Texas Lt. Gov. Dewhurst Thinks Obama Should be Impeached. Media: SHOCKED!
Monday, Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst made a statement that has rankled some. He said that he believes that President Barack Obama should be impeached.
The media and some faux libertarian types have, predictably, pounced. That's just what some biased folks in the media do.
ICYMI @DavidHDewhurst said last night Obama should be impeached per Benghazi as noted by @cd_hooks at a tea party event.
— Gardner Selby (@gardnerselby) October 15, 2013
I wasn't surprised by Dewhurst's statement, as he hinted that Obama deserved impeachment when I interviewed him back in August. Dewhurst, a former CIA officer, understands the failure of Benghazi better than any media commentator. As someone who was deployed overseas and understands the dangers that our defenders face in hostile place like Libya, his opinion deserves more weight than the opinions of those who never served and whose knee jerks every time a Republican says something interesting.
This is what he said to me in that August interview.
“The lack of protecting those four Americans in the consulate in Benghazi…that is a sin. We know, we’ve seen reported, that there was live video streaming into the Situation Room at the White House. That means there were platforms, aerial platforms, that could’ve been used. … Where do you draw the line? Being PC — politically correct — and you don’t want to offend the leadership in Libya? So you let four Americans be killed and, be mutilated? Outrageous!”
Dewhurst called the failure in Benghazi both "evil" and a "sin."
Is he wrong about that? Was he wrong to suggest that the Obama administration's excuse for not sending air support -- that it couldn't get overflight permission from a government that the Obama administration had helped install -- doesn't hold up?
Dewhurst wrapped up his Benghazi comments saying that everyone involved who left those Americans to die deserves to go to jail.
Again, is he wrong about that? Four Americans died. The Obama administration still refuses even to explain what the president was doing that night. It responded to the terrorist attack by lying about its origins and jailing a film maker, suggesting more broadly that we all ought to watch what we say or we're liable to spark terrorist attacks.
Why haven't the media taken anyone in the Obama administration to task for using Benghazi to assault the First Amendment? Why haven't they taken Obama to task for declaring, before the United Nations, that "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam"? Does any American president have any business saying such a ridiculous thing?
Dewhurst also objected at length to the Obama administration's shameful handling of the Fort Hood massacre here in Texas. The Obama administration casts that terrorist attack as "workplace violence," obviously so it could claim that there had been no terrorist attacks on American soil during Obama's watch. Politics drove a clearly dishonest policy. Had the Boston bombing not been so obviously a terrorist attack, it's reasonable to wonder if the Obama administration would have chosen to lie about that one as it still lies about Fort Hood.
Is Dewhurst wrong to call the Obama administration out for its disgraceful Fort Hood dishonesty? Is he wrong to note that the "workplace violence" designation deprives the attack's survivors of their due benefits?