+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 18 of 24 FirstFirst ... 8141516171819202122 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 239

Thread: So now impeachment?

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Indymom View Post
    We may get to impeachment, but I'm willing to wait to see what an independant investigation brings us. Inconsistancy is him claiming he thought it was a terrorist attack and pushing spontaneous riots for two weeks. That is an inconsistancy. DUH!!
    What does that even mean? You know, not every piece of information is keystroke fast.

    You are not going to get to impeachment. Even if the president was wrong, being wrong is not an impeachable offense. Face reality. This witch hunt is nothing more than a bunch of partisan doing a circle jerk. It is a show they put on to provide fodder for right wing radio.

  2. Likes Margot liked this post
  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Think for myself View Post
    What does that even mean? You know, not every piece of information is keystroke fast.

    You are not going to get to impeachment. Even if the president was wrong, being wrong is not an impeachable offense. Face reality. This witch hunt is nothing more than a bunch of partisan doing a circle jerk. It is a show they put on to provide fodder for right wing radio.
    Where did I say I thought we are sure to get to impeachment? Rewind, and read again with some comprehension this time!

    This is too big to not at least get on record what the heck was going on, and let the chips fall where they may. The Ambassador (and others) deserve it.

  4. #173
    Location: Southeast USA
    Posts: 62,129
    My Latest Mood: Amused

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Indymom View Post
    Where did I say I thought we are sure to get to impeachment? Rewind, and read again with some comprehension this time!

    This is too big to not at least get on record what the heck was going on, and let the chips fall where they may. The Ambassador (and others) deserve it.
    You are kidding yourself, Indy.. Congress has been slashing the budget for embassy security since Bush was in office... The guilt is on both sides of the aisle.. Time to face reality.. The GOP is in the weeds... and its time for serious introspection.

    http://climatecrocks.com/2012/11/08/...ing-will-hear/

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Margot View Post
    You are kidding yourself, Indy.. Congress has been slashing the budget for embassy security since Bush was in office... The guilt is on both sides of the aisle.. Time to face reality.. The GOP is in the weeds... and its time for serious introspection.

    http://climatecrocks.com/2012/11/08/...ing-will-hear/
    Don't care. They had plenty of money for urgent matters. They can't convince me otherwise. This happened directly because of Obama and Clinton (maybe just Obama). Pointing back at Bush makes me roll my eyes.

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Indymom View Post
    Where did I say I thought we are sure to get to impeachment? Rewind, and read again with some comprehension this time!
    Your previous post would be the answer on that one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Indymom View Post
    We may get to impeachment,

    What were you saying about my comprehension?

    Quote Originally Posted by Indymom View Post
    This is too big to not at least get on record what the heck was going on, and let the chips fall where they may. The Ambassador (and others) deserve it.
    I don't know what "on record" is supposed to mean in this case. Sounds like a made up excuse for a highly partisan investigation into the known, coupled with incessant bleating by the right wing echo chamber whilst no one actually does the job they were elected to.

  7. Default

    BTW, I know full well that I can't control what happens. I can only express my thoughts on what the right thing is to do about it. The election does not erase my opinion that this President is a liar and was highly negligent in the death of our Ambassador. We need to have an investigation. No doubt about it. But, it's out of my hands now.

  8. #177
    Location: Southeast USA
    Posts: 62,129
    My Latest Mood: Amused

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Indymom View Post
    Don't care. They had plenty of money for urgent matters. They can't convince me otherwise. This happened directly because of Obama and Clinton (maybe just Obama). Pointing back at Bush makes me roll my eyes.
    I was talking with a gal who is married to one of the Mobile Security Deployment guys who was in Tripoli until August.. He knew the Seals on security duty with the CIA and had also worked with them in Yemen.

    He's now in Tunisia where the Ambassador is in hiding and the security team is living in a abandoned building.

    Please watch this.. its brief.

    http://climatecrocks.com/2012/11/08/...ing-will-hear/

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Think for myself View Post
    Your previous post would be the answer on that one.




    What were you saying about my comprehension?



    I don't know what "on record" is supposed to mean in this case. Sounds like a made up excuse for a highly partisan investigation into the known, coupled with incessant bleating by the right wing echo chamber whilst no one actually does the job they were elected to.
    Do I really need to define the word "may" for you?

    On the record...under oath.

  10. #179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raytri View Post
    I wasn't following where someone else mentioned it. It may seem like I'm omniscient, but I'm not.

    Why is it absurd? It's a U.S. facility that was poorly secured and was attacked by Islamic jihadists.

    You argue that the administration should have known the consulate required more security.
    The consulate had suffered three seperate failed bombing attempts just months earlier and the British packed up when their ambassador had death threats and an attempt on his life by the same group that attacked us. Additionally Red Cross packed up and left.
    AND in addition to that, Ambassador Stevens met with State Department people several times asking for more help!

    Okay. In 1983 in Beirute, the situation was unstable enough to require a large Marine detachment. Shouldn't that have been a sign that serious security was needed? Instead, the sentries were operating on highly restrictive rules of engagement (notably, no magazine or rounds in their weapons) that prevented them from effectively engaging the truck bombs.
    "At around 6:20 a.m., a yellow Mercedes-Benz truck drove to Beirut International Airport, where the 1st Battalion 8th Marines under the 2nd Marine Division had set up its local headquarters. The truck was not the water truck they had been expecting, but a hijacked truck carrying explosives."
    The truck was expected and a welcomed sight, no doubt.

    "The truck turned onto an access road leading to the compound and circled a parking lot. The driver then accelerated and crashed through a barbed wire fence around the parking lot, passed between two sentry posts, crashed through a gate and drove toward the lobby of the marine headquarters. The sentries at the gate were operating under rules of engagement which made it very difficult to respond quickly to the truck. Sentries were ordered to keep their weapons at condition four (no magazine inserted and no rounds in the chamber). By the time the two sentries were able to engage, the truck was already heading towards the building's entry way, armed."

    The truck had to floor it to crash through a fence AND a gate AND drive between TWO seperate sentry posts. I hardly think that qualifies as "lax" security.
    The sentries were, inexplicably, operating at "condition four" but this brings up three points: All Marines in embassy security positions are still at condition four, under Obama, which makes this issue a push. Two, Marine guards were able to engage the truck, albeit not immediately, and three, it's not clear they could have stopped a speeding truick filled with explosives at any rate.

    You can justifiably say this single aspect indicates the security at the Marine compound was not ideal but in no way can you claim it was lax.


    The Marine commander on the ground said he knew some sort of attack would come after we provided naval support to the Lebanese Army, and that naval gunfire killed a sizable number of civilians.
    This is like trying to blame Bush for the 9/11 attack. We had word that terrorists might try to use airplanes as flying suicide bombers. That in no way identifies which planes (out of thousands of daily flights) to look out for.
    In hind sight that "water" truck should have been stopped but hind sight is perfect while people are not.

    So we had warning; we had hamstrung our own defenses; and 240 Marines died while sleeping in their barracks.

    Why wasn't Reagan impeached? Why is that an absurd comparison?
    The warning was insufficient and vague. The degree to which our troops (the sentries) were "hamstrung" was not significant and it's not clear they could have stopped a suicide attack anyway. Failure to convice.
    Last edited by Yosh Shmenge; Nov 08 2012 at 06:51 PM.
    Who do you call for when the government itself is the enemy of America?

  11. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Indymom View Post
    Do I really need to define the word "may" for you?

    On the record...under oath.
    Oh. I see. May does not mean think might happen. Amazing that the goalposts move in utter defiance of the English language.
    Last edited by Think for myself; Nov 08 2012 at 06:47 PM.

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 18 of 24 FirstFirst ... 8141516171819202122 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Obama impeachment bill now in Congress
    By Robodoon in forum Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Mar 12 2012, 07:02 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks