Lost in the array of scandals, embarrassments, and lies concerning the Incident at Benghazi is important context: at the time he was killed, Ambassador Stevens was arranging for American weapons (surface-to-air missiles, no less) to be transferred, through Turkey, to Al-Qaeda "rebels" in Syria. This was not the first time the Obama administration used the US military to support Al-Qaeda groups. Previously, in Libya (which is still a complete mess), the United States found itself an ally of such forces, against Muammar Gaddafi. In Afghanistan, where the raison d'ètre of our deployment is to fight the Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the US knowingly provides hundreds of millions of dollars of military contracts to Al-Qaeda and their Taliban allies. The Obama administration has a penchant for illegal arms transfers to non-state actors that are aligned against the United States: its transfers of weapons to narco-cartels in Mexico - the "Fast and Furious" scandal - remains unresolved, despite the body count on both sides of the border. The conclusion is self-evident and unavoidable: the Obama administration actively supports Al-Qaeda. It is my understanding that the United States is at war with Al-Qaeda. What's going on here?
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. - Constitution for the United States of America, Article III, Section 3
The Constitution has a very strict definition for the crime of treason, and deliberately so. Under the kings of Europe, it was an oft-abused charge against which no man, innocent or guilty, could defend. However, if we are at war with Al-Qaeda, and Obama is acting unlawfully to arm them with advanced weapons, the strictest definition is met by that act. Unfortunately, as is clear to all players involved, actually prosecuting this crime against Obama is a political non-starter, especially given the other players that would be ensared by it (McCain, Clinton, and Kerry for starters). The implications for how Republicans should approach policy - especially foreign policy - while Obama is still President are profound. The President cannot be trusted - the man has even literally won a "Lie of the Year" award. His approach in all things is "my way or the highway". His agents commit open political persecution, and he finds not "a smidgen of corruption". The list of other scandals and corruption already exceeds the Clintons' impressive stack; listing them in their fullness is too heartbreaking a task for me. Republicans in Congress need to wake up and smell the coffee that the President has gone completely rogue, and that their main job right now, above all else, is to rein him in. He is given too many powers and held accountable for nothing. Six years of this has given the man the idea that he is Emperor - his wife's spending from the public Treasury sure seems to reflect that opinion. It is time to make clear that he is not.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by timosman
The point is they are incredibly accurate at times.
Connect With Us