Roger L. Simon over at PJ Media is thinking along the same lines as I am:
‘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.”
Aid and comfort to the enemy — what is that?
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.’
Excellent post which connects a lot of the dots and asks a lot of the pertinent questions.
But, once we start digging into Obama’s malfeasance, we just might find bodies on this side of the pond, too – at least according to some journalists still brave enough to report on this.
Sure, many of the talking heads and most visible journalists are blatant Obama sycophants. But, why is the refusal to investigate Obama and his administration so pervasive?
Are there really no young and eager investigative journalists who want to make a name for themselves – and to hell with ideology?
While the brainwashing most liberal arts (journalism included) students are subjected to in Colleges and Universities may account for much of it, there may be more to it than just liberalism’s willful blindness:
‘I was on the brunt end of the Obama-generated censorship while employed at CNN as an investigative correspondent.
On at least a weekly basis, and to my constant frustration, my superiors and CNN’s lawyers were quick to remind me that we need to be extra careful because “President Obama has gone after more journalists and whistleblowers than any president in history”. The leash around my neck began to tighten.
Whether I was allowed to embark on future stories or even interview sensitive sources for potential investigations, eventually became an ‘Obama subpoena risk assessment’ and potential court cost calculation, rather than a pure evaluation of the report’s contribution to public good or our journalistic duty to cover the story.
Some of my most crucial investigations were killed before they started because they were too high a risk of an Obama subpoena.
One boss told me quote “we know how the FBI feels about your source, if we have information the FBI will want we become a target”.’
I don’t know just how reliable this blogger is, but her read-worthy post includes many links to reputable sites with material confirming her observations.
Worth thinking about…
This is just getting weirder and weirder…..
James Robinson from the Washington Times is reporting that a ‘trusted source’ said that the top US commander in Africa, General Ham, tried to send help to the besieged Mission in Benghazi – defying orders to do so – only to be relieved of duty and the help stopped:
‘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 story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham’s place as the head of Africom. ‘
UPDATE: An AC-130U Gunship was indeed on the scene in Benghazi and was denied permission to fire. Also, CIA brass throws Omaba under the buss and openly says that it was NOT the CIA who denied the permission to fire! On the aftermath, here.
Revelations have been pouring in all day about the fiasco in Bengazi.
This charts some of the details that came out today, but does not draft the full picture. Yet, it is well worth noting:
It has now been definitively established, from multiple sources, that there were 2 drones in the air over Benghazi, feeding live video of the attack to the US – including to the Situation Room’ in the White House, where Barack Obama was scheduled to be that evening. (Aside – lots of intriguing links in this link.)
They had hard evidence, 2 hours into the attack, that the terrorist group ‘Helpers of Sharia’ had taken responsibility for the attack.
But it gets worse – much worse.
Ambassador Stevens was running guns to Islamists – that much is clear.
And this is where it gets very, very nasty.
The security of the buildings was being provided by the 17th of February Brigade – a militant Islamist group. As in, militant and violent jihadists!
Who would ever hire an organization whose avowed goal is to kill all non-Muslims and use force to install Sharia worldwide, who would hire one’s declared enemies to be the security force for their Ambassador?
That’s a lot like getting Nidal Malik Hasan to provide pre-natal care to Francheska Velez!
We now also know that one of the people in the compound posted a message onto a gaming site saying that the ‘police’ (and he put the word ‘police’ into quotation marks, as if mocking the very concept) who are supposed to be guarding them are taking pictures and that something is up – and expressed fear that they may not live to see the morning…
Then, after this, the Ambassador met with a ‘Turkish diplomat’.
(We know Stevens was running the guns into Syria through Turkey…)
The ‘Turkish diplomat’ left.
Less than an hour later, the attack started…
Please, consider the information in the following newscast:
But, there is more.
Yes, the SEALs went in against orders!
Then, when they returned to their compound, their compound came under fire….almost as if all the people who had been in the first location were supposed to have died in order not to say what they knew – and since some got out, the attackers followed them in their ‘mop-up’ operation!
What is this – a B-movie or reality?!?!?
We know there were 2 surveillance drones, tag-teaming, over the area. Please, keep that in mind.
The compound (second location) was being shelled by the attackers.
One of the people inside the compound went onto the roof and illuminated (tagged) the equipment firing at the compound with a laser – no, not a pointer but a target-identification tag for a guided strike from the air.
The drones in the air may or may not have been armed – but the two AC-130U’s in theatre (since March) certainly were.
And, tagging the target does not occur unless (and until) the targeting system is synchronized – on location, and ready to fire. It is the ‘last step’ in the firing procedure before the trigger is pulled – because by going out and tagging the target, the person doing the tagging is exposed and vulnerable. Hence, it is the last step.
This means that in one way or another, there was someone in the air who had the attackers in their sights and was ready to fire.
It was only AFTER this that the shelling from this very ‘no-longer-target’ hit the compound and killed 2 Americans!!!
Can you get your mind around it?
Only orders from either the White House or head of the Africa theatre would have had the power to deny the permission to shoot – and, as a direct result of this inaction, American lives were lost!
This is beyond a scandal – it is criminal!