Bluegrassrivals

Full Version: Benghazi: Should Obama be Impeached?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
I was just curious about everyone's opinion. Keep in mind, it isn't yet clear of what completely happened in Benghazi and how the Obama administration might be linked to it.

I hope I didn't leave any options out. If I did, please point it out in your post.
There are not enough voting options. I vote No because, short of murder, Senate Democrats will never vote to remove Obama from office. Does he deserve to be impeached and removed? Yes, but Democrats and Obama's media allies would never let it happen. There is no point in impeaching another crooked Democratic president if the corrupt Democrats in the Senate will not remove him from office.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:There are not enough voting options. I vote No because, short of murder, Senate Democrats will never vote to remove Obama from office. Does he deserve to be impeached and removed? Yes, but Democrats and Obama's medial allies would never let it happen. There is no point in impeaching another crooked Democratic president if the corrupt Democrats in the Senate will not remove him from office.

Exactly right.
If McCain is so interested in what went on, why is he skipping out on the meetings?

Quote:McCain skips Benghazi briefing, gets testy when questioned by CNN

(CNN) - Most of the Republican members of a Senate committee investigating the terrorist attack at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, skipped a classified briefing by administration officials on the incident Wednesday, CNN has learned.

The missing lawmakers included Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who at the time of the top-secret briefing held a press conference in the Capitol to call for the creation of a Watergate-type special Congressional committee to investigate how and why the attack took place.



McCain, who has accused President Barack Obama of not telling the truth about the Benghazi attack, said that even though there are several committees involved in the probe, only a select committee could streamline the information flow and resolve the "many unanswered questions" about the tragedy.

When CNN approached McCain in a Capitol hallway Thursday morning, the senator refused to comment about why he missed the briefing, which was conducted by top diplomatic, military and counter-terrorism officials. Instead, McCain got testy when pressed to say why he wasn't there.

"I have no comment about my schedule and I'm not going to comment on how I spend my time to the media," McCain said.

Asked why he wouldn't comment, McCain grew agitated: "Because I have the right as a senator to have no comment and who the hell are you to tell me I can or not?”

When CNN noted that McCain had missed a key meeting on a subject the senator has been intensely upset about, McCain said, "I'm upset that you keep badgering me."

While McCain refused to shed light on why he didn't show, his spokesman Brian Rogers emailed CNN a short time later with an explanation. He blamed it on a "scheduling error" but wouldn't provide any more detail.



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201...?hpt=hp_t2
I think it's still early in the game. There certainly was errors in how the information was managed, but there is still too much conjecture to know exactly what information was given, versus what has been reportedly given - AND - who told who what.

What personally am looking forward to is meeting with Susan Collins team on 12/5-6 in Washington. Her team is working directly with us on potential legislative action in 2013. I hope to get more of their opinion on Benghazi. She has been outspoken on this issue and appears to be heavily involved in any potential hearings. I listened to here yesterday on CSPAN and if her points are accurate, it will be very difficult for those in Hillary Clinton's staff to refute lack of action with information reported directly to her one week prior to the attacks.
There is one person who, regardless of what really happened, will come out of this looking as white as snow. That, of course is Obama. He will be protected at all costs by his cronies and by the media.
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:There is one person who, regardless of what really happened, will come out of this looking as white as snow. That, of course is Obama. He will be protected at all costs by his cronies and by the media.



You're right, he will. The very same defenders of the faith, had their dry run back when Bill Clinton, 42nd President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, on December 19, 1998. [Wiki] That proceeding failed because their argument was based on the idea that Bill's crime did not rise to the level of a "high crime". Conveniently omitting most of the constitutional wording of the phrase; "High crimes and misdemeanors is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

It will be up to the republicans to go 'all in' sooner or later anyway. At some point there has to be a line drawn in the sand, and far as I'm concerned we're at that point.
Nope. Don't need to be talking impeachment, need to be working together and quick.
vundy33 Wrote:Nope. Don't need to be talking impeachment, need to be working together and quick.

I believe the Republicans should show Obama the same level of respect and consideration that the Democrats showed to Bush.
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:I believe the Republicans should show Obama the same level of respect and consideration that the Democrats showed to Bush.

That type of thinking will get us no where. It'll take us backwards, not forward.
vundy33 Wrote:Nope. Don't need to be talking impeachment, need to be working together and quick.
We don't need to be working together with a Marxist. If Obama is going to destroy this country from within, then Republicans should not go down without a fight. The only reason not to talk of impeachment of Obama is that it will only rally the nitwits who support him around their cause - free stuff for the dumb masses - but that does not mean that we should participate in our own demise.
vundy33 Wrote:That type of thinking will get us no where. It'll take us backwards, not forward.
What part of Obama's agenda do you think that Republicans should support through compromise? I am not against legislators compromising when broad areas of agreement on principles exist, but in what areas should people who believe in limited government and personal liberty support compromise with a party that believes in a huge, centralized government that seeks to dictate how we live, down to the size of soft drinks that we can buy in a 7-11 store?

The greatest compromises in the history of our country were hammered out in the years before the Civil War. All that those compromises accomplished was to delay the inevitable clash between the two sides and allow their differences to fester for decades. That is all that compromising with Obama would do. It would make Obama and the statists who support him stronger by allowing them to claim consensus, while weakening those who oppose him by getting them to compromise the core values that bind them to each other.
I believe that when/if the truth on this situation comes out, he should be. With that being said, the media continues to serve as a bulwark for Obama. With the democrats having a bigger establishment in the senate, it likely won't happen. I encourage everybody on here who gets a chance to watch C-SPAN and some of the sessions because you will get to see Obama in action and be able to grasp a better assessment of the situation. One will be able to apprise that Obama and Reid are both extremely difficult to work with, through watching C-SPAN.
vundy33 Wrote:That type of thinking will get us no where. It'll take us backwards, not forward.




No, that type of thinking may well save us ,if it isn't already too late. What is all this move forward talk? We don't need to move anywhere, as a matter of fact, our ship of state needs to stay in port for repairs for a while. That's our problem, we've already moved so far one can barely find any familiar ground anymore. Sounds like a bunch of hippies having a bull session or something. Whether America survives or not, will depend on whether enough conservative minded legislators can slow down this mutation into little Europe. A little accountability would go a long way towards healing this land and IF Obama is guilty as charged, he should be strung up by his buster browns, he's not one little bit better than anybody else.
TheRealThing Wrote:No, that type of thinking may well save us ,if it isn't already too late. What is all this move forward talk? We don't need to move anywhere, as a matter of fact, our ship of state needs to stay in port for repairs for a while. That's our problem, we've already moved so far one can barely find any familiar ground anymore. Sounds like a bunch of hippies having a bull session or something. Whether America survives or not, will depend on whether enough conservative minded legislators can slow down this mutation into little Europe. A little accountability would go a long way towards healing this land and IF Obama is guilty as charged, he should be strung up by his buster browns, he's not one little bit better than anybody else.
White, conservative voters trying to take us back to the 50's are a dying breed, and losing ground, and thankfully so.
TheRealVille Wrote:White, conservative voters trying to take us back to the 50's are a dying breed, and losing ground, and thankfully so.




How would you know? Your just a white boy from up in the mountains of Kentucky. :biglmao:
TheRealVille Wrote:White, conservative voters trying to take us back to the 50's are a dying breed, and losing ground, and thankfully so.

lol, losing ground? The conservatives control the house of representatives by a large margin, and the democrats don't have a strong hold on the senate. You do realize that in 1936 the democrats held a 334-88 advantage in the house, and a 76-16 advantage in the senate, along with the president position? The democrats had the opportunity of a life time to exterminate the republican party for good - yet they still found a way to screw it up.

White, conservative voters trying to take us back to the 50's? Pray tell, you even in the same dimension as the rest of us? The 50's had problems, but it sure sounds so much better than the time we have now. I mean, a good economy, and the morals and respect people had were so much higher. I would go back to the 50's anytime. At least the people in the 50's didn't have to deal with a socialist president that is trying to run the country in the ground.
WideRight05 Wrote:lol, losing ground? The conservatives control the house of representatives by a large margin, and the democrats don't have a strong hold on the senate. You do realize that in 1936 the democrats held a 334-88 advantage in the house, and a 76-16 advantage in the senate, along with the president position? The democrats had the opportunity of a life time to exterminate the republican party for good - yet they still found a way to screw it up.

White, conservative voters trying to take us back to the 50's? Pray tell, you even in the same dimension as the rest of us? The 50's had problems, but it sure sounds so much better than the time we have now. I mean, a good economy, and the morals and respect people had were so much higher. I would go back to the 50's anytime. At least the people in the 50's didn't have to deal with a socialist president that is trying to run the country in the ground.
Check the voters out. How many of those in the House are the right wingers of which I speak, and how many are middle of the road republicans.
WideRight05 Wrote:lol, losing ground? The conservatives control the house of representatives by a large margin, and the democrats don't have a strong hold on the senate. You do realize that in 1936 the democrats held a 334-88 advantage in the house, and a 76-16 advantage in the senate, along with the president position? The democrats had the opportunity of a life time to exterminate the republican party for good - yet they still found a way to screw it up.

White, conservative voters trying to take us back to the 50's? Pray tell, you even in the same dimension as the rest of us? The 50's had problems, but it sure sounds so much better than the time we have now. I mean, a good economy, and the morals and respect people had were so much higher. I would go back to the 50's anytime. At least the people in the 50's didn't have to deal with a socialist president that is trying to run the country in the ground.



Well, since you brought it up. Let me tell you about the 50's and slide it up into the 60's. Abortion rate, unheard of, and I mean that literally. A high school grad could go down to Armco Steel or Ashland Oil, and if he had anything going for himself at all, get hired that day. Jobs were everywhere. The building trades were actively seeking apprentices. There was no such thing as illegal immigration statistics per se. we found them and shipped them back home. Election fraud was non existent. Your banker invested in your character as much as your credit rating, (which was largely by word of mouth) If somebody promised to pay, it happened. Welfare lines were there but, there were not that many folks in it, and you got help in the form of food items, not a check.

I had a couple of chevy convertibles during the 60's, it was nothing to leave the top down overnight while parked on Winchester Ave., that's present day route 23 if you didn't know. Never got the first thing stolen. I made .65 cents an hour minimum wage while working part time at McDonald's, to pay for my cars and the maintenance associated therewith. Matter of fact, I could pick up my girlfriend, top off my tank with high test, stop by McD's where both of us could eat for $1.25, the drive in movies cost $1.00, and there was always a double feature, big night out = $5.25. Ours was part of the generation that left the doors open at night. Only a screendoor with a hook for a lock served as ample security against a lack of intruders. Open windows let in the night air for our idea of airconditioning. Never a thought of worry about being broken into ever troubled our peaceful nights. There was an explosion of new housing starts. People built three houses in those days, two to sell and the third one would be free to the builder. School kids went to school to learn, and there was precious little slack cut to those who were too lazy to do their work.

No liberal loons dominating the 24/7, make that the 30 minute, nightly news loop. One could hang his hat on what lawmakers and news anchors said in those days. Lies were an abomination in that day. A legislator, or God forbid the president of the United States caught in a lie, from that minute on was disgraced. (Just ask Richard Nixon) No gay would ever have had the courage to parade around demanding his rights. They would have been too ashamed to think about such an admission of open rebellion against passable moral behavior. The crime rate in Ashland, and the surrounding region? Nearly zero.

No nation dare rattle the sabre too loudly in our direction. Even though Russia and the US were in a nuclear stare down, it did not dominate our thoughts. Respect for one's neighbor was the rule rather than the exception. Life was sweet, and rewarding. I have always said, to know the golden age of American living one needed to live through the 50's and 60's. BTW, burning rubber in at least two gears, is a kick all it's own.
TheRealThing Wrote:Well, since you brought it up. Let me tell you about the 50's and slide it up into the 60's. Abortion rate, unheard of, and I mean that literally. A high school grad could go down to Armco Steel or Ashland Oil, and if he had anything going for himself at all, get hired that day. Jobs were everywhere. The building trades were actively seeking apprentices. There was no such thing as illegal immigration statistics per se. we found them and shipped them back home. Election fraud was non existent. Your banker invested in your character as much as your credit rating, (which was largely by word of mouth) If somebody promised to pay, it happened. Welfare lines were there but, there were not that many folks in it, and you got help in the form of food items, not a check.

I had a couple of chevy convertibles during the 60's, it was nothing to leave the top down overnight while parked on Winchester Ave., that's present day route 23 if you didn't know. Never got the first thing stolen. I made .65 cents an hour minimum wage while working part time at McDonald's, to pay for my cars and the maintenance associated therewith. Matter of fact, I could pick up my girlfriend, top off my tank with high test, stop by McD's where both of us could eat for $1.25, the drive in movies cost $1.00, and there was always a double feature, big night out = $5.25. Ours was part of the generation that left the doors open at night. Only a screendoor with a hook for a lock served as ample security against a lack of intruders. Open windows let in the night air for our idea of airconditioning. Never a thought of worry about being broken into ever troubled our peaceful nights. There was an explosion of new housing starts. People built three houses in those days, two to sell and the third one would be free to the builder. School kids went to school to learn, and there was precious little slack cut to those who were too lazy to do their work.

No liberal loons dominating the 24/7, make that the 30 minute, nightly news loop. One could hang his hat on what lawmakers and news anchors said in those days. Lies were an abomination in that day. A legislator, or God forbid the president of the United States caught in a lie, from that minute on was disgraced. (Just ask Richard Nixon) No gay would ever have had the courage to parade around demanding his rights. They would have been too ashamed to think about such an admission of open rebellion against passable moral behavior. The crime rate in Ashland, and the surrounding region? Nearly zero.

No nation dare rattle the sabre too loudly in our direction. Even though Russia and the US were in a nuclear stare down, it did not dominate our thoughts. Respect for one's neighbor was the rule rather than the exception. Life was sweet, and rewarding. I have always said, to know the golden age of American living one needed to live through the 50's and 60's. BTW, burning rubber in at least two gears, is a kick all it's own.
Confusednicker: Abortions have been happening for thousands of years, and yes they were happening every year before RvW. BTW, just about everything you post about above, a huge percentage of Americans are glad those days are gone.
TheRealVille Wrote:Confusednicker: Abortions have been happening for thousands of years, and yes they were happening every year before RvW. BTW, just about everything you post about above, a huge percentage of Americans are glad those days are gone.



Your brain is corroded from all the talking points. I said abortions were unheard of, and unlike you, I know what I'm talking about. FWIW, I'm sort of glad you missed those days. There might be somebody on here who actually knows what a huge percentage of Americans are glad about, I just can't see you as one that does.
TheRealThing Wrote:Your brain is corroded from all the talking points. I said abortions were unheard of, and unlike you, I know what I'm talking about. FWIW, I'm sort of glad you missed those days. There might be somebody on here who actually knows what a huge percentage of Americans are glad about, I just can't see you as one that does.
You might not have heard about them, but they were happening.

Quote:When America was founded, abortion was legal. Laws prohibiting abortion were introduced in the mid-1800s, and, by 1900, most had been outlawed. Outlawing abortion did nothting to prevent pregnancy, and some estimates put the number of annual illegal abortions from 200,000 to 1.2 million in the 50s and 60s.

States began liberalizing abortion laws in the 1960s, reflecting changed societal mores and, perhaps, the number of illegal abortions. Then in 1965, the Supreme Court introduced the idea of a "right to privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut as it struck down laws that banned the sale of condoms to married people.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/electioni...ortion.htm

Just about every year from the 30's on up to RvW, about 800,000 abortions were happening a year, with about a million just a couple of years before it became legal.
TheRealVille Wrote:Confusednicker: Abortions have been happening for thousands of years, and yes they were happening every year before RvW. BTW, just about everything you post about above, a huge percentage of Americans are glad those days are gone.

You post a dumb statement justifying abortion and you post a snicker. What kind of fool are you, TheRealVille? For months I have read your infantile posts. You are clueless. You, like your socialist, amoral little boy in the White House, are a parasite. I always saw you as a novelty and a bit of a jester. I was wrong. You are beneath contempt. On the other hand, you are a fine example of what is wrong with this country. Snickering about abortion- the premeditated murder of the most innocent of human beings- lowers you to the depths.


Your "knowledge" of the history of abortion is equal to your "knowledge" of how the unemployment insurance system works. You know nothing.
TheRealVille Wrote:You might not have heard about them, but they were happening.


Really? No, girls 'went away" for a while when they got in touble in those days, for the most part abortions were, how do the liars say it these days? Rare, (and illegal). Is it just me or has in not occured to that you weren't alive yet or maybe in diapers by the end of the 60's? But that doesn't stop you from trying to tell me what life was like in the 50's and 60's, does it? You could do yourself a service by not posting about things you don't know about.
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:You post a dumb statement justifying abortion and you post a snicker. What kind of fool are you, TheRealVille? For months I have read your infantile posts. You are clueless. You, like your socialist, amoral little boy in the White House, are a parasite. I always saw you as a novelty and a bit of a jester. I was wrong. You are beneath contempt. On the other hand, you are a fine example of what is wrong with this country. Snickering about abortion- the premeditated murder of the most innocent of human beings- lowers you to the depths.


Your "knowledge" of the history of abortion is equal to your "knowledge" of how the unemployment insurance system works. You know nothing.
The snicker is at TRT, and now you, about your abortion knowledge. They happened at amazing rates, even before it was legal. I'm sorry, but you two aren't as smart as you would like everyone to believe, at least about this subject.
TheRealThing Wrote:Really? No, girls 'went away" for a while when they got in touble in those days, for the most part abortions were, how do the liars say it these days? Rare, (and illegal). Is it just me or has in not occured to that you weren't alive yet or maybe in diapers by the end of the 60's? But that doesn't stop you from trying to tell me what life was like in the 50's and 60's, does it? You could do yourself a service by not posting about things you don't know about.
That's the great thing about the world of knowledge out there on the web nowdays, TRT. The figures can be found in documents that are out there floating around. You might not have known about many abortions, but they WERE happening, at large numbers. You saying they didn't happen isn't good enough, the truth is there to find.
TheRealVille Wrote:The snicker is at TRT, and now you, about your abortion knowledge. They happened at amazing rates, even before it was legal. I'm sorry, but you two aren't as smart as you would like everyone to believe, at least about this subject.



If you didn't always go to some pro-choice site or a liberal site to get your opinion validated it would be one thing. Here is the truth of the journey, 'transfomation' or 'evolution' if you're a DNC talking point junky, with regard to the explosion of frequency of abortions.

EXCERPT---

"If the increased abortions and use of contraceptives caused the rise in out-of-wedlock births, the increase would have to have been very large relative to the number of those births and to the number of unmarried women. And as table 1 shows, that was indeed the case. The use of birth control pills at first intercourse by unmarried women jumped from 6 percent to 15 percent in just a few years, a change that suggests that a much larger fraction of all sexually active unmarried women began using the pill. The number of abortions to unmarried women grew from roughly 100,000 a year in the late 1960s (compared with some 322,000 out-of-wedlock births) to more than 1.2 million (compared with 715,000 out-of-wedlock births) in the early 1980s. Thus the data do support the theory."

END---

LINK--- http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers...es-akerlof

The link contains the truth of it, without any 'church stuff' messing up your mind.
TheRealVille Wrote:That's the great thing about the world of knowledge out there on the web nowdays, TRT. The figures can be found in documents that are out there floating around. You might not have known about many abortions, but they WERE happening, at large numbers. You saying they didn't happen isn't good enough, the truth is there to find.



Yeah, you really got the knowledge thing cornered there RV.
TheRealThing Wrote:If you didn't always go to some pro-choice site or a liberal site to get your opinion validated it would be one thing. Here is the truth of the journey, 'transfomation' or 'evolution' if you're a DNC talking point junky, with regard to the explosion of frequency of abortions.

EXCERPT---

"If the increased abortions and use of contraceptives caused the rise in out-of-wedlock births, the increase would have to have been very large relative to the number of those births and to the number of unmarried women. And as table 1 shows, that was indeed the case. The use of birth control pills at first intercourse by unmarried women jumped from 6 percent to 15 percent in just a few years, a change that suggests that a much larger fraction of all sexually active unmarried women began using the pill. The number of abortions to unmarried women grew from roughly 100,000 a year in the late 1960s (compared with some 322,000 out-of-wedlock births) to more than 1.2 million (compared with 715,000 out-of-wedlock births) in the early 1980s. Thus the data do support the theory."

END---

LINK--- http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers...es-akerlof

The link contains the truth of it, without any 'church stuff' messing up your mind.
I see nothing there that makes this truth. There are many documents out there that say different about abortion numbers. You don't want to find them because they don't fit your worldview. I got faith in you TRT, you can find them.
TheRealVille Wrote:I see nothing there that makes this truth. There are many documents out there that say different about abortion numbers. You don't want to find them because they don't fit your worldview. I got faith in you TRT, you can find them.



I am truly thankful that I don't get my opinion off of a liberal or a union website. Not exactly Jeffersonesque.


PS---the Brookings Intitution has a 100 plus year reputation for integrity of purpose.
Pages: 1 2 3