Ah, the TEApublican social media. You’ll never find a more wretched hive of derp and demagoguery. Take for instance the orally-respiratory gang over at “Overpasses for Obama’s Impeachment .” As you can imagine, they’re a little hyper-focused on removing President Obama from office. Think of them as the modern-day Anti-Clinton crusaders. It’s just that instead of trying to use his personal affairs as a means to remove him, modern-day right-wing ideologues (read: TEApublicans) instead are focusing on all the fake scandals and phony conspiracy theories they think Obama’s guilty of being a part of. Sure, they have no evidence to support their claims, but as we all know facts and Tea Partiers go together like peanut butter and a punch to the groin.
I was fortunate — or unfortunate after reading the comments — when a friend of mine forwarded me a link to a particular post one such member of Overpasses left on the Facebook page’s wall. I find it amazing how many conservatives consider themselves constitutional scholars that could match wits with the actual constitutional scholar in the White House. Yet, how many of them actually understand how the impeachment process works? I tried to come up with a counter-argument based on sound Constitutional principles for each one of the commenter’s points, but since the original post is rooted in the most elementary of Constitutional knowledge, I can’t. It’s all an emotional tantrum disguised as intellectual discourse.
What “high crimes and misdemeanors” has the president committed that are worthy of impeachment? Well, one TEApublican has five counts he’d like to bring the president up on. To wit:
In case you didn’t know…
What is Impeachment?
There’s an outstanding article on Wikipedia about the impeachment process.. In short it is a trial for politicians.
What grounds? Here’s a starter kit for you.
Treason: Providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
- Count 1: Fast and Furious, giving weapons to drug cartels leading to the deaths of a border agent and other Americans.
- Count 2: Benghazi (also 4 counts of 1st Degree Murder by Depraved Indifference).
- Count 3: Libya (providing aid to the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow a nation)
- Count 4: Extortion 17 (Providing information to the Taliban that directly led to the demise of 30 US Servicemen, 24 of which were Navy SEALS. Also brings 30 counts of reckless manslaughter.)
- Count 5: Egypt, aiding the overthrow of a recognized government by providing weapons and money to the Muslim Brotherhood.That should get you started.. Simply do an internet search for Obama scandals.. IRS, Rosengate, and go from there.
That is an incredible amount of “derp” to be packed into such a small number of words, right? The comments are where the real “brilliance” of these people comes to full bear though. “He shouldn’t have to be impeached. He was never really president.” Because you know — Kenya. “If he were white, impeachedment [sic] proceedings would have already begun!!” Ah yes, poor picked upon whitey. Of course, the only other presidents to be brought up on impeachment charges were white, but then again we just elected our first black president five years ago, so that’s not saying much either, is it?
Since you might end up seeing this copy and pasted to your walls or your friends walls from certain tea-trolls you might know, I thought I’d do us all the honor of shutting down these ridiculous thoughts, point by ridiculous point. I think it’s also really important to note the fact that this poster is tacitly approving of the notion that TEApublicans don’t even know what impeachment is, and that he has to point them to Wikipedia for a brush-up. Funny, but I remember my blue state public education telling me all about impeachment back in 8th grade, but anyway…
Without further ado, let us jump head-first into the menagerie of WTF-ery that is this post.
Okay, first and foremost, that’s a charge that the Federal government couldn’t even get to stick to Chelsea Manning. It’s an incredibly hard charge to prove, and even if you thought what Manning did was wrong, you couldn’t prove that anything she said put anyone in danger or helped the enemy in any way. I just thought I’d throw that out there; that these knuckle-draggers actually think in these terms — that President Obama has willfully “aided” the enemy. Unreal.
Count 1: Fast and Furious (giving weapons to drug cartels leading to the deaths of a border agent and other Americans)
When TEApublicans get a hold of a chew toy they do not let it go…ever. That is readily apparent every time they invoke “Fast & Furious,” the first of many fake scandals that Congressman Darrell Issa tried to pin on the Obama administration. The problem of course is that the program that “Fast & Furious” was started under was a Bush II-era program. Secondly, there’s never been a shred of evidence that points back to President Obama having any knowledge of this operation whatsoever. Lastly, and most importantly — perhaps if the NRA hadn’t done its level best to make sure the ATF is a rudderless, essentially leaderless government agency, perhaps more accountability and oversight would have led to the program being ended much sooner. Regardless, you have to go back to the fact that no evidence links back to the Oval Office. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. How do we know this? It’s all in the House Republican’s OWN REPORT!
From Think Progress: “Despite insistence from GOP leadership that the White House was behind the so-called “Fast and Furious” gunwalking program, a report from House Republicans released Tuesday names five officials at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms as culprits in the misguided effort. All five were reassigned before the release of the report — the first of three. The indictments in the report contradict House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) insistence that the President invoked executive privilege over the Justice Department’s information on ongoing investigations to protect his personal interests. The indication, however, is that the upcoming reports will try to tie the President to the program. It will “address the unprecedented obstruction of the investigation by the highest levels of the Justice Department, including the attorney general himself,” according to the Republicans who wrote the report.”
Count 2: Benghazi (also 4 counts of 1st Degree Murder by Depraved Indifference)
Ben Gozzi — It’s the granddaddy of all scandals as far as TEApublicans are concerned, isn’t it? You know, I’ve yet to hear or see one hard right-winger adequately explain what makes the attack on Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 any different than the thirteen separate embassy or consular building attacks that occurred under President Bush. They can’t answer those allegations of hypocrisy because they have no answer for them, of course. The truth is that there are only two reasons why the rank and file Republicans would be so feverish over Benghazi. One is President Obama’s skin color, and the other is his party affiliation. I’m not saying that every Republican is a racist; I’m just saying that racism and rah-rah politics are the only reason why anyone would be more appalled at one Benghazi than they were with one 9/11 and a thirteen separate Benghazis.
Then you have to remember the most important thing — there was no stand down order. There was no request for help that President Obama ignored. All of that is lies. Spurious, damnable lies aimed at creating an alternative historical narrative that the fundies can then beat into their children’s heads so that the distortions live on. Benghazi was a tragedy and the lives that were lost that night are just as tragic, but Romney lost the election in part because he politicized it, and these right-wingers are making the same mistake.
But you know what? I could sit here and debunk the Benghazi talking points until I’m blue in the fingers, but instead, I’ll direct you to a book entitled, “Under Fire,” written by a journalist and a former security agent for diplomats. In it, the authors make it very plain that it’s a complete myth that we had forces close enough to Benghazi to have made a difference during the attack. “There were logistics and host-nation approvals to consider. An immediate response was hampered by the equation of geography and logistics,” according to one passage in the book.
The truth is that then Secretary of Defense Leon Penetta did in fact order our forces to react as quickly as possible, but as another passage in “Under Fire” points out, “…logistical challenges such as airspace and overflight clearances are not easily sorted out, especially involving a nation like Libya.” Apparently the ire over Benghazi from the right is over the laws of physics and the space-time continuum, but good luck convincing them of that fact.
Count 3: Libya (providing aid to the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow a nation)
Honestly? This one makes me crack up. I’m not even mad at them for being so ignorant. The thing is, I would have myself preferred a non-military option for us to be involved in, but that wasn’t in the cards apparently. But even as a pragmatic pacifist, I have to admit that the level of engagement that we had in Libya’s removal of Gaddafi was minimal at most. It was a costly, decade-long excursion in the Middle East propped up by lies and bad intelligence, like Iraq was, right? So how can anyone insist that Obama be impeached for providing air strike coverage in Libya but that we were liberators in Iraq and Bush and Cheney deserve plaudits for their actions is just so absurd as to lose all the credibility they didn’t have in the first place.
More than 20 countries joined forces in a multinational coalition in Libya, unlike Iraq, which was essentially a unilateral decision unsupported by most in the international community. No one aided the Muslim Brotherhood with anything. Though if Republicans want to talk about presidents starting illegal military campaigns, we could go dig up Ronald Reagan and have ourselves a real fun time, Iran Contra style.
Count 4: Extortion 17 (providing information to the Taliban that directly led to the demise of 30 US Servicemen, 24 of which were Navy SEALS — also brings 30 counts of reckless manslaughter)
Okay, if you’re like me you stay clear of the crackpots on the far right. Their conspiracy theories are always based on 2% fact and 98% fervent, partisan hatred of Barack Obama and every Democrat in the country. So I had to actually look “Extortion 17” up. Apparently, and this is so crazy it’s hard for me to type it, there is a growing “scandal” over a Chinook helicopter with Navy SEALS aboard that was shot down in Afghanistan in 2011 and they blame the Obama administration for it because they say when the publicized the killing of Osama Bin Laden they must have magically leaked every single future operation and that’s how Taliban forces were able to shoot down the helicopter.
Just as a reminder: The Iraq War cost us over 4,000 American lives. 4,000. Let that number sink in another few minutes and then re-read the faux-outrage over 38 SEAL team members dying when their helicopter was shot down. I am not downplaying the lives of those SEALs, but you can’t deny the hypocrisy over Extortion 17 and Benghazi when you put Iraq into the mix. That’s what these right-wingers don’t understand — The Iraq War is the ultimate trump card against NeoCons because it was the single worst foreign policy decision of our country’s existence.
Count 5: Egypt (aiding the overthrow of a recognized government by providing weapons and money to the Muslim Brotherhood. That should get you started)
This one is just built on so much false information and stupidity it’s hard to respond. But the truth is we did almost nothing in Egypt as they overthrew the Mubarak regime. We offered help, and we never cut off our aid, but the truth is that many people depend on the aid we give Egypt, and there are any number of reasons, stability in the reason being chief among them, to continue the aid, even as Mubarak was being overthrown. How can we say we support democracy when we start cutting off aid to countries undergoing democratic transformations?
The truth is that Egyptian officials resisted pressure from our country and instead let the “Arab Spring” play itself out in Egypt much to its own devices. In fact, the biggest complaint up to now from the right has been that Obama has been aloof, inactive and indecisive. Now all of a sudden they’re painting him as a brazen war hawk or worse, a war criminal.
I’m offended by this allegation, not because I don’t also lament the over use of military force under Obama’s term, but because it’s so insanely intellectually dishonest for the TEApublicans to light the pitchforks and sharpen the torches over any of these so-called “scandals,” not when less than ten years ago we were all being led by an administration that knowingly brought us into a war that eclipses anything the current president has done on the foreign policy front. Our involvement in Egypt was as close to being strictly humanitarian as it can be, and it all reality we really didn’t do much of that either. And to just add insult to injury, they think we all suffer from the same short-term memory deficits they do.
Do you remember who praised President Obama for his handling of Egypt? No, not Saul Alinksy. Speaker of the House John Boehner, that’s who.
So there you have it folks. The mouth-breathing imbeciles over at Overpasses For Obama’s Impeachment are just another right-wing racist sore-loser convention.
“If he were white, impeachedment [sic] proceedings would have already begun!” – Overpasses “Genius”
See for yourself!