all right

Occasionally adding corroborative details to add verisimilitude to otherwise bald and unconvincing,
but veridicous accounts
with careful attention, indefatigable assiduity, and nice discrimination.

27 October, 2012

Reasons for Impeaching Pres. Obama

See “Are Some in the Chain of Command Still Haunted by Carter’s Failed Rescue in 1979?” for a transcript of Rush Limbaugh’s conversation with Doug of San Antonio.
See also “If Reelected, Obama Should Be Impeached over Benghazi”, by Roger L. Simon.

If Barack Obama [be] reelected, will he face impeachment over Benghazi—a yet more unpleasant and far more wrenching result than to lose an election?  […]
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 loth to expose himself and even less so in an election season, refuses to answer questions on the subject.  […]
We live in a time when the hopelessly inept producer of an unwatchable film is asked to take the fall for an ongoing, indeed centuries old, ideological conflict pitting democracy against religious fascism, with our current administration promulgating the absurd self-aggrandizing delusion that the assassination of a leader of that fascism (bin Laden) and a few of his henchmen (al-Awlaki, etc.) would be an end to their cause.  As if.  […]
So who’s to blame in all this?  Fingers will point in every direction, but as we all know the fish rots at the proverbial top or, more politely, the buck stops with the president. Obama admitted as much.  Only he hasn’t taken the buck.  Not even a penny.  He hasn’t said a word, at least one that makes any sense.  He’s trying desperately to fly through to November 6 on the wings of the mainstream media, aka the Cricket Club.  But a few of those crickets, in and outside the MSM, are starting to chirp.  Soon it may be a cacophony.
Still does this all rise to the “high crimes and misdemeanors,” that term of legal art that constitutes the hurdle for impeachment?  If this were a Republican administration, we all know the answers to that.
But I say, if this doesn’t, what does?
Or look at this way—which is the worse, lying to cover up a party office break-in, lying under oath about extra-marital sex with an intern, or lying to the American public about a terror attack that resulted in the death four of our worthiest citizens while covering up the continued power and presence of al-Qaeda and its allies throughout the Islamic world and maybe beyond?
You be the judge.  I think Benghazi is worse.  A lot worse.
UPDATE:  by way of A Time for Choosing:

From SarahNET:


White House and State Department officials were informed just two hours after the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11 began that a radical Islamic militant group had claimed responsibility, according to official emails obtained by Reuters.
The emails, reportedly put out by the State Department, specifically mention that the Libyan militant group Ansar al-Sharia had taken credit for the attack almost immediately and called for additional terrorist acts.
The correspondence provides a glimpse into how U.S. diplomats described the fiery assault, as it was happening, to officials in Washington, D.C.
The terrorist attack claimed the lives of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, including two former Navy SEALs and a State Department official.  It took the Obama administration nearly two weeks to completely rule out an anti-Muslim video as the cause of the attack.
UPDATE IV (29 October):  see “The White House’s Lame Denial of Benghazi Cover-Up, by Rick Moran:
How do we know that the White House is lying about denying requests for military assistance from our beleaguered diplomats?  Consider: If a news story is published basically accusing the President of the United States of standing by while Americans were killed, shouldn’t the reaction from the White House be a little more indignant?  A little more agitated?  Perhaps a lot angrier?
All of these denials point to one of two conclusions; either Fox News is making stuff up, or the administration is lying through its teeth.  There is no other possible explanation.
UPDATE V (15 June, 2013):

No comments: