Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

An article courtesy of David Weigel....

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/09/benghazi_9_11_protests_organizers_of_the_sept_11_rallies_have_a_distinct.html

A snippet from Rep. Allen West in the article....

“There’s some truth out there that people don’t want us to know about,” West told me after the memorial. “The simple question that has to be asked is: Why was Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi, Libya, in the heart of radical Islamist territory, on 9/11, being guarded by Islamic militias? Is it true that we were running guns? The ambassador was meeting with a representative from Turkey. We know that Turkey is behind the Islamist forces [in Libya]. Were they talking about getting guns that we provided to the rebels there, who turned out to be al-Qaida, Muslim Brotherhood-backed, and then getting them up into Turkey to come down into Syria? Now today we have al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood training Islamist fighters in Libya to go to Syria.”

Also, this little nugget...

Any liberal who rolls his eyes at the B-word should try to understand this. It was excruciating for them, in 2001 and 2002, to be accused of treason whenever they asked for a fuller story of 9/11. Asking what “Bush knew,” or making fun of him for ignoring memos about Bin Laden, didn’t make them Truthers. The killers in Benghazi haven’t been found. Getting furious about that doesn’t make you a kook.

Finally I would just like to summarize by saying.... this will be bigger than Watergate!

I have to disagree, nothing will come out of this. Nothing official came out of Watergate either...rather I should say Nixon wasn't impeached and still advised several Presidents for years afterwards. If you're trying to imply that Obama will be impeached I'd like to point out that Clinton wasn't and there was far more evidence of wrongdoing than there is here.

*edited for grammar

 mrwhoop wrote:
If you're trying to imply that Obama will be impeached I'd like to point out that Clinton wasn't and there was far more evidence of wrongdoing than there is here.

President Clinton was, in fact, impeached.

I wish more would come of this. At least truth of the matters. The most open administration ever is shuttered up tighter then a prepper's pantry.


Expect to be called a conspiracy theorist in 3... 2... 1...

Can't this exact same question be asked about Senator McCain's meeting with wanted terrorists in Syria?

PhantomViper wrote:
Can't this exact same question be asked about Senator McCain's meeting with wanted terrorists in Syria?

Your stretching pretty high to build that straw man. It's gonna tumble down.

Oh look, politics getting in the way of rational thought. Also known as one political parties mundus operandi.

I still say that the White House owes the American people a full accounting of the failures in Benghazi...

What I don't understand is that why they haven't cooperated with Congress post election. Either it's something so egregious embarrassing and/or there's still some covert operations in effect.

Or because the people in Congress looking for answers all ready have a preconceived notion of twhat the answers are, and anything provided other than their preconceived notion is inherently not the answer to them.

Did that make any sense?

 juraigamer wrote:
Oh look, politics getting in the way of rational thought. Also known as all political party's mundus operandi.

Fixed that for ya

 Easy E wrote:
Or because the people in Congress looking for answers all ready have a preconceived notion of twhat the answers are, and anything provided other than their preconceived notion is inherently not the answer to them.

Did that make any sense?

Yep... makes sense. I disagree with you though.

 Ouze wrote:

 mrwhoop wrote:
If you're trying to imply that Obama will be impeached I'd like to point out that Clinton wasn't and there was far more evidence of wrongdoing than there is here.

President Clinton was, in fact, impeached.

Yes and no, I understand that to impeach someone is just like an indictment at court but I was referring more to the act of dismissal from office that most associate with it. Clinton was acquitted of the impeachment charges and I'd like to add that it seems most Presidents get a call for impeachment over something they do.

 mrwhoop wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 mrwhoop wrote:
If you're trying to imply that Obama will be impeached I'd like to point out that Clinton wasn't and there was far more evidence of wrongdoing than there is here.

President Clinton was, in fact, impeached.

Yes and no, I understand that to impeach someone is just like an indictment at court but I was referring more to the act of dismissal from office that most associate with it. Clinton was acquitted of the impeachment charges and I'd like to add that it seems most Presidents get a call for impeachment over something they do.

Nope... The House actually impeached Clinton. (in a sense, he was convicted).

The Senate voted whether to remove him from office, which they didn't. But that doesn't mean "he was acquitted" of impeachment charges.

 mrwhoop wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 mrwhoop wrote:
If you're trying to imply that Obama will be impeached I'd like to point out that Clinton wasn't and there was far more evidence of wrongdoing than there is here.

President Clinton was, in fact, impeached.

Yes and no, I understand that to impeach someone is just like an indictment at court but I was referring more to the act of dismissal from office that most associate with it. Clinton was acquitted of the impeachment charges and I'd like to add that it seems most Presidents get a call for impeachment over something they do.

He was not acquitted of the impeachment charges. Impeaching the president is separate from removing from office and in fact they are done by two different bodies. The impeachment vote succeeeded in the house of representatives; the subsequent vote to remove him from office failed in the senate. You can read more about it here.

Normally I'm not a big fan of pedantry for pedantry's sake, but these words have specific meaning.

edit: ninajed!

So...are we really going to liken Clinton's impeachment for getting a BJ to this? I mean, maybe I'm just a simpleton, but getting some illicit oval office head seems a bit more tame than anything that happened in Benghazi.....

 cincydooley wrote:
So...are we really going to liken Clinton's impeachment for getting a BJ to this? I mean, maybe I'm just a simpleton, but getting some illicit oval office head seems a bit more tame than anything that happened in Benghazi.....

Well four Americans died in Benghazi, but thousands of potential Americans were arguably denied life thanks to Clinton's actions

 cincydooley wrote:
So...are we really going to liken Clinton's impeachment for getting a BJ to this? I mean, maybe I'm just a simpleton, but getting some illicit oval office head seems a bit more tame than anything that happened in Benghazi.....

He didn't get impeached for a having a BJ, he got impeached for lying about it under oath. Perjury, oddly, is not to be taken lightly.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
So...are we really going to liken Clinton's impeachment for getting a BJ to this? I mean, maybe I'm just a simpleton, but getting some illicit oval office head seems a bit more tame than anything that happened in Benghazi.....

Well four Americans died in Benghazi, but thousands of potential Americans were arguably denied life thanks to Clinton's actions

I was wondering how this thread would get to wonderful places.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
So...are we really going to liken Clinton's impeachment for getting a BJ to this? I mean, maybe I'm just a simpleton, but getting some illicit oval office head seems a bit more tame than anything that happened in Benghazi.....

Well four Americans died in Benghazi, but thousands of potential Americans were arguably denied life thanks to Clinton's actions

November 15th, 1995 - never forget.

 Ahtman wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
So...are we really going to liken Clinton's impeachment for getting a BJ to this? I mean, maybe I'm just a simpleton, but getting some illicit oval office head seems a bit more tame than anything that happened in Benghazi.....

He didn't get impeached for a having a BJ, he got impeached for lying about it under oath. Perjury, oddly, is not to be taken lightly.

Perjury is ridiculously difficult to prosecute...so, there were pretty damning evidences against Clinton.

I'll say it again... I really don't believe what happened in Benghazi is an "impeachable" offence.

I think the whole thing is a clusterfeth and the administration was embarrassed. Hence the ridiculous initial response to blaming the attacks on that Youtube director.

@Ouze and you're wrong

"Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature that allows for formal charges against a civil officer of government for crimes committed in office. The actual trial on those charges, and subsequent removal of an official on conviction on those charges, is separate from the act of impeachment itself."

Yes, it is a separate process but Clinton was acquitted of the impeachment charges as wikipedia states: Acquitted on February 12, 1999[9].

It's like saying you were arrested but you won't have a criminal record. He was impeached but he wasn't removed which was what I was saying as the opening comment (last one) was relating this to Watergate. Now that I think about it wasn't there some tomfoolery about there being an Obamagate in his first term?

Whatever, the point I was going for was "Weehoo gonna git dat black man outta da white man's office" isn't going to happen.

Well that escalated quickly.

 Ahtman wrote:
Well that escalated quickly.

Welcome to the Off top forum where beer flow like wine.

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
So...are we really going to liken Clinton's impeachment for getting a BJ to this? I mean, maybe I'm just a simpleton, but getting some illicit oval office head seems a bit more tame than anything that happened in Benghazi.....

He didn't get impeached for a having a BJ, he got impeached for lying about it under oath. Perjury, oddly, is not to be taken lightly.

Perjury is ridiculously difficult to prosecute...so, there were pretty damning evidences against Clinton.

I'll say it again... I really don't believe what happened in Benghazi is an "impeachable" offence.

I think the whole thing is a clusterfeth and the administration was embarrassed. Hence the ridiculous initial response to blaming the attacks on that Youtube director.

Whembly has the way of it. I would have liked to have seen some people fired. The trophies that were "reassigned" have already been brought back.

 pities2004 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Well that escalated quickly.

Welcome to the Off top forum where beer flow like wine.

Doesn't wine have more alcohol?

And I don't see anything wrong with what Bill did. It's natural for the president to get around, and the alternative was Hilary.

 Frazzled wrote:
Whembly has the way of it.

But...but...I was the one that said what actually happened. Why are you trying to undermine me?!

And perjury isn't that hard to prosecute. Hell, Zimmerman's wife got prosecuted for it just recently.

Perjury is a crime however.

Like everyone else, he didn't get capped for the crime. he got capped for the coverup.

 xole wrote:
And I don't see anything wrong with what Bill did. It's natural for the president to get around, and the alternative was Hilary.

Again, no one would begrudge him that, but what he did wrong was lie about it under oath.

Sorry, I really don't like comparing 4 dead to 'bigger than Watergate' or that "The killers in Benghazi haven’t been found. Getting furious about that doesn’t make you a kook. " I think it does make you a kook. Or rather ignorant of how many Americans die in the U.S. because of the crap we do to each other. And no I don't think it's any different whether it's 'us' or 'them' who's doing the harm.

I choose to never forget the Alamo. When Sam Huston rode out on Shadowfax with the hobbits to confront the Klingons he did so knowing that he was most likely going to die, but he inspired a new state that would go on to invent the chimichanga.