Wednesday, May 8, 2013

The Scandal Predicted to Bring Down the Barack Hussein Obama Administration

Barack Hussein Obama will not serve out his second term. Instead he will be forced to resign or be impeached and leave office in disgrace. I read about this prediction on a well known Conservative News site. Several Republicans were quoted as believing it will be the Benghazi cover up that will be the undoing of Obama.

Frankly I'm not so sure. Yes, I think there was a cover up, and yes, I believe it could be of a magnitude that removing Hussein from office would be entirely appropriate -- but will it actually happen? Only one president has ever resigned from office. Two others were impeached, but they were not removed. Richard Nixon said if a president does it, then it is legal.

People considered that to be an arrogant statement, but I think for (the most part) it is true (not necessarily that anything a president does is legal, but that he can get away with it). It was only because Nixon recorded his misdeeds, and then did not destroy those tapes, that he made his removal from office a certainty. If he had not resigned he would have been bounced out by an impeachment and conviction.

According to the Washington Post, the "U.S. Embassy officials in Tripoli, some 600 miles away, tried unsuccessfully to get the Pentagon to scramble fighter jets" and that "the embassy also was unable to get permission to deploy four U.S. Special Operations troops in Benghazi during the attack".

The question is why did Hussein allow these attacks to continue without responding? Was the Hussein administration's failure to act due to their incompetence or was there some other reason? Did they actually order those who could have responded to stand down?

Greg Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, says, "Special Forces personnel were planning to board a C-130 flight at around 6am local time on Sept. 12 but [were told] "you can't go now, you don't have authority to go...".

I don't know about you, but that sounds quite damning to me. A commenter on the "Atlas Shrugs" message board has a theory regarding the stand down order -- he says, "the corruption of this administration pales in comparison to any other scandal. have a Muslim President in office so soon after 9/11 is by design and no accident".

What do you think about this theory? Is it conspiracy theory nonsense from a nutjob, or a very real possibility? I'm leaning toward the later.

TLB #41


  1. It already made Hillary resign in disgrace, and Susan Rice has paid the price for her incompetance and lying about it. I doubt it will go much higher than that. And I hope Hillary pays the price for her immature emotional outburst at the hearing on this and telling everyone that it didn't matter why it happened. The price being no more higher office for her.

  2. Embassy/Consulate terror attacks are unfortunately no uncommon. To
    politicize one is unique though.

  3. Perfect example of politicization in this is Dems blaming Republican budget cuts, when in fact the budget cuts left plenty of money for needed security, and funding cuts have nothing to do with the failures here.

    1. Yes, I heard about that . FoxNews trumped up congressional hearings, though. Congrats to SC religious right
      for electing a guy who shredded the Ten Commandments...

    2. And you are correct on this: ".no FoxNews trumped up congressional hearings"

      Fox News cannot create Congressional hearings. If you want to know who created them, look in Foggy Bottom.

  4. Depends on which Commandments you prefer shredding, BB. I'm sure he has shredded more than that one, and she has shredded some too.

    I think being attached to a TV buffoon helped make a joke out of her candidacy. But honestly, I would not have minded if she had won.

  5. Gotta understand South Carolina. They even reelected Preston Brooks ..heh

  6. Replies
    1. Is that one really fair? Did the same things happen then as happened with Benghazi... the administration refusing to give aid during the attack, and shamelessly lying about the cause of the attack all over the media? Only then is it comparable at all.

      In any case, it looks like the makers of that page are being deceptive. Attempting to let bad officials off the hook by somehow blaming people long out of office who had dissimilar events happen.

      The message of that link is as follows to the friends and colleagues and families of the victims: "Its fine that the people in the State Department now refused help and doctored the evidence about it. Some people died in an unrelated unpreventable embassy blast 9 years ago, and no-one lied about it or intentionally ignored calls for help back then. So it is all fine now!"

      Mindless Bush-bashing is all it is, to draw attention away from the malfeasance of those in high positions.

    2. 'Mindless Bush-bashing is all it is, to draw attention away from the malfeasance of those in high positions.' Naw, it is
      RW conservative bashing..where were those "patriots" when all the other embassies were attacked by terrorists? It is also Dem bashing: had they the idiotic pugnacity of the RW,
      we may have avoided the war that put the neighbor kid underground at Arlington.

    3. BB: That sort of game is pointless, and it seems beneath you to use what type of reaction happened under GWB (if it is even comparable) to let Obama off the hook for his administration repeatedly lying about the incident and refusing help when it occurred.

      I don't care about the party OR the President of who is involved in this. No one should.

      As for the neighbor kid at Arlington, blame the terrorists who killed him. Unless of course it is friendly fire.

  7. I also found a flat-out lie in your link, BB. Probably one of many. Clinton was not impeached over a sexual indiscretion. He was impeached over perjury related to sexual harassment. Wow. What sort of sexist pigs they must be to call it a mere indiscretion when a man forces his attentions on a woman. The hard "party over principle" Democrats/liberals have no shame.

  8. If the administration had been more circumspect and simply told the American people that they didn't have all the facts, they probably would have skated on it. But they pushed instead this idiotic narrative about a spontaneous eruption (yeah, a spontaneous eruption with AK-47s and mortar) from a youtube video and then continued with it for weeks. Yes, BB, the Republicans are playing some politics here but so, too, is the administration (their brazen attempt to convince us that Al Qaeda was somehow on the run).

    1. Will said: "If the administration had been more circumspect..."

      Yeah, They'd been doing nothing but digging a deeper and deeper whole. What are they thinking?

    2. If 4 people hadn't been murdered, it would almost be comedic (a spontaneous eruption caused by a youtube video).

  9. Will: And I find the "Bush supposedly did it" to be a very weak defense. One of the weakest ever, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the current events.

    And Will, no need to mince words: that "idiotic narrative" was a bunch of big lies, no doubt about it.