Posted on 05/05/2014 1:59:46 AM PDT by Olog-hai
On Fox News Sunday, George Will was asked about the significance of the Benghazi memo. Specifically, host (Chris) Wallace asked about remarks by Charles Krauthammer comparing the discovery of the Rhodes email to discovery of the Nixon tapes. […]
“Rather less (significant) than the Watergate tapes, which showed a President at the heart of a crime wave suborning perjury and raising hush money and all the rest. …”
(Excerpt) Read more at therightscoop.com ...
How many people died in or as a result of Watergate?
George Will is basically right. There’s only three pieces of this story. First, the CIA was buying and distributing weapons from Libya to Syria...on an active basis...using some Jihad characters that weren’t trustworthy. Two, the dead ambassador was part of the weapons program. Three, the President was fixated on his debate, and really didn’t need something screwing up the outcome. That’s it. Maybe a bunch of lies, but the lies all lead back to these three issues. Once you admit the three, it’s the end of the talk. Sadly, neither the President or his staff want to admit those three bits of info. So it lives on.
Nobody died in Watergate.
This administration is illegitimate. Between the Benghazi cover up and using many government agencies to target the opposing candidate’s support groups the election was stolen.
Of course it didn’t help that the opposing candidate ran a pathetic and feckless campaign but he still would have won if not for the stunning level of corrupt interference with the election process by the incumbent.
What if the president signed off on the CIA’s plan?
From Watergate: What did the president know, and when did he know it?
http://www.nbcuniversalarchives.com/nbcuni/clip/51A02223_002.do
The email itself may be insignificant when compared with the full reality of Watergate, but that’s only because it is the first and only actual smoking gun that has been uncovered.
On a scandal to scandal basis, Benghazi has the potential to far outstrip Watergate because common sense indicates that there is far more still hidden than has yet been revealed.
When the lid is finally pried completely off this festering horror, this email will be seen as the start — but only the start. So in that sense he’s right.
If this committee digs thru all the emails and cross examines the right people, all their illegal acts can be linked. They have not even tried to hide a lot of this stuff, they have been in our face about it all. It all leads back to the White House. This is the perfect time and method to tie it all together, as far as I know there is no lines the committee can not cross to get to the whole truth. It will take time and effort and there will be some career employees who will come out of the woodwork and screw these bastards. Trey has this criminal enterprise by the short and curlies. All that is needed is guts and the will to do it. Screw the MSM and the talking heads.
So maybe he’ll go Regan on us with an “ In my heart” admition ?
This President? He hired a bunch of ‘yes-guys’ for his White House staff and for the key positions. So they walk in and occasionally brief him on new operations, and he just gazes at them and nods his head. I doubt if he ever understood the plan from start to finish, or the implications of selling weapons through a jihad group to Syrian rebels. Some signed Presidential ok? No....there is no such thing. Just some ten brief over five or six operations starting up, and he likely never remembered anything (call it issues from his marijuana usage or whatever, but it doesn’t matter).
O.K. Let's stipulate that you're correct. Three issues, three issues only. <
Then...why the lies?
Running guns to Syria without congressional approval was no big deal. After all, you'd already started and fought a war in Libya without congressional approval. And any accusation could've been met -- effectively -- with a two-word answer: Iran-Contra.
So, the Ambassador was involved. So, what?
The President was distracted by his debate prep. Welllllll, it wouldn't have been good form to admit that. But they've consistently alleged that nothing could've been done -- and isn't that a sufficient answer?
So far, I don't see a single rational reason for compounding an elaborate (yet tattered from the outset) cover-up then standing squarely behind it for, what?, 3-4 weeks...even unto today. Nor is there any reason whatsoever for sequestering every single person who was present, signing them to non-disclosure pledges and keeping even their identity secret from Congress.
No, there's something else. Something outside those three issues -- something so destructive -- that they're scared silly it might be discovered.
Watergate was an extremely minor event if taken out of the political context. It was just an excuse to go after Nixon, who didn’t even know about the actual crime at the time it happened.
What George Will mised was than Benghazi was much worse than suborning perjury and raising hush money........It involves treason at the highest levels of the White House, possible even the president himself.
Arming the enemy and then refusing to defend US staff against those arms? That’s treason to anyone who can read the law.Will has taken a lefty pill, his view is far too narrow and academic, all of a sudden, A RINO approach. Charles Krauthammer has it right exactly.
Treason of the President of the United States:
.U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 238118 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Watergate was nothing compared to this and we had 319 hours of hearings broadcast simultaneously on all networks repeated at night on PBS.
In Benghazi you have the gun running by our government (isn’t that in itself illegal?) while trying to take guns away from the American people. There was an Ambassador left hanging out there to die. (Are we sure that wasn’t intentional? If he had been rescued he would have had to answer a lot of questions that would probably have brought to light the gun running right before the election and who knows what else.) Were the other three people simply collateral damage to this administration? (What difference do they make as long as the truth doesn’t leak out of this transparent administration right before an election? (Sarc)) POTUS was practicing for a debate? Is that what they are saying the official reason was that he wasn’t in the situation room after they lied and said he was there watching in real time?
Concocting a BIG LIE TO SPEW REPEATEDLY over and over like Groundhog day while you look right in the camera by numerous people, including POTUS, AND LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE all seems a smidgen worse than Watergate to me.
Why the lies?
Basically, if you tell this oddball story...you admit that you are dealing in weapons, working deals with jihad characters, that your jihad characters turned on you and killed an ambassador, and that your top priority during the actual attack was the political debate for the next day. Oh, and I should add...it tends to make you look just like Reagan’s Iran-Contra dealings, and various other underhanded deals of the past forty years.
For historical purposes, I don’t think they want to let the public know they had day-to-day chats with jihad guys, and that you were paying them some cash for services rendered. It makes you look pretty crummy, and in the same scale as France or Russia. I know it sounds stupid that this comes down to three issues, but George Will was right....it’s not all that big or dense as people think.
Oh, and I should add this...someone on the White House staff...knew the connections to the jihad guys who were the service providers and weapon transport experts to Syria. This might make you lead onto another question...how did you get to know this jihad group and what else do you have cooking in their kitchen?
Translation, it is more than politics and a break-in and cover up and it is too icky for George to get involved in. It involves, Trust, Lies, Arms-Deals with shady characters and the soft underbelly of what people do behind the scenes dealing with despots and unfortunately this deals with the loss and injury of many of our bravest and brightest. It also deals with the fact is we probably didn’t send support which means a lot to many of us. But it is too much for the cucumber sandwich crowd in the beltway...
Krauthammer’s the guy who made the Watergate comparison, so methinks Will is feeling a bit of rivalry against his fellow network contributor.
It seems to me that the American people are strongly supportive of illegitimacy in every way possible.
I should add this...in the last couple of hours....the NY Times featured an article on a Texas depot...where the CIA manages it’s arms cache. Camp Stanley is the place mentioned. I would suspect that it also fits into the whole broad story. Maybe the weapons got moved from Texas to Libya, and the CIA simply hired out the jihad guys to transport them the rest of the way into Syria.
Who decided on no added security when asked for by the Ambassador, not once but several times and why? Who decided on no military rescue and why? Where are the witnesses who were whisked off and have not been heard from? Were threats made to shut the witnesses up? Was the Ambassador set up for murder and why, did he know to much? Who picked out the native security forces that either allowed it to happen or were involved? What is so important that the cover up was started to begin with and continues to this day? Who gave the MSM their marching orders to enable the cover up and mislead the public? Would the truth have resulted in a failed reelection and didn’t that result in a stolen election? Do not all these actions rise to the level of treason not to mention murder? What if the IRS was used to make certain witnesses toe the line, both witnesses on the ground and in the MSM? Why was the FBI not allowed into the site of the attack for 3 weeks and who stopped them, could that lead to Holder? Who coordinated the talking heads by providing them with the questions they were allowed to ask and if they weren’t willingly agreeable were there threats made and by who? Who told Carney to lie, though he probably would have anyway, who told him what to lie about? Who else was Cummings coordinating with to slow or stop the Issa committee?
This isn’t just a little smoke and mirrors, this is a full fledged forest fire. I am just an ignorant hillbilly and even I can see this and more. Why can’t you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.