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

An Unintended Benefit of a Bumbling Obama

Maxwell Smart of Get Smart?

Comparisons are already being forged between former president Jimmy Carter and current president Barack Obama as worst president in American history, and the practice is quite understandable. That being said, it must be remembered that Jimmy Carter was a genuine fool lacking both experience and guidance which led to his utter ineptitude. The jury is still out on Obama's "guidance" and his backers, even as his intellect is touted as supreme, despite the mounting evidence to the contrary.

As the debate grows over the wisdom of our interference in Libya - and Obama's very own authority to impose that sort of meddling - there is also the prospect that the same rebels we endeavor to aid may be members of the same group that attacked us a decade ago. It has even been recently acknowledged by the Libyan "rebel leader" that al Qaeda is active in that countries dispute. We may be fighting alongside our enemy. But don't despair just yet.

Despite the curious motives of Obama's illegal action in Libya, and regardless of the bald hypocrisy of the Democrats who defend his actions, there may be a positive outcome in Libya when all is said and done.

Remember back to a decade ago. It was al Qaeda who hijacked our own planes and attacked the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon in Washington, and an empty field in Pennsylvania, thanks to Todd Beamer and his fellow passengers. That was September 11th, 2001. On September 18th, a week later, the 107th Congress issued a joint resolution - Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23] - which stated, in part, "Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States."


In October, we were in Afghanistan hunting al Qaeda and bin Laden, but it was rough work. Trying to find certain individuals in mountainous terrain and determining whether they were shepherds or the enemy was problematic. It was akin to a police academy shooting test where a disproportionate amount of the pop-up targets were pigtailed school girls or grandmas pushing grocery carts with an occasional bad guy springing up.

The lament was that al Qaeda had no country, no flag and no uniforms, making them quite the unconventional adversary. What if they were to have these things, then? What if we inadvertently hand them Libya?

Yes, let them raise their flag, sew their uniforms, and feel like they have achieved a victory of sorts. Let them gather in Libya and chase away the remaining Muslims not interested in the jihad, and once this is complete let them dance.

I would suggest that they also rename the country. Something appropriate. Does anyone know the Arabic translation for Very Large Target?

Sphere: Related Content