Beng­hazi is grounds for im­peach­ment

The Washington Times Weekly - - Letters To The Editor - BILL MILLS Ster­ling, Va.

Jef­frey H. Birn­baum over­looks two ma­jor points in cit­ing the cas­cade of events point­ing to not just in­ep­ti­tude, but to lack of honor by the cur­rent pres­i­dent (“Ru­ing the Beng­hazi ruse,” Web, May 5). The first is the now-in­dis­putable fact that Pres­i­dent Obama lied about Amer­i­cans be­ing able to keep their doc­tors and health plans un­der Oba­macare. Why? To take fed­eral con­trol of for­merly free-en­ter­prise U.S. health care, of course. While a demon­strated propen­sity to lie isn’t ob­jec­tive proof, pub­lic opin­ion doesn’t fol­low for­mal rules of ev­i­dence.

Sec­ond, who re­calls the left’s chant of “Bush lied” over the fail­ure to find weapons of mass de­struc­tion in Iraq in the early 2000s? By that prece­dent of out­come over in­tent — that is, telling not only our cit­i­zens, but the en­tire world that a “video” and “out-of-con­trol demon­stra­tions” caused the deaths in Beng­hazi — the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s ex­pla­na­tions for the killings were a lie.

There is clear ev­i­dence Mr. Obama knew the In­ter­net video in ques­tion had noth­ing to do with the killings even as he, then-Sec­re­tary of State Hil­lary Rod­ham Clin­ton and then-U.N. Am­bas­sador Su­san Rice told us later that same week that the video was the cause.

Bill Clin­ton faced im­peach­ment over a lie that pales in com­par­i­son.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.