Monday, November 19, 2012

Treason: Benghazi "Video" Talking Points came from White House

This is hardly news, but how many times does it have to be confirmed before Congress does something about it?  As the attack on the Benghazi compound was happening, the US Government already knew that Al Qaida, or and Al Qaida linked group, was behind the attack.  This information was communicated to the White House.  When Barack Obama chose to send US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice out to say "be calm, all is well," the talking points had been scrubbed of any reference to terrorism.

Now, Republicans confirm that those changes came "from the Administration."  Let me say something they are restrained (for a variety of reasons) from saying.  Barack Obama made that decision.  Barack Obama, the same man who mandated that references to "terror organization" and "terrorism" be scrubbed from FBI training manuals, chose to scrub the talking points of references to Al Qaida.  Why he did this I can only speculate.  Whatever his motive, however, the effect is the same: he aided our enemies by not sending help immediately to kill them and save as many American lives as possible, and then he provided them comfort when he refused to identify the attack as a terrorist attack, and waited nearly two weeks to send investigators to the compound.

Now, I've received some push-back on this "aid and comfort to the enemy" formulation, so let me illustrate it another way.

Let's say the US was in a war, and the Commander of a Forward Operating Base received an urgent distress call from a team in the field.  This call was corroborated by surveillance from a drone in the air, and other assets were already in the area.  Additionally, this commander had forces under his command he could order into the area, some of them would arrive in an hour, others after a few hours.  Then let's say he chose not to send help.  Okay, well, that's just dereliction of duty (which, by the way, should be enough to get the President impeached). 

But let's go further.  When he reports on the incident to his chain of command, he claims that he doesn't know what force was responsible for the attack, and hints that some completely unrelated event caused the fight.  He then waits for two weeks while the bad guys get further and further away, giving them plenty of time to regroup and organize further attacks.  Now he's lied to his superiors. 

At that point, we're beyond mere "dereliction of duty," we've found direct, conscious choices which provided aid and comfort to the enemy.  I don't think anyone would balk at charging that commander with Treason.

Well, that is almost exactly what happened with Benghazi, but "the commander" is the President of the United States.

Barack Obama is a traitor.


  1. You sure do like extrapolating bullshit from facts, don't you? Wow. LOL.

    1. I was going to delete this exquisite piece of inanity, but decided to leave it as a prime example of hit-and-run troll-ery.

      Note the single line that has no identifying content. You could lift this whole comment out and put it on any post (that contains actual content) on any blog, and it wouldn't seem out of place (well, except for the bit about it being troll-ery).

      Note the inherent condescension. That anyone could disagree with the troll's "analysis" is considered so ludicrous, that it doesn't even attempt to refute anything, just leaves a blanket statement.

      "Shane" your response is embarrassment to all trolls everywhere. The rest of us are dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and my God have mercy on your miserable soul.