MSNBC: Benghazi Scandal Makes White House 'Look Terrible ...


#1

Full Title: MSNBC: Benghazi Scandal Makes White House ‘Look Terrible,’ Possibly ‘Impeachment Issue’

Will someone Please run outside and see if the sky is still … up there! :crybaby:

5/10/13 - After examining all the details that emerged on Friday relating to the efforts by members of President Barack Obama’s administration to remove references to Islamic terrorism when explaining the reasons behind the 2012 attack on an American consulate in Benghazi, the panel guests on MSNBC’s Now agreed that the appearance of a scandal makes the White House “look terrible.” One guest even suggested that the controversy could lead to impeachment proceedings against the president.

MSNBC: Benghazi Scandal Makes White House ‘Look Terrible,’ Possibly ‘Impeachment Issue’ - Patriot Action Network


#2

The fact that PMSNBC reported this at all makes me want to know if the temperature took a dive in hell.

My next response is, DUH!


#3

From the art"Does this become then an election politics thing?" Russert asked. He said that the Republican Party has been trying to link Clinton to the Benghazi scandal for some time.

Excuse ME?!. Clinton linked HERSELF to the Benghazi “scandal.” (Quotes 'cuz this isn’t a mere “sandal.”)

And what’s not to love about this bit?

[quote]It becomes a potentially impeachment issue as long as the Republicans are in control of the House," Tomasky added.

So, IOW, Democrats have no ethics?

lol. These people show their true colors daily, and don’t even know it.

btw Is Luke Russert any relation to the late Tim Russert?


#4

Thank you, MSNBC. In other news, the sun is hot.


#5

[QUOTE=2cent;591478]From the art"Does this become then an election politics thing?" Russert asked. He said that the Republican Party has been trying to link Clinton to the Benghazi scandal for some time.

Excuse ME?!. Clinton linked HERSELF to the Benghazi “scandal.” (Quotes 'cuz this isn’t a mere “sandal.”)

And what’s not to love about this bit?

So, IOW, Democrats have no ethics?

lol. These people show their true colors daily, and don’t even know it.

btw Is Luke Russert any relation to the late Tim Russert?

His son.


#6

He said that the Republican Party has been trying to link Clinton to the Benghazi scandal for some time.

Ummmm … Hillary is the Secretary of State. Amb. Stevens was (IIRC) acting on her direct orders in going to Benghazi. That’s about as linked as one can get!

The Obama-Clinton Benghazi screw-up is pungent; the Obamian-Clintonian-D-MSM cover-up is a stench! Four people who should be yet alive got killed in an attack, and the Obama Administration, D Party leaders, and MSM are more worried about limiting partisan political damage than in understanding how things got screwed up and how such screw-ups and deaths might be avoided in the future.


#7

Whoa. Thank you.


#8

I do believe it is also the Sec of State’s job to see to requests for added protection from our embassies and consulates.

Nah, she ain’t linked. It’s just those nasty Republicans who are trying to link her that are a real problem.


#9

Guys, I’ve heard from 2 Lt. colonel’s on fox news that when the embassy was being attacked and aide was asked for (reinforcements) that the only person with the power to send help is the President Of the United States. This is bigger than water gate, and the President could be impeached.

Also, the speaker of the house already has 139 signatures telling him to create a selective committee.

Pressure mounts on Boehner to appoint select committee on Benghazi | Fox News


#10

I used to think impeaching a president was a big deal. …right up to when Clinton was impeached, and laughed his hind end off at us all the way back to the Oval Office.
Which isn’t to say I’m in disfavor of impeaching Obama. I just wish it meant something.
From the Fox News link:

The House resolution to form a special committee now has at least 139 co-sponsors who are putting Boehner in the difficult position of leading efforts to get the White House to release emails on Benghazi-gate but not agreeing to the demands of many rank-and-file Republicans.

Remind me again why Boehner is our Speaker?


#11

Impeaching a president is a big deal it has only happened twice and as bad as Obama has been I dont think he has done anything he can be impeached for.


#12

President Andrew Johnson was impeached for firing his own staff, who were hold-overs from Lincoln. Every President has the right to chose his own staff. Congress passed a law forbidding Johnson from dismissing his own Cabinet Heads, which Congress had no Constitutional power to do. Johnson dismissed them anyway and The House Of Representatives impeached him, conviction in the Senate failed by one vote but his was neutered and impotent for the rest of his term in office.

The whole debacle was not Constitutional to begin with.

Bill Clinton was guilty of perjury, suborning perjury, obstruction of justice, contempt of Court, and contempt of Congress.
“Just about sex” Bull effing shit!!
Scooter Libby was sentenced to prison for differences in his statement to the FBI two years after the first statement. There wasn’t even intent to misleade proven. Oh, and the chages against him were known to be false from the beginning and the prosecutor knew it!

Now, once again, “It was all about sex” with Clinton?? and once again BULLSCHITT!! The Democrats blocked the conviction of a guilty man for political purposes! I’ve had nothing but contempt for all democrats since this miscarriage of justice!! If you’re a Democrat, I spit on you!!!


#13

Oh, and about the sex thing. Monica was 19 and an intern when it occured, Bill Clinton was in his late forties and the most powerful man in the World, and her boss. Courts have ruled in similar cases that consentual sex does not exist.
What the media did to her was disgusting at the least!!


#14

Sure, impeachment is a big deal. It had such an horrific affect on Bill Clinton that he hung his head in shame ever since, was ineffective to get his way w/Congress, and not only was he completely unhirable as a speaker at ceremonious events, all the social circles shunned him from attending a single party.

As far as impeachable offenses where Obama is concerned, you don’t think that Fast & Furious qualifies as “misbehavior in office?” I do, and much more.
So does promising to cut the deficit in half while tripling it, instead, giving chums vast amounts of taxpayers’ dollars for his hobby of green energy, so does doing a miserable job of cleaning up the Gulf oil spill to push said hobby, so does raising the unemployment numbers while promising to lower them, so does his miserable failure in handling the war in Afghanistan…
And most recently, and in particular, his grossly stunning failure to do his job as Commander in Chief by allowing 4 men who were under his responsibility to DIE when they most likely could have been saved.

SOME people may not find any of those misdeeds as to reach the level of “Misbehavior in office,” or, “Challenging his credibility,” but I sure as heck do.

If you ask me, if the truth ever comes out, it’ll be about covering up another “Fast & Furious” of handing arms over that we were never supposed to know about. Why does anybody think he’s broadcasting handing arms to the insurgents in Syria so loudly?


#15

Since that was a justice dept operation I dont think it qualifies, they couldnt even prove Holder had any wrongdoing in it theres no way you can connect Obama to it.

So does promising to cut the deficit in half while tripling it, instead, giving chums vast amounts of taxpayers’ dollars for his hobby of green energy, so does doing a miserable job of cleaning up the Gulf oil spill to push said hobby, so does raising the unemployment numbers while promising to lower them, so does his miserable failure in handling the war in Afghanistan…
And most recently, and in particular, his grossly stunning failure to do his job as Commander in Chief by allowing 4 men who were under his responsibility to DIE when they most likely could have been saved.

being a bad president is not an impeachable offense


#16

There was no real impeachment for Clinton. Once they had him over a barrel, they at the last minute let him go because he agreed to do their bidding. The milions spent on investigating him did absolutely nothing.

This is why the politicians in Washington need a clean sweep and put those new politicians who actually hold the values that want to help America.

Right now Washington is filled with politicians who are basically interchangable. It is all about getting the upper hand while claiming different goals.

In reality the GOP leadership is onboard with Obama’s policies.

I was going to mention this in another thread but the tea party was very active in the 2010 elections but by the time 2012 rolled along both and I repeat both the GOP leadership and the democrats were going after them with a vengeance. The GOP are afraid of being purged from leadership and more conservative views be presented that is actually backed up and not a McCain fallacy,i.e conservative at election time.


#17

Bill Clinton was impeached.
The House of Representatives impeached him.
The Senate faild to convict him.
Not one Democrat went into the evidence room.
Not one Democrat voted to convict.
Democrats all suck.


#18

You have GOT to be joking.

Who is the head of the Justice Dept.? The Attorney General.
Who is the Attorney General? Eric Holder.
Who appoints this Attorney General? The President of the United States.

Need anyone really say more?

being a bad president is not an impeachable offense

From Webster’s Unabridged:

Impeach: 1. hindrance; to impede. [Obs.]
2. to call to account; to challenge or discredit (a person’s honor, reputation, etc.)
3. to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; to make charges of misconduct in office against (a public officer) before a competent tribunal; as, to impeach a judge.
4. in law, to call in question the reliability of, as a witness or commercial paper.
Syn. --arraign, accuse, indict, discredeit, censure, charge with blame.


You truly think that none of the above apply to Obama? Especially the emboldened #3?

Do you forget that, at the time of the Benghazi attack the Ambassador and the CIA were facilitating the flow of these “Stinger”-type missiles from Libya to Syria via Turkey; thus, the warning-shots from Syrian artillery into Turkey; and the Syrian/Iranian proxy-attack against the Benghazi consulate, the center of the plot. Also–you don’t hear it any more–but earlier someone in position to know said that Woods et al. were there to locate the missiles that were yet operational, ostensibly so they posed no threat to CommAir traffic?

That was found out around last October.

Frankly, I’d forgotten about it myself. Or rather, it was a vague memory until I started looking back on what was going on at the time.

NOW, do you see the bigger picture of the need for a cover-up for a person who was running for re-election to president?


#19

Thank you. Pretty frustrating how short our memories are.


#20

There is a big difference between moral responsibility and legal culpability

You truly think that none of the above apply to Obama? Especially the emboldened #3?

Do you forget that, at the time of the Benghazi attack the Ambassador and the CIA were facilitating the flow of these “Stinger”-type missiles from Libya to Syria via Turkey; thus, the warning-shots from Syrian artillery into Turkey; and the Syrian/Iranian proxy-attack against the Benghazi consulate, the center of the plot. Also–you don’t hear it any more–but earlier someone in position to know said that Woods et al. were there to locate the missiles that were yet operational, ostensibly so they posed no threat to CommAir traffic?

No I dont think he has committed any specific crimes that can be charged or proven. Lying to the American public to cover up incompetence is heinous but if not under oath is not an impeachable offense