Benghazi Impeachment Suddenly Not So Far-Fetched

[jon_berzerk]

Seems to me the Democrats are talking about impeachment a whole lot more than one or two right of center here is. And certainly more than any Republicans on Capitol Hill are. There must be evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors and that is something different than being a lying, opportunistic, deceptive, dishonorable person. Obama rarely goes on the record about anything, and when he does and it turns out badly, he denies that he did.

But even though impeachment is not on the table--and it never was--I still hope there are more Americans who want the truth than there are those who continue to divert attention away from it just because it is inconvenient to their ideologoy and the day's assigned talking points. And throwing out the 'impeachment' word must be the current assigned talking point.

sometimes a screen shot

says it all

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BJ9eDnGCcAAQvTX.jpg:large

LOL. Let's put that up as a photo:

Actually I've felt a little sorry for Jay Carney lately because even though he was no doubt chosen to be press secretary because he looked so studious and innocent and could sound sort of credible no matter what they send him out to say, even he has to be uncomfortable repeating some of that stuff to the media and the world. It is so far off the track of the honest truth and he has to know that.

And even though he has reported that the e-mails won't be released, we now know that they were heavily redacted and rewritten for Jay and Susan Rice et al to use to deliberately and intentionally create a false meme re what happened at Benghazi. We know the e-mails exist and will eventually be forced into the open because even Huffpo and CNN are now reporting them.

Summaries of White House and State Department emails -- some of which were first published by Stephen F. Hayes of the Weekly Standard -- also contradict the White House version of events that led to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice misleading the public about the cause of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. installation in Libya.

Where does this all lead?

Politics: It would be naïve to expect any White House to ignore the political implications of a foreign policy crisis occurring two months before a presidential election. But there is a reason why no White House admits to finessing a tragedy: It's unseemly. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland injected politics into the U.S. response to Benghazi when she raised objections to draft “talking points” being prepared for Rice’s television appearances.

One paragraph, drafted by the CIA, referenced the agency’s warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months prior to the attack, as well as extremists linked to the al-Qaida affiliate Ansar al-Sharia. In an email to officials at the White House and intelligence agencies, Nuland said the information “could be abused by members (of Congress) to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

The paragraph was deleted. The truth was scrubbed.

Nuland still had concerns. “These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings (sic) leadership,” she wrote.

(An administration official familiar with Nuland's thinking said she was worried that the CIA was trying to exonerate itself at the expense of the State Department by suggesting that security warnings were ignored. Nuland was focused on interagency politics, not presidential politics, said the official who refused to be identified. Nuland declined to comment for this story, and thus the official's characterization of her motive could not be verified.)

Did she have good reason to believe that Republicans or the CIA would undermine then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (the building leader)? Yes.

Could she trust the GOP or CIA to play fair? No.

Could Benghazi be a campaign issue if not carefully managed? Yes.

But regardless of Nuland's motive, this is now clear: The Obama administration let political considerations cloud the public record. For far too long, the White House shied away from calling Benghazi a terrorist attack and stood behind Rice’s initial statement that it was inspired by protests over a crude anti-Islamic video.
Scrubbing the Truth from Benghazi - NationalJournal.com

But yesterday Carney threw Hillary under the bus--it was subtle and low key, but he absolutely said the White House had a teensy role in the whole thing and everything else was the doings of the State Department.

O'Reilly: Jay Carney Threw Hillary 'Under The Bus,' Benghazi Will Haunt 'Rest Of Her Political Life' - Related Indian Videos, Bollywood Videos - uservideos.smashits.com

--LOL

yes post it

it has to be hard for carney

to stand there and saying what he is told to say

knowing that everyone knows he is full of bs

 

[Redfish]

A trumped up partisan GOP impeachment of Obama would be fitting end to the fake 'new' Republican Party's fake outreach to minorities.

sorry, NY but your messiah is on the way down. even the MSM has finally seen through his bullshit, they don't like being lied to either.

I don't expect impeachment because these are not impeachable acts, but he will become a true lame duck from now til 2016.

 

[Redfish]

sometimes a screen shot

says it all

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BJ9eDnGCcAAQvTX.jpg:large

LOL. Let's put that up as a photo:

Actually I've felt a little sorry for Jay Carney lately because even though he was no doubt chosen to be press secretary because he looked so studious and innocent and could sound sort of credible no matter what they send him out to say, even he has to be uncomfortable repeating some of that stuff to the media and the world. It is so far off the track of the honest truth and he has to know that.

And even though he has reported that the e-mails won't be released, we now know that they were heavily redacted and rewritten for Jay and Susan Rice et al to use to deliberately and intentionally create a false meme re what happened at Benghazi. We know the e-mails exist and will eventually be forced into the open because even Huffpo and CNN are now reporting them.

Summaries of White House and State Department emails -- some of which were first published by Stephen F. Hayes of the Weekly Standard -- also contradict the White House version of events that led to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice misleading the public about the cause of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. installation in Libya.

Where does this all lead?

Politics: It would be naïve to expect any White House to ignore the political implications of a foreign policy crisis occurring two months before a presidential election. But there is a reason why no White House admits to finessing a tragedy: It's unseemly. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland injected politics into the U.S. response to Benghazi when she raised objections to draft “talking points” being prepared for Rice’s television appearances.

One paragraph, drafted by the CIA, referenced the agency’s warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months prior to the attack, as well as extremists linked to the al-Qaida affiliate Ansar al-Sharia. In an email to officials at the White House and intelligence agencies, Nuland said the information “could be abused by members (of Congress) to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

The paragraph was deleted. The truth was scrubbed.

Nuland still had concerns. “These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings (sic) leadership,” she wrote.

(An administration official familiar with Nuland's thinking said she was worried that the CIA was trying to exonerate itself at the expense of the State Department by suggesting that security warnings were ignored. Nuland was focused on interagency politics, not presidential politics, said the official who refused to be identified. Nuland declined to comment for this story, and thus the official's characterization of her motive could not be verified.)

Did she have good reason to believe that Republicans or the CIA would undermine then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (the building leader)? Yes.

Could she trust the GOP or CIA to play fair? No.

Could Benghazi be a campaign issue if not carefully managed? Yes.

But regardless of Nuland's motive, this is now clear: The Obama administration let political considerations cloud the public record. For far too long, the White House shied away from calling Benghazi a terrorist attack and stood behind Rice’s initial statement that it was inspired by protests over a crude anti-Islamic video.
Scrubbing the Truth from Benghazi - NationalJournal.com

But yesterday Carney threw Hillary under the bus--it was subtle and low key, but he absolutely said the White House had a teensy role in the whole thing and everything else was the doings of the State Department.

O'Reilly: Jay Carney Threw Hillary 'Under The Bus,' Benghazi Will Haunt 'Rest Of Her Political Life' - Related Indian Videos, Bollywood Videos - uservideos.smashits.com

--LOL

yes post it

it has to be hard for carney

to stand there and saying what he is told to say

knowing that everyone knows he is full of bs

I feel sorry for Carney. His boss has put him in a very tough spot.

 

[WillowTree]

A trumped up partisan GOP impeachment of Obama would be fitting end to the fake 'new' Republican Party's fake outreach to minorities.

oh really? he's above the law because he's black? really?

 

[TemplarKormac]

A trumped up partisan GOP impeachment of Obama would be fitting end to the fake 'new' Republican Party's fake outreach to minorities.

Nah, it would be a fitting end to the Democratic Party, and their so called fight for racial equality.

 

[jon_berzerk]

LOL. Let's put that up as a photo:

Actually I've felt a little sorry for Jay Carney lately because even though he was no doubt chosen to be press secretary because he looked so studious and innocent and could sound sort of credible no matter what they send him out to say, even he has to be uncomfortable repeating some of that stuff to the media and the world. It is so far off the track of the honest truth and he has to know that.

And even though he has reported that the e-mails won't be released, we now know that they were heavily redacted and rewritten for Jay and Susan Rice et al to use to deliberately and intentionally create a false meme re what happened at Benghazi. We know the e-mails exist and will eventually be forced into the open because even Huffpo and CNN are now reporting them.



But yesterday Carney threw Hillary under the bus--it was subtle and low key, but he absolutely said the White House had a teensy role in the whole thing and everything else was the doings of the State Department.

O'Reilly: Jay Carney Threw Hillary 'Under The Bus,' Benghazi Will Haunt 'Rest Of Her Political Life' - Related Indian Videos, Bollywood Videos - uservideos.smashits.com

--LOL

yes post it

it has to be hard for carney

to stand there and saying what he is told to say

knowing that everyone knows he is full of bs

I feel sorry for Carney. His boss has put him in a very tough spot.

true on the other hand he signed up for the assignment

 

[Foxfyre]

The loyal soldier follows orders no matter how distasteful they might be. But I couldn't be the loyal soldier who dutifully defends a lie day after day just to keep my boss from being tarnished. I would have to resign.

Jay is usually pretty good at short direct answers, but on the Benghazi story, we know there's a problem because he has taken to fillibustering the questioning. That's taking a page from the Obama playbook. If you don't like a question, drone on and on and on until the listener's eyes glaze over and they have no idea what you just said:

From yesterday's press briefing:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLdQ-fqMwRc]WH Pressed on Clinton State Dept's Role in Benghazi Talkers - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dot Com]

nothing like a good partisan rw fishing expedition/witchburning to bring Foxy out of her lair.

 

[Foxfyre]

nothing like a good partisan rw fishing expedition/witchburning to bring Foxy out of her lair.

At least I can discuss a topic. You can only seem to insult those of us who do. Why is that?

 

[TemplarKormac]

nothing like a good partisan rw fishing expedition/witchburning to bring Foxy out of her lair.

At least I can discuss a topic. You can only seem to insult those of us who do. Why is that?

For want of an argument with standing. If a you can't debate, irritate!

"I mean, at this point, what difference does it make?!"

-Former Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton

 

[Crackerjaxon]

The military can't weigh in on the criminal malfeasance of its Commander-in-Chief, but here's a retired Admiral who can speak for them:

Admiral James Lyons (Ret.) Calls Benghazi Hearing ?the tip of the iceberg?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

GTFO. lol. yeah the reagan admin cooperated fully with iran contra. I'd be happy to post why iran contra was largely a political turf battle, and why Reagan's legacy should get a pass .... but dang with crap like that I'm not gonna bother. I wish you well with self immolation.

Rightwinger said , and I quote "Nobody called for Reagan to be impeached." Do you deny that he posted that?

My post was in direct response to his statement that was clearly wrong, and showed that he don't have a clue what he was talking about. Do you deny that? And now you're moving the goal posts? Changing the subject? Perhaps you can find a credible link referring to the Reagan administration day after day accusing everybody but themselves for Iran Contra.

(Lord, give me the grace to not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises of futility.)

 

[boedicca]

bendog has proven himself to be a vulgar troll.

 

[Foxfyre]

bendog has proven himself to be a vulgar troll.

I do get tired of those who seem incapable of actually discussing the topic but continue to try to deflect it to this or that straw dog, red herring, or direct personal attack.

As for the Reagan Administation not cooperating in the Iran Contra investigation, it was his own A.G.'s office who discovered it and brought to to light, it was Reagan who asked for the investigation. A bipartisan Congress chose Lawrence Walsh to be the special counsel to lead the investigation that included a dedicated search to something to hang Reagan and/or George H.W. Bush with and resulted in numerous indictments of high ranking person. After years of investigation and mega millions of dollars expended, they were unable to point to Reagan or Bush as having committed any crime.

Like Obama, Reagan initially got it wrong and said that arms were not traded for hostages. When the investigation revealed that they were, he went on national televsiion to state that fact. There was never any evidence that he or anybody in his administration at his dreiction changed any documents or knowingly dispensed any false information, but according to Walsh's report, some in his administration did willfully withhold documentation and did resist the investigation.

Col. Oliver North, in his testimony before Congress, given immunity by Congress, readily admitted that he flat out lied to Congress in order to protect identities of those who would be put into grave danger if their names were leaked. As he put it, Congress leaked like a sieve and he was not going to risk those men. It was Col. North's testimony that actually turned public opinion mostly in favor of him and the Administration. Protecting necessary confidentialities was also the reason given by the Administration for not releasing certain classified documentation.

Here is the short version. Dispute it if better information from a credible source is out there:

The scandal was first discovered by an assistant to Attorney General Ed Meese, who found a memorandum written by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, which documented the diversion of funds to the Contras. After the discovery of the memorandum, President Ronald Reagan met with both houses of Congress to disclose their findings; he then asked for the appointment of an independent counsel[1].

In the opinion of independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh, who investigated the affair, under the Arms Export Control Act [2] such sales to foreign powers not deemed under the term of the act friendly are illegal. [3] Payments to the Contras from the proceeds of private sales, while not illegal, in the opinion of critics were considered highly unethical. Later such arrangements were made explicitly illegal by the Boland amendment to the Federal Appropriation Bill. The independent counsel concluded that the Reagan administration misled congressional investigators and withheld documents: "large volumes of highly relevant, contemporaneously created documents were systematically and willfully withheld from investigators by several Reagan Administration officials" and "following the revelation of these operations in October and November 1986, Reagan Administration officials deliberately deceived the Congress and the public about the level and extent of official knowledge of and support for these operations."[4]

The week after the story was blown open by media outlets in the wake of midterm congressional elections after Democrats retook the Senate in November 1986, President Reagan returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were transferred to Iran, but he claimed they were not part of an exchange for hostages. In a speech in March of 1987, he acknowledged that the arms were in fact exchanged for hostages, saying that "what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages."

[5] The Reagan administration cooperated with the investigation, and no wrongdoing was ever proven. Reagan later stated in his autobiography that, "until Ed Meese uncovered North's memorandum, I had not heard a whisper about funds being channeled from the Iranian arms shipments to the Contras, and I would have not approved of it if anyone had suggested it to me....Yes, I believed in helping the Contras; but no one, including the President, is above the law." [6]
Iran-Contra affair - Conservapedia

The Obama Administration has never been held to such scrutiny by Congress, ever.

 

[Dot Com]

Cry me a river. You rw'ers are getting pretty craven in your attempts to score political points ESPECIALLY given your record.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

GTFO. lol. yeah the reagan admin cooperated fully with iran contra. I'd be happy to post why iran contra was largely a political turf battle, and why Reagan's legacy should get a pass .... but dang with crap like that I'm not gonna bother. I wish you well with self immolation.

Rightwinger said , and I quote "Nobody called for Reagan to be impeached." Do you deny that he posted that?

My post was in direct response to his statement that was clearly wrong, and showed that he don't have a clue what he was talking about. Do you deny that? And now you're moving the goal posts? Changing the subject? Perhaps you can find a credible link referring to the Reagan administration day after day accusing everybody but themselves for Iran Contra.

(Lord, give me the grace to not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises of futility.)

Why do conservatives have so much difficulty with the context of written statements? Did you all miss those days in school?

I referred to the attack on the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut and the fact that nobody called for him to be impeached because of it

Are you intentionally obtuse or just plain stupid?

 

[Foxfyre]

A trumped up partisan GOP impeachment of Obama would be fitting end to the fake 'new' Republican Party's fake outreach to minorities.

oh really? he's above the law because he's black? really?

I'm not sure that was his point. Of course the assigned talking point has been, whenever possible, to insert RACISM into every comment about anything from the right. And the assigned talking point to deflect attention from Benghazi is to accuse the Republicans of wanting to impeach Obama. NYc was just combining the two.

You do wonder if some of these people ever had an original thought in their lives though.

 

[regent]

In the Iran Contra hearings, Reagan responded 124 times "I don't remember."

 

[Redfish]

GTFO. lol. yeah the reagan admin cooperated fully with iran contra. I'd be happy to post why iran contra was largely a political turf battle, and why Reagan's legacy should get a pass .... but dang with crap like that I'm not gonna bother. I wish you well with self immolation.

Rightwinger said , and I quote "Nobody called for Reagan to be impeached." Do you deny that he posted that?

My post was in direct response to his statement that was clearly wrong, and showed that he don't have a clue what he was talking about. Do you deny that? And now you're moving the goal posts? Changing the subject? Perhaps you can find a credible link referring to the Reagan administration day after day accusing everybody but themselves for Iran Contra.

(Lord, give me the grace to not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises of futility.)

Why do conservatives have so much difficulty with the context of written statements? Did you all miss those days in school?

I referred to the attack on the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut and the fact that nobody called for him to be impeached because of it

Are you intentionally obtuse or just plain stupid?

Reagan did not lie about that attack------------thats the difference. Try to think for just once.

 

[Foxfyre]

GTFO. lol. yeah the reagan admin cooperated fully with iran contra. I'd be happy to post why iran contra was largely a political turf battle, and why Reagan's legacy should get a pass .... but dang with crap like that I'm not gonna bother. I wish you well with self immolation.

Rightwinger said , and I quote "Nobody called for Reagan to be impeached." Do you deny that he posted that?

My post was in direct response to his statement that was clearly wrong, and showed that he don't have a clue what he was talking about. Do you deny that? And now you're moving the goal posts? Changing the subject? Perhaps you can find a credible link referring to the Reagan administration day after day accusing everybody but themselves for Iran Contra.

(Lord, give me the grace to not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises of futility.)

Why do conservatives have so much difficulty with the context of written statements? Did you all miss those days in school?

I referred to the attack on the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut and the fact that nobody called for him to be impeached because of it

Are you intentionally obtuse or just plain stupid?

I will accept that was your intent and I misread it. But you didn't say that nobody called for Reagan to be impeached beause of the attack on the Marine Corps baracks in Beirut. You, in a separate paragraph, said "The only difference is nobody called for Reagan to be impeached." You didn't qualify that statement. But I will accept that you thought you did by the previous paragraph and, within the full context, that was your intent. I apologize for drawing the wrong conclusion.

But you do understand that the criticism of the Obama administration is not that the embassy was attacked? That the criticism is that requests for additional security was ignored even with the anniversary of 9/11 rapidly approaching, that there was apparently an order to refuse assistance to those under attack, that the Commander in Chief boarded a plane to go to a fund raiser the next morning after a brief Rose Garden announcement that hinted at the video as the motive, and that the nature of the attack was then deliberately and dishonestly misrepresented by Obama and members of his administration long after they knew the actual circumstances?

If you can point to anything comparable related to our response re the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, let's see it. The fact that nobody called for Reagan to be impeached is not the 'only difference.' And nobody is seriously calling for Obama to be impeached for that matter. The very few who make comments like that simply demonstrate that they don't know what constitutes grounds for impeachment.

But you are wrong that the only difference is that nobody called for Reagan to be impeached. The two circumstances were very different.