Could the Benghazi attack be grounds for impeachment?

[QUOTE="sogni_belli"]

[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.

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.

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.

The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution sets forth the reasons why the Constitution has been established and enacted by the Framers. It does not set forth the responsibilities of the President. Article II of the Constitution sets forth the powers and duties of the Executive office.

[QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] 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.nocoolnamejim

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"] 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.PurdueBoilers

An american president initiated an illegal war on the pretext of an outright lie and he wasn't impeached, someone already pointed this out.

[QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] 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?nocoolnamejim

"We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault." Hillary Clinton

"It's too early for us to make that judgment. I think -- I know that this is being investigated, and we're working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. So I would not want to speculate on that at this time." Jay Carney

Jesus fvcking Christ! Will you guys get over Benghazi already?! You guys act as though over a thousand Americans got gun down and not casualty number you can count with one hand. Its starting to get sad....tocool340

[QUOTE="tocool340"]Jesus fvcking Christ! Will you guys get over Benghazi already?! You guys act as though over a thousand Americans got gun down and not casualty number you can count with one hand. Its starting to get sad....PurdueBoilers

BTW, your welcome....

We already know the Obama administration, conveniently right before the election, lied to the American people about the Benghazi attacks in an attempt to quell concerns over terrorism. My question to you is: If it comes out that Obama gave direct orders to let Americans die when they could have been saved and the full situation/happenings were in fact known, is that grounds to impeach Obama? Or is it okay to spare a few soldiers when an election is close? On a side note, convenient time for the Petraeus affair eh?PurdueBoilers

Only if Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford launch an investigation.

Rather, I prefer not being spoon-fed information and accepting it without performing my due diligencePurdueBoilers

Rather, I prefer not being spoon-fed information and accepting it without performing my due diligencePurdueBoilers

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"] At the beginning all Democratic sources say it was the video. Later on, Dems are basically on both sides of the fence. At the end, the Dems claimed it was a terrorist attack from the start (thereby proving the early lies) and try to prove that it was called that when it was not. The lie is true. Did Obama deliberately allow Americans to die? Maybe not and I apologize if I somehow asserted that that was 100% true, because it is not known at this point.PurdueBoilers

"We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault." Hillary Clinton

"It's too early for us to make that judgment. I think -- I know that this is being investigated, and we're working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. So I would not want to speculate on that at this time." Jay Carney

Nice job cherrypicking comments. Why are you deliberately not acknowledging FULL QUOTES from your leaders?

"The protests we're seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States."

"We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent."

"There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the Internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government, and it's one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It's been offensive to many, many people around the world. That sparked violence in various parts of the world, including violence directed against Western facilities including our embassies and consulates."

Those are just a tiny sample of quotes from that article from OUR LEADERS. Leaders who don't just say whatever they want, but are instructed what to say. Your cherrypicking is unbelievable. You literally posted the only ambiguous quotes in the whole article. I trust you can see the quotes at the end that acknowledge that it was a terrorist attack.

Assertion based on low evidence, but seemed reasonable at the time (evidence was foggy, blurred, obscured...)

2. "We are not aware..." (fog of war)

Unless you have a quote where they make it clear that they are aware, and correct (it can't just be a guess of "we know", as above). However, even if someone did know, not everyone can know everything at any given time.

3. Not much wrong with this quote, it's right for many regions. However fog obscures the reality of other regions.

----

Maybe you're not understanding what a "fog of war" is... Go download SC2 (play as guest, vsAI(f3 is the menu's hotkey)) and you'll notice there's a blacked out area where you can't see(no intel), this is the most literal interpretation. You'll discover you have to scout to see, and this takes time, and unless you scout well and at the right time, you'll miss important things, and you'll never have all of the information. The US Intelligence does 'not' have a maphack to see everything everyone is doing at any time.

Correct me if Im wrong but didnt house republicans vote against increasing funding for security for foreign embassies? I remember reading this.

Rather, I prefer not being spoon-fed information and accepting it without performing my due diligencePurdueBoilers

Correct me if Im wrong but didnt house republicans vote against increasing funding for security for foreign embassies? I remember reading this.

Diablo-B

Yes.

I wonder how the reaction would be to this if Mitt Romney had been President and his words during the crisis were not being repeated ad infinitum.

The GOP is looking to gain some measure of power back after being beaten last week, so they are choosing a topic in which they have little leverage. There is an ongoing investigation through the usual channels in Congress, but that isn't enough for someone like John McCain, who chooses to miss said meetings for publicity.

Why are people still talking about this non-story?

Bush ignored warnings that 9/11 was imminent and lied to start a war in Iraq. That's a trillion times worse than this, and he wasn't impeached.

This assassination wasn't even big news when it happened. It became a story because Fox News knew Romney wasn't polling well and needed some last minute ammunition against Obama.

I'm still curious as to why people think the government would even try to lie about this at all. I mean, what benefit would the derive from deliberately misrepresenting the cause of the attacks?Abbeten

I'm still curious as to why people think the government would even try to lie about this at all. I mean, what benefit would the derive from deliberately misrepresenting the cause of the attacks?Abbeten

Correct me if Im wrong but didnt house republicans vote against increasing funding for security for foreign embassies? I remember reading this.

Diablo-B

Step 3: Bargaining.

[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.

So who's alt is the TC?

So who's alt is the TC?

worlock77

Why are people so desperate for an impeachment?

If Obama gets impeached, it doesn't me the election goes the other way... They just kick him out and he gets replaced by Biden.

BuryMe

Actually impeachment does not mean that. Clinton was impeached and served a full 8 years. In the U.S. government impeachment is just a formal declaration of charges, it does not equal removal from office. Once a president has been impeach then the Congress can proceed with the process of voting to remove him from office.

[QUOTE="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.

sSubZerOo

You could not prove it on this forum.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

So who's alt is the TC?

nocoolnamejim

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

So who's alt is the TC?

nocoolnamejim

Yeah, I'm just wondering if TC is Storm, Hokie, or Devil.

Obama would have had to done something criminal for there to be any ground for impeachment.

I don't think he purposefully let anybody die, or did anything criminal for that matter, but I do think he showed typically poor leadership by playing both sides of the aisle during the weeks after the attack, sending his drones out to cover all of his bases, etc.,

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="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.

WhiteKnight77

You could not prove it on this forum.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

So who's alt is the TC?

worlock77

Yeah, I'm just wondering if TC is Storm, Hokie, or Devil.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

Why are people so desperate for an impeachment?

If Obama gets impeached, it doesn't me the election goes the other way... They just kick him out and he gets replaced by Biden.

worlock77

Actually impeachment does not mean that. Clinton was impeached and served a full 8 years. In the U.S. government impeachment is just a formal declaration of charges, it does not equal removal from office. Once a president has been impeach then the Congress can proceed with the process of voting to remove him from office.

He was impeached, but not convicted, which automatically would have removed him from office. The Senate aquitted Clinton as only 50 voted for conviction on the obstruction of justice charge, 17 votes shy which would have removed him from the Presidency. Voting was pretty much along party lines in both the House and the Senate.

I wonder if the GOP will chill out some after the information General Petraeus gave today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/petraeus-arrives-on-capitol-hill-for-closed-door-benghazi-hearings/2012/11/16/ab0dd2f8-2fea-11e2-ac4a-33b8b41fb531_story_1.html

The links to terrorists group were not made public immediately because the US did not want to tip off the terrorists it was tracking and trying to apprehend.

I wonder if the GOP will chill out some after the information General Petraeus gave today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/petraeus-arrives-on-capitol-hill-for-closed-door-benghazi-hearings/2012/11/16/ab0dd2f8-2fea-11e2-ac4a-33b8b41fb531_story_1.html

The links to terrorists group were not made public immediately because the US did not want to tip off the terrorists it was tracking and trying to apprehend.

jimkabrhel

I wonder if the GOP will chill out some after the information General Petraeus gave today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/petraeus-arrives-on-capitol-hill-for-closed-door-benghazi-hearings/2012/11/16/ab0dd2f8-2fea-11e2-ac4a-33b8b41fb531_story_1.html

The links to terrorists group were not made public immediately because the US did not want to tip off the terrorists it was tracking and trying to apprehend.

jimkabrhel

That's fine, but is so different than what the Obama administration has done previously. Obama has all been about telling everyone how he has done something, even if it entails national security and assets.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

I wonder if the GOP will chill out some after the information General Petraeus gave today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/petraeus-arrives-on-capitol-hill-for-closed-door-benghazi-hearings/2012/11/16/ab0dd2f8-2fea-11e2-ac4a-33b8b41fb531_story_1.html

The links to terrorists group were not made public immediately because the US did not want to tip off the terrorists it was tracking and trying to apprehend.

WhiteKnight77

That's fine, but is so different than what the Obama administration has done previously. Obama has all been about telling everyone how he has done something, even if it entails national security and assets.

Wish people would stop trying to politicize thisdave123321

I doubt it's Hokie. Too aggressive, not enough copy-pasting of the same sentence over and over. Abbeten