– Reports allege a move for impeachment of Obama based on claims that he lied about the Benghazi attack and tried to cover up the truth that it was a terrorist attack. It is also alleged that he blackmailed Petraeus to co-operate in the cover-up.
While all attention was focused on the slew of citizens secession petitions to the White House, a petition to impeach the President of the United States of America escaped public attention. However, it quietly and steadily gathered votes in the White House’s “We the People” petitions page. According to The Daily Caller
, the petition
was launched on November 11, with the title: “We request that Barack Obama be impeached.” By White House rules, the petition has qualified for official attention, having collected more than 28,000 signatures from all 50 states of the United States. The petition
We request that Obama be impeached for the following reasons. 1. He proclaimed war in Libya without getting congress approval first. Article I, Section 8- Only congress can approve to start war. 2. Obamacare is unconstitutional. Forcing US citizens to get health insurance whether they want it or not. 3. Obama disrespects our Constitution calling it flawed and trying to change it even after taking this oath:”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” 4. Appointing agency “czars” without Senate approval.
The Week notes that the petition is accompanied by an increasing clamor of tweets under the hashtag #impeach. A conservative group, “The Conservative Majority Fund,” that The Huffington Post describes as “on the fringe of the conservative fringe,” has initiated a grassroots movement to impeach Obama. The group has launched a robocall campaign to whip up support for the impeachment move. The Huffington Post reports that according to StopPoliticalCalls.org, the robocall says, in part:
“Our only recourse now is to move forward with the full impeachment of President Obama. We suspect that Obama is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and that there may be grounds for impeachment as is laid out in the constitution. Further, he may not even be a U.S. citizen because nobody, I mean no one, has seen an actual physical copy of his birth certificate. Impeachment is our only option. And Republicans are already considering Obama investigations. As the nation’s most effective conservative group we are launching the official impeach Obama campaign.”
At the moment, calls for impeachment of Obama center around claims that the Obama administration lied to Americans that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islamic movie and that the administration worked to cover up the truth that it was a terrorist attack. Those calling for Obama’s impeachment also assert that Obama used David Petraeus’s affair to blackmail the general to co-operate in the cover-up. The Week reports that Democrats are already aware of the motive behind the clamor over the alleged “Benghazi cover-up” and are bracing for a full-fledged impeachment campaign against Obama.
comments: “Whether it’s on the basis of the supposed Benghazi cover up, or something else altogether, get ready for the looming extreme right wing war cry of ‘Impeach Obama’ as the most stubborn factions of an aging Republican Party start to grasp the inevitability of an Obama second term.”
The Benghazi-Petraeus conspiracy theory
Patrick Frye, writing for The Inquisitr
, notes that General Petraeus’s testimony that the CIA knew the Benghazi Consulate attack was a terrorist attack from the beginning gave impetus to the call for impeachment. The story goes that the Obama administration purposefully lied to cover up the situation and prevent a political scandal close to the November election. The conspiracy plot gets somewhat complicated and difficult to entangle with the assertion that Petraeus was blackmailed to co-operate in the cover up using the FBI information about his illicit affair with Broadwell. The story goes even further that the Obama administration ignored the possible national security risk involved in the Petraeus sex scandal to avoid political embarrassment so close to the elections. According to ImpeachObamaCampaign
, the story that links the Petraeus affair and the Benghazi cover up story began with an FBI field agent, Fred Humphries, who contacted US Representative David Reichert, alleging that the FBI was deliberately going slow over investigation of possible national security leaks. Reichert directed Humphries to the Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Humphries had received a complaint from his family friend Jill Kelley, who said she received threatening emails. When the investigation led to Paula Broadwell, and it became known that she was having an affair with Petraeus, FBI officials began deliberately dragging feet over the matter in spite of the obvious national security risk issues involved, especially the possibility that Petraeus was being blackmailed and had passed classified information to Broadwell or some other persons. Patrick Frye, writing for The Inquistr
, reports allegations that Obama watched the Benghazi attack in real-time and that in spite of urgent requests by the CIA annex in Benghazi, he sent no military backup to the Consulate. Frye reports that another unconfirmed allegation was that Obama ordered an AC-130U gunship not to get involved in the action and then retired to bed early to rest for a fundraiser the next day. Politicususa.com
mentions another claim that further deepens the air of Byzantine intrigue in the Benghazi-Petraeus allegations: that Petraeus’s mistress, Broadwell, had access to classified information about a secret prison in the Benghazi CIA annex and that the Obama administration deliberately placed Ambassador Chris Steven’s life at risk as part of the attempt to cover up some scandalous facts about the secret prison. According to Frye, a retired military officer with experience in military law said that under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), an impeachment may be initiated against Obama if the allegations are proven true. According to Frye’s source, a commander-in-chief who watches his troops die without taking measures within his capability to save their lives could be indicted.
The allegation stemming from Petraeus’s testimony is that Obama used his influence to modify the report in contradiction of the evidence that showed that the Consulate was actually under a terrorist attack. Policymic
reports it is alleged that Petraeus was forced to step down after the election as part of the Obama administration’s effort to block investigation into the Benghazi incident that resulted in the death of American citizens: Ambassador Christopher Stevens, diplomat Sean Smith, CIA contractors, former Navy SEALS Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. According to Politicususa
, Fox News
contributor, Dana Perino, suggested the conspiracy that Obama forced Petraeus to resign because he was about to testify on Benghazi. Perino reportedly said: “I don’t think anybody throws away their 37-year marriage on national television to cover up for a White House on an issue like Benghazi. That doesn’t make sense to me. However, is it plausible that they said, ‘do this or we will expose you’? And he said, “I’ll expose myself.'” Politicususa
asserts that proponents of the Benghazi-Petraeus conspiracy theory hope that Petraeus’s resignation was connected to the “Benghazi cover-up,” and that exposure of the connection would bring down Obama’s presidency. This line of thinking explains why several Republicans called for Petraeus to testify even after he resigned. Policymic
reports that Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), insisted that it was “essential” for Petraeus to testify.
Policymic, however, acknowledges the validity of the assertion that it was “essential” for Petraeus to testify, saying: “As one of the country’s premier intelligence officials before, during, and after Benghazi, Petraeus may be able to answer many of the pressing questions that remain in its wake.”
The Petraus testimony fails to give evidence of a cover-up conspiracy
The former CIA director testified on Friday behind closed doors. He told Congress that the CIA had always known that al-Qaeda-linked terrorists were behind the September 11 Benghazi attacks. According to Petraeus, the “original talking points prepared by the CIA were different than the final ones put out.” The Daily Mail
reports that according to the New York Congressman, Representative Peter King, member of the House Intelligence Committee, Petraeus’s testimony revealed that, “The original talking points were much more specific about al-Qaeda involvement and yet the final ones just said ‘indications of extremists’ even though it was clearly evident to the CIA that there was al-Qaeda involvement.” The Daily Mail
reports King said Petraeus explained that the talking points used by Rice had been altered after going through an “intragency process.” According to King, Petraeus said “that it goes through a long process, an interagency process and when they came back it was taken out.” However, Representative Adam Schiff, a Democrat, said that Petraeus strongly rejected suggestions that political considerations informed the manner of alteration of the talking points. According to Schiff, Petraeus claimed there “was an inter-agency process to draft it, not a political process. They came up with the best assessment without compromising classified information or sources or methods. So changes were made to protect classified information… The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda.”
Republicans not satisfied with Petraeus’s testimony
According to The Guardian
, King said he was not satisfied with Petraeus’s explanation of how the final report was altered. He said: “It is still not clear how the final talking points emerged. He [Petraeus] said it went through a long process involving many agencies including the Justice Department and including the State Department. No one knows yet who came up with final version of the talking points other than to say the original talking points prepared by CIA were different from the ones that were finally put out.” King alleged that there was a contradiction between Petraeus’s account on Friday and the one he gave to an earlier House hearing. King said:”His testimony was he told us that from the start it was a terrorist attack. I told him that was not my direct recollection. The clear impression we were given was that the overwhelming amount of evidence was that it arose out of a spontaneous demonstration and [not] that it was a terrorist attack.”
The Benghazi-Petraeus conspiracy theory: A retreat from reality of electoral defeat?
Politicususacomments on the luxuriant growth of conspiracy theories seeking a connection between the Benghazi incident and the Petraeus sex scandal:
The… thing that each of these conspiracies have in common is that they are being floated by Fox News. After Romney’s crushing defeat last week, Fox News is standing by on the ready with exactly what their audience needs. An insane conspiracy that will allow them to retreat back into their bubble and ignore reality. Just like in 2008 when Glenn Beck and his political alternate universe rose to fame after Obama won, Petraeus and Benghazi are 2012?s right wing retreat from reality. After losing elections, paranoid conspiracy theories are Republican comfort food used to soothe the fractured psyche of those who got a taste of what ‘Real America’ actually thinks of them.”