Benghazi Impeachment Suddenly Not So Far-Fetched

[MondoBongo]

the left is fine with the death of 4 Americans as long as it doesn't hurt them in elections !! America is going to be very angry when the truth comes out !!

Um...no. But again, I'd hate the people you made up in your head and labeled as "the left" too. They are some seriously America hating assholes.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The liberoidals yuk it up, now. But it is not convincing.

There are even a few honest liberals out there who see this matter as one involving some risk to The ONE's viability as their "leader."

Imagine that. There ARE liberals who take the piss-poor performance of The ONE in a matter involving embassy security as something significant.

In any of that subjective partisan bluster, do you have any objective evidence or proof.

Objective evidence or proof that there ARE some liberals who consider this story concerning Obama's performance to be potentially damaging to his role as "leader?"

What?

You can't find any evidence of any objective liberals, Adam_Clayton?

The very notion stresses you out?

 

[deltex1]

Well, I'm not sure if this thread is about Benghazi or WMD's but there were no WMD's in Iraq when we invaded because Saddam destroyed them all.

After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration formed the Iraq Survey Group and tasked it with the job of locating WMD stockpiles in Iraq. The ISG was staffed with hundreds of intelligence analysts and military personnel from the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. The group scoured Iraq, searching for deposits of weapons.

After nearly two years of investigation, the ISG concluded that:

"Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter."

"In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW [biological warfare] weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes."

Experts from the three nations failed to document any existent biological or nuclear weapons and discovered only a few random chemical weapons. The ISG concluded that contrary to what most of the world had believed, Iraq had abandoned attempts to produce WMDs. In his congressional testimony, the head of the ISG, Charles Duelfer, admitted, "We were almost all wrong" on Iraq.

The ISG report was sufficient to convince the Bush administration that there were no WMDs to be found; they called off the search in 2005.

FactCheck.org : No WMDs in Iraq

You don't know what you don't know.

 

[yidnar]

Does anyone really have any doubts as to the motives behind this Republican "investigation"?

nope ...we want to find out why no help was sent when it was requested ....they begged for help for over 7 hrs ...why was help not sent and why are dems in power saying they knew nothing about the attack ?? are you trying to tell us that a US embassy was under attack for 7 hours and when told to stand down Navy Seals disobeyed and tried protect Americans is no big deal ?? the same seals that begged for tactical support after disobeying stand down orders during the firefight were denied and died because of inaction by the administration ,because the higher ups didn't know the attacks were going on at a ******* US embassy ?? come on !! this is a big story !! it matters !!

 

[Wehrwolfen]

That's just wrong. It's factually wrong. But since you refuse to answer my questions on the subject, I guess you don't care to educate yourself.

I've answered everyone of your questions if they were relevant. And it is factually correct. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on the Kurds in his own country. And in case you do not know this, chemical weapons are classified as WMDs. You are wrong, be man enough to either admit it or to back up the bull shit you spout.

The event you are referencing happened when Ronald Reagan was president. It's as irrelevant to the discussion of WMD as you are to real life.

Oh, so you pardon Saddam Hussein for using WMD while Reagan was president so under Bush you claim he didn't do it? Can you cite any documentation showing that Saddam Hussein did not use WMD on the Kurds in 2001, 02, or 2003?

 

[Wehrwolfen]

As usual the sheer hypocrisy of the Democratic Left is awesome. Here when a Democratic Party Office is broken into they are capable and rightly so to drive Nixon out of office. It was the following lies that did it.
Now we have the incompetency of the 44th president coming to the forefront. We know that he refused to send help to rescue the Ambassador and nearly three dozen Americans in two locations in Benghazi. We also know that The State Dept. directed by Hillary Clinton hired al Qaeda connected group to provide security for Ambassador Chris Stevens. (Sounds more like the Fox guarding the Hen House).
We can accept his incompetency in this matter along with the incompetency of the State Dept. Leader Obama chose.
However, WE CANNOT and WILL NOT accept the lies and cover-up for the last 8 months that have followed the incident.
No one died in the Water-Gate incident. In the Benghazi-Gate 4 Americans died and more than several were wounded. Obama is ultimately responsible and should pay for his incompetence, attempted follow-up, and the lies that have followed.

 

[kiwiman127]

I love threads like this one, finger pointing and hypocrisy from both directions.
The bottom-line is, yup it was a Obama **** up and the right jumped all over it. The deaths during "W's" at US Embassies and Consulates didn't come up as a big deal because the libs weren't as hot about "getting" "W" as the righties are about "getting" Obama, so all of it passed by. That's what happens when you have wienies on one side and over-zealousness on the other side.

 

[freedombecki]

you know Obama is guilty of something when the libs start attacking bush again

I don't usually watch television, but tonight, Mike Huckabee was talking about Benghazi and showed some very interesting details about the upcoming Senate hearing next week (maybe tomorrow?) with three silenced whistleblowers, one of who was close to the Ambassador who died.

What administration officials didn't do was much worse than the lies they told because four Americans engaged in Middle Eastern affairs were killed, and the information will shock good people when it becomes widely known. Only trouble is, the leftist media may skip it entirely as they do when something Obama did goes against America's Constitution.

 

[Zona]

the left is fine with the death of 4 Americans as long as it doesn't hurt them in elections !! America is going to be very angry when the truth comes out !!

the RIGHT is fine with the death of 4000 Americans as long as it doesn't hurt them in elections !! America is going to be very angry when the truth comes out

 

[Wehrwolfen]

I love threads like this one, finger pointing and hypocrisy from both directions.
The bottom-line is, yup it was a Obama **** up and the right jumped all over it. The deaths during "W's" at US Embassies and Consulates didn't come up as a big deal because the libs weren't as hot about "getting" "W" as the righties are about "getting" Obama, so all of it passed by. That's what happens when you have wienies on one side and over-zealousness on the other side.

Yes as always the Kettle continues to call the pot black.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The liberoidals yuk it up, now. But it is not convincing.

There are even a few honest liberals out there who see this matter as one involving some risk to The ONE's viability as their "leader."

Imagine that. There ARE liberals who take the piss-poor performance of The ONE in a matter involving embassy security as something significant.

In any of that subjective partisan bluster, do you have any objective evidence or proof.

Objective evidence or proof that there ARE some liberals who consider this story concerning Obama's performance to be potentially damaging to his role as "leader?"

What?

You can't find any evidence of any objective liberals, Adam_Clayton?

The very notion stresses you out?

We’ll take that as a ‘no.’

 

[rdean]

Lotsa deflection here. Lots of folks who don't seem to want to discuss the topic but are building straw men and throwing out red herrings all over the place. Anything to divert attention away from the topic, eh?

But why wouldn't ANY American want to know what happened at Benghazi? Are you so afraid it won't look good for the exalted one or other party leaders that you want it buried now and never looked at it again? Are we all supposed to just blindly put faith in those in government to be honest, ethical, forthcoming, and decent because they are Democrats?

Can you folks defending the Obama Administration honestly say that would be your position if George W. Bush was president?

If the Obama Administration is honest, ethical, and above approach, then let's air everything openly and honestly and prove it. The only reason I can think of that you wouldn't want that is because you are terribly afraid a full investigation wouldn't come out that way.

Didn't we already have congressional hearings?

Did we have impeachment for fact finding after 9-11?

I am unaware that President Bush or any other high ranking official was indicted for any violation of law, for perjury, for unethical behavior as a result of the hearings after 9/11. Scooter Libby was indicted and convicted in a separate special investigation over the Valerie Plame incident. But there were a LOT of inquiries into a lot of thngs involving the Bush Administration, into the Iraq war, etc. etc. etc. I don't remember much of the Bush years that somebody wasn't trying to hang him for something. But I did not object to the serious inquiries.

Mistakes and miscalculations are one thing. Intentional wrong doing and coverup is something else quite again. And we should demand openness, ethical behavior, and honesty as much as possible from our government no matter who is in office.

We have held some inquiries into Benghazi, yes, but not a single hearing that involves a witness who was actually there. Do you not think it appropriate that Congress and we the people hear the testimony of those who were there? Who can tell what was happening on their end? And whether any wrong decisions or orders from government have been covered up to protect the guilty? Whether the testimony of those who were there has been suppressed?

If you are sure that your heroes are innocent, why are you so reluctant to allow them to prove it?

I'm sure Republicans being in charge of congress for 6 of Bush's 8 years had nothing to do with him not being investigated.

****, remember when 9 billion in $100 bills simply "vanished". Only a total moron would believe that was an isolated incident. What if Obama had done that with this Republican congress?

And Republicans even blocked Obama from investigating the BP oil spill? How can that be? How can they **** this country balls deep like that and even apologize to BP? Don't USMB Republicans ever ask themselves, "What kind of people are we electing into office? Apparently they do. People who will stop Obama from doing anything. Even if it means helping disaster victims. It's OK for Americans to suffer if we can just stop that black boy. We want to ruin him. How dare he live in the WHITE House. And there you have it.

Subpoena power in BP oil spill investigation blocked by Senate Republicans

 

[rdean]

Lotsa deflection here. Lots of folks who don't seem to want to discuss the topic but are building straw men and throwing out red herrings all over the place. Anything to divert attention away from the topic, eh?

But why wouldn't ANY American want to know what happened at Benghazi? Are you so afraid it won't look good for the exalted one or other party leaders that you want it buried now and never looked at it again? Are we all supposed to just blindly put faith in those in government to be honest, ethical, forthcoming, and decent because they are Democrats?

Can you folks defending the Obama Administration honestly say that would be your position if George W. Bush was president?

If the Obama Administration is honest, ethical, and above approach, then let's air everything openly and honestly and prove it. The only reason I can think of that you wouldn't want that is because you are terribly afraid a full investigation wouldn't come out that way.

Considering Bush let Bin Laden go and invaded the wrong country, I can easily say, "Probably".

President Bush NEVER let bin Laden go.

Liberals cannot stop lying.

I listen to Bush before I listen to fuckface.



I like the one comment below the video:

It was useful to keep the fear of Bin Laden alive and lurking as a constant threat.

At the end of the video, Bush said Bin Laden had no place to train. Well, actually, once Bush opened Iraq for Bin Laden and al Qaeda, there were plenty of places to "train".

 

[Wehrwolfen]

the left is fine with the death of 4 Americans as long as it doesn't hurt them in elections !! America is going to be very angry when the truth comes out !!

the RIGHT is fine with the death of 4000 Americans as long as it doesn't hurt them in elections !! America is going to be very angry when the truth comes out

Democrats Share the Blame for Tragedy of Iraq War
17 March 2013
By Stephen Zunes
Op-Ed

U.S. Army Soldiers training at Camp Buerhing, Kuwait, Feb. 14, 2010, in preparation for a security mission prior to deploying to Iraq.U.S. Army Soldiers training at Camp Buerhing, Kuwait, Feb. 14, 2010, in preparation for a security mission prior to deploying to Iraq. (Photo: The National Guard)The Democrats who voted to support the war and rationalized that vote by making false claims about Iraq's WMD programs - a minority of Democrats, but much over-represented in Democratic leadership councils - were responsible for allowing the Bush administration to get away with lying about Iraq's alleged threat.

Here on the tenth anniversary of the Iraq War, it is important to remember that it was not just those in the Bush White House who were responsible for the tragedy, but leading members of Congress as well, some of whom are now in senior positions in the Obama administration.
Democrats Share the Blame for Tragedy of Iraq War

IMHO, the snip of the article I just quoted should put your shrill lying voice to bed. Remember there are those Democrats that claimed they 'voted for the war before they voted against it'. If I'm not mistake, both Secretaries of State in the Obama administration voted for the war with Iraq. Touche` mon ami.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

rderp
rderp is online now

rderp
Member #*****

LIBERALISM is all there is! Nothing else MATTERS. It is the way the truth and the light. It is written. Conservatives are all dishonest racist homophobic xenophobic misogynistic 1% scum.

Hillary is my Goddess. I would eat her out, happily, any time. Even her lies are my truth.

I only wish that Republicans and conservatives could be as objective and honest as me and my soul mate, Troofmatters.

Oy vey.

 

[georgephillip]

"'The Arab revolutions have scrambled power dynamics and shattered security forces across the region,' Clinton said in her testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 'Instability in Mali has created an expanding safe haven for terrorists who look to extend their influence and plot further attacks of the kind we saw just last week in Algeria.'

"These events are what critics should be pressing President Obama and his foreign policy team about. Instead, they make themselves look petty and foolish by narrowing their focus to one word: Benghazi."

Critics should be pressing both parties to answer why the last six presidents and their lackeys have continued to supply weapons and training to some of the most violent Islamic extremists in the Middle East and North Caucasus.

Maybe Wesley Clark knew that answer ten years ago?

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.'"

 

[TemplarKormac]

you know Obama is guilty of something when the libs start attacking bush again

I don't usually watch television, but tonight, Mike Huckabee was talking about Benghazi and showed some very interesting details about the upcoming Senate hearing next week (maybe tomorrow?) with three silenced whistleblowers, one of who was close to the Ambassador who died.

What administration officials didn't do was much worse than the lies they told because four Americans engaged in Middle Eastern affairs were killed, and the information will shock good people when it becomes widely known. Only trouble is, the leftist media may skip it entirely as they do when something Obama did goes against America's Constitution.

Hearings begin May 8th. This coming Wednesday. Mark your calendar!

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

How could it compare to Watergate? Nobody got killed because of Watergate?

Nixons corruption was exposed and was infinantly worse than a military assault on a diplomatic outpost. How many Republicans voted for impeaching Nixon?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

How could it compare to Watergate? Nobody got killed because of Watergate?

Nixons corruption was exposed and was infinantly worse than a military assault on a diplomatic outpost. How many Republicans voted for impeaching Nixon?

Worse than a cover-up and four dead Americans?

Hardly.

Obama's corruption will be exposed as well.

 

[BlindBoo]

Wrong. Saddam had WMDs, he used them on the Kurds so that is proof that he had them. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, and John Kerry also stated that Saddam had WMDs.

Sorry, you lose. Obama lied, Bush did not. There is no comparison to Benghazi and all the twisting and spinning you have in you won't change that simple fact.

That's just wrong. It's factually wrong. But since you refuse to answer my questions on the subject, I guess you don't care to educate yourself.

It is factually CORRECT to say that Saddam used some of his WMDs on the Kurds.

That out of the way, feel free to educate the masses.

It is also factually correct to say that because of the support the Raygun adminstration provided to Saddam he was able to develop sophisicated chemical, biological and was well on his was to developing a nuclear weapon. He was allow to purchase Bell Helicopters for the US that were used in the attacks on the Kurds. It is also a fact that the US was aware that Saddam had used gas on the Iranians as well as the Kurd. It is also a fact that Raygun did nothing about it.

It is also a fact that the Bush Administrations' claims were that he was actively producing and stockpiling these weapons.