Could the Benghazi attack be grounds for impeachment?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Probably the first time a first time poster made a non troll thread.
Good job op.
As for the question, hell no. Past Presidents have done much worse...such as creating fake pretenses to go to war.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]It may shock conservatives living in their little bubble, but the rest of America doesn't see anything that Obama did wrong here and sees no connection between Benghazi and the Petreus resignation. But here's the reasoning that I've seen on the two. 1. The Benghazi affair is more politically consequential than Watergate, Whitewater, Iran-Contra, Chappaquiddick, the Keating Five and the Teapot Dome scandals all rolled into one, and Romney totally would have won the election if it had been covered properly. 2. President Obama mustve ignored warnings infinitely clearer than the 8/6/01 Presidential Daily Briefing entitled Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US, which was obviously not worth investigating after 3K civilians were killed on Bush the Lessers watch. 3. The only way Obama could cover his ass in the Benghazi affair was to orchestrate a scandal to compromise the countrys most prominent general, and he fiendishly used a wingnut FBI agents obsession with a seemingly flaky Tampa socialite to kick off an investigation that would lead down paths those two pawns could not foresee. 4. Obama further used Jedi mind-tricks to silence noted political opportunist Eric Cantor after Cantor was briefed on the scandal before the election, thanks to the aforementioned wingnut FBI agent. 5. Petraeus is either, A) such a dummy that he was willing to lie to Congress on 9/13 to buy a short reprieve from the announcement of the scandal, which he knows will then engulf him and destroy his career, or B) such a dupe that he will keep lying about Benghazi even after Obama has betrayed him and destroyed his career.PurdueBoilersI appreciate the knock on conservatives and the failure to answer the question. To compare 9/11 to Benghazi is off-base. Could Bush have done more? Absolutely. But there is a distinct difference between "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" and having the opportunity FOR HOURS in real-time to save American lives.....and ignoring them presumably for election purposes. The questions still stands oh so knowledgable and clever liberal: If Obama deliberately ignored these requests, is that grounds for impeachment? IF Obama did ignore those requests and let those guys die, and that is a big IF, then yes he should be impeached.
I appreciate the knock on conservatives and the failure to answer the question. To compare 9/11 to Benghazi is off-base. Could Bush have done more? Absolutely. But there is a distinct difference between "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" and having the opportunity FOR HOURS in real-time to save American lives.....and ignoring them presumably for election purposes. The questions still stands oh so knowledgable and clever liberal: If Obama deliberately ignored these requests, is that grounds for impeachment? IF Obama did ignore those requests and let those guys die, and that is a big IF, then yes he should be impeached.Would they really relay information like that to the POTUS? It sounds rather menial, something people lower than him would deal with.[QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]It may shock conservatives living in their little bubble, but the rest of America doesn't see anything that Obama did wrong here and sees no connection between Benghazi and the Petreus resignation. But here's the reasoning that I've seen on the two. 1. The Benghazi affair is more politically consequential than Watergate, Whitewater, Iran-Contra, Chappaquiddick, the Keating Five and the Teapot Dome scandals all rolled into one, and Romney totally would have won the election if it had been covered properly. 2. President Obama mustve ignored warnings infinitely clearer than the 8/6/01 Presidential Daily Briefing entitled Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US, which was obviously not worth investigating after 3K civilians were killed on Bush the Lessers watch. 3. The only way Obama could cover his ass in the Benghazi affair was to orchestrate a scandal to compromise the countrys most prominent general, and he fiendishly used a wingnut FBI agents obsession with a seemingly flaky Tampa socialite to kick off an investigation that would lead down paths those two pawns could not foresee. 4. Obama further used Jedi mind-tricks to silence noted political opportunist Eric Cantor after Cantor was briefed on the scandal before the election, thanks to the aforementioned wingnut FBI agent. 5. Petraeus is either, A) such a dummy that he was willing to lie to Congress on 9/13 to buy a short reprieve from the announcement of the scandal, which he knows will then engulf him and destroy his career, or B) such a dupe that he will keep lying about Benghazi even after Obama has betrayed him and destroyed his career.whipassmt
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]IF Obama did ignore those requests and let those guys die, and that is a big IF, then yes he should be impeached.Would they really relay information like that to the POTUS? It sounds rather menial, something people lower than him would deal with. i don't know.[QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"] I appreciate the knock on conservatives and the failure to answer the question. To compare 9/11 to Benghazi is off-base. Could Bush have done more? Absolutely. But there is a distinct difference between "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" and having the opportunity FOR HOURS in real-time to save American lives.....and ignoring them presumably for election purposes. The questions still stands oh so knowledgable and clever liberal: If Obama deliberately ignored these requests, is that grounds for impeachment? BossPerson
Short answer - no
Long answer - no
[QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Your allegations regarding the timeline and the actions taken are contradicted by the Pentagon's. Link Just for the record, there were TWELVE embassy attacks under Bush and two under Obama. I'm sorry. I know that conservatives are desperate to find some massive conspiracy. In fact, they've been trying for years now. And I'm sure we'll see a full Congressional investigation, but there's nothing to see here. There is no conspiracy. Sometimes bad shiiit happens in unstable places. It's just the way of the world. nocoolnamejimWhew, thanks for the link. That settles it. No reason to distrust anything that comes out as we've never been lied to before. In other words, there is no information or source that you would accept as legitimate that proves you wrong. Fair enough. I guess I should have expected that going in. Rather, I prefer not being spoon-fed information and accepting it without performing my due diligence. Especially, from a government that was caught in a huge lie just weeks ago. I would hope you feel the same way.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"] Whew, thanks for the link. That settles it. No reason to distrust anything that comes out as we've never been lied to before.PurdueBoilersIn other words, there is no information or source that you would accept as legitimate that proves you wrong. Fair enough. I guess I should have expected that going in. Rather, I prefer not being spoon-fed information and accepting it without performing my due diligence. Especially, from a government that was caught in a huge lie just weeks ago. I would hope you feel the same way. What huge lie were they caught in? And what, exactly, would convince you that you're wrong? Be honest.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"] Whew, thanks for the link. That settles it. No reason to distrust anything that comes out as we've never been lied to before.PurdueBoilersIn other words, there is no information or source that you would accept as legitimate that proves you wrong. Fair enough. I guess I should have expected that going in. Rather, I prefer not being spoon-fed information and accepting it without performing my due diligence. Especially, from a government that was caught in a huge lie just weeks ago. I would hope you feel the same way.
i feel this fits.
obama does no wrong. he's most likely the best president we've ever had.Novotine
This is exactly how all liberals think. Their double standard always plays into their thoughts and views. Who cares what happens to the US and it's citizens as long as Obama is President. The fact is, no matter who is President, attacks on US citizens by others will happen and it is up to the President to make those responsible pay.
It's possible. But in order for him to be impeached, it would have to pass the senate but that is currently democrat controlled. So he's safe for 2 years at the very least.
Well I think it would need 2/3 votes for the House to bring impeachment charges and 2/3 for the Senate to convict, so basically their would have to be clear evidence for the president to get impeached.It's possible. But in order for him to be impeached, it would have to pass the senate but that is currently democrat controlled. So he's safe for 2 years at the very least.
dissonantblack
[QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] In other words, there is no information or source that you would accept as legitimate that proves you wrong. Fair enough. I guess I should have expected that going in. nocoolnamejimRather, I prefer not being spoon-fed information and accepting it without performing my due diligence. Especially, from a government that was caught in a huge lie just weeks ago. I would hope you feel the same way. What huge lie were they caught in? And what, exactly, would convince you that you're wrong? Be honest. What lie? For weeks after the attack, the White House continued to claim it was unplanned and occured because of a video. NOW it has came to light, thanks to a leak, that emails were sent to Obama's White House within 2 HOURS of the attacks with the terrorist group that claimed responsibility of the premeditated attack. Thus, a complete lie that Obama's administration decided to stick with FOR WEEKS. THAT is the huge lie they were caught in.... or at leas the beginning of it.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"] Rather, I prefer not being spoon-fed information and accepting it without performing my due diligence. Especially, from a government that was caught in a huge lie just weeks ago. I would hope you feel the same way.PurdueBoilersWhat huge lie were they caught in? And what, exactly, would convince you that you're wrong? Be honest. What lie? For weeks after the attack, the White House continued to claim it was unplanned and occured because of a video. NOW it has came to light, thanks to a leak, that emails were sent to Obama's White House within 2 HOURS of the attacks with the terrorist group that claimed responsibility of the premeditated attack. Thus, a complete lie that Obama's administration decided to stick with FOR WEEKS. THAT is the huge lie they were caught in.... or at leas the beginning of it. Can you present your sourcing and back up your argument?
[QUOTE="Novotine"]obama does no wrong. he's most likely the best president we've ever had.WhiteKnight77
This is exactly how all liberals think. Their double standard always plays into their thoughts and views. Who cares what happens to the US and it's citizens as long as Obama is President. The fact is, no matter who is President, attacks on US citizens by others will happen and it is up to the President to make those responsible pay.
He's their precious.
[QUOTE="Shmiity"]"he wasn't there" That doesn't change the fact that he is a leader, and he is responsible for everything that his organization does or fails to do.Is that a serious question? Of course not. The president of the united states gets blamed/gets credit for everything. He didn't fire the bullets, start a conflict, fail in saving soldiers... he wasn't there.
thegerg
So? You realize how retarded that is, right? "HE IS THE PRESIDENT- HE IS RESPONSIBLE!!!" That does not make any logical sense. He didn't dismantle the economy, he didn't kill bin laden, he didn't cause Benghazi. He just gets the blame because his job sucks.
[QUOTE="Shmiity"][QUOTE="thegerg"] "he wasn't there" That doesn't change the fact that he is a leader, and he is responsible for everything that his organization does or fails to do.thegerg
So? You realize how retarded that is, right? "HE IS THE PRESIDENT- HE IS RESPONSIBLE!!!" That does not make any logical sense. He didn't dismantle the economy, he didn't kill bin laden, he didn't cause Benghazi. He just gets the blame because his job sucks.
It does make sense. A leader is responsible for everything that his organization does or fails to do.Thats totally false. Barack Obama can't make people do anything. He can command, he can make the calls, but whatever actually happens on the ground is out of his hands.
[QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] What huge lie were they caught in? And what, exactly, would convince you that you're wrong? Be honest. nocoolnamejimWhat lie? For weeks after the attack, the White House continued to claim it was unplanned and occured because of a video. NOW it has came to light, thanks to a leak, that emails were sent to Obama's White House within 2 HOURS of the attacks with the terrorist group that claimed responsibility of the premeditated attack. Thus, a complete lie that Obama's administration decided to stick with FOR WEEKS. THAT is the huge lie they were caught in.... or at leas the beginning of it. Can you present your sourcing and back up your argument? Not sure about the website, but here's a nice video of the the timeline of the lie. Notice how it is definitely based upon a video, then actually a terrorist attack (after the election): http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/11/232704/ Also, here is another timeline of the lie, this time using quotes of from our fearless leaders: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/world/libya-attack-statements/index.html Again, notice how it changes. I assure you, the lie is not even in question. It is now well-known that we were lied to. The question is, did Obama give orders to basically let the soldiers/ambassador die to protect the idea that he has "killed" terrorism. That is basically where we are at. And its not a matter of me being proven right or wrong, its a matter of us all finding out what our President decided to do.
[QUOTE="thegerg"]"he wasn't there" That doesn't change the fact that he is a leader, and he is responsible for everything that his organization does or fails to do.Shmiity
So? You realize how retarded that is, right? "HE IS THE PRESIDENT- HE IS RESPONSIBLE!!!" That does not make any logical sense. He didn't dismantle the economy, he didn't kill bin laden, he didn't cause Benghazi. He just gets the blame because his job sucks.
How many liberal's blamed Bush for 9-11? Quite a few. Why? Because he was the President. He is responsible for the lives of US citizens no matter where they live or work. His oath of office states such and as such, he does get the blame should US citizens lose their lives.
Last I heard, unless POTUS lies under oath and commits perjury, plain old lying to the public - IF that is the case - is not a federal offense worthy of impeachment proceedings. Also, as others have pointed out, it takes a super majority in the House to draft articles of impeachment and a super majority in the Senate to convict. Good luck with that......
[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="Shmiity"]
So? You realize how retarded that is, right? "HE IS THE PRESIDENT- HE IS RESPONSIBLE!!!" That does not make any logical sense. He didn't dismantle the economy, he didn't kill bin laden, he didn't cause Benghazi. He just gets the blame because his job sucks.
It does make sense. A leader is responsible for everything that his organization does or fails to do.Thats totally false. Barack Obama can't make people do anything. He can command, he can make the calls, but whatever actually happens on the ground is out of his hands.
That is not true. He is the President and largely has made decisions that affect the economy, foreign relations, ect. So in a broad sense, he is actually directly responsible.How many liberal's blamed Bush for 9-11? Quite a few. Why? Because he was the President. He is responsible for the lives of US citizens no matter where they live or work. His oath of office states such and as such, he does get the blame should US citizens lose their lives.
WhiteKnight77
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
That's the presidential oath of office. Not sure where you're seeing a responsibility for the live of US citizens.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"] What lie? For weeks after the attack, the White House continued to claim it was unplanned and occured because of a video. NOW it has came to light, thanks to a leak, that emails were sent to Obama's White House within 2 HOURS of the attacks with the terrorist group that claimed responsibility of the premeditated attack. Thus, a complete lie that Obama's administration decided to stick with FOR WEEKS. THAT is the huge lie they were caught in.... or at leas the beginning of it.PurdueBoilersCan you present your sourcing and back up your argument? Not sure about the website, but here's a nice video of the the timeline of the lie. Notice how it is definitely based upon a video, then actually a terrorist attack (after the election): http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/11/232704/ Also, here is another timeline of the lie, this time using quotes of from our fearless leaders: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/world/libya-attack-statements/index.html Again, notice how it changes. I assure you, the lie is not even in question. It is now well-known that we were lied to. The question is, did Obama give orders to basically let the soldiers/ambassador die to protect the idea that he has "killed" terrorism. That is basically where we are at. And its not a matter of me being proven right or wrong, its a matter of us all finding out what our President decided to do. Let's look at the first few posts in the archive of "thegatewaypundit.com" 1. "Swift Board Vets promise to regroup if Kerry is nominated as Secretary of Defense" 2. "Coulter: Democrats Decision to Turn US into Third World Nation Is Working Out As Planned" 3. "Senator Chambliss: What Susan Rice Said Was Exactly What President Obama Told Her to Say" I could go on. But basically your first source is a rightwing conspiracy blog. It applauds Ann Coulter as "right on" and agrees with Senator Chambliss as "Of course she was. And, it was all a lie But there was an election coming up." Seriously, have you absolutely no ability to understand the concept of a biased source? Why not trot out a Rush Limbaugh link while you're at it?
[QUOTE="Shmiity"][QUOTE="thegerg"] It does make sense. A leader is responsible for everything that his organization does or fails to do.thegerg
Thats totally false. Barack Obama can't make people do anything. He can command, he can make the calls, but whatever actually happens on the ground is out of his hands.
No, it is not false. A leader is responsible for everything that his organization does or fails to do.That just sounds like a stupid generality someone drilled into your brain. Is he responsible under law? I guess. But is he REALLY? No way. Come on.
[QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Can you present your sourcing and back up your argument?nocoolnamejimNot sure about the website, but here's a nice video of the the timeline of the lie. Notice how it is definitely based upon a video, then actually a terrorist attack (after the election): http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/11/232704/ Also, here is another timeline of the lie, this time using quotes of from our fearless leaders: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/world/libya-attack-statements/index.html Again, notice how it changes. I assure you, the lie is not even in question. It is now well-known that we were lied to. The question is, did Obama give orders to basically let the soldiers/ambassador die to protect the idea that he has "killed" terrorism. That is basically where we are at. And its not a matter of me being proven right or wrong, its a matter of us all finding out what our President decided to do. Let's look at the first few posts in the archive of "thegatewaypundit.com" 1. "Swift Board Vets promise to regroup if Kerry is nominated as Secretary of Defense" 2. "Coulter: Democrats Decision to Turn US into Third World Nation Is Working Out As Planned" 3. "Senator Chambliss: What Susan Rice Said Was Exactly What President Obama Told Her to Say" I could go on. But basically your first source is a rightwing conspiracy blog. It applauds Ann Coulter as "right on" and agrees with Senator Chambliss as "Of course she was. And, it was all a lie But there was an election coming up." Seriously, have you absolutely no ability to understand the concept of a biased source? Why not trot out a Rush Limbaugh link while you're at it? Unreal. Consider: I said I was not sure about the website, but LOOK AT THE VIDEO. Do you think those video clips were made up? LOL. And no response to the other link with DIRECT QUOTES DOCUMENTING THE LIE. You should run for office!
[QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Can you present your sourcing and back up your argument?nocoolnamejimNot sure about the website, but here's a nice video of the the timeline of the lie. Notice how it is definitely based upon a video, then actually a terrorist attack (after the election): http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/11/232704/ Also, here is another timeline of the lie, this time using quotes of from our fearless leaders: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/world/libya-attack-statements/index.html Again, notice how it changes. I assure you, the lie is not even in question. It is now well-known that we were lied to. The question is, did Obama give orders to basically let the soldiers/ambassador die to protect the idea that he has "killed" terrorism. That is basically where we are at. And its not a matter of me being proven right or wrong, its a matter of us all finding out what our President decided to do. Let's look at the first few posts in the archive of "thegatewaypundit.com" 1. "Swift Board Vets promise to regroup if Kerry is nominated as Secretary of Defense" 2. "Coulter: Democrats Decision to Turn US into Third World Nation Is Working Out As Planned" 3. "Senator Chambliss: What Susan Rice Said Was Exactly What President Obama Told Her to Say" I could go on. But basically your first source is a rightwing conspiracy blog. It applauds Ann Coulter as "right on" and agrees with Senator Chambliss as "Of course she was. And, it was all a lie But there was an election coming up." Seriously, have you absolutely no ability to understand the concept of a biased source? Why not trot out a Rush Limbaugh link while you're at it? Be nice to Senator Chambliss, afterall the guy's name is Saxby.
Let's look at the first few posts in the archive of "thegatewaypundit.com" 1. "Swift Board Vets promise to regroup if Kerry is nominated as Secretary of Defense" 2. "Coulter: Democrats Decision to Turn US into Third World Nation Is Working Out As Planned" 3. "Senator Chambliss: What Susan Rice Said Was Exactly What President Obama Told Her to Say" I could go on. But basically your first source is a rightwing conspiracy blog. It applauds Ann Coulter as "right on" and agrees with Senator Chambliss as "Of course she was. And, it was all a lie But there was an election coming up." Seriously, have you absolutely no ability to understand the concept of a biased source? Why not trot out a Rush Limbaugh link while you're at it? Be nice to Senator Chambliss, afterall the guy's name is Saxby. *wry smile* Purdueboilers is actually giving me a newfound appreciation for you.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"] Not sure about the website, but here's a nice video of the the timeline of the lie. Notice how it is definitely based upon a video, then actually a terrorist attack (after the election): http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/11/232704/ Also, here is another timeline of the lie, this time using quotes of from our fearless leaders: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/world/libya-attack-statements/index.html Again, notice how it changes. I assure you, the lie is not even in question. It is now well-known that we were lied to. The question is, did Obama give orders to basically let the soldiers/ambassador die to protect the idea that he has "killed" terrorism. That is basically where we are at. And its not a matter of me being proven right or wrong, its a matter of us all finding out what our President decided to do.whipassmt
Let's look at the first few posts in the archive of "thegatewaypundit.com" 1. "Swift Board Vets promise to regroup if Kerry is nominated as Secretary of Defense" 2. "Coulter: Democrats Decision to Turn US into Third World Nation Is Working Out As Planned" 3. "Senator Chambliss: What Susan Rice Said Was Exactly What President Obama Told Her to Say" I could go on. But basically your first source is a rightwing conspiracy blog. It applauds Ann Coulter as "right on" and agrees with Senator Chambliss as "Of course she was. And, it was all a lie But there was an election coming up." Seriously, have you absolutely no ability to understand the concept of a biased source? Why not trot out a Rush Limbaugh link while you're at it? nocoolnamejimBe nice to Senator Chambliss, afterall the guy's name is Saxby. *wry smile* Purdueboilers is actually giving me a newfound appreciation for you. I'm telling you that Obama may be completely innocent in the whole situation. I'm also telling you that "the lie" is fact at this point and even your party has accepted that. Not sure why you don't. All I ask you to watch the video/read the article.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] Be nice to Senator Chambliss, afterall the guy's name is Saxby.PurdueBoilers*wry smile* Purdueboilers is actually giving me a newfound appreciation for you. I'm telling you that Obama may be completely innocent in the whole situation. I'm also telling you that "the lie" is fact at this point and even your party has accepted that. Not sure why you don't. All I ask you to watch the video/read the article. Your video is a series of out of context/clipped quotes by a rightwing website. I'll go with the official Pentagon timeline until I have a legitimate source that gives me reason to suspect that it's wrong, or even has an incentive to lie.
[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]
How many liberal's blamed Bush for 9-11? Quite a few. Why? Because he was the President. He is responsible for the lives of US citizens no matter where they live or work. His oath of office states such and as such, he does get the blame should US citizens lose their lives.
sogni_belli
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
That's the presidential oath of office. Not sure where you're seeing a responsibility for the live of US citizens.
US Constitution Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
If people are dying in foreign lands, he is not providing for the common defence as our embassies and consulates are soveriegn US territory no matter in which country they reside. Same of the consulates and embassies of other countries in the US, it is their territory.
[QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] *wry smile* Purdueboilers is actually giving me a newfound appreciation for you.nocoolnamejimI'm telling you that Obama may be completely innocent in the whole situation. I'm also telling you that "the lie" is fact at this point and even your party has accepted that. Not sure why you don't. All I ask you to watch the video/read the article. Your video is a series of out of context/clipped quotes by a rightwing website. I'll go with the official Pentagon timeline until I have a legitimate source that gives me reason to suspect that it's wrong, or even has an incentive to lie. I appreciate you even watched it. Are they quotes without full context? Sure. But the clearly show how the lie evolved. Did you read the story from CNN? CNN is a source that is more liberal than conservative and even they acknowledge the lie.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"] I'm telling you that Obama may be completely innocent in the whole situation. I'm also telling you that "the lie" is fact at this point and even your party has accepted that. Not sure why you don't. All I ask you to watch the video/read the article.PurdueBoilersYour video is a series of out of context/clipped quotes by a rightwing website. I'll go with the official Pentagon timeline until I have a legitimate source that gives me reason to suspect that it's wrong, or even has an incentive to lie. I appreciate you even watched it. Are they quotes without full context? Sure. But the clearly show how the lie evolved. Did you read the story from CNN? CNN is a source that is more liberal than conservative and even they acknowledge the lie. Erick Ericson is a CNN contributor. I wouldn't say it is more liberal than conservative, but sure, it qualifies as a mainstream source. I did read through your CNN link. Can you point out what you mean by the lie evolving? I'm tired and I may not be following the track you're alluding to. My point is that you're making a pretty quick jump to a massive conspiracy. You've basically said that Obama deliberately let Americans die to help his reelection effort. Don't you think that MAYBE that's a little premature to settle on? Or, to put it another way, conservatives have cried wolf an awful lot over the last four years and been proven wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME. Why should even an open-minded individual think that THIS is the smoking gun that will finally prove that Obama is the evil, weak, whatever individual that we've been warned about?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment