I take it you have never read the Congressional Authorization Bush presented to Congress to kick start the Iraq War. Because if you did.....and payed CLOSE ATTENTION to section 3, paragraph B.......... You would know that the Iraq War WAS ILLEGAL.
I did and do support the Iraq War. Also I supported our involvement in WWI and WWII which your position doesn't exclude. Your position doesn't exclude any use of soldiers ever. That being said go start your own thread.
I am simply questioning your group's initiative to run this president out of office for "sending" the IRS for some political reason. (He may not even be involved, after all). Because benghazi did not work? the election did not work? the birth certificate did not work? where will you stop? As a non-American, I have applauded the US leadership during the 2 world wars. Most of the outside world look up to the American ideals. Sadly, it was ebbing due to the recent wars you have supported. So it is perplexing for us that your group does not give the same benefit of doubt to the current president (sending Taxmen) that you have given to your previous president (sending 3,500...). I hope it is a political thing and not skin color. I am on topic and I'm not dodging the points that you raised. Why ask me to start a new thread? That's kinda juvenile bordering on infantile, sir.
This isn't the IRS thread....... You realize you are comparing Conservative political organizations to terrorist organizations that attack women and children?
I think he's saying that you turn a blind eye to lies and incompetence that led to 9/11, that led to the Iraq War, that led to many embassy bombings, that led to 3,500 American troops killed in a war to find WMD, that led to tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, that led to billions of dollars in waste, and on down the rabbit hole but damn you sure give a lot of attention to this Benghazi situation. Why is that? Let's be consistent.
Are you so sure that he did turn a blind eye? Who was president for almost the previous 8 years in the lead up to 9/11? Why did you turn a blind eye to it? What part did you play in ending it? The road cuts both ways. Perhaps it starts here for him. With this scandal. You seem to think this entire incident is political and nothing more. But at the end of the day, the people who died are still dead. No amount of deflecting will change that. My question back to you. Why aren't you interested AT ALL in finding out why these folks got ZERO help that night?
"lying to the AMerican people isn't a crime. Nor is sucking at being Commander in Chief. Sending the IRS after political opponents certainly is......." That is your post that I FIRST replied to. If you just followed your own advise, I may not be wasting your time. I did not compare political organization and terrorist organization. If I did, what deductions if any, did I make of the comparison? In case you are missing it, what I am COMPARING is you and your group's reaction to this president "sending" the IRS and the previous president sending 3,500 soldiers to Iraq. I am comparing your reaction to Taxes and Death vis-a-vis impeaching a president. Apparently, you are willing to impeach a president on a TAX issue of a political organization. But won't lift a finger on 3,500 DEATHS. That is clear enough and your stand is clear enough. BTW, Iraqis are not terrorist of US citizens.
IF the President knew anything about/directed the IRS to punish political enemies, that is an impeachable offense. Its impeachable because its an ABUSE OF POWER and CRIMINAL. We are one HELL of a long way from proving that, and most likely it will never come to that but since you brought it up... As far as 3,500 soldiers dieing, thats part of what happens when the President and Congress sign off on a war and sends you in to fight. This last war was signed off on by the President AND the Congress. You can rail against it all you like...hate its morality...but in the end, there is/was NO ABUSE OF POWER.
Wha? Seriously? 3,500 soldiers died in Iraq. Estimates are like 500,000 Iraqis died. I guess those people aren't dead. I'm pretty interested in the facts of what happened here but there is a big difference in 9/11, the Iraq War, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and well one day in f'n Libya a bunch of dudes with RPG's show up at the embassy and kill three people. It's ridiculous. There is basically this entire industry of conservatives, liberals as well to a much smaller extent, that are paid to play this political tit for tat bull**** on radio and TV. It's so old and tired. Why don't we just have a full investigation and see what it says? Conservatives have targeted Clinton because they want to pin this on her for the next election. It's completely obvious. Who do they think they're fooling? They don't give a rats ass that people died in those attacks. Spare me. It's funny I heard Hannity one day a while back lambasting Obama because he didn't stay up all night on the phone with the State Department to follow what was going on in Libya during the attack which lasted, what, six hours? You've got to be kidding me.
Its funny you would mention Hannity and claiming that he is one of those folks who doesn't give a "rats ass" about the people that died in the attacks. Were you aware that this lady... who's son Sean Smith died that night was to receive the Thomas Jefferson Star for Foreign Service (civilian equivalent of the Purple Heart) posthumously? Were you aware the govt told her to find her own way to the ceremony and pay for her own hotel? Were you aware Sean Hannity picked up the tab for her travel expenses and hotel so she could attend? Or that this man... who's son Tyrone Woods also died in Benghazi that evening presented Sean Hannity with a framed picture of his son and publicly thanked him on the air for all he's done for the Woods family. I think we know where the families of the victims stand....and it isn't with Obama, Clinton or any of their supporters.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_16...-have-cartoonish-view-of-military-capability/ Lying to Congress and the public about the nature of intelligence available only to the White House (without which lies the war wouldn't have occurred) wasn't an abuse of power? Exposing CIA agent Valerie Plame in order to retaliate against her husband for questioning WMD claims wasn't an abuse of power?
I am not sure it is an impeachable offense. What criminal statute does it violate? I think that we need to find out who knew what and when they knew it so we can ensure that such targeting does not happen again. However, an impeachment is not good for the country. Such action should only be taken when the President has clearly committed a crime.
pahiyas, consider you efforts with tannallover like trying to debate someone out of their religion, a committed true believer. Rational thought, consistency of morals, a perspective outside of the self just don't penetrate confirmation bias.
YEs you are. Iraq war sent troops after terrorist organizations that slaughter women and children purposely. You are comparing that to the IRS sending people after Conservatives or religious groups that believe in different politics then our dear leader. Totally nuts. Your 'any time a soldier dies a president should be impeached' argument makes 0 sense. I take it you are against our involvement in WWI and WWII? Why even have an army.....
I'll say Bush didn't lie. He was just incompetent and was easily fooled in to invade Iraq. And I'll go as far as saying Obama was incompetent about Benghazi. The difference is one event had FAR MORE devastating consequences.
results from Iraq equal fair elections for Iraqis. Result of IRS targeting conservatives groups is unfair elections for conservatives.
I have no doubt that the President did not know what was really going on in Benghazi, and believed what he was told by his advisors. In that instance, I do not believe he did anything wrong. The investigation should be directed to finding out who knew the truth and decided to go with a BS story. Those who knew should be held accountable. As for Iraq, you are engaging in a little revisionist history. The Senate, who had access to the intel, voted to authorize the military action.
True. But the whole idea that the congress voted to authorize military action is only really part of the story. Since it was G.W. Bush who told them that by authorizing military action he wouldn't use it. (Bush did lie) He told them that by authorizing military action he would use it to keep the peace and as a bargaining tool, but not to invade. http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/13565.htm
Maybe so. Believing that this is the whole story would also require you to believe that the Senate is full of mindless idiots. If you vote to authorize military action, then the use of that action is OBVIOUSLY on the table. But, let's assume you are right. Tell me...what's worse...a fib to the Senate about keeping the peace through authorization to use force...or telling the entire world that our diplomats are dead from a spontaneous uprising from a video when in fact, we knew it was a terror attack that we had intel about before the fact and did nothing?
