Benghazi Impeachment Suddenly Not So Far-Fetched

[RandallFlagg]

Nobody has accused anybody other than the hijackers for the deaths of 9-11, though many of your group have accused President Bush, eight months into his first term, of ignoring the warnings that it was going to happen. If there were people willing to testify that they had given the President a heads up on that, and others say they were ready to act to prevent it and were told to stand down, would you not think that would warrant an investigation? Did you object to the MANY investigations that were conducted exhaustively during the Bush administration re 9/11 and everything else? I didn't.

Nobody has accused anybody other than the Benghazi terrorists for the deaths of four embassy personnel and injuries to others. But we now have people saying they repeatedly asked for increased security after the President and State Department have stated they knew nothing about that. We have people saying they were ready to act to go to the rescue of the embassy personnel and were told to stand down.

Do you honestly think that doesn't warrant investigation? And OPEN investigation now that it is public knowledge so that we can get to the truth of it, whatever that truth might be? Isn't it important to know that whether our government would lie to us about a matter of that importance? To make sure that a serious error, if there was one, is not repeated?

Can you say that you would not be demanding it loud and clear if it was Romney in the White House instead of Barack Obama?

This is the crux of the matter. We currently have a president who claimed that he would have the "most open and transparent administration" in the history of politics yet has threatened Benghazi survivors with termination, loss of security clearances, and pensions if they failed to "remain silent" about events that took place at the consulate.

Now, the left simply can not have it both ways. Either they WANT to get at the truth, or they want, once again, to give this poseur of a president yet another "pass". Or, it is as "Hillary the Wide" said so eloquently at her "hearing" - "What difference does it make"!?!?

We currently are enduring an administration that is every bit as corrupt as the Nixon Administration yet there is no political will by the left to even question this man.

Yet the left bristles their neck hair when the right accuses them of hypocrisy........

You Ben-Gaters are every bit as hillarious as the Birther. Nixon was force to resign by his own party. 40 others in his adminstration were convicted and served time. The only other modern day Administration that was more corrupt was Rayguns.

I'll say this once again, so even "slow-thinkers" (like you) can keep up. YOUR party REFUSES to demand answers from this president. YOUR PARTY. YOUR party REFUSES to take this president to task. YOUR party simply follows lock-step with anything this "man" tells you. You have bought into his lies hook, line and sinker.

YOUR party.

YOU either demand the SAME that you absolutely DEMAND from the republicans, or you are what the right already knows - hypocrites. What's it going to be??

*crickets chirping*

 

[Foxfyre]

Nobody has accused anybody other than the hijackers for the deaths of 9-11, though many of your group have accused President Bush, eight months into his first term, of ignoring the warnings that it was going to happen. If there were people willing to testify that they had given the President a heads up on that, and others say they were ready to act to prevent it and were told to stand down, would you not think that would warrant an investigation? Did you object to the MANY investigations that were conducted exhaustively during the Bush administration re 9/11 and everything else? I didn't.

Nobody has accused anybody other than the Benghazi terrorists for the deaths of four embassy personnel and injuries to others. But we now have people saying they repeatedly asked for increased security after the President and State Department have stated they knew nothing about that. We have people saying they were ready to act to go to the rescue of the embassy personnel and were told to stand down.

Do you honestly think that doesn't warrant investigation? And OPEN investigation now that it is public knowledge so that we can get to the truth of it, whatever that truth might be? Isn't it important to know that whether our government would lie to us about a matter of that importance? To make sure that a serious error, if there was one, is not repeated?

Can you say that you would not be demanding it loud and clear if it was Romney in the White House instead of Barack Obama?

This is the crux of the matter. We currently have a president who claimed that he would have the "most open and transparent administration" in the history of politics yet has threatened Benghazi survivors with termination, loss of security clearances, and pensions if they failed to "remain silent" about events that took place at the consulate.

Now, the left simply can not have it both ways. Either they WANT to get at the truth, or they want, once again, to give this poseur of a president yet another "pass". Or, it is as "Hillary the Wide" said so eloquently at her "hearing" - "What difference does it make"!?!?

We currently are enduring an administration that is every bit as corrupt as the Nixon Administration yet there is no political will by the left to even question this man.

Yet the left bristles their neck hair when the right accuses them of hypocrisy........

You Ben-Gaters are every bit as hillarious as the Birther. Nixon was force to resign by his own party. 40 others in his adminstration were convicted and served time. The only other modern day Administration that was more corrupt was Rayguns.

Whatever happened during the Nixon administration is important re Benghazi how? (And perhaps you forget the days and days and days of televised Watergate hearings that resulted in Nixon resigning? Nobody died or was even in danger in the Watergate scandal, and Nixon had nothing to do with it His only sin regarding that was participating in the coverup. Is that what you are so afraid of for Obama if questions are asked about Benghazi? Would lying, not even under oath, be sufficient to force a President to resign these days?)

What happend during Reagan's administration is important to Benghazi how? (And perhaps you forget the months and years of investigation into Iran Contra at an unprecedented cost of mega millions that was almost desperate to convict President Reagan and/or his vice president for something. The Democratically controlled house and senate gave it their all to hang Reagan with something, but the special prosecutor finally admitted there was nothing at all there to charge him with.) The full report was then made fully public. Do you think Obama should be above any kind of similar scrutiny? Are you so terrified that he wouldn't come out as well as Reagan did?

 

[rightwinger]

This is the crux of the matter. We currently have a president who claimed that he would have the "most open and transparent administration" in the history of politics yet has threatened Benghazi survivors with termination, loss of security clearances, and pensions if they failed to "remain silent" about events that took place at the consulate.

Now, the left simply can not have it both ways. Either they WANT to get at the truth, or they want, once again, to give this poseur of a president yet another "pass". Or, it is as "Hillary the Wide" said so eloquently at her "hearing" - "What difference does it make"!?!?

We currently are enduring an administration that is every bit as corrupt as the Nixon Administration yet there is no political will by the left to even question this man.

Yet the left bristles their neck hair when the right accuses them of hypocrisy........

You Ben-Gaters are every bit as hillarious as the Birther. Nixon was force to resign by his own party. 40 others in his adminstration were convicted and served time. The only other modern day Administration that was more corrupt was Rayguns.

Whatever happened during the Nixon administration is important re Benghazi how? (And perhaps you forget the days and days and days of televised Watergate hearings that resulted in Nixon resigning? Nobody died or was even in danger in the Watergate scandal, and Nixon had nothing to do with it His only sin regarding that was participating in the coverup. Is that what you are so afraid of for Obama if questions are asked about Benghazi?)

What happend during Reagan's administration is important to Benghazi how? (And perhaps you forget the months and years of investigation into Iran Contra at an unprecented cost of mega millions that was almost desperate to convict President Reagan and/or his vice president for something. The Democratically controlled house and senate gave it their all to hang Reagan with something, but the special prosecutor finally admitted there was nothing at all there to charge him with.) Do you think Obama should be above any kind of similar scrutiny? Are you so terrified that he wouldn't come out as well as Reagan did?

What help should have been sent?
What help could have been sent
Why did Republicans cut funding to embassy security?

 

[Mustang]

Nobody has accused anybody other than the hijackers for the deaths of 9-11, though many of your group have accused President Bush, eight months into his first term, of ignoring the warnings that it was going to happen. If there were people willing to testify that they had given the President a heads up on that, and others say they were ready to act to prevent it and were told to stand down, would you not think that would warrant an investigation? Did you object to the MANY investigations that were conducted exhaustively during the Bush administration re 9/11 and everything else? I didn't.

Nobody has accused anybody other than the Benghazi terrorists for the deaths of four embassy personnel and injuries to others. But we now have people saying they repeatedly asked for increased security after the President and State Department have stated they knew nothing about that. We have people saying they were ready to act to go to the rescue of the embassy personnel and were told to stand down.

Do you honestly think that doesn't warrant investigation? And OPEN investigation now that it is public knowledge so that we can get to the truth of it, whatever that truth might be? Isn't it important to know that whether our government would lie to us about a matter of that importance? To make sure that a serious error, if there was one, is not repeated?

Can you say that you would not be demanding it loud and clear if it was Romney in the White House instead of Barack Obama?

This is the crux of the matter. We currently have a president who claimed that he would have the "most open and transparent administration" in the history of politics yet has threatened Benghazi survivors with termination, loss of security clearances, and pensions if they failed to "remain silent" about events that took place at the consulate.

Now, the left simply can not have it both ways. Either they WANT to get at the truth, or they want, once again, to give this poseur of a president yet another "pass". Or, it is as "Hillary the Wide" said so eloquently at her "hearing" - "What difference does it make"!?!?

We currently are enduring an administration that is every bit as corrupt as the Nixon Administration yet there is no political will by the left to even question this man.

Yet the left bristles their neck hair when the right accuses them of hypocrisy........

You Ben-Gaters are every bit as hillarious as the Birther. Nixon was force to resign by his own party. 40 others in his adminstration were convicted and served time. The only other modern day Administration that was more corrupt was Rayguns.

You know what always made me laugh about the birthers? It's that their champion (Orly Taitz) is a damn foreigner. So, one can't help but wonder who they are going to dig up to be their champion in the so-called Benghazi issue. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the right embraced a Libyan terrorist if they thought he could help them impeach Obama.

 

[Foxfyre]

You Ben-Gaters are every bit as hillarious as the Birther. Nixon was force to resign by his own party. 40 others in his adminstration were convicted and served time. The only other modern day Administration that was more corrupt was Rayguns.

Whatever happened during the Nixon administration is important re Benghazi how? (And perhaps you forget the days and days and days of televised Watergate hearings that resulted in Nixon resigning? Nobody died or was even in danger in the Watergate scandal, and Nixon had nothing to do with it His only sin regarding that was participating in the coverup. Is that what you are so afraid of for Obama if questions are asked about Benghazi?)

What happend during Reagan's administration is important to Benghazi how? (And perhaps you forget the months and years of investigation into Iran Contra at an unprecented cost of mega millions that was almost desperate to convict President Reagan and/or his vice president for something. The Democratically controlled house and senate gave it their all to hang Reagan with something, but the special prosecutor finally admitted there was nothing at all there to charge him with.) Do you think Obama should be above any kind of similar scrutiny? Are you so terrified that he wouldn't come out as well as Reagan did?

What help should have been sent?
What help could have been sent
Why did Republicans cut funding to embassy security?

Well, maybe if we have a comprehensive investigation into the matter, we might find out those answers don't you think?

As for the funding, remember that the appropriations bills must be voted by the House, Senate, and signed off by the President:

But indeed whether a small reduction in appropriations was a factor in refusal to send requested additional security should definitely be on the table for discussion.

Edit to add link and summary for the appropriations table posted:

It is tempting to look for a scapegoat for the tragic events in Libya. However, if one exists, the overall budget for embassy security is not it. Funding for that purpose has risen sharply over the past decade. Moreover, the State Department has considerable latitude in allocating security funds based on current events and intelligence on possible threats. Why that latitude was not applied in Libya deserves further scrutiny.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/11...dget-for-embassy-security-is-not-responsible/

 

[BlindBoo]

This is the crux of the matter. We currently have a president who claimed that he would have the "most open and transparent administration" in the history of politics yet has threatened Benghazi survivors with termination, loss of security clearances, and pensions if they failed to "remain silent" about events that took place at the consulate.

Now, the left simply can not have it both ways. Either they WANT to get at the truth, or they want, once again, to give this poseur of a president yet another "pass". Or, it is as "Hillary the Wide" said so eloquently at her "hearing" - "What difference does it make"!?!?

We currently are enduring an administration that is every bit as corrupt as the Nixon Administration yet there is no political will by the left to even question this man.

Yet the left bristles their neck hair when the right accuses them of hypocrisy........

You Ben-Gaters are every bit as hillarious as the Birther. Nixon was force to resign by his own party. 40 others in his adminstration were convicted and served time. The only other modern day Administration that was more corrupt was Rayguns.

Notice how deafdumbandblindpoo evades the actual point.

Let's restate it for that dopey bastard.

It is WRONG to coverup what happened at Benghazi, especially for cheese dick purely political reasons.

Sticking to developed talking points is not a cover up. You see a cover up usually involved crimes that have been commited that you provide cover for, such as we see in the disgraced President Nixons case.

 

[NLT]

One of the whistleblowers, Mark Thompson, deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department’s counterterrorism bureau, was in direct, real-time communication with people on the ground during the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Libya, before he was locked out of the room. Yet despite his firsthand knowledge of how the attack unfolded, he was not interviewed by the State Department’s Accountability Review Board, even though he asked to be. According to sources I spoke with, Thompson will testify that the circumstances under which Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans died have been “purposefully misrepresented” by the administration and that “all their public statements from the initial account to the talking points [that Ambassador Susan Rice used on the Sunday shows] were false, and they knew it.”

Marc Thiessen: A Benghazi bombshell - The Washington Post

 

[BlindBoo]

This is the crux of the matter. We currently have a president who claimed that he would have the "most open and transparent administration" in the history of politics yet has threatened Benghazi survivors with termination, loss of security clearances, and pensions if they failed to "remain silent" about events that took place at the consulate.

Now, the left simply can not have it both ways. Either they WANT to get at the truth, or they want, once again, to give this poseur of a president yet another "pass". Or, it is as "Hillary the Wide" said so eloquently at her "hearing" - "What difference does it make"!?!?

We currently are enduring an administration that is every bit as corrupt as the Nixon Administration yet there is no political will by the left to even question this man.

Yet the left bristles their neck hair when the right accuses them of hypocrisy........

You Ben-Gaters are every bit as hillarious as the Birther. Nixon was force to resign by his own party. 40 others in his adminstration were convicted and served time. The only other modern day Administration that was more corrupt was Rayguns.

Whatever happened during the Nixon administration is important re Benghazi how? (And perhaps you forget the days and days and days of televised Watergate hearings that resulted in Nixon resigning? Nobody died or was even in danger in the Watergate scandal, and Nixon had nothing to do with it His only sin regarding that was participating in the coverup. Is that what you are so afraid of for Obama if questions are asked about Benghazi?)

What happend during Reagan's administration is important to Benghazi how? (And perhaps you forget the months and years of investigation into Iran Contra at an unprecented cost of mega millions that was almost desperate to convict President Reagan and/or his vice president for something. The Democratically controlled house and senate gave it their all to hang Reagan with something, but the special prosecutor finally admitted there was nothing at all there to charge him with.) Do you think Obama should be above any kind of similar scrutiny? Are you so terrified that he wouldn't come out as well as Reagan did?

Rebutting the equivoation of Watergate to the killings in Bengahzi from a prior post. Raygun's admin in contrast to Obama's was much more corrupt than Nixons.

 

[Agit8r]

This is the crux of the matter. We currently have a president who claimed that he would have the "most open and transparent administration" in the history of politics yet has threatened Benghazi survivors with termination, loss of security clearances, and pensions if they failed to "remain silent" about events that took place at the consulate.

Now, the left simply can not have it both ways. Either they WANT to get at the truth, or they want, once again, to give this poseur of a president yet another "pass". Or, it is as "Hillary the Wide" said so eloquently at her "hearing" - "What difference does it make"!?!?

We currently are enduring an administration that is every bit as corrupt as the Nixon Administration yet there is no political will by the left to even question this man.

Yet the left bristles their neck hair when the right accuses them of hypocrisy........

You Ben-Gaters are every bit as hillarious as the Birther. Nixon was force to resign by his own party. 40 others in his adminstration were convicted and served time. The only other modern day Administration that was more corrupt was Rayguns.

You know what always made me laugh about the birthers? It's that their champion (Orly Taitz) is a damn foreigner. So, one can't help but wonder who they are going to dig up to be their champion in the so-called Benghazi issue. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the right embraced a Libyan terrorist if they thought he could help them impeach Obama.

Probably one of Gaddafi's kids

 

[Claudette]

Nobody has accused anybody other than the hijackers for the deaths of 9-11, though many of your group have accused President Bush, eight months into his first term, of ignoring the warnings that it was going to happen. If there were people willing to testify that they had given the President a heads up on that, and others say they were ready to act to prevent it and were told to stand down, would you not think that would warrant an investigation? Did you object to the MANY investigations that were conducted exhaustively during the Bush administration re 9/11 and everything else? I didn't.

Nobody has accused anybody other than the Benghazi terrorists for the deaths of four embassy personnel and injuries to others. But we now have people saying they repeatedly asked for increased security after the President and State Department have stated they knew nothing about that. We have people saying they were ready to act to go to the rescue of the embassy personnel and were told to stand down.

Do you honestly think that doesn't warrant investigation? And OPEN investigation now that it is public knowledge so that we can get to the truth of it, whatever that truth might be? Isn't it important to know that whether our government would lie to us about a matter of that importance? To make sure that a serious error, if there was one, is not repeated?

Can you say that you would not be demanding it loud and clear if it was Romney in the White House instead of Barack Obama?

Big assed Bingo Foxy.

Thanks. If a serious and competent thorough investigation exhonerates the Executive branch and the State Department, I would hope we conservatives would graciously acknowledge and accept that.

I don't blame the libs for wanting that to be the case or for being obviously afraid that it won't be the case.

But for sure we won't know unless we have the investigation.

I agree.

Its just a crying shame that those four men are dead because State didn't beef up security. If they had or if they had closed the embassy these men would still be alive.

I find it inconceivable that the left doesn't want the truth.

You and I both know that if Bush were POTUS during Benghazi that same left who doesn't want to hear word one about the incompetence of this administration, would be screaming like stuck pigs.

This board would be full of anti Bush threads.

 

[rightwinger]

Big assed Bingo Foxy.

Thanks. If a serious and competent thorough investigation exhonerates the Executive branch and the State Department, I would hope we conservatives would graciously acknowledge and accept that.

I don't blame the libs for wanting that to be the case or for being obviously afraid that it won't be the case.

But for sure we won't know unless we have the investigation.

I agree.

Its just a crying shame that those four men are dead because State didn't beef up security. If they had or if they had closed the embassy these men would still be alive.

I find it inconceivable that the left doesn't want the truth.

You and I both know that if Bush were POTUS during Benghazi that same left who doesn't want to hear word one about the incompetence of this administration, would be screaming like stuck pigs.

This board would be full of anti Bush threads.

How much security would have had to be present to stop the attack?
Which embassies should the security have been pulled from?

Monday Morning Quarterbacking?

 

[Foxfyre]

One of the whistleblowers, Mark Thompson, deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department’s counterterrorism bureau, was in direct, real-time communication with people on the ground during the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Libya, before he was locked out of the room. Yet despite his firsthand knowledge of how the attack unfolded, he was not interviewed by the State Department’s Accountability Review Board, even though he asked to be. According to sources I spoke with, Thompson will testify that the circumstances under which Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans died have been “purposefully misrepresented” by the administration and that “all their public statements from the initial account to the talking points [that Ambassador Susan Rice used on the Sunday shows] were false, and they knew it.”

Marc Thiessen: A Benghazi bombshell - The Washington Post

I don't know how competent Marc Thiessen is as a reporter and/or political commentator, but I have watched people give their own testimony on television who suggested much the same kinds of information as Thiessen is reporting here.

False? Exaggerated? or Truth?

Can any of us say which it is with any certainty?

But such people do need to be put under oath for such testimony so that our government can be held accountable for what it does and what it tells us. The U.S. government is supposed to be a servant doing the bidding of the people, and we are supposed to have no king with privilege of rank.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You Ben-Gaters are every bit as hillarious as the Birther. Nixon was force to resign by his own party. 40 others in his adminstration were convicted and served time. The only other modern day Administration that was more corrupt was Rayguns.

Whatever happened during the Nixon administration is important re Benghazi how? (And perhaps you forget the days and days and days of televised Watergate hearings that resulted in Nixon resigning? Nobody died or was even in danger in the Watergate scandal, and Nixon had nothing to do with it His only sin regarding that was participating in the coverup. Is that what you are so afraid of for Obama if questions are asked about Benghazi?)

What happend during Reagan's administration is important to Benghazi how? (And perhaps you forget the months and years of investigation into Iran Contra at an unprecented cost of mega millions that was almost desperate to convict President Reagan and/or his vice president for something. The Democratically controlled house and senate gave it their all to hang Reagan with something, but the special prosecutor finally admitted there was nothing at all there to charge him with.) Do you think Obama should be above any kind of similar scrutiny? Are you so terrified that he wouldn't come out as well as Reagan did?

What help should have been sent?
What help could have been sent
Why did Republicans cut funding to embassy security?

What’s sad about all this, in addition to partisan conservatives using the tragic deaths of Americans for some perceived political gain, is that the ‘stand down’ lie contrived and nurtured by the right was proven false months ago:

“The officers on the ground in Benghazi responded to the situation on the night of 11 and 12 September as quickly and as effectively as possible,” one of the senior intelligence officials told reporters.

Thursday’s briefing for reporters was intended to refute reports, including one by Fox News last Friday, that the C.I.A.’s chain of command had blocked the officers on the ground from responding to the mission’s calls for help.

“There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support,” the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of continuing investigations by the State Department and the F.B.I.

At a time when the circumstances surrounding the attack on the Benghazi compound have emerged as a major political issue, with Republicans criticizing the Obama administration’s handling of the episode, the senior official also sought to rebut reports that C.I.A. requests for support from the Pentagon that night had gone unheeded.

In fact, the official said, the military diverted a Predator drone from a reconnaissance mission in Darnah, 90 miles away, in time to oversee the mission’s evacuation. The two commandos, based at the embassy in Tripoli, joined the reinforcements. And a military transport plane flew the wounded Americans and Mr. Stevens’s body out of Libya.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/w...sive-role-in-libya-attack.html?ref=world&_r=0

 

[Dot Com]

Thanks. If a serious and competent thorough investigation exhonerates the Executive branch and the State Department, I would hope we conservatives would graciously acknowledge and accept that.

I don't blame the libs for wanting that to be the case or for being obviously afraid that it won't be the case.

But for sure we won't know unless we have the investigation.

I agree.

Its just a crying shame that those four men are dead because State didn't beef up security. If they had or if they had closed the embassy these men would still be alive.

I find it inconceivable that the left doesn't want the truth.

You and I both know that if Bush were POTUS during Benghazi that same left who doesn't want to hear word one about the incompetence of this administration, would be screaming like stuck pigs.

This board would be full of anti Bush threads.

How much security would have had to be present to stop the attack?
Which embassies should the security have been pulled from?

Monday Morning Quarterbacking?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You Ben-Gaters are every bit as hillarious as the Birther. Nixon was force to resign by his own party. 40 others in his adminstration were convicted and served time. The only other modern day Administration that was more corrupt was Rayguns.

Whatever happened during the Nixon administration is important re Benghazi how? (And perhaps you forget the days and days and days of televised Watergate hearings that resulted in Nixon resigning? Nobody died or was even in danger in the Watergate scandal, and Nixon had nothing to do with it His only sin regarding that was participating in the coverup. Is that what you are so afraid of for Obama if questions are asked about Benghazi?)

What happend during Reagan's administration is important to Benghazi how? (And perhaps you forget the months and years of investigation into Iran Contra at an unprecented cost of mega millions that was almost desperate to convict President Reagan and/or his vice president for something. The Democratically controlled house and senate gave it their all to hang Reagan with something, but the special prosecutor finally admitted there was nothing at all there to charge him with.) Do you think Obama should be above any kind of similar scrutiny? Are you so terrified that he wouldn't come out as well as Reagan did?

Rebutting the equivoation of Watergate to the killings in Bengahzi from a prior post. Raygun's admin in contrast to Obama's was much more corrupt than Nixons.

True.

And after Watergate administrations learned to insulate and isolate presidents from their administrations' questionable actions, which is why Iran/Contra never made it into the Reagan WH.

 

[Foxfyre]

You Ben-Gaters are every bit as hillarious as the Birther. Nixon was force to resign by his own party. 40 others in his adminstration were convicted and served time. The only other modern day Administration that was more corrupt was Rayguns.

Whatever happened during the Nixon administration is important re Benghazi how? (And perhaps you forget the days and days and days of televised Watergate hearings that resulted in Nixon resigning? Nobody died or was even in danger in the Watergate scandal, and Nixon had nothing to do with it His only sin regarding that was participating in the coverup. Is that what you are so afraid of for Obama if questions are asked about Benghazi?)

What happend during Reagan's administration is important to Benghazi how? (And perhaps you forget the months and years of investigation into Iran Contra at an unprecented cost of mega millions that was almost desperate to convict President Reagan and/or his vice president for something. The Democratically controlled house and senate gave it their all to hang Reagan with something, but the special prosecutor finally admitted there was nothing at all there to charge him with.) Do you think Obama should be above any kind of similar scrutiny? Are you so terrified that he wouldn't come out as well as Reagan did?

Rebutting the equivoation of Watergate to the killings in Bengahzi from a prior post. Raygun's admin in contrast to Obama's was much more corrupt than Nixons.

But that really has nothing at all to do with Benghazi does it? And if the topic is switched to corruption, perhaps a comprehensive and genuine investigation into ALL of the facts surrounding decisions involving Benghazi will reveal an Obama administration that conducted itself in an exemplary manner above reproach. And maybe it will reveal corruption and deception that exceeds anything that has gone on before. Or it will land somewhere in the middle.

Are you lefties honest enough and unhypocritical enough to consent to finding out? To encourage the truth to be known?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Benghazi Impeachment Suddenly Not So Far-Fetched

Yeah....that's still Bullshit.

 

[BlindBoo]

Whatever happened during the Nixon administration is important re Benghazi how? (And perhaps you forget the days and days and days of televised Watergate hearings that resulted in Nixon resigning? Nobody died or was even in danger in the Watergate scandal, and Nixon had nothing to do with it His only sin regarding that was participating in the coverup. Is that what you are so afraid of for Obama if questions are asked about Benghazi?)

What happend during Reagan's administration is important to Benghazi how? (And perhaps you forget the months and years of investigation into Iran Contra at an unprecented cost of mega millions that was almost desperate to convict President Reagan and/or his vice president for something. The Democratically controlled house and senate gave it their all to hang Reagan with something, but the special prosecutor finally admitted there was nothing at all there to charge him with.) Do you think Obama should be above any kind of similar scrutiny? Are you so terrified that he wouldn't come out as well as Reagan did?

Rebutting the equivoation of Watergate to the killings in Bengahzi from a prior post. Raygun's admin in contrast to Obama's was much more corrupt than Nixons.

But that really has nothing at all to do with Benghazi does it? And if the topic is switched to corruption, perhaps a comprehensive and genuine investigation into ALL of the facts surrounding decisions involving Benghazi will reveal an Obama administration that conducted itself in an exemplary manner above reproach. And maybe it will reveal corruption and deception that exceeds anything that has gone on before. Or it will land somewhere in the middle.

Are you lefties honest enough and unhypocritical enough to consent to finding out? To encourage the truth to be known?

FTR, I didn't try to equate the attack at Benghazi to Watergate ,merely rebutting the equivocation. I'm all for de-classifying everything and releasing it to the public.

 

[Claudette]

Thanks. If a serious and competent thorough investigation exhonerates the Executive branch and the State Department, I would hope we conservatives would graciously acknowledge and accept that.

I don't blame the libs for wanting that to be the case or for being obviously afraid that it won't be the case.

But for sure we won't know unless we have the investigation.

I agree.

Its just a crying shame that those four men are dead because State didn't beef up security. If they had or if they had closed the embassy these men would still be alive.

I find it inconceivable that the left doesn't want the truth.

You and I both know that if Bush were POTUS during Benghazi that same left who doesn't want to hear word one about the incompetence of this administration, would be screaming like stuck pigs.

This board would be full of anti Bush threads.

How much security would have had to be present to stop the attack?
Which embassies should the security have been pulled from?

Monday Morning Quarterbacking?

You think they wouldn't have forces to provide security??

You think they couldn't have closed the embassy as the Britts did??

You think they couldn't have pulled out like the Red Cross did??

Monday morning quarterbacking??

 

[boedicca]

Thanks. If a serious and competent thorough investigation exhonerates the Executive branch and the State Department, I would hope we conservatives would graciously acknowledge and accept that.

I don't blame the libs for wanting that to be the case or for being obviously afraid that it won't be the case.

But for sure we won't know unless we have the investigation.

I agree.

Its just a crying shame that those four men are dead because State didn't beef up security. If they had or if they had closed the embassy these men would still be alive.

I find it inconceivable that the left doesn't want the truth.

You and I both know that if Bush were POTUS during Benghazi that same left who doesn't want to hear word one about the incompetence of this administration, would be screaming like stuck pigs.

This board would be full of anti Bush threads.

How much security would have had to be present to stop the attack?
Which embassies should the security have been pulled from?

Monday Morning Quarterbacking?

We'll never know as the request to keep security in place was denied by the State Dept, despite numerous requests by Stevens and evidence of escalating attacks within Libya.