What Constitutes an Impeachable Offense

Classic Lefty

The battle for Libya rages on with all the ebbs and flows of military advances and retreats, and thanks to the Obama administration, we find ourselves entrenched in it. In the midst of the confusing intentions being projected from the White House, one thing has come to the forefront that may spell disaster in the short term for the administration, but more so in the long term for America.

As rumors that al Qaeda may be among the beneficiaries of our intervention become reports, questions are bubbling to the surface from a most unlikely source; the media that aided in the election of Barack Hussein Obama. Israeli intelligence puts the actual number of al Qaeda members among the alleged "rebels" in Libya in the thousands, not to mention the Hamas contributions or the Hezbollah factor.

The Obama regime at first tried to claim that the composition of the Libyan opposition forces was unknown, and that ours was a mission to prevent civilians from massacre at the hands of Gadhafi's military. It was also proclaimed that we would merely provide a no-fly zone so that the rebels had "a fighting chance", and that we would have no boots on the ground. Obama also suggested that we were not going to be supplying these rebels with arms, and that Gadhafi's ouster was not our goal. But a Reuters report yesterday paints a different picture.

The report says that Obama signed a secret order, or "finding", authorizing the CIA to "help the rebels", and possibly to provide them with weapons. Interestingly, the report also states that it may have been as long as three weeks ago that Obama signed the order. Are we to believe that the CIA could be working in Libya and not be aware of an al Qaeda presence there, or the scope of such a presence? After all, they are the Central "Intelligence" Agency! So is Obama knowingly aiding our 9/11 attackers in Libya, and preparing to give them weapons?

Further, the Washington Times' Jeffrey Kuhner - in an interview with New York's Steve Malzberg - said that his sources in Israel told him that they have intelligence suggesting a significant jihadist presence at work in Libya. Granted, the Israelis are considerably under enamored of Barack Hussein Obama, but it is inconceivable that they would not share such information with the State Department. So exactly what is going on over there?

Consider this; at first, the Obama administration tepidly supported the Mubarek regime when Egypt began to erupt. Coincidentally, Obama shifted his stance when news emerged that the Muslim Brotherhood was involved, and prominently.

When protesters in Iran took to the streets demanding freedom from brutal Shar'ia rule - most wish to become more "westernized" - Obama was silent on the crushing response of Ahmedinejad. And while Gadhafi has been a big fan of Obama's, he has been less than an enthusiastic proponent of jihad since Saddam Hussein's capture, which was broadcast for the world to see. Suddenly, a seemingly reticent Obama is ready to toss the Libya strongman out on his keister.



Oliver North in 1986



We must remember the bitter outrage from the Left during the Iran-Contra trials, and then hold that up in comparison now. The Reagan administration wasn't arming an enemy at the time, they were trying to arm true rebels in Nicaragua who were fighting the Communist Sandinistas. Obama is aiding abeting, and arming an enemy that wants all non-Muslims dead or subjugated. Jeffrey Kuhner calls him a traitor. Still not enough for impeachment?

What if we add in the Constitutional violation of committing armed forces without Congressional consent, much less consultation? Both Obama and Vice President Biden called the practice impeachable in the past, so what has changed now?

Someone referred to the Obama administration as "The Gang That Can't Shoot Straight". Thank God for that, or we'd all be dead already.

Sphere: Related Content