It’s a kangaroo court. This will end in the President’s impeachment, based on some half-cocked legalese “articles.” They know the Senate will toss it out. This is being done for one reason–last time a Democratic President was impeached, the Republicans won the next election. It’s a false hope based on the fallacy of false cause.
1 Like
But how will they be able to impeach Obama without a semen-stained dress?
(Unless Lindsey Graham will loan them one from his vast collection)
http://instantrimshot.com/index.php?sound=wilhelmscream&play=true
I’m sure Aunt Lindsey has a stunning number in his closet for the occasion.
But Marcus Bachmann has called dibs on the Santino Rice cocktail ensemble.
1 Like
Thing is, I do not see what new answers they are going to get. I guess they could keep asking why security was not high enough but the other situations have been dealt with. All they have that is new is the email from within the white house that is not really damning at all. The only thing is that Rice is to make it clear this is not a policy issue but a general issue around the arab world. The policy thing could be argued, how much to blame on it, but that amount of political stuff always happens. It does not even look political to me.
I am still confused why the video is viewed to have nothing to do with it, when it caused protests in multiple other countries.
All of those questions the Republicans say they are seeking answers to have been asked and answered multiple times already. But because the answers are not what Republicans want to hear, they insist on continuing to ask, I suppose with the idea that they can somehow change the answer that way. (No, I realize that all they really want to do is to keep churning the water until the 2016 election in hopes of muddying it sufficiently to get their guy elected.)
1 Like
When do we get the punch line " you are either with us on this or against us, If you are against us you are an unpatriotic american?" You know how those axis of evil speeches work out.
They must be saving it for the last gasp on this subject before moving on to there next imaginary loony tune. Or maybe just before the real reasons for the short fall of security funds around the world comes to light. They should also keep track of the taxpayer funds spent and when they lose, pay it back to us.
Well, there is one difference here: though the charges against him clearly fell short of impeachable offenses, they were at least not entirely invented. That’s not going to be the case if they try bringing impeachment charges – I don’t see how they are going to have anything at all to impeach him for unless they fabricate charges out of whole cloth.
I’m guessing that’s what they are going to use to keep the more moderate Republicans on the committee in line and voting with the GOP. Otherwise, if the Democrats do participate, the Dems could end up with a tie vote or even a majority.
They’re just being consistent. Just as “bipartisan” = “give us what we want and maybe the hostage won’t die, maybe even be released,” an “answer” = “what our talking points say.” Truth and reality live only in the bubble, if those outside would just accept that world view in each and every way, all will be as it should be.
Threatening to give them no support in November or, even, supporting an “independent” candidate. It worked in CT when they abandoned the GOP candidate and supported Holy Joe. They assume Dems will not fight it - hopefully there are some strong Dem opponents in those districts.
Any speculation on the Trey Gowdy hairdo?
I think you may be referring to @opt. He may be right about impeachment. The GOP may turn up the volume on the crazy to such a level that it would hurt them if they didn’t try to impeach Obama over Benghazi. It would be nice if they’d try it before the midterms because nothing would fire up the Democratic base more.
They have a low bar for re-election: only a majority of votes in a safely Republican Congressional district.
Republicans say this was part of an effort by President Barack Obama’s team to play down a major terrorist attack in the final weeks of his re-election campaign.
Let’s just say that actually is true…that would be bad I guess. So, why did the Repubs never hold any hearings when something SO much worse happened, more than once, when Americans died on Bush’s watch (other than 9-11). Maybe it’s because Benghazi is all just a bunch of election year, political point scoring bullshit.
-
House Democrats are foolish to boycott this committee. Without them, Republicans will control the entire Benghazi message and its presentation without challenge or dilution. Boycott renders Democrats vulnerable to charges of “What are they hiding?” “What are they afraid of?”; with their empty chairs on the committee dais giving plausibly supporting the charges. Heaven help Democrats if CSPAN televises the committee hearings and continually exposes the empty chairs to their viewing public. The images would appear on youtube, Faux and other outlets like Caesar’s bloody toga waved by Marc Antony!
-
When Republicans on the committee attack then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her personal culpability for Benghazi, it will be rightfully perceived by Democrats as an attempt to destroy her reputation as a putative 2016 Democratic Presidential candidate. Many Dems will vociferously denounce the Republican attacks and rally moral and financial support for Hillary’s revenge in 2016.
In doing so, many of those same Dems will become distracted from or indifferent to the REAL ELECTION taking place this November 2014; its the only election that makes a difference now! If Democrats lose more Senate and House seats six months from now, Democratic governance until 2016 becomes more difficult. After 2016, if Democrats lose the White House, which political experience since WW2 suggests will happen, then all bets are off for the near future, Hillary’s reputation notwithstanding!
Answer: Because You Assholes Voted To Cut Security Funding.
The answer is because THEY voted to cut funding for embassy security. Not joking. They’ve even been ASKED to explain themselves on this, and gave the most childish blow-off answer ever. See also UT Representative Chaffetz. Just google his interview about cutting embassy security. I’m sure you’ll be right pissed at how these little shits keep doing this.
Awesome!
1 Like
Seems they picked these 7 for one reason, and getting to some conclusion other than the one they have already drawn isn’t going to happen.
Their “some of the people all of the time” crowd might note even fall for this one.
“They insist the investigation isn’t political.”
Yawn… let me know when to start the drinking game on “impeachment!”…