PDA

View Full Version : It is Time to Impeach The Moron



llotter
10-19-2012, 04:54 PM
The Benghazi cover up of the disaster of The Moron's 'leading from behind' policy for purely political reasons should demand immediate IMPEACHMENT. America cannot survive such bald-faced lying day after day from multiple administration officials but most blatant of all is from the lips of The Moron himself. If he is not impeached, a new and dangerous precedent will have been established and our society will quickly crumble in total.

Soflasnapper
10-19-2012, 06:32 PM
Not only are you wrong on the facts in my opinion, but clearly there is no time to impeach him, if there were any political will to do so (there is not).

It's far from clear that they said anything that was wrong. See the NY Times reporting, and also what the CIA said. Apparently, fighters on the scene said they WERE motivated by the video, and acted in sympathy and co-motivation with the many other protests throughout the region.

The militia that did this was an active paramilitary group that had been fighting through the Libyan revolution. They had fighters, materiel, transport, and tactics ready to go, and PERHAPS just used that incident as an excuse. But if they used it as an excuse, it was accurate to say they said that was the reason.

llotter
10-19-2012, 07:32 PM
You obviously haven't been following the issue that closely but fortunately there is a Special on Fox tonight at 10 that might help you see the light.

Sid_Vicious
10-19-2012, 10:03 PM
You are a commie by simply saying this crap. Bush woulda had to have had another Alcatraz built just for him and his cronnies if justise was done. Obama is like The Pope. Get real man. Don't be so pathetic. sid

Grapenut
10-20-2012, 05:34 AM
Congress could easily and justifiably impeach Obama over his unauthorized use of drone strikes in Libya.

Cajones.

They're illegal at the Russell Building.

So sayeth the Burdizzo Congress.

Nut

llotter
10-20-2012, 07:14 AM
You are right. There is a long list of particulars that would justify impeachment, including 'executive' rewriting of the law in several cases.

Soflasnapper
10-20-2012, 09:05 AM
I've heard both Rush and Hannity at some length present their analysis, and both suffer from a failure to present the totality of the facts.

Any case can be made if you just leave out the parts that don't fit the analysis you're pushing. This is an excellent example of that phenomenon.

If you cannot see this is driven by naked partisanship, you may need a bs detector repair.

It bespeaks the fear of that side that their knockout punch issue-- the economy-- just can't do the job by itself, as the economic improvements are being felt broadly across the country. Even one GOP worthy alibied that by saying the GOP governors were doing too good a job with their state economies, and the improvement (he said due to them) was hurting Myth Robme's chances.

This is a hurried and improvised Plan B, unless the whole thing, including the murders, was actually done under their go-ahead. Which I wouldn't doubt. And which I think is the basis for the slow-walking of the official administration response. As PBO told one of the questioners on the trail after the event, he had to make sure he wasn't just passing along deliberate disinformation. A real concern.

Soflasnapper
10-20-2012, 09:17 AM
A call for impeachment now would be for purely political reasons, and it would be seen that way and cost the GOP the House, most likely. If you'd somehow be able to poll the GOP House, you would find no appetite to try this in the home stretch of a tight election season. They'd all have to come in from their campaigns and pretend to have some high-brow debating on the subject, and in my opinion, any such move for articles of impeachment would fail on the House floor, achieving nothing.

Do you have anyone in the House of any stature in that party calling for this? Boehner? Cantor? The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee? Geeze, even Michele Bachmann or Alan West?

llotter
10-20-2012, 09:56 AM
Post-election would probably be the best alternative. You are certainly right that no one is even faintly considering it but they should be. If what Rush and Fox is correct and we just let the lies of The Moron go unpunished, then the precedent will be extremely damaging...and Rush is almost always right (99.6% of the time).

Aside from that, I will be very upset if The Moron continues to collect big bucks from the taxpayer either in retirement or as WH resident when he should be in jail.

DickLeonard
10-20-2012, 10:21 AM
llotter the Moron/mon wouled have to get elected before he could be impeached. He has comitted enuff crimes already to start the Process.

The coal miners were docked a days pay to support Mitt. Of course they owe their soul to the company store.

Where is John L Lewis when he is needed. Of course you right wingers have destroyed the Unions. xxxx











































trying to get companies to bribe

Gayle in MD
10-20-2012, 11:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DickLeonard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">llotter the Moron/mon wouled have to get elected before he could be impeached. He has comitted enuff crimes already to start the Process.

The coal miners were docked a days pay to support Mitt. Of course they owe their soul to the company store.

Where is John L Lewis when he is needed. Of course you right wingers have destroyed the Unions. xxxx











































trying to get companies to bribe </div></div>

So right, my friend, but as we knew many years ago, Repiglicans are beyond reality, their bubble is fact proof, hence, we are never going to break free of the fascist government they are creating unless we get rid of all of the dummies that Repiglicans have brain washed.

G.

Gayle in MD
10-20-2012, 12:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Benghazi cover up of the disaster of The Moron's 'leading from behind' policy for purely political reasons should demand immediate IMPEACHMENT. America cannot survive such bald-faced lying day after day from multiple administration officials but most blatant of all is from the lips of The Moron himself. If he is not impeached, a new and dangerous precedent will have been established and our society will quickly crumble in total. </div></div>

Really gets old watching you try over and over to honor Repiglicans when they have clearly made fools of their piggy lying selves.

This new desperate accusation was just another shot in the dark, totally without any bones to the story, much like Fast and Furious, Repigs strike out AGAIN with their fool's gold thrown to their swine, and slurped up lickety split in then pig pen..

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>CIA documents supported Susan Rice’s description of Benghazi attacks</span>
By David Ignatius, Published: October*19The Washington Post


The Romney campaign may have misfired with its suggestion that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about the Benghazi attack last month weren’t supported by intelligence, according to documents provided by a senior U.S. intelligence official.

“Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

The CIA document went on: “This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.” This may sound like self-protective boilerplate, but it reflects the analysts’ genuine problem interpreting fragments of intercepted conversation, video surveillance and source reports.

The senior intelligence official said the analysts’ judgment was based in part on monitoring of some of the Benghazi attackers, which showed they had been watching the Cairo protests live on television and talking about them before they assaulted the consulate.

“We believe the timing of the attack was influenced by events in Cairo,” the senior official said, reaffirming the Cairo-Benghazi link. He said that judgment is repeated in a new report prepared this week for the House intelligence committee.

Here’s how the senior official described the jumble of events in Benghazi that day: “The attackers were disorganized; some seemed more interested in looting. Some who claimed to have participated joined the attack as it began or after it was under way. There is no evidence of rehearsals, they never got into the safe room .?.?. never took any hostages, didn’t bring explosives to blow the safe room door, and didn’t use a car bomb to blow the gates.”

The Benghazi flap is the sort of situation that intelligence officers dread: when politicians are demanding hard “yes” or “no” answers but evidence is fragmentary and conflicting. The political debate has focused on whether the attack was spontaneous or planned, but the official said there’s evidence of both, and that different attackers may have had different motives. There’s no dispute, however, that it was “an act of terror,” as Obama described it the next day.

“It was a flash mob with weapons,” is how the senior official described the attackers. The mob included members of the Ansar al-Sharia militia, about four members of al-Qaeda in the Maghreb, and members of the Egypt-based Muhammad Jamal network, along with other unarmed looters.

The official said the only major change he would make now in the CIA’s Sept. 15 talking points would be to drop the word “spontaneous” and substitute “opportunistic.” He explained that there apparently was “some pre-coordination but minimal planning.”

The intelligence community obviously feels burned by having its tentative assessments become a political football in this campaign and, in truth, one obvious lesson is that the United States could use much better real-time intelligence from places such as Libya.

The Benghazi attack produced a swirl of intelligence reporting, some of it contradictory. The Associated Press reported Friday that within 24 hours of the assault, the CIA station chief in Libya cabled headquarters that eyewitnesses said the attack had been carried out by militants. But the analysts evidently didn’t feel that they had any single report that allowed them to make a definitive determination about the nature of the attack.

A memo prepared by the National Counterterrorism Center on Sept. 14 illustrates the fragmentary nature of the evidence: “As time progresses, we are learning more, but we still don’t have a complete picture of what happened,” noted the analysts. “At this point, we are not aware of any actionable intelligence that this attack was planned or imminent. .?.?. We are very cautious about drawing any firm conclusions at this point with regard to identification and motivation of the attackers.”

The analysts seem confident that al-Qaeda’s new leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, played no direct role in the Benghazi events, even though he called on Sept. 10 for revenge attacks against the United States. “He’s not a manager, he’s not a planner, he’s not an operator. He’s a theologian, and that doesn’t have much resonance now. He’s almost irrelevant, he’s so concerned about his security, so hunkered down,” said the senior official.

Ironically, the Sept. 15 talking points that were the basis for Rice’s televised comments were requested by the House intelligence committee. Ideally, the congressional oversight committees would provide bipartisan support for intelligence officials who are probing the attack. But in the heat of the final pre-election weeks, the murky details of what happened in Libya have instead become political assault weapons.


A memo prepared by the National Counterterrorism Center on Sept. 14 illustrates the fragmentary nature of the evidence: “As time progresses, we are learning more, but we still don’t have a complete picture of what happened,” noted the analysts. “At this point, we are not aware of any actionable intelligence that this attack was planned or imminent. .?.?. We are very cautious about drawing any firm conclusions at this point with regard to identification and motivation of the attackers.”

The analysts seem confident that al-Qaeda’s new leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, played no direct role in the Benghazi events, even though he called on Sept. 10 for revenge attacks against the United States. “He’s not a manager, he’s not a planner, he’s not an operator. He’s a theologian, and that doesn’t have much resonance now. He’s almost irrelevant, he’s so concerned about his security, so hunkered down,” said the senior official.

Ironically, the Sept. 15 talking points that were the basis for Rice’s televised comments were requested by the House intelligence committee. Ideally, the congressional oversight committees would provide bipartisan support for intelligence officials who are probing the attack. But in the heat of the final pre-election weeks, the murky details of what happened in Libya have instead become political assault weapons. </span> </div></div>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/b...8b7c_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-attack-becomes-political-ammunition/2012/10/19/e1ad82ae-1a2d-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html)

Both the president, and Susan Rice, were completely honest and correct in their presentations and comments of what they knew at the time they spoke.

Soflasnapper
10-20-2012, 12:13 PM
Apparently the last time a US ambassador was slain in the line of duty, we STILL don't know the complete facts, many years later and after all the intel was looked at.

This idea that either the truth is absolutely known the same day, or within a few days, OR that it would be wise to spill every allegation of what happened without assurance it is not disinformation or simply incorrect (as happens in these real time catastrophic events), are incoherent fantasies these guys would never apply to their own side.

In fact, it's exactly what Condaleeza Rice said to defend herself and the then-president-- that certain kinds of raw intelligence from the field would never rise to the level of her getting it as NSC Advisor, let alone up to the Oval Office.

You think all 180 or whatever CIA station chiefs report to the Oval Office, or have their own personal assessment stove-piped up as raw intelligence to the ultimate end-user, without having them reviewed and assessed first? Don't they report to the DCI, who in turn reports to the DHS Secretary and/or Intelligence Czar? Check the chain of command in this regard.

llotter
10-20-2012, 12:50 PM
It isn't surprising that a CYA report shows up that supports the administrations lies and divert attention from the total failure of The Moron's policies.

Gayle in MD
10-20-2012, 12:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Apparently the last time a US ambassador was slain in the line of duty, we STILL don't know the complete facts, many years later and after all the intel was looked at.

This idea that either the truth is absolutely known the same day, or within a few days, OR that it would be wise to spill every allegation of what happened without assurance it is not disinformation or simply incorrect (as happens in these real time catastrophic events), are incoherent fantasies these guys would never apply to their own side.

In fact, it's exactly what Condoleeza Rice said to defend herself and the then-president-- that certain kinds of raw intelligence from the field would never rise to the level of her getting it as NSC Advisor, let alone up to the Oval Office.

You think all 180 or whatever CIA station chiefs report to the Oval Office, or have their own personal assessment stove-piped up as raw intelligence to the ultimate end-user, without having them reviewed and assessed first? Don't they report to the DCI, who in turn reports to the DHS Secretary and/or Intelligence Czar? Check the chain of command in this regard. </div></div>

Exactly, and in Bush's case, we now know, they had the information about the coming attack, and far more specific information than we could ever proe before, since the recent release of more of what Bush redacted from the 9/11 report, (which Bush tried to prevent from ever happening) and it proves Bush/Cnheney/Rice et al, were even more negligent than anyone could have believed, now that we know for susre how much more specific, and how many more, and for how much longer, our CIA folks were urgently sending warnings, pleading for meeting, and trying to get their undivided attention, trying to get Rice, Cheney or Bush to DO SOMETHINGG!!!!

THEY REFUSED TO LISTEN!



As Lying Rice put it, "The president doesn't want to swat at flies!"


Those "Flies" were financially supported by the Bush family's corporate cronies, the Royal Saudi Family, who financed the same group who led the operation, and Bush redacted the informtion about their links to the NY Cell, and the "FLIES" killed over three thousand Americans.

Bush did NOTHING to prevent the attack.


Not one single thing!

NOTHING!

Then after ignoring all of the warnings, Bush/Cheney/Rice lied their asses off, and blamed the very people who wrote in their many books, that they had done everythng but jump up and down on the president's desk to get him to pay attention to their numerous, unprecedented warnings!

PIGS!

Soflasnapper
10-20-2012, 01:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It isn't surprising that a CYA report shows up that supports the administrations lies and divert attention from the total failure of The Moron's policies. </div></div>

If you are suggesting the CIA document timestamped contemporaneously is a later forgery, please present any evidence you have.

Otherwise, it check mates the entire line of discussion you believe in so fervently without considering the complete evidence in hand.

Here's where the right wing mind breaks down. Sometimes it's two things at once-- a breath mint, and a candy mint. In this case, there were two things as well-- the proximate cause of the video's prompted anger (as the contemporaneous CIA report confirms from fighters on the scene's reported comments), AND a general anti-western and semi-organized group's efforts that could have been triggered by any number of events, or performed even absent such events. But they said they were motivated by the video AT THE TIME, as REPORTS FROM THAT DAY confirm.

llotter
10-20-2012, 03:47 PM
Not a forgery, but a part of the cover-up, written expressly to allow the 'video story' to go forward but EVERYONE was actually aware that that story was untrue.

Nobody can put the story together like Rush. Have a good read:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/10/19/the_obama_libya_cover_up_explained

and the McClatchy story:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/10/18/171933/obama-administration-officials.html#storylink=misearch

You have to remember that The Moron has to only maintain the appearance of a viable foreign policy until election day so most any concocted story will do because the truth takes a back seat to re-election.

Soflasnapper
10-20-2012, 05:55 PM
Sadly, I already heard that from Rush live when he said it on his Friday show. You're right, Rush does put things together like no one else, because few are so willing to lie that much, slander that much, and insinuate even worse.

He's really complaining about the 'freedom and democracy' agenda of the past Bush administration, which indeed went about to bowl over the authorities throughout the Middle East as Israel demanded we do, to spread the wonderful democracy idea.

Except that those people in the main hated us for our foreign policy which kept their quisling leaders in place, and any free election in any of those countries would find leadership hostile to our country.

So it's the fault of Obama? Hardly. In fact, the cry when he was slow walking ANY response to the Libyan revolt (in order to secure the safety of our nationals there) was that he wasn't acting quickly enough, with McCain and Bill Kristol saying we should have begun bombing ourselves without any support or joint action from anyone.

Nice pivot. Probably works with stupid people.