I’m back to shoot holes in Benghazi, again. Please don’t read if t’s too upsetting. And understand that my only interest in any investigations is convincing 67 Senators to stop the bleeding and remove “Obama” from office.
“Obama” is the very meaning of “domestic enemy”. He has committed, or caused to be committed crimes and has also conducted a program, with associates known and (especially) unknown to subvert our form of government. Any Congress worthy of their oaths would have removed him 18 months ago.
“Benghazi” is especially galling to patriots, since it involves abandonment of American representatives to be slaughtered by Islamic fanatics. But it’s key to recognize that most US Senators and a very substantial minority in the House are not patriots and don’t give two sh**s about what happened in Benghazi.
No American President has ever been removed by Congress. Only two have come close (Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon). In both cases, it was proven that they had committed or caused to be committed crimes that would be prosecuted in the ordinary way if they were not President or which disordered the constitutional structure.
So, the de facto standard for removal, the historically proven definition of the undefined “high crimes and misdemeanors”, is the personal commission of felonies, the subornation of crimes by Executive Branch employees, and the use of authority under color of law to injure political enemies.
The IRS scandal and the “fast and furious” crimes are both more than sufficient (once they are properly investigated, by competent authorities) to result in Obama’s removal.
Does “Benghazi” meet this standard? No, for 3 reasons.
First: Obama’s authority to deploy, or not to deploy, light infantry forces into urban combat in a city like Benghazi is undisputed. The position of the Americans around Stevens was known to be perilous (that’s why they hired guards), and whether or not their loss was acceptable given the risk/reward involved was, and is, a purely prudential executive judgement. No President is ever going to be removed for exercising judgement within his proper sphere of authority.
Second: The secret operation at the “annex” (probably shipping weapons to Syria) that was the real target of the enemy action. The conduct of foreign policy is the responsibility of the Executive Branch. Attempts by Congress (other than the ratification or not of treaties by the Senate) to conduct foreign policy are only quasi-Constitutional and have mostly been failures. If Ronald Reagan was not ever in danger from buying hostages freedom with weapons (or trying to), “Obama” can’t be removed for conducting foreign policy in this manner.
Third: Obama’s presence or absence for a number of hours on the evening of 9/11/12 is irrelevant, because no one can seriously contend that he would have taken decisive action had he been present.
“Obama”’s cowardice and islamic sympathies were well known to the electorate that chose him twice. The problem that Benghazi represents is a problem with the electorate, and, as such will not and cannot result in his removal.
That’s why Boehner has agreed to convene a select committee. That’s why Pelosi has agreed to participate. “Obama” doesn’t have to run again. Whatever facts are uncovered that are not now known MIGHT hurt an Obama re-election campaign, but they will not shorten his tenure by a single day.
These are all valid points.
However, the issues are the cover-up and obstructionism. Illegal weapons trading probably won’t go anywhere (as you pointed out).
The cover-up is obvious. And Clinton is deep in the middle of it. The Benghazi investigation will end her political career.
Obstructionism is the fault of this administration. This will grease the wheels in the F&F and IRS investigations.
Where was the CIC as all this was going down?
He was NOT a “hands-on” part of this operation.
WHY NOT?
The American people have a right to know the answer.
All these hearings are so much show.
Let’s cut to the chase.