Let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s suppose that Barack Obama gets narrowly re-elected. And then, in a week or a month, the lid blows off the Benghazi story and what is now a trickle of leaks from bureaucrats protecting their butts turns into a flood.
The mainstream media that has been so studiously ignoring this story while the election was still to be won or lost will have no choice (and, indeed, every reason) to make it the big story it would have been had it happened on President McCain’s watch. And it turns out that Obama, to protect his re-election prospects, decided to sacrifice four American lives, including an ambassador, and spun a deliberate lie to mislead the public.
The fury, I suspect, would be boundless. The House, almost surely to remain in Republican hands, might well impeach the president. Only a majority vote is needed to impeach. The Senate, whichever way it goes, is probably unlikely to muster the two-thirds vote needed to convict. But would Obama be able to govern under those circumstances? This wouldn’t be about personal failings such as nearly brought President Clinton down, it would be about violating his oath of office.
If this political nightmare should come to pass, the cause of it will have been, of course, the president. But equally culpable will be the mainstream media that deliberately failed to do its duty in order to bring about a desired political result. Journalists rank with used-car salesmen and members of Congress in public esteem already. How much lower can they go?
John, since Romney seems as uninterested in Benghazi as either the President or the MSM media, and that's today, who knows who will care a month or two out? The GOP Presidential candidate is not even mentioning it..
.. to his very clear detriment. Romney's passive, play it safe attitude since the first debate has dearly cost him support and momentum in the wake of obama's relentless misrepresentations and ad hominem attacks. Though we do not have all of the facts, it is very apparent that obama and his administration are not truthful about Benghazi – such conclusion alone should be enough to deny obama reelection if only Romney would clearly and effectively communicate to the public that the honor of the office demands honesty in behavior.
There you go again.. Benghazi isn't about Romney – it is clearly and solely on Obama. nRomney doesn't need to stick his foot in that mess to win. Even his (non)mention of it in the debate caused the media to talk about his (non)mention of Benghazi. His surrogates and Fox News will do it for him – regardless of how the MSM try to unsuccessfully hide it. n nLiberals/Democrats always deflect and change the subject when they are wrong. It's about unelecting and or impeaching Obama – Romney isn't the subject here.
Chris Matthews would hold Congress hostage by strapping a bomb to himself.
ur funnie!
The first nightmare scenario will be what happens when New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey hold their elections as scheduled. There is no way for electricity to be restored everywhere in time, let alone people displaced from homes that are gone or too damaged. At least eight Congressional Districts are impacted by this. n nMaybe those foreign election observers not welcome in Texas and Iowa need to be moved to Staten Island and Long Island? n nThe probable solution will be to have paper ballots then transported elsewhere for scanning. What could possibly go wrong with that!? n (I am still angry that NYC's new system insures the poll worker has to read your ballot before inserting it into the scanner, tossing the principle of Secret Ballot away.) n n
How much lower can they go? In the future they could become a by-word for an ugly part of our past, say in a remote sense like Elmer Gantry. n nMy take concerning this election is that it is a referendum on the Liberal media as well as Obama. The MSM set Obama up and ever since 2007 has promoted him to — or foisted him on — the nation. In other words, the election is about what the MSM has done to the nation via their manipulating the news to further their own political agenda; Obama is merely their creature and their agent. The MSM's trying to hide Obama' s treachery is not just about Benghazigate, it is everything about Obama. n n n
If not for the MSM, the esteem of Republicans in Congress would be higher. n nSeriously, I don't see Obama winning and your nightmare scenario occurring. n nEven if he does win, I can't see the House proceeding with impeachment unless it was certain to get 2/3 of the Senate to convict. The impeachment of Bill Clinton was disastrous for the Republicans; I would assume that their memories would be long enough to opt for self-preservation rather than impeachment.
My sentiments exactly. For any number of reasons, an Obama second term could vey well be a nightmare, and not just (or especially) for conservatives.
The only bigger nightmare would be that the senate DID convict (fortunately not likely), giving us 3-1/2 years of President Biden.
Interesting piece, but you are being way too kind to the mainstream media. They are so invested in Obama, and have so decisively turned their back against any semblance of ethical, impartial journalism, that I fear they would bury Benghazigate to the very end.
Some things can't be buried. It wouldn't take many journalists looking to become the next Woodward/Bernstein to blow the lid completely off.
The Mainstream Media is setting a trap for Romney re Benghazi — the no win scenario they love to stick Republicans with. If he mentions Benghazi, he's "politicizing" it, and they'll slam him (as they already did — are our memories so short?). If he doesn't mention it — they use his not mentioning it as cover. They used this process on George W. Bush for eight years. We forget the "Mainstream" media is as much a part of the Democratic Party as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
"But would Obama be able to govern under these circumstances?"……I apologize,but I can't resist-He can't govern under any circumstances!(Ba-dume -boom)
Note David Brooks's latest NY Times op-ed entitled "The Final Reckoning," in which he claims: "In moral terms, [Obama] hasn’t let us down. If he’s re-elected, his administration would probably remain scandal-free. Given the history of second terms, that is no small thing." Not a single mention in his op-ed regarding Benghazi. n nMeanwhile, WaPo columnist David Ignatius yesterday was allowed to speak with an anonymous "senior intelligence official," who provided Ignatius with a timeline of the attacks. From the title of the Ignatius opinion piece, "In Benghazi timeline, CIA errors but no evidence of conspiracy," you might think that the issues surrounding the attack have been put to bed. Instead, there are now even more questions than answers. n nAn unarmed Predator drone provided real time footage of events as they unfolded at the consulate, there was no interruption of communication between the Americans on the ground in Benghazi and Washington, and the CIA reinforcements who arrived at 1:15 a.m. from Tripoli were fully aware of al-Qaeda's involvement in the attacks. The reinforcements considered going to the Benghazi hospital to retrieve Stevens's body, but decided against this plan given that the hospital was "surrounded by the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia militia that mounted the consulate attack." n nEveryone in the Obama administration knew that the attacks on the consulate and CIA annex did not involve a "spontaneous demonstration," and they also knew of al-Qaeda's involvement, yet this did not prevent Obama and friends from perpetuating a lie as long as they could get away with it.
And what about Fast and Furious? Having the media not mention your scandals is not the same as not having them.
We don’t have to guess at scenarios where the president’ uses national security self-servingly.
The OBL raid did not have to lose a $60 million helicopter, put the lives of 24 SEALs at risk, enrage Pakistan, and expose America to terrorist vengeance seekers. A mysterious blast, which the local newspaper would probably ascribe to a gas explosion, could have suddenly turned Osama’s house to rubble that night. The news would have been of no interest beyond the Abbotabad. Pakistan would have suspected the two smart bombs and US stealth plane involved, but would happily have stayed silent. Weeks and months would have passed before the world would realize Osama was no more.
The risky SEAL raid’s one virtue, for the president of the United States, was to give him instant credit. The valuable information on OBL’s disk drives was largely vitiated by Obama’s instant announcement that night of his coup. The al Qaeda cells that might have been rounded up by the CIA, given a few weeks, were alerted to flee.
The president has also used Afghanistan to help himself, though it has hurt the nation. He had early on called Iraq unwinnable and then denounced the Surge as only making our debacle worse. But during the height of the 2008 campaign the surge was working and the was being won. To wipe the egg off his face and reverse his sagging national security poll numbers the candidate attacked the Republicans for neglecting Afghanistan. He pledged to make it the central front in the war on terror and deploy all the combat brigades required to win that fight. This gained him the vote of the hawks. Upon winning the WH he kept his pledge. He stepped on the gas, blew the embers of Bush’s side-show into a blazing war and created the quagmire from which we are now withdrawing with the Taliban more certain to prevail than before.
Hearst whooped up the Spanish American war disgracefully for circulation. Now a US president committed our soldiers to a war where America has no vital national interests, but to serve his career interests. Moreover Hearst’s war splendid little war was won. Obama’s, “necessary war”, is lost.
Never has an American politician misused the power entrusted to him so self-servingly.
Joe Biden is Obama's insurance policy. If Obama were to be impeached, Biden will take his place.
We don't have to guess at scenarios where the president uses national security self-servingly. n nThe OBL raid did not have to lose a $60 million helicopter, put the lives of 24 SEALs at risk, enrage Pakistan, and expose America to terrorist vengeance seekers. A mysterious blast, which the local newspaper would probably have ascribed to a gas explosion, could have turned Osama's house to rubble that night. The news would have been of no interest beyond Abbotabad. Pakistan would have suspected the two smart bombs and US stealth plane involved, but would happily have stayed silent. Within a few months the world would have realized that Osama was no more. n nThe risky SEAL raid's one virtue, for the president of the United States, was to give him instant credit. The valuable information on OBL's disk drives was largely vitiated by Obama's instant announcement that night of his coup. The al Qaeda cells which the CIA that might have rounded up, given a few weeks, were alerted to flee. n nThe president's Afghanistan policy has also been corrupt. He had early on called Iraq unwinnable and then denounced the Surge as only making our debacle worse. But during the height of the 2008 campaign the surge was working and the war was being won. To wipe the egg off his face and reverse his sagging national security poll numbers the candidate attacked the Republicans for neglecting Afghanistan. He pledged to make it the central front in the war on terror and deploy all the combat brigades required to win that fight. This gained him the vote of the hawks. n nUpon winning the WH he kept his pledge. He stepped on the gas, blew the embers of Bush's side-show into a blazing war and got our wheels spinning in the quagmire from which we are now limping with the Taliban more certain to prevail than before. n n Hearst whooped up the Spanish American war for circulation. Now a US president committed our soldiers to a war where America has no vital national interests, to serve his career interests. Moreover that "splendid little war" served US strategic goals and was won. Obama's, "necessary war", is pointless and lost. n nWhen Bush/Cheney confined around 300 terrorists captured on the battlefield at Guantanamo, Senator Obama raged against the injustice of holding those men without charges, indefinitely and without a trial, on mere suspicion. n nBut now, according to the Washington Post, he has killed around 3000 men, including many innocent civilians, at long range with killer drones, on the presumption that they were Taliban. Presumably they were charged and their guilt was established in a court of law. n nNever before has an elected American politician of such rank misused the power entrusted to him so cynically.