No. of Recommendations: 18
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/06/Democrats-Agen...

Ahead of Wednesday's long-awaited hearings at the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about the Benghazi terror attack of Sep. 11, 2012, Democrats have a clear agenda: protect Hillary Clinton at all costs.
---------------------------------------------------
Oh God yes.
--------------------------------------------------
Since the day after the attacks, Democrats and the media have treated Benghazi as an unfair political attack by Republicans, rather than a legitimate national security crisis in its own right.

Media coverage in the fall focused on Republican Mitt Romney's response to the attacks, rather than Obama's actions as commander-in-chief. When questions were raised about whether Obama had lied to the public about the attacks, the media covered Obama's tracks, with CNN's Candy Crowley intervening in the second presidential debate to defend the president, and CBS News suppressing damning footage of the president until shortly before the election.

With Obama safely re-elected, the goal is now to protect Hillary Clinton. Last week, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) called upon Speaker of the House John Boehner not only to retract, but to apologize publicly for, an inter-committee report that suggested Clinton had ignored requests for additional security in Libya.
-------------------------------------------------
Good GardenBunny gravy absolutely.
-------------------------------------------------
At least one key witness in Wednesday's hearing, Mark. I. Thompson, is expected to offer testimony highly damaging to Clinton. He has alleged that Clinton sidelined the State Department's counter-terrorism operation during the Benghazie attacks: "You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night," he has said, according to Fox News.

Though Democrats seem to have shifted their focus to Clinton's prospects, Obama himself is not free of the troubles Benghazi presents. Evidence continues to emerge that senior White House officials were directly involved in the manipulation of the Benghazi talking points, suggesting that there had been a deliberate decision to mislead the public.

Obama has yet to explain his own actions--or inaction--during and after the attack. His activities throughout the evening of Sep. 11 are unknown; he flew to Las Vegas for a fundraiser the next day.
------------------------------------------------
Bring it! Lets get this impeachment thing going.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Bring it! Lets get this impeachment thing going.

You keep forgetting two words => Joe Biden

Only if Joe Biden was also complicit would there be any relief, as John Boehner would be third in line.

Order of Presidential Succession
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101032.html
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Bring it! Lets get this impeachment thing going.

You keep forgetting two words => Joe Biden
----------------------------------------
I think i would take Joe biden over Obama. Joe Biden doesn't seem to have the hatred for this country that Obama has.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Bring it! Lets get this impeachment thing going.

You keep forgetting two words => Joe Biden
_________________

Biden would be a much better President than Obama.

That said, please no impeachment. Let us have the truth and then three years of people just pointing and asking what the heck where we thinking!

All that is going wrong should rest on this clown as he has created a disaster, and I do not want anything hing on his being impeached as an excuse.

As long as things are bad enough that he doesn't show his face except at WHite House parties, let him sit in the big boy chair and be a beacon of what the Dem party is.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That said, please no impeachment. Let us have the truth and then three years of people just pointing and asking what the heck where we thinking!

All that is going wrong should rest on this clown as he has created a disaster, and I do not want anything hing on his being impeached as an excuse.

As long as things are bad enough that he doesn't show his face except at WHite House parties, let him sit in the big boy chair and be a beacon of what the Dem party is.
---------------------------------------------------------
I think i agree with you. If he was impeached it would be non-stop media caterwauling about how the evil republicans impeached Obama the savior, he'd be martyred.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/298021-huck...

Former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said on his radio show Monday that President Obama “will not fill out his full term” because he was complicit in a “cover-up” surrounding the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Libya.

“I believe that before it’s all over, this president will not fill out his full term,” Huckabee said. “I know that puts me on a limb, but this is not minor.”

“When a president lies to the American people and is part of a cover-up, he cannot continue to govern,” he added. “And as the facts come out, I think we’re going to see something startling. And before it’s over, I don’t think this president will finish his term unless somehow they can delay it in Congress past the next three and a half years.”
--------------------------------------------------------
Republican witchhunt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And before it’s over, I don’t think this president will finish his term unless somehow they can delay it in Congress past the next three and a half years.”

-------------

3.5 years, no problem, just pull out the Fast and Furious playbook..
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Breitbart and truth don't belong in the same sentence.

Since the day after the attacks, Democrats and the media have treated Benghazi as an unfair political attack by Republicans, rather than a legitimate national security crisis in its own right.

Since when is an attack on a far-flung consulate, even one in which an ambassador is killed a "national security crisis?" The U.S. embassy in Baghdad was attacked about once a week for years and wasn't a crisis.

Media coverage in the fall focused on Republican Mitt Romney's response to the attacks, rather than Obama's actions as commander-in-chief.

Right. Because Romney held a press conference criticizing the President before he even knew the consequences of the attack. He was grandstanding and got called on it. It's unprecedented for a candidate to launch an ill-informed political attack on a sitting president while an attack is ongoing.

When questions were raised about whether Obama had lied to the public about the attacks, the media covered Obama's tracks...

No they didn't. This is made up shirt.

He [Mark Thompson, deputy coordinator of counter-terrorism at the State Department] has alleged that Clinton sidelined the State Department's counter-terrorism operation during the Benghazie attacks...

What does that mean? "Sidelined?" That she didn't take his advice? What was his advice? Is there some rule that the Secretary of State must take the advice of a deputy coordinator of operations? And his boss, Dan Benjamin, says Thompson is f.o.s.

"I ran the bureau then, and I can say now with certainty, as the former Coordinator for Counterterrorism, that this charge is simply untrue," he said. "Though I was out of the country on official travel at the time of the attack, I was in frequent contact with the Department. At no time did I feel that the Bureau was in any way being left out of deliberations that it should have been part of."
He went on to call his bureau a "central participant in the interagency discussion about the longer-term response to Benghazi." He said "at no time was the Bureau sidelined or otherwise kept from carrying out its tasks."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/06/clinton-sought-en...

This whole Breitbart thing is nonsense. Why on earth would Congressional Democrats cover for Hillary Clinton? More than a few of them would love to take her out of the 2016 running.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Right. Because Romney held a press conference criticizing the President before he even knew the consequences of the attack. He was grandstanding and got called on it. It's unprecedented for a candidate to launch an ill-informed political attack on a sitting president while an attack is ongoing.

All that shows is that Romney's reaction was faster and more accurate than 0bama's. If anything it was a reason to support Romney.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Right. Because Romney held a press conference criticizing the President before he even knew the consequences of the attack. He was grandstanding and got called on it. It's unprecedented for a candidate to launch an ill-informed political attack on a sitting president while an attack is ongoing.

All that shows is that Romney's reaction was faster and more accurate than 0bama's. If anything it was a reason to support Romney. _
____________________________


This is liberalism in all it's utter glory.

The man who was in fact correct, and stating the merely obvious is called out and said to be somehow a cad.

The man that was an absolute undignified liar, and continued to lie, is by default protected and made to seem reasonable.

How can anyone actually be this corrupt of any sense of integrity.

Obama had people lie to you. He did it over and over again although he knew the truth.

Obama lied more and more and he lied about his opponent who did nothing but state the situation accurately.

Then some person who probably does not consider themself corrupt beyond redemption, and only the lord knows why, given what they believe here, comes and states publicly that I think folks telling the truth should be vilified it they do it quickly and liars defended until the very last breath.

THis is an abomination. How can someone like this say this publicly and not be totally ashamed of them-self. It is apparently true, liberalism is a disease, for this reaction is simply not natural in any way.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"...on a sitting president..."

In this case, this fact doesn't mean diddley.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Cannot continue to govern? It sounds nice, but when exactly did Obama start to do that?
Print the post Back To Top