Benghazi Impeachment Suddenly Not So Far-Fetched

[Redfish]

The ONE is not getting impeached. Not over Benghazi. An not over anything else. Not even if there was a high crime and/or misdemeanor to justify it. It is just not going to happen. Period.

yes, the kenyan messiah is above the law of mere mortals.

 

[PredFan]

Mondobongo, because you are a lefty and because i happen to have the time and energy i will help you with the line of discussion since you seem to be having difficulty. It's a lot for you to grasp so I've put notes in to help you.

Here's the relevant point at which I was joining in on the discussion:

Nope.

Obama lied about Benghazi.

We don't leave service folks to die at the hands of our enemies. We do everything we can to protect them.

Leftys try to distract the discussion with talk about Bush:

60 consulate deaths under Bush......how much help did he send?

We know about 9-11 .....My Pet Goat was more important

Then there is thIS answer:

Which deaths did Bush lie about?

And then mustang's complete bull shit response:

All of them.

At this point I could see the obvious deflection comeing from the left so I asked this question:

Try to keep on the subject and name one.

Then there is this erroneous repsonse:

Every single person killed in Iraq, including 4,000+ American soldiers, because of "WMD."

Are you with me so far? We are talking about comparisons with Bengazi cover up and lies. YOU claim WMDs was a lie.

1. Saddam Hussein had WMDs, that is a fact. he used them against the Kurds in his own country.
2. Bush didn't attempt to cover it up.
3. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Kerry and Barney Frank all stated that Saddam had WMDs.

You fail.[\quote]

Remember YOU brought up WMDs, not me. then you respond with 3 completely irrelevant questions:

Three questions:

1. What year was that?
2. Who was President of the US at the time?
3. What did that President do in response?

And I don't give a shit who said Saddam Hussein had WMD - George Bush was the president and therefore, the buck stops with him, right?

Your post here in no way has anything to do with a coverup of any kind.

Got it now? You're welcome.

 

[PredFan]

Irony, thy name is PredFan.

Do you also need help with the definition of "irony"?

You are correct. The word I should have used was "hypocrisy."

Yeah no. Get a dictionary.

 

[PredFan]

Were my questions too difficult for you? You brought up "gassing the Kurds." I'm just asking you to expound on the point you were attempting to make.

Please, TRY to keep up with the line of discussion. Do you need help with it?

I don't think YOU should be treating me as if I am stupid when clearly I am not. YOU brought up the gassing of the Kurds. Why won't you then say what year that was? Are we all just supposed to accept your silly talking point without question? Is that what you expect?

No dumbass, YOU brought up WMDs, which in case you don't know, includes chemical weapons. like the kind used to gas the Kurds. I said it in response to your claim that Bush lied about WMDs. Hope my previous post cleared that up for you.

 

[PredFan]

Why do the least intelligent nutters costantly insult the intelligence of others? Is it a defense mechanism?

It's easy to turn it into some sort of personal attack fest. I try to stay away from it but don't always manage to.

Look, if we were going to send fighter jets into another country to disperse a crowd, we could expect the same treatment when we have protests outside of embassies and consulates here...we're not able to simply say, "Well, we can do it but you can't."

We could, of course, because we have such a large, well-trained, military but the idea that anytime we don't like what is going on in another country, we send in that military is brain dead thinking which leads to people like these two clowns in Boston, guys trying to light their shoes on fire to blow up planes, the under ware bomber...

There are times when our vital interests are threatened and we must act; then there are times when clearly those interests are not on the table.

Lybia was one of those times. Anyone who says it is, well, they are simply unsophisticated about the realities of the world. Sorry.

You also try to stay away from direct questions about your posts.

And WTF? the attackers at Benghazi was simply a crowd to be dispersed?

You are truely an ignorant individual.

 

[PredFan]

Please, TRY to keep up with the line of discussion. Do you need help with it?

I don't think YOU should be treating me as if I am stupid when clearly I am not. YOU brought up the gassing of the Kurds. Why won't you then say what year that was? Are we all just supposed to accept your silly talking point without question? Is that what you expect?

He's trying to be the resident "Internet tough guy." It's funny.

Asking people to stay on task is being a tough guy? Call me a tough guy then.

 

[PredFan]

I don't think YOU should be treating me as if I am stupid when clearly I am not. YOU brought up the gassing of the Kurds. Why won't you then say what year that was? Are we all just supposed to accept your silly talking point without question? Is that what you expect?

He's trying to be the resident "Internet tough guy." It's funny.

I have found that it's usually the stupidest people who accuse others of being stupid. In any case, I refuse to allow him to drag me down to his level. He'll beat me with experience.

Typical, you avoid, obfuscate, dodge and spin, and then claim it's because you're so much smarter than others. Yes, I call people stupid, perhaps way too much but I back my claims up, I stick to the subject and discussion, and I don't avoid questions. it's because I'm smart enough to be able to handle the argument and don't need to slink off massaging my bruised ego.

 

[PredFan]

The ONE is not getting impeached. Not over Benghazi. An not over anything else. Not even if there was a high crime and/or misdemeanor to justify it. It is just not going to happen. Period.

True, not as long as obama and the democrat party controls the majority of the media and most of the government.

 

[Annie]

Wanna put a bet on it?

No. I think it's unlikely the media would go far enough to force a rethinking of Obama by those that voted for him. However, I do think they will write and discuss enough to cement his very early lame duck status. With this 'so long ago' topic, along with the issues with the Boston jihadis, throw in Syria, Iran, Iraq, Gitmo, baring a miracle, he's done.

 

[Zarius]

Bring it on.

I didn't know that about Bush. Hey anyone on the right made at Bush for all those deaths?

 

[candycorn]

Bring it on.

You all seem to like that one...

 

[PoliticalChic]

No crime. No cover-up. It's amazing how little history some people know, that they'd actually think this compares to Watergate in any way.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B7dZReimPI]Hillary's Benghazi "What Difference Does It Make Remix" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[candycorn]

Bring it on.

I didn't know that about Bush. Hey anyone on the right made at Bush for all those deaths?

Apparently the deaths did not involve Americans so it's perfectly okay with the right that there is no outrage over it. Still 10 attacks that largely went unpunished and were "allowed" to happen without his activating the 82nd Airborne and the not sending in the B-52's seems, in light of the comments made about Ben Gotcha, like negligence on his part.

Just be consistent guys.

 

[PredFan]

Bring it on.

I didn't know that about Bush. Hey anyone on the right made at Bush for all those deaths?

Apparently the deaths did not involve Americans so it's perfectly okay with the right that there is no outrage over it. Still 10 attacks that largely went unpunished and were "allowed" to happen without his activating the 82nd Airborne and the not sending in the B-52's seems, in light of the comments made about Ben Gotcha, like negligence on his part.

Just be consistent guys.

Still waiting for you so tell us how that is in any way relevant to Benghazi. Bush didn't lie about them, nor did he attempt to cover them up. yes, people died but people have died and are still dying under obama. How is it relevant?

You ask for consistancy, how about some consistancy from you. If it is irrelevant, and and therefor inconsistant itself, then it IS NOT possible for us to be consistant?

 

[EriktheRed]

It was quite obviously an attack. Not a protest. Even given the very unlikely event that Obama didn't know it wasn't a protest, it would soon prove to actually be an attack and yet those fighters were STILL never sent.

F-18s?

Are you ******* nuts?

No.

And with that denial, the only other possibility is that you're a fuckin' moron.

 

[PredFan]

F-18s?

Are you ******* nuts?

No.

And with that denial, the only other possibility is that you're a fuckin' moron.

And how is that? It's easy for dumbasses like you to make that claim, it's quite another thing for you to prove it. I didn't bring F-18s up, I responded to an idiotic post and RW went off on a tangent. then you, being totally ignorant of the line of discussion and too lazy to check, come up that that brilliant post.

Dumbass.

 

[PredFan]

Man, the lefties are lining up to get pwned today!

 

[Zona]

This should get all the turds in here to start foaming at the mouth:

On October 27th, 2012, only days before the presidential election, I wrote:

If Barack Obama is reelected, will he face impeachment over Benghazi — a yet more unpleasant and far more wrenching result than to lose an election?

It could happen — and in my estimation should happen — the way revelations are playing out over the bloody terror attack that took four American lives and has led to weeks of prevarication and obfuscation.

The scandal thus far has at least tarnished and quite possibly implicated everyone from the CIA director, to the secretaries of State and Defense, to the UN ambassador and, of course, the president himself — with no end in sight, because Obama, normally loath to expose himself and even less so in an election season, refuses to answer questions on the subject.

It’s not the crime, but the cover-up, we learned in an earlier impeachment, only in this case the crime may be just as bad or worse.”

Roger L. Simon » Benghazi Impeachment Suddenly Not So Far-Fetched

Let us know how this turns out.

 

[candycorn]

I didn't know that about Bush. Hey anyone on the right made at Bush for all those deaths?

Apparently the deaths did not involve Americans so it's perfectly okay with the right that there is no outrage over it. Still 10 attacks that largely went unpunished and were "allowed" to happen without his activating the 82nd Airborne and the not sending in the B-52's seems, in light of the comments made about Ben Gotcha, like negligence on his part.

Just be consistent guys.

Still waiting for you so tell us how that is in any way relevant to Benghazi. Bush didn't lie about them, nor did he attempt to cover them up. yes, people died but people have died and are still dying under obama. How is it relevant?

You ask for consistancy, how about some consistancy from you. If it is irrelevant, and and therefor inconsistant itself, then it IS NOT possible for us to be consistant?

You want impeachment for Obama
You didn't want it for Bush

The relevance is in the reaction...not a peep about people dying under Bush, you're ready to impeach Obama for what was still tragic but way fewer deaths. As for the "lying" part...Tom Ridge said that the terror threat level was massaged under Bush for political effect. Are you ready to impeach Bush now after the fact or are we still pretending you're impartial?

Tom Ridge: I Was Pressured To Raise Terror Alert To Help Bush Win

 

[Wolfsister77]

I see a lot of guilty until proven innocent scenarios in here but not facts. We'll see how the hearings go this week. Until then, it's nothing but speculation. No proof. Many of you would make terrible jurors.