BBC: After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll

[telling tiger 156]

Opinion. Amazing what forms around it.

[bigbird 60,926]

Opinion. Amazing what forms around it.

black mold?

[TexasTiger 14,070]

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.

Your links to various sites, not this one, mean what exactly? Besides, Telling Tiger's point appeared to be, "where was the whine from the folks who are whining now-- like you?" I've said explicitly that I failed to see a solid argument from "the Left" to impeach Bush. I haven't seen you complete an argument on this point yet, so I'm not sure what your whining about now, unless you've finally realized that you don't really have one and need an exit.

http://www.aufamily....54#entry1845568

[bigbird 60,926]

Show me one post on here of any whining from me.

Unlike you, I have answered everyone of your quips with an answer. You have yet presented a single argument, unless you consider the piggy back from TT's post your argument. In which, I recant my previous line.

Like you I have said explicitly that, while charges could be filed, there is no course for impeachment.

http://www.aufamily...._9#entry1845275

http://www.aufamily....27#entry1845375

http://www.aufamily....54#entry1845564

Rather than trying to prove youreslf right, try focusing more on the comprehension of other's post. This will ensure that you know what you are referencing.

So let me conclude my argument.

IMO, In the case of Benghazzi, Obama, as commander and chief, failed through his inaction and attempted cover-up of the situation. I believe he could be charged with articles 92, 107, and 133 of the UCMJ. In doing so, they could prove Actus rea but not mens rea. However, both are usually needed when trying to prove guilt. That said, there is no precedence or case law for charging the POTUS under the UCMJ, although he could be. In conclusion, while there is perceived culapability, there is no course thats takes this to impeachment.

Have a great day and War Eagle!

[TexasTiger 14,070]

Show me one post on here of any whining from me.

Unlike you, I have answered everyone of your quips with an answer. You have yet presented a single argument, unless you consider the piggy back from TT's post your argument. In which, I recant my previous line.

Like you I have said explicitly that, while charges could be filed, there is no course for impeachment.

Right. Bird, I didn't even realize you and I were arguing until you decided to get personal and call me mulish. I argued with DWK and Raptor, mostly, but not really you until your "mulish" post.

http://www.aufamily...._9#entry1845275

http://www.aufamily....27#entry1845375

http://www.aufamily....54#entry1845564

Rather than trying to prove youreslf right, try focusing more on the comprehension of other's post. This will ensure that you know what you are referencing.

So let me conclude my argument.

IMO, In the case of Benghazzi, Obama, as commander and chief, failed through his inaction and attempted cover-up of the situation. I believe he could be charged with articles 92, 107, and 133 of the UCMJ. In doing so, they could prove Actus rea but not mens rea. However, both are usually needed when trying to prove guilt. That said, there is no precedence or case law for charging the POTUS under the UCMJ, although he could be. In conclusion, while there is perceived culapability, there is no course thats takes this to impeachment.

Have a great day and War Eagle!

[bigbird 60,926]

I was using mulish in reference to your stubborness, not as in you being an ass. My apologies if you took it the later.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

I was using mulish in reference to your stubborness, not as in you being an ass. My apologies if you took it the later.

No worries. We're good as far as I'm concerned. War Eagle, brother. And, yes, I do appreciate you offering more substantive responses to the impeachment question. I don't agree with you about the applicability of those code provisions to these facts, even if UCMJ applied to Obama, but they were substantive.

[bigbird 60,926]

War Eagle!

[autigeremt 7,133]

Texas. Do you have a problem with how this went down?

What "this" are you referring to?

Clearly there were problems with inadequate security:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

How this was handled from security to protection to the aftermath? It's not a complicated question.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

Texas. Do you have a problem with how this went down?

What "this" are you referring to?

Clearly there were problems with inadequate security:

http://www.state.gov...tion/202446.pdf

How this was handled from security to protection to the aftermath? It's not a complicated question.

Well, it certainly is a vague question since the complaints run a time frame from before the attack through the months following.

I agree with the report that security was inadequate. The report is pretty scathing. I don't disagree with it.

The press talking points issue that has everyone hot and bothered is hyped up in the extreme. I think the WAPO Fact-checker breaks it down pretty rationally. Do you think prior administrations immediately lay out all the known facts to the media in the immediate aftermath of an attack? Really? The administration's behavior in this case strikes me as not inconsistent with most prior ones. Did anyone flat-out lie to Congress? Show me the evidence. Frankly, it's hard for someone trying to objectively get to the facts to sift through all the noise created by the Republicans seeking to gain political advantage and fundraising leverage. The mainstream media is more interested in the partisan fighting that actually getting to a calm, reasoned assessment of the facts.

The response I see from the Right, and with all due respect you, is overwhelmingly visceral, partisan and has been from day one.

[autigeremt 7,133]

Texas. Do you have a problem with how this went down?

What "this" are you referring to?

Clearly there were problems with inadequate security:

http://www.state.gov...tion/202446.pdf

How this was handled from security to protection to the aftermath? It's not a complicated question.

Well, it certainly is a vague question since the complaints run a time frame from before the attack through the months following.

I agree with the report that security was inadequate. The report is pretty scathing. I don't disagree with it.

The press talking points issue that has everyone hot and bothered is hyped up in the extreme. I think the WAPO Fact-checker breaks it down pretty rationally. Do you think prior administrations immediately lay out all the known facts to the media in the immediate aftermath of an attack? Really? The administration's behavior in this case strikes me as not inconsistent with most prior ones. Did anyone flat-out lie to Congress? Show me the evidence. Frankly, it's hard for someone trying to objectively get to the facts to sift through all the noise created by the Republicans seeking to gain political advantage and fundraising leverage. The mainstream media is more interested in the partisan fighting that actually getting to a calm, reasoned assessment of the facts.

The response I see from the Right, and with all due respect you, is overwhelmingly visceral, partisan and has been from day one.

What the Right does is nothing more than play the game the Left uses with other crisis involving political gain. It's sickening and I can't stand it. Please stop inferring the I care what the right does because they are just a parallel of the left. Both are a cancer to America.

Once again my problem has to do with the lack of protection before, during, and even after the event. A total lack of competence.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

Texas. Do you have a problem with how this went down?

What "this" are you referring to?

Clearly there were problems with inadequate security:

http://www.state.gov...tion/202446.pdf

How this was handled from security to protection to the aftermath? It's not a complicated question.

Well, it certainly is a vague question since the complaints run a time frame from before the attack through the months following.

I agree with the report that security was inadequate. The report is pretty scathing. I don't disagree with it.

The press talking points issue that has everyone hot and bothered is hyped up in the extreme. I think the WAPO Fact-checker breaks it down pretty rationally. Do you think prior administrations immediately lay out all the known facts to the media in the immediate aftermath of an attack? Really? The administration's behavior in this case strikes me as not inconsistent with most prior ones. Did anyone flat-out lie to Congress? Show me the evidence. Frankly, it's hard for someone trying to objectively get to the facts to sift through all the noise created by the Republicans seeking to gain political advantage and fundraising leverage. The mainstream media is more interested in the partisan fighting that actually getting to a calm, reasoned assessment of the facts.

The response I see from the Right, and with all due respect you, is overwhelmingly visceral, partisan and has been from day one.

What the Right does is nothing more than play the game the Left uses with other crisis involving political gain. It's sickening and I can't stand it. Please stop inferring the I care what the right does because they are just a parallel of the left. Both are a cancer to America.

Once again my problem has to do with the lack of protection before, during, and even after the event. A total lack of competence.

You asked me what I thought. I took the time to tell you.

[autigeremt 7,133]

I appreciate the response.