Obama won’t be impeached and removed (at least not before the election), for the reasons Glenn writes. But in a sane world, he would be. Of course, in a sane world, he’d have never been president.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here’s the story. That’s being ignored because of an octogenarian racist team owner in the NBA.
As I recall, Friday September 14th (the date of the emails) there were still ongoing riots and protests at several US embassies. Reading the actual emails instead of the pull quote on page 14 you’ll notice that Egypt and Yemen were specifically mentioned.
If you scroll down to page 23, you see its the State Department, not the political people, tying the attack to the video.
If we impeached Presidents for terror attacks on overseas bases, we’d have impeached Reagan and both Bushes.
Yes Chris, your side sold the lie when it needed to, so that’s all that matters.
“you see its the State Department, not the political people,”
Lol, so now the state department isn’t part of the Obama administration? Hillary Clinton was just a rogue low level staffer. We don’t even know how she got that job or who her boss was. Ambassador Stevens shouldn’t have worn such a short skirt.
“If we impeached Presidents for terror attacks on overseas bases, we’d have impeached Reagan and both Bushes.”
So you think Bush lied when he said AQ was to blame for 9/11?
How about impeachment for throwing an immigrant in jail for making a video? Where are our civil rights warriors now?
I don’t think anyone is honestly surprised by this. The CIA knew that night what was going on, which means so did the White House. That they sent out emissaries to the media sell the narrative of the killer video could not have been a fog of war mistake. It had to be a deliberate lie. It worked and I guess that’s all that matters for people like Jim.
I am shocked! Shocked! That Obama, the Democrats, and the Democrat Media would lie over and over and over again to the American people. Who would have thought that Obama would lie? Its unprecedented.
I’m waiting for the usual party-line regurgitating Eloi to check in here with the Obamabot spin on this.
Meanwhile, congrats to the Admiral for being the first!
Hey man, that film maker deserved to go to jail. He was breaking the law and there was nothing political about sending him to prison and blaming him for Benghazi. Also, this was all the fault of the CIA and State Department. The Obama administration had nothing to do with it. In fact, they were lied to and we all know they had no control over what our people were doing in Benghazi or anywhere else.
Well, his parole from his conviction for bank fraud said “don’t use the Internet and don’t use false identities.” So a Federal judge decided that making movies on the Internet and using a false ID violated his parole and yanked same.
See, this is what bothers me about libertarians. They want “rule of law” except when it’s a rich white guy (Cliven Bundy, High Plains Welfare Queen) or somebody who pisses of Moslems. In that case, the hell with the law.
Does anybody wonder where a guy fresh out of jail gets $100,000 to pay actors and rent a studio? Is it even possible that some Al Qaida operative paid him to make a movie which they could use to start riots? Nah – that would never happen! /sarcasm/
So, what does all of that have to do with being used as a pawn for the deaths in Libya?
The only reason Nakula is in jail is because Obama wanted him in jail. Sure, he violated his parole but that was not what landed him in jail.
“See, this is what bothers me about libertarians. ”
What bothers me about Democrats and the “law” is that the law is only used as a tool against political opponents and ignored in all other circumstances. Democrats are not upset about Obama’s unilateral wars, black prisons, or executive rewriting of Obamacare. Not upset about Obama spying on reporters, locking them in closets, or even sending them to prison. You were not upset about the use of IRS and other government agencies to attack political dissidents. You guys didn’t get upset when OWS or other Democrat tax exempt front groups squat on public and private property to agitate for socialist revolution but when some guy does it to raise cattle is all, “OMG the LAW must be obeyed.”
You seem to think free speech is for burning flags and masturbating in libraries not for making movies or statements critical of the current administration.
I happen to be very liberal on many subjects but I can’t support Democrats because they are not consistent nor do they actually believe in the things they badger others about. Which is why we have gun running anti-gun Democrats, waronwomen Democrats that party with child prostitutes, and acceptance of open racism by Democrats from Democrats.
Nakula was the perfect scapegoat for Obama. Whatever wrongs the man did, it doesn’t excuse Obama claiming the video was the cause of a spontaneous protest in Benghazi that turned ugly. Nor does it excuse throwing the man in jail to appease Islamic radicals and their sympathizers.
Chris Gerrib: “Nakula violated his parole so its totes cool for Obama to scapegoat him for Benghazi.”
Are you telling us that you honestly believe if Benghazi never happened that Mohammed Video Guy would still have been arrested?
Seriously Chris, either you are pretty fucking gullible or you think that we are.
Who are you trying to convince? Us or yourself? The rest of us minus the usual sock-puppet choir will chose our own lyin’ eyes over your nonsense here Chris.
$100,000? He was ripped off. I saw the video and it looked like an eighth grader’s class project.
Chris, you are nucking futs if you associate libertarians with preferential treatment toward “rich white guy(s)” or “somebody who pisses of [sic] Moslems”. If you want to be less of an ignoramus w.r.t. the subject of libertarians, I recommend Charles Murray’s “What It Means to Be a Libertarian.”
I don’t know if the Admiral is “f@cking nuts” (although his posts during the Trayvon Martin dust-up certainly indicates someone, shall we say, a “little off”), but remember that Gerrib operates in a universe where, if Jesus came back to Earth, he’d be an IRS agent.
A Democratic racist team owner.
Typical.
A Democratic racist team owner.
Before you embarrass yourself, read Michael Hiltzik’s column from yesterday in the LA Times. Sterling has been a registered Republican since at least 1998.
So until he was well into his sixties, a racist was a Democrat? Color me not shocked.
Or do you imagine that he somehow automatically became a racist after his party switch, and before that he was a model of racial tolerance?
Or do you imagine that he somehow automatically became a racist after his party switch, and before that he was a model of racial tolerance?
No, I’m sure he’s been a racist all of his life.
There were a lot of racists in the Democratic Party, before Nixon’s southern strategy and civil rights era. That’s when a lot of southern racists left for the Republican Party.
“That’s when a lot of southern racists left for the Republican Party.”
The South kept voting in Democrats that opposed civil rights legislation up into the 90’s. The exceptions were a couple of Presidential election landslides where the entire country voted against the Democrats but even then, those racist Democrats were elected at the local, state, and federal level. The voting data really doesn’t back up the southern strategy slur.
But go ahead and racially stereotype an entire region of the country based on their accent and race.
Purely Democratic donations led me astray. My bad.
Anyone up for a (second!) major NAACP award with this moron’s attitudes has more than a little practice camoflaging his ick I guess.
No, he just bought them. NAACP will take anyone’s money.
Obama’s strategy is to run out the clock on the investigations into his scandals. Look at the NLRB or anything else really for conformation of this. Obama is counting on two things. One, a Democrat President in 2016 that will ignore and enhance his wrong doing. Two, the tradition of current administrations not going after their predecessors.
Obama knows he is untouchable and feels free to unleash his true self, which is a disgustingly corrupt unethical human being.
Obama lied; people died!
At the very least, you’ve got the order wrong.
Not really if you consider the justification Obama used to go to war on behalf of Islamic militants in Libya in the first place. Obama lied about impending genocide and his no-fly zone morphed from preventing genocide into providing close are support to AQ affiliates. Obama and his administration were dishonest from beginning to end.
We knew the video had nothing to do with the assault and said so. Clearly. Repeatedly.
We also knew and said that the arrest of Nakoula (sp?) was a distraction and part of the coverup. It was – to any sensible clear thinking individual.
We knew the Rice talking points came from the White House and we said so. They did.
We said that Obama, Clinton, Rice Carney et al were lying about Benghazi. And they knew they were lying.
We said all this because it was common sense, and the facts fit.
We also said that Obama knew about the attack in plenty of time to have launched a distraction/support attack and a rescue mission. He chose not to. He went to bed.
As the drip drip drip of this keeps happening we will find out that pretty much everything we’ve been saying is true. No Obama will not be impeached.
He will have to live the rest of his life knowing he could have done a lot more and possibly saved those men. He knows he didn’t because it would hurt his chances of re-election. He knows it; we know it. Whether or not Obama’s conscience bother him about it I cannot say – I don’t know if he has one.
If there’s a hell, he’ll burn for that night. As well he should.
Clinton understood all the above as well and did nothing. That was a bad political miscalculation on her part, not t mention a horridly self-centered cruel thing to do. She is a known liar (The Lioness of Tusla).
By rights these people should be hounded from society.
He will have to live the rest of his life knowing he could have done a lot more and possibly saved those men. He knows he didn’t because it would hurt his chances of re-election. He knows it; we know it. Whether or not Obama’s conscience bother him about it I cannot say – I don’t know if he has one.
I’d be extremely surprised if Obama cares in the least that he could’ve saved those men or at the very least should’ve tried. His reelection was all that mattered.
I don’t think the putz in the whitehouse is bothered by a few, or a few million, deaths on his watch, as long as the fallout doesn’t hit him.
We knew the video had nothing to do with the assault and said so. Clearly. Repeatedly.
Maybe you knew, but the CIA didn’t — the first draft of its talking points on the attack began: “We believe based on currently available information that the attacks 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.”
We knew the Rice talking points came from the White House and we said so. They did.
No, they didn’t — there’s a paper trail, and it starts at the CIA.
“Maybe you knew, but the CIA didn’t ”
The CIA knew. All the Gerrib-ian, Dn-ian, and Jim-ian pretzel twisting over the last couple of years notwithstanding.
One of thousands of examples: Funny how you don’t believe Morell’s spoken words when it suits you. You believe what matches your worldview and dismiss what does not…
……without the slightest bit of logic or consistency.
The CIA knew what they did and did not do. So did the WH, the State Dept. And people with common sense. Everyone knew where the talking points came from and why.
You’re trying to sit there and argue that the CIA was, all this time, not knowing that they didn’t know what they did.
Obama’s CIA?
Transterrestrial drew attention to the sausage getting made during the week following the attack: http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=44580
What, if anything, is new in these emails? We already knew that the CIA’s initial assessment and talking points blamed protest videos. The fact that White House officials echoed the CIA’s findings is hardly news, or a scandal. The idea that you’d impeach a president because he took a CIA conclusion at face value is beyond ridiculous.
Way to scapegoat the CIA. If Obama knew it was a terrorist attack that day, as you have claimed previously and cited the Rose Garden speech, then why was he sending out Rice and others to push the story that this was all over a video weeks later?
“What, if anything, is new in these emails?”
We know it’s hard for you to accept, but the facts are that the Obama WH/administration KNEW FOR A FACT AS THE ATTACK WAS UNDERWAY that the video had nothing to do with the attack – endless warnings and briefings attest to that fact. For one, Panetta was told immediately that it was a terrorist attack and not a spontaneous attack rising out of a demonstration. There are dozens of other pieces of information which make this clear; you’ve heard them i the reports and we’ve listed them for you dozens of times. You simply refuse to accept what your eyes and ears tell you.
…….. and yet when it came time to prep Rice, on the Friday before the talk shows (and after the attack) *THE WHITE HOUSE* (via the Rhodes emai) told her to blame the videos for the attack when she went on the talk shows.
Here is Morell’s testimony in front of Congress stating that the real thoughts were that the terrorists took advantage of demonstrations to launch the attack:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_ohKhRMThg
Which is a change from his earlier testimony (of course).
In other words, NOW Morell is admitting it was a terrorist attack. He, of course, blamed ‘bad language”.
The fact that all was provably quiet just before the attack is…well…a problem for you.
The CIA Libya Station Chief testified that he told Morell, the day before Rice went on, the attack was not because of, during, or in any way part of a demonstration against the video or anything else.
So therefore, according to Morell, the CIA knew it was a terrorist attack.
Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj1QrdZyROI
is Morrell saying it was an Al Qaida attack.
In addition, he says he personally did NOT take that out of the talking points. You can see his lips move and say that.
But all of this has been hashed over, described and demonstrated before and no amount or organization, timelining, repetition, explanation, clarification or expostulation will convince the people deeply in love with Obama and Hillary that they did anything wrong.
Those of us who know better know that the drip drip drip continues, and even more facts will forcibly (since they had to sue to get the documents) be brought to light, such that the Independents will have to have a hard look at the Left in this country come November and in 2016.