Benghazi: Judge Pirro Calls for Impeachment of Barack Obama

Did they impeach reagan for the iran contra affair

Did they impeach george bush jr for is false wars

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
He has already put in place presidential directives to do everything from the NDAA act to enact martial law keeping him in office longer. There are even directives that says the government can pull up and confiscate the food and water you have stored for this kind or and kind of disaster for that matter and redistribute it to the public.

You can of course link to valid sources to all of those claims....?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
He has already put in place presidential directives to do everything from the NDAA act to enact martial law keeping him in office longer. There are even directives that says the government can pull up and confiscate the food and water you have stored for this kind or and kind of disaster for that matter and redistribute it to the public.

You can of course link to valid sources to all of those claims....?

Of Course

Nation Defense Act
Ecexutive Order - National Defense Resources Preparedness Act

Not that I like ACLU but they have this one right. ACLU & NDAA

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Did they impeach reagan for the iran contra affair

Ollie North took the hit for that. Fair is fair.

Now, you wanna go after Reagan for Trickle-Down Economics? ... I'm all in!!

ETA: And look at this crap. Adam Schiff is calling for a Democratic boycott. The Dems are definitely turing the outright MURDER of four Americans into a partisan issue.

Yeah ... impeachment is in order (just to make a point), and everyone who thinks like Schiff should GO!!

Did the judge cry impeach Bush for the 13 Benghazi's that happened on his watch? Where is her proof they brought rocket propelled grenades to the protest when it is known that the consulate had a stockpile of weapons put there by the CIA. She is right there is a coverup like how she complained about the lack of security but never mentioned it was the Republicans that pushed for security funds to be cut. Also it would help for her to learn how things work in the government. The Secretary of Defense is responsible for security at the embassy and consulates not the president and the person in charge of security was Charlene Lamb. When she was questioned on the lack of security she simply said we didn't have the funds. So shouldn't the Republicans be impeached for their lack of defense for Americans?

a reply to: buster2010
I like the way you think.

Another reason to impeach (ETA: after all ... Obama is the Commander In Chief ... higher than the SecDef even). A trial would get to the bottom of things rather quickly ... and responsible parties would be named!!

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: buster2010
I like the way you think.

Another reason to impeach (ETA: after all ... Obama is the Commander In Chief ... higher than the SecDef even). A trial would get to the bottom of things rather quickly ... and responsible parties would be named!!

The responsible parties were named but the republicans chose to ignore it. Instead they push this ignorant impeach Obama over something he had nothing to do with.

originally posted by: buster2010
Where is her proof they brought rocket propelled grenades to the protest when it is known that the consulate had a stockpile of weapons put there by the CIA. She is right there is a coverup like how she complained about the lack of security but never mentioned it was the Republicans that pushed for security funds to be cut. Also it would help for her to learn how things work in the government. The Secretary of Defense is responsible for security at the embassy and consulates not the president and the person in charge of security was Charlene Lamb. When she was questioned on the lack of security she simply said we didn't have the funds. So shouldn't the Republicans be impeached for their lack of defense for Americans?

Washington Post

The cuts were almost 10% (296 Million), since 1999 they have spent 13 billion on consultes. How much is enough.
I doubt 10% was the deciding factor but, there is plenty of blame to go around, as far as security is concerned. Questions like lack of military intervention, why they were selling arms to Syria, why the Ambassador was involved etc. are just as important if not more. And of course the truth, lives, and justice was sacrificed in order to reelect our current sitting presidential criminal. The post article proves the RPG if you believe their article, I did choose a liberal paper to be fair.

The security of consulates is a State Dept. responsibility not DOD. State says what they need congress as usual grants the money. But if you are looking for blame, 10% is hardly the place to start.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
Nation Defense Act

Nothing there about martial law different to any previous act....

Ecexutive Order - National Defense Resources Preparedness Act

again, nothing there about confiscating food and water any different to any previous one....

So as expected no sources for your claims!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
Nation Defense Act

Nothing there about martial law different to any previous act....

Ecexutive Order - National Defense Resources Preparedness Act

again, nothing there about confiscating food and water any different to any previous one....

So as expected no sources for your claims!

Nothing different? Never mind your 4th amendment rights? Never mind the supremes won't hear it? Aren't you with the group protecting "Suspected terrorist" because they need a trial? When the NDAA says you can be held indefinitely?

Section 201-301 has nothing to do with confiscating supplies? Guess you are the only that feels this way, the rest have felt different possibilities could happen the way it is written.

Ok so then I will make this claim, keeping your head in the sand will make you nothing more than an uninformed victim when things go sideways. Lets hope the people that warned you are still willing to help you after you have head your head pulled out sand forcibly.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

But if you are looking for blame, 10% is hardly the place to start.

Any percent is a place to start. When you have the person in charge of security saying we don't have the funds then you have cut funds too much. So it's obvious that the security of these people were not in the republicans interest but they want to scream when people get killed.

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: MarlinGrace

But if you are looking for blame, 10% is hardly the place to start.

Any percent is a place to start. When you have the person in charge of security saying we don't have the funds then you have cut funds too much. So it's obvious that the security of these people were not in the republicans interest but they want to scream when people get killed.

So is the real issue for you the amount of money spent on security or the total lack of lifesaving military intervention that was refused by the administration? I didn't see the republicans screaming about security as much as I see them screaming about the coverup. Although the cover up is important as it plays to the type of people this government is made up of, I think the fact they have lied and continue to play down the deaths of these 4 people is horrible.

The people responsible for this need to be caught, and seriously brought to justice. The CIA's hands are the dirtiest selling weapons to Syrian Al Qaeda backed rebels, and lastly who refused SF military help thats always on standby for this sort of thing. I think the republicans are using the cover up as political publicity to find out about the rest of the murdered Americans in Benghazi in hopes that it will help their party politically. They are no less despicable than democrats in the State Department that had to know their Ambassador was involved in gun running. As I said before there is plenty of blame to go around, how we find it, is what everyone is uselessly quibbling about.

If they did not have the funds to protect a embassy there why open one up in the first place? Setting up shop in post civil war Libya seems rather foolhardy does it not? More to this than what we have been told and blaming the Republicans for cutting funding is stupid when the administration with the D next to them still went and opened up a embassy in a location that was known to have Al Qaeda lurking about. Yea the funding for embassy protection was cut, but you go and set one up anyway knowing it is not properly protected Someone in the administration needs to own up to this logistic screw up.

originally posted by: hangedman13
If they did not have the funds to protect a embassy there why open one up in the first place? Setting up shop in post civil war Libya seems rather foolhardy does it not? More to this than what we have been told and blaming the Republicans for cutting funding is stupid when the administration with the D next to them still went and opened up a embassy in a location that was known to have Al Qaeda lurking about. Yea the funding for embassy protection was cut, but you go and set one up anyway knowing it is not properly protected

Someone in the administration needs to own up to this logistic screw up.

I don't think a 10% cut made a difference in the world. This was a military style planned operation by Al Qaeda. It would not have made a difference if you had an additional 10% in spending.

They intentionally kept a low profile and had light Security.

I think all of DC is to blame. When our Ambassador was being tortured.

By some reports sodomized with a stick. Being dragged through the streets.

Do you think he was blaming a Political Party?

He was probably thinking...Where the hell is the Military?

That is the only valid question to me. Where was our Military?

originally posted by: xuenchen
Related article.

Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro has launched a scathing, on-air indictment of President Barack Obama, calling for his impeachment from office.

On Saturday night’s broadcast of “Justice with Judge Jeanine,” Pirro uncorked a blistering verbal assault on Obama in connection with his handling of the fatal onslaught of the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, and the subsequent cover-up.

“Mr. President, it’s called an abrogation of duty,” Pirro said. “You have not taken your oath to honestly and faithfully execute the duties of your office. As commander in chief, you have NOT protected us. This dereliction of duty as commander in chief demands your impeachment.”


Judge Jeanine unleashed: Impeach Obama

a reply to: xuenchen

Really? Benghazi was worse than IRAN CONTRA? It's bad enough that conservative morons lack a political compass (to them, communism is equal fascism, despite them being polar opposites, which results in them using the terms incorrectly as a synonym for 'bad') but now are totally devoid of anything resembling tact or proportion. The Iran contra scandal involved US funded foreign death squads. Benghazi involved a revised talking point after the fact. How utterly LOST these cretins are.

a reply to: CommandoJoe

In fairness, I went back and read her comments more carefully than simply listening to them. A few have partial transcripts and quotes out there to reflect on and consider more carefully. Does she have a case?

In a word? NO. She doesn't. There could be a case in there somewhere. I don't know and neither does anyone else in a position to pursue it or care. That's the WHOLE problem. What happened prior to the night Stevens died isn't Obama's fault beyond the 'buck stops there' principle, and Hillary is the desk between events and his to park it first.

What happened THAT night? It still makes no sense in a tactical way and that is why I won't let this go until it DOES make sense. Decisions were made by not only politicians but military men which don't have basic logic. Now we can either assume we really have a military headed by buffoons, as evidenced in this case ...or there is a lot more to this than we know about.

I have and do believe the latter. We have a whole different issue NO ONE has brought up that I've seen, in any official way. The wall the locals blew out at the compound before that night was done in a message, as the name of the group itself showed beyond question, to release Omar Abdel-Rahman.

Where is Omar Abdel-Rahman now? I assume he's tucked into a 6x10 concrete box in one of Uncle's finer establishments for contemplation of the naval. Where was he that night? Has anyone visually CONFIRMED we still HAVE him in the box he's supposed to be in? There is no denying the connection in the earlier strike on this same location, as the guards (militia) watched and recorded it in progress (without effort to stop or intervene) and all of that is contained in the official record of communications out of Benghazi well before the fatal night.

If that really was totally separate and unrelated? Okay.. I'll go there for a moment...then what was at the heart of it? Until we know THAT...we cannot know, frankly, if all the actions that night were even right or wrong. There could be BIG moving pieces to this that radically change perspective for what happened.

That's what I think we need to confirm or establish DOES NOT exist before talking about prosecuting anyone. Especially a sitting United States President. Whoever he happens to be.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Great points...

I think it went something like this.

If it was described as a demonstration. No Military response is required.

If they said it was an attack...The Military would immediately roll.

A Military response did not fit the Political narrative the campaign was based on.

a reply to: xuenchen

Obviously another moronic republican that doesn't understand the United States Constitution. A judge can't indict a sitting president. Only the House can bring forth articles of Impeachment.

I mean seriously? Do you guys believe everything your FOX News masters tell you to think?

a reply to: Secret009

Perhaps a similar agenda.

There was all kinds of arms "activity" ever since Qaddafi "retired".

Almost like Libya became an arms depot.

The Benghazi "Incident" could have been an arms "transaction" that was "looted" by 3rd parties.

And an arms transaction would explain why Stevens refused additional "help".

The Syrian war was well underway by then.

(from Dec 10, 2012)

Shortly after the October 2011 death of Qaddafi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced in Tripoli that the U.S. was committing $40 million to help Libya “secure and recover its weapons stockpiles.” Department of State Assistant Secretary Andrew Shapiro confirms DOS had a weapons buy-back program in Libya that was also supported by the UK who gave $1.5 million, the Netherlands gave $1.2 million, Germany gave about $1 million and our neighbor to the north, Canada gave $1.6 million to purchase the deadly arsenal that went missing after the fall of Qaddafi.

The State Department was specifically looking to acquire the 20,000 MANPADS (they are commonly known as man-portable air shoulder-fire missiles) that went missing once Qaddafi was killed.


Did CIA and State Department Run Illegal Arms Trafficking in Benghazi?

All the White House had to do was tell the truth from the beginning.

All previous attacks on U.S. Embassies in the past were never "covered-up" were they.

The "Elections" were steering their thinking in 2012.