Posted on 06/07/2013 4:35:54 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
The request was, “Then let’s hear your explanation of the known facts.”
And Obama speaking at the UN: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”, referring to the movie.
Nope, the media won’t pursue it and this left leaning Obama loving country doesn’t care.
Fact:
President Obama is the commander and chief of the armed forces and did nothing illegal in withholding military assistance to our agents on the ground in Benghazi. That is his discretion or the discretion of whomever he delegated his authority to.
Fact: He doesn’t have to explain it to the american people. And if he did, who say’s he has to tell the truth? It’s military action. He and his group have the situational knowledge.
FACT: You don’t.
.
So dealings with Al Qaeda are acceptable to you?
Aiding & abetting the enemy (al-queda) via the gun running program IS being a TRAITOR.
Shocking how the marxist media refuses to mention this comment and expose his devotion & support to the satanic muslimes at the expense of our Constitution.
You’re barking up the wrong tree.
No President will ever be removed for bad judgement. Our 226 year history of living under the Constitution is proof of that. And since where ambassadors go and what they do, and where military forces are deployed and what they do once deployed are exclusive Presidential powers, any Article of Impeachment pertaining to Benghazi would necessarily involve removing Obama for bad judgement(s). It would be a very very fat pitch into the Democrats “partisan witch hunt” strike zone.
The IRS affair, in contrast, probably contains several actual, provable crimes. If it were properly investigated (a stretch, I know), it could actually lead to Obama’s removal. All Americans of whatever political affiliation can “get” IRS abuse in a way that Benghazi just doesn’t measure up. And, to top that, the IRS/AP/Fox News matters involve conduct strictly prohibited by the Constitution, while Obama’s command over foreign postings of our diplomats and over military deployments are both clearly within his Constitutional authority.
But, of course, Boehner won’t investigate either one in a way that will lead to Obama being removed, so, “at this point, what difference does it make”?
I wonder what this troll would think is impeachable? You can tell a troll, the keep on posting, they never just make their point and move on. He is on a mission, troll for sure.
The type of dealing I would like to do with Al Qaeda would be to fire hellfire missiles at them and send in more Soldiers to 'render them ineffective'. If Obama fell for some perfidious scheme of Al Qaeda then shame on him. Castigate and humiliate him publicly, have hearings and expose him as inept and bumbling as he is and as his administration is from almost top to bottom. The IRS, DOJ, HHR, NSA problems he has now are much more serious than what we know about Benghazi right now because there laws were broken and ignored and I would like to see Obama impeached on those issues, and here is the important point ...... At this point, I don't think that there needs to be a direct connection on those scandals directly to Obama in order to impeach him. I think he encourages and has created an atmosphere of flagrant disregard towards the law that in order to clean out those stables, we need to impeach the person responsible for that mess -- Obama.
Let's review:
If Obama gave an rescue order and it wasn’t obeyed he would be leading the charge to find the breakdown. But he is not.What was going on at Benghazi?He either didn’t give a rescue order or the order was to stand-down.
Testimony is that two stand-down orders were issued. If those stand-down orders did not come from Obama he would be leading the charge to find who did. But he is not.
A reasonable conclusion is that Obama gave the stand-down orders.
If Al Qaeda was not involved there would be no reason to scrub references from reports.
A reasonable conclusion is that an operation involving AlQaeda was compromised, stand-down orders were given: personnel at the scene were expendable. A known false story about a video was pushed.
A reasonable conclusion is that a operation involving Al Qaeda had to be concealed.
Obama knows. He needs to be asked and he needs to answer.
A series of increasingly spectacular scandals have appeared. As serious as these are, they are secondary and diversionary.
First the Benghazi scandal was morphed into a coverup scandal.The diversion has been ongoing.Then the new scandal of the IRS admitting sua sponte that conservative groups were targeted.
Followed by Obama firing an acting director who was due to step down anyway. Pure theater.
Then the AP story. Then charging a reporter with espionage. And now the NSA spying on citizens.
What was going on at Benghazi?
Giving aid to an enemy is treason.
So? He gave the stand-down order. Nothing impeachable there despite it being a cowardly decision.
If Al Qaeda was not involved there would be no reason to scrub references from reports.
The rest is just inductive reasoning.
Let’s hear your explanation.
Why would references to Al Qaeda need to be scrubbed? Why would Al Qaeda’s involvement need to be kept secret?
Again, let’s hear your explanation.
So far you have not disputed any fact or introduced any other facts, you have not shown any error in my reasoning, and you have not offered any alternative explanations. All you have done is make excuses for Obama.
Providing weapons to Al Qaeda is most assuredly not a “non issue”. Is that what was going on?
Your position is: “don’t ask questions”.
Arming an enemy is treason. Oh that’s right, you don’t want to ask any questions. Problem solved.
All you do is offer pathetic excuses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.