Benghazi Impeachment Suddenly Not So Far-Fetched

[Foxfyre]

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. But there were a LOT of inquiries in that, 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?

The topic of this thread is impeachment

The topic of this thread is whether investigation into Benghazi will uncover a coverup that could result in impeachment. While I think that is highly unlikely, given how much we forgive and shrug off deception, corruption, and graft in government these days, if the government flat out lied about the death of four of our embassy personnel in order to cover their own incompetent asses, we should know that.

If it turns out that President Obama flat out lied to us, we should know that. It won't be a criminal offense and therefore would not be impeachable because the lies were not said under oath. But if further investigation warrants the President and others being deposed under oath--it might take a civil action to accomplish that which was the case with Clinton--and Obama continued to lie, and it it could be proved that he did. . . .

. . . .then yes, that too could be an impeachable offense. To avoid it, the President might have to tell a truth and admit that he had lied.

And frankly, if it went down like that, I would think all honorable Americans should know that. Just as we all should know it if it turns out the President and Secretary of State are telling the truth. Comprehensive investigation is the only way we will know.

I want to know which way it will turn out no matter what that is.

You should too.

 

[Antares]

You want hard evidence, but you don't want an investigation to ascertain it.

You get more stupid everyday Counselor.

Didn't we already have congressional hearings?

Yeah, but they failed to smear the President and Sec. Clinton enough, so we need more.

And of course the ‘hearings’ have nothing to with seeking the ‘truth.’

 

[BallsBrunswick]

This is still a thing? This like watching the several years of conservatives banging their heads against the wall over the birth certificate nonsense. Keep swinging and missing idiots.

 

[rightwinger]

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. But there were a LOT of inquiries in that, 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?

The topic of this thread is impeachment

The topic of this thread is whether investigation into Benghazi will uncover a coverup that could result in impeachment. While I think that is highly unlikely, given how much we forgive and shrug off deception, corruption, and graft in government these days, if the government flat out lied about the death of four of our embassy personnel in order to cover their own incompetent asses, we should know that.

If it turns out that President Obama flat out lied to us, we should know that. It won't be a criminal offense and therefore would not be impeachable because the lies were not said under oath. But if further investigation warrants the President and others being deposed under oath--it might take a civil action to accomplish that which was the case with Clinton--and Obama continued to lie, and it it could be proved that he did. . . .

. . . .then yes, that too could be an impeachable offense. To avoid it, the President might have to tell a truth and admit that he had lied.

And frankly, if it went down like that, I would think all honorable Americans should know that. Just as we all should know it if it turns out the President and Secretary of State are telling the truth. Comprehensive investigation is the only way we will know.

I want to know which way it will turn out no matter what that is.

You should too.

Let's see.......

You have you have a little over 1200 days until Hillary will be up for election. Do you think Republicans can keep the "scandle" going that long?

They harped on Whitewater for seven years

 

[candycorn]

This is still a thing? This like watching the several years of conservatives banging their heads against the wall over the birth certificate nonsense. Keep swinging and missing idiots.

There is a 9/11 Truther aspect to them that is both funny and tragic.

 

[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.

 

[Foxfyre]

The topic of this thread is impeachment

The topic of this thread is whether investigation into Benghazi will uncover a coverup that could result in impeachment. While I think that is highly unlikely, given how much we forgive and shrug off deception, corruption, and graft in government these days, if the government flat out lied about the death of four of our embassy personnel in order to cover their own incompetent asses, we should know that.

If it turns out that President Obama flat out lied to us, we should know that. It won't be a criminal offense and therefore would not be impeachable because the lies were not said under oath. But if further investigation warrants the President and others being deposed under oath--it might take a civil action to accomplish that which was the case with Clinton--and Obama continued to lie, and it it could be proved that he did. . . .

. . . .then yes, that too could be an impeachable offense. To avoid it, the President might have to tell a truth and admit that he had lied.

And frankly, if it went down like that, I would think all honorable Americans should know that. Just as we all should know it if it turns out the President and Secretary of State are telling the truth. Comprehensive investigation is the only way we will know.

I want to know which way it will turn out no matter what that is.

You should too.

Let's see.......

You have you have a little over 1200 days until Hillary will be up for election. Do you think Republicans can keep the "scandle" going that long?

They harped on Whitewater for seven years

Well let's see. How long has the left been accusing the Republicans of going after Clinton for a blow job? Been accusing Reagan for Iran Contra and for destroying America as we know it? Been accusing George W. Bush for single handedly lying us into Iraq and for causing all of Obama's problems? Been citing Watergate as the worst thing any President has ever done. Been accusing Washington and Jefferson of being scum because they owned slaves?

You see, there are all sorts of red herrings we can use. And we can look ahead to future elections too and try to divert the attention there.

Anything to avoid answering a simple question of whether you want your President and government, here and now, at this time, in this moment, to come clean on how four embassy personnel were murdered in Lybia and to answer the honest questions that have come up about that, eh? You're not interested in that. I get it.

But that is what this thread is about. Whether you get it or not.

 

[rightwinger]

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

 

[Desperado]

Benghazi Impeachment Suddenly Not So Far-Fetched
Any reason to get Obama out of office works for me.

 

[Antares]

I can't speak for anyone else, I just want to know the truth.

Obama NEVER tells the truth, I would like an independent counsel appointed.

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

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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

No.

It is obviously motivated at least in part by partisan politics.

Thankfully, there is also good legitimate reason to check into what the Administration knew, when it knew it, what it did, what it didn't do, WHEN it acted and failed to act and whether or not The ONE and his crew found it necessary for their own illegitimate partisan political reasons to engage in a cover-up.

 

[Zona]

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.

And you can shove it up your wingnut ass.

You're a fuckin' moron for even entertaining the idea that it would be a good idea to use f-18s in the first place.

^ studiously obtuse.

Fucking leftwing fubar hacks like Erik the Dejected are funny.

For all the wrong reasons.

Please see my sig. You fucking lie.

God bless.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

And you can shove it up your wingnut ass.

You're a fuckin' moron for even entertaining the idea that it would be a good idea to use f-18s in the first place.

^ studiously obtuse.

Fucking leftwing fubar hacks like Erik the Dejected are funny.

For all the wrong reasons.

Please see my sig. You fucking lie.

God bless.

Your sig line remains as irrelevant as you. Dishonest, too.

You remain the liar, moreover.

Meanwhile, you either missed or dodged the point. Again.

You are a gutless coward lying liberal hack, Petey.

 

[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.

 

[Borillar]

Hey......Republicans impeached over a blowjob, they could impeach over this

Those assholes would impeach over a fart in the elevator.

 

[MondoBongo]

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.

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.

 

[hunarcy]

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.

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.

Here's a story from 2010 that seems relevant to your post.

Iraq did have chemical WMD, WikiLeaks documents reveal - NYPOST.com

 

[yidnar]

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 !!

 

[Wolfsister77]

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

 

[deltex1]

Obama Schedule || Wednesday, September 12, 2012
by KEITH KOFFLER on SEPTEMBER 11, 2012, 10:09 PM
10:45 am || Receives the Presidential Daily Briefing
1:15 pm || Departs White House
3:00 pm PT || Arrives Las Vegas, Nevada
5:25 pm PT || Delivers remarks at a campaign event; Cashman Center, Las Vegas
6:40 pm PT || Departs Las Vegas, Nevada
9:10 pm MT || Arrives Aurora, Colorado