BBC: After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll

[AURaptor 1,137]

Knowingly making a false statement is a crime. It's not a ' reach '.

What next.. debating what the definition of 'IS' is ?

Good grief.

Got a link to the official false statement Obama made that you believe violates this statute?

Don't need one. They were 12 revisions, with the blatant omission of al-qaeda or islamic terrorism. As well as a cover story of a YouTube video .

Seriously, why are you feigning ignorance, yet again ?

[TexasTiger 14,069]

Knowingly making a false statement is a crime. It's not a ' reach '.

What next.. debating what the definition of 'IS' is ?

Good grief.

Got a link to the official false statement Obama made that you believe violates this statute?

Don't need one. They were 12 revisions, with the blatant omission of al-qaeda or islamic terrorism. As well as a cover story of a YouTube video .

Seriously, why are you feigning ignorance, yet again ?

For press talking points-- an administration deciding how to spin something is impeachable? You are just so angry and full of hate you can't even begin to view the impeachment process in a rational manner.

And for perspective, I think the Bush administration spun us into a war in which thousands died and tens of thousands were maimed. And I'm still not sure there was an impeachable offense there.

[AURaptor 1,137]

For press talking points-- an administration deciding how to spin something is impeachable? You are just so angry and full of hate you can't even begin to view the impeachment process in a rational manner.

I never said any damn thing about ' impeachment'. Look back at the thread. You're getting confused w/ all the posts you've made.

I think this administration has done wrong. and want it to at least acknowledge that much to the American public.

Elijah Cumming's comments at the hearing proved to me that the ultra hard core Left would ignore any and all evidence of this President committing murder himself, so I know full well that there's zero chance of 'impeachment'. But public ridicule and mockery....he deserves all of it, and more.

[TexasTiger 14,069]

For press talking points-- an administration deciding how to spin something is impeachable? You are just so angry and full of hate you can't even begin to view the impeachment process in a rational manner.

I never said any damn thing about ' impeachment'. Look back at the thread. You're getting confused w/ all the posts you've made.

I think this administration has done wrong. and want it to at least acknowledge that much to the American public.

You look back at the thread, genius-- you responded to my post that was in a series of posts that originally asked folks who believed impeachment was warranted what the crime was. You jumped into to THAT conversation.

Elijah Cumming's comments at the hearing proved to me that the ultra hard core Left would ignore any and all evidence of this President committing murder himself, so I know full well that there's zero chance of 'impeachment'. But public ridicule and mockery....he deserves all of it, and more.

You're convinced he deserves impeachment, but get indignant when asked to specify the crime. Yeah, that's rational.

[bigbird 60,926]

I've already said he won't be impeached. However I did give articles of the UCMJ that he could be charged with...if he fell under its jurisdiction, which he doesn't.

I believe the most egregious was his inaction resulting in the deaths at the consolate. The lies that were told afterwards only perpetuate the fact that he realized the significance. His underlings would not give the satements they did or reword documents in the manner which they were without knowledge or consent from their superiors. That said, proving such would be next to impossible.

A conviction in the court of public opinion, even if never charged, can be just as damning.

[telling tiger 156]

During the run up to the "war" in Iraq, the CIA used words to describe WMD's as might and could when it came to the Iraq regime having them. So let me guess, when Bush LIED and used the words "do and have".................were you all standing on your little pointy heads screaming impeachment? I'm so sure you were, since you would never do something as hypocritical as claiming one lied and one didn't.

[DKW 86 7,866]

So Tex, tell us why Nixon was impeached?

Followup: Tell what the difference between he and Obama?

And i mean other than the Dead Ambassador and 3 other State Department Employees.

Note: just for the record, i think everyone in DC was guilty of over reading the CIA Intel on WMDs.

Still, we should have never gone to war there. We should have taken out Saddam in other ways.

[bigbird 60,926]

During the run up to the "war" in Iraq, the CIA used words to describe WMD's as might and could when it came to the Iraq regime having them. So let me guess, when Bush LIED and used the words "do and have".................were you all standing on your little pointy heads screaming impeachment? I'm so sure you were, since you would never do something as hypocritical as claiming one lied and one didn't.

some did, some did not. However, he was tried and convicted in the media and in living rooms across the nation. He never recovered.

[TexasTiger 14,069]

So Tex, tell us why Nixon was impeached?

Followup: Tell what the difference between he and Obama?

And i mean other than the Dead Ambassador and 3 other State Department Employees.

You bringing up Nixon is the kind of silly game playing you're accusing me of. If this was 1974 and I was on this forum saying, "Impeach, impeach!" That would be a very valid question. It's not, I'm not and it isn't. It is 2013 and folks here are saying, "Impeach, impeach!" For those folks, specifying the laws broken and specifying in detail the behavior that broke them is not an unreasonable expectation.

BTW, I felt similarly to many on the left asking for Bush's impeachment. I thought he was a lousy President that misled the American people resulting in tragic consequences, but impeachable offenses? Prove them to me.

[telling tiger 156]

There were NUMEROUS attacks and deaths of American embassy staff during the tenure of that previous president. http://www.bayoubuzz...embassy-attacks If one person involved in this conversation ,thinks that the various agencies involved didn't parse statements to make Bush appear like he was totally in charge and not to blame, they are raging idiots. again, WHERE WAS THE WHINE THEN? Yeah, that is what I thought. Irony, that article/editorial was from roughly 8 months ago, even more appropriate today.

[DKW 86 7,866]

http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/11/irs-mess/

Previous Presidents, including great ones like Roosevelt, have used the IRS against their enemies. But I don’t think Barack Obama ever wanted to be on the same page as Richard Nixon. In this specific case, he now is. Joe Klein Time Magazine

[bigbird 60,926]

There were plenty of people crying for Bush's head too. Not necessarily on these forums though.

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/548-Kucinich-Impeach-Bush-for-Lying-About-WMDs-

http://www.democrats.com/impeachment-reasons

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3984.htm

http://www.gp.org/press/pr_07_21_03.html

http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2006_01_03.shtml

http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_06_09.shtml

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_bushimpeachment02.htm

[TexasTiger 14,069]

There were plenty of people crying for Bush's head too. Not necessarily on these forums though.

http://www.opencongr...ing-About-WMDs-

http://www.democrats...achment-reasons

http://www.informati...article3984.htm

http://www.gp.org/pr...r_07_21_03.html

http://www.gp.org/pr...006_01_03.shtml

http://www.gp.org/pr...005_06_09.shtml

http://www.bibliotec...peachment02.htm

Yep...and?

[TexasTiger 14,069]

http://swampland.tim...05/11/irs-mess/

Previous Presidents, including great ones like Roosevelt, have used the IRS against their enemies. But I don’t think Barack Obama ever wanted to be on the same page as Richard Nixon. In this specific case, he now is. Joe Klein Time Magazine

So you and Joe Klein have something in common. Good for you. It is totally irrelevant to this thread, but that's your MO.

[DKW 86 7,866]

So Tex, tell us why Nixon was impeached?

Followup: Tell what the difference between he and Obama?

And i mean other than the Dead Ambassador and 3 other State Department Employees.

You bringing up Nixon is the kind of silly game playing you're accusing me of. If this was 1974 and I was on this forum saying, "Impeach, impeach!" That would be a very valid question. It's not, I'm not and it isn't. It is 2013 and folks here are saying, "Impeach, impeach!" For those folks, specifying the laws broken and specifying in detail the behavior that broke them is not an unreasonable expectation.

BTW, I felt similarly to many on the left asking for Bush's impeachment. I thought he was a lousy President that misled the American people resulting in tragic consequences, but impeachable offenses? Prove them to me.

As far as impeachment, i think it was the tool that got Nixon out of office, so i wont disregard its relevance.

Impeaching Bush43, well he was an idiot. It would have been shooting fish in the barrel. He was just incompetent and listening to the wrong folks. Was he criminal, no. Impeaching Clinton, well i am on the border there. He showed incredible chutzpah of "Definition of the word "IS" is..." That was sickening coming from the same office Roosevelt and Lincoln sat in. But overall, Clinton was a great technocratic wonk.

Obama? Well it is like Nixon, in a few ways:

1) Nixon's downfall wasn't the petty crime, it was the "coverup." That and the "Enemies List" are words that man added to the American lexicon.

2) Obama's problem is the Security Incompetence before and during Benghazi and now, again, it is the "coverup." The unbelievable "video story and the 12 Reincantations of the talking points" is now coming into clear view of everybody. Obama could wash all this away with a mea culpa Monday night. Never gonna happen tho. The Achille's Heel of the modern Democrat is their Arrogance.

(Please note that i said Democrat, i did not say Progressive nor Liberal.)

Tex, my point, and Joe Klein's point, is that Obama has or is turning out to act just like Nixon. Nixon was on the verge of a huge Electoral landslide in 1972, yet his campaign still ordered the Watergate break in. Obama, on the verge of winning easily against a hapless candidate in Romney still could not simply concede that mistakes were made in Benghazi.

[TexasTiger 14,069]

So Tex, tell us why Nixon was impeached?

Followup: Tell what the difference between he and Obama?

And i mean other than the Dead Ambassador and 3 other State Department Employees.

You bringing up Nixon is the kind of silly game playing you're accusing me of. If this was 1974 and I was on this forum saying, "Impeach, impeach!" That would be a very valid question. It's not, I'm not and it isn't. It is 2013 and folks here are saying, "Impeach, impeach!" For those folks, specifying the laws broken and specifying in detail the behavior that broke them is not an unreasonable expectation.

BTW, I felt similarly to many on the left asking for Bush's impeachment. I thought he was a lousy President that misled the American people resulting in tragic consequences, but impeachable offenses? Prove them to me.

As far as impeachment, i think it was the tool that got Nixon out of office, so i wont disregard its relevance.

Impeaching Bush43, well he was an idiot. It would have been shooting fish in the barrel. He was just incompetent and listening to the wrong folks. Was he criminal, no. Impeaching Clinton, well i am on the border there. He incredible chutzpah of "Definition of the word "IS" is..." Was sickening coming from the same office Roosevelt and Lincoln were in. But overall, Clinton was a great technocratic wonk.

Obama? Well it is like Nixon, in a few ways:

1) Nixon's downfall wasn't the petty crime, it was the "coverup." That and the "Enemies List" are words that man added to the American lexicon.

2) Obama's problem is the Security Incompetence before and during Benghazi and now, again, it is the "coverup." The unbelievable "video story and the 12 Reincantations of the talking points" is now coming into clear view of everybody. Obama could wash all this away with a mea culpa Monday night. Never gonna happen tho. The Achille's Heel of the modern Democrat is their Arrogance.

(Please note that i said Democrat, i did not say Progressive nor Liberal.)

Okay, but was the "coverup," assuming for the sake of argument that term applies, of Benghazi a crime? Nixon had a well-documented role in obstructing justice. If you are truly drawing an analogy here, draw it well.

[DKW 86 7,866]

So Tex, tell us why Nixon was impeached?

Followup: Tell what the difference between he and Obama?

And i mean other than the Dead Ambassador and 3 other State Department Employees.

You bringing up Nixon is the kind of silly game playing you're accusing me of. If this was 1974 and I was on this forum saying, "Impeach, impeach!" That would be a very valid question. It's not, I'm not and it isn't. It is 2013 and folks here are saying, "Impeach, impeach!" For those folks, specifying the laws broken and specifying in detail the behavior that broke them is not an unreasonable expectation.

BTW, I felt similarly to many on the left asking for Bush's impeachment. I thought he was a lousy President that misled the American people resulting in tragic consequences, but impeachable offenses? Prove them to me.

As far as impeachment, i think it was the tool that got Nixon out of office, so i wont disregard its relevance.

Impeaching Bush43, well he was an idiot. It would have been shooting fish in the barrel. He was just incompetent and listening to the wrong folks. Was he criminal, no. Impeaching Clinton, well i am on the border there. He incredible chutzpah of "Definition of the word "IS" is..." Was sickening coming from the same office Roosevelt and Lincoln were in. But overall, Clinton was a great technocratic wonk.

Obama? Well it is like Nixon, in a few ways:

1) Nixon's downfall wasn't the petty crime, it was the "coverup." That and the "Enemies List" are words that man added to the American lexicon.

2) Obama's problem is the Security Incompetence before and during Benghazi and now, again, it is the "coverup." The unbelievable "video story and the 12 Reincantations of the talking points" is now coming into clear view of everybody. Obama could wash all this away with a mea culpa Monday night. Never gonna happen tho. The Achille's Heel of the modern Democrat is their Arrogance.

(Please note that i said Democrat, i did not say Progressive nor Liberal.)

Okay, but was the "coverup," assuming for the sake of argument that term applies, of Benghazi a crime? Nixon had a well-documented role in obstructing justice. If you are truly drawing an analogy here, draw it well.

Fair enough question. Obstructing justice? We will see how the "access for attorneys" and other things work themselves out. Executive Privilege was used by Nixon in the coverup. Lets watch and see how it plays out here. I will say the Hicks job reassignment looks bad. The "behind the scenes meeting with five hand picked members of the WH Pres corps" looks bad too.

[DKW 86 7,866]

From Maureen FREAKIN Dowd:

"The conservatives appearing on Benghazi-obsessed Fox News are a damage patrol with an approach that goes like this: “Lies, paranoia, subpoena, impeach, Watergate, Iran-contra.” (Though now that the I.R.S. has confessed to targeting Tea Party groups, maybe some of the paranoia is justified.)

http://www.nytimes.c...pital.html?_r=0

Read the whole article, it is not nice to be Hillary nor Obama today in DC. When Dowd, IN THE NYT, stops carrying your water, things are getting bad.

[TexasTiger 14,069]

From Maureen FREAKIN Dowd:

"The conservatives appearing on Benghazi-obsessed Fox News are a damage patrol with an approach that goes like this: “Lies, paranoia, subpoena, impeach, Watergate, Iran-contra.” (Though now that the I.R.S. has confessed to targeting Tea Party groups, maybe some of the paranoia is justified.)

http://www.nytimes.c...pital.html?_r=0

Read the whole article, it is not nice to be Hillary nor Obama today in DC. When Dowd, IN THE NYT, stops carrying your water, things are getting bad.

DWK endorses Dowd and Klein. I think this person makes sense:

Hard to believe what I am reading from people like Tomasky and Joe Klein and others on the Benghazi and IRS stuff. Instantly, such commentators are declaring the Obama administration in trouble of being classified along with Nixon or inviting an Impeachment bid.

On Benghazi, it is in fact nothing more than an inter-agency blame shifting episode in a drafting process of minor substantive importance. More to the point, one does not hear regular Americans talking about this whole thing. Seems like a classic case of right-wing-commentator frenzy infecting the DC bubble, but I remain convinced that most Americans will be completely turned off at attempts to smear HR Clinton with this, even if they pay any attention at all. Not many are paying attention now.

On the IRS thing, it sounded bad to me — until I read down several paragraphs into news stories and learned that the high-level IRS officials who learned about the extra look into “Tea Party” labeled entities in 2011 IMMEDIATELY ordered it to stop. If that is true, I fail to see the scandal, except that some lower-down people maybe did not take the order. How does this tar the Obama White House? Any close look would presumably reveal that the IRS officials did order it to stop — and set guidelines for even-handed enforcement of IRS rules. Certainly it is not the case that Tea Party groups can expect to be exempt from the rules that apply to all, and there have been shady cases of stretching rules by entities with such a label.

I wonder if, once again, we are not seeing overly fast anxiety attacks among liberal journalists — who proceed to play up the trivial. In fact, there is little of substance in these matters, especially the first. And if the right goes for Impeachment over either of them, they will hurt themselves, not Democrats.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/not_believing_the_hype.php?ref=fpblg

[AURaptor 1,137]

For press talking points-- an administration deciding how to spin something is impeachable? You are just so angry and full of hate you can't even begin to view the impeachment process in a rational manner.

I never said any damn thing about ' impeachment'. Look back at the thread. You're getting confused w/ all the posts you've made.

I think this administration has done wrong. and want it to at least acknowledge that much to the American public.

You look back at the thread, genius-- you responded to my post that was in a series of posts that originally asked folks who believed impeachment was warranted what the crime was. You jumped into to THAT conversation.

Elijah Cumming's comments at the hearing proved to me that the ultra hard core Left would ignore any and all evidence of this President committing murder himself, so I know full well that there's zero chance of 'impeachment'. But public ridicule and mockery....he deserves all of it, and more.

You're convinced he deserves impeachment, but get indignant when asked to specify the crime. Yeah, that's rational.

I did no such thing, genius. YOU made a comment, and I replied...

" Knowingly making a false statement is a crime. It's not a ' reach '. "

( Now, it does depend on to whom you make the false statement, but point of fact... this admin changed the facts it told the American people to fit the narrative it wanted to be out there. )

Nothing more. No where did I say " impeach Obama ! " , or anything near that. Just admit that much, that you were wrong, and move on.

[TexasTiger 14,069]

For press talking points-- an administration deciding how to spin something is impeachable? You are just so angry and full of hate you can't even begin to view the impeachment process in a rational manner.

I never said any damn thing about ' impeachment'. Look back at the thread. You're getting confused w/ all the posts you've made.

I think this administration has done wrong. and want it to at least acknowledge that much to the American public.

You look back at the thread, genius-- you responded to my post that was in a series of posts that originally asked folks who believed impeachment was warranted what the crime was. You jumped into to THAT conversation.

Elijah Cumming's comments at the hearing proved to me that the ultra hard core Left would ignore any and all evidence of this President committing murder himself, so I know full well that there's zero chance of 'impeachment'. But public ridicule and mockery....he deserves all of it, and more.

You're convinced he deserves impeachment, but get indignant when asked to specify the crime. Yeah, that's rational.

I did no such thing, genius. YOU asked a question, and I answered it.

Nothing more. No where did I say " impeach Obama ! " , or anything near that. Just admit that much, that you were wrong, and move on.

I'll admit I'm wrong to even try to reason with you on anything. Your irrationality is at pathological levels. How's that? Moving on...

[AURaptor 1,137]

I'll admit I'm wrong to even try to reason with you on anything. Your irrationality is at pathological levels. How's that? Moving on...

Or , you could be a man and just admit that you were wrong...because, in fact.. YOU WERE WRONG.

[bigbird 60,926]

There were plenty of people crying for Bush's head too. Not necessarily on these forums though.

http://www.opencongr...ing-About-WMDs-

http://www.democrats...achment-reasons

http://www.informati...article3984.htm

http://www.gp.org/pr...r_07_21_03.html

http://www.gp.org/pr...006_01_03.shtml

http://www.gp.org/pr...005_06_09.shtml

http://www.bibliotec...peachment02.htm

Yep...and?

and what? TT said...

There were NUMEROUS attacks and deaths of American embassy staff during the tenure of that previous president. http://www.bayoubuzz...embassy-attacks If one person involved in this conversation ,thinks that the various agencies involved didn't parse statements to make Bush appear like he was totally in charge and not to blame, they are raging idiots. again, WHERE WAS THE WHINE THEN? Yeah, that is what I thought. Irony, that article/editorial was from roughly 8 months ago, even more appropriate today.

...and I gave links to those that were crying for impeachment then. I'm not sure you actually know what you are or are not arguing for. All I've seen are two or three word quips that, in no way, constitute an opinion or factual argument. Your mulishness is tiresome. War Eagle and happy mother's day.

[telling tiger 156]

Well, you called it, when you said there may have been whining, but not on this forum, at least not about impeaching Bush. This forum was my point. Texas Tiger has certainly not been anymore mulish than the VAST majority of hyper-partisan nonsense consistently posted here.

[bigbird 60,926]

Well, you called it, when you said there may have been whining, but not on this forum, at least not about impeaching Bush. This forum was my point. Texas Tiger has certainly not been anymore mulish than the VAST majority of hyper-partisan nonsense consistently posted here.

Most likely, but he is the only one that I've had any interaction with on this forum. To that extent, I feel my assessment was not off base.