Bill O’Reilly apparently thinks that if only the Republicans can prove President Obama was told the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack on the night of the attack, it will be Watergate all over again and President Obama can be “convicted.” Yes, “convicted” is the term O’Reilly used.
In his Talking Points commentary last night, O’Reilly said:
But what everybody does not know is why the White House misled the world about the terror attack. That question remains unanswered.
That right there is fishy, given that it assumes the Obama administration did mislead about the attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya. And, by the way, the question as to why the Obama administration said an anti-Islamic YouTube video precipitated the attack has been asked and answered. But, of course, Fox and their Republican BFFs refuse to accept that there’s no there there in Benghazi.
Even O’Reilly acknowledged in his next words that it’s not at all certain the White House misled. But in doing so, he also absurdly suggested that such an act (which he had just insinuated had occurred) would have been criminal:
If the President and his re-election campaign did deceive the American voters, that is a subversion of our democracy. But that’s a big if. Nothing has been proven so far. The Benghazi story is similar to Watergate. That’s why we should all be paying attention. The stupid burglary was small ball but Richard Nixon’s attempt to subvert the democratic process was huge and got him booted out of office.
Now, for all you far left Web sites out there I am not, not comparing Nixon to President Obama. I am however saying we need to get to the bottom of the Benghazi story. Are we all clear?
Yes, we are clear. President Obama is not Nixon. It’s just that O’Reilly (and presumably Fox and the GOP) are hoping and planning to turn Benghazi into Watergate.
O’Reilly reiterated his demand that Congress call then defense secretary Leon Panetta to testify:
Panetta is the key to knowing if the Obama reelection campaign and perhaps the President himself used deception in the murder of our Libyan ambassador. Every patriotic American should want to know what happened there.
Karl Rove came on immediately after. Rove said it would be “a high bar” to get Panetta to reveal what he said to President Obama inside the White House. As Rove went on to opine that he thought it was already clear President Obama had been told Benghazi was a terrorist attack, O’Reilly interrupted:
Maybe, but you can’t convict on that… You just can’t.
…You need to go back and read All The Presdient’s Men. …Because you’re not going to implicate the President of the United States unless you have someone telling him eye-to-eye, face-to-face it was a terrorist attack.
Rove opined, “Well, that’s gonna happen.” He later said, “I think it’s worse than that. I think inside the White House, somebody said, ‘We have got to avoid labeling this a terrorist attack.”
As ridiculous as it sounds for Republicans and Fox News to be discussing impeaching a president over whether or not he labeled Benghazi a “terrorist attack” (even though he called it an "act of terror”), if Republicans take control of the Senate, I could totally see them being crazed enough to do it.
The insanity of this Benghazi is all we’re hearing from the right is attacking the President and not one peep towards the heavily armed group of between 125 and 150 gunmen that attacked the diplomatic mission. You’re using your phony anger and directing it at the President while completely ignoring those who were responsible for this cowardly act. I know this is how the game of politics works, and it’s a waste of time to bring up similar types of attacks that occurred when Bush was President or god forbid remind anyone of the suicide bomber that killed 241 Americans in Beirut Lebanon in 1983 when Reagan was President. I don’t blame or hold any responsibly of fault to President Reagan, Bush or Obama, but to those who did it. We don’t blame the Chief of Police when a crime is committed.
Just keep having your fantasy of impeaching the President. Yes, I’m sure you have the needed majority votes in the House, but you’ll never reach the needed 67 votes in the Senate, and you know it. It may help ratings and giving a kiss to your boo-boo Bill, but other than that you wouldn’t be accomplishing a thing, as always.