So you predict that the White House will cooperate and that Obama was entirely oblivious to what was going on?
Got anything to add to the discussion other than bromides? BTW I predicted too close to call which it was.
Calling for impeachment the day after the president was re-elected, and before any impeachable facts are known, shows contempt for the democratic process. Plus, there's this: 1. Presidents don't make the security calls at consulates; the State Department's security department does. 2. The department makes thousands of such calls a year. They will get some of them wrong. 3. Monday-morning quarterbacking after they get it wrong is usually lame. Yes, you look into the failure to see how it happened. Yes, if you find gross negligence or other issues, you punish them. If the trail reaches up to the White House, the president pays a price. But there is nothing impeachable about being mistaken, or a case of bad judgment. Hmm. I seem to recall Reagan losing 240 Marines in Lebanon due to lax security at their barracks. Was there a sustained call for impeachment over that? The only people to regularly scream "impeach!" when they don't get their way are conservatives. They are also the only party to *actually* impeach a president in modern times. You guys impeached the last Dem president over matters that history has judged petty, trivial and partisan. Now you want to impeach this Dem president. Did you guys demand that we impeach Bush over his civil-rights abuses or the completely political and trumped-up case for war with Iraq -- a decision that didn't cost four lives, but thousands? How about the totally botched "reconstruction" effort? Those were far more impeachment-worthy cases than this. And even then, I didn't call for impeachment. I believe impeachment should be reserved for actual malfeasance in office -- not being political, not being wrong, not making a mistake. Nixon's impeachment would have been justified, because he engaged in or authorized actual criminal acts. Iran-Contra was arguably an impeachable moment for Reagan, given that he expressly violated the law to fund the Contras. But that's a little murky, because Reagan would undoubtedly have claimed the law improperly impinged on his CiC authority. And anyway, he wasn't impeached over it. Conservatives need to stop devaluing impeachment by bringing it up every time they don't get their way.
"Most importantly we should learn from what happened, rather than just attempt to assign blame and exploit this for political purposes." It's possible to do both but you ain't going to see that happen. Take that to the bank. The 'Obamatowners' will bury Libya so deep it will be closer to China than Taiwan.
1. None required 2. Read what I stated. Technically under the "and misdemeanor" which allows the impeachment for whatever reason the House determines. In this case failure to protect our embassy and personnel, failure to act during the attack and then of course as is usually the case the cover up that is ensuing.
Most are clueless as to what happened as the MSM has tried to keep the story from coming to light, recall the debate when Crowley tried so desperately to shut it down.
Technically, yes -- a president can be impeached simply because the House doesn't like him. Are you seriously arguing that that should be the standard? If "failure to protect embassy personnel" is an impeachable offense, why weren't any of the following instances cause for impeachment? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities Why wasn't Reagan impeached for allowing 240 Marines to die in the barracks bombing in 1983? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing At least try to be consistent.
You too! Are you seriously comparing the Benghazi attack to the barracks bombing in Lebanon? That has to be the most facile inappropriate comparison I've ever seen. It's absurd.
It's called reality. Had he lost the there would be no need..........DUH. But he remains in office along with his administration that is involved in a cover up of the matter and of course the inexcusable mishandling of it from the first bombings. The only thing that might be criminal would be in the cover up, destroying evidence or something or perjury before Congress. Yes they should be fired and that includes the President. The fact is Obama could find out on his own, could have done so immediately, who made those calls to let those people die and who made the calls to attempt to cover it up in the following days and weeks and he could have and should have already fired them. The distinct possibility is that HE was the one who gave those orders or was full aware of them. No that is secondly important, that is for after the fact and if we do finally find out what actually happened in the chain of command. The most important thing is to find out who gave those orders and to get them out, they cannot be trusted with our security and the lives of our people. Did you miss the ?. And now the diversions. Where is YOUR outrage over this matter? It's been over 6 weeks, why hasn't Obama told us what he knows? Why hasn't he fired the people who countermanded the orders he claims to have given? Why does he need an investigation to find out what HE knew? Why is he withholding documents the Congress has demanded? This is going to be a major scandal, if the best you have is calling it sour grapes you don't have much to stand on.
The Republicans have not yet built a case that justifies impeachment of the President. This doesn't mean they won't proceed with such a procedure; we have the unenviable memory of the impeachment proceedings for Bill Clinton to remind us of how juvenile the Republicans can be on occasion.
So a government run by people incapable of protecting our vital interest and putting their own political interest ahead of our security and the lives of the people who serve overseas and then lying about it to the American people is OK with you? That is your common sense?
Bone up on what the term "misdemeanor" means in the Constitution............misbehavior. If he refused the request to come to the aid of those people under attack..............and most importantly if he was party to the attempted cover up.....................as usual it's always the cover ups that make matters worse.
Yeah just forget about why the security was increased after the first two bombings, forget why no attempt was made to protect them, forget why during the attacks people were ordered NOT to go to their assistance, forget the lies the administration told about the video and the hours before the attack, Who is trying to cover this up for political purposed? That is the question you should be asking.
Impeachment IS a political act. It is designed in the Constitution as a political act. The purpose of impeachment is to protect the Constitution, the government and the citizens from a President who either engages in criminal acts or in acts of gross misbehavior's. That is why an impeachment for a criminal act does not preclude further prosecution in court.
Wrong, Obama told them that HE would pay and fines or cost with taxpayer money. As the poster said, another good reason to impeach him.
We know what happened in spite of the Obama administration. But if Obama knows then why hasn't he fired the person who countermanded the orders he gave and why doesn't he know why? Why hasn't he fired the person who told Rice to go out and lie to the American people about what happened? Why is the administration refusing to turn over the all the cables and emails and other documents concerning the orders given and request denied? So tell me if you know everything then tell me if Obama sat in on the security briefings during and after the attack.
I see, for political reasons you would prefer to remain obvious as to what happened in the most serious terrorist attack against us since 9/11.......gotcha!
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. 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. 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. 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?
Doesn't require breaking the law, misdemeanor as used in the Constitution just means "misbehavior", Congress can impeach a President for whatever it chooses especially when it comes to violating the oath of office or abuse of power. Didn't you learn that during the Nixon threatened impeachment, it was an abuse of power and withholding information from Congress (ring a bell?), or the Clinton impeachment when it was thoroughly discussed?
Well DUH, if he weren't reelected then having to remove him through impeachment for the failure to act in Libya and the ensuing covering up wouldn't be an issue would it. With a new administration we could get to the bottom of it rather than now having to go through the cover up and the refusal to answer the questions Congress is asking.
What would ever come from impeachment? The Senate would NEVER convict Obama even if he went to Libya himself and shot Ambassador Stevens and someone filmed it.
As far as the actions of the administration? We know they lied the first few days about it. We know Obama claims someone countermanded his orders and he has done nothing about it. We know they are withholding documents.
