Obama should be impeached [Archive]

Wild Cobra

02-09-2013, 06:17 AM

I didn't know you were too stupid to realize what the italics mean.
I knew exactly what you meant Dumb Chump.

Can't wait to hear your whiny attempt to not be racist.
I see...

Your bigotry means anytime someone says something bad about someone that has dark skin, they are a racist...

That's your bigotry. Not mine.

Go back to discussions before the 2008 elections. I outlined all kinds of reasons why he wasn't qualified. It was primarily because he had no executive experience.

SA210

02-09-2013, 07:31 AM

He should have never been elected president to begin with.

DUNCANownsKOBE

02-09-2013, 09:09 AM

Watching Republicans freak out about Benghazi is hilarious. Sorry but most of the country doesn't give a shit.

boutons_deux

02-09-2013, 09:39 AM

I hope this isn't a current realization. He should have never been elected president to begin with.

You right-wing dumbfucks still trying to slander Barry with Benghazi? As if he were personally responsible for making Benghazi security decisions?

Repugs cut $300M from state dept security budget.

The Benghazi security and attack would have occurred exactly the same under Bishop Gecko/Ryan, and you dumbfucks wouldn't chirp a peep.

rascal

02-09-2013, 09:44 AM

Can someone explain how the administration is responsible for security at benghazi? I don't get all the fuss over it.

DUNCANownsKOBE

02-09-2013, 09:46 AM

This administration is much better at preventing terrorist attacks than our last administration that allowed a certain domestic terrorist attack on a certain two towers was :lol

ElNono

02-09-2013, 12:06 PM

Barry is a turd, but the fact that he won re-election fairly easily and his party won extra seats in both chambers of Congress, speaks volumes of the state of the opposing party. If you want to figure out what's broken, you need to start looking there.

spursncowboys

02-09-2013, 12:44 PM

TDMVPDPOY

02-09-2013, 12:45 PM

lol slowly ripping up t he constitution.....

DUNCANownsKOBE

02-09-2013, 12:53 PM

I don't understand what is funny about your comment

My comment itself wasn't funny, what's funny is the Republican party being up in arms over Benghazi and hoping it would be the issue that sank him in the 2012 election when their last president allowed a large scale domestic terrorist attack and when Americans don't give a shit about Benghazi at all. Most Americans are of the mindset that if we can keep terrorist attacks on the other side of the world and away from America, that's good enough.

Monkeyboy14

02-09-2013, 02:55 PM

Can someone explain how the administration is responsible for security at benghazi? I don't get all the fuss over it.
Because the administration had 8 hours to send help, and they just didn't. They even had warning this might happen and again, did nothing.

Monkeyboy14

02-09-2013, 03:00 PM

Watching Republicans freak out about Benghazi is hilarious. Sorry but most of the country doesn't give a shit.
Its people like you that will be the down fall of this country. Anyone who "doesn't give a shit" doesn't realize things like that actually have an effect on us. If this administration is either to oblivious or they just didn't care to realize what was going on, then we are in reeeaaal trouble. This administration did NOTHING to prevent this. When they knew what was going on, they did NOTHING to help. The people being attacked gave request after request to get help, but the administration just said no. They could have easily saved lives and should be held responsible. If this were the Bush Administration we would be talking about impeachment orders. But since so many people are for some reason on Obamas dick, it wont happen.

ElNono

02-09-2013, 03:00 PM

Because the administration had 8 hours to send help, and they just didn't. They even had warning this might happen and again, did nothing.

So you subscribe to the incompetence storyline... you're of no use to Galileo, tbh

ElNono

02-09-2013, 03:04 PM

Its people like you that will be the down fall of this country. Anyone who "doesn't give a shit" doesn't realize things like that actually have an effect on us. If this administration is either to oblivious or they just didn't care to realize what was going on, then we are in reeeaaal trouble. This administration did NOTHING to prevent this. When they knew what was going on, they did NOTHING to help. The people being attacked gave request after request to get help, but the administration just said no. They could have easily saved lives and should be held responsible. If this were the Bush Administration we would be talking about impeachment orders. But since so many people are for some reason on Obamas dick, it wont happen.

False. How many Americans died on the useless Iraq war and where was the talk of impeachment orders then?

Monkeyboy14

02-09-2013, 03:05 PM

So you subscribe to the incompetence storyline... you're of no use to Galileo, tbh
Sorry i didnt feel the need to type out every detail to someone who didn't even know how this is the administrations fault, feel free to do so.

ElNono

02-09-2013, 03:06 PM

Sorry i didnt feel the need to type out every detail to someone who didn't even know how this is the administrations fault, feel free to do so.

I'm in agreement this was a fuckup and somebody should've paid the price. If not Barry, somebody else.

Monkeyboy14

02-09-2013, 03:09 PM

False. How many Americans died on the useless Iraq war and where was the talk of impeachment orders then?
Thats also a little different, first of all the president doesn't make the final choice to go to war. Also its war, people die, not saying thats good, or that bush was a good president. But thats what comes with war. These people were under attack in a WAR ZONE, and the Obama administration felt in would be ok to send only 3 marines with our ambassador, then ignore every request to get help...

ChumpDumper

02-09-2013, 03:09 PM

So how would the impeachment read?

List the charges.

EVAY

02-09-2013, 03:09 PM

The person ultimately responsible for Benghazi is Obama, but the person immediately responsible is Hilary Clinton. I was stunned that she was able to dodge the media in the immediate aftermath of Benghazi. I understand wholly that later she was sick and then had a concussion, etc. etc. I mean in the immediate aftermath of it, when she successfully avoided having to talk to the media, is what I am referring to.

At the time, the GOP was so intent on holding Barry responsible and making it into something it wasn't, that that Hilary got away with it.

If she ever does decide to run for President, I think it will be hung around her neck like an anchor. I can't imagine that she would even consider running after this.

There is nothing for impeachment of Obama in this, but he should have made sure that somebody was held personally responsible.

The only thing that would be impeachable would be if he (Obama) somehow committed a crime in the process. There is no indication that that is the case, so any hullaballoo about impeachment is just over-the-top screaming with no real impact.

ChumpDumper

02-09-2013, 03:11 PM

Considering how many people were fired because of the negligence leading up to the 9/11 attacks, I'm going to say nothing will happen here either.

Monkeyboy14

02-09-2013, 03:15 PM

So how would the impeachment read?

List the charges.
Im not going to humor you. This is the problem with liberals, they go out of there way to protect obama when he fucks up. Which seems to be all the time as of late. Look he and his administration did something unforgivable, caused american deaths, then lied about it to cover it up. He should be impeached. Id be saying that if this were Mitt Romney, George Bush, or Abraham Lincoln. Im not saying this BECAUSE its Obama, im saying because of the situation. While liberals are defending BECAUSE its Obama, not because of the situation.

Nbadan

02-09-2013, 03:15 PM

Charge..one....pandering..

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/534869_502969533094743_1707363281_n.jpg

and getting the white folks all riled up...that shit ain't right

DUNCANownsKOBE

02-09-2013, 03:24 PM

Its people like you that will be the down fall of this country. Anyone who "doesn't give a shit" doesn't realize things like that actually have an effect on us. If this administration is either to oblivious or they just didn't care to realize what was going on, then we are in reeeaaal trouble. This administration did NOTHING to prevent this. When they knew what was going on, they did NOTHING to help. The people being attacked gave request after request to get help, but the administration just said no. They could have easily saved lives and should be held responsible. If this were the Bush Administration we would be talking about impeachment orders. But since so many people are for some reason on Obamas dick, it wont happen.

:lmao why is it no one talked about impeachment when Bush allowed a terrorist attack on American soil that killed 3,000 people (750 times as many people who died in Benghazi :lol)

Nbadan

02-09-2013, 03:31 PM

Lighten up Francis...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v86/slc987/reagan_zps94106c80.jpg

Monkeyboy14

02-09-2013, 03:34 PM

:lmao why is it no one talked about impeachment when Bush allowed a terrorist attack on American soil that killed 3,000 people (750 times as many people who died in Benghazi :lol)
Because bush didn't ignore the situation. The bush administration didn't have any warning about the attack either. The Obama administration had Emails from the ambassador before-hand asking for more security because he didn't feel save. They had 8 hours to respond to the attack while it was going on, aaaand ignored it. Obama literally WENT TO BED instead of going to the war room. Im sorry if you are tired Mr. prez, but its YOUR JOB.

ChumpDumper

02-09-2013, 03:34 PM

DUNCANownsKOBE

02-09-2013, 03:35 PM

Im not going to humor you. This is the problem with liberals, they go out of there way to protect obama when he fucks up. Which seems to be all the time as of late. Look he and his administration did something unforgivable, caused american deaths, then lied about it to cover it up. He should be impeached. Id be saying that if this were Mitt Romney, George Bush, or Abraham Lincoln. Im not saying this BECAUSE its Obama, im saying because of the situation. While liberals are defending BECAUSE its Obama, not because of the situation.

When 9/11 happened, I didn't call for Bush to be impeached.

There's also plenty of things I criticize Obama for and furthermore criticize other liberals who defend him for those things. You know, stuff that actually happens on American soil, like completely ignoring the 4th amendment. If you want liberals to stop supporting Obama, a terrorist attack that killed 4 people halfway around the world isn't going to be what helps you. That's why Obama got reelected. Romney's campaign couldn't criticize him for the stuff people are actually angry over (being a corporate shill, excessive military spending, ignoring constitutional rights) because those same criticisms can be lobbed at Romney.

DUNCANownsKOBE

02-09-2013, 03:35 PM

Because bush didn't ignore the situation. The bush administration didn't have any warning about the attack either.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Nbadan

02-09-2013, 03:40 PM

Because bush didn't ignore the situation. The bush administration didn't have any warning about the attack either.

Signature worthy...really..

Monkeyboy14

02-09-2013, 03:41 PM

When 9/11 happened, I didn't call for Bush to be impeached.

There's also plenty of things I criticize Obama for and furthermore criticize other liberals who defend him for those things. You know, stuff that actually happens on American soil, like completely ignoring the 4th amendment. If you want liberals to stop supporting Obama, a terrorist attack that killed 4 people halfway around the world isn't going to be what helps you. That's why Obama got reelected. Romney's campaign couldn't criticize him for the stuff people are actually angry over (being a corporate shill, excessive military spending, ignoring constitutional rights) because those same criticisms can be lobbed at Romney.
The amount of deaths isn't the issue, its the fact Obama had to intentions to help, or he didn't care to help

Nbadan

02-09-2013, 03:44 PM

There's also plenty of things I criticize Obama for and furthermore criticize other liberals who defend him for those things

What things do 'liberals defend' Obama on? He has received a lot of criticism from the left over NDAA, killer drones, and his nomination of John Brennan to CIA head..

DUNCANownsKOBE

02-09-2013, 03:44 PM

The amount of deaths isn't the issue

That's a convenient point of view to have when your agenda is too promote Benghazi as a bigger deal than 9/11

Monkeyboy14

02-09-2013, 03:44 PM

Signature worthy...really..
Sorry, misprint, "The bush administration didn't have the same warning about the attack either" fast typing.

Nbadan

02-09-2013, 03:46 PM

The amount of deaths isn't the issue, its the fact Obama had to intentions to help, or he didn't care to help

What did you want Obama to do? Lead the rescue team? Have you even read up on Bengazi yourself or do you just read the wing-nut blogs? Do you know that there was a (secret)CIA base in the Embassy in Bengazi?

Nbadan

02-09-2013, 03:47 PM

The cavalry was on it's way, but there is no teleportation device....they were going to take a few hours to get to Bengazi..

DUNCANownsKOBE

02-09-2013, 03:47 PM

What things do 'liberals defend' Obama on? He has received a lot of criticism from the left over NDAA, killer drones, and his nomination of John Brennan to CIA head..

Most liberals have the POV you and I have on the issue, but I know several who say ridiculous things like, "If Obama wants to wiretap phones to prevent a terrorist attack, fine by me!"

Jewish liberals are for the most part big fans of drones and the NDAA. I'm literally the only Jew I know who is against us being used as zionist mercenaries who defend Israel.

Monkeyboy14

02-09-2013, 03:48 PM

That's a convenient point of view to have when your agenda is too promote Benghazi as a bigger deal than 9/11
Okay. im not here to debate republican vs. democrat with you. Just like a liberal to have there defense be "well, its not as bad as BUSH see??? so Obama is ok!!!" Nope. The point is, Obama had so many chances to save this from happening, but he cares more about his appearance with muslims than he does about actual americans lives.

DUNCANownsKOBE

02-09-2013, 03:49 PM

Sorry, misprint, "The bush administration didn't have the same warning about the attack either" fast typing.
Can you please outline the criteria for warnings that validate impeachment if they're ignored?

Be specific.

spursncowboys

02-09-2013, 03:50 PM

The cavalry was on it's way, but there is no teleportation device....they were going to take a few hours to get to Bengazi..

Sure about that?
Was Obama apart of the decisions? Was he in contact with Panetta?

Monkeyboy14

02-09-2013, 03:50 PM

The cavalry was on it's way, but there is no teleportation device....they were going to take a few hours to get to Bengazi..
Yeah except they had 8 HOURS. You realize they can get there in about 20 minutes right?

Nbadan

02-09-2013, 03:51 PM

And as far as any memo requesting more security...that memo was for a specific situation which was happening in Bengazi at that time....foreign embassies are protected by the State Department in cooperation with the DOD, but there are hundreds of Embassies around the world, many in shit-holes like Bengazi...every situation has to be weighted at specific times, and that takes good intelligence...

Monkeyboy14

02-09-2013, 03:51 PM

Can you please outline the criteria for warnings that validate impeachment if they're ignored?

Be specific.
If this argument actually meant something, and mattered after we log offline, I would. Not taking the time out of my day to try to convince someone i dont even know

DUNCANownsKOBE

02-09-2013, 03:52 PM

Okay. im not here to debate republican vs. democrat with you. Just like a liberal to have there defense be "well, its not as bad as BUSH see??? so Obama is ok!!!" Nope. The point is, Obama had so many chances to save this from happening, but he cares more about his appearance with muslims than he does about actual americans lives.

That's a strawman to imply I'm saying Obama is ok since he's better than Bush, but I'm glad you're indirectly admitting he's better than Bush. My point is that you have a complete double standard with holding presidents accountable for terrorist attacks, and it's completely based off the D or R next to their names.

ChumpDumper

02-09-2013, 03:52 PM

Because bush didn't ignore the situation. The bush administration didn't have any warning about the attack either. That shit is gold right there.

ChumpDumper

02-09-2013, 03:53 PM

If this argument actually meant something, and mattered after we log offline, I would. Not taking the time out of my day to try to convince someone i dont even knowThen why start the thread?

Any thread?

DUNCANownsKOBE

02-09-2013, 03:53 PM

That shit is gold right there.

Too late, he already moved the goalposts on that one.

Monkeyboy14

02-09-2013, 03:54 PM

That's a strawman to imply I'm saying Obama is ok since he's better than Bush, but I'm glad you're indirectly admitting he's better than Bush. My point is that you have a complete double standard with holding presidents accountable for terrorist attacks, and it's completely based off the D or R next to their names.
No i dont. If bush were in this situation id be looking for impeachment too

Monkeyboy14

02-09-2013, 03:57 PM

Then why start the thread?

Any thread?
Interesting to get a rise out of liberals. Nothing more.

DUNCANownsKOBE

02-09-2013, 03:58 PM

No i dont. If bush were in this situation id be looking for impeachment too

1) Even SA210 thinks this sanctimonious criticism of Bush is too transparent.

ChumpDumper

02-09-2013, 03:58 PM

Interesting to get a rise out of liberals. Nothing more.It was interesting getting you to make excuses for Bush as well.

Monkeyboy14

02-09-2013, 04:00 PM

1) Even SA210 thinks this sanctimonious criticism of Bush is too transparent.
When are you going to realize this isn't a debate between bush and obama? Ok, lets say Bush should have been impeached? That doesn't change anything for Obama tbh

DUNCANownsKOBE

02-09-2013, 04:00 PM

Interesting to get a rise out of liberals. Nothing more.

Oh boy, the ol' "I was just trolling!" defense

DUNCANownsKOBE

02-09-2013, 04:01 PM

When are you going to realize this isn't a debate between bush and obama? Ok, lets say Bush should have been impeached? That doesn't change anything for Obama tbh

It makes you a hypocrite as you've already admitted you didn't call for Bush's impeachment.

Monkeyboy14

02-09-2013, 04:01 PM

It was interesting getting you to make excuses for Bush as well.
Again, i dont care about bush, never thought he was a good prez. AGAIN, this isn't a debate between bush and obama.

ChumpDumper

02-09-2013, 04:02 PM

Again, i dont care about bush, never thought he was a good prez. AGAIN, this isn't a debate between bush and obama.It's interesting to see you run away from any actual discussion.

Monkeyboy14

02-09-2013, 04:02 PM

It makes you a hypocrite as you've already admitted you didn't call for Bush's impeachment.
I was speaking hypothetically.

DUNCANownsKOBE

02-09-2013, 04:02 PM

I was speaking hypothetically.

And I was answering you hypothetically.

Monkeyboy14

02-09-2013, 04:03 PM

It's interesting to see you run away from any actual discussion.
actually discussion? Like you said, didn't I start the thread? Dont remember bringing up Bush when i started this

DUNCANownsKOBE

02-09-2013, 04:06 PM

AGAIN, this isn't a debate between bush and obama.

It became one when you outed yourself as an apologist for Bush's competency leading up to 9/11

ChumpDumper

02-09-2013, 04:06 PM

actually discussion? Like you said, didn't I start the thread? Dont remember bringing up Bush when i started thisYeah, you did start the thread for no reason. You don't even have any charges in mind.

Monkeyboy14

02-09-2013, 04:06 PM

And I was answering you hypothetically.
oh my god. understand me please. Hypothetically speaking, lets say bush should have been impeached. That doesnt change the situation for Obama. You cant look at the Benghazi situation and think "hhmm well one time bush had a situation and didn't get impeached!" You cant base situation off of different situations, all situations are different and have different details. This ISNT about obama vs bush

Monkeyboy14

02-09-2013, 04:08 PM

Yeah, you did start the thread for no reason. You don't even have any charges in mind.
Not my job, just like its apparently not Obamas job to help and protect americans :)

ChumpDumper

02-09-2013, 04:09 PM

Not my job, just like its apparently not Obamas job to help and protect americans :)You failed worse than you claim Obama failed tbh.

Nbadan

02-09-2013, 04:09 PM

Chumpy is a troll, but your not listening to facts anyway...

FACT: There Were Multiple Teams Of Armed Guards At Libyan Consulate

WSJ: Consulate Security Included "A Four-Man Team Of Armed Guards Protecting The Perimeter" And "Five Armed State Department Diplomatic Security Officers." A September 21 Wall Street Journal article reported that security at the Libyan consulate included "a four-man team of armed guards protecting the perimeter and four unarmed Libyan guards inside to screen visitors." The Journal also noted: "Besides the four armed Libyans outside, five armed State Department diplomatic security officers were at the consulate."

WSJ: Prior To Attacks, "Embassy Personnel Conducted A Security Review." The same Wall Street Journal article reported that a security review was conducted right before the attacks on the consulate:

In the days before Sept. 11, intelligence agencies issued their annual warning of heightened security risks around the anniversary of the 2001 attacks. Many counterterrorism officials saw a lessened risk this year than last year, which was the 10th anniversary and the first one after the killing of Osama bin Laden.

In Libya, embassy personnel conducted a security review right before the anniversary. It determined there was no reason to think an attack was planned or the consulate in Benghazi was "insufficiently postured," said a senior administration official.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/09/26/myths-and-facts-about-the-benghazi-attack-and-p/190150#c

Monkeyboy14

02-09-2013, 04:11 PM

Chumpy is a troll, but your not listening to facts anyway...
So what are you trying to say exactly? The obama administration did nothing wrong? and we are all just overreacting?

DUNCANownsKOBE

02-09-2013, 04:12 PM

Hypothetically speaking, lets say bush should have been impeached. That doesnt change the situation for Obama.
Since Bush wasn't impeached, yeah it does.

You cant look at the Benghazi situation and think "hhmm well one time bush had a situation and didn't get impeached!"
So I have to hold Obama to higher standards than other presidents are held to? Why?

You cant base situation off of different situations, all situations are different and have different details.
Details like Bush getting an intelligence briefing a month before 9/11 that said, "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" perhaps? Maybe details of Bush receiving word about 9/11 and continuing to read a book to a bunch of kindergarteners?

This ISNT about obama vs bush
The way you defended Bush's actions as satisfactory, yes it is.

DUNCANownsKOBE

02-09-2013, 04:12 PM

Not my job, just like its apparently not Obamas job to help and protect americans :)

Or Bush's job either.

ChumpDumper

02-09-2013, 04:13 PM

So what are you trying to say exactly? The obama administration did nothing wrong? and we are all just overreacting?Main problem was bad intel on the ground. Happens a lot. Bush could tell you about that.

Monkeyboy14

02-09-2013, 04:15 PM

Since Bush wasn't impeached, yeah it does.

So I have to hold Obama to higher standards than other presidents are held to? Why?

Details like Bush getting an intelligence briefing a month before 9/11 that said, "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" perhaps? Maybe details of Bush receiving word about 9/11 and continuing to read a book to a bunch of kindergarteners?

The way you defended Bush's actions as satisfactory, yes it is.
I only defended bush becasue you brought him up. But im losing interest in this convo, ill talk to you later buddy. See im ok with saying that because obviously we aren't going to change each others minds, and when i log off its going to have no repercussions on my day. Thanks for the convo though!

DUNCANownsKOBE

02-09-2013, 04:16 PM

So what are you trying to say exactly? The obama administration did nothing wrong? and we are all just overreacting?

I'm saying nothing Obama did was grounds for impeachment. Nothing Bush did on 9/11 was grounds for impeachment either. Incompetency* has never been grounds for impeachment.

*I'm not admitting Obama was incompetent before you jump on that like Laura Bush on an opportunity to murder her friend, just saying so for argument's sake.

spursncowboys

02-09-2013, 04:16 PM

When are you going to realize this isn't a debate between bush and obama? Ok, lets say Bush should have been impeached? That doesn't change anything for Obama tbh
:dont

Nbadan

02-09-2013, 04:18 PM

Pentagon releases Benghazi timeline, defends response
Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - Pentagon leaders knew of the September 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi an hour after it began, but were unable to mobilize reinforcements based in Europe in time to prevent the death of the U.S. ambassador, according to a timeline released on Friday.

Senior defence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, rejected criticism accusing the Pentagon of failing to move quickly to send reinforcements to relieve the consulate or using armed aerial drones to fire on the attackers.

"The Department of Defense acted quickly after learning of the incidents unfolding in Benghazi," said one official, adding that Marines, special forces and other military assets had either been employed or put in motion during the attack.

"Unfortunately, no alternative or additional aircraft options were available within a timeline to be effective," the official added.

Read more: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/11/10/uk-usa-libya-pentagon-idUKBRE8A903X20121110

Eastern Libya is a primary recruiting ground for Jihadi terrorists being drawn into the U.S. and Saudi/GCC regime change operation in Syria. The unfortunate death of the Ambassador can be viewed as yet another instance of the sort of blowback that occurred on a larger scale 11 years earlier when US intelligence allowed al Qaeda cell members -- who had fought in Bosnia and Kosovo in operations coordinated by U.S. intelligence -- into the U.S. and failed to stop them before they carried the killings of thousands of Americans. Our continued involvement in the bloody religious war in Syria, and our apparent failure to learn from repeated fatal mistakes in cooperating with terrorists in covert wars, virtually assures that this will not be the last such instance of blowback.

resistanze

02-09-2013, 04:54 PM

LMAO Monkeyboy14

ElNono

02-09-2013, 06:34 PM

Thats also a little different, first of all the president doesn't make the final choice to go to war. Also its war, people die, not saying thats good, or that bush was a good president. But thats what comes with war. These people were under attack in a WAR ZONE, and the Obama administration felt in would be ok to send only 3 marines with our ambassador, then ignore every request to get help...

Wait. You're saying Bush should get a pass because it was war, but Barry should because he didn't react in a 'war zone'? War is war. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

ElNono

02-09-2013, 06:41 PM

I'm with EVAY... Hillary needed to take much more heat than she did

rascal

02-09-2013, 06:49 PM

Because the administration had 8 hours to send help, and they just didn't. They even had warning this might happen and again, did nothing.

Who says they had 8 hours?

rascal

02-09-2013, 06:56 PM

I'm with EVAY... Hillary needed to take much more heat than she did

Why is it on Hillary? What was her job in this?

ElNono

02-09-2013, 07:09 PM

Why is it on Hillary? What was her job in this?

She's was the Secretary of State? You know, the one that's in charge of running and supervising any US Government installation overseas?

ChumpDumper

02-09-2013, 08:07 PM

I'm trying to get a line on what people think should have been done that wasn't. The most glaring mistake I see was having the Ambassador stay at the consulate overnight if the situation in the country was that bad.

ElNono

02-09-2013, 08:19 PM

Drones could've been there in 45 mins...

Latarian Milton

02-09-2013, 08:39 PM

This administration is much better at preventing terrorist attacks than our last administration that allowed a certain domestic terrorist attack on a certain two towers was :lol
i'd not call it a domestic terror attack though like it was committed by an american citizen like Timothy McVeigh. and i don't think obama administration has done a damn thing to make the country safer, they just want to take your guns away and leave you more prone to those real domestic terrorist attacks tbh.

9/11 attack was so well planned that it's hardly to believe it was first initiated while bush was in office. bush had been president for only a few months when the attack took place. the intelligence agency should've acted more quickly in response to the attacks but it wasn't the president's fault tbh

ChumpDumper

02-09-2013, 08:46 PM

Drones could've been there in 45 mins...Drones from where?

Monkeyboy14

02-09-2013, 08:49 PM

Wait. You're saying Bush should get a pass because it was war, but Barry should because he didn't react in a 'war zone'? War is war. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.
Im not saying bush should get a pass, im saying the situation is different. And yes Obama should because its a war zone. Thats my point, sending our ambassador to a war zone with only 3 marines is pretty pathetic.

ChumpDumper

02-09-2013, 08:53 PM

What war was being fought in Libya at the time?

ChumpDumper

02-09-2013, 09:15 PM

I guess the most believable action would have been what the CIA requested: a gunship to fly in from Italy. I don't know how scramble-ready those are on any given night, but I do know that it would have required the approval of the Libyan government, something I don't think the marine force initially received. Would have done nothing for the ambassador or his aide.

ElNono

02-09-2013, 11:08 PM

Drones from where?

I'm being facetious...

ElNono

02-09-2013, 11:10 PM

Im not saying bush should get a pass, im saying the situation is different. And yes Obama should because its a war zone. Thats my point, sending our ambassador to a war zone with only 3 marines is pretty pathetic.

An ambassador that's on a war zone should be pretty aware of the risks involved. I'm not saying there was no wrongdoing here, but the risk was always there. At the end of the day, supervision of civilian US government installations overseas (including embassies) is the responsibility of the Secretary of State. That's really where the buck stops.

ChumpDumper

02-09-2013, 11:14 PM

I'm being facetious...:lol I had to wonder since they did divert an unarmed drone from elsewhere in Libya that night.

ElNono

02-09-2013, 11:19 PM

:lol I had to wonder since they did divert an unarmed drone from elsewhere in Libya that night.

It was probably to kill children...

ChumpDumper

02-09-2013, 11:23 PM

It was probably to kill children...It was supposed to deploy polio contrails.

LnGrrrR

02-10-2013, 12:32 AM

Because bush didn't ignore the situation. The bush administration didn't have any warning about the attack either. The Obama administration had Emails from the ambassador before-hand asking for more security because he didn't feel save. They had 8 hours to respond to the attack while it was going on, aaaand ignored it. Obama literally WENT TO BED instead of going to the war room. Im sorry if you are tired Mr. prez, but its YOUR JOB.

:lmao :lmao :lmao

Just when I think ST can't possibly get another loony...

Monkeyboy14

02-10-2013, 02:10 AM

:lmao :lmao :lmao

Just when I think ST can't possibly get another loony...
I already addressed this, try again.

Wild Cobra

02-10-2013, 03:13 AM

Signature worthy...really..
Why?

There was no intel of a specific attack on a specific day.

Wild Cobra

02-10-2013, 03:15 AM

Why is it on Hillary? What was her job in this?
The Secretary of State has a direct responsibility of embassies.

Wild Cobra

02-10-2013, 03:16 AM

I'm being facetious...
Maybe so, but I'll bet ships in the Mediterranean have them.

Winehole23

02-10-2013, 05:01 AM

The Secretary of State has a direct responsibility of embassies.it's a dangerous world. maybe the House shouldn't have cut the appropriation for State.

Wild Cobra

02-10-2013, 05:02 AM

it's a dangerous world. maybe the House shouldn't have cut the appropriation for State.
LOL...

That's not why this happened.

Are you advocating for a larger government?

Winehole23

02-10-2013, 05:06 AM

I'm saying it's a dangerous world, and US diplomats live in it. Cutting their funds for security might not have been the smartest thing to do.

Winehole23

02-10-2013, 05:08 AM

Don't you believe in keeping America strong?

Wild Cobra

02-10-2013, 05:08 AM

I'm saying it's a dangerous world, and US diplomats live in it. Cutting their funds for security might not have been the smartest thing to do.
Is that where the blame was diverted to?

Winehole23

02-10-2013, 05:09 AM

Apparently, the GOP controlled House thought we could do it on the cheap -- like in Iraq, for example . . .

Winehole23

02-10-2013, 05:10 AM

Is that where the blame was diverted to?there's plenty to go around, but you, clearly, are a one way street.

Winehole23

02-10-2013, 05:11 AM

all blame to the blue, all credit to the red. you're so simple.

Wild Cobra

02-10-2013, 05:13 AM

there's plenty to go around, but you, clearly, are a one way street.
Maybe the allocation of protection could have been better divided.

That was long ago, I don't recall the details, but I do know that requests from the embassy were denied. How can people be so ignorant not to recognize the local threat? Because of the initial 112 cruise missiles we sent and following support, half of Libya will hate us for the rest of their lives.

admiralsnackbar

02-10-2013, 05:17 AM

it's a dangerous world. maybe the House shouldn't have cut the appropriation for State.

/thread

Winehole23

02-10-2013, 05:17 AM

The action in Libya was harebrained, and Hilary had something to do with it, to be sure. It's to Obama's credit that he didn't follow her advice in Syria, but i have a feeling you might disagree . . .

Warlord23

02-10-2013, 08:42 AM

rascal

02-10-2013, 09:01 AM

rascal

02-10-2013, 09:07 AM

So what are you trying to say exactly? The obama administration did nothing wrong? and we are all just overreacting?

Now you got it. The urgency wasn't there if it was Stevens would have left. It is nothing more than a political smear move from the right just before the election.

boutons_deux

02-10-2013, 11:37 AM

the old white Confederate lesbian obstructing

Lindsey Graham To Place Hold On National Security Nominees Over Benghazi Attacks

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is threatening to place a hold on key administration national security nominations unless President Obama explains how the White House reacted to the Benghazi attacks and who “changed” the talking points used by U.N. ambassador Susan Rice during back-to-back appearances on the Sunday political talk shows in September.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/02/10/1567291/lindsey-graham-to-place-hold-on-national-security-nominees-over-benghazi-attacks/ (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/02/10/1567291/lindsey-graham-to-place-hold-on-national-security-nominees-over-benghazi-attacks/)

EVAY

02-10-2013, 11:42 AM

So Monkeyboy14 wants Obama to be impeached because they got an 8-hour window and wasted it.

On the other hand,

May 1 2001: CIA says that a terrorist group in the U.S. was planning an attack.
June 22 2001: CIA warns that this attack was "imminent."
June 29 2001: CIA warns of near-term attacks with "dramatic consequences" including major casualties
July 1 2001: A briefing says that the terrorist attack had been delayed but "will occur soon."
July 24 2001: The president is told again that the attack had been delayed but would occur within months
Aug. 6 2001: Bush receives a brief titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S., in reply to which Bush tells the

How about Reagan and the Iran-Contra affair, where the then Defense Secretary's notes indicate that Reagan was aware of hostage transfers with Iran, as well as the sale of Hawk and TOW missiles? He actually came out and admitted responsibility for it.

If you want to take action against US presidents and/or their administrations for incompetence, Obama's Benghazi episode needs to get into line; there's a long and rich history of incompetence and risk-taking by US administrations. Or did you not see any of these mentioned on Fox News?

In one of those July briefings (I don't know which one...it was one that occurred at the ranch in Texas) Bush was specifically told by the CIA briefers that the attack would likely come by airplanes. His response to them was..."okay, now you've covered your ass by telling me. Now I know." About the only thing he could have done then would have been to initiate the kind of security measures at airports, etc. that were eventually put in place after the attacks. Thing is, had he tried to do that, all of us (probably me included) would have raised holy hell about our civil liberties being attacked and government intruding on our persons, as well as making it take so much longer to get on an airplane.

DUNCANownsKOBE

02-10-2013, 11:48 AM

In one of those July briefings (I don't know which one...it was one that occurred at the ranch in Texas) Bush was specifically told by the CIA briefers that the attack would likely come by airplanes. His response to them was..."okay, now you've covered your ass by telling me. Now I know." About the only thing he could have done then would have been to initiate the kind of security measures at airports, etc. that were eventually put in place after the attacks. Thing is, had he tried to do that, all of us (probably me included) would have raised holy hell about our civil liberties being attacked and government intruding on our persons, as well as making it take so much longer to get on an airplane.

He also could have looked into the middle easternerns who went to flight school and said, "I don't wanna learn how to take off or land, just how to maneuver the plane when it's in the air!"

And no, added airport security isn't all he could have done. He could have had armed US marshalls on every flight, or issued warnings to airlines about possible imminent hijackings. Defending Bush's actions leading up to 9/11 is a joke, but like I said, none of them gave grounds for impeachment.

EVAY

02-10-2013, 12:06 PM

He also could have looked into the middle easternerns who went to flight school and said, "I don't wanna learn how to take off or land, just how to maneuver the plane when it's in the air!"

And no, added airport security isn't all he could have done. He could have had armed US marshalls on every flight, or issued warnings to airlines about possible imminent hijackings. Defending Bush's actions leading up to 9/11 is a joke, but like I said, none of them gave grounds for impeachment.

Dear god I didn't mean to defend Bush's actions. I have always been furious with him for pretending like it was somebody else's fault. You bring up some good ideas about other things he could have done, especially the marshals. I was merely trying to point out that it would have been politically difficult for any president to get through the kind of security measures we currently have in the absence of an attack like that.

I also agree that neither this nor Benghazi is grounds for impeachment.

LnGrrrR

02-10-2013, 12:10 PM

Someone somewhere in America will die today! Now that Obama has been warned, he should be impeached if he doesn't prevent it!

Trill Clinton

02-10-2013, 01:15 PM

Its just crazy how he isn't taking any heat on benghazi

:monkey

DUNCANownsKOBE

02-10-2013, 01:16 PM

:lmao

ElNono

02-10-2013, 02:15 PM

Someone somewhere in America will die today! Now that Obama has been warned, he should be impeached if he doesn't prevent it!

Thanks Obama!

Monkeyboy14

02-10-2013, 03:13 PM

You guys are pathetic

CubanMustGo

02-10-2013, 04:18 PM

You guys are pathetic

Only when they're hosting you by your own petard ... repeatedly.

spursncowboys

02-10-2013, 04:28 PM

You guys are pathetic

This is what they do... They're pathetic. rule one with trolls. Let them be. They purposefully don't have a personal opinion, or it's vague at best.

DUNCANownsKOBE

02-10-2013, 04:50 PM

You guys are pathetic
Not as pathetic as George Bush reading a book to 5-6 year olds when 9/11 was happening :lol

spursncowboys

02-10-2013, 05:06 PM

Should he have gotten the call and then went to bed? Should he have done nothing until the next day and include a comment about it in an economic radio speech?

LnGrrrR

02-10-2013, 07:59 PM

Should he have gotten the call and then went to bed? Should he have done nothing until the next day and include a comment about it in an economic radio speech?

I don't quite think the impact of Benghazi rated on the same level as 9/11...

SA210

02-10-2013, 08:16 PM

ChumpDumper

02-10-2013, 10:26 PM

Should he have gotten the call and then went to bed? Should he have done nothing until the next day and include a comment about it in an economic radio speech?He got the call in the morning after one was already dead and the ambassador went missing and all the other plans were already in motion.

You'll have to be specific about what you wanted done here.

mouse

02-10-2013, 11:20 PM

This is what they do... They're pathetic. rule one with trolls. Let them be. They purposefully don't have a personal opinion, or it's vague at best.

There needs to be a 1,000 post count minimum before you can enter the politics forum. These TRolls are all over YouTube and attack Face Book pages like Alex Jones.

spursncowboys

02-10-2013, 11:20 PM

I don't quite think the impact of Benghazi rated on the same level as 9/11...

Oh I agree completely. DOK used the comparison, so I just added to it. However I do think letting an embassy get taking over like that is a pretty big deal. A big enough deal for the President to stay up to date throughout.

SA210

02-11-2013, 10:33 PM

.
It's called blow-back (a term described by our very own CIA), caused by WAR CRIMES committed by this President when he decided he could bomb Lybia illegally. Murder people's babies, they will hate you and set out to attack you for taking their loved ones and invading their country.

Yes, Obama's fault. Impeach, and charge the criminal.

OBAMA'S DRONES WAR ON WOMEN AND CHILDREN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnmJ9JmqTtE

Maybe if Obama didn't bomb Libya over a year ago and take down Qaddafi illegally, we wouldn't have had that blow-back at the Embassy, so yea, Obama's fault. Impeach for war crimes, attacking nations with no declaration of war, murder of civilians including kids, treason, murdering Americans without due process. Not only impeach, but arrest and charge the corrupt sob.

ChumpDumper

02-11-2013, 10:52 PM

Why would Muslims hate a fellow Muslim like Obama?

Vladimir Lenin

02-12-2013, 12:17 AM

Watching Republicans freak out about Benghazi is hilarious. Sorry but most of the country doesn't give a shit.

Most of country does but you leftist in media want it to go away.

Wild Cobra

02-12-2013, 03:50 AM

Not as pathetic as George Bush reading a book to 5-6 year olds when 9/11 was happening :lol
OMG..

Really?

SnC is right. I should leave trolls like you alone.

Darkwaters

02-12-2013, 04:08 AM

Maybe if Obama didn't bomb Lybia over a year ago and take down Qaddafi illegally, we wouldn't have had that blow-back at the Embassy, so yea, Obama's fault. Impeach for war crimes, attacking nations with no declaration of war, murder of civilians including kids, treason, murdering Americans without due process. Not only impeach, but arrest and charge the corrupt sob.

Thats actually the big one: Libya. The actions the US took there were clearly illegal within their own rules. Without a formal declaration of war from congress the president had no right or ability to perform the acts he did. And while he is empowered to take certain actions, he chose to employ other illegal options and then pushed them past the time that is allowable without the formal declaration (180 days). If there has been any event deserving of impeachment by Mr. Obama, this one is pretty clear. It makes that Nobel Peace committee look pretty stupid to be frank.

The response to Benghazi was clearly a failure of the administration also. But hardly impeachable.

SA210

02-12-2013, 05:25 AM

Thats actually the big one: Libya. The actions the US took there were clearly illegal within their own rules. Without a formal declaration of war from congress the president had no right or ability to perform the acts he did. And while he is empowered to take certain actions, he chose to employ other illegal options and then pushed them past the time that is allowable without the formal declaration (180 days). If there has been any event deserving of impeachment by Mr. Obama, this one is pretty clear. It makes that Nobel Peace committee look pretty stupid to be frank.

:tu Yup, that's exactly why it turned to crickets in here once this was brought up. He should not only be impeached but brought up on charges for war crimes.