Impeach-Obama Calls Grow After Latest Benghazi Revelations

Yeah... like I said... you don't understand the complexity of the world around you. The rest of the world would not put up with that... nor would we do it, as the US economy would be cast into ruin overnight, and war on all fronts would destroy us.

It would look great in a comic book though... I bet you could sell it there!

 

I am not a "birther".

I see you don't want the real focus or real answers on:

Benghazi
IRS Attacks on the TEA Party
James Rosen Espionage Charge
AP Government Spying
Fast and Furious

 

Let me see if I got this straight.

This is from one of your earlier articles.

After discussions among members of the National Security Council, the Obama administration backed the arms shipments from both countries, according to two former administration officials briefed on the talks.


So the US supported arms shipments, which it did not pay for, to the Libyan rebels, with the knowledge of the UN security council, and that is a violation of the UN resolution, and that is am impeachable offense?

 

Let me get this straight... after Obama asks a couple of members of the security council if they will raise a flap... he violates the law... and you believe that is all that is needed... a couple of winks and nods from people we are bribing on the UNSC...

You are good with that... (*)(*)(*)(*) the law... the Saudi's said I could...

 

He violated the UN resolution? I don't think so.

That same UN resolution says the following.

Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

Now the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is the former Libyan government, and it appears that transferring arms, which is what Qatar did, under the expectation that they are to protect people from the former Libyan government is perfectly acceptable under that UN resolution.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm

It does not appear the US violated that UN resolution, and I don't think not violating it is an impeachable offense.

 

Of course they did. We armed Libyan rebel jihadists with US Stingers and other weapons in an arms embargo. This isn't (*)(*)(*)(*)ing ambiguous.
"It would be illegal for the United States to do so"

So we make some deals behind the scenes... and break the law anyway.

NOW having ARMED and SUPPORTED our (*)(*)(*)(*)ing sworn enemy in violation of UN resolutions... we have fuelled wars across the ME and North Africa... and decreased our security here and abroad. There are now 20,000 (*)(*)(*)(*)ing MANPADs in Al-Qaeda's hands. You think there isn't going to be (*)(*)(*)(*)ing blowback?

Who is using chemical weapons from where in Syria?

 

As has been demonstrated with a series of citations, accurately quoting the UN resolution, it does not appear the US violated the UN resolution that you said we did. We did not transfer arms, Qatar did, and as a member of the Arab League, they could do so under the resolution.

Shady? Maybe. A violation? Does not look like it.

The implications of arming rebels are irrelevant to my point.

We throw around the term impeachment far too much, and it does not appear anyone can actually put forth an impeachable offense committed by the administration.

 

The president personally authorized the arming of Libyan Jihadists in violation of an arms embargo which has damaged national security... after acknowledging the illegality.

As per your siting of the resolution...

Care to guess what paragraph 9 is?

 

Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas

Yes, notwithstanding. In spite of paragraph 9, the Arab states can still protect civilians from the former Libyan government.

No resolution was broken by the US. This has been clearly demonstrated.

 

We are not an Arab State Member. We are under resolution order to do everything we can to PREVENT arms from flowing to the deplorable militias. That does not include our blessing or facilitation of our weapons flowing to them. Even if Saudi says it's OK. This is why the White House told you it was illegal. I guess you know better.

We then directly shipped Libyan arms to Syria through Turkey from Benghazi, against an arms embargo... directly.

Did I mention we were employing Ansar al-Sharia? Did I mention the February 17th Martyrs Brigade was flying the AQ flag on their facebook?

Did I mention that AQ has grown exponentially and has more weapons than they can carry thanks to this? I don't remember if I have.

 

Not at all. I clearly demonstrated that the US did not violate the UN resolution.

I certainly did not say it was not shady, but I assume the president employs enough clever folks, as all presidents seem to, to justify and make sure everything follows the letter of the laws (or in the case a UN resolution), if not the spirit.

Oh, we did? Let's work on that one. Which arms embargo was that? Was that the one that congress gave approval for, the one I cited and quoted earlier?

And that is the impeachable offense you claimed? Someone put a flag on Facebook? Really?

 

Too bad. That was, by far, the funniest of the berserker antics.

Yes, Darryll gets the TP types all wee wee'd up repeatedly, but where's the beef?

I'd appreciate your correcting me if I err, but the only indictment I've seen so far, after months and months of his squandering taxpayer money in fruitless vendettas, was Issa's own - for larceny.

 

You're correct. Now we have Kerry reinstating four of the prime people on paid leave and involved in the Benghazi incident. While whistleblowers are still in limbo.

 

Why is anyone questioning the illegality of sending arms to Libyan rebels? White House lawyers have already made it crystal clear it's not legal. Mix a massive ego with a minimal brain and you get someone
who cannot adjust to reality very well.

 

The right wing media will undoubtedly keep the angry white guys wee wee'd up about the covert CIA skullduggery that went awry, but the fact is that the Issa inquisitions, for all their hyperbolic accusations, have yet to produce a single indictment.

It's as if Torquemada, for all his fanatical bluster, couldn't nail a single "heretic." "We'll eventually find one if we just keep torturing!"

If Darryll's relentless stalking yields a whiff of culpability, it will have legal repercussions.

Until then, the Issa Follies is no more consequential that a malicious, tongue-wagging coffee klatch.

 

Issa's IRS witch hunt just took another hit.

http://democrats.waysandmeans.house...nts-highlight-irs-scrutiny-progressive-groups

It's like Joe McCarthy 2: Electric Boogaloo in the halls of Congress.

 

Perhaps because of White House stonewalling. Like having Benghazi survivors sign non disclosure forms.

Or insisting that Col. George Bristol, who was commanding a Joint Special Operations Task Force at the time of the attack (and who never was ordered into action) couldn't testify before Congress because he was retired, though he wasn't.

And though the republicans would love to talk to him, the Pentagon will not say where he is. How "odd"!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162...to-talk-to-col-george-bristol-about-benghazi/

Actually it's as if Richard Nixon were back in charge at the White House stonewalling a vital investigation.

First Obama has to stop throwing roadblocks in Issa's way. But leave it to disingenuous progressives to hide something and then attack the person that cannot discover what it is.

 

Let me guess, despite your screaming above....you're a big Ronald Reagan and Ollie North fan?

 

Really?

democrats claim theyre innocent? shocker.....

PS So did OJ.....

 

Did you actually read it, or are you just going full ad hominem right off the bat?

 

BTW, at this point, does anybody OUTSIDE the Right actually imagine that calls for impeachment aren't going to be seen by the public as more rightwing sore-loser'ism? Their "Plan B" for when they lose an election....albeit it 1996 or 2012?

 

Yup, he lists 3 progressive communist organizations who got the boot, and that pales in comparison to the hundreds of conservative groups who were wrongly persecuted.

 

"Hundreds"?

 

BREAKING… Audit CONFIRMS IRS Targeted 292 Conservative Groups – Just 6 Liberal Groups

 

See, that wasn't so hard. Sources are a little crappy, but I won't make a big stank out of it.

Now is it possible ... hear me out ... that the reason so many were caught in this hamhanded BOLO web was because of words they used in describing themselves? We all know how it worked. These groups were fed into a machine that picked out keywords based on the BOLO lists.