by Redhanded
Oct 24, 2012
Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski said of Richard Nixon's disgrace and resignation: "What sank him was his lying." Even President Nixon's most loyal defenders abandoned his cause when they found that he had indeed lied to the public.
In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee levied three articles of impeachment against the Republican president for basically telling one lie. That lie which, was told under oath, constituted the creation of an imperial presidency in their eyes.
The first of those impeachment articles also accused Nixon of:
"Making or causing to be made false or misleading statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted..."
Can a similar conclusion be made over the decision by President Obama to instruct his aides to blame the deaths of one ambassador and three other Americans on the release of a YouTube video critical of the Prophet Muhammad instead of a terrorist attack in order to cover up the real truth?
Fast-forward to Sept 11, 2012, and take a look at the aftermath of the terrorist attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. New information released last night suggests that the White House was made aware of this attack within hours of it taking place and the lies that took place after that. I say there are definitely enough grounds for impeachment, and at the very least a cause for the president to be put under oath and testify as to what he knew and when.
New e-mails released last night clearly show that the entire intelligence community, as well as the State Department, the Secretary of State and the president himself, were aware of the attack within a couple of hours after the attack. The president chose not to come forward to inform the American people of this attack, nor did he heed calls for additional help from the American ambassador before the attacks.
They instead made a tactical decision to lie to the American people because the timing of this terrorist attack was such an inconvenience to their re-election campaign and their narrative that al-Qaida was in retreat. Coming forward with this information would have turned their claims of an al-Qaida-free world on its head. If the president knowingly lied and abused his power to try to get himself re-elected, he should be put under oath and impeached if he acted the way an imperial president might.
In the climate we are experiencing today, where there is such an incestuous relationship between the media and this president, I imagine it would be a Herculean task to even make the suggestion without being called a racist. In 1974, we did not have corrupt media as we today and the Constitution stood for something.
Lying to the American people is betrayal at its worst. When it comes to abusing the power given and entrusted to you, to knowingly deceive for the sole purpose of protecting yourself or your aides, is beyond reproach and grounds for impeachment—Nov. 6 notwithstanding.
