Get PJ Media on your Apple

Roger L. Simon

Benghazi Impeachment Suddenly Not So Far-Fetched

May 4th, 2013 - 12:42 am

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.

It’s 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 that Obama 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, I’m 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.  I’m not ready to make any predictions, but let’s put it this way…

Barack Obama is bloody lucky he’s a Democrat, because if he were a Republican, he’d 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 it’s 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.  I’m 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, Obama’s 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, it’s 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 wasn’t 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 husband’s 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 don’t 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, let’s 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…”

Also read:

Will Congressional Committees Pull Together for One Benghazi Probe

Names of Benghazi Whistleblowers Revealed

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Mr. Simon, I'd love to think you have a chance of being right on this, but there's no freakin' way. An Obama impeachment (much less a conviction in the Senate), would require 2 things that do not currently exist in the real world: 1) a GOP contingent in Congress with both skillful leadership and spines, and 2) a few principled Democrats who would do the right thing rather than vote in lockstep to protect their own party/interests/careers. Yeah, exactly. There is exactly a 0.00% chance of this happening. Instead of daydreaming and wishcasting about stuff like this, we need to be working to increase the GOP majority in the House and win back the Senate in 2014 (maybe at least a handful of the new folks would help with #1 above. This impeachment fantasy stuff is just a waste of time and an excuse to do nothing but sit around and wait for it to happen.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I've lost my inhibitions. So here goes: PJM's critical core suffers from a combination of excessive Republican/conservative loyalties and a fitful naivete syndrome. Both are somewhat cute and somewhat tiring. The first is expressed in nostalgia over the Bush Presidency, which was functionally mediocre at best and a public/PR disaster at worst, ushering in the Obama Presidency or regime (to me it looks like the latter). No, no, I am not blaming George Bush for the excess of optimism that infects you boys. I can't really explain it. I guess it's love of country. I think it's substantially also denial about the extent of the corruption in the elites. Though I have not read yet C Thomas' comments on Obama's elections, I already agree with them....

Pretty much most of you were convinced of the Romney Landslide. I also fell for this. Obama has a powerful machine. It is vicious. It is predicated and founded on decades of media slide into LeftStream Media and academic brainwashing. Many of us experienced the latter personally. I saw it with my own eyes at Santa Cruz and Berkeley in the 70s. David Horowitz has written about it eloquently.

These guys will fight with everything they have to keep power. I wish Issa well. Obama absolutely deserves impeachment, though impeachment is only Part I of the process - without the Senate's followup it is meaningless. Ask Bill Clinton. Watch Axelrod, Jarrett and Holder go to work. They will obstruct. They will threaten. The media may break away at some point, but where is the evidence.
I and others have been called different names for asserting that Obama is an illegitimate President. The mainstream conservatives refuse to address these issues, perhaps because of what it says or would say about their perception of the United States as a political entity today. But if it is so, then you have an idea of whom you are dealing with. Curb your optimism, and add in several doses of realism, then the fight may, possibly, be won.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Not because he doesn't deserve it, but because he's the first Black President. It works like this: The Supreme Court could not declare Obamacare (aka The Unaffordable Care Act) unconstitutional -- not because it isn't, but because it's the signature legislation of the first Black President. Get it? Obama is Black. Just try to impeach our Liar-in-Chief. You'll get riots in the street and the end of the GOP. The GOP will be forever stigmatized as being anti- minority, anti-immigration and anti-Black.
Personally, after his term is out, I'd like to see Obama selected to be Secretary General of the United Nations. Then I'd like to see the UN thrown out of the country.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (138)
All Comments   (138)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Sad but true.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Obama's best defense against being convicted in the Senate: Joe Biden would become president.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Benghazi would make for an excellent Frontline style documentary. What are the odds of seeing that one on Frontline?

Plenty of video to fill an hour. Anybody you know up to it, Roger?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Odds: Zero and none.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Obama could drop trou in the middle of his State of the Union speech and defecate, and his media lapdogs at NBC et al would profess it to be the greatest speech since Lincoln addressed Gettysburg. But we should try to impeach him anyway.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Obama deserves impeachment, but I doubt it will happen. For one thing what chance is there that we could ever get a 2/3 vote in the senate to convict, and if we cant then why bother. It will just be Clinton all over again, a waste of time. I suspect we will just have to wait out the last 3.5 yrs of a fatally weakened presidency, Bush all over again.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Boy, you folks got Obama derangement Syndrome bad if you think this is going to impeach him. Take it from me, a true leftist, you guys got Obama all wrong and that's why he's kicking your butts everyday. From my radical progressive POV, Obama is slightly to the right of Ronald Reagan, and unlike what you all think, that is pretty much accurate. I, a progressive, can't stand the guy- he's a political coward who allowed Gitmo to stay open, kept us in Afghanistan way too long, barely cut the Bush tax cuts, went with Heritage Foundation Romneycare instead of Universal Healthcare, is still arresting and closing medical marihuana shops, is fine with shredding our privacy rights while boosting the Patriot Act and feeding billions more into homeland insecurity. Yes he has a lot of liberals fooled, but so are you. If you didn't talk and act like a bunch of loons, whining about Benghazi, which is going nowhere, you could wait for a really good, water-tight case against him, or just wait him out. But the sad fact of life for you guys is the country is tilting left, and in a few years we're going to get an actual real quasi-socialist who is going to make Obama look like Ted Cruz...then you'll have something really to whine about.
Dismiss what I just said at your own peril
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Is that the same Barack Obama that would agree for Kermit Gosnell as abortion doctor in good standing? How repulsive and deluded does one have to be to be to the left of Barack Obama? Speaking of sociopath...whew.

This country isn't turning left, little man. It's turning towards hell wrapped in a hand basket of wilted Obama weeds.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There is a cancer on the Presidency, and because Obama has put so many of his minions in key places in government, it has spread from the White House throughout the justice department; in fact, wherever you probe, no part of the administration is clean. I usually follow this line of thought with the snarky question, "Is there a doctor in the house". But, for this piece, I'm leaving it out.

There's no doubt Obama faces legal proceedings because of all his lying and cheating and refusing to "defend the Constitution against all enemies domestic and foreign"

But there's another culpable partner that has committed crimes against the American people, lying on the one hand and, on the other, committing crimes of omission. The framers of the Constitution thought it so important that we have a free, adversarial press that it gave them special constitutional protections, which the ObamaPress has made a mockery of.

To have a mainstream media that is in cahoots with the President; that carries his water, that, in effect, is part of the communications office of the President is a crime of the highest order. Although I can't quite fit it into the traitorous category, if I think about it long enough I know I can figure out where it belongs.

Whatever crime the lawyers come up with that the mainstream media is committing, though, there must be ways to get to them. Maybe you have to sue each reporter individually. Maybe you make an example of a few, and the many will get the message. I don't know exactly how to get to them. Maybe whistle blowers.

What I'm sure of is that the mainstream media is one huge metastasized mess; acting for Obama, it's a cancer that needs to be removed. Perhaps you have to get to them before you get to Obama.


"No matter what the O does -- he will under no circumstances be impeached.

"(What did he suffer for promising the Russians he could be "more flexible" after the elections -- and so was clearly lying by omission to the voters -- about our defense? No other candidate -- none -- could have gotten away with that.)

"Even if impeachment proceedings were to get close to beginning -- there would be mass riots, violence and murders of GOP, all over the country -- not just by blacks -- but by the whole of the left. Our shameful (shameless) "Media" would encourage it. The unrest would last and be devastating."


Sky's words cause me a lot of consternation. Maybe I can settle some of his concerns.

One, the police from coast to coast hate Obama and his henchmen. In times of riot, they're on our side. 99% of returning vets are on our side. In a time of national unrest, the National Guard would be on our side. The majority of the south, too.

Although Minnesota is full of wood-be traitors, they're mostly near the cities.
In an all-out insurrection started by black riots in the major cities, California and the east coast would be vulnerable to the crazy anti-Americanism. Ohio west to Nevada would side with the patriots. The breadbasket of the nation is armed to the teeth.

In a worst case scenario, an Obama approved rebellion would be met by a steel belief in the values of America that would rise up and crush the left. Ten years ago this conversation would sound like lunacy. But Obama has changed the matrix. He is like a vicious blood thirsty savage who's rabid desire is to destroy America as it once was; the beliefs the ideals, the treasuring of freedom.

Obama's perverted lust to destroy cannot be sated. His use of the lie is pathological. His thought patterns maniacal. That Obama has an approval rating of 46 percent is a cause for concern. But the cause for freedom in America will overcome.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Obama will not be impeached. He is the master of setting up the people around him to take the fall in case anything goes wrong. Benghazi=Hillary, Gun Control=Biden, Fast and Furious=Holder, Domestic Terrorism=Napalitano, and if you notice, over and over again he says he was never notified or wasn't told about events until after they were over.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I can understand why Mr. Obama is concerned about retaking the House. That is where impeachment starts.

Most likely that he is black, a Democrat and has the support of the media elite types, he will be safe from that fate. Not fair, but that is what it is.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Agree with the many commenter who wrote that Obama could not possibly be impeached, no matter what he does or did.

Even if the guy were to literally dismember and eat a baby on live TV, the response from the nation's self-styled elites and talking heads would be:
* You didn't see what you think you saw;
* We don't yet have all the facts, and can't comment while the investigation is still on-going;
* Candy Crowley: "That's old news and has been rehashed endlessly, like his alleged lack of a birth certificate; we need to move on;"
* It's nothing more than a witch-hunt by raaaacist Republicans;
* Chief "Justice" John Roberts: "That may actually have been legal, if we consider that it was really just a tax on the individual;"
* "Really, what difference does it make?!"
* "You're all just raacists!"
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All