Benghazi Impeachment Suddenly Not So Far-Fetched

[rightwinger]

your first sentence is correct, your second one is partisan bullshit.

Do you honestly believe that Bush WANTED a war that would kill thousands of americans an cost billions?

Bush wanted that war since the day he took office

New Documents Show Bush Administration Planned War in Iraq Well Before 9/11/2001 | Crooks and Liars

really? he told you that? exactly why did he want a war? you lefties are sick bunch.

I did not support the Iraq action, but lying about why we did it contaminates history and prevents our kids from learning from history.

turning this into a vendetta against one person because he beat two weak dem candidates is just sick.

January 30, 2001 – Bush administration principals (agency heads) meet for the
first time and discuss the Middle East, including Bush’s intention to disengage from the Israel-Palestine peace process and “How Iraq is destabilizing the region.” Bush directs Rumsfeld and JCS chairman Hugh Shelton to examine military options for Iraq; CIA director George Tenet is directed to improve intelligence on the country. Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke are both struck by the emphasis on confronting Iraq, an aim consistent with Rumsfeld’s hiring of Wolfowitz and later Feith, well known for their bellicosity on the issue, for high-level Pentagon
positions. (Source: EBB/Franks Timeline (PDF))

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The issue is what the entire world believed BEFORE we went into Iraq. The entire world believed that Saddam had WMDs, it was bad intel, and/or they were moved to Syria before we got there.

What Bush said is that we did not find any WMDs. Quite different from there never were any.

But in the words of that famous female democrat "what difference does it make?"

Hans Blix thought otherwise and asked Bush for more time to prove it. Bush pulled the trigger before UN Inspectors could prove him wrong

congress authorized and funded the iraq invasion. Bush could not have done it alone. Do you even understand how our government works?

the president is not a dictator, even though the current one thinks he is

Predicated on lies, lies the Bush administration later acknowledged.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

proof positive these people are nuts:

Fast and furious: Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner threatened to impeach administration officials and possibly the president over the botched gun-running investigation, telling Attorney General Eric Holder: “If we don’t get to the bottom of this — and that requires your assistance on that — there is only one alternative that Congress has, and it is called impeachment.”

Boston bombing: A Washington Times columnist called for impeaching Obama after the Boston Marathon bombing because he fails to realize that “we are in a clash of civilizations between radical Islam and the West.”

Joe Sestak: Dick Morris, America’s best columnist, and Sean Hannity, America’s best TV host, agreed that it was a “de facto bribe” and “an impeachable offense” when the White House allegedly pushed former Pennsylvania senatorial candidate Joe Sestak out of a Democratic primary.

Guns: A whole slew of Republican lawmakers have floated impeaching Obama over post–Sandy Hook gun laws, and Rep. Steve Stockman even planned to introduce articles of impeachment in the House. Unfortunately, due to their efforts, Obama’s watered-down gun safety bill died in the Senate.

Debt: South Carolina Republican Sen. Tim Scott, then in the House, said that if Obama invoked the 14th Amendment to circumvent the debt ceiling, it would be an “impeachable act.” Rep. Steve King promised “Obama would be impeached” if the government defaulted.

Balanced budget: Rep. Mo Brooks in January proposed a constitutional amendment that would make failing to balance the nation’s budget an impeachable offense.

Immigration: Former Sen. Jon Kyl, then the No. 2 Republican senator, responded to Obama’s deferred action immigration policy by telling radio host Bill Bennett that “impeachment is always a possibility,” especially if there are “shenanigans involved.” Rush Limbaugh joined the fun, as did the restrictionist group AILPAC, which has a petition up on its website to impeach the president.

DOMA: Newt Gingrich (who has some experience with impeachment) suggested impeaching the president over his decision to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court while Herman Cain called it near-treason. Social conservative stalwart Rep. Trent Franks hinted at impeachment, too.

Bush tax cuts: Anti-tax activist Grover Norquist said if Obama failed to extend the Bush tax cuts, “Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach.”

Island giveaway conspiracy: A Texas congressional candidate wanted to impeach Obama in 2012 for supposedly giving away a string of islands to Russia.

Recess appointments: Fox News’ Neil Cavuto wondered if Obama could be impeached for making recess appointments. Sadly, a Fox legal analyst said no.

Libya: Bruce Fein, a lawyer who has written articles of impeachments against Clinton, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, did the same for Obama in 2011 over the military intervention in Libya, alleging that it violated the Constitution’s mandate that only Congress can declare war.

Birth certificate: A former GOP congressman who ran for office again in 2010 suggested the idea of moving to impeach Obama in order to pressure him to release his birth certificate.

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.

It’s not too surprising that this keeps coming up, considering that large swaths of the Republican base seem to support impeachment. Sadly, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, who is leading the charge on Benghazi, said in 2010 that there’s “not a chance” that the House will impeach the president. ?Impeach Obama! Again!? - Salon.com

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Congress authorized Bush to invade IF he saw it necessary. It was not an order to invade Iraq. Two months later, Bush pulled the trigger

He had to invade before Hans Blix removed his reason for invading

your first sentence is correct, your second one is partisan bullshit.

Do you honestly believe that Bush WANTED a war that would kill thousands of americans an cost billions?

Bush wanted that war since the day he took office

New Documents Show Bush Administration Planned War in Iraq Well Before 9/11/2001 | Crooks and Liars

And 9/11 afforded Bush the opportunity to start his war.

Hence the lies about ‘WMD’ in Iraq, and Saddam’s ‘involvement’ in 9/11.

Of course Bush thought it would be another Gulf War I, with few American casualties, ‘Mission Accomplished’ is proof of that.

 

[Redfish]

Hans Blix thought otherwise and asked Bush for more time to prove it. Bush pulled the trigger before UN Inspectors could prove him wrong

congress authorized and funded the iraq invasion. Bush could not have done it alone. Do you even understand how our government works?

the president is not a dictator, even though the current one thinks he is

Predicated on lies, lies the Bush administration later acknowledged.

Repeating something that everyone believes to be true is not lying. The intel was bad but the entire world believed it. History proved it to be wrong, but at the time everyone accepted it as true.

Thats what happened. I know you hate Bush, and thats fine, but lying about history is just wrong.

 

[NoNukes]

Redfish wrote, "The action was sanctioned by the UN, UK, EU, France, Germany . . ." and I corrected him, and he has ignored it.

ONCE AGAIN: "Want to give us the UN resolution sanctioning the invasion? France and Germany did not sanction the action, much the opposite."

Redfish is entitled to his own opinions but not to his own facts.

Were Americans not so angry at the French for not sanctioning it that they changed French fries to Freedom fries?

 

[Toro]

This should get all the turds in here to start foaming at the mouth:

On October 27th, 2012, only days before the presidential election, I wrote:

If Barack Obama is reelected, will he face impeachment over Benghazi — a yet more unpleasant and far more wrenching result than to lose an election?

It could happen — and in my estimation should happen — the way revelations are playing out over the bloody terror attack that took four American lives and has led to weeks of prevarication and obfuscation.

The scandal thus far has at least tarnished and quite possibly implicated everyone from the CIA director, to the secretaries of State and Defense, to the UN ambassador and, of course, the president himself — with no end in sight, because Obama, normally loath to expose himself and even less so in an election season, refuses to answer questions on the subject.

It’s not the crime, but the cover-up, we learned in an earlier impeachment, only in this case the crime may be just as bad or worse.”

Roger L. Simon » Benghazi Impeachment Suddenly Not So Far-Fetched

I believe [MENTION=19535]L.K.Eder[/MENTION] also predicted that Republicans would impeach Obama after the GOP lost the election.

Not because of Benghazi, mind you, but because they couldn't accept the will of the people.

 

[Redfish]

This should get all the turds in here to start foaming at the mouth:

On October 27th, 2012, only days before the presidential election, I wrote:

If Barack Obama is reelected, will he face impeachment over Benghazi — a yet more unpleasant and far more wrenching result than to lose an election?

It could happen — and in my estimation should happen — the way revelations are playing out over the bloody terror attack that took four American lives and has led to weeks of prevarication and obfuscation.

The scandal thus far has at least tarnished and quite possibly implicated everyone from the CIA director, to the secretaries of State and Defense, to the UN ambassador and, of course, the president himself — with no end in sight, because Obama, normally loath to expose himself and even less so in an election season, refuses to answer questions on the subject.

It’s not the crime, but the cover-up, we learned in an earlier impeachment, only in this case the crime may be just as bad or worse.”

Roger L. Simon » Benghazi Impeachment Suddenly Not So Far-Fetched

I believe [MENTION=19535]L.K.Eder[/MENTION] also predicted that Republicans would impeach Obama after the GOP lost the election.

Not because of Benghazi, mind you, but because they couldn't accept the will of the people.

52/48 the will of 52% of the people--------not "the people". our country is very divided on ideological lines, our last few elections have verified that we are very close to 50/50 with a tiny minority that swing the results.

BTW, on the will of the people, the people of california voted against gay marriage twice by a substantial majority, is that not the will of the people?

 

[Trajan]

This should get all the turds in here to start foaming at the mouth:

On October 27th, 2012, only days before the presidential election, I wrote:

If Barack Obama is reelected, will he face impeachment over Benghazi — a yet more unpleasant and far more wrenching result than to lose an election?

It could happen — and in my estimation should happen — the way revelations are playing out over the bloody terror attack that took four American lives and has led to weeks of prevarication and obfuscation.

The scandal thus far has at least tarnished and quite possibly implicated everyone from the CIA director, to the secretaries of State and Defense, to the UN ambassador and, of course, the president himself — with no end in sight, because Obama, normally loath to expose himself and even less so in an election season, refuses to answer questions on the subject.

It’s not the crime, but the cover-up, we learned in an earlier impeachment, only in this case the crime may be just as bad or worse.”

Roger L. Simon » Benghazi Impeachment Suddenly Not So Far-Fetched

I believe [MENTION=19535]L.K.Eder[/MENTION] also predicted that Republicans would impeach Obama after the GOP lost the election.

Not because of Benghazi, mind you, but because they couldn't accept the will of the people.

unless they have a smoking gun, which I very much doubt, they should not even be going there......its stupid and just a distraction which the dems will (and I don't blame them) exploit...and on that note, it gives idiots like danta post fodder as if this si some mitigation for/of the events already proven....just muddys the waters

 

[IlarMeilyr]

For the sake of clarity, I suggest two points.

1. What actually happened (and didn't happen) in the Benghazi attacks was not reported honestly to the American people by the Administration. They have engaged in a stupid and now unraveling coverup. Those shitheads.

2. Given point 1, let's be objective about point 2. There is not going to be any impeachment over this. I'm not sure it could even be validly justified. But even if it could be, it's moot. It simply is not going to happen.

 

[mudwhistle]

Hans Blix thought otherwise and asked Bush for more time to prove it. Bush pulled the trigger before UN Inspectors could prove him wrong

congress authorized and funded the iraq invasion. Bush could not have done it alone. Do you even understand how our government works?

the president is not a dictator, even though the current one thinks he is

Predicated on lies, lies the Bush administration later acknowledged.

That's a fucken lie.

They admitted that they couldn't find what they were looking for. Nothing more.

 

[EriktheRed]

I just wasted my time reading that entire article linked in the OP and never once does that author state which laws were broken

Apparently the main offense was daring to be elected President as a Democrat and then compounding it by daring to seek another four years.

 

[Foxfyre]

For the sake of clarity, I suggest two points.

1. What actually happened (and didn't happen) in the Benghazi attacks was not reported honestly to the American people by the Administration. They have engaged in a stupid and now unraveling coverup. Those shitheads.

2. Given point 1, let's be objective about point 2. There is not going to be any impeachment over this. I'm not sure it could even be validly justified. But even if it could be, it's moot. It simply is not going to happen.

And even if it turns out that the State Dept. knowingly and willingly put those embassy personnel at risk for self-serving political reasons at the request of the administration, if they refused to send help for the same reason, and it turns out they deliberately altered the reports in order to cover their tracks that they intentionally endangered personnel for political gain, the impeachment would be targeted at Secretary Clinton rather than the President. And even then impeachment is highly unlikely because how would motive for gain that can't be measured in dollars and cents ever be proved?

Which is why I am saying that impeachment is not being even considered by those who are thinking before they run off at the mouth. Certainly nobody has introduced articles of impeachment for anything re this matter.

And that still should not be construed as justification to keep the truth from the American people who have a right to know the truth about the behavior of those elected, appointed, and/or hired to high level positions that we all pay for and endure the consequences of what they do.

 

[Redfish]

I just wasted my time reading that entire article linked in the OP and never once does that author state which laws were broken

Apparently the main offense was daring to be elected President as a Democrat and then compounding it by daring to seek another four years.

was that Bush's main offense as well? or was it beating your clowns gore and kerry twice?

the road goes both ways

 

[EriktheRed]

I just wasted my time reading that entire article linked in the OP and never once does that author state which laws were broken

Apparently the main offense was daring to be elected President as a Democrat and then compounding it by daring to seek another four years.

was that Bush's main offense as well? or was it beating your clowns gore and kerry twice?

the road goes both ways

You could make that argument, though I'd argue that engaging us in one of the worst foreign policy blunders ever isn't a bad reason to kick a guy out of office.

But hey, it's water under the bridge now, right? Now it's YOUR clowns who got THEIR asses beat and we're still laughing.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Winning is not the same thing as 'beating asses' you idjit.

Your idiot won. You idiots are all happy happy because your idiot won.

But the Republic is suffering under his disastrous "leadership." You idiots are happy because you are too fucking stupid to even notice the harm being done. That's the way it is with you idiot lolberals.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Redfish wrote, "The action was sanctioned by the UN, UK, EU, France, Germany . . ." and I corrected him, and he has ignored it.

ONCE AGAIN: "Want to give us the UN resolution sanctioning the invasion? France and Germany did not sanction the action, much the opposite."

Redfish is entitled to his own opinions but not to his own facts.

Were Americans not so angry at the French for not sanctioning it that they changed French fries to Freedom fries?

Yup, and Redfish angrily ate them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

52/48 the will of 52% of the people--------not "the people".

Moronic statement. Yes, it is the "will" of the people. That's how the Constitution works.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

52/48 the will of 52% of the people--------not "the people".

Moronic statement. Yes, it is the "will" of the people. That's how the Constitution works.

In some matters.

Not in all.

Your standard lolberal ignorance is on display, Fakey.

 

[JakeStarkey]

52/48 the will of 52% of the people--------not "the people".

Moronic statement. Yes, it is the "will" of the people. That's how the Constitution works.

In some matters. Not in all..

In this case, yes. SCOTUS has spoken on ACA, and your opinion or mine doesn't matter about election percentages.