Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Benghazi - Obama's Watergate?

Over the last several months I have written a couple of articles comparing Mr. Obama’s presidency to that of another infamous POTUS, Richard M. Nixon. It appears that we may be adding a new chapter to this story, one that may well bring down this presidency in a similar fashion that Mr. Nixon was ‘tarred & feathered’ out of Washington.

As most students of history know Nixon, after winning the popular vote for a second term by an overwhelming majority in what was called a landslide election, within less than two years was ushered out of the highest office of the land in utter disgrace. What brought that President down was a series of events during a break-in of the Democratic National Conference offices located in the Watergate building. It wasn’t so much the bungled burglary attempt that brought Nixon’s demise but what was discovered during the investigation, i.e., illegal wiretapping, destruction of evidentiary tapes, cover-up and lying to the Grand Jury by Mr. Nixon and many of his closest internal staff. To avoid what would surely have been a horrendous impeachment trial that he was bound to loose, Mr. Nixon opted for resignation in the face of disgrace. Very few of us living at the time can forget the figure of that beaten man trying to put on a brave face as he waved his familiar two handed victory salute to the crowd as he boarded the Presidential helicopter for the last time on the lawn of the White House he had tarnished.

In past articles I have shown the great similarities between the presidency of Nixon and Obama. In some cases the likeness is quite eerie. However, there is now a new wrinkle for Mr. Obama that could spell the same kind of disaster for him as Nixon became all too familiar with in his second term. While Mr. Obama didn’t win his second term election by a landslide over Governor Romney, he did win significantly enough to make him believe he had a mandate from the people. History will tell if that was the case but for now, at least, this President thinks he does. He is feeling very confident in his ability to continue his policies without much interference from a weak Congress, but with some new evidence coming to light over the Benghazi fiasco perhaps this POTUS better begin rethinking that scenario.

New light is beginning to shine into the Congressional halls concerning what truly transpired on the night of September 11, 2012 in that American compound in Benghazi, Libya and what is being revealed doesn’t look favorably for the President or his then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Now that the hearings have gotten started, and despite some rather heavy supposed arm-twisting from the Obama administration against those testifying, evidence is mounting that President Obama and Secretary Clinton did all within their power to bring a complete stoppage to any attempt of Special Ops agents of going into Benghazi and rescuing U.S. Ambassador Stevens and the handful of security personnel being attacked by a well-planned and coordinated terror attack against the diplomatic compound. During this attack Stevens was captured, raped, brutally beaten and finally killed by terrorists. His security escort were also massacred. Question is - What did President Obama and Secretary Clinton hope to gain from allowing this atrocity when the deployment of Special Ops forces was just a phone call away?

We now know after State Department witness testimony that Secretary Clinton was well aware of the event taking place well in advance of ensuring the safety of the Ambassador. According to U.S. Diplomat Gregory Hicks‘ testimony American officials in the Libyan capital asked permission to deploy troops but were told by the State Department to “stand down.” We have a U.S. Ambassador under attack, at least four other Americans with him in harms way, you have the capability to get them out but you give the order to Stand Down? Why? Hicks is on record as saying, “If we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced...I believe the Libyans would have split...they would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.” So again, the question remains - Why were they told to “stand down”? The weak answer, according to Hicks’ testimony, they are “too far away”. Funny isn’t it. Less than 600 miles from Benghazi Special Ops was standing by, awaiting the call and all they got was “stand down”. It appears that Ambassador Stevens and those four brave Americans simply weren’t worth even the effort.

As more testimony comes to light over the next several months and if this Congress hasn’t allowed itself to become so overpowered by the Executive Branch we may find that in a little over a year from now Mr. Obama may well be climbing on that POTUS helicopter one last time, putting on a brave face in his hour of greatest disgrace as we all watch him brought down by his traitorous, or at least, cowardly actions on the night of September 11, 2012. We owe Chris Stevens that much. We owe those brave men who died trying to protect him that much. We owe America that much.


1 comment:

Anonymous said...

My question is where was our "brave" POTUS when all this was happening? Conspicuously absent, no fingerprints anywhere. How is this possible? Appears orchestrated.