9/11: Benghazi 2 Years Later & No Answers

It has been two years since the attacks in Benghazi, and still the only non-answer is blaming a video. For the past 13 years, a dark cloud has hovered over this day as Americans reflect, remember, and mourn the worst terrorist attack we’ve ever endured.

But there's something about today, that feels less comforting than previous years. We've been lied to, (and the victims' families have been lied to) and there isn't any accountability or answer to what happened two years ago in the North African desert.

The current circumstances with ISIS are taking precedence in the Obama media at the moment, but this is the only reason for disproval and disappointment. It's Benghazi, health care, immigration, Putin, ISIS and the list goes on.

Today we mourn the loss of thousands of Americans, but sadly we have a lot more to mourn than past years. Bill Clinton was impeached for getting a BJ and lying about it. If Americans don't see the current president's behavior (or lack thereof) worse than that, there's no hope remaining for our homeland.

Three years ago, Paul Simon played "The Sound of Silence" at Ground Zero on the 10th anniversary of 9/11. It's an unforgettable moment and beautiful reflection of this day, that has left an imprint on the hearts of all Americans.

Posted by bigtex at September 11, 2014 4:05 PM
Comments
Comment #383015

Pure partisan garbage texan. On a day that should cause reflection of the actual occurrence of an attack on our soil you want to use it to yell BENGHAZI!!!

It is people like you that have caused great detriment to our country by using any excuse to bring partisanship into a meaningful discussion about our country and how we protect it.

Disgusting to say the least.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 11, 2014 4:49 PM
Comment #383018

I agree, Speaks. Despite any evidence, the right wing continues to hurl outrageous and slanderous allegations at Obama and the administration.

It doesn’t seem to matter that multiple investigations have not supported any of the allegations. It doesn’t seem to matter that the CIA says that it was responsible for the controversial talking points and that the administration never attempted to alter them for political purposes. It doesn’t seem to matter that the captured ringleader says that the video was a substantial factor in motivating the assault. It doesn’t seem to matter that there was no “stand down” order from the administration. The only thing close was an onsight CIA contractor’s order to wait for Libyan reinforcements (20 minutes) before assisting the ambassador’s compound.

Basically, there is not one shred of evidence that Obama nor anyone in the administration purposely or negligently denied assistance to the ambassador or anyone else in that compound or in the CIA compound.

The whole episode is a disgusting political slander.

Posted by: Rich at September 11, 2014 8:29 PM
Comment #383020

Rich,

Most people don’t have an issue with Benghazi because of some ‘stand down’ order, etc.

The issue with Benghazi was the fact that the administration was asked for more defense of the embassy and was denied. And when it was clear that the reason for the deaths was not because of a spontaneous mob, but a coordinated attack that had been planned, Newland scrubbed that information from the talking points because it was going to be harmful to the president’s re-election.

That is all on top of the fact that the president was touting a rousing success in Libya when we were seeing at the time, and have come to discover in a much worse sense since that time, that it wasn’t a success at all.

Those aren’t really disputed items, I had thought… *shrug*

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2014 8:40 PM
Comment #383022

Rhinehold,

I don’t think that anyone disagrees about the issue of the security at the consulate site (not an embassy site).

As for the issue of the talking points, the most relevant information comes from the CIA Deputy Director who was responsible for the information and was a point man in interactions with the administration. He clearly says that the administration was willing to accept whatever the CIA gave them. He clearly states that the administration did not attempt to spin the narrative. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/04/02/former-cia-deputy-director-rebuts-republican-charges-on-benghazi/

I would also recommend an extended interview on the Charlie Rose show in which Deputy Director, Michael Morrell, describes in detail how the talking points were constructed and the role of the administration in their construction. I watched this interview with a rabid but intelligent conservative who ended up saying something to the effect “well, I must admit that he was very credible in absolving the White House of any attempt to edit the talking points for purely political reasons.” What is important about this interview is the detail provided about the knowledge and analysis of the CIA at the time of the attack and shortly thereafter. Listen to the interview. http://www.charlierose.com/watch/60370139

Posted by: Rich at September 11, 2014 9:08 PM
Comment #383023

Rich, the problem is that the email thread discussing the talking points were released and we saw what was said about them and how they ended up making their way to Rice. I understand the CIA Deputy Director would never, ever, lie to the American public to protect the president and all, but some of what he stated just doesn’t match up with the hard copy information we have from the time.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

I’m sorry but I have no faith at all in Victoria Nuland, between this and her heavy involvement in precipitating the civil war in Ukraine. Just because a person who reports to the president gave an interview that you say exonerates the administration doesn’t give me warm fuzzies on this, sorry.

It would be like a Republican trying to use the CIA director’s take on Iraq that exonerated the Bush administration to you during the 2003 Iraq war, wouldn’t it?

But yeah, the administration has a lot of egg on its face regarding Libya IMO. Especially considering that now, to fight ISIL, we are working WITH the same rebels that were behind the attacks and were, until recently, fighting against…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2014 9:44 PM
Comment #383040

Rhinehold,

Michael Morell was not some political appointment of the Obama administration. He was a career CIA employee who served as a Deputy Director under the Bush administration.

I encourage you to listen the lengthy Charlie Rose interview from earlier this year. Oh what the hell, you have your mind made up.

Posted by: Rich at September 11, 2014 10:12 PM
Comment #383043

Rich,

It doesn’t matter, if he were not loyal to the current administration he wouldn’t still have his job. So saying that he is a career CIA employee doesn’t invalidate the issue, I’ve worked in the government sector myself. You don’t allow your bosses to look bad, that’s how you keep your job.

As for making my mind up, the only one who has made up their mind is you. I am only trying to tell you that the questions are out there and they are valid, there is evidence is political maneuvering at a time when it shouldn’t have been an issue and I think we both agree that the consulate should have either been better protected or, better yet, they should have been called back to DC during that time, but that would have led to a political black eye just as people were getting ready to vote.

We have the evidence that Nuland, who I have huge problems with already, was interfering with the talking points. The REASON for that interference may have been benign, or it may have been a combination, or it may have been an all out political strategy. Michael Morell is not going to be able to speak on what Nuland was attempting to do.

I do agree that the CIA signed off on the final talking points, but those points were not the original points that they presented, they were modified by State. The discussion should be if State should have been involved in it and if the administration should have been ‘speculating’ like that on the news shows. I don’t think they do if they aren’t coming up on an election.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2014 10:51 PM
Comment #383063

Rhinehold,

The issue about the talking points is simply whether the White House lied or misled the American people about the circumstances of the Benghazi attack. The White House claims that Rice simply presented the analysis and conclusions reached by the CIA at the time.

“Morell told lawmakers today that the statements by Rice were based on the “totality” of what the CIA’s analysts had concluded.

“The judgment that the attacks evolved from a protest was fully consistent with the intelligence community’s classified analysis at the time,” said Morell, adding that the talking points underwent many changes within the CIA.

He also maintained that the White House had no part in editing the talking points.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/04/02/catherine-herridge-says-morells-testimony-benghazi-body-blow-intel-community

Posted by: Rich at September 12, 2014 7:43 AM
Comment #383085

That’s kind of a semantics discussion at that point though, isn’t it Rich?

The White House didn’t. The State Department did. Now, is the State Department and the CIA part of the White House or not? Are there conversations between State and the White House going on, having State looking out for the White House concerns without anyone from the White House actually being directly involved?

Did Nuland push her changes because of strictly State reasons or was she looking out for her bosses who work in the White House on their behalf?

Those are legitimate questions, and just blowing them off as the left expects people to do is absurd AND something that they wouldn’t stand for if the roles were reversed…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 12, 2014 3:00 PM
Comment #383094
Those are legitimate questions, and just blowing them off as the left expects people to do is absurd AND something that they wouldn’t stand for if the roles were reversed…

Rhinehold I don’t recall such nonsense being “legitimate questions” during any of the many other terrorist attacks on US embassies worldwide. I don’t recall the nit picking finger pointing by the then Daryl Issa’s. Or Fox trying to make mountains out of molehills during the 40 other terrorist attacks on embassies. The fact is the roles have been reversed and the left didn’t react as blatantly partisan as blatantly political as conservatives and libertarians on this issue. Certainly no other president has been subjected to such false accusations subpoenas and ….well myths, misinformation half truths and outright lies when embassies were attacked in the past.

So it seems to me the “legitimate question” is why so partisan when the black guy is steering the bus?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 12, 2014 7:44 PM
Comment #383097
Certainly no other president has been subjected to such false accusations subpoenas and ….well myths, misinformation half truths and outright lies when embassies were attacked in the past.

So it seems to me the “legitimate question” is why so partisan when the black guy is steering the bus?

I’m sorry, I don’t remember a previous president’s state department modifying talking points about a consulate attack just before an election to avoid negative reaction…

Perhaps you could remind me of one such instance?

As for the hilarious attempt at both revisionism and blatant racism that you threw out…

That you wrote that without any sense of irony or humor it is pretty clear that your need to defend a president that has turned out to be the exact opposite of the ideal you voted for has completely scrambled your sense of reality.

Do I really need to give you a list of all of the ‘false accusations, subpoenas and myths’ that the left trotted out on Bush for 8 years?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_investigations

http://www.liberaloasis.com/2009/02/investigations_into_the_bush_a.php

http://www.alternet.org/story/122501/holy_cow%3A_top_dems_are_serious_about_investigating_bush%27s_criminal_acts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

During the presidency of George W. Bush, several American politicians sought to either investigate Bush for allegedly impeachable offenses, or to bring actual impeachment charges on the floor of the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. The most significant of these efforts occurred on June 10, 2008, when Congressman Dennis Kucinich, along with co-sponsor Robert Wexler, introduced 35 articles of impeachment against Bush to the U.S. House of Representatives. The House voted 251 to 166 to refer the impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee on June 11

Please…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 13, 2014 12:10 AM
Comment #383138
Rhinehold are you suggesting “modifying talking points” is a criminal act

I never suggested once that it was a criminal act. Quit being obtuse, that deflection is worn out and tired.

throw the “modifying talking points just before an election” nonsense against the wall and then keep beating the drum as if it were a real issue.

To many people it is a real issue. Just because you give the president a pass on everything doesn’t mean that others do or should. Are you trying to deny people their own concerns about the actions, ethics and behavior of their president just because you would let him get away with pretty much anything he wants?

If I understand your argument you are saying the “modified talking points” are why Obama is at fault for the Benghazi embassy attack.

You don’t understand my argument, mainly because you don’t want to understand it…

I’ll try to be clear.

Many feel that Obama was at fault for the deaths at the Consulate because he didn’t heed the concerns of the people working there that the situation had become dangerous. They asked for more protection, in reality they should have been pulled out.

But those warnings were not heeded and they were not removed from danger because Obama and his administration were running for office partly on the ‘success’ of the Libyan situation. I think that is a valid argument against the President. Can we know the thinking of the President and why those people were kept in harms way? No. But most people can read the situation and come up with valid hypotheses.

The other valid concern that the people have is that in the wake of the attacks, after it was clear that the fault was not ‘a video on the internet’ (though I’m sure that added to the anger that those planning the attacks felt) and the attacks were not spontaneous, the administration sends someone on television to make the case that these were spontaneous attacks. And we find out pretty quickly that the talking points that were used for that television appearance were modified by Victoria Nuland at the State Department to remove any reference to ‘terrorists’ and that this may have been a planned attack.

Again, the hypotheses of many is that this was near an election and this was done to not put a mark on the President’s leadership or ability to ‘protect us from terrorism’.

The concerns here are that the administration put people’s lives into harms way and tried to mislead the public at a crucial time for political reasons. This is not the behavior that we want out of a President.

Some people don’t care if the President acts this way, obviously unconcerned about the issues raised and defending the President for fighting the good political fight. They see these concerns as ‘invalid’ and ‘myths’, even though the paper trail is very clear.

Was there anything criminally done? No. Were there actions taken that were, in many people’s minds, unpresidential? Absolutely.

Issa is doing much of what Obama was and has been doing, acting in political ways for political purposes. You aren’t going to hear me praise him or his actions in any way. But I also feel that there is nothing wrong with investigating and finding out the truth. Stonewalling and blocking those investigations just gives people like Issa more power and credibility.

Now, you’ve heard my point spelled out pretty clearly. If you want to continue to distort them and try to make them something that they are not, that’s your issue and a political one at that. That you are defending the administration for acting in that manner tells me that you aren’t really concerned about that description.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 13, 2014 2:52 PM
Comment #383154

Rhinehold,

The issue of the talking points is not what is driving the right wing mania over Benghazi. At the very worst, the administration chose to present the CIA analysis of a spontaneous attack without mentioning the prior warnings, etc. It was not a lie. In fact, it was the bottom line CIA assessment at the time. I don’t doubt that some in the administration would attempt to tailor the talking points to present the issue in the best light for the administration. Nothing really surprising there.

What is really driving the right wing mania is the continued allegations that the administration failed to come to the aid of the consulate employees when it was under attack. The idea that there was a “stand down” order from the administration which resulted in American deaths is the red meat of the right wing investigations.

If you don’t believe me, just google “stand down” and Benghazi. You may be surprised at the number of hits. Obama callously allowed Americans to die.

There is absolutely no evidence supporting the allegations that Obama or anyone else in the administration refused to provide assistance to the consulate under attack or stopped assistance in process. It is a complete slander.


Posted by: Rich at September 13, 2014 6:43 PM
Comment #383155

Rich, unfortunately, that is nothing new for Presidents.

Reagan wanted to feed our children ketchup and kill grandmothers.

Bush #1 was in on the Iraq invasion of Kuwait.

Clinton killed the Branch Dividians and allowed the Oklahoma bombing to happen.

Bush #2 planned the 9/11 attacks.

In reality, Obama is getting off pretty light IMO on the nonsensical slanderous attacks. It’s a shame that defenders like phx8 and j2t2 can only see him as a black person…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 13, 2014 9:48 PM
Comment #383156

BTW, this is nothing recent in American History…

Just google Presidential Race of 1800 for some doozies. They went far and beyond what we would allow today, including one candidate calling the other one a hermaphrodite.

Jefferson’s side started by calling Adams a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.” Adams supporters responded by labeling Jefferson “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.”

These were the two candidates themselves saying this…

Makes the “Obama is Gay and Michelle is Transgender” accusations by loony pundits seem quaint by comparison.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 13, 2014 10:00 PM
Comment #383158

Yea, I guess you have to have a thick skin to be a politician. Had a good laugh at the Adams and Jefferson quotes from the 1800 race. Hard to believe, but we actually might be a bit more civil than in the past.

Posted by: Rich at September 13, 2014 10:15 PM
Comment #383163
To many people it is a real issue.

Grasping at straws to attack the president rather than drawing together as a country, as the left helped to do when the embassies were attacked by terrorist under previous administrations is detrimental to the country IMHO Rhinehold.

Well it is this…. oh no its that…. no I mean it’s the other…. and so it goes for two years to the point repubs are grasping at anything claiming “still no answers” despite the questions being answered. It is political for you as well Rhinehold when you use a hypothesis such as “this was near an election and this was done to not put a mark on the President’s leadership or ability to ‘protect us from terrorism’.”

You and the conservatives who swallow this crap seem to be at the ready to accuse the left of doing the same thing but have yet to show me anything related to embassy attacks that would prove this” blaming the president not the terrorist” mythology came from the left in prior embassy attacks, which was the point of my original comment.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 14, 2014 8:49 AM
Comment #383166

j2t2, tell me, in those other attacks on embassies, how many Ambassadors died?

How many of those other embassy attacks were just ‘near’ the embassy and the deaths were local civilians?

Are you really that all in? You have proven it over and over again that you are, but I still find it incredulous.

Grasping at straws to attack the president rather than drawing together as a country, as the left helped to do when the embassies were attacked by terrorist under previous administrations is detrimental to the country IMHO Rhinehold.

Oh yes, during the Bush Administration the left was the model of ‘bringing us all together’…

Even though most on the left, including you, refused to call him President since he didn’t win either of his elections legitimately, as I recall.

*rolls eyes*

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 14, 2014 1:47 PM
Comment #383183
j2t2, tell me, in those other attacks on embassies, how many Ambassadors died?

Oh Rhinehold really, what are you suggesting the lives of those that work for the embassy don’t count unless they are the top 1% of the staff? The foreign born working at the embassy don’t count in the death toll?

The point is the left didn’t try to divide the country as you claimed when embassies were attacked in previous administrations. The left didn’t make unfounded allegations, create myths, distribute misinformation, use half truths to blame the repubs/conservatives, and/or tell outright lies to defame a sitting president as we have seen those on the right doing with Benghazi. Yet you want to use the excuse of “well they do it to” to justify the politicization of the deaths of those serving our country in foreign embassies. To imply Benghazi was worse because an ambassador died so therefore you and the conservatives have a right to use myth misinformation half truths and outright lies to blame this attack on the president rather than the terrorist is wrong IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 14, 2014 7:29 PM
Comment #383188
The point is the left didn’t try to divide the country as you claimed when embassies were attacked in previous administrations.

No, just in a multitude of a variety of other ways.

The left didn’t make unfounded allegations, create myths, distribute misinformation, use half truths to blame the repubs/conservatives, and/or tell outright lies to defame a sitting president as we have seen those on the right doing with Benghazi.

Are you KIDDING me?

Bush didn’t win 2000 election
Bush didn’t win 2004 election
Bush was behind 9/11
Bush authorized the release of Valerie Plame’s name to the press
Bush went AWOL
The myriad of attempts to impeach Bush
Bush was a Nazi
Bush was an alcoholic
Bush’s wife murdered her ex boyfriend from HS
Bush was a racist
Bush illegally fired lawyers
etc, etc, etc…

BTW, please tell me what half truth or lie I have stated here… If you are going to accuse me of something, have the balls to put the details along with it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 14, 2014 8:55 PM
Comment #383261

Once again Rhinehold here we go off on a tangent. What does anything on that list have to do with embassies? The fact is the left didn’t seek political gain when those embassies were attacked, unlike conservatives of today. Which of course was my point throughout all of this.


BTW, please tell me what half truth or lie I have stated here… If you are going to accuse me of something, have the balls to put the details along with it.

“Myriad of attempts to impeach GWB” for one would fall into the myths misinformation half truths and outright lies category IMHO. Unless of course your definition of myriad is different than the rest of us.

However what I actually said was “The point is the left didn’t try to divide the country as you claimed when embassies were attacked in previous administrations. The left didn’t make unfounded allegations, create myths, distribute misinformation, use half truths to blame the repubs/conservatives, and/or tell outright lies to defame a sitting president as we have seen those on the right doing with Benghazi. Yet you want to use the excuse of “well they do it to” to justify the politicization of the deaths of those serving our country in foreign embassies. To imply Benghazi was worse because an ambassador died so therefore you and the conservatives have a right to use myth misinformation half truths and outright lies to blame this attack on the president rather than the terrorist is wrong IMHO.” You rather than responding to that pick out one part of the statement “myths misinformation half truths and/or outright lies” as if you have never seen me use it before.

Of course what I didn’t say is Rhinehold you are lying or Rhinehold you are half truthing. I did include you on the side of those that have intentionally used myths misinformation half truths and outright lies over the last 2 years. What I wonder is by inquiring about only “the half truths and outright lies” part of “myths misinformation half truths and outright lies” are you conceding the myths and misinformation? How’s that for balls?


http://crooksandliars.com/heather/cbs-news-calls-out-republicans-lying-about

Posted by: j2t2 at September 15, 2014 9:24 PM
Comment #383501
“Myriad of attempts to impeach GWB” for one would fall into the myths misinformation half truths and outright lies category IMHO. Unless of course your definition of myriad is different than the rest of us.

Calls for impeachment for over 8 years (democrats.com was calling for his impeachment before he was even innagurated), several attempts introduced into the House while the Democrats held control. That’s what I call myriad…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

I did include you on the side of those that have intentionally used myths misinformation half truths and outright lies over the last 2 years.

Again, name one. You make the accusation, back it up.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 18, 2014 2:00 PM
Comment #383600

I notice something about the RWNJ’s who constantly scream “BENGHAZI!!!!!” Ask any one of them where Benghazi is, and they’re reflexively pulling out their phone.

Posted by: TreyL at September 21, 2014 4:03 PM
Comment #383620

Myriad- countless or extremely great in number. Your link, comprehensive as it is,show but a few attempts by Dems to impeach. So you seem to be providing the “myth, misinformation half truth or outright lie” whilst asking me to provide proof. That is why you are included with conservatives Rhinehold. Yet you sound confused! As if you can’t believe you would do this.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 22, 2014 1:19 AM
Comment #383652

j2t2,

The articles being introduced was the tip of the iceburg and you know it. I made my statement based off of fact, democrats.com (run by former Clinton staffers) were calling for his impeachment before he was even sworn in. Every year there were new suggestions to impeach.

I’m using the same measurement you want to use when you say that Republicans want to impeach Obama, yet they haven’t even introduced articles like the Democrats did…

Here’s just a sample.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/kerry_calls_for_bush_impeachment_if_dems_retake_house/

MA. Sen. John Kerry said last night that if Dems retake the House, there’s a “solid case” to bring “articles of impeachment” against President Bush for allegedly misleading the country about pre-war intelligence, according to several Dems who attended.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x474821

Bush is an illegitimate President whose incompetence and lies have resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans and thousands more Afghani and Iraqi civilians. Even though Ken Starr would disagree, sounds impeachable to me.

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

New Zogby Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping

By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge’s approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

http://www.democrats.com/impeach-bush-cheney

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=1845900

RANDOLPH, Vermont (Reuters) - Democratic Party leaders in Vermont on Saturday passed a motion asking Congress to immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

In an elementary school cafeteria strewn with American flags and copies of the U.S. Constitution, some 100 state party officials agreed to make the request to the U.S. House of Representatives.

“You know in your own hearts and minds that something is terribly wrong in this country,” said Margaret Lucenti, a Democrat from Vermont’s capital Montpelier.

http://rense.com/general69/repconyerscalls.htm

Powerful, Congressional representative and Detroit Democrat John Conyers has introduced a House resolution to create a Select Committee with subpoena authority to investigate the misconduct of the Bush Administration. Conyers’ resolution cites “the Iraq war and … possible impeachable offenses; as well as resolutions proposing both President Bush and Vice-President Cheney [that] should be censured by Congress based on the uncontroverted evidence of their abuse of power.” The report is entitled “Demand Censure and Accountability for Misconduct by Bush and Cheney in Iraq War.”

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/a-vote-for-a-democrat-is-a-vote-for-impeachment#.VCCprlJ0x9A

Impeachment plans began seriously coalescing in 2005, after the NY Times published classified aspects of the NSA surveillance program. In mid- December of that year, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-CA, asked a group of presidential scholars whether President George W. Bush had committed an impeachable offense when he authorized the NSA foreign surveillance program. John Dean, the long-time Bush critic of Watergate fame provided Boxer with the answer she and most other Democrats were looking for: “Bush is the first president to admit an impeachable offense,” he said.

Boxer and Kerry weren’t the only prominent Democrats discussing the possibility of impeachment during 2005. Such matters were also being discussed by Diane Feinstein, Carl Levin and Ron Wyden, who, along with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and left-leaning Republicans Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe, called for both Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committee investigations into the NSA wiretaps. And on December 20, 2005, Rep. John Lewis, D-GA, underscored those calls, saying:


I look forward to further inquiry in the House and Senate on these matters. The American people deserve the truth. We must gather the facts and determine once and for all whether the law was violated. There is no question that the U.S. Congress has impeached presidents for lesser offenses.


More recently, Rep. Brad Miller, D-GA, said, “The Democrats on the House Science Committee are collecting stories of the intimidation or censoring of scientists. We’re building a case for hearings by the Committee, which may be unrealistic to expect under the current majority, or to be ready for hearings next year if Democrats gain the majority in November.” [Emphasis added.] Miller was making that threat in relation to accusations by leftists and Democrats that Bush was silencing those concerned about global warming.


And then there are the constant calls by congressional Democrats, led by Senator Carl Levin, D-MI, to investigate the treatment of terrorist prisoners held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay and other locations. But most telling of all was Senator Harry Reid’s November 2005 attempt to begin the “Phase II“ investigation into the Bush administration’s use of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq War. Reid said Congress must subpoena administration officials and documents in order to determine how Bush built his case for war.

http://www.vermontguardian.com/local/032007/ShumlinImpeach.shtml

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x20842

http://www.wnd.com/2005/07/31321/

The San Diego County Democratic Party Central Committee passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld for “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The committee, in a vote Tuesday, asked Congress to begin immediate impeachment proceedings based on “evidence” that the administration lied to the American people and created a false justification for going to war in Iraq.

That was just 10 minutes of bing searching. I can provide more… How much would be enough for you? Or are you like the Democrat co-sponsor of the articles of impeachment saying recently that they never did such a thing?

http://news.yahoo.com/dem-co-sponsored-bush-impeachment-bill-says-never-022029740.html

In a speech on the floor of the House Wednesday, Texas U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee claimed that Democrats never sought to impeach President George W. Bush.

Not only is that claim false, but Jackson-Lee actually co-sponsored a 2008 bill to do just that and spoke in at least one House committee hearing in support of the effort.

Jackson-Lee’s remarks Wednesday came ahead of a vote on a Republican-backed measure to sue President Obama for overstepping his bounds in implementing Obamacare.

“I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution for it is in fact a veiled attempt for impeachment and it undermines the law that allows a president to do his job,” Jackson-Lee said on Wednesday.

“A historical fact that President Bush pushed this nation into a war that had little to do with apprehending terrorists. We did not seek an impeachment of President Bush, because as an executive, he had his authority. President Obama has the authority.”

And some prominent Democrats calling for the Impeachment of Obama… (a little fun)

http://humanevents.com/2011/03/23/biden-demands-impeachment/

Barack Obama’s presidency has entered a new, and possibly terminal, stage of crisis, as Vice President Joe Biden has called for his impeachment.

“I made it clear to the President,” a furious Biden declared, “that if he takes this nation to war without Congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him. That is a fact.”

Biden’s comments reflect growing Democrat anger at President Obama’s unilateral military action. In the House, where the impeachment process must begin, Representative Dennis Kucinich has already begun talking about removing Obama from office, which is consistent with his previous stance on President George Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN), the only Muslim representative in Congress, has said “impeachment should be on the table.”

While not willing to go as far as joining Vice President Biden’s open call for impeachment, current House Minority Leader, and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is angry that Obama went to war without consulting Congress. “”I do believe that Congress should assert itself and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Libya,” Pelosi stated.

Things are looking grim in the Senate, too. Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) has introduced legislation stating that “no funds … may be obligated or expended for military operations or activities within or above the territory of Libya, or within the territorial waters of Libya, except pursuant to a specific authorization of Congress.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has indicated his support for this legislation. Speaking for the freshman Democrat class in the Senate, a recently elected senator told the Boston Globe that “the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

The impeachment drive has gathered strength among Democrats outside of Congress as well. Most remarkably, the state of Vermont has voted to impeach the President, condemning him for launching an “unnecessary” war. They also want Obama impeached for “conspiring” with the rogue soldiers who murdered a civilian in Afghanistan and photographed themselves posing with the corpse, even though the President had no direct connection with these actions, did not order them, and has supported a prompt investigation of the incident.

Vermont voters were also angered by Obama’s “indefinite detention” of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, “without charges, without legal counsel, and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention.”

It remains to be seen how President Obama can survive such a powerful drive to remove him from office, with so many prominent figures in his own party, and even his own Vice President, clearly calling for…

Whoa, wait a second, what the…

Gosh, I’m sorry folks, I made a really silly mistake here. I forgot to set the date parameters in my Google search. This is all stuff the Democrats said a few years ago about Bush, not Obama. They were talking about operations in Iraq, and the looming possibility of action against Iran. The only person mentioned above who actually has been treating Obama the same as Bush is Dennis Kucinich. The “recently elected senator” who firmly informed the Boston Globe that unilateral Presidential military action in the absence of an imminent threat is un-Constitutional was Barack Obama himself.

On behalf of the Democrat Party, I’d like to ask you to forget you read this article, along with everything any Democrat ever said about congressional war-making powers prior to 2009. Thanks for your cooperation!


Posted by: Rhinehold at September 22, 2014 7:09 PM
Comment #383707

Rhinehold, The tip of the iceberg! IT was the only time the only people who could impeach a sitting president tried to impeach GWB. Discussing the possibility, a city passing a resolution, a poll showing people favor impeachment for wire tapping, Someone stating there is a solid case for impeachment, asking if GWB committed an impeachable offense is all fodder. Your wiki link is much more factual as it states “Several American politicians sought to either investigate Bush for allegedly impeachable offenses, or to bring actual impeachment charges on the floor of the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee.”

Kinda glad you didn’t include any thought police reports claiming many dems thought how nice it would be were GWB impeached, then perhaps myriad could be feasible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Police

Posted by: j2t2 at September 24, 2014 8:23 PM
Post a comment