Posts Tagged ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’

…and the lame stream media doesn’t say shit.
There’s been only one MSM news agency that’s been gnawing on the Benghazi bone from the start and that’s Fox. Why is that?
Why is the media covering up what has to be the biggest scandal in the history of the White House?

When the media got wind of Watergate, they didn’t let that one go. It ended up with Nixon being impeached. That little episode in American politics pales by comparison with this. It’s not even close.

Even if Obama is reelected he won’t be President for long. He’ll be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. What he has done with regard to Benghazi should also come with a lengthy prison term. His actions, or lack there of, resulted in the deaths of four Americans and then he lied about the whole affair from the start, and has continued to lie and coverup his involvement to this day.

America deserves better than this. America deserves a president that will be a leader and not some cowering narcissist that can’t be bothered with doing his damn job. He’s a disgrace to the office and to the American people.

If you vote for this man again, you are complicit in his crimes and approve of them. I would hope you’d feel shame in that, but if you vote for him, you have no shame and are a weasel in the worst way. The facts of this alone should make you shun him.

It is time for a new President.

Benghazi Culpability: Walls Closing in on Administration
Cross-border authority, an unusual resignation. The truth is coming out.
By Bob Owens

The mainstream media is doing all that it can to avoid reporting on the Obama administration’s cover-up of the Benghazi scandal, where President Obama may have abandoned up to 32 Americans to die.

Fox News is the only mainstream media outlet to undertake a concerted effort into sorting through the spin coming from the White House, and they’ve uncovered some maddening claims — including the latest bombshell, a classified cable from the consulate in August wherein the Regional Security Officer (RSO) warned they were understaffed and under-gunned:

“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.

According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.

The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. compound, which was a coordinated, commando-style assault using direct and indirect fire. Al-Qaeda in North Africa and Ansar al-Sharia, both mentioned in the cable, have since been implicated in the consulate attack.

More

Benghazi: The Democratic Party Will Be Lucky if Obama Loses
Roger L. Simon

Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie made an unwise choice the last few days, throwing in with his new-best-friend Barack Obama. The president’s future does not look great, even if he is reelected, and especially if he is reelected while losing the popular vote, as well could happen.

As a president who was “selected but not elected,” he we will face a whirlwind more vast and even more enduring than Sandy and that whirlwind’s name is Benghazi. He lied to the American people (and to the world) big time about the cause of the deaths of four courageous Americans whose lives were at risk there and, as the French say, mentir est honteux, lying is shameful.

One way or the other, Obama will pay. And as he pays, through the relentless accusations of an impeachment, inevitable or otherwise, his party will be constantly on the defensive, the reputations of their leadership incalculably besmirched. Though they do not realize or choose to ignore it now, the Democrats will be lucky if Obama loses on November 6.One way or the other, Obama will pay. And as he pays, through the relentless accusations of an impeachment, inevitable or otherwise, his party will be constantly on the defensive, the reputations of their leadership incalculably besmirched. Though they do not realize or choose to ignore it now, the Democrats will be lucky if Obama loses on November 6.

More

Why Obama Chose to Let Them Die in Benghazi
By KarinMcQuillan

The burning question is why Obama didn’t give orders to defend our consulate and American lives in Benghazi.  The answer is becoming clearer each time President Obama and Secretary of Defense Panetta issue a denial or explanation of their inaction.

To the president’s surprise, he chanced on an honest reporter during a local interview on the campaign trail in Denver.  On October 26, for the first time, Obama was asked directly about the explosive reports on CBS and Fox News, a week earlier, that the CIA and our military denied direct requests for help by the Americans fighting for their lives during the seven-hour battle in Benghazi.

Denver TV’s Kyle Clark twice tried to pin Obama down by asking the key question: “Were they denied requests for help during the attack?”

Obama’s answer is the proof of his guilt, and it gives us a clue as to the doctrine informing his decision to do nothing.  The most damaging part of Obama’s evasive answer is this:

… the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. … I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number-one priority making sure that people were safe.