• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Benghazi Committee A Prelude To Impeachment?

Obama Sad Presser

Slate’s David Weigel wonders if the upcoming House Select Committee on Benghazi will be the first step on the road to impeachment of President Obama:

On Saturday night, as Washington’s press corps was distracted by a surge of celebrity selfie opportunities, it was missing a kind of milestone. Jeanine Pirro, a former NewYork Republican star who tumbled out of politics and onto Fox News, was calling for the impeachment of President Obama over “a story no one wants to talk about.”

The story was the 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. Referring to that, on Fox, as “a story no one wants to talk about” sounded a bit like CNN asking where all the Flight 370 coverage had been. Not Pirro’s point—she was saying that the media failed to see where the Benghazi story was going to lead. Hint: Impeachment.

“We have impeached a president for lying about sex with an intern,” she said. “A president resigned in the face of certain impeachment for covering up a burglary. Why wouldn’t we impeach this president for not protecting and defending Americans in the bloodbath known as Benghazi?” Pirro then addressed the president directly—though at this point in the evening he was giving a sardonic dinner speech—with a warning that “your dereliction of duty as commander-in-chief demands your impeachment.”

Just one segment on a slow news night, but there was a sense of inevitability about it, of the Overton Window being shifted by hand. Ever since the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks, Republicans and conservatives have compared the Obama administration’s on-the-ground failure and intra-office spin job to Watergate.Politicos compare contemporary scandals to Watergate for one of two reasons: Laziness, or to gently raise the specter of impeachment.

The only thing that tamps down impeachment talk is the fear of a backlash, of looking crazy—of looking like former Rep. Dan Burton, basically. Ever since Republicans took back the House of Representatives, Speaker of the House John Boehner has fretted that one of their investigations would veer into the same fever swamp where Burton shot at pumpkins to re-enact theories about the death of Vince Foster. Boehner, elected in 1990, remembers how Republicans bet the entire 1998 election on the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and how their subsequent surprise defeat ended the speakership of Newt Gingrich.

“We’re probably one email away from Benghazi being an impeachable offense for much of our party,” fretted Republican lobbyist Ed Rogers in 2012, right after Obama’s re-election. “I think that’s nuts, but that’s where we are right now.”

That’s why Boehner’s endorsement of the select committee on Benghazi was sosignificant. “At one time,” former Rep. Pete Hoekstra told Newsmax, “Speaker Boehner said, if there’s any indication that that this leads to the White House, you know we’re going to go after this.” Boehner knew that Democrats would spend the next few months or years deriding a “witch hunt,” just as they mocked the Clinton impeachment.

And that’s also why the backup from Fox News matters, and why more conservatives will join the discussion. Next month the attorney and National Review columnist Andrew McCarthy will publish Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment“There is a rich legal case,” writes McCarthy, “but impeachment is not about what the law allows. Impeachment is a matter of political will.”

McCarthy’s book is brief and structured around seven potential articles of impeachment, which accuse the president of everything from “usurping the constitutional authority of prerogatives of Congress” (for example, making recess appointments when Boehner refused to recess the House) to “failure to execute the immigration laws faithfully” to, inevitably, “the Benghazi fraud.”

Impeachment talks has been something that has been around virtually since the moment that President Obama took office in 2009. It has, however, been largely relegated to the fringes of the right as Weigel notes, and something that most well-known conservative pundits and politicians have avoided talking about at all. You never hear people like Limbaugh or Hannity mention it, for example, and outside of the Saturday evening program noted above, it’s not a subject that receives much attention on Fox News Channel. The reasons for this, I think, are two-fold. First, most of these people know that talking about impeachment, even with all the hype that they have given to stories like Benghazi, the IRS, and Fast & Furious, just makes them sound nuts to the average American. Second, there are still many people on the right who remember the Clinton impeachment of 1998-99 and the damage that it ended up doing to the GOP on the eve of a Presidential election. The idea of making a similar effort again in 2014 or 2015, with the next Presidential election on the radar, would be a tremendous and probably fatal political risk that would accomplish nothing more than riling up a conservative base that already hates the President, and feels pretty much the same about likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. As far as the rest of electorate is concerned, though, even President Obama’s negative job approval numbers at the moment aren’t likely to be sufficient to prevent the political damage the GOP would do to itself if it pursued impeachment based on the facts we have in front of us.

Despite all of that, though, in many ways seems to be moving inexorably toward the circumstances that would make consideration of Articles of Impeachment in the Republican controlled House of Representatives a virtual inevitability. In addition to McCarthy’s upcoming book, there was also the 2013 incident that Weigel notes in the article in which Ted Cruz was asked by a constituent why the GOP wasn’t aggressively pursuing impeachment. Cruz’s response was, “Good question.” There have been reports of other Republican legislators receiving similar questions when they meet with constituents, and while most of them  do a better job of dodging the question than Cruz did they also don’t denounce the question for the silliness that it actually is. Combine that with the fact that the House GOP Caucus, which is where the movement for impeachment would begin, is very much under the control of the Tea Party notwithstanding the positions taken by the GOP Leadership team, and it isn’t all that hard to conceive of a 2015 in which Republicans try to make the same move against Barack Obama that they tried against Bill Clinton 16 years ago. The odds of this happening would seem to increase if the GOP does indeed take control of the Senate this year.

The outcome of any impeachment is easy to foresee, of course. Even if the GOP takes control of the Senate there would still be a sufficient number of Democrats in the Senate to deny the House the 2/3 vote it would need to convict. Additionally, there would likely be several Republican Senators who would be reluctant to go along with the impeachment of a President for what amount to policy disputes and conspiracy theories that haven’t been proven in even the remotest sense of the word. Of course, everyone knew in 1998 that the impeachment of Bill Clinton would fail as well and Republicans still went forward with it, so perhaps this is something we shouldn’t dismiss so readily.

Related Posts:

About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway. Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. anjin-san says:

    They can’t help themselves. A moth to a flame…

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 4

  2. C. Clavin says:

    Oh my…I certainly hope so.

    Why wouldn’t we impeach this president for not protecting and defending Americans in the bloodbath known as Benghazi?”

    I mean seriously…why wasn’t Obama out there himself…maybe with a bullhorn saying he’d chase them out of their caves…oh wait…

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1

  3. Mu says:

    I’m not following the current conspiracy literature, what impeachable crimes are they going to claim for the Benghazi affair?

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 3

  4. Moosebreath says:

    “Second, there are still many people on the right who remember the Clinton impeachment of 1998-99 and the damage that it ended up doing to the GOP on the eve of a Presidential election.”

    You mean the following Presidential election that the Republicans won, in significant part because the Democratic nominee did not campaign with Clinton due to the negative image of Clinton following his impeachment?

    And of course, Jon Chait predicted it

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

  5. Kylopod says:

    Here’s the question I have: if impeachment is just around the corner, why haven’t they done it already? Even if Republicans gain control of the Senate this year, that changes practically nothing, since conviction requires two-thirds of the chamber. Are Republicans who listen only to FOX gullible enough to believe that winning a Senate majority alone will enable them to remove Obama from office? Undoubtedly. But I think the House leadership (if it can be called that) knows better, and if they were willing to go down such a pointless and self-destructive path, they’d have done it by now.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2

  6. Kylopod says:

    You mean the following Presidential election that the Republicans won

    …sort of.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2

  7. Moosebreath says:

    @Kylopod:

    OK, it was a tie, which got broken by the Supreme Court. That doesn’t change my objection to Doug saying how heavily it damaged the Republican brand leading up to the 2000 Presidential election.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

  8. cd6 says:

    This is just another pipe dream.

    It saddens me greatly to know that impeachment won’t happen. Surely some measure of justice is due Obama, given his complete deliction of duty in Banghazi, his wanton destruction of the Constrituion via Obamacare, and his abdication of American authority because of those times that he bowed to the Saudi King. But even I admit he won’t be impeached

    Because only the president can be impeached

    And since Obama was born in Kenya and is not eligible to legally be president, there’s no one for the house to file articles against. There’s no president TO EVEN BE IMPEACHED.

    Hannity / Palin ’16

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 1

  9. Scott says:

    If there is anything that can drive Democratic leaning voters to the polls is a real impeachment threat to the President. I would think Democratic politicians would do well to do less mocking and more beating the drum of this existential threat.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0

  10. cd6 says:

    I DO want to add that I am looking forward to Andy McCarthy’s book.
    My question is, when they translate it from its original german, will the translations also be written in crayon?

    thanks in advance

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 4

  11. Kylopod says:

    @Moosebreath: I happen to agree that one of Gore’s biggest blunders–which by itself was probably fatal, given the closeness of the race–was distancing himself from Clinton. But all that proves is that he bought into the hype that Clinton was damaged by the impeachment. It doesn’t prove that the scandal itself drove away voters, only that Gore overcompensated due to his expectation that it would.

    I don’t think that situation is likely to be repeated, even if Republicans do impeach Obama. I never thought the Lewinsky scandal had much substance to it, but it’s practically Watergate compared with what they’ve thrown at Obama so far. Obama doesn’t have a womanizing problem or really anything else that would plausibly lead the upcoming Democratic presidential candidate to distance herself from Obama, aside from low approval ratings.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0

  12. anjin-san says:

    what impeachable crimes are they going to claim for the Benghazi affair?

    Where have you been? Obama is the biggest criminal since Al Capone…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

  13. C. Clavin says:

    it would be appropriate for the most do-nothing Congress in history to impeach Obama which will accomplish…wait for it…nothing.
    50 votes to repeal Obamacare…and one to repeal Obama…none of them successful.
    It’s a perfect record for the 113th.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 3

  14. Tillman says:

    I want to say there are enough Republicans in the House that think it’s a horrible idea. I want to say that. I don’t believe I can.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0

  15. Surreal American says:

    So basically the impeachment process becomes nothing more than another way for the GOP to throw a temper tantrum.

    Remind me again who doesn’t respect the U.S. Constitution.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 4

  16. MikeSJ says:

    The republicans could, instead of doing a circle &*(&^! over Benghazi and talk of impeachment, actually work on implementing real solutions to real problems.

    I guess impeachment it is.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2

  17. Mu says:

    @anjin-san: Well, they finally got Al Capone for tax evasion. I’m still trying to find “dereliction of duty as President” as an offense on the books.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  18. PJ says:

    @Mu:

    I’m not following the current conspiracy literature, what impeachable crimes are they going to claim for the Benghazi affair?

    It’s either PWD (President While Democrat) and/or PWB (President While Black) depending on if you believe them to be racists or not.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 3

  19. al-Ameda says:

    We’ve been there before, remember? Republicans investigated Bill Clinton for about 6 years and impeached him for nothing related to governance.

    So really, why not Obama? Never mind that there is not a single reason to impeach Obama – the fact is they do not need a reason, all they need are the votes in The House, and they have them right now. Conviction? That’s highly unlikely unless the GOP really sweeps into the Senate. I’m guessing they might wait until after the 2014 mid-terms are squared away, after all why influence the Democratic Party voters to show up by threatening to impeach Obama over nothing?

    Basically, this is what the modern Republican Party is all about. They are the political equivalent of the Stringfellow Acid Pits.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0

  20. Tony W says:

    Impeachment has become the circular-firing squad political tool advocated by the right precisely because of its serious nature. At some point we’ll have a de-facto no-confidence vote, but rather than call new elections like a civilized country does, we’ll just install the Veep.

    There are positive side effects for our Republican friends as well. By impeaching Mr. Clinton, they help Mr. Nixon’s legacy – after all, it’s just politics – right?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  21. CB says:

    Even if everything was as the House Republicans say it is, and the administration did spin (suppress?) this into a scandal, the scandal rates, what, like a 4 on the scandalometer, right?

    I still can’t believe the balls on these guys. I used to think that they learned all the wrong lessons, but now it’s clear that they’ve learned nothing. This is completely bananas.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0

  22. grumpy realist says:

    @al-Ameda: It’s like that old saw about a D.A. being able to indite a ham sandwich.

    If you get enough silly ijdits in the Congress, you can impeach the POTUS because you don’t like the pattern of his socks.

    Wasn’t it Caligula who made one of his horses into a Roman Senator? Given the malarkey we’ve seen thrown up already in the primaries, I guess we’re well on the way….

    The Chinese must be grinning ear to ear. We’ll be the first superpower to implode from our own stupidity.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0

  23. stonetools says:

    Please proceed, Congressmen….
    Those guys are going to be freaking surprised when they realize that nobody takes impeachment seriously outside the Fox News bubble.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1

  24. OzarkHillbilly says:

    2 numbers, the first a date: 10-23-1983. The 2nd, 241. Now tell me again that this is not about race. Go ahead. Be an idiot.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3

  25. Jeremy R says:

    @Doug:

    You never hear people like Limbaugh or Hannity mention it, for example

    Both have actually raised it. Limbaugh likes to make it into a white victim-hood argument, suggesting that Obama deserves to be impeached but never will be because of his race. Hannity says that the GOP should threaten to impeach Obama as revenge for the treatment of Christie.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  26. Pinky says:

    @Surreal American:

    “So basically the impeachment process becomes nothing more than another way for the GOP to throw a temper tantrum.

    Remind me again who doesn’t respect the U.S. Constitution. “

    A surreal comment. You’re accusing the Republicans for disrespecting the Constitution over something they haven’t done and show no interest in.

    Poorly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 29

  27. Anonomouse says:

    @grumpy realist: “It’s like that old saw about a D.A. being able to indite a ham sandwich.”

    Dude. Ham is haram.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  28. Tillman says:

    @stonetools: Other way around. Everyone else takes impeachment seriously.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  29. Peterh says:

    @Tillman:

    interesting thought….let’s look into the houses of the last three stooges…..

    the Gin house with Dan “watermelon” Burton was, at the time, off the chart crazy….

    the Smoke house, again with Dan watermelon Burton, went crazy only in a way that Reagan’s cronies would envy….they had Carte blanche on the purse strings and rules…..

    Now the Orange house with Issa and gang are, for the most part, just a rendition of the Keystone Kops…..with a very, very dark side……

    It’s that dark side that pushes them beyond the Gin house….you’re correct to have your doubts….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  30. Franklin says:

    @OzarkHillbilly: Wow, that gives some serious perspective to this nonsense.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  31. Grewgills says:

    @grumpy realist:

    The Chinese must be grinning ear to ear. We’ll be the first superpower to implode from our own stupidity.

    Nah, the Soviets beat us to it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  32. MBunge says:

    @Kylopod: But all that proves is that he bought into the hype that Clinton was damaged by the impeachment.

    1. Is there any actual evidence that sticking closer to Clinton would have helped Gore. It’s become an article of faith but if Clinton couldn’t get 50% running on his own, why would he have done better when he wasn’t?

    2. The difference is that Clinton got caught in a completely traditional scandal and dared the GOP to do anything about it. Benghazi is, at worst, a policy failure and not a scandal. And I doubt Obama is going to wag his finger and deny every having sexual relations with “that embassy”.

    Mike

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  33. jukeboxgrad says:

    Next month the attorney and National Review columnist Andrew McCarthy will publish Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

    This would be a good moment to point out that McCarthy is a major liar. In his recent columns he is repeating a bunch of the same lies I proved to be lies a long time ago. Notice the article by Andrew McCarthy in National Review with this headline:

    ‘Blame It On the Video’ Was a Fraud for the Cairo Rioting, Too

    The “Fraud” is McCarthy, because his own sources prove that his claim is false. Link, link.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

  34. jukeboxgrad says:

    of course, Jon Chait predicted it [impeachment]

    And he was way ahead of me. He said it on 10/6/10, and I didn’t say it until 10/10/12.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  35. Grewgills says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    Now tell me again that this is not about race. Go ahead. Be an idiot.

    Race is not the primary driving factor. They would do the same if it was either Clinton and if it was Hillary, it wouldn’t be about sexism. This is pure petty partisan politics. They investigated and smeared Clinton for 6 years. He was accused of tying kids to train tracks al la Snidely Whiplash. At least they haven’t accused Obama of multiple murders yet. He’s black, we get it, that doesn’t mean every damn thing is about race. Yes, that he is black greases the skids on the conspiracy nonsense for racists and yes it is shameful how much criticism of Obama is dog whistle racism, but not every damn thing is about race. This is about him being a Democrat. Being non-white, non-male, non-straight, or non-Christian will bring some bigots on board sure, but the bullshit would be there regardless. I will bet you any stakes you choose that regardless of the candidate, if the next president is a Democrat and we keep this bunch in the Congress we will see the same sh!t again.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1

  36. Grewgills says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:
    The article you linked is spot on though.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  37. Kylopod says:

    @MBunge:

    Is there any actual evidence that sticking closer to Clinton would have helped Gore.

    The idea that sticking to a president with an above-60% approval rating during a time of peace and prosperity would not have helped Gore runs contrary to mountains of research in political science, not to mention plain old common sense.

    but if Clinton couldn’t get 50% running on his own, why would he have done better when he wasn’t?

    Well, for one thing, Perot wasn’t running. For another, Clinton was more popular by 2000 than he had been in ’92 or ’96, and the economy was booming.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  38. Jay says:

    Bring it, Republicans.

    Those of you supporting it will look like the ineffectual morons that you are for doing so and those of you who don’t support it will look like the ineffectual morons that you are for associating with thos that do.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  39. Ron Beasley says:

    Will the House try to impeach him 50 times when it goes nowhere in the Senate. It will be a break from overturning Obamacare at least. And no, even if the Republicans retake the Senate they won’t have the votes to impeach.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  40. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Grewgills: You may well be right, but from where I sit here in Washington County Missouri? It is all about race. I suppose that colors my point of view too.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

  41. C. Clavin says:

    @Pinky:
    Shown no interest???
    Well only these key Republicans:
    Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)
    Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
    Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX)
    Rep. Trey Radel (R-FL)
    Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
    Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
    Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC)
    Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1

  42. @OzarkHillbilly:
    Don’t forget about the eight constitutionally defined acts of treason* that Reagan committed by selling weapons to the murderers of the 241 American servicemen.

    * “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” (Constitution of the United States, Article I, § 3, cl. 1)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

  43. PJ says:

    Impeachment, the cornerstone of the 2015-16 GOP minority outreach program.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  44. Tony W says:

    @Timothy Watson: Wait – but don’t both sides do it?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  45. Rob in CT says:

    A Democrat is POTUS. Everything is a prelude to impeachment.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  46. MBunge says:

    @Kylopod: The idea that sticking to a president with an above-60% approval rating during a time of peace and prosperity would not have helped Gore runs contrary to mountains of research in political science, not to mention plain old common sense.

    Let me bring pro wrestling into this discussion. Popularity with the wrestling fans is called “being over” but there are different levels of popularity. There’s the guy fans will cheer or boo and then there’s the guy they will pay money to see and/or buy his merchandise. That’s called “being a draw”. You can be fairly “over” in wrestling but still not be a “draw”. That Clinton was “over” when people knew they were never going to have to vote for him again does not mean he was going to be a “draw” at the polls for Gore.

    I mean, I think it’s pretty clear that at least part of the reason for Clinton’s popularity at the end of his term is precisely because neither Gore nor the GOP were really talking about him in the campaign.

    Mike

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  47. Pinky says:

    @C. Clavin: I’m looking around online about this. I see that Senator Inhofe said that Benghazi could lead to impeachment. He’s not endorsing it any more than Weigel is (although I’m sure he’d be happier about it). The only reference I could find to it was Inhofe on the tremendously influential Rusty Humphries Show.

    Tim Scott said that the President could be impeached if he raised the debt limit unilaterally.

    Steve Stockman is a, well, unique fella.

    Trey Radel isn’t even in Congress anymore.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9

  48. C. Clavin says:

    @Pinky:
    The point is that Republicans have been chirping about Impeachment, for whatever reason, since January 20, 2009. That’s just the quickest list I could make. The actual list is far longer.
    For you to say that they’ve shown no interest in it is intellectually dishonest.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

  49. al-Ameda says:

    @Pinky:

    I’m looking around online about this. I see that Senator Inhofe said that Benghazi could lead to impeachment. He’s not endorsing it any more than Weigel is (although I’m sure he’d be happier about it). The only reference I could find to it was Inhofe on the tremendously influential Rusty Humphries Show.

    EVEN JAMES INHOFE is not so brain-dead that he would openly say something like: “Obama should be impeached for whatever articles of impeachment we can come up with.”

    That’s why he said it could lead to impeachment. Which, as translated from the original Dog-Whistle to English is: “Of course I’d vote to impeach Obama, no matter what the facts are, if it ever comes to a vote.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

  50. Moosebreath says:

    And of course, it’s an opportunity to fund-raise:

    “In the email, the NRCC linked to a contribution page that alerted those who clicked through that they were “now a Benghazi Watchdog” and asked them for donations ranging between $25 and $500″

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  51. Tillman says:

    @Pinky:

    I’m looking around online about this. I see that Senator Inhofe said that Benghazi could lead to impeachment. He’s not endorsing it any more than Weigel is (although I’m sure he’d be happier about it).

    Can it be argued that voicing the idea of impeachment in a context when it isn’t normally appropriate is an implicit endorsement? Giving voice to a crazy idea when there is no need to cannot be considered fully innocent, if that’s what you’re saying.

    Trey Radel isn’t even in Congress anymore.

    But his ghost lingers!

    Yeah, I don’t know who Trey Radel is.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  52. James Pearce says:

    Despite all of that, though, in many ways seems to be moving inexorably toward the circumstances that would make consideration of Articles of Impeachment in the Republican controlled House of Representatives a virtual inevitability.

    If the Republicans keep talking like this, there will be a lot of reasonable people who won’t vote for them come November.

    I’m pretty sure Sun Tzu covered this a couple millenia ago.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  53. C. Clavin says:

    @Tillman:
    Yeah…me neither…I just copied the list.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  54. PJ says:

    I think what’s happening here is clear.

    The GOP understands two things, Hillary Clinton will most likely become the Democratic nominee in 2016 and that the GOP nominee will not be able to win against her.

    But, impeaching Obama and have him removed would make Biden President and give him, as the incumbent, a healthy chance to win against Clinton in the primary, and then in the general election he would be so much easier to beat than Clinton.

    The GOP road to the White House 2016!

    If only the GOP had clearly understood that a simple majority isn’t enough to actually have Obama removed from office…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  55. rudderpedals says:

    Tray Radel was the unfortunate fellow who went to drink rehab even though he was facing a drug charge.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  56. C. Clavin says:

    So this “Select” Committee is going to be 7 Republicans and 5 Democrats. Seems about right.
    If I were Pelosi I would say no, thanks. Have a nice day. Make sure everyone knows exactly what this is…rather than lending it legitimacy by participating.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  57. Pinky says:

    @C. Clavin:

    Yeah, I don’t know who Trey Radel is.

    Yeah…me neither…I just copied the list.

    Obviously. If you’d done more than 5 minutes research on it you’d realize that the list is garbage. It wasn’t even close to being what we were talking about.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  58. Grewgills says:

    @PJ:
    They know they can’t convict on an impeachment. They are hoping to make Obama toxic and damage Hillary enough that she won’t run or will lose if she does. Talk of impeachment is about desperation, because they don’t have another answer for 2016.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  59. C. Clavin says:

    @Pinky:
    We were talking aboutbRepublucans in favor of impeachment.
    They’re all Republicans.
    They’re all in favor of impeachment.
    If you were making an intellectually honest argument I would have spent more than 30 seconds on you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  60. Gavrilo says:

    So this is the new Dem strategy to drum up support for the mid-terms, scare the base into thinking the eeevil, raaaacist Republicans are going to impeach Obama? Good luck with that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10

  61. danimal says:

    The real question is: Can the institutional GOP STOP an impeachment? Boehner, Cantor, McConnell and company know very well how foolish impeachment is, especially over the nothingburger of Benghazi. But the Tea Party thirst for blood won’t be sated easily, especially if the GOP makes the predicted gains in the 2014 election.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  62. al-Ameda says:

    @Gavrilo:

    So this is the new Dem strategy to drum up support for the mid-terms, scare the base into thinking the eeevil, raaaacist Republicans are going to impeach Obama? Good luck with that.

    Apart from the drama queen adjectives – “eeevil, raaaacist” – how is that a faulty strategy?

    You’re talking about getting Democratic Party voters out, and reminding them that Republicans are generally malevolent and somewhat sociopathic (if not ‘raaaacist’) is probably going to resonate with those voters.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

  63. Kylopod says:

    @MBunge:

    I think it’s pretty clear that at least part of the reason for Clinton’s popularity at the end of his term is precisely because neither Gore nor the GOP were really talking about him in the campaign.

    That doesn’t reflect what the polls say. His approval rating first moved into the 60s in 1998 at the height of the impeachment fiasco, and by the end of the year it had reached 73%, shortly after Democrats achieved the historically unprecedented feat of gaining Congressional seats during a president’s sixth year. Then it settled comfortably back into the 60s where it stayed for the rest of his term.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx

    There simply is NO evidence that Clinton was damaged in any way by the impeachment, and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In several respects Bush’s 2000 campaign showed an implicit recognition that Republicans had gone too far in their attacks on Clinton. Yes, he did make noises about “restoring honor and dignity” to the White House (a fairly risk-free message aimed primarily at the base), but he also fashioned himself a “compassionate conservative” and seemed to be attempting something of a Republican version of Clinton’s triangulation scheme (albeit more rhetorical than substantive).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  64. danimal says:

    @C. Clavin: Pelosi should make sure there are clowns in the contrived media circus. Find the loudest, craziest bomb throwers in the GOP caucus and invite them to participate in the Select Committee. Make sure the crazies get a voice and a microphone. I can’t think of a better way to delegitimize the process. Do you think Boehner can get Steve King or Michele Bachman or that nutcase from Michigan to shut up? Me neither.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  65. Moosebreath says:

    @danimal:

    “Pelosi should make sure there are clowns in the contrived media circus. Find the loudest, craziest bomb throwers in the GOP caucus and invite them to participate in the Select Committee. Make sure the crazies get a voice and a microphone.”

    Somehow, I don’t think Pelosi gets a vote on who the Republican members of the Committee will be.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  66. danimal says:

    Moosebreath–I’m proposing that the committee contain 7 mainstream Republicans selected by Boehner and 5 nutcases selected by Pelosi to make sure the process becomes a circus. It’s a somewhat passive-aggressive alternative to boycotting the process.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  67. C. Clavin says:

    @Gavrilo:
    I guess you missed the part where we all hope it happens.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  68. mantis says:

    @Gavrilo:

    So this is the new Dem strategy to drum up support for the mid-terms, scare the base into thinking the eeevil, raaaacist Republicans are going to impeach Obama?

    Why not? Death Panels worked on you morons. At least the impeachment threat is grounded in reality.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1

  69. Pinky says:

    @Gavrilo: Good call. We’ve seen an article from Michael Tomasky in the Daily Beast, and now this from David Weigel in Slate. This isn’t news analysis. It’s speculation to rally the troops. I notice the three replies to you so far all tacitly admit that you’re right. I only wonder if waterboys Tomasky and Weigel would admit it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

  70. C. Clavin says:

    @Pinky:
    Meantime the House places an IRS official in contempt for exercising a Constitutional right.
    But impeachment? Never.
    I wonder, if they do it, if you will run away like a wounded puppy as Jenos did…or actually have the balls to admit you were wrong?
    Only time will tell.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  71. MBunge says:

    @Kylopod: There simply is NO evidence that Clinton was damaged in any way by the impeachment, and overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    I don’t believe I argued Clinton was damaged by impeachment. My argument is that Clinton’s poll popularity does not mean that Gore would have been better off relying on Clinton more in his campaign.

    And of course, the political considerations don’t deal with the possibility that Gore was profoundly disgusted by Clinton’s behavior and couldn’t bring himself to try and ride Bill’s coattails to the White House.

    Mike

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  72. Pinky says:

    @C. Clavin: As I’ve said, I don’t see any evidence that they have the political will to do so, nor any evidence that would indicate that they should. That could change, or I could be completely wrong. Both things happen.

    I remember in 2001, laughing at the people who had been saying that Clinton would refuse to leave office. In 2009, I laughed at the people who said the same thing about Bush. I expect to be laughing in 2017 about a lot of predictions that didn’t come true. But unfortunately, in the internet age, where searchability should lead to higher standards, sensationalism has led to lower ones. No one cares that your last prediction was wrong, as long as your next prediction is big.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  73. Kylopod says:

    @MBunge:

    I don’t believe I argued Clinton was damaged by impeachment.

    No, what you argued was that “at least part of the reason for Clinton’s popularity at the end of his term is precisely because neither Gore nor the GOP were really talking about him in the campaign.” As I showed you, the polling data doesn’t support that assumption. Clinton’s approval rating first entered the 60s territory in ’98 when the whole impeachment was going on, and mostly stayed at that level for the rest of his term. His relative absence from the campaign trail in 2000 can’t explain the high numbers, since those were simply a continuation of ratings he’d been enjoying since the height of the Lewinsky scandal, when he wasn’t exactly absent from the headlines.

    I think part of the reason for his high numbers was public disgust at the Republicans for having gone after Clinton’s sex life (indicated by their historically unprecedented seat loss in ’98). Ultimately, though, the most fundamental explanation is the simplest: most Americans gave him high approval ratings because they approved of the job he was doing as president.

    And of course, the political considerations don’t deal with the possibility that Gore was profoundly disgusted by Clinton’s behavior and couldn’t bring himself to try and ride Bill’s coattails to the White House.

    Agreed, but there still was some political calculus involved, shown in his choice of Lieberman, whose biggest claim to fame at the time was publicly castigating Clinton for his behavior during Lewinsky-gate. Gore also pushed an economically populist message, and he had Clinton deliver a convention speech in which he sprung the old “Are you better off than you were eight years ago?” He seemed to be trying to have it both ways, basking in the glow of the Clinton economy while distancing himself from Clinton’s personal behavior. That’s a matter of careful image-making (which I think he nonetheless botched), regardless of his private feelings.

    Also, I’m curious: if you agree that the impeachment didn’t hurt Clinton, then what do you think was the downside to Gore’s campaigning with him? And since Gore did apparently underperform relative to the state of the economy (most poli-sci projections had him winning the popular vote by anywhere from 2-10 points, rather than the 0.5 he actually got), what do you think he did wrong in the campaign?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  74. anjin-san says:

    @ Pinky

    As I’ve said, I don’t see any evidence that they have the political will to do so, nor any evidence that would indicate that they should.

    Actually, you started here.

    show no interest in.

    When you start out a thread by being blatantly dishonest, its hard to take anything you say after that seriously.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  75. Pinky says:

    @anjin-san: Yeah. They don’t have the political will; they’re not motivated; they’re not interested. I’m not trying to make a subtle point here. I’m saying that the vast majority of Republican congressmen have shown no interest in impeaching the President over Benghazi.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  76. anjin-san says:

    @Pinky:

    Actually, you said Republicans have shown no interest in impeachment. Go back and read your first comment.

    Republicans have been talking impeachment pretty much since the moment Obama took office.

    If you want to walk back your original comment, just be honest about it, don’t wast our time with “that’s not what I said.” It is what you said.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

  77. Pinky says:

    @anjin-san: The article is about Benghazi and impeachment. That’s what I’ve been talking about, mostly. I’m not walking anything back. You’ll notice, for example, that I pointed out that Tim Scott wasn’t talking about Benghazi. Implication: Benghazi is the subject matter. But if you want me to walk it forward, I’ll say that there’s never been a significant Republican call to impeach President Obama for anything. Certainly nothing that’s even gone as far as Kucinich went against GWB.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6

  78. C. Clavin says:

    @Pinky:
    Indulging in a little goal post moving, eh?

    show no interest in

    the vast majority of Republican congressmen have shown no interest

    You are right:

    No one cares that your last prediction was wrong

    especially when you can’t figure out what your prediction is.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

  79. C. Clavin says:

    @Pinky:
    Bush and Cheney are war criminals…they have admitted to instituting the practice of torture.
    So any calls to impeach them were warranted and justified.
    Republicans of all stripes and ranks have discussed impeaching Obama for any host of reasons. Even if their claims on Benghazi are absolutely correct it doesn’t rise to an impeachable offense…and neither do any of their other rationales.
    Apples and orangutans.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

  80. Tillman says:

    @Pinky:

    I’ll say that there’s never been a significant Republican call to impeach President Obama for anything. Certainly nothing that’s even gone as far as Kucinich went against GWB.

    In this, you are right. No one, to my knowledge, has introduced articles of impeachment against President Obama. They’ve simply talked about it in a general sense.

    I thought that’s what the original contention was. *scrolls up* “Prelude to impeachment” in the headline makes that somewhat clear?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  81. anjin-san says:

    In the hands of modern conservatives, impeachment is not what the founders intended it to be – a drastic measure of last resort – it is simply another tool to be used to support their primary mission, good government damaging Obama by any means.

    The impeachment chatter serves several purposes. It keeps the base fired up, and it is useful in fundraising the fleecing of the rubes. It adds new dimensions to the story of the fantasy Obama that the right had created (hey, fantasy Obama probably does deserve impeachment, look at all the fantasy crimes and scandals)

    It is also part and parcel of the ongoing GOP strategy of “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” – if it does not stick the first time, just continue tossing. After all, the taxpayers are picking up the tab.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  82. Pinky says:

    @Tillman: The original contention wasn’t “Prelude To Impeachment”, the second half of the headline. It was “Benghazi Committee A Prelude To Impeachment?” What Tim Scott said about the budget isn’t part of it, nor is most of the stuff brought up on this thread, except insofar as these things indicate the state of mind of the majority of the House with regard to Benghazi and impeachment. I think the fact that very few officials have said anything in support of an impeachment over Benghazi or anything else is relevant, though.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5

  83. Pinky says:

    I’ve talked about this before: there should be some kind of new verb tense, the future fictitious or something, for comments like Anjin-san’s or Surreal’s. You know, the “I’m angry at Republicans because of the thing I imagined they might do” thing. Oooh, those darn figments in my head make me so upset! How dare people have as little character as I think they might! Doing things just like this stuff they haven’t done is just so like them!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6

  84. al-Ameda says:

    @Pinky:

    But if you want me to walk it forward, I’ll say that there’s never been a significant Republican call to impeach President Obama for anything. Certainly nothing that’s even gone as far as Kucinich went against GWB.

    Please. We all know that Kucinich was virtually alone in that, and that Democratic Party leadership was dismissive of Kucinich in his desire to impeach Bush. The same, however, cannot be said of the current Republican crew – leadership has not denounced any of the talk from those who advocate impeachment, and there is more than one GOP legislator who is interested in impeachment.

    Also …

    National Review columnist Andrew McCarthy will publish Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment. “There is a rich legal case,” McCarthy writes, “but impeachment is not about what the law allows. Impeachment is a matter of political will.”

    Do they – the GOP – have the will?

    Right now, they’re not going to say much, because they don’t want to rile up base Democratic voters before the 2014 mid-terms. After the elections, they might go ahead and do it, even w/o a supermajority. They impeached Clinton and the Senate did not convict, so perhaps they’re game for that result again. HOWEVER I’ll bet you if they (the GOP) take the Senate and have a super majority they will have the will.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  85. mantis says:

    @Pinky:

    I think the fact that very few officials have said anything in support of an impeachment over Benghazi or anything else is relevant, though.

    So you go from “Republicans have no interest” to “very few officials” have publicly stated, and that’s not walking back? Millions of Republicans are interested in seeing the president impeached, and a good number of Republican officials have also expressed interest, for various reasons. Your original assertion is bullshit, your continued resistance to admitting that rather pathetic.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  86. Tillman says:

    @mantis: …I admire your “take no BS” style, but there is a time in a fight when your opponent is down and you stop kicking him.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  87. anjin-san says:

    Every time I hear Republicans speak these days, there’s a song that creeps into my head…

    When logic and proportion
    Have fallen sloppy dead
    And the White Knight is talking backwards
    And the Red Queen’s off with her head
    Remember what the dormouse said
    Feed your head
    Feed your head

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  88. Pinky says:

    @Tillman: Please. Let these people keep making points like this. I’m fine with what the objective reader would take away from this thread.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

  89. slimslowslider says:

    As long as there are no objectively despicable commenters we should be OK.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  90. Gavrilo says:

    Remember when Dennis Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment for George W. Bush?

    Remember when Robert Wexler co-sponsored the resolution?

    Remember when John Conyers introduced a resolution to create a special committee to consider impeachment of George W. Bush?

    Remember when his resolution got 38 co-sponsors?

    Remember when Keith Ellison campaigned on a platform of impeaching George W. Bush?

    Remember when Joe Biden promised to introduce articles of impeachment if Bush bombed Iran without congressional approval? (Apparently, back then bombing a country without congressional approval, *cough Libya, was an impeachable offense.)

    Remember when Nancy Pelosi said she would “probably advocate” impeaching Bush if she were not House Speaker?

    Remember when former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman wrote a book titled, “The Impeachment of George W. Bush?”

    Those were good times, not like the vicious partisanship and polarization we have now.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11

  91. C. Clavin says:

    @Gavrilo:
    Remember when George Bush and Dick Cheney admitted that they had instituted a program of waterboarding which is in fact torture and violates the Geneva Convention which is a treaty ratified by Congress…and thus they did in fact commit an act punishable by impeachment?
    Apples and orangutans, bub…apples and orangutans.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2

  92. dmhlt says:

    @Pinky:

    Here you go – including Hyperlinks to their quotes:
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-republican-lawmakers-who-want-to-impeach-obama

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  93. Tillman says:

    @Pinky: a) Objective reader? On a political blog? Heh. Yeah.
    b) Forgive me if I prefer people espousing opinions close to my own to do it in a way that’s not embarrassing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  94. al-Ameda says:

    @Gavrilo:

    Those were good times, not like the vicious partisanship and polarization we have now.

    As long as we’re remembering the good old days:

    (1) Remember when Republicans shutdown government over their opposition to a law (ACA) in hopes of getting the President to agree to rescinding or repealing the law?

    (2) Remember when Republicans ran concurrent permanent multiple investigations of President Obama?

    (3) Remember when Republicans ran 6 years of sham investigations (Whitewater, Rose Law Office billings, White House Travel Office, etc.) of Bill Clinton and impeached him for nothing related to governance?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1

  95. Pinky says:

    @Tillman:

    Forgive me if I prefer people espousing opinions close to my own to do it in a way that’s not embarrassing.

    Then this thread must kill you. If TPM says that some half-term cokehead congressman from Florida is important, these guys will just keep cutting and pasting it til the cows come home. You got Clavin, I’ve got Floreck, and everyone has to live with the knowledge that some people who vote the same as us are awful.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4

  96. MBunge says:

    @Kylopod: Also, I’m curious: if you agree that the impeachment didn’t hurt Clinton, then what do you think was the downside to Gore’s campaigning with him?

    Impeachment didn’t hurt Clinton. His behavior did. The choice in 2000 was not impeach or not. If Clinton had been a big part of the campaign, it would have been about whether you approve of the last 8 years or not.

    Or let me try and put it another way. Why would Bill have been better for Gore in a general election than he was for Hillary in a Democratic primary?

    A certain segment of liberalism and the Democratic Party have come to view Bill Clinton as the god of all politics. The reality of Clinton’s political success, forget about his policy achievements, is quite different.

    Mike

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  97. Kylopod says:

    @MBunge:

    Impeachment didn’t hurt Clinton. His behavior did.

    How? By his approval rating which shot up to over 60% right at the time his behavior was on most flagrant display? By the Dems’ historically unprecedented seat gains the same year? I know I’m repeating myself, but that’s because you’ve consistently ignored the evidence I’ve presented.

    Why would Bill have been better for Gore in a general election than he was for Hillary in a Democratic primary?

    For one thing, Gore’s opponent wasn’t black. That’s what got Bill in trouble in 2008: he stepped into racial hot-water (mostly unfairly) with some of his comments. But when you look at his overall career, he has generally been an outstanding campaigner.

    A certain segment of liberalism and the Democratic Party have come to view Bill Clinton as the god of all politics.

    The belief is based on his record of triumphing over his opponents in seemingly intractable situations, from “the Comeback Kid” to the government shutdown to the impeachment. He’s also a phenomenal public speaker–one of the best of his generation. He also has many weaknesses, and I think that if he had dropped dead on January 1, 1995, he’d be remembered today as a failed president. But when you examine the eight years as a whole, it’s clear that he was a brilliant politician.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  98. C. Clavin says:

    @Pinky:
    You’re comparing me to that racist Florack?
    You made a claim and then proceeded to move the goal posts.
    If you aren’t big enough to admit it…and clearly you are not…then fine…but don’t try to assuage your insecurities about your own shortcomings by insulting others.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

  99. junkbox says:

    Morell told the House Intelligence Committee that in the agency’s analysis, “There was no mention of the video defaming the Prophet Muhammad as a motivation for the attacks in Benghazi. In fact, there was no mention of the video at all.” Rice’s viewers nonetheless heard of little else.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/the-benghazi-deniers-106498.html#ixzz31EJggzuZ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  100. jukeboxgrad says:

    There was no mention of the video

    You have to take that up with him. “The protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” (words from the original CIA memo) is an obvious reference to the video, because those protests were undoubtedly about the video. Do you claim otherwise?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  101. junkbox says:

    Morell told the House Intelligence Committee that in the agency’s analysis, “There was no mention of the video defaming the Prophet Muhammad as a motivation for the attacks in Benghazi. In fact, there was no mention of the video at all.” Rice’s viewers nonetheless heard of little else

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/the-benghazi-deniers-106498.html#ixzz31ESBgZKZ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  102. junkbox says:

    the protest was a planed attack on the embassy too ….on 9/11 go figure

    The planned demonstration outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was announced on August 30, 2012 by the Salafist Gamaa Islamiyya (IG), a State Department-designated terrorist group. It was designed to protest the ongoing imprisonment of its spiritual leader, Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman, who is serving a life sentence for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

    you are a slime ball.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8

  103. jukeboxgrad says:

    There was no mention of the video

    You have to take that up with him. “The protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” (words from the original CIA memo) is an obvious reference to the video, because those protests were undoubtedly about the video.

    It was designed to protest the ongoing imprisonment of its spiritual leader

    You didn’t write that. Plagiarism is wrong. Link. You and the source you plagiarized are both channeling Andrew McCarthy, even though I have already shown that he lied. Link.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  104. jukeboxgrad says:

    on 9/11 go figure

    The timing is not mysterious when you realize that the video was seen by millions on Egypt TV on 9/8/12, and less than 48 hours later there were massive riots in Cairo and elsewhere. At the time, the video had caused riots in about 30 countries, causing about 30 deaths. The Cairo events were part of this wave of outrage.

    The folks who put the video on Egypt TV on 9/8 were probably thinking that this would be the right timing to get maximum attention and public response, since 9/11 was coming up. Another reason to understand that the 9/11 timing is no mystery.

    By the way, do you think it’s a coincidence that the Benghazi attack took place at the same moment that the video was triggering riots in 30 countries? Did you forget that there have been a bunch of other 9/11 anniversaries, and no such attack took place until a video triggered riots in 30 countries?

    This ‘coincidence’ thing cuts both ways.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

  105. JunkBox says:

    In his now infamous September 14, 2012 email, Benjamin Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting, had it exactly backwards. The September 11, 2012 attacks on the Cairo embassy and the Benghazi consulate were rooted in a broad failure of policy, not an internet video, which was later politically transformed by the Obama Administration from a pretext to the cause of the attacks.

    The planned demonstration outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was announced on August 30, 2012 by the Salafist Gamaa Islamiyya (IG), a State Department-designated terrorist group. It was designed to protest the ongoing imprisonment of its spiritual leader, Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman, who is serving a life sentence for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

    Even though Washington DC may not have contributed to the Cairo statement, the Obama Administration seemed to be mesmerized by the nearly unanimous agreement in the press that the video spawned the Cairo protest. That may have encouraged the administration to apply the same narrative as an explanation for the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi as a political solution for a vexing foreign policy dilemma.

    It is now clear, however, that the video had nothing to do with the attack on the Benghazi consulate.

    Blaming the video conveniently disguised the reality of Obama’s foreign policy:

    Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/how-the-cairo-video-became-the-benghazi-video#ixzz31HKKHwbm
    Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

    Its no coincidence that the current unremarkable administration has a remarkable problem with lying. As do the apologists that carry their fever water.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  106. jukeboxgrad says:

    It is now clear, however, that the video had nothing to do with the attack on the Benghazi consulate.

    John Rosenthal said this:

    … there is in fact hard evidence that the local Islamist scene in Benghazi was in uproar about the “anti-Islam video” in the run-up to the attack, and that this outrage figured prominently among the motivations of the assailants. This evidence is drawn precisely from social media. The bulk of the evidence comes from the Ansar Minbar in Libya Facebook page and the associated libya-s.net online forum. … the Ansar Minbar page has clear connections to the jihadist milieu in Benghazi and, specifically, to Ansar al-Sharia, the militia that is commonly supposed to have spearheaded the attack on the US mission. This lends the evidence particular significance.

    Early in the evening of Sept. 11, 2012, the Ansar Minbar page was closely following events in Cairo, where a crowd of thousands was besieging the US Embassy in protest against the famous YouTube clip … Shortly after 6 p.m., two timeline entries posted in quick succession called on Libyans to emulate their Egyptian brothers and take action. The second finished with the exhortation “Long live Jihad!” Just three hours later, a poster on libya-s.net announced the start of the attack.

    … At least equally significant, on the very night of the attack — indeed, while the attack was underway — the February 17 Martyrs Brigade posted a statement on Facebook explicitly linking the attack to the “insult” of the Prophet Muhammad. The powerful local militia was employed by the United States to guard the mission. Its men are widely thought to have stood down out of sympathy for the assailants. The statement confirms that they did. Posted Sept. 11 at 11:31 p.m., it praises “the young men who overran the embassy jealously protecting our noble Prophet and protesting against the insult to him.”

    He goes on to say that the “anti-Islam YouTube clip … undoubtedly did play a role in the run-up to the attack.”

    Address this.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  107. Matt Bernius says:

    Man, this is great airport reading!

    @JunkBox:

    Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/how-the-cairo-video-became-the-benghazi-video#ixzz31HKKHwbm
    Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

    And that, ladies and gents, is trolling done right. Kudos to you, sir or madam.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  108. anjin-san says:

    the reality of Obama’s foreign policy:

    What reality is that? That it is getting a lot fewer people killed than Bush’s foreign policy did?

    Attacks on US diplomatic missions under Bush:

    January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

    June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

    October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

    February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

    May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

    July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

    December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

    March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)

    September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

    January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

    March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

    July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

    September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

  109. JunkBox says:

    MORE AIRPORT READING:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/us-consulate-benghazi-attack-challenge

    The attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was striking for a number of reasons: the date, 11 September

    Two days earlier, the ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, had received a veiled warning.

    Events: Diners at the Venezia, an upmarket restaurant across the street from the mission, watch as a dozen armed militiamen gathered in the dusk by the compound’s rear gate.

    “There were eight to twelve guys, just hanging around, by the gate,” one diner said. “They had guns, they were just waiting.

    But even as attacks in Benghazi escalated, Washington decreased security, in line with its official position that Libya, post revolution, was normalising.

    The bigger question, so far unanswered, is what the CIA was doing in Benghazi. Neither the accountancy review board, the state department nor half a dozen congressional committees investigating the death of Stevens have made any public comment on the role of the CIA;

    Conflicting evidence Within hours, her (Rice) claim was being disputed in Libya. Mohammed Magaraif, Speaker of the Libyan Congress, was visiting Benghazi to meet survivors and blamed elements of Ansar al-Sharia’s militia for the attack. His comments matched those of witnesses

    One year after the killings, no suspects have appeared in court, either in Libya or in the US. Until that happens, and until the gap between claims made in the US and reality on the ground is explained, the American public will remain in the dark about the events of 11 September 2012 in Benghazi.

    We remain in the dark because of the serial liar in thief. @ anjin-san regardless of the other attacks you mention as there are hundreds more too, none of them involved the half wit and witch lying about them, their causes, and denying the reason for the annex at all.

    + American causalities spiked under this admin because of new rules of engagement and policy changes.

    “It is no accident nor a coincidence that from January 2009 to August of 2010, coinciding with the Obama/McChrystal radical change of the [rules of engagement], casualties more than doubled,” Mr. Simmons said. “The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules.”

    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/5/increase-in-battlefield-deaths-linked-to-new-rules/#ixzz31PYyS5I1

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

  110. John M. says:

    Oh God, I wish the Republicans would stop talking and talking and talking and pull the trigger already. Then the rest of us who don’t have this deep, unabiding, and completely irrational hatred for the president can stand back and laugh as the impeachment process unravels due to lack of evidence. We can also enjoy the well-deserved public backlash on these jokers who have wasted our time and millions of tax payer dollars in pursuing their partisan unicorn. Benghazi is a tragedy, the Republicans have turned it to serve in their agenda against the president. I see the Democrats complain about the Republicans using the spaghetti approach in their goals of impeaching Obama. Unfortunately they are correct, to anyone clinging to a shred of objectivity, they can’t help but agree that that is exactly what the last 5 years have looked like. I wish the Republicans would at least pretend to do a little more governing and a little less playing political power games.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0