Then why did the CIA tell Susan Rice it was a reaction to the video? http://www.denverpost.com/nationwor...ce-used-initial-intelligence-libya-cia-deputy Fact: the intelligence was evolving. Fact: Rice used what the CIA told her. You'd know that if you listened to something *other* than Fox.
I didn't say Fox was- but the poster to whom I was responding to is calling for impeachment. Fox kisses the ass of the Conservatives like a toady would his employers. And Petreaus testified today- not sure if that is the 'jerk' you questioned the courage of or not. What is it about Conservatives and their need to attack the courage of veterans?
Fox news and education don't belong in the same sentence. At least Congress grasps the concept that you investigate before you announce the lynching.
You still trying to sell that goofy idea? No thinking person ever thought that Petreaus resigning would prevent him from testifying. And it didn't. Just like we all said when you and the your fellow cons first tried spinning this goofy idea.
They didn't, someone at the WH edited what the CIA said which was that is was a terrorist attack. "Former CIA Director David Petraeus stoked the controversy over the Obama administration's handling of the Libya terror attack, testifying Friday that references to "Al Qaeda involvement" were stripped from his agency's original talking points -- while other intelligence officials were unable to say who changed the memo, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told Fox News that intelligence officials who testified in a closed-door hearing a day earlier, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Acting CIA Director Mike Morell, said they did not know who changed the talking points. He said they went out to multiple departments, including the State Department, National Security Council, Justice Department and White House. "To me the question right now is who changed those talking points and why. ... I'd say it was somebody in the administration had to have taken it out," King told Fox News. "That, to me, has to be pursued." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...rrorism-from-start-source-says/#ixzz2CQihnEvu But then you'd know that if you were listening to FOX.
Post where I have called for the impeachment of Obama. Then try to carry on debating the facts not trying to divert into the words you put in someone else's mouth. I have clearly said all along this MAY end up in an impeachment.
Not as deep as the heads in the sand........................see we can both just post tired old cliche's or do you want to discuss this very serious issue?
This whole thread is about you calling for impeachment at the same time leaving yourself wiggle room to deny it that is what you are calling for. OK he won, now we move onto the Libya scandal. The "investigation" which is just a stonewall will produce a constitutional crisis as the Obama administration starts issuing executive privilege. They will try to cry unfair to the demands they disclose what happened as they try to protect Obama. And when the failure to protect our ambassador and personell and the cover up comes to light will there be an impeachment?B]
I see you would rather make this personal rather a discussion of a very important matter with our government. I have no such interest. When you want to have an adult discussion of the POSSIBILITY of where this might end up get back to me.
Nope, I hope republicans (as always) buy into this crap and try to impeach him. You know like a lot of them bought into the "he's from kenia"
Knowing what the "crap is what do you think they are "buying" into? For instance all the heads of the intellegence agencies testified that none of their departments edited the CIA briefing paper which clearly said it was an al Qaeda sponsored terrorist attack and not a blown up demonstration. That leaves just the White House. They have issued statements of denials. So if it comes out they did and then sent Rice and others before the American people to lie about it and they did it for political purposes and that it was Obama who instructed them to do so, doesn't that start down a path of a possible impeachment?
If you can't impeach a guy for providing aid and comfort to Al Qaeda, then what CAN you impeach him for? Is extrajudicially detaining and/or blowing up innocents, even U.S. citizens, with no trial, not even considered a "high crime or misdemeanor"? What's it gonna take? Maybe you can bring round an intern to grant him some favors and hopefully trip him up over that?
