Should Obama Be Tried for Treason over Benghazi?
Should treason be the charge against Barack Obama for his role in the Benghazi terrorism debacle that saw Ambassador Chris Stevens murdered and other Americans die? Glenn Beck has never been shy to stir the pot with regard to Obama—remember when he opined that the president was racist, a couple of years back? A two-month-old video of Beck is making the rounds on the Internet again—in fact, it was reposted on a prominent Tea Party website—which has Beck arguing that a case of treason can be made against Obama.
Originally shown as part of Beck’s Blaze TV broadcast of his radio show, the video features Beck talking about the Obama lie surrounding Benghazi. Sure, sure, the State Department was recently blamed for it (read: made the scapegoat), but that’s probably just Hillary Clinton falling on her sword to protect Obama. After all, does the proverbial buck not stop with the president?! I think it does, which is why I also believe that Obama knowingly lied when he blamed the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi on a bunch of Muslims who were angry at a little-seen YouTube video. Of course, we now know that it was organized terrorism.
However, Beck goes farther than this, which is why he thinks Obama’s guilty of treason. Beck says there is evidence that shows that the now-deceased Ambassador Stevens was actually arming Syrian and Libyan rebels. Unfortunately, those “rebels” (read: Islamofascists) turned on the U.S., which culminated in the Benghazi terror attack back in September. By the way, we all know that these “rebels” also were made up of Muslim Brotherhood radicals and al-Qaeda terrorists. The end result was that U.S.-armed Islamofascists killed the ambassador and a few other Americans. Obviously, as president, you shouldn’t contribute to the murders of your own people! On this point is where Beck builds his argument for Obama treason.
Beck claims that some of the evidence for this Obama-terrorist-arming scandal, if you will, comes from Russia Today and the New York Times. The former apparently reported that Syrian rebels are in possession of U.S. Stinger missiles while the latter apparently reported that the U.S. is relying on the Muslim Brotherhood to arm the Syrian rebels.
It’s interesting that these Beck comments never got a lot (or even any) coverage by the innately crooked, liberal mainstream media back in October. You can understand why when you consider that the media was plotting to do everything in its power to get Obama reelected. As such, they wouldn’t dare cover explosive Beck comments that called for Obama to be tried for treason because that would damage the president. On the issue of treason itself, though, there are many conservatives who probably believe that he should be tried for treason for any number of things already: debt explosion, apologizing to the Arab world, tying the hands of the military in war, etc.
Beck’s comments point to a constant truth: The Benghazi scandal has the potential to damage Obama a lot more. So far, the media has covered up for him, and the State Department has taken the fall. However, if Republicans are smart, they will push for a massive Benghazi congressional investigation and drag it out before the cameras. They should keep condemning Obama as the man responsible for the whole scandal to damage his approval ratings with the public. A damaged Democrat president, in turn, will help the Republicans’ chances in the 2016 race.