Benghazi Impeachment Suddenly Not So Far-Fetched

[IlarMeilyr]

The extremists, right wingers in this case, are always looking for ways to get rid of elected officials.
It's rather odd that the same people always spout on about defending democracy and so on but want to get rid of the person the American public chose to be president.

I find them to be more than a little pathetic.

^ An invalid point immediately short circuited by the fact that its major premise is false.

Imagine that: Indofpink being untruthful. How usual.

 

[Redfish]

The extremists, right wingers in this case, are always looking for ways to get rid of elected officials.
It's rather odd that the same people always spout on about defending democracy and so on but want to get rid of the person the American public chose to be president.

I find them to be more than a little pathetic.

and you on the left were not trying to get rid of Bush and Cheney for 8 years? really?

and you fuckers even had the media helping you. speaking of pathetic.

 

[Redfish]

It is clear that obama and clinton lied about what caused the benghazi attack and who did it. It is clear that they were negligent in providing additional security when requested.

I think that Hillary's political career is over due to her obvious incompetence and lying on this and other things

Obama will not be impeached for his lies and incompetence. But this may be the event that causes the senate to gain a GOP majority and for the GOP to hold the house. That would make obama a true lame duck for his last two years, and that would be a good thing for the country.

 

[rightwinger]

The extremists, right wingers in this case, are always looking for ways to get rid of elected officials.
It's rather odd that the same people always spout on about defending democracy and so on but want to get rid of the person the American public chose to be president.

I find them to be more than a little pathetic.

Even the most radical Republicans know they have no chance of impeachment on this. It was initially an attempt to throw dirt on Obama prior to the election. It has morphed into an attempt to smear Hillary Clinton before a potential 2016 run

Nine hearings with no substantial findings other than that embassies can be a dangerous place to work

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The extremists, right wingers in this case, are always looking for ways to get rid of elected officials.
It's rather odd that the same people always spout on about defending democracy and so on but want to get rid of the person the American public chose to be president.

I find them to be more than a little pathetic.

Even the most radical Republicans know they have no chance of impeachment on this. It was initially an attempt to throw dirt on Obama prior to the election. It has morphed into an attempt to smear Hillary Clinton before a potential 2016 run

Nine hearings with no substantial findings other than that embassies can be a dangerous place to work

^ repeating his spin. Evidently, he imagines that if he keeps pounding away at that cheap ass phony "point," that it might gain traction.

In reality, of course, the hearings (especially now that some folks with knowledge who are not being orchestrated by the Administration despite their best efforts have started talking) are revealing some very important points. And none of them make The ONE look good and they make Shrillary look even worse.

 

[Wildman]

Sorry bout that,

1. And his cover up of his fuck up wasn't bad enough, he fooled a nation into re-electing him, which compounded his *guilt*.
2. Some of us are able to keep track, and see reality the way it really is.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

he fooled no one !! he turned the vote counting over to a foreign commie org.

never forget this: "it's not the votes that count, it's who counts the votes"

 

[Redfish]

The extremists, right wingers in this case, are always looking for ways to get rid of elected officials.
It's rather odd that the same people always spout on about defending democracy and so on but want to get rid of the person the American public chose to be president.

I find them to be more than a little pathetic.

Even the most radical Republicans know they have no chance of impeachment on this. It was initially an attempt to throw dirt on Obama prior to the election. It has morphed into an attempt to smear Hillary Clinton before a potential 2016 run

Nine hearings with no substantial findings other than that embassies can be a dangerous place to work

wrong, the findings have been substantial. It has been proven that hillary, obama, and rice lied to the american people for weeks about who did it and why they did it. the whole video thing was a huge lie-----and the guy that made the video remains in jail--------for what?

the incompetence of the clinton state dept is evident, the non caring attitude of obama is evident. the cover up is evident.

Hillary is done, obama is a lame duck. liberalism is dying. Maybe the USA can be saved.

 

[billyerock1991]

Um yeah, It's still far fetched.

have you noticed when these repub-lie-clowns think they have something its always impeachment ... like they have a chance in hell

 

[rightwinger]

The extremists, right wingers in this case, are always looking for ways to get rid of elected officials.
It's rather odd that the same people always spout on about defending democracy and so on but want to get rid of the person the American public chose to be president.

I find them to be more than a little pathetic.

Even the most radical Republicans know they have no chance of impeachment on this. It was initially an attempt to throw dirt on Obama prior to the election. It has morphed into an attempt to smear Hillary Clinton before a potential 2016 run

Nine hearings with no substantial findings other than that embassies can be a dangerous place to work

wrong, the findings have been substantial. It has been proven that hillary, obama, and rice lied to the american people for weeks about who did it and why they did it. the whole video thing was a huge lie-----and the guy that made the video remains in jail--------for what?

the incompetence of the clinton state dept is evident, the non caring attitude of obama is evident. the cover up is evident.

Hillary is done, obama is a lame duck. liberalism is dying. Maybe the USA can be saved.

The findings were no different than the findings after any embassy attack

You can always come in after the fact and say this or that could have been done differently. We did the same thing after the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut under Reagan. Analysis showed that the barracks were not defended against a truck bomb. After the attack, all compounds had barriers to prevent vehicles from getting that close

The only difference is that nobody called for Reagan to be impeached

 

[Wolfsister77]

Um yeah, It's still far fetched.

have you noticed when these repub-lie-clowns think they have something its always impeachment ... like they have a chance in hell

Well, they certainly seem to think if they say it enough times, it'll magically happen. Wishful thinking does not an impeachment make. But if it makes them feel better, whatever.

 

[Redfish]

Even the most radical Republicans know they have no chance of impeachment on this. It was initially an attempt to throw dirt on Obama prior to the election. It has morphed into an attempt to smear Hillary Clinton before a potential 2016 run

Nine hearings with no substantial findings other than that embassies can be a dangerous place to work

wrong, the findings have been substantial. It has been proven that hillary, obama, and rice lied to the american people for weeks about who did it and why they did it. the whole video thing was a huge lie-----and the guy that made the video remains in jail--------for what?

the incompetence of the clinton state dept is evident, the non caring attitude of obama is evident. the cover up is evident.

Hillary is done, obama is a lame duck. liberalism is dying. Maybe the USA can be saved.

The findings were no different than the findings after any embassy attack

You can always come in after the fact and say this or that could have been done differently. We did the same thing after the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut under Reagan. Analysis showed that the barracks were not defended against a truck bomb. After the attack, all compounds had barriers to prevent vehicles from getting that close

The only difference is that nobody called for Reagan to be impeached

Reagan did not lie about it and try to cover up the truth------obama lied, hillary lied, rice lied-------thats the difference.

 

[Redfish]

Um yeah, It's still far fetched.

have you noticed when these repub-lie-clowns think they have something its always impeachment ... like they have a chance in hell

Well, they certainly seem to think if they say it enough times, it'll magically happen. Wishful thinking does not an impeachment make. But if it makes them feel better, whatever.

I don't think obama will be impeached. But his lies and cover up attempts will become public knowledge.

funny how you dem/libs always run from the truth when your guy is the culprit, and then damand it when a republican is the culprit

I think its called hypocrisy.

 

[rightwinger]

wrong, the findings have been substantial. It has been proven that hillary, obama, and rice lied to the american people for weeks about who did it and why they did it. the whole video thing was a huge lie-----and the guy that made the video remains in jail--------for what?

the incompetence of the clinton state dept is evident, the non caring attitude of obama is evident. the cover up is evident.

Hillary is done, obama is a lame duck. liberalism is dying. Maybe the USA can be saved.

The findings were no different than the findings after any embassy attack

You can always come in after the fact and say this or that could have been done differently. We did the same thing after the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut under Reagan. Analysis showed that the barracks were not defended against a truck bomb. After the attack, all compounds had barriers to prevent vehicles from getting that close

The only difference is that nobody called for Reagan to be impeached

Reagan did not lie about it and try to cover up the truth------obama lied, hillary lied, rice lied-------thats the difference.

Reagan tended to say ...."I forgot" a lot

 

[Foxfyre]

Even the most radical Republicans know they have no chance of impeachment on this. It was initially an attempt to throw dirt on Obama prior to the election. It has morphed into an attempt to smear Hillary Clinton before a potential 2016 run

Nine hearings with no substantial findings other than that embassies can be a dangerous place to work

wrong, the findings have been substantial. It has been proven that hillary, obama, and rice lied to the american people for weeks about who did it and why they did it. the whole video thing was a huge lie-----and the guy that made the video remains in jail--------for what?

the incompetence of the clinton state dept is evident, the non caring attitude of obama is evident. the cover up is evident.

Hillary is done, obama is a lame duck. liberalism is dying. Maybe the USA can be saved.

The findings were no different than the findings after any embassy attack

You can always come in after the fact and say this or that could have been done differently. We did the same thing after the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut under Reagan. Analysis showed that the barracks were not defended against a truck bomb. After the attack, all compounds had barriers to prevent vehicles from getting that close

The only difference is that nobody called for Reagan to be impeached

On March 6, 1987 Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez, Chairman of the House Banking, Finance, and Urban Affair, introduced articles of impeachment against President Ronald Reagan. This resulted in appointment of a special prosecutor and an investigation costing something over $40 million - roughly $60 million in today's dollars - and joint hearings that dominated the summer.

Further Democrats took to the House floor night after night after night in full view of the Cspan cameras giving long speeches during a then House privilege called 'special orders' and accusing President Reagan and those in his administration of all manner of hateful things. Gonzalez continued those well into the George H.W. Bush adminisration accusing President Bush of ridiculous conspiracy theories.

The special prosecutor, appointed by a Democratic controlled Congress, found that laws were broken, and some indictments and convictions resulted. But though they did their damndest to hang Reagan and, if possible, Bush 41, they were unable to link either one to any crime.

But I don't recall any Democrat or even any Republicans referring to all that as a 'witch hunt', nor did President Reagan object to the investigation in any respect. We deserve to have a government that welcomes investigations.

 

[BlindBoo]

The extremists, right wingers in this case, are always looking for ways to get rid of elected officials.
It's rather odd that the same people always spout on about defending democracy and so on but want to get rid of the person the American public chose to be president.

I find them to be more than a little pathetic.

Even the most radical Republicans know they have no chance of impeachment on this. It was initially an attempt to throw dirt on Obama prior to the election. It has morphed into an attempt to smear Hillary Clinton before a potential 2016 run

Nine hearings with no substantial findings other than that embassies can be a dangerous place to work

wrong, the findings have been substantial. It has been proven that hillary, obama, and rice lied to the american people for weeks about who did it and why they did it. the whole video thing was a huge lie-----and the guy that made the video remains in jail--------for what?

the incompetence of the clinton state dept is evident, the non caring attitude of obama is evident. the cover up is evident.

Hillary is done, obama is a lame duck. liberalism is dying. Maybe the USA can be saved.

Mr. Abu Khattala, 41, wearing a red fez and sandals, added his own spin. Contradicting the accounts of many witnesses and the most recent account of the Obama administration, he contended that the attack had grown out of a peaceful protest against a video made in the United States that mocked the Prophet Muhammad and Islam.

He also said that guards inside the compound — Libyan or American, he was not sure — had shot first at the demonstrators, provoking them. And he asserted, without providing evidence, that the attackers had found weapons, including explosives and guns mounted with silencers, inside the American compound.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/w...-attack-scoffs-at-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Even the most radical Republicans know they have no chance of impeachment on this. It was initially an attempt to throw dirt on Obama prior to the election. It has morphed into an attempt to smear Hillary Clinton before a potential 2016 run

Nine hearings with no substantial findings other than that embassies can be a dangerous place to work

wrong, the findings have been substantial. It has been proven that hillary, obama, and rice lied to the american people for weeks about who did it and why they did it. the whole video thing was a huge lie-----and the guy that made the video remains in jail--------for what?

the incompetence of the clinton state dept is evident, the non caring attitude of obama is evident. the cover up is evident.

Hillary is done, obama is a lame duck. liberalism is dying. Maybe the USA can be saved.

Mr. Abu Khattala, 41, wearing a red fez and sandals, added his own spin. Contradicting the accounts of many witnesses and the most recent account of the Obama administration, he contended that the attack had grown out of a peaceful protest against a video made in the United States that mocked the Prophet Muhammad and Islam.

He also said that guards inside the compound — Libyan or American, he was not sure — had shot first at the demonstrators, provoking them. And he asserted, without providing evidence, that the attackers had found weapons, including explosives and guns mounted with silencers, inside the American compound.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/w...-attack-scoffs-at-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Some more honest and fine reporting from the propaganda arm of the Obama Regime.

The New York Slimes.

Too funny.

 

[bripat9643]

The findings were no different than the findings after any embassy attack

You can always come in after the fact and say this or that could have been done differently. We did the same thing after the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut under Reagan. Analysis showed that the barracks were not defended against a truck bomb. After the attack, all compounds had barriers to prevent vehicles from getting that close

The only difference is that nobody called for Reagan to be impeached

The difference is that Reagan didn't lie and start a huge coverup campaign.

The truck bombing in Beirut is a non seuqitur. The Reagan administration had no forewarning that the barracks was going to come under assault. However, the Obama administration had ample warning, and they ignored it.

 

[BlindBoo]

wrong, the findings have been substantial. It has been proven that hillary, obama, and rice lied to the american people for weeks about who did it and why they did it. the whole video thing was a huge lie-----and the guy that made the video remains in jail--------for what?

the incompetence of the clinton state dept is evident, the non caring attitude of obama is evident. the cover up is evident.

Hillary is done, obama is a lame duck. liberalism is dying. Maybe the USA can be saved.

The findings were no different than the findings after any embassy attack

You can always come in after the fact and say this or that could have been done differently. We did the same thing after the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut under Reagan. Analysis showed that the barracks were not defended against a truck bomb. After the attack, all compounds had barriers to prevent vehicles from getting that close

The only difference is that nobody called for Reagan to be impeached

Reagan did not lie about it and try to cover up the truth------obama lied, hillary lied, rice lied-------thats the difference.

Except he did.

In July 1985, President Reagan denounced Iran as part of a "confederation of terrorist states" which had committed "outright acts of war" against the U.S. He declared Iran to be an enemy of the United States:


"Iran, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua -- continents away, tens of thousands of miles apart, but the same goals and objectives. I submit to you that the growth in terrorism in recent years results from the increasing involvement of these states in terrorism in every region of the world. This is terrorism that is part of a pattern, the work of a confederation of terrorist states. Most of the terrorists who are kidnapping and murdering American citizens and attacking American installations are being trained, financed, and directly or indirectly controlled by a core group of radical and totalitarian governments -- a new, international version of Murder, Incorporated. And all of these states are united by one simple criminal phenomenon -- their fanatical hatred of the United States, our people, our way of life, our international stature."

And yet only 39 days after making that speech, Reagan's men began furnishing some of these fanatical America haters with what would eventually amount to 107 tons of anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles. These shipments continued for more than a year. They even continued beyond August 1986, when President Reagan signed into law a federal ban on arms sales to terrorist nations, which included Iran.

That's how he committed treason. But if Ronald Reagan's a traitor, he also had a whole bunch of accomplices. Like his Vice President, George HW Bush. But thanks to some convenient Presidential pardons, everybody got away scot-free.

But why would they do this? What rationale did they have for selling missiles to a bunch of terrorists? Why would our highest elected leaders commit treason against their own country?

Iran-Contra

"....according to recently released documents, "Memoranda on Criminal Liability of Former President Reagan and of President Bush, "Reagan was not only aware of what transpired, George H.W. Bush “chaired a committee that recommended the mining of the harbors of Nicaragua in 1983.” Reagan also discussed the possible legal ramifications with Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. In a meeting on December 7, 1985, Weinberger told the President that "washing [the] transaction thru Israel wouldn't make it legal." Reagan replied that he could deal with the illegality, but not the damage to his image if 'big strong President Reagan passed up a chance to free hostages." Weinberger pointed out they could end up in jail."

Reagan Lied about Iran-Contra | Suite101

 

[BlindBoo]

The findings were no different than the findings after any embassy attack

You can always come in after the fact and say this or that could have been done differently. We did the same thing after the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut under Reagan. Analysis showed that the barracks were not defended against a truck bomb. After the attack, all compounds had barriers to prevent vehicles from getting that close

The only difference is that nobody called for Reagan to be impeached

The difference is that Reagan didn't lie and start a huge coverup campaign.

The truck bombing in Beirut is a non seuqitur. The Reagan administration had no forewarning that the barracks was going to come under assault. However, the Obama administration had ample warning, and they ignored it.

Three days before a bomb blast killed United States marines, soldiers and sailors in Beirut, intelligence agencies warned that American forces in Lebanon would probably be the target of a terrorist attack, Reagan Administration officials said today. The intelligence report, the officials said, specified that the group that appeared to be planning such an attack was a militant pro-Iranian Shiite Moslem group in Lebanon known as the Islamic Amal and the Party of God.

REAGAN AIDES SAY C.I.A. BULLETIN WARNED OF LIKELY BEIRUT ATTACK - NYTimes.com

Ollie North tesified about the document shreading party they heald because they had to destroy the evidence......

 

[rightwinger]

wrong, the findings have been substantial. It has been proven that hillary, obama, and rice lied to the american people for weeks about who did it and why they did it. the whole video thing was a huge lie-----and the guy that made the video remains in jail--------for what?

the incompetence of the clinton state dept is evident, the non caring attitude of obama is evident. the cover up is evident.

Hillary is done, obama is a lame duck. liberalism is dying. Maybe the USA can be saved.

The findings were no different than the findings after any embassy attack

You can always come in after the fact and say this or that could have been done differently. We did the same thing after the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut under Reagan. Analysis showed that the barracks were not defended against a truck bomb. After the attack, all compounds had barriers to prevent vehicles from getting that close

The only difference is that nobody called for Reagan to be impeached

On March 6, 1987 Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez, Chairman of the House Banking, Finance, and Urban Affair, introduced articles of impeachment against President Ronald Reagan. This resulted in appointment of a special prosecutor and an investigation costing something over $40 million - roughly $60 million in today's dollars - and joint hearings that dominated the summer.

Further Democrats took to the House floor night after night after night in full view of the Cspan cameras giving long speeches during a then House privilege called 'special orders' and accusing President Reagan and those in his administration of all manner of hateful things. Gonzalez continued those well into the George H.W. Bush adminisration accusing President Bush of ridiculous conspiracy theories.

The special prosecutor, appointed by a Democratic controlled Congress, found that laws were broken, and some indictments and convictions resulted. But though they did their damndest to hang Reagan and, if possible, Bush 41, they were unable to link either one to any crime.

But I don't recall any Democrat or even any Republicans referring to all that as a 'witch hunt', nor did President Reagan object to the investigation in any respect. We deserve to have a government that welcomes investigations.

Thanks...but was this related to the attack on the Marine Barracks or Iran Contra?