Did Our President and Others Commit Treason In Benghazi?

In spite of all the reasons I have to not like this President, Barack Obama, it is with a heavy heart that I approach the question in today’s title. I have had strong differences with most of the presidents in my life time, however, I have never questioned a president’s loyalty to country or to the men and women who serve our country. Yet the bizarre handling by this president and his surrogates of the attacks on our diplomatic mission in Libya and the events leading up to the attacks, compels me to ask if Barack Obama and his senior  advisor committed treason against the men in Benghazi. The President and his administration have been less than forthcoming about what happened in Benghazi, Libya. What we do know is only due to information leaking out and made public by Fox News. No other media outlet is covering this story.

Let’s start with a definition of treason and then see if the story that is unfolding fits.


[tree-zuhn]  Show IPA



the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or toharm or kill its sovereign.

a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.

the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith;treachery.
Prior to the 9/11/12 Attack
We know that since the fall of Gaddafi that Libya was a very unstable place with many jihadists militia groups roaming the country. We know that there had been many violent demonstrations in the months prior to the attacks including attacks on British diplomats and a bomb thrown against the wall of our Benghazi consulate. We know that Ambassador Stevens asked several times for additional security and those requests were denied. We know that there was a sixteen man security force there under the command of Lt. Col. Andy  Woods and, against his recommendation , he and his men were ordered out of Libya weeks before the attack.
So, we have a diplomatic mission in one of the most dangerous places in the world and not only does this administration deny requests for increased security, it removes what security was there. How does one explain that? How does one rationalize that? It’s as if  this administration was setting the stage for a crisis situation to occur. But, where is the logic in that? Stella Paul, writing for American Thinker has a theory. She asks her readers to think about what this administration did in the Fast and Furious fiasco. They intentional walked guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels to prove the 90% lie that most of the guns used in the border violence were coming from American gun dealers. They planned to use that lie to attack our Second Amendment right to bear arms. Ms. paul suggest that maybe the Benghazi fiasco was designed to attack our First Amendment right of free speech. When we consider how quickly and how well organized this administration’s response to the Benghazi attack was to sell the idea that this attack was due to someone abusing their right to free speech, it begins to give Ms. Paul’s theory some credence. Think about it. Obama, Susan Rice, and Hillary Clinton all out putting the blame for the attack on some YouTube video that insulted the  Muslim religion. And, even after the truth began leaking out, this president kept up the story of the video for weeks.
This Administration’s Response to the Attacks
Thanks to Fox News we know that the annex (safe house) one mile from the counsulate in Benghazi was in fact a CIA outpost. We know there were several people in that annex at the time the attack began on the consulate. We know that two of the people at the annex were ex-navy Seals, Tyrone Woods and  Glen Doherty. We know that Woods could hear the shots coming from the consulate and that he called his commander and reported that the consulate was under attack and tha he and Doherty were going to take some men and go help Ambassador Stevens and the others. We know that Woods was ordered to stand down. We know that Woods called his commander again an hour later because the attack on the consulate continued and he could hear explosions and he again asked permission to give aid to the people under attack. We know that Woods was ordered to stand down a second time. We know that Woods and Doherty disobeyed that order and fought their way into the consulate and got several people out but could not find the Ambassador. We know that Woods and te others fought their way back to the annex which was then under attack, also. We know that they got a man in position on the roof of the annex and painted with a laser the motor the attackers were setting up and asked for an air strike and reinforcements. We know that no aide was given. We know those brave men fought for four or five more  hours and were finally killed
by a mortar round.
Who Gave the Order to Stand Down? Why was No Aide Given?
Nearly seven weeks later we still have no answers from this administration. What about the Panetta Doctrine?
…I think bigger, problem with the Panetta doctrine. If the circumstances in Libya didn’t meet the “enough information” threshold for a rescue attempt or some other form of intervention, then what does? …
The Panetta doctrine is asinine! Several retired Generals have said as much. And, what do we hear from president Obama about who gave the order to stand down? He has diligently avoided answering that question. But, he did tell ABC News this the other day:
 President Obama said that “if we find out that there was a big breakdown and somebody didn’t do their job” regarding the attack on the U.S. outposts in Benghazi, Libya, “then they’ll be held responsible.”
Really, Mr. President? I thought you said at the last debate that the buck stops with you. And, thanks again to Fox news, we know that you were in the WH Situation Room watching the attack in real-time. You, Mr. President, have to know who gave the order to stand down and if you didn’t over-ride that order, it is as if the order came from you.
It Gets Worse
The latest information leaking out is the worst of all, if true. We are now hearing that Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette and General Carter F. Ham, the Combatant Commander of Africa Command (AFRICOM) were both ready to send assistance to Benghazi and both were ordered to stand down. The story continues that when both men refused to stand down, they were relieved of their duty. You can read about it here, here,  here, here, and here.   We don’t know if this story will be proven to be true. If it is proven to be true, then the order to stand down was not an error of judgement by a field commander. It was a deliberate betrayal of our Libyan diplomatic mission that cost the lives of four brave Americans.
Dear friends, if the story about Admiral  Gaouette and General Ham turns out to be true, we can not let this story die with these elections. America must learn who gave the order to stand down. That person and everyone above him in the chain of command, up to and including the Commander-in-Chief, are guilty of treason, of betrayal. We owe it to the men who died in Benghazi to identify those who betrayed them and to hold them accountable. WE OWE THEM!
Well, now you know what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

36 thoughts on “Did Our President and Others Commit Treason In Benghazi?

  1. Thomas Sowell has an excellent post today that will give us the grim news why this story is going to go no where. “Cooling out the voters”

    Confidence men know that their victim — “the mark” as he has been called — is eventually going to realize that he has been cheated. But it makes a big difference whether he realizes it immediately, and goes to the police, or realizes it after the confidence man is long gone.

    So part of the confidence racket is creating a period of uncertainty, during which the victim is not yet sure of what is happening. This delaying process has been called “cooling out the mark.”
    Same was used with Fast and Furious. I was going to do a post but…


  2. Hamm is still in command of Africom, so that appears to be a hothouse conspiracy theory proven not true.

    This was not treason, nor a nefarious plot against our First Amendment. It is simply the result of electing a dithering, inexperienced naif as president who is grossly unqualified to be commander in chief.

    1. Kurt, if Gen. Hamm was not relieved of duty, that is goodd news. BYW, do you have a source on that. I would appreciate if you vould podt a link here. However, if Gen. Hamm was ordered to stand down, this was not a decission by a dithering, inexperienced naif as president. This was a deliberate betrayal of our people in Benghazi. That is treason in my book.

  3. In America, the charge of treason is unique. I think we are the only nation that included a definition of treason in our constitution, which makes proving the charge extremely difficult to do. The last time we convicted a citizen of treason was in 1954. Presently, one American is under indictment, but remains unarranged because he is hiding out in the Hindu Kush Mountains.

    I have read that General Ham lost command of AFRICOM, but the website continues to list him as its commander. Normally, this would be one of the first things to change. And I have read the story about Admiral Gaouette, which the Navy says has nothing whatever to do with the Benghazi issue. His attack group was operating in the Middle East, not the Mediterranean.

    Now,if General Ham did “attempt” to mobilize relief forces after he was “ordered” to stand down, such conduct is enough to result in his losing his command. Commissioned officers are under no explicit obligation to obey the orders of the President; they are only obliged to support and defend the Constitution. However, since the Constitution designates the president as commander in chief of the armed forces, the obedience of all officers to the president is implicit. If the president can hire Ham, he can fire Ham.

    Obama’s behavior may seem treasonous, which is a factor of politics rather than a legal transgression; we cannot even say at this point whether his behavior resulted in Amb Steven’s death. Investigations take a long time and we won’t know the truth of what happened for many months. Now, however, the American people have it within their power to stop the bleeding. They can do that on November 6.

      1. I agree with you Jim, 100% … but such principles do not attach themselves to community organizers and cowards. It is something the American people should have carefully considered before electing “Commandante Zero.”

  4. Good work. We wrote nearly identical posts today Jim. I think Benghazi is critical. It showcases what a sociopath Obama truly is.

    Unfortunately in a world that has abandoned the rule of law- I think this bastard will get away with this as well. Obama is scum. I have no other description for him.

    1. Thanks, rM. Everybody should read what Mr. Pieczenk has to say. It makes me so mad that these scum bags are foinf to get away with their cowardly acts. Thhhe families of those that died deserve so much more.

  5. “America must learn who gave the order to stand down”

    As we learned from the Bin-Laden killing, it was Valerie Jarrett who three times called off the raid before approving it. Obama doesn’t even take a breath without Jarrett’s approval.

    The e-mails are hot but would the administration really be that incompetent as to leave a smoking gun like that out there? Besides, they’re irrelevant as far as the White House being in the loop as a Flash(Z) message would have been utilized to alert us and our allies of the attack. That requires an acknowledgement and triggers a standard protocol response making any e-mail notification trivial.

    Even if they found a smoking gun directing a denial of aid, they can still use risk and intel as primary excuses. Looks cowardly and incompetent, but criminal?

    As far as treason, only a dozen convinctions in America out of only 30 cases brought to trial. The court of public opinion is probably our best bet for bringing Obama to justice.

    Nice work Jim. Keep pounding it!

    1. Some times I just have to vent steam. But, I knoe you are right. We will have to fight this battle in the court of public opinion. Fox News can’t do it alone. We bloggers havw to help keep this story in the spotlight.

  6. There is something big that is being hidden from us, Barack Obama is covering up more than just his ineptitude and we have to wonder what it is. There I rumors about arms smuggling, ala Fast and Furious, into Turkey and I for one don’t doubt something like this was going on. Stevens, Woods, and Doherty were expendable to Obama for a reason and we need to find out what that reason is.

    1. I think this administration takes the stance I have always figured they would, “lie, deny and make them prove it”. They are underhanded, evil, people and the sooner they are out of power, the quicker we can try and get this country back on track , IF that will be possible.

  7. Even if the actions of the President do not fit the description of treason, they are still unforgivable. How any true American can see what he has done and still want to vote for him is beyond my comprehension.

    1. Larry, I agree with Jim that the actions actually do fit the description of treason such as a breach of trust. I just can’t see a conviction in the cards. Only a dozen in the history of America.

      What you just said about a true American is spot on but with the MSM complicit in actively burying this story, most won’t have a clue.

    2. Larry, for the life of me, I don’t understand how one single American can vote for Obama after learning what happened in Benghazi. Yet, I know that many Americans will vote for him He and they have no shame!

      1. OR they will vote for him because they don’t know any better. There are people that are still gullible and do not want to believe that Obama is capable of this much evil. That coupled with the attitude of “i always vote Democrat” and there we have the problem.

      2. I’ve listened to a few news clips today and the Democrat talking head is saying that theor people really believe that Obama has done a good job. How is that possible. You can ve alive and sane and believe that. You can’t fix stupid!

  8. And I’m sure you saw the latest this morning/late last night on Fox–another memo, this one from Stephens addressed to Clinton, saying in plain English that they did not have enough security to secure the consulate and that they knew about several terrorists training groups on Benghazi. This horrible cover-up would be enough to secure the election for Romney if only those in the media (except Fox) cared more about our country that they do Obama staying in office. I say let’s get rid of Obama & Co. on Nov. 6 and boycott the news outlets after that. (Which I’m basically already doing).

    1. I think, Freedom, in time we will learn that what happened in Benghazi was much morre sinister than we now think. If Romney wins next week, the MSM will either be dead or they will have to remake themselved into real news outlets. I hope they go the way of the dinasours.

      1. I wouldn’t hire any of them. (Except maybe that one reporter from CBS that has been a pit bull on fast & furious (another scandal caught in a quagmire).

  9. What we do know is only due to information leaking out and made public by Fox News. No other media outlet is covering this story.



    Control the dissemination of information, control the people, empower the state, empower tyranny. Orwellian in the extreme!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s