Can a conservative here give me solid evidence that Obama himself...

Here is the sad irony......

3 "accusations" of lying:

When Hillary was asked why she was for the war when it was popular and now against it when she was campaigning, she claimed that Bush cherry picked intel.
The left roared!
Well, here we are, 5 years later and not a single document was ever produced proving such. 4000 Americans dead, 10's of thousands of Iraquis...and apparently the decision was made due to "cherry picking intel"...yet not a single investigative reporter was able to come up with evidence of the claim. No hearings, no whistleblowers....nothing.
But the left still claims it to be true.

When Pelosi was asked why she did not stop the waterboarding, she claimed she was not aware becuase the CIA had lied to her.
The left cired out in anger!
Well, here were are 4 years later and not a single document proving that claim was uncovered. No hearings, no whistleblowers...nothing. The CIA lied to congress and nothing to prove it.
And the left still claims such to be true.

Benghazi...there have been a multitude of conflciting reports....so through hearings and whistlebnlowers, emails and other communication has arisen...showing that something was seriouls askew.....actual proof...
And the left is saying......thats not proof.

Gotta love the blindness.
 
So far, five responses and no indication of an impeachable offense. The outrage is totally political, IMO. Some people haven't come to terms with Obama's re-election and are using the tragedy as an excuse to get him. Losing four lives was horrible, but what's more horrible is how they're being used by the wingnut right. When was the last time they spent more than two seconds considering how we're doing identifying and capturing the real culprits? They seem to have forgotten them just like they forgot OBL in their blind hatred of the president.


An impeachable offense is that which congress decides is an impeachable offense.

Wise up.

You wise up.

The Constitution is the guildline for impeachment. The House conducts the trial and the Senate dishes out the punishment.


Yes, you dolt. The Constitution gives congress wide latitude with the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors.

So stop pretending that congress doesn't decide what an impeachable offense is.
 
When you've got Bush, who needs anything else? He's the gift that keeps on giving. Lack of reaction by the right to similar instances during his presidency proves they don't care about the deaths, just about getting Obama.

Unfortunately for you, Bush is not germane to this discussion.

He is if you're being selective in your criticisms. I know you'd like to sweep those eight years under the rug, but that just isn't going to happen.

That's strange. I remember those years as being 10 times better than the last 4. I did much better in Real Estate. The unemployment rate was half of what it is now. People actually felt they had a future. Now everyone is scared to say or do anything for fear that the goverment will lower the boom on them. I've been audited twice since Obama took office. He's been harassing every known conservative in America, and even some liberals. He's spying on the prress. Spying on everyone. Using the IRS as a Gestapo. Using the NSA to record our phone conversations and our emails. Lying to us about everything and acting like we're a bunch of friggen idiots.

No, I long for the Bush years, even the Clinton years look good right now.
 
Last edited:
An impeachable offense is that which congress decides is an impeachable offense.

Wise up.

You wise up.

The Constitution is the guildline for impeachment. The House conducts the trial and the Senate dishes out the punishment.


Yes, you dolt. The Constitution gives congress wide latitude with the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors.

So stop pretending that congress doesn't decide what an impeachable offense is.

Why don't you STFU Ass-pirate.

Congress knows what is impeachable from the Constitution and established precedent.

The real question is whether or not it's worth pursuing. If the Senate blocks any punishment impeachment is rendered useless. It's essentially a political enterprise when you have one party or another not willing to deal with the crimes committed.
 
Last edited:
An impeachable offense is that which congress decides is an impeachable offense.

Wise up.

You wise up.

The Constitution is the guildline for impeachment. The House conducts the trial and the Senate dishes out the punishment.


Yes, you dolt. The Constitution gives congress wide latitude with the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors.

So stop pretending that congress doesn't decide what an impeachable offense is.

Benghazi alone is probably not an impeachable offense. There was no one thing that started the ball rolling to Articles of Impeachment being drawn up against Nixon. It was a pattern of abuse of power which IS an impeachable offense.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Short History of Impeachment | Infoplease.com

President Nixon's subsequent behavior—his cover-up of the burglary and refusal to turn over evidence—led the House Judiciary Committee to issue three articles of impeachment on July 30, 1974. The document also indicted Nixon for illegal wiretapping, misuse of the CIA, perjury, bribery, obstruction of justice, and other abuses of executive power. “In all of this,” the Articles of Impeachment summarize, “Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.”
 

When the progressive propaganda machine of the planet, the BBC, turns on Obama it shows what deep trouble this Administration is in.

After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll

There's new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama administration did deliberately purge references to "terrorism" from accounts of the attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission, which killed four people including the US ambassador to Libya.


And here's the big revelation by Mardell. That he has done a complete about face because of the evidence that ABC discovered.

Funny how our liberals at USMB are still arguing that there was "nothing new", but the American Editor of the most revered progressive media outlet on the planet says that the ABC evidence is new and irrefutable.

Black and white

In the interests of full disclosure I have to say I have not in the past been persuaded that allegations of a cover-up were a big deal. It seemed to me a partisan attack based on very little.

I remember listening to reports from the BBC and others at the time that did suggest the attack in Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to a rather puerile anti-Islamic video.

I understand President Barack Obama's careful use of the word "terrorism" when it actually means something, rather than as a knee-jerk description of any violence by foreigners against Americans, often in order to justify a "war on terror".

But the evidence is there in black and white, unless we doubt the documents obtained by ABC, which I don't.


BBC News - After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll
 
Considering the crimes he's committed I think Obama should be breaking rocks in Levenworth.
 
...greatly mishandled the reaction to the Benghazi attack? What exactly makes this controversy impeachment worthy? I find it hilarious you are all buying into the propaganda machine that is Fox News.

he blamed a video for the violence...on 9/11....either you're stupid along with Obama or you know he's a complete idiot
 
So, we have gone from, "It is no story at all" to "What proof is there that Obama knew anything"....

Better get a rear view camera to keep you from tripping during this backpedaling .


no kidding, they're about to fall on their ass....it's hilarious watching them twist

it's amazing the reaction when the leftwing media finally starts to cover something, to project a fake objectivity
 
...greatly mishandled the reaction to the Benghazi attack? What exactly makes this controversy impeachment worthy? I find it hilarious you are all buying into the propaganda machine that is Fox News.

he blamed a video for the violence...on 9/11....either you're stupid along with Obama or you know he's a complete idiot

that dem/lib koolaid when applied to a defective liberal gene, is a very dangerous thing. logic, facts, and common sense are not allowed to enter the thought processes.
 
...greatly mishandled the reaction to the Benghazi attack? What exactly makes this controversy impeachment worthy? I find it hilarious you are all buying into the propaganda machine that is Fox News.


s0n.....you shouldnt be posting in th POLITICS forum.

Who cares?

At this point, what matters is the political realit\y that are emerging = when daily's like the Washington Post ( of all outlets :eek:) are calling Obama "Pinnocchio"........only a mental case hyperpartisan doesnt get it.........


Obama?s claim he called Benghazi an ?act of terrorism? - The Washington Post



Have to say.......when I saw this over at DRUDGE this AM, I laughed my balls off. The Washington Post calling Obama a liar.......who'da thunk it???:2up:

This is it? This is the best you got? The wording he used in the rose garden? Pathetic attempt.
 
You wise up.

The Constitution is the guildline for impeachment. The House conducts the trial and the Senate dishes out the punishment.


Yes, you dolt. The Constitution gives congress wide latitude with the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors.

So stop pretending that congress doesn't decide what an impeachable offense is.

Benghazi alone is probably not an impeachable offense. There was no one thing that started the ball rolling to Articles of Impeachment being drawn up against Nixon. It was a pattern of abuse of power which IS an impeachable offense.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Short History of Impeachment | Infoplease.com

President Nixon's subsequent behavior—his cover-up of the burglary and refusal to turn over evidence—led the House Judiciary Committee to issue three articles of impeachment on July 30, 1974. The document also indicted Nixon for illegal wiretapping, misuse of the CIA, perjury, bribery, obstruction of justice, and other abuses of executive power. “In all of this,” the Articles of Impeachment summarize, “Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.”

A pattern?

We sell arms to the enemy of an ally (drug cartels/mexican government) and the president "DID NOT KNOW"

A high official in the IRS makes it public that it wa applyuing ideological profiling to their activities and the president "DID NOT KNOW ABOUT IT UNTIL HE SAW IT ON THE NEWS"

The CIA, men on the ground, and the Presidnet of Libya all say Benghazi was a "preplanned well orchastrated terrorist attack" yet the talking points USED by the administration were altered 12 times ultimately eliminating terrorism from the narrative, and instead blaming a man exercising his right to free speech...and the President "DID NOT KNOW THEY WERE CHANGED"

Seems to me there is a pattern of abuse of power.....or perhaps gross incompetency?
 
...greatly mishandled the reaction to the Benghazi attack? What exactly makes this controversy impeachment worthy? I find it hilarious you are all buying into the propaganda machine that is Fox News.


s0n.....you shouldnt be posting in th POLITICS forum.

Who cares?

At this point, what matters is the political realit\y that are emerging = when daily's like the Washington Post ( of all outlets :eek:) are calling Obama "Pinnocchio"........only a mental case hyperpartisan doesnt get it.........


Obama?s claim he called Benghazi an ?act of terrorism? - The Washington Post



Have to say.......when I saw this over at DRUDGE this AM, I laughed my balls off. The Washington Post calling Obama a liar.......who'da thunk it???:2up:

This is it? This is the best you got? The wording he used in the rose garden? Pathetic attempt.

Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST)

The Foreign Emergency Support Team is the United States Government's only interagency, on-call, short-notice team poised to respond to terrorist incidents worldwide. Led and trained by the Operations Directorate of the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, it assists U.S. missions and host governments in responding quickly and effectively to terrorist attacks. The FEST, which has deployed to over 20 countries since its inception in 1986, leaves for an incident site within four hours of notification, providing the fastest assistance possible.

Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST)

At the hearing, the head of FEST claimed he was told that FEST was not going to be used for this...the reason being that it was an "unsettled situation"...

As he put it.....FEST was developed so go INTO unsettled situations......

Now.....why would FEST not be used in this situation?

Sooner than later, THIS is what is going to be the finalo dagger......someone is going to have to answer the question...

"why was FEST not deployed"...and "who gave the order"

Now...as it pertains to sending military into a sovereign nation......I bleive only the CiC can give the green light...so I must assume it was brought to his attention.
 

Okay here is the issues I take with this story. Until we know what the edits were and how much authorization Obama put into the changes, we cannot make any assumptions about whether or not the changes were politically motivated.
 

When the progressive propaganda machine of the planet, the BBC, turns on Obama it shows what deep trouble this Administration is in.

After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll

There's new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama administration did deliberately purge references to "terrorism" from accounts of the attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission, which killed four people including the US ambassador to Libya.


And here's the big revelation by Mardell. That he has done a complete about face because of the evidence that ABC discovered.

Funny how our liberals at USMB are still arguing that there was "nothing new", but the American Editor of the most revered progressive media outlet on the planet says that the ABC evidence is new and irrefutable.

Black and white

In the interests of full disclosure I have to say I have not in the past been persuaded that allegations of a cover-up were a big deal. It seemed to me a partisan attack based on very little.

I remember listening to reports from the BBC and others at the time that did suggest the attack in Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to a rather puerile anti-Islamic video.

I understand President Barack Obama's careful use of the word "terrorism" when it actually means something, rather than as a knee-jerk description of any violence by foreigners against Americans, often in order to justify a "war on terror".

But the evidence is there in black and white, unless we doubt the documents obtained by ABC, which I don't.


BBC News - After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll

There could be something to this story. Perhaps. But what i am asking for is evidence of Obama's direct involvement. If there was wrong doing, I want to Know how Obama was involved. That is the focus of my thread.
 
Here is the sad irony......

3 "accusations" of lying:

When Hillary was asked why she was for the war when it was popular and now against it when she was campaigning, she claimed that Bush cherry picked intel.
The left roared!
Well, here we are, 5 years later and not a single document was ever produced proving such. 4000 Americans dead, 10's of thousands of Iraquis...and apparently the decision was made due to "cherry picking intel"...yet not a single investigative reporter was able to come up with evidence of the claim. No hearings, no whistleblowers....nothing.
But the left still claims it to be true.

When Pelosi was asked why she did not stop the waterboarding, she claimed she was not aware becuase the CIA had lied to her.The left cired out in anger!
Well, here were are 4 years later and not a single document proving that claim was uncovered. No hearings, no whistleblowers...nothing. The CIA lied to congress and nothing to prove it.
And the left still claims such to be true.

Benghazi...there have been a multitude of conflciting reports....so through hearings and whistlebnlowers, emails and other communication has arisen...showing that something was seriouls askew.....actual proof...
And the left is saying......thats not proof.

Gotta love the blindness.

She finally admitted she knew, but still made excuses, really sad.
Update | 3:21 p.m.
Under fire from Republicans for what she knew about harsh questioning of terror detainees, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday acknowledged that she had learned in 2003 that the C.I.A. had subjected suspects to waterboarding, but she asserted that the agency had misled Congress about its techniques.



I have been amazed how many times lies come out of the mouths of government officials.
 
...greatly mishandled the reaction to the Benghazi attack? What exactly makes this controversy impeachment worthy? I find it hilarious you are all buying into the propaganda machine that is Fox News.

When did Fox advocate for impeachment? Can you link it?

Christ, grow the fuck up. If you are going to take points away from my reputation, then give a reason why. What because i am slandering Fox News? I never said Fox News said it was an impeachable offense. I was referring to what users on this board have said. A lot of that was stemming from Mike Huckabee who made the ridiculous prediction that Obama would step down from office as a result of this controversy.
 
283663_579435035411699_1984703871_n.jpg
 

Forum List

Back
Top