http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...fire-back?lite

I suppose Republicans won’t be satisfied until Obama is impeached, tried in the Senate, and removed from office. If they can’t achieve that goal via legitimate means, (i.e. at the polls), they’ll resort to illegitimate means. You would think these idiots would have learned their lesson when Newt Gingrich went after Bill Clinton back in the 1990’s, but apparently not. (It looks like the talk of “bipartisanship, compromise, and ‘taking care of the peoples’ business’” lasted less than two weeks.) Fiscal cliff – here we come.

Butts are hurting but not hurting so much they go cliff diving.

As I said after like the first day, Bengazi ain't goona work for repubs. It's not the droids they are looking for.

http://www.theonion.com/video/after-...re-of-p,30284/

Onion spiking the football.

Wonder how long CEC (Consevative Entertainment Complex) is going to be going crazy on the Benghazi stuff, fake outrage machine operating at 85% full capacity imo.

Pretty standard for Obama/ D's to back down and cave in to the majority of the R's demands, been that way for decades.

Bottom Line: Anything is better than caving in to the demands of the right, anything!

John McCain so determined to get to the bottom of Benghazi-gate that he misses a classified briefing on the incident in order to hold a press conference calling for hearings into the attack.

*facepalm

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...tioned-by-cnn/

I saw that earlier. I think all that time in the Nam lockup has finally gotten to his brain. He's become a caricature of what he once was. Ever since the 08 campaign, I think it was the Capt Queeg moment where he talked about how he, and only he, could get bin laden. Ever since he's nothing but a fanatical idiot. This latest rant, with absolutely no foundation, is just sad.

Yeah, sometime between his runs in '00 and '08 McCain became a total joke.

Maybe McCain has lost it, or perhaps it just goes to show that Republicans are more concerned about scoring PR victories off of the issue than they are in genuinely figuring out what happened...

McCain had to tack hard right to cater to his Arizona constituency to get through the primaries.

He was one of the few voices of reason in the GOP during the debt crisis debacle. Telling the Hobbits to go back to Middle Earth probably showed more of what he really thinks of the Teabaggers/GOP than his usual party line rhetoric.

Being nuts over benghazi is probably +EV to having honest discussions on why the nation elected obama a 2nd time over the republicans.

We need a Cuban B Fox News cliffs thread. Those were good.

Serious question here.

What's the point of this?
What can Obama be impeached for?

They got Clinton for perjury and they got Nixon for orchestrating a breaking and entering.

What's Obama crime? For being a sucky President? For saying, "nahh you guys don't need more security?" "For not telling the truth to the media?"

I just, I guess don't see the point. Everyone that watches Fox News thinks Obama is the Antichrist incarnate who wants to destroy America. There is no "crime" here. I just don't understand the Faux outrage.

They are just grabbing what ever straw is available and trying to ride post-election-Obama-hate secede wave. He pretty much told them to impeach his dick in that press conference.

Wild speculation but here are some things that could happen

- tie up gov't officials by making them show up for hearings and answers suppoenas so that they aren't able to spend time on other policy goals.

- underming Obama's credibility and personal likeability so he isn't able to use the bully pulpit as effectively.

- remind American people that R's are the ones who care about nat'l security so that they'll keep voting for you.

- use hearings as fishing expedition to turn up some other stuff that might actually be legitly impeachable... For example, maybe you turn up some secret squirrel CIA program that the Gang of 8 wasn't properly notified about and you pitch a fit about Obama making an end around constitutional checks and balances.

- Basically, you keep throwing stuff against the wall hoping something will stick, and even if nothing does, you spend so much time dealing with the mess that other priorities get blocked up until you (hopefull for the R's) get a repub pres in 2016

the GOP did that for the last four years and ultimately lost the election because of it...

Obama LIED!!! LIEING TO THE MEDIA AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE!!!

No president has ever lied to the American public, at least not before Obama.

but isn't he now on a 6 yr term (4 more to go). little early to be concerned about a primary challenge, unless he thinks he's up for re-election in 2 yrs.

McCain doesnt care about Benghazi.

He wants to get Kerry appointed to Secretary of State (the B choice) so that Kerry's seat is put to an election and Scott Brown is somewhat likely to win it.

He probably figures he can increase his chances of re-election too, if he doesnt retire, by picking this fight but lets be clear this isnt a principled stand which is exactly why he skips the briefings on the subject to hold pressers calling for hearings.

Edit, he possibly wants to make this his legacy moment. If he doesnt what is he remembered for, being a ****ty pilot in Vietnam, losing in 08 and the black baby stuff in Iowa. Not exactly a stellar record for the history books.

The Fox News Party, formerly known as the GOP, have doubled-down on their bile-infested opiniongate. They disgrace American heros who fought and died in Libya and dishonor the President of the United States. Calling him a liar today in Congress when no proof exists to support such audacious claims. The worst lot of people and politicans I can ever remember. They use fear as a whip and insinuation as a vice. All sensible and rationale people must surely flee.

This is mere speculation, but I have a feeling your "fishing expedition" theory is the most likely. Since the beginning of the CIA in 1947, nearly every President, (in fact probably every President), has signed a "secret" Executive Order directing the CIA to undertake a covert operation somewhere in the world. (A few examples would include President Dwight Eisenhower directing the CIA to send U-2 spy planes flying over the Soviet Union in the late 1950's, John F. Kennedy ordering "Project Mongoose" to try and assassinate and/or overthrow Fidel Castro in the early 1960's, Nixon ordering the CIA to assassinate President Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973, as well as "Operation Phoenix" during Vietnam.) While a President is technically authorized to approve such operations, they generally don't want this kind of stuff becoming public knowledge.

Politically, President Obama has made a big deal about how he is withdrawing American ground forces from costly, protracted (and unpaid for) "wars" that were started by previous Republican administrations. President Obama has also been very vocal in lending his moral support (and verbal encouragement) to the "Arab Spring" and the overthrow of Middle Eastern dictators like Hosni Mubarrak in Egypt, the corrupt leader of Tunisia, and (now) Bashar al-Assad in Syria. (There are certainly both covert and overt operations underway to try and destabilize and overthrow the mullahs in Iran.) Since Russia and Iran are proxies for Syria, Obama cannot commit American troops to a ground war in Syria - that could turn into a real mess. So the alternative to toppling al-Assad by overt means is to order the CIA (via a covert operation) to facilitate the movement of arms and weapons to Syrian rebels.

Technically, President Obama probably would not be committing a "high crime or misdemeanor" by signing an Executive Order directing the CIA to undertake such a mission, but it would probably be politically embarrassing if such an order became public knowledge. Suddenly the American people would know "the terrible truth" about what is actually going on in the Middle East as well as the fact that their President lied to them about America's involvement in another nation's internal affairs. (This seems to be the Republicans main point about Benghazi - that Obama is lying to the American people in a coverup that is "worse than Watergate.")

So what the Republicans are actually hoping for is a multitude of secret operations (and Executive Orders authorizing them) being publicly exposed resulting in Obama's embarrassment and humiliation. It would be roughly equivalent to President Reagan being forced to apologize to the American people for the secret Iran-Contra "Arms for Hostages" deal with terrorists back in the 1980's. If Republicans are convinced they can catch Obama in something like that, they're probably also convinced they can impeach him and force him out of office. The goal here, at a minimum, is to embarrass and humiliate the President.

McCain is probably genuinely pissed.

State Department refused to give Libyan Embassy more security.

Then during the crisis, they refused to give Pentagon the OKAY to take action (read, this is an even better use of drones than assassinating random Al-Qaeda leaders).

He's obviously way overstating his case. He should have just emphasized how he would have taken much more decisive action while the lawyers in the White House pushed paperwork and let Americans die in Bengazhi.

I don't think fishing expedition is likely. I think it's more along the lines Fox News and the GOP still don't have a platform yet so they have to focus air time on a virtual non-issue.

McCain is just a puppet in this **** show while the GOP wages an internal war. It's actually happening much faster than I thought it would. The RNC chair is already setting up stage to push party toward center. By 2014, backlash from GOP conservatives will happen... then it's war.

Elephant on elephant violence. Gonna get really messy and I suspect they'll drag the whole country, not just the party, along.

The Libyan Embassy isnt the Benghazi Consulate that got attacked. Im pretty sure there were no formal requests either.

None of the drones in the area were armed.

My bad, Benghazi consulate it is.

The idea they had no armed drones in the area is preposterous with bases in Italy and Turkey. But let's just say you're right that they had no armed drones in the area...

Launch some manned planes. C'mon man, are you seriously making the argument they had no military assets to deploy in the area? Well, it's what the White House is claiming.

C"MON MAN.

They made a decision to not use the military, tried to delay the decision to use the military as long as possible, or they were incompetent. It's preposterous to think American military could not be in Benghazi within 14? 23? hours of the distress call. If the military really couldn't manage that... well, time to revamp the command structure.