Benghazi Impeachment Suddenly Not So Far-Fetched
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..."
[jwplayer config="pjmedia_rogerlsimon" mediaid="13119"]