Reply With Quote
Charge..one....pandering..
and getting the white folks all riled up...that ain't right
Im not going to humor you. This is the problem with liberals, they go out of there way to protect obama when he s 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.
Charge..one....pandering..
and getting the white folks all riled up...that ain't right
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
)
Lighten up Francis...
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.
I asked you a simple question. If you can't even articulate simple charges for impeachment, that's your problem.
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 cons utional rights) because those same criticisms can be lobbed at Romney.
Signature worthy...really..Because bush didn't ignore the situation. The bush administration didn't have any warning about the attack either.
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 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..There's also plenty of things I criticize Obama for and furthermore criticize other liberals who defend him for those things
That's a convenient point of view to have when your agenda is too promote Benghazi as a bigger deal than 9/11
Sorry, misprint, "The bush administration didn't have the same warning about the attack either" fast typing.
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?
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..
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.
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.
Can you please outline the criteria for warnings that validate impeachment if they're ignored?
Be specific.
Sure about that?
Was Obama apart of the decisions? Was he in contact with Panetta?
Yeah except they had 8 HOURS. You realize they can get there in about 20 minutes right?
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 -holes like Bengazi...every situation has to be weighted at specific times, and that takes good intelligence...
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
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.
That is gold right there.
Then why start the thread?
Any thread?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
