An Excellent Spirit has wondered what will happen if President Obama manages to win the Election and the Benghazi lies, liars and immense cover up ever get exposed to the American people. PJ Media’s Roger Simon apparently thinks the same way. In this article today, Simon goes even further. Its title may give a hint: “Beyond Impeachment: Obama Treasonous over Benghazi”. Mr. Simon in his inimitable style asks: “Is it treason when you put your own reelection above the good of your country and the lives of its citizens? If so, Barack Obama committed treason in leaving the four Americans to die in Benghazi. Our Constitution defines it this way: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
Then the purveyor of the Pajamas Media empire really gets down to brass tacks: “When you ascribe an action to the protest of a video when it is actuality a planned terror attack by Ansar al-Shariah, an established offshoot of al-Qaeda (if that’s not your “enemy,” then who) — and you knew that all along, you watched it live without doing anything, and then you told those who wanted to help to “stand down”? Meanwhile, our government may have been conspiring to arm another offshoot of al-Qaeda in Syria. How much more treasonous can you get? Benedict Arnold was a piker.”
Watergate was really all about the stupendous and unwarranted egos of the President and those who worked for him. Once the scandal got out, they thought they could cover it up through the upcoming Election and forever, so they began the actions that led to the impeachment, then resignation of President Nixon and the jailing of many of his closest associates in the White House.
Nixon leaves after resignation.
Those were crimes. People went to jail and Nixon may have been spared jail by President Ford’s pardon upon assuming the Presidency. No one died and Watergate was not about the military, Nixon’s role as Commander in Chief or what was done in a theater of war during wartime. Benghazi is different in that critical respect. Simon is, therefore, correct in discussing treason because that is the crime that could have been committed here by those in the White House and covered up by “all of this President’s men and women”.
Watergate scandal meeting at White House. Nixon, Erlichman, Halderman and Chapin
Another difference is that in 1972, The Washington Post was led by Editor Ben Bradley who assigned two cub reporters, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward to the story and let them go where the evidence led. Today, those lamestream media outlets are part of the cover up, choosing not to cover the story because it might lead to President Obama losing the Election. If Simon is right or anywhere near right, it may turn out that the lamestream media has done America no favor, as the number of high Administration people lining up for jail may exceed Watergate’s awful tally in that respect.Simon notes that the escalation to treason is almost unavoidable. When “left” denizens like Carter pollster Pat Caddell begin to speak out against what the lamestream media is not reporting and against what the President knew and when he knew it, things will probably get worse. “Indeed, the discussion of Benghazi has just begun. And don’t be surprised if the conversation escalates from impeachment to treason very quickly. In fact, if Obama wins reelection you can bet on it. The cries of treason will be unstoppable. Not even if the mainstream media will be able to deny them. As Pat Caddell noted, those same media lapdogs have muzzled themselves in an unprecedented manner in this matter, but our Canadian friends at least have some semblance of honor left, writing: It is undoubtedly worse than Obama simply turned his back on cornered American citizens in a foreign land, knowing undoubtedly they would die. But that Barack did so without any compelling reason—except political—is beyond evil. Only a moral monster would have made that decision when it was within his powers to possibly save them with almost no effort of his own.”
Then there is this. Whether or not the Senate changes hands, the House will almost certainly remain in Republican control. The House Committee on Government Oversight is chaired by Rep. Daryl Issa (R-Ca), one of the richest, self-made men in Congress. Issa is already on the Fast & Furious Scandal and the likelihood that “gunwalking” was a major part of the Benghazi mess is looming larger by the day. Issa and his Committee have subpoena power, jurisdiction and will certainly hold hearings after Election Day. Whether the press covers them or not, the US Attorney will be forced to monitor those hearings and will have to take action if and when criminal activities are revealed, under oath before Congress.
Rep. Daryl Issa (R-Ca.) House Oversight Committee Chairman
Roger Simon is no “loose cannon”. He is a veteran journalist, Hollywood writer and thinker. When Simon talks treason, Americans should pay attention. Simon has some facts. Facts that An Excellent Spirit has already begun to develop: “Rumors abound. According to Admiral Lyons writing in the Washington Times, …one of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 – portable SAMs – to Islamists and other al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria. In an excellent article, Aaron Klein states that Stevens routinely used our Benghazi consulate (mission) to coordinate the Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments’ support for insurgencies throughout the Middle East. Further, according to Egyptian security sources, Stevens played a “central role in recruiting Islamic jihadists to fight the Assad Regime in Syria.” Lyons adds, citing a Clare Lopez article at RadicalIslam.org, …that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with our Benghazi mission. During the terrorist attack, the warehouses were probably looted. We do not know what was there and if it was being administrated by our two former Navy SEALs and the CIA operatives who were in Benghazi. Nonetheless, the equipment was going to hardline jihadis. Do we know that for sure? I certainly don’t, although on the face of it sounds like a “Fast & Furious” scandal on a global scale with extraordinary geopolitical implications. But I imagine there are those who do know the truth, or a lot of it, considering the events were being watched in real time. None of this, of course, exonerates our government in not giving support to our four now dead men in the field. Many questions remain to be answered. But I do not think I am being excessive in raising the treason accusation. I would be pleased to withdraw it if proven wrong.
This Patriot Action Network (Tea Party) Alert, if true could blow the lid off the Pentagon and the Obama Administration. The alert references stories in The Washington Times about Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. “On October 18th, 2012 Sec. of Defense, Leon Panetta announced that President Obama would ill nominate General David Rodriguez to succeed General Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command.” This came as a surprise to many, since General Ham had only been in the position for a year and a half. The General is a very well regarded officer who made AFRICOM into a true Combatant Command after the ineffective leadership of his predecessor, General William E. “Kip” Ward. Later, word circulated informally that General Ham was scheduled to rotate out in March 2013 anyway, but according to Joint doctrine, “the tour length for combatant commanders and Defense agency directors is three years.” Some assumed that he was leaving for unspecified personal reasons.” That was over a months after Benghazi and the Obama Administration was in full spin mode about what really took place and what they did. Few people noticed that Ham’s AFRICOM Command included Benghazi.”
The Washington Times was not so blind. This story on October 28th asked if General Ham lost his command over the Benghazi affair. “Is an American General losing his job for trying to save the Americans besieged in Benghazi? This is the latest potential wrinkle in the growing scandal surrounding the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack that left four men dead and President Obama scrambling for a coherent explanation.”
Two days before the Times piece, on October 26th, “Ambassador” posted the following RUMINT on TigerDroppings (h/t Jim Hoft): I heard a story today from someone inside the military that I trust entirely. The story was in reference to General Ham that Panetta referenced in the quote below. “(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.” This quote was widely circulated in the news and on TV clips as the reason that no rescue was ever attempted at Benghazi.
General Carter Ham
Now, it seems, that too was a horrible untruth. The TigerDroppings post continues, “The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.
General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command. The Pentagon and all other Obama Administration sources vehemently deny the Times story. General Ham has been silent, although this story says that Ham has decided to retire. “However on Monday October 29 a defense official told The Washington Times that “the decision [to leave AFRICOM] was made by General Ham. He ably served the nation for nearly forty years and retires after a distinguished career.” Previously all that was known was that General Ham would be rotating out of AFRICOM at some future date, but not that he was leaving the service. General Ham is a few years short of the mandatory retirement age of 64, but it is not unusual for someone of that rank to retire after serving in such a significant command. The questions concerning General Ham’s role in the September 11 events continue to percolate. Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican, said that General Ham told him during a visit to Libya that he had never been asked to provide military support for the Americans under attack in Benghazi. Former United States Ambassador to the U.N. John R, Bolton also mentioned Mr. Chaffetz’s account, and contrasted it with Mr. Panetta’s statement that General Ham had been part of the team that made the decision not to send in forces. “General Ham has now been characterized in two obviously conflicting ways,” Mr. Bolton concluded. “Somebody ought to find out what he actually was saying on September the eleventh.”
It has become sadly but abundantly clear that much has been systematically and intentionally kept from the American people by the Obama Administration with the avid assistance of their lamestream media lapdogs. It is also becoming clear that many witnesses will be lined up before the House Oversight Committee after Election to testify, under oath, about what really happened. God help those who have lied to “us”. There will be no place they can hide, no matter who they are or how high the office they hide in. Enough said, for now. An Excellent Spirit hopes sincerely that it does not come to treason and criminal action or impeachment, but even if President Obama is defeated a week from today on November 6th, Benghazi promises to be with “us” for some time and will go where those in power have led it, just as Watergate did in 1972-1974. Stay Tuned.