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

nochain wrote:

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.

newswatcher wrote:

nochain wrote:

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.

Henery Hawk wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

nochain wrote:

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.

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

just to shove both of you lying toy soldiers over the edge of reality.

Sal wrote:Jesus, ...

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

lol

Markle wrote:

Sal wrote:Jesus, ...

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

lol

You can't believe that you wake up one morning and suddenly there are not ONE, NOT TWO BUT THREE MAJOR SCANDALS swirling around President Barack Hussein Obama getting larger and larger by the minute.

Even the left wing press is angry. They were eager to suck down his Cool Aid until Benghazi where he played them, lied to them and made most of them look foolish. They REALLY don't like that.

Watergate

BenghaziGate

IRS-Gate

Associated PressGate....

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Impeachment? Doubtful.

Markle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Impeachment? Doubtful.

There was a point when President Richard M. Nixon and President William Jefferson Clinton probably said the same thing.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Markle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Impeachment? Doubtful.

There was a point when President Richard M. Nixon and President William Jefferson Clinton probably said the same thing.

If Bush/Cheney didn't come up for impeachment for their horrible crimes committed between 2001-2009, I sincerely doubt that Barrack Obama is going to be impeached/convicted, nor will he resign in shame.

... Keep dreaming about the eventual downfall of Barrack Obama. You and Pace Dog are very entertaining to watch...

knothead wrote:

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!!!

Markle wrote:
You can't believe that you wake up one morning and suddenly there are not ONE, NOT TWO BUT THREE MAJOR SCANDALS swirling around President Barack Hussein Obama getting larger and larger by the minute.

Even the left wing press is angry. They were eager to suck down his Cool Aid until Benghazi where he played them, lied to them and made most of them look foolish. They REALLY don't like that.

Watergate

BenghaziGate

IRS-Gate

Associated PressGate....

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
If Bush/Cheney didn't come up for impeachment for their horrible crimes committed between 2001-2009, I sincerely doubt that Barrack Obama is going to be impeached/convicted, nor will he resign in shame.

... Keep dreaming about the eventual downfall of Barrack Obama. You and Pace Dog are very entertaining to watch...