'Benghazi-gate': Bring Down Obama
Before It's Too Late
by Nancy Spannaus
Oct. 1—U.S. Senators, especially on the Republican side of the aisle, have wasted no time in taking the Obama Administration to task for its obvious malfeasance leading to the death of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, and three other American personnel. But, under pressure from the President, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.), and perhaps other nefarious forces as well, the Senators have, at present, agreed to wait until after the November election to get answers from the Obama Administration on its catastrophic failures to protect diplomatic personnel.
A letter sent to Thomas Nides, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, on Sept. 27, and signed by all 19 members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, requests answers to a long series of questions about attacks on U.S. embassies, and the Obama Administration's decisions on security, during the week of Nov. 13! Such a delay is a potentially fatal error.
For every day that the murderous President Barack Obama remains in office, represents a threat to both world peace and the security of the United States. Obama has shown no remorse whatsoever for his offenses against the U.S. Constitution in such weighty matters as the unconstitutional war against Libya, the extrajudicial killing of American citizens, and a wide swath of police-state measures; and he is counting on the American population swallowing these crimes, and giving him re-election. Yet Obama's embrace of such imperial powers, means he could act at any time his sponsors in the British monarchy wish, to launch new crimes, including the threat to launch wars of regime-change against Syria and/or Iran. Such aggression would lead directly to confrontation with Russia and China, and thus to a potential World War III.
In this context, the Obama Administration's atrocity in Libya represents the best handle for mobilizing the political momentum to remove the President. Here, it is obvious that the Administation has subordinated the interests of the American population, even its own personnel, to its pursuit of a British imperial geopolitical strategy. The President and his close associates have lied, covered up, and allied our nation with the worst British-Saudi terrorists, with a hideous result. If people can't face the truth about him around the murder of Ambassador Stevens, when will they do so? If they can't impeach a President for such behavior, when would they do so?
Coverup: The Watergate Smell
In a Sept. 28 interview on Fox News, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee said:
"Let's just get blunt, no way to sugarcoat this: We've been lied to. We've flat-out been lied to. They know they lied. It's as if airplanes crashing into the World Trade Center, and somebody says, 'Those were just accidents; the planes veered off-course.' Everybody with two eyes and an IQ above plant life understands that what happened in Egypt and what happened in Libya, was not some spontaneous reaction to a stupid 13-minute video on YouTube. It was a planned, coordinated, orchestrated attack, led by terrorists. Terrorists!
"And this White House has to explain why it hasn't owned up to that, why it can't say it! And I think, frankly, if this issue really gets the traction that it deserves, and let me say, that it deserves—let's go back: Richard Nixon was forced out of office because he lied, and because he covered some stuff up. I'm going to be blunt and tell you this: Nobody died in Watergate. We have some people who are dead because of this, and there's some questions to be answered, and Americans ought to demand to get answers."
Governor Huckabee's searing, and totally appropriate, indictment is only the strongest among other cries of "coverup," which, of course, is the standard formula for removing politicians from office since the Watergate era.
On Sept. 27, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said, "This is turning into something not short of Benghazi-gate." Speaking on Fox News, Corker said,
"This has now turned into a very bipartisan concern. There has to be something that they're trying to hide or cover up. This is just not the norm. This is way out of the norm, what is happening in this case."
"The Libya Debacle: The More We Learn, the More Benghazi Looks Like a Gross Security Failure," was the Sept. 27 editorial in the Wall Street Journal. The piece reviewed the shifting White House stories, the failure to provide proper security to the Benghazi consulate, and other facts, then concluded:
"Four Americans lost their lives in Benghazi in a terrorist attack that evidence suggests should have been anticipated and might have been stopped. Rather than accept responsibility, the Administration has tried to stonewall and blame others. Congress should call hearings to hold someone accountable for this debacle."
On the same day, Rudy Giuliani, former New York City mayor, said on Fox News that the Obama Administration has engaged in a "coverup" of the nature of the Benghazi terrorist attack, intended to protect Obama's policies in the Middle East. He used the phrase "coverup" a half-dozen times.
A Searing Indictment
The most comprehensive indictment of the Obama Administration's behavior, and coverup, in the Benghazi affair—outside the LaRouche movement and its publications—came from Washington Times columnist Jeffrey Kuhner, in an article published Sept. 27. Kuhner's column was entitled "Obama Made Libya Safe for Terrorists, Imperial President Deserves Ouster," and it was right on the mark. We provide excerpts:
"President Obama has betrayed the American people. His administration is dissembling and engaging in a systematic coverup. The reason: Mr. Obama does not want the public to know he bears heavy responsibility for the recent terrorist attack against the U.S. Consulate in Libya. He has American blood on his hands—blood he cannot wash away.
"Islamic radicals recently besieged our diplomatic mission in Benghazi. The U.S. ambassador was killed, along with three other Americans. The compound was leveled. Our flag was taken down and desecrated. The jihadists raised the black flag of al Qaeda. The assault took place on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Al Qaeda in North Africa immediately announced responsibility for the carnage. Libya's government said the raid had been planned and coordinated for months. Even a 9-year-old could grasp that this was a premeditated terrorist atrocity.
"Not so the Obama administration. The White House immediately insisted that the attack was a response to an anti-Muslim video produced in the United States that supposedly incited religious passions. The video, however, has been circulating on YouTube since early July. It is badly dubbed and obviously the work of amateurs. If it was so inflammatory, why didn't riots erupt in the summer? This is because it had nothing to do with the raid. It was a cheap—and cynical—pretense to commit murder and mayhem. Even Libya's leaders have publicly said that the video did not inspire the attack—Islamist hatred did....
"[T]he White House is desperately deflecting culpability. Mr. Obama has not engaged just in irresponsible conduct. The lax security, the dead Americans, the lies and the coverup—they reveal an amoral, self-absorbed celebrity-in-chief who puts power and his crass re-election above human decency. Yet it is even more ominous: Mr. Obama has directly empowered the very Islamists responsible for the terrorist assault.
"The dirty little secret is that the president waged an illegal and unconstitutional war in Libya. He ordered U.S. military strikes that toppled dictator Moammar Gadhafi without the authorization of Congress. Mr. Obama behaved like an imperial president, ignoring the American people and deliberately circumventing Congress. His actions were simply lawless.
"Moreover, the intervention has transformed Libya into a jihadist haven....
"The Libya affair will go down in history as one of the worst abuses of presidential power and abrogation of proper authority. Under Mr. Obama, four Americans are dead. This is why he needs to be defeated in November. He has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. The sooner he leaves office, the better."
Kuhner does not have the complete story. A full understanding of what the Obama Administration is up to, requires facing the fact that the President is acting not only as an insane power-hungry narcissist, but according to a British imperial attempt to save a dying financial empire by smashing Russia and China, and imposing a one-world regime over a depopulated world. It means facing the fact that Obama's remaining free to pursue his course, leads us straight to the hell of thermonuclear war, and also understanding the American System alternative that is required to reverse today's collapse into a New Dark Age.
But an immediate impeachment proceeding, such as he calls for, would be an excellent step toward saving the nation.
And in Congress?
While by "normal" standards, one could say that Congress has acting expeditiously on the Benghazi atrocity, it has allowed itself to be foiled on getting fast answers.
The first to demand immediate explanations was Sen. Susan Collins (R-Me.), two days after the events. At the same time, Sens. Corker and James DeMint (R-S.C.) submitted legislation demanding answers with a month—well before the election. But Senator Kerry deep-sixed the legislation (S. 3551) before it could move ahead, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed an inhouse panel instead, which is not expected to come up with answers until well into 2013.
One of the major targets of the letters Congress is shooting off, is Obama's British-trained United Nations Ambassador, Susan Rice, one of the leading advocates of the Libya invasion and of future "right to protect" wars. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) and four Republican Senators—John McCain (Ariz.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), and Ron Johnson (Wisc.)—sent a letter to Rice Sept. 26, demanding clarification of her lies about how the attacks on the consulate were the result of a protest about the film, not acts of terrorism.
On Sept. 28, House Homeland Security Committee chairman Peter King (R-N.Y.) called for Rice to resign, for her blatant attempt to coverup the 9/11/2012 assassinations. Within seconds of King's call, made on CNN-TV, the White House put out a statement supporting Rice.
Both Rice's lies and Secretary of State Clinton's uninformative briefing to the Congress last week, led McKeon and seven other Republican committee chairmen to send a letter to President Obama on Sept. 26, demanding answers, and indicating their willingness "to return to Washington to be briefed as soon as the answers to these questions are ready."
Indeed, Congress could return to Washington, upon decision of the House and Senate leaderships, at any time, to deal with this national emergency. Congressmen and Senators could even raise the necessary questions at the pro-forma sessions which occur every three days, during this adjournment. But, so far, no one has shown the guts to take extraordinary action.
Are there enough American patriots to force them to do so?