Monday, October 29, 2012

Roger Simon: Obama is "Treasonous", a "Moral Monster"

Of course, at IBA we've been saying this from the beginning.

From PJM:

Is it treason when you put your own reelection above the good of your country and the lives of its citizens? If so, Barack Obama committed treason in leaving the four Americans to die in Benghazi.

Our Constitution defines it this way: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Aid and comfort to the enemy — what is that?

When you ascribe an action to the protest of a video when it is actuality a planned terror attack by Ansar al-Shariah, an established offshoot of al-Qaeda (if that’s not your “enemy,” then who) — and you knew that all along, you watched it live without doing anything, and then you told those who wanted to help to “stand down”? Meanwhile, our government may have been conspiring to arm another offshoot of al-Qaeda in Syria.

How much more treasonous can you get? Benedict Arnold was a piker.

Indeed, the discussion of Benghazi has just begun. And don’t be surprised if the conversation escalates from impeachment to treason very quickly. In fact, if Obama wins reelection you can bet on it. The cries of treason will be unstoppable. Not even if the mainstream media will be able to deny them.

As Pat Caddell noted, those same media lapdogs have muzzled themselves in an unprecedented manner in this matter, but our Canadian friends at least have some semblance of honor left, writing:
It is undoubtedly worse than Obama simply turned his back on cornered American citizens in a foreign land, knowing undoubtedly they would die. But that Barack did so without any compelling reason—except political—is beyond evil. Only a moral monster would have made that decision when it was within his powers to possibly save them with almost no effort of his own.
Moral monster? Those are extreme words but they fit an extreme situation and are appropriate to the use of the t-word. But it’s worse. Many now are trying to figure out the motivation for this behavior — beyond the obvious electoral whoring mentioned above, the need to be seen in a certain manner at a certain moment to be sure the Ohio vote doesn’t fall the wrong way.

Page 1 of 2  Next ->


Always On Watch said...

There are a limited number of reasons as to why Obama allowed the murders in Benghazi and followed up by lying about the causes of the event.

None of those reasons entails that Obama was looking out for America's interests. Really. Think about it.

Whose interests was he looking out for? Hmmmm?

I no longer believe that Obama failed to give any order because he was concerned only about getting re-elected.

My intuition tells me that something too terrible to for us to contemplate was going through his mind.

Maybe we have all the needed facts now. But I highly doubt it!

And you know what? I'm not sure that we will ever know the full picture.

Epaminondas said...

Simon is a moron when it comes to values.

Don't these people YET understand that if it is to RE-ELECT Obama IT IS THE GOOD OF THE NATION

That is the underlying motive of all these monors. That is why if you oppose Obama you must be a radical, and and extremist of SOME kind.

The men who ran to help Stevens DISOBEYED what was for the good of the nation because their order to stand down was for the good of the election of what was good for the nation.

There were unpatriotic by those lights and those values.