Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville
Presidents lie all the time. I don't dismiss that as par for the course, mind you. I"m just saying the Nixon impeachment situation was far more involved than what has been presented to date concerning President Obama and Benghazi. Seems to me that the only reason many of you are upset about this issue is because "he lied".
Most of your arguments concerning Benghazi center around talking points on how to characterize the attack on that day. I understand the politics of it, but in the grand scheme of things the worse you can blame President Obama for here is "plausible deniability" yet claim he should have known, but how exactly do you prove that? The bigger issue, of course, is the fact that four Americans lost their lives in a situation that could have been avoided. However, critics are quick to forget (or ignore) the fact that Ambassador Stephens refused added security for himself. Could his death been avoided had he had more personal protection, i.e., body guards? Maybe, maybe not. But since so many people are convinced that 4 CIA agents could have made a difference...
In the grand scheme of things, Benghazi doesn't measure up to the other "terror attacks" that took place abroad on U.S. installations. It's like Jet57 said, "Ronald Reagan lost 225 American service men in Lebanon". Moreover, 12 Americans lost their lives in the 1998 terrorist attack on the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Africa. And folks are all hell bent on digging in their heals for four dead Americans? I'm not being dismissive about them; I just don't think the "missteps" the critics and pundits have uncovered to date measure up to the high stench of missteps and scandal of events from the past that were far worse. I mean, Reagan and Clinton both got passes and yet folks seem hell bent on crucifying President Obama and he was no more directly involved in this incident than Reagan or Clinton were in the bombings that took place on their respective watches.
"A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground
Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.
Weeks later, Stevens traveled to Germany for an already scheduled meeting with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. During that meeting, Ham again offered additional military assets, and Stevens again said no, the two officials said.
“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” a defense official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject told McClatchy.
Read more here: CAIRO: Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say | Middle East | McClatchy DC
I bolded it so you'd be sure not to miss it.
It was a guy named Nordstrom that made the requests for extra security, not Stevens. Stevens was trying to get the locals engaged in providing the security. Why? Because using military security is more expensive and the cost would have had to come out of the state departments budget. It is rare that the State Department uses the military for security.
Impeachment is nothing more than an indictment comparable to a county or federal grand jury indictment.
Nothing more than a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. Guilt or innocence isn't determined during a grand jury hearing or during impeachment.