Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

No wonder Progressives are in a panic! MSNBC: Benghazi-Gate Is a Potential Impeachment Issue; Is Comparable to Watergate

+4
ZVUGKTUBM
Floridatexan
2seaoat
Markle
8 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Markle

Markle

Even the media known for supporting President Barack Hussein Obama, no matter what, are using the "I" word.

MSNBC: Benghazi-Gate Is a Potential Impeachment Issue; Is Comparable to Watergate

NBC’s Lisa Myers told panelists on The Morning Joe yesterday that Benghazi is starting to worry Democrats.

NBC Reporter Kelly O’Donnell read from portions of emails in which high ranking State Department officials coordinated with the CIA to alter the official talking points on the Benghazi attack to remove any references to prior warnings or Islamic terrorism.


“This is quite the window into what is usually the hush-hush process about how to deal with these types of attacks and the spin that irrevocably comes afterwards,” NBC reporter Luke Russert opined.


“This is not good for the White House right now,” Russert said to BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith. “Does it stick?”


“Well, sure,” Smith replied. “They look terrible.”


Smith said that the emails indicate that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have been directly involved in the process of “scrubbing” references to Islamic terrorism from her department’s talking points.


“Does this become then an election politics thing?” Russert asked. He said that the Republican Party has been trying to link Clinton to the Benghazi scandal for some time.


The Daily Beast columnist Michael Tomasky said it does. He invoked “that word that starts with ‘I’” to describe the potentially significant political fallout that could result from the Benghazi scandal.


“It becomes a potentially impeachment issue as long as the Republicans are in control of the House,” Tomasky added.

Read more: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/05/msnbc-benghazi-gate-is-a-potential-impeachment-issue-is-comparable-to-watergate-video/

LOTS, LOTS more coming. Whistleblowers from CIA are likely to come next.

2seaoat



Smith said that the emails indicate that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have been directly involved in the process of “scrubbing” references to Islamic terrorism from her department’s talking points.


Please show me one credible source which shows the SOS scrubbing CIA intelligence. The problem is that there is absolutely no direct contact. However, she could have ten emails from her HillaryAOL account saying that she was taking words out.......I have already heard the rationalization that they did not want to tip folks off what they knew.....that is BS, but it certainly would be plausible if this was an issue.......it is not......this is total and certifiable BS.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

You are either 1) obsessed, or 2) a big fat liar. I don't know why the idiots in the GOP decided to carry this forward after the election, but it's not what you hope it is, and it's not going to save you from your fate. The more time you spend trying to make it so, the more idiotic you appear.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Impeachment? Doubtful. Evil or Very Mad

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Impeachment? Doubtful. Evil or Very Mad

That was said by President Richard M. Nixon too.

Markle

Markle

Floridatexan wrote:You are either 1) obsessed, or 2) a big fat liar. I don't know why the idiots in the GOP decided to carry this forward after the election, but it's not what you hope it is, and it's not going to save you from your fate. The more time you spend trying to make it so, the more idiotic you appear.
No wonder Progressives are in a panic! MSNBC: Benghazi-Gate Is a Potential Impeachment Issue; Is Comparable to Watergate Whatdifferencedoesitmake

Guest


Guest

shocking a headline as that coming from msnbc

this is serious.

not only that, I think most reasonable lefties have had it with this administration. you can only pretend to be a leader for so long. sooner or later the work doesn't get done and that will get noticed.

Guest


Guest

Full spin and denial mode. Maybe those four families will get some closure when the people who orchestrated this event are held accountable.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

No wonder Progressives are in a panic! MSNBC: Benghazi-Gate Is a Potential Impeachment Issue; Is Comparable to Watergate Hillda10

VectorMan

VectorMan

I just keep thinking about how outraged the progressive liberals would be if this involved a republican president. The headlines and "reporting" would be very different. Those progressive liberals would be wanting their pound of flesh and for someone to hang.

Crash and burn Obama! Crash and burn you worthless POS!

When does the impeachment start?

Guest


Guest

TEOTWAWKI wrote:No wonder Progressives are in a panic! MSNBC: Benghazi-Gate Is a Potential Impeachment Issue; Is Comparable to Watergate Hillda10


And HRC worked as a volunteer on the impeachment committee of President Nixon...There's blood in the water and the press can't ignore Behghazi and the IRS any longer...

Sal

Sal

Jesus, ...

... the wingnuts are in full froth this morning.

lol

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:Jesus, ...

... the wingnuts are in full froth this morning.

lol

............................................

No shit bro...I love this insipid post from the resident lizard brain, VM.

I just keep thinking about how outraged the progressive liberals would be if this involved a republican president. The headlines and "reporting" would be very different. Those progressive liberals would be wanting their pound of flesh and for someone to hang.

Well, let's deconstruct his partisan shit.


* A U.S. embassy is bombed in the Middle East. Seventeen Americans are among the 63 killed. The president condemns the attack but does not retaliate.

* A U.S. Marine barracks in the Middle East is bombed. Two hundred and forty one Marines die and 100+ more are wounded — the worst day since Iwo Jima. The president calls it the saddest day of his presidency, maybe his life — but calls off a retaliatory attack for fear of harming relations with the Arab world. The president then orders a full retreat from that country.

* A second U.S. embassy is bombed in another Middle Eastern country. The president takes no retaliatory action.

* A top American official — the CIA station chief in a Middle Eastern country — is kidnapped. The U.S. decides that to free the hostages, it could sell weapons to a nation linked to the hostage takers — even though the nation is considered a terrorist state. The CIA chief eventually dies, and the weapons scheme blows up in the administration's face.

* Another U.S. embassy facility in the Middle East is attacked. Two U.S. servicemen are among the 24 people killed. Once again, the president orders no military response.

* A Middle Eastern hijacking leaves two U.S. government personnel dead. There is no American military response.

* Another Middle Eastern hijacking leaves a U.S. Navy serviceman dead. Terrorists dump his body on an airport tarmac. There is no American military response.

* An entire cruise ship is hijacked in the Mediterranean. A 69-year old American tourist is killed and shoved into the sea. The hijackers later flee on a jet, but instead of killing them, the U.S. forces the plane down so the terrorists can be dealt with in court.

* Airports in Rome and Vienna are attacked. Twenty people are killed, including five Americans. The U.S. knows who did it, but instead of retaliating, sends planes to that country's coast to patrol it.

If all of those things happened in rapid succession on a single president's watch, would you consider that president timid, soft on terrorism, unwilling to defend American values? Would you say that freedom and American values were being appropriately defended by the strongest nation on Earth?

Because the thing is, all of those things did happen — within a mere 33-month period between April 1983 and January 1986.

After the worst attack — the October 23, 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut — the president at the time, Ronald Reagan, said that "the United States will not be intimidated by terrorists." But he did little to stop them, and the attacks kept coming and coming.

This is relevant because the Benghazi terror attack has given Republicans fodder to charge that President Obama is weak on terrorism. The implication is that when it comes to dealing with terrorists, Republicans are the ones with backbone. Republicans good. Democrats bad.

Today, Jimmy Carter is seen as feckless and weak. But it was the inaction of his successor, Ronald Reagan, that Osama bin Laden cited as an example of American weakness. In a 1998 interview with ABC News, the al Qaeda leader claimed that weakness "was proven in Beirut in 1983, when the Marines fled."



The POTUS that lacked the balls or the will to engage the terrorists was

Ronald Wilson Reagan


knothead

knothead

Henery Hawk wrote:
Sal wrote:Jesus, ...

... the wingnuts are in full froth this morning.

lol

............................................

No shit bro...I love this insipid post from the resident lizard brain, VM.

I just keep thinking about how outraged the progressive liberals would be if this involved a republican president. The headlines and "reporting" would be very different. Those progressive liberals would be wanting their pound of flesh and for someone to hang.

Well, let's deconstruct his partisan shit.


* A U.S. embassy is bombed in the Middle East. Seventeen Americans are among the 63 killed. The president condemns the attack but does not retaliate.

* A U.S. Marine barracks in the Middle East is bombed. Two hundred and forty one Marines die and 100+ more are wounded — the worst day since Iwo Jima. The president calls it the saddest day of his presidency, maybe his life — but calls off a retaliatory attack for fear of harming relations with the Arab world. The president then orders a full retreat from that country.

* A second U.S. embassy is bombed in another Middle Eastern country. The president takes no retaliatory action.

* A top American official — the CIA station chief in a Middle Eastern country — is kidnapped. The U.S. decides that to free the hostages, it could sell weapons to a nation linked to the hostage takers — even though the nation is considered a terrorist state. The CIA chief eventually dies, and the weapons scheme blows up in the administration's face.

* Another U.S. embassy facility in the Middle East is attacked. Two U.S. servicemen are among the 24 people killed. Once again, the president orders no military response.

* A Middle Eastern hijacking leaves two U.S. government personnel dead. There is no American military response.

* Another Middle Eastern hijacking leaves a U.S. Navy serviceman dead. Terrorists dump his body on an airport tarmac. There is no American military response.

* An entire cruise ship is hijacked in the Mediterranean. A 69-year old American tourist is killed and shoved into the sea. The hijackers later flee on a jet, but instead of killing them, the U.S. forces the plane down so the terrorists can be dealt with in court.

* Airports in Rome and Vienna are attacked. Twenty people are killed, including five Americans. The U.S. knows who did it, but instead of retaliating, sends planes to that country's coast to patrol it.

If all of those things happened in rapid succession on a single president's watch, would you consider that president timid, soft on terrorism, unwilling to defend American values? Would you say that freedom and American values were being appropriately defended by the strongest nation on Earth?

Because the thing is, all of those things did happen — within a mere 33-month period between April 1983 and January 1986.

After the worst attack — the October 23, 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut — the president at the time, Ronald Reagan, said that "the United States will not be intimidated by terrorists." But he did little to stop them, and the attacks kept coming and coming.

This is relevant because the Benghazi terror attack has given Republicans fodder to charge that President Obama is weak on terrorism. The implication is that when it comes to dealing with terrorists, Republicans are the ones with backbone. Republicans good. Democrats bad.

Today, Jimmy Carter is seen as feckless and weak. But it was the inaction of his successor, Ronald Reagan, that Osama bin Laden cited as an example of American weakness. In a 1998 interview with ABC News, the al Qaeda leader claimed that weakness "was proven in Beirut in 1983, when the Marines fled."



The POTUS that lacked the balls or the will to engage the terrorists was

Ronald Wilson Reagan



********************************************************

GOOD POST . . . . . FACTS ARE PESKY THINGS!!!

Guest


Guest

knothead wrote:
Henery Hawk wrote:


********************************************************

GOOD POST . . . . . FACTS ARE PESKY THINGS!!!

Facts like the administration emails they lied about are apparently pretty pesky little items too. But NOW isn't important, apparently it's what happened many many years that is important to libertards. All part of that hypocritical libertard spin machine that is in constant operation.

Guest


Guest

nochain wrote:
knothead wrote:
Henery Hawk wrote:


********************************************************

GOOD POST . . . . . FACTS ARE PESKY THINGS!!!

Facts like the administration emails they lied about are apparently pretty pesky little items too. But NOW isn't important, apparently it's what happened many many years that is important to libertards. All part of that hypocritical libertard spin machine that is in constant operation.



........................................

You got nothing prick. Tell us how you feel about that POS Reagan, and the path he chose to destroy this country.

Guest


Guest

Henery Hawk wrote:
nochain wrote:
knothead wrote:
Henery Hawk wrote:


********************************************************

GOOD POST . . . . . FACTS ARE PESKY THINGS!!!

Facts like the administration emails they lied about are apparently pretty pesky little items too. But NOW isn't important, apparently it's what happened many many years that is important to libertards. All part of that hypocritical libertard spin machine that is in constant operation.



........................................

You got nothing prick. Tell us how you feel about that POS Reagan, and the path he chose to destroy this country.

Reagan is dead moron. Oblamer is the current POS prez so that merits prime time attention. Too bad for you libertards.

Guest


Guest

nochain wrote:
Henery Hawk wrote:
nochain wrote:
knothead wrote:
Henery Hawk wrote:


********************************************************

GOOD POST . . . . . FACTS ARE PESKY THINGS!!!

Facts like the administration emails they lied about are apparently pretty pesky little items too. But NOW isn't important, apparently it's what happened many many years that is important to libertards. All part of that hypocritical libertard spin machine that is in constant operation.



........................................

You got nothing prick. Tell us how you feel about that POS Reagan, and the path he chose to destroy this country.

Reagan is dead moron. Oblamer is the current POS prez so that merits prime time attention. Too bad for you libertards.

.................................

His legacy and his time as POTUS brought us to this place. You're such a head up the ass redneck neo-con you refuse to admit how his anemia set the stage for the absurdly named, "war on terror".

Actions have consequences, even years later.

Obama has been very strong in his response to what scared the shit outta Ronnie. It takes a partisan fool like you to see this as otherwise.

Guest


Guest

[quote="Henery Hawk"][quote="nochain"][quote="Henery Hawk"]
nochain wrote:
knothead wrote:
Henery Hawk wrote:


Reagan is dead moron. Oblamer is the current POS prez so that merits prime time attention. Too bad for you libertards.

.................................

refuse to admit how his anemia set the stage for the absurdly named, "war on terror".


So you are saying a blood disorder in Reagan resulted in empowered terrorists and BHO came blazing in on his broken down horse to save the world? Hilarious - you really are brain dead.

Guest


Guest

[quote="nochain"][quote="Henery Hawk"][quote="nochain"]
Henery Hawk wrote:
nochain wrote:
knothead wrote:
Henery Hawk wrote:


Reagan is dead moron. Oblamer is the current POS prez so that merits prime time attention. Too bad for you libertards.

.................................

refuse to admit how his anemia set the stage for the absurdly named, "war on terror".


So you are saying a blood disorder in Reagan resulted in empowered terrorists and BHO came blazing in on his broken down horse to save the world? Hilarious - you really are brain dead.

...........................................

Actually it was a spine disorder.....the lack of one. And if you can't understand why your anemic efforts to school me are a waste of your allotted time on this planet.

Eat shit and die, but please, change the subject again before you do so, you fucking toy soldier.

Guest


Guest

[quote="Henery Hawk"][quote="nochain"][quote="Henery Hawk"]
nochain wrote:
Henery Hawk wrote:
nochain wrote:
knothead wrote:
Henery Hawk wrote:


Reagan is dead moron. Oblamer is the current POS prez so that merits prime time attention. Too bad for you libertards.

.................................

refuse to admit how his anemia set the stage for the absurdly named, "war on terror".


So you are saying a blood disorder in Reagan resulted in empowered terrorists and BHO came blazing in on his broken down horse to save the world? Hilarious - you really are brain dead.

...........................................

Actually it was a spine disorder.....the lack of one. And if you can't understand why your anemic efforts to school me are a waste of your allotted time on this planet.

Eat shit and die, but please, change the subject again before you do so, you fucking toy soldier.

Ah yes, the pitifully weak response of the eternally dimwitted, quivering, hypersensitive BHO drone. If you don't know the answer just say so poser! And don't forget - BIBO - even though that will extend your miserable life.

Guest


Guest

[quote="nochain"][quote="Henery Hawk"][quote="nochain"]
Henery Hawk wrote:
nochain wrote:
Henery Hawk wrote:
nochain wrote:
knothead wrote:
Henery Hawk wrote:


Reagan is dead moron. Oblamer is the current POS prez so that merits prime time attention. Too bad for you libertards.

.................................

refuse to admit how his anemia set the stage for the absurdly named, "war on terror".


So you are saying a blood disorder in Reagan resulted in empowered terrorists and BHO came blazing in on his broken down horse to save the world? Hilarious - you really are brain dead.

...........................................

Actually it was a spine disorder.....the lack of one. And if you can't understand why your anemic efforts to school me are a waste of your allotted time on this planet.

Eat shit and die, but please, change the subject again before you do so, you fucking toy soldier.

Ah yes, the pitifully weak response of the eternally dimwitted, quivering, hypersensitive BHO drone. If you don't know the answer just say so poser! And don't forget - BIBO - even though that will extend your miserable life.

....................................................
Fuck you. Too stupid to admit defeat in this.


ane·mic
adjective \ə-ˈnē-mik\
Definition of ANEMIC
1
: relating to or affected with anemia
2
a : lacking force, vitality, or spirit <an anemic rendition of the song> <anemic efforts at enforcement>
b : lacking interest or savor : insipid <anemic wines>
c : lacking in substance or quantity <anemic returns on an investment> <anemic attendance>
— ane·mi·cal·ly \-mi-k(ə-)lē\ adverb
See anemic defined for English-language learners »
Examples of ANEMIC

1. The doctor told me I was slightly anemic.
2. The band played an anemic rendition of a classic love song.
3. Investors are worried about the stock's anemic performance.
4. Officials worried about anemic attendance at the shows.
5. Sales rose an anemic 0.5 percent last quarter.


Anytime you seek a war of words, you might want to stay in the shallow end of the gene pool....you ignorant pussy.

Guest


Guest

[quote="nochain"][quote="Henery Hawk"][quote="nochain"]
Henery Hawk wrote:
nochain wrote:
Henery Hawk wrote:
nochain wrote:
knothead wrote:
Henery Hawk wrote:


Reagan is dead moron. Oblamer is the current POS prez so that merits prime time attention. Too bad for you libertards.

.................................

refuse to admit how his anemia set the stage for the absurdly named, "war on terror".

But.....the cowh cried after receiving questions about Benghazi....
So you are saying a blood disorder in Reagan resulted in empowered terrorists and BHO came blazing in on his broken down horse to save the world? Hilarious - you really are brain dead.

...........................................

Actually it was a spine disorder.....the lack of one. And if you can't understand why your anemic efforts to school me are a waste of your allotted time on this planet.

Eat shit and die, but please, change the subject again before you do so, you fucking toy soldier.

Ah yes, the pitifully weak response of the eternally dimwitted, quivering, hypersensitive BHO drone. If you don't know the answer just say so poser! And don't forget - BIBO - even though that will extend your miserable life.

Guest


Guest

[quote="newswatcher"][quote="nochain"][quote="Henery Hawk"]
nochain wrote:
Henery Hawk wrote:
nochain wrote:
Henery Hawk wrote:
nochain wrote:
knothead wrote:
Henery Hawk wrote:


Reagan is dead moron. Oblamer is the current POS prez so that merits prime time attention. Too bad for you libertards.

.................................

refuse to admit how his anemia set the stage for the absurdly named, "war on terror".

But.....the cowh cried after receiving questions about Benghazi....
So you are saying a blood disorder in Reagan resulted in empowered terrorists and BHO came blazing in on his broken down horse to save the world? Hilarious - you really are brain dead.

...........................................

Actually it was a spine disorder.....the lack of one. And if you can't understand why your anemic efforts to school me are a waste of your allotted time on this planet.

Eat shit and die, but please, change the subject again before you do so, you fucking toy soldier.

Ah yes, the pitifully weak response of the eternally dimwitted, quivering, hypersensitive BHO drone. If you don't know the answer just say so poser! And don't forget - BIBO - even though that will extend your miserable life.

..........................................

Awesome. The cum-dump shows up to defend his pussy friend.

Trust me idiot. I'll keep bumping this thread until the Rapture comes just to shove both of you lying toy soldiers over the edge of reality.

Guest


Guest

Henery Hawk wrote:[qu

Ah yes, the pitifully weak response of the eternally dimwitted, quivering, hypersensitive BHO drone. If you don't know the answer just say so poser! And don't forget - BIBO - even though that will extend your miserable life.[/quote][/quote]

..........................................

just to shove both of you lying toy soldiers over the edge of reality.[/quote]

Isn't that special! The Forum Idiot admits to the public that his superior opponents are clearly ensconced in REALITY while the dimwit himself clearly resides in that ne'er do well world of delusion and anxiety. Take another hit off that crack pipe trailer pilot, it will be all right in a few seconds. As always pin head - BIBO.....

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum