assisted by former CIA Agent E. Howard Hunt and CRP Security Coordinator James McCord. John Mitchell resigned as Attorney General to become chairman of CRP.

    After two attempts to break into the Watergate Complex failed, on May 17, Liddy’s team placed wiretaps on the telephones of DNC Chairman Lawrence O’Brien and Executive Director of Democratic States’ Chairman R. Spencer Oliver, Jr. When Magruder and Mitchell read transcripts from the wiretaps, they deemed the information inadequate and ordered another break-in.

    Don’t you think that’s worse than what Clinton had a very willing 21-year-old Monica do? Much more impeachable? Much more relevant to abuse of office? Including the coverup—most definitely including the coverup:

    Within hours of the burglars’ arrest, the FBI discovered the name of E. Howard Hunt in the address books of Barker and Martínez. Nixon administration officials were concerned because Hunt and Liddy were also involved in another secret operation, known as the White House plumbers, which was set up to stop security ‘leaks’ and to investigate other sensitive security matters. Dean would later testify he was ordered by top Nixon aide John Ehrlichman to “deep six” a briefcase full of surveillance equipment and other evidence found in Hunt’s office. Nixon ordered his Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman to have the CIA block the FBI’s investigation into the source of the funding for the burglary.

    To me the Lewinsky scandal and Watergate are not even in the same universe regarding seriousness of offense.

  82. parker Says:

    Clinton was impeached on two articles: perjury and obstruction of justice. An additional perjury charge and an abuse of power charged failed (in the House).

  83. neo-neocon Says:

    parker: yes, a politically motivated perjury charge. See my comment here for some links related to this issue. I’ve written quite a bit about it previously.

  84. Steve Says:

    neo, to me watergate is hyper-partisan leftist tripe. Bradley, Woodward and Bernstein were not noble journalists. They spun a leftist narrative. They were smug partisan hacks then. They are hacks now. I see what Nixon did as small potatoes. The leftist narrative is that this break-in was super serious. Oh yeah? How does it compare to Benghazi. Where is the WaPo on Benghazi? It is covering for Obama! The left does not just have double standards, it thinks it creates a reality distortion field (manipulating history and facts to suit its narrative). I am not fooled by any of it. In fact, I think it is safe to say all leftist narratives should be challenged. If you question the narratives you’ll find they are all crap. As Mike Myers said on SNL, ‘the progressive era was neither progressive nor an era, discuss.’

  85. Steve Says:

    Ann Coulter and Pat Caddell get it:

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/28/video-pat-caddell-blasts-the-mainstream-media-on-benghazi/

    Once you see the pattern of corruption you see it everywhere. It is primarily a creature of the left.

  86. Gary Rosen Says:

    I don’t know what is “impeachable” but it is clear to me that Obama’s dereliction of duty as Commander in Chief vastly exceeds anything done by either Nixon or Clinton. An American embassy was under attack and the evidence strongly suggests that the only thing Obama and his administration were thinking about protecting was his re-election campaign and not the American lives under fire. An absolutely shameful, unforgivable disgrace.

  87. davisbr Says:

    Crap.

    Crap-crap-crap-crap-crap.

    Rodriguez is a known competency issue. He’s replacing Ham? Early? Why! (Not! a question.)

    I’m saying it again: once the American people become as aware as we already are of the dots we’ve been connecting, they’re going to want the president’s head. His resignation.

    And Not! just an electoral defeat.

  88. neo-neocon Says:

    Steve: The point is whether Watergate was more serious than Monicagate. I don’t think there’s much question that it was, including the scope of the cover-up and the use of wiretapping, for example.

    That has nothing to do with whether Watergate was worse than Benghazi, if the Benghazi allegations are true. Benghazi is absolutely worse; no contest.

  89. Federico Says:

    I don’t think there’s precedence that Obama would be a part of a coverup, where service people overseas were killed? But who knows, investigate it, and if the evidence pans out then take the next steps, but an allegation like this just before an election is equally suspicious.

  90. neo-neocon Says:

    Federico: actually, although an eleventh hour allegation like this would ordinarily be somewhat suspicious, there are reasons this one is not.

    Those reasons are based on what we already know is the case about Benghazi. Even without “stand down” orders from high up the thing was completely botched as well as lied about. It was a no-brainer to put some extra security there on 9/11, but it wasn’t done. It was clear almost from the start that this wasn’t a demonstration about a video (for example, the weaponry that was initially reported was inconsistent with it being a demonstration against the video), and thus it was clear the administration lied about that in order to cover themselves (and lied for a long time, too). Obama also lied in the debate (the one Crowley falsely backed up) about what he’d said in the Rose Garden speech, as I wrote about several time (see this, for example).

    The Fox News story that there was a drone and real-time video seems quite credible, and if so someone had to fail to order a response. I don’t know whether it was Obama, but it might have been. At any rate, we need to know, and the questions aren’t even being asked by most people, and certainly not by the administration.

    This is why the allegations seem very credible.

  91. Wolla Dalbo Says:

    Neo–If you look at the only Congressional Hearing, by Congressman Darrell Issa, that has so far been held about Benghazi, with all the other Hearings (especially on the Democratic majority Senate side) to very conveniently kick off after the Election is over, you will see testimony by Department of State officials, including Mr. Nordstrom, the State Department security chief for the area including Benghazi, who very clearly stated that they had had three security teams in the area and then one 6-8 man team was removed prior to 9/11 and then, subsequently, a second team was also removed, also prior to 9/11–and that all the while he and his military counterpart were pleading with the DOS for more—not less–security people to be sent to protect Benghazi, and that their several separate requests over several months were repeatedly turned down and, eventually, Nordsrtom was just told by DOS Security official Charlene Lamb and her boss, to not make such requests anymore. Because, as the Charlene Lamb, the DOS official responsible for security testified, she and the DOS thought that the 6 man team that was left “was the right size for the situation.”

    Lamb’s rationale was that the Consulate could be adequately protected by their small American security team plus the “February 17th Martyrs Brigade” militia, a bunch of spottily armed Muslim thugs being paid $4.00 each per day to protect our Consulate and our personnel.

    The “February 17th Martyrs Brigade” a militia formed in honor of the February 17th, 2006 attack by thousands of Benghazi citizens against the Italian consulate, after the Ambassador there had defended free speech on TV during the furor over the Muhammad cartoons.

    Just the very reliable, well-trained, well -armed Muslim Jihadis, interested in protecting our value system of free speech and freedom of religion, who we want to protect our Consulate and our people—right?

    Other reports say that the Muslim Jihadis who took credit for and attacked, overran, and sacked our Consulate, killing the Ambassador and three other people and injuring many of the other 30 people there were there, were members of the “Ansari al-Shari’a” militia, which—what a coinkydink—was an offshoot of the—wait for it—February 17th Martyrs Brigade.

    You would also hear testimony that in the year prior to 9/11 there had been more than 200 violent incidents in the Benghazi area, including an assassination attempt against the British Ambassador, an armed militia attack against the Red Cross facility—prompting both of them to evacuate, a raid by armed militia against the Tunisian Consulate, and two prior attacks against our Benghazi Consulate, the last one of which saw a hole big enough to drive a truck through blown in the wall protecting the Consulate (an attack that reports say our Consulate staff thought might have been done by some of the armed Muslim thugs, the “February 17th Martyrs Brigade” militia, that were supposedly providing “security” for our Consulate.

    You will also hear testimony from the former military commander of the 18 member U.S. Special Forces team in the area—that had finished its normal rotation, but who asked for his team to be extended to continue to provide more security in the area—but was not extended because DOS said his team wasn’t needed. He also testified that the military commander responsible for the area–Gen. Ham at AFRICOM (abruptly relieved of command just a few days ago under murky circumstances)– had been asked and was willing to provide any amount security that would have been requested—but DOS officials in Washington never requested it.

    Bottom line, this was a willfully blind, politically correct clusterfark starting well before 9/11.

  92. Wolla Dalbo Says:

    P.S.–Muslims are forbidden by Islam from attacking other Muslims at the command of, or in order to protect unbelievers.

  93. Eric Says:

    csimon: “I wholly believe this was a deliberate decision based purely on politics — that is, to prevent the upending of Obama’s storyline that he got Bin Laden and Al Qaeda is now “on its heels.””

    Relating the bin Laden killing to a Benghazi cover-up is unnecessary because protecting Obama’s Libya narrative was sufficient motivation on its own. Avoiding the al Qaeda link makes more sense. Obama’s Libya intervention was supposed to be the showcase model for the Obama Doctrine that, by stated design, was to be the anti-Bush model of intervention (re Iraq). See
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-address-nation-libya

    Therefore, inserting a large-footprint military force into Libya over a terrorist emergency was unacceptable to Obama for both reasons: doing so would have highlighted the feckless failure of the Obama Doctrine and highlighted the justification for Bush’s foreign policy decisions.

  94. Wolla Dalbo Says:

    Although she doesn’t figure in the MSM except in occasional mentions and puff pieces, according to reports it is left wing Chicago political hack, Valerie Jarrett, Senior Adviser to the President, who is the real power behind the throne in the White House, and pretty much the de facto President. Thus, for instance, the reports that it was Jarrett who, on three separate occasions, stopped Obama from going after Bin Ladin.

    Could it be that it was Jarrett, whispering in Obama’s ear, who really gave the order that no help was to be sent to Benghazi? If she—who is not in the chain of command– was calling the shots, that was certainly “dereliction of duty” on the part of Obama.

  95. Papa Dan Says:

    What I wouldn’t give to see Jarrett testify under oath . . .

  96. Amy Says:

    1. Obama’s forged identity documents. 2. Told our Congress they have no authority to declare War. ONLY Obama & the UN have the authority! Obama has signed bills into law without approval of our governing body. 3. Has taken away our Constitutional rights of freedom by passing the NDAA. Act that allows our citizens to be arrested& detained without due process of law!! 4. Has whispered to the Muslim leader that he needs space but in his next term he’ll have more flexibility! 5.In a speech he said that America will no longer disrespect Muslims. MORE!

  97. Amy Says:

    Benghazi was a well thought out premeditated attack. Our country’s wealth is down 40% from 2008, part-time minimum wage jobs with no benefits are the norm now with Americans working two of those to make ends almost meet! Also, O wants Israel to become a Muslim Country. What happens to the Jewish people? He feels that erasing GOD, our Constitution & redistribution of our hard fought for, by generations of Americans, wealth by crippling us with his cleverly disguised bailouts, policies & turning our allies against us and handing our beloved USA to the Muslims! Wake up Americans before it’s too late!

  98. Amy Says:

    Impeach Obama immediately for the crimes of treason, fraud, & murder!! The American people CAN make a citizen’s arrest We the people do not work for the GOVERNMENT they are accountable to us! When they refuse accountability after the lies have been unmasked, they hide behind the title of office. This is what Obama has done! We need to stop this evil man before it’s too late!

  99. Amy Says:

    Main stream is disgraceful for not covering events like The Brave people of Atlanta Georgia lawsuit against Obummer for not providing proof of citizenship documents. Sheriff in Arizona who proved birth certificate forged. States that sued. & states who want Obama off their ballots. The internet, YouTube & very few talk & radio shows can you look to for investigative answers!

  100. Amy Says:

    It’s simple, Obama show citizenship eligibility or be rebuked for fraudulent acts, treasonable acts & murderous acts against. The Constitution of these United States of America. I’m. A great Grandma & if I can figure this out then some authority figure should be able to! GOD BLESS US ALL!

  101. Amy Says:

    I can’t belive that a few Americans still believe that Obama hasn’t committed criminal impeachable acts against the Amerian people! Where have you been, out to lunch? Hahahahalol

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge