Benghazi Impeachment Suddenly Not So Far-Fetched

[IlarMeilyr]

The lolberals -- especially the Obamaphile idiots and the Shrillary sycophants --are pretty much (and quite evidently) in full denial mode over this.

 

[Foxfyre]

The lolberals -- especially the Obamaphile idiots and the Shrillary sycophants --are pretty much (and quite evidently) in full denial mode over this.

And the indefensible and tragic deaths of the four who were murdered that day are being disrespected by the efforts of people in our government who want us to believe they didn't make any mistakes and didn't try to deceive us about the circumstances behind it.

Ultimately that could be the greatest tragedy of all: that so many Americans are willing to defend that. That we have so many Americans who so desperately want to believe a lie and who feel so desperate a need to defend those who are guilty of error, of calculated miscalls, of intentional obfusication of the facts, and of deliberate attempts to deceive.

I wish Americans would have the character and honesty to want the truth no matter who is in charge or what letter is after their name.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

No......Reagan just left 200 Marines to die who he could have protected

 

[Foxfyre]

If uttering the "I" word is going to be the standard, then nobody, and I mean nobody can beat the "I" word used in reference to George W. Bush. Just naming those in government and the Democratic Party alone (and I suspect this is just a sampling):
Efforts to impeach George W. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, if you go digging for when some commentator or pundit used the "I" word, or all the times members at USMB used it related to GWB, as Salon.com did re Obama, I doubt USMB has enough band width to post it all.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

No......Reagan just left 200 Marines to die who he could have protected

He "left them to die" you say?

How did he leave them to die?

 

[Foxfyre]

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

No......Reagan just left 200 Marines to die who he could have protected

He "left them to die" you say?

How did he leave them to die?

You have to understand the RW does not seem to apply the same standards of dishonest statements, misreading of circumstances, and precision of speech to himself that he applies to the rest of us.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

No he lied about trading with the enemy in violation of American law.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

No......Reagan just left 200 Marines to die who he could have protected

and he cut-and-ran leaving the French to retaliate against the evil doers

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...
Benghazi Impeachment Suddenly Not So Far-Fetched

...

really?

Impeach Obama! Again!? - Salon.com

Taking things to their logical conclusion this afternoon, Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe suggested on a conservative radio show that President Obama may be be impeached over Benghazi. “Of all the great coverups in history — the Pentagon papers, the Iran-Contra, Watergate and all the rest of them — this … is going to go down as the most serious,” Inhofe said, a tad hyperbolically. “People may be starting to use the I-word,” he added.

There’s no doubt that people will start using the “the I-word” around Benghazi considering they’ve already invoked impeachment so, so, so many other times. Here’s a brief history of threats to impeach President Obama that have gone nowhere, in no particular order:

 

[Zona]

Let us know how this turns out.

 

[rightwinger]

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

No......Reagan just left 200 Marines to die who he could have protected

He "left them to die" you say?

How did he leave them to die?

Reagan ordered Marines to be stationed n Beirut Lebannon. At the time, one of the most dangerous places on earth. Reagan failed to provide them with adequate perimeter security to prevent a guy from off the street to drive a truck bomb into the place killing over 200

Shouldn't Reagan have had to answer for his ineptness? And isn't Monday Morning Quartebacking great?

 

[Zona]

...
Benghazi Impeachment Suddenly Not So Far-Fetched

...

really?

Impeach Obama! Again!? - Salon.com

Taking things to their logical conclusion this afternoon, Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe suggested on a conservative radio show that President Obama may be be impeached over Benghazi. “Of all the great coverups in history — the Pentagon papers, the Iran-Contra, Watergate and all the rest of them — this … is going to go down as the most serious,” Inhofe said, a tad hyperbolically. “People may be starting to use the I-word,” he added.

There’s no doubt that people will start using the “the I-word” around Benghazi considering they’ve already invoked impeachment so, so, so many other times. Here’s a brief history of threats to impeach President Obama that have gone nowhere, in no particular order:

My favorite part from that link....(Perhaps some idiot in here will start a thread about this as well.)

Just existing: When a man told Rep. Michele Bachmann that President Obama should be impeached just because, Bachmann replied, “Well, I’ll tell you, I’ll tell you, I agree, I agree.” Texas Republican Michael Burgess told a Tea Party group in 2011 that he would push to impeach Obama for just generally being liberal. When a reporter asked him later what the charges would be, Burgess said he wasn’t sure, but said “it needs to happen” so Republicans can tie up Obama’s legislative agenda.

 

[Againsheila]

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

Which would have gone down in history if it weren't for Clinton's "Depends on what the definition of is is."

 

[Redfish]

No......Reagan just left 200 Marines to die who he could have protected

He "left them to die" you say?

How did he leave them to die?

Reagan ordered Marines to be stationed n Beirut Lebannon. At the time, one of the most dangerous places on earth. Reagan failed to provide them with adequate perimeter security to prevent a guy from off the street to drive a truck bomb into the place killing over 200

Shouldn't Reagan have had to answer for his ineptness? And isn't Monday Morning Quartebacking great?

Ok, lets agree on that, why don't you hold obama to the same standard regarding benghazi?

 

[Redfish]

...
Benghazi Impeachment Suddenly Not So Far-Fetched

...

really?

Impeach Obama! Again!? - Salon.com

Taking things to their logical conclusion this afternoon, Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe suggested on a conservative radio show that President Obama may be be impeached over Benghazi. “Of all the great coverups in history — the Pentagon papers, the Iran-Contra, Watergate and all the rest of them — this … is going to go down as the most serious,” Inhofe said, a tad hyperbolically. “People may be starting to use the I-word,” he added.

There’s no doubt that people will start using the “the I-word” around Benghazi considering they’ve already invoked impeachment so, so, so many other times. Here’s a brief history of threats to impeach President Obama that have gone nowhere, in no particular order:

My favorite part from that link....(Perhaps some idiot in here will start a thread about this as well.)

Just existing: When a man told Rep. Michele Bachmann that President Obama should be impeached just because, Bachmann replied, “Well, I’ll tell you, I’ll tell you, I agree, I agree.” Texas Republican Michael Burgess told a Tea Party group in 2011 that he would push to impeach Obama for just generally being liberal. When a reporter asked him later what the charges would be, Burgess said he wasn’t sure, but said “it needs to happen” so Republicans can tie up Obama’s legislative agenda.

I don't like Bachman either, but the republicans should be tying up obama's legislative agenda-because his agenda is bad for america and americans.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

No......Reagan just left 200 Marines to die who he could have protected

He "left them to die" you say?

How did he leave them to die?

Reagan ordered Marines to be stationed n Beirut Lebannon. At the time, one of the most dangerous places on earth. Reagan failed to provide them with adequate perimeter security to prevent a guy from off the street to drive a truck bomb into the place killing over 200

Shouldn't Reagan have had to answer for his ineptness? And isn't Monday Morning Quartebacking great?

Reagan was smart enough not to engage in an idiotic war in Lebanon. He should've been removed from office for the Iran-Contra debacle, though.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

No......Reagan just left 200 Marines to die who he could have protected

He "left them to die" you say?

How did he leave them to die?

Reagan ordered Marines to be stationed n Beirut Lebannon. At the time, one of the most dangerous places on earth. Reagan failed to provide them with adequate perimeter security to prevent a guy from off the street to drive a truck bomb into the place killing over 200

Shouldn't Reagan have had to answer for his ineptness? And isn't Monday Morning Quartebacking great?

So, he did NOT "leave them to die."

your claim is actually that, as CiC, at worst, he failed to require adequate security for a Marine base.

It is always fun to call bullshit on you and have you promptly confirm it.

 

[rightwinger]

He "left them to die" you say?

How did he leave them to die?

Reagan ordered Marines to be stationed n Beirut Lebannon. At the time, one of the most dangerous places on earth. Reagan failed to provide them with adequate perimeter security to prevent a guy from off the street to drive a truck bomb into the place killing over 200

Shouldn't Reagan have had to answer for his ineptness? And isn't Monday Morning Quartebacking great?

Ok, lets agree on that, why don't you hold obama to the same standard regarding benghazi?

Cool, we have Monday Morning QB'd both Reagan and Obama

Let's do Bush next

Bush was warned of the threat of Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in particular. Yet, he demphasized his anti-terror group and did not even meet with them till 9-11. He failed to scramble jets in time to stop the attacks and provided no help to people in the twin towers.

Talk about lying....let's talk WMDs

 

[IlarMeilyr]

No no, rw.

You have done the multi-decade quarterbacking and done that ineptly.

The situation in Benghazi was NOT in the slightest little bit properly analogous to what happened in Beirut.

Your fail keeps on going and going and going.

 

[Zona]

He "left them to die" you say?

How did he leave them to die?

Reagan ordered Marines to be stationed n Beirut Lebannon. At the time, one of the most dangerous places on earth. Reagan failed to provide them with adequate perimeter security to prevent a guy from off the street to drive a truck bomb into the place killing over 200

Shouldn't Reagan have had to answer for his ineptness? And isn't Monday Morning Quartebacking great?

So, he did NOT "leave them to die."

your claim is actually that, as CiC, at worst, he failed to require adequate security for a Marine base.

It is always fun to call bullshit on you and have you promptly confirm it.

Its hard to take anything you say seriously. Please see my sig.