Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 19, 2014, 07:10:37 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83711 Posts in 2261 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 33 Print
Author Topic: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness  (Read 212446 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1350 on: April 17, 2013, 01:02:41 PM »

Obama's Boston statement would sound sincere and Presidential if he didn't say nearly the same thing about Benghazi before it was swept under the carpet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh6Lc5vmO0o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1gF0I2Ecmw

----

In other news, the Sec. of State on who bombed Boston:  WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE NOW?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1351 on: April 18, 2013, 11:45:46 AM »

Tom Perez as Sec of Labor should fit in just fine with the Obama cabinet:
----
Perez gave false testimony to the Civil Rights Commission about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. Under oath, Perez said that no “political leadership” at DOJ was involved in the decision not to pursue that matter. But a federal district court judge (Reggie Walton) found that internal Justice Department documents “contradict” this testimony.

Perez made false statements to investigators who looked into a deal he orchestrated with the City of St. Paul. Under Perez’s deal, the DOJ caused the dismissal of a suit against the City of St. Paul, one that could have netted $180 million to U.S. taxpayers, in exchange for the City’s agreement to drop a Supreme Court appeal (in the case of Magner v. Gallaher), the outcome of which might have invalidated DOJ’s pet method of proving racial discrimination in housing cases.

The Wall Street Journal describes Perez’s dishonesty over this quid pro quo arrangement:

    Mr. Perez told investigators he hadn’t heard of the Magner case until the Supreme Court agreed to hear it on November 7, 2011. But HUD Deputy Assistant Secretary Sara Pratt told investigators that she and Mr. Perez had a discussion about the case well before that.

    Mr. Perez also says he didn’t propose the quid pro quo. But St. Paul’s lawyer, David Lillehaug, testified that Mr. Perez first called him on November 23, 2011 to discuss Magner and on November 29 met him to propose a “potential solution”: the quid pro quo. It defies logic to believe St. Paul wanted to drop a case it had been fighting for nearly a decade and after the High Court had finally agreed to hear it.

Perez has worked in additional ways to cover-up his involvement in the quid pro quo.

    On January 10, 2012, Mr. Perez left a voicemail for Assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Brooker, instructing him not to link Magner and Newell in the memo explaining why Justice wouldn’t intervene in Newell.

    Mr. Perez also told investigators he didn’t have “any recollection” of using his personal email to correspond about the quid pro quo. . .Congressional investigators later discovered a personal email Mr. Perez sent to St. Paul’s lawyer, Mr. Lillehaug, on December 10, 2011. They have subpoenaed Mr. Perez for his Verizon email account, but Mr. Perez has not complied with the subpoena.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/04/will-senate-republicans-turn-a-blind-eye-to-tom-perezs-dishonesty.php
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/26/insuring-racial-discrimination/
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/high-ranking-doj-official-gave-false-testimony-about-voter-intimidation-case.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/03/how-tom-perez-traded-u-s-money-to-protect-pet-race-discrimination-theory.php
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323346304578426950656708348.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31821


« Reply #1352 on: May 12, 2013, 05:04:59 PM »

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=4301673%3ATopic%3A1496560&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rqtJrJ40Cio

This is over three hours long.  I am told it starts to really get traction at about 1:02:00
« Last Edit: May 13, 2013, 12:01:15 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31821


« Reply #1353 on: May 13, 2013, 10:48:08 AM »

1) Oballah

2)   Oblahblah

======================

"In the wake of Benghazi, the country endured an intense debate over how much free speech we could afford because of the savage intolerance of rioters half a world away. Obama and Clinton fueled this debate by incessantly blaming the video -- as if the First Amendment was the problem. Clinton and Obama both swore oaths to support and defend the Constitution. But after failing to support and defend Americans left to die, they blamed the Constitution for their failure. That's what difference it makes." --columnist Jonah Goldberg
« Last Edit: May 13, 2013, 11:43:30 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1354 on: May 15, 2013, 10:44:08 AM »

I hope all the uproar over the Benghazi attack lying, IRS shutting down political dissent, White House tracking reporters' phone records, and Secretary Sebelius overtly fundraising from those she wishes to regulate will not draw time and resources away from the administration's commitment to get to the bottom of the FAST AND FURIOUS, dead Mexicans and border guard scandal.

I don't know why I haven't heard an update on that.  Does anyone know when Attorney General gets out of jail for his CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS citation?  Who prosecuted that anyway?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4212


« Reply #1355 on: May 15, 2013, 11:21:34 AM »

Obama plays monopoly.  Holder gets the "Get out of jail free card".

Axelrod spinning (out of control):

Government *too big* for the Brockster to control.  WOW! cheesy grin

Axelrod IS (from my armchair view) the guy who needs an investigation.  This is the guy who probably needs to be in jail.  It appears he is the source of this corruption.   Of course Obama gives him the nods.  But obamster is just the front man.  He is not the strategist brains.  I am not sure if Axelrod is the only one but he is probably the head of the politburo. 

There is something sickening on how all this only is going nuclear because as Crafty (the media "ox is being gored") and many others on radio are pointing out because that the media were being spied on.
Otherwise they would still be covering for their ONE.   I can only say the media entertainment complex does a lot of spying and snooping including much of it illegally of their own.  They hold tremendous power.   More than ever by far.   

But if this is what it takes to get Obama for his crimes than so be it.  It is "manna from heaven".  Hey how come the media is not being accused of going after the Black guys Obama and Holder.  Where is Geraldo:

"this is all about RACE afterall, no?"  that idiot.  Well he is only half Jewish.  That's explains him.  I still don't understand the 75% who support the crats....

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/348346/scarborough-goes-axelrod-spinning-ap-tapping-%E2%80%98save-somebody-else-buy-that%E2%80%99
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31821


« Reply #1356 on: May 17, 2013, 10:24:14 AM »

What Would Bulworth Do?
Barack Obama's bizarre movie idol.
by JAMES TARANTO

A New York Times story on President Obama's plague of scandal contains this eyebrow-raising revelation:

    Yet Mr. Obama also expresses exasperation. In private, he has talked longingly of "going Bulworth," a reference to a little-remembered 1998 Warren Beatty movie about a senator who risked it all to say what he really thought. While Mr. Beatty's character had neither the power nor the platform of a president, the metaphor highlights Mr. Obama's desire to be liberated from what he sees as the hindrances on him.

    "Probably every president says that from time to time," said David Axelrod, another longtime adviser who has heard Mr. Obama's movie-inspired aspiration. "It's probably cathartic just to say it. But the reality is that while you want to be truthful, you want to be straightforward, you also want to be practical about whatever you're saying."

Perhaps the Times didn't want to spoil the film for its readers--which we are about to do, so please skip the subsequent four paragraphs if you're planning on seeing it and want to be surprised. But the Times's description comes nowhere near doing justice to the film and Beatty's character--and to how strange it is that it is the object of a presidential fantasy.

"Bulworth" is a satire about a politician going through something of a midlife crisis. Sen. Jay Billington Bulworth, a veteran Democrat from California, is a radical leftist at heart, but the exigencies of electoral politics have required him to pose as a moderate. He's up for re-election and running behind a young challenger. His marriage is on the rocks.

Depressed and suicidal, he offers a favorable vote to an insurance company in exchange for a bribe--a $10 million life policy with his daughter as beneficiary. Of course the policy is void if he takes his own life, so he hires a hit man to assassinate him instead.

He drinks heavily, and the combination of alcohol and imminent death has a disinhibiting effect. He begins speaking his mind at campaign events. Then he begins rapping his mind. We're not making this up: "Yo, everybody gonna get sick someday / But nobody knows how they gonna pay / Health care, managed care, HMOs / Ain't gonna work, no sir, not those / 'Cause the thing that's the same in every one of these / Is these m-----f---ers there, the insurance companies! . . . Yeah, yeah / You can call it single-payer or Canadian way / Only socialized medicine will ever save the day! Come on now, lemme hear that dirty word--SOCIALISM!"

The burst of media attention revives his campaign. He begins an affair with a young staffer. Suddenly things are looking better for Bulworth. He cancels the assassination contract and decides to run for president. Then he gets shot anyway--by someone from an insurance company who opposes socialized medicine.

What would it mean for Obama to "go Bulworth"? We suppose we had a hint of it a month ago tomorrow, when he raged against the Senate for rejecting his calls for gun control, a subject on which he had cultivated a pretense of moderation during both his presidential campaigns.

Another example is a June 30, 2003, video of Obama, then a state senator, telling an AFL-CIO gathering: "A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see." Bulworth might have added: But you ain't gonna get it from no insurance company.

Given the revelation that Obama fantasizes about going Bulworth, and the long-established fact that Obama has made statements consistent with the fictitious senator's view that only socialized medicine will ever save the day, it seems to us some apologies are in order from those who insisted it was crazy to think Obama is a socialist. John Avlon should go first.

Let us be clear: We think it unlikely that the president will go Bulworth, and although we're sure we'd enjoy the spectacle, we think it would be bad for the country if he did. An unhinged president would be dangerous to America and the world in a way that an unhinged senator would not.

At any rate, there doesn't seem to be much danger that Obama will go Bulworth. Consider this story from National Journal about Obama's hypovehiculation of the acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service:

    Under pressure to show who's boss, President Obama called a press conference late Wednesday to say he was "angry" that the IRS singled out conservative groups for extra vetting and to announce that the agency's acting commissioner had been forced out.

    "It's inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it," he said. "I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency, but especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the reach that it has into all of our lives."

Unlike the gun-control statement, this one didn't have the feel of being a genuine cry from the heart. Instead, the president seemed to be saying what he had to say.

By contrast, National Review Online notes that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri had some Bulworthy comments about Obama's opponents yesterday on MSNBC's "Hardball": "He has taken control / Of their soul / And their obsession / Is prolonging our recession . . . It's going to be very very, very difficult for us to erase / Some of the things that people have embraced . . . And they simply want this to be a figment / Of his pigmentation."

The prevailing image of Obama in the face of the past week's scandalous revelations is more similar to the weak and aimless Bulworth of the film's beginning. "The challenges underscore a paradox about the 44th president," as that Times piece puts it:

    He presides over a government that to critics appears ever more intrusive, dictating health care choices, playing politics with the Internal Revenue Service and snooping into journalists' phone records. Yet at times, Mr. Obama comes across as something of a bystander occupying the most powerful office in the world, buffeted by partisanship and forces beyond his control.

The scandals have even former White House aide David Axelrod complaining that government is too big. Yesterday he said this to MSNBC's Joe Scarborough:

    Look, it's an interesting case study because if you look at the inspector general's report [on the IRS abuses], apparently some folks down in the bureaucracy--you know we have a large government--took it upon themselves to shorthand these applications for tax-exempt status in a way that was, as I said, idiotic, and also dangerous because of the political implications. One prima facie bit of evidence that nobody political was involved in this, is that if anybody political was involved they would say: Are you nuts?

    Part of being president is there's so much underneath you that you can't know because the government is so vast.

To David Ignatius of the Washington Post, it's all evidence that government is dangerously ineffective:

    The crippling problem in Washington these days isn't any organized conspiracy against conservatives, journalists or anyone else. Rather, it's a federal establishment that's increasingly paralyzed because of poor management and political second-guessing.

    What should frighten the public is not the federal government's monstrous power but its impotence.

But there's a more disquieting interpretation. The Benghazi and IRS scandals were both clearly political in nature: The dissembling about what happened in Libya was manifestly an effort to prevent a foreign-policy disaster from becoming a political problem for the president in the weeks before the election; the IRS abuses were an effort to intimidate and silence the president's political enemies.

What about the Justice Department's decision to cast aside decades-old traditions governing press freedom in order to monitor the communications of Associated Press reporters and editors? This Washington Post report suggests a political motive for that one, too:

    For five days, reporters at the Associated Press had been sitting on a big scoop about a foiled al-Qaeda plot at the request of CIA officials. Then, in a hastily scheduled Monday morning meeting, the journalists were asked by agency officials to hold off on publishing the story for just one more day.

    The CIA officials, who had initially cited national security concerns in an attempt to delay publication, no longer had those worries, according to individuals familiar with the exchange. Instead, the Obama administration was planning to announce the successful counterterrorism operation that Tuesday.

As HotAir.com's "AllahPundit" interprets it: "CIA asked AP not to expose Yemen terror plot bust until White House was ready to crow about it publicly."

If you think about the government in terms of its original mission--"to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty"--then Ignatius is right. It's disturbingly ineffective.

But what if the government between 2009 and 2012 took on a different mandate, namely helping to re-elect Barack Obama? Then the Benghazi and IRS scandals, and possibly the AP one, look frighteningly effective.

If, as Axelrod implies, agents of the government did all this without the president's direction or even knowledge, that is even more frightening. That would mean, to quote a great orator, that the federal government has become "some separate, sinister entity" in which the leaders we entrust with authority cannot be held accountable for its abuse.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4212


« Reply #1357 on: May 18, 2013, 11:54:00 AM »

Problem is how to stop this regime which runs the US government like a mafia, punish your enemies and pay off your friends.  When nearly half the population is on some sort of assistance.....

http://www.steynonline.com/

How do we ever get mafia dons?

Law enforcement bugs, covertly eaves drop, get witness to turn.   The only strategy we can use here is the latter.  That is why we need a special prosecutor.   But doesn't Justice or the President have to appoint one?

So we are screwed.  
« Last Edit: May 18, 2013, 11:55:42 AM by ccp » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1358 on: May 19, 2013, 01:51:13 PM »

"Obama must work to salvage what’s left before Republicans likely win big in 2014, and he goes from being a lame duck to a soiled, sitting duck amid investigation after investigation."

A.B. Stoddard writing at The Hill, 5/15/13.
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/ab-stoddard/300021-a-time-for-humility#ixzz2TlY9dR39
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1359 on: May 19, 2013, 02:09:35 PM »

The IRS 'heightened scrutiny' targeting of conservative groups in an election year, the Benghazi coverup, the Sebelius story of cronying up with big health care etc., all these known scandals together are but the tip of the iceberg of the misconduct that occurred between the administration and the campaign in the 2012 election.

I am calling for 'heightened scrutiny' of the campaign's "data mining" operation for its collusion with government regarding the supposedly private information owned by the various departments of the governments.  They knew who was African American, they knew who was Hispanic and they knew who all the program recipients were in all the key states.  Is there not one 'low level' Cincinnati Census or food stamp official ready to come forward and tell us how it really worked?!
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1360 on: May 19, 2013, 02:31:03 PM »

Put my data mining allegation under wildcard, here are the brackets:


Click here for full size view:  http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/351/scandalbracket.png

Who will be the Champion of Obama scandals?  I say a wildcard pick will win it.  We know about the arrogance of power; we just don't yet know all the details.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4212


« Reply #1361 on: May 19, 2013, 09:27:05 PM »

Some have already suggested we have a fourth scandal though few seem to be paying attention ->  the recess appointments when there was no recess.   
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31821


« Reply #1362 on: May 20, 2013, 04:08:48 AM »

If you are counting the non-recess appointments, that would make 5 scandals:

2) Benghazi
3) IRS
4) AP
5) Sebelius shakedown
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1363 on: May 22, 2013, 10:34:11 AM »

Bob Schieffer, of all people, on Charlie Rose, CBS News, of all places, inadvertently draws the parallel between this administration's handling of it's affairs and the struggle of a young, medicated rock star dealing with illness, Roger Waters of Pink Floyd in Comfortably Numb.  "Is there anyone home?"

Bob Schieffer with Charlie Rose, 5/16/2013:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/16/schieffer_on_scandals_its_very_very_disturbing_what_were_seeing.html

"This is more of a case, is anybody home? All of a sudden you have this thing with the Justice Department where they’re getting all these phone records of all the reporters. The Attorney General, well he didn’t know anything about it. You get to the IRS, they don’t seem to know anything about the Tea Party thing. You come to White House, they don’t know anything about Benghazi. Somebody’s got to grab hold of this thing. It’s very, very disturbing what we’re seeing here."

Roger Waters saw it decades ago and called it "Comfortably Numb" (Pink Floyd, The Wall, 1979), brought to life with music and guitar solo by David Gilmour:

Hello, Hello, Hello,
Is there anybody in there?
Just nod if you can hear me
Is there anyone home?
...
Relax
I'll need some information first
Just the basic facts
Can you show me where it hurts?
...
I can't explain
You would not understand
This is not how I am
I have become Comfortably Numb
...
You are only coming through in waves
Your lips move
But I can't hear what you're saying
...
The child is grown
The dream is gone
I have become Comfortably Numb
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1364 on: May 23, 2013, 12:32:16 PM »

This President, oblivious to unintended consequences, is the master of them.  Who knew that withdrawing from war would spark new violence there, that abandoning support for an ally in Egypt would empower anti-Americans there, that launching a war on gun and ammunition sales would boost sales in that industry to record levels, or that launching a war against employers would come back to bite employees?  Who knew?

Now President Obama has achieved what President Reagan could only dream of:  Putting distrust of government on the front page of every newspaper, even the liberal ones, day after day after day.

President Obama's answer to every scandal is that this government is so large I have no idea what is going on in any part of it, please hand me a 5-iron.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4212


« Reply #1365 on: May 26, 2013, 10:22:05 AM »

Nothing like turning a weekend that is supposed to be reserved to honor our military by turning it to yet another lecture from the ONE.  This is the strategy - triangulate.   He is above and isolated from all the lies, the scandals, the cover-ups, the abuse of his office.   Just sickening folks.   This guy has no shame.   He is a Clinton clone - only more radical:

http://news.yahoo.com/politics/
« Last Edit: May 26, 2013, 11:32:41 AM by ccp » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1366 on: May 31, 2013, 10:06:10 AM »

Upon advice and wisdom of leadership, I move my Eric Holder post from yesterday to here.  I agree that these personal threads can detract from the issue threads.  These cabinet officials running wild are only relevant in that the unelected A.G. in this case was chosen by the President who continues to stand by him.  That said, Eric Holder is quite a piece of work, loaded with power and worthy of further study and discussion.
----
...Holder got his honesty and scandal handling training as Deputy A.G. for the Clintons so he is a confidant of both camps.  One might say only half-jokingly, he knows where there bodies are buried.

Here is Michael Ramirez with picture worth more than a thousand words, describing the current investigation of Holder investigating Holder.


Before Fast and Furious, Eric Holder had already made a name for himself.  "When he pushed through the pardon of Marc Rich, he didn’t know Rich had assisted America’s enemies, including Iran, or that Rich’s wife had donated large sums to Democratic and Clinton interests."
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/eric-holders-pattern-of-giving-false-testimony.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/the-moment-of-truth-about-eric-holders-moment-of-truth.php

Also among Holder's work was the pardons of the FALN terrorists, and lying about legal work done for Blagojevich, famous as the convicted seller of the Obama Senate seat.

Holder has stated under oath that he didn't know about the Fox News wiretapping when it was he who signed the complaint and handling the judge shopping.

In his opening remarks for confirmation, Holder stated that law enforcement must be untainted by politics. He also insisted that the Department of Justice represents the people, not the president.

Let's judge him by his own standard.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4212


« Reply #1367 on: June 05, 2013, 10:18:39 AM »

WH alters Michelle transcript.   

No surprise.

One can only wonder how many secret emails, white house transcripts of IRS meetings, Benghazi communications are being deleted and hard drives switched or altered as we speak.

Last resort is going to Library of Congress to stuff papers down your underwear..... angry

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/04/michelle-obama-heckled-at-dnc-event-threatens-to-leave/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1368 on: June 07, 2013, 12:23:15 PM »

The LA Times calls them the "liberal hawks":  http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-heilbrunn-obama-rice-power-20130607,0,4704730.story

There is too much material from these two to even know where to start.  A contributor at Politico today says Susan Rice is a great choice because of character, strong ethical standards and a clear lens of strategic analysis. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/susan-rice-and-samantha-power-up-close-92279.html  Same Susan Rice who analyzed Benghazi and told it straight to the nation.  Rice has a history of other problems well documented in the forum.

Samantha Power, architect of the world apology tour, is quite a bit scarier.  Before getting to her statements, take a look at the fascist-left views of Cass Sunstein, her husband, writing about one of his favorite subjects, justifying coercive paternalism, which means opposing individual liberty, which I wrote about here: http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2177.msg70158#msg70158  and was picked up by the WSJ here:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324105204578382572446778866.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

Washington Free Beacon: Samantha Power’s Five Worst Statements
http://freebeacon.com/samantha-powers-five-worst-statements/

Samantha Power will take over at as ambassador to the United Nations following Susan Rice’s promotion to national security adviser. Here are Power’s five most embarrassing comments.

1. Power called for global apology tour

Power wrote that U.S. foreign policy “needs not tweaking but overhauling,” in a 2003 New Republic article.  Power recommended that United States officials should apologize to the world for its past failures in order to enhance credibility with foreign countries.

“A country has to look back before it can move forward,” Power wrote. “Instituting a doctrine of the mea culpa would enhance our credibility by showing that American decision-makers do not endorse the sins of their predecessors.”

She reasoned that terrorists depend for their sustenance on “mainstream anti-Americanism throughout the world,” and that anti-Americanism is the fault of the United States.

“Some anti-Americanism derives simply from our being a colossus that bestrides the earth,” argued Power. “But much anti-Americanism derives from the role U.S. political, economic, and military power has played in denying such freedoms to others.”

2. Power recommended the United States intervene with a “Mammoth Protection Force” in Israel, then called the idea “weird”

Power made several recommendations on what the United States should do to alleviate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which she compared to the Rwandan genocide, in a 2002 discussion at Berkeley.

Though she stopped just short of calling it genocide, she did say that she saw “major human rights abuses” in Israel.  Power advised that the United States should stop spending money on the Israeli military, and instead invest billions in a new Palestinian state.

“It may mean sacrificing—or investing I think more than sacrificing—literally billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine,” Power explained.

She continued by recommending that the United States invest billions to send “a mammoth protection force” in order to create a “meaningful military presence” in Israel.

One of the few concerns for Power was that such action would alienate the pro-Israel lobby in the United States.  “Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import,” Power said.

3. Power praised Obama’s willingness to meet with enemies without preconditions

Power offered praise for President Barack Obama’s statement that he was willing to meet with rogue leaders without preconditions in the first year of his administration.  According to the Huffington Post, Power saw this statement by Obama as a turning point for his campaign and talked positively of his staunch insistence on the point.

“I can tell you about the conference call the day [after Obama made the proclamation],” she recalled. “People were like, ‘Did you need to say that?’ And he was like ‘yeah, definitely.’”

4. Power lost her job with Obama for calling Hillary Clinton a “monster”

Power was forced to resign from Obama’s presidential campaign for calling Hillary Clinton a “monster” in 2008.  The comments came during an interview with a Scottish newspaper.

“She is a monster, too — that is off the record — she is stooping to anything,” Power said.

She went into depth on what she believed were deceitful tactics by the Clinton campaign.  “You just look at her and think, ‘Ergh.’ But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive.”

 5. Power on John Kerry: “He must have thought that having got shrapnel in his ass out there bought him some credibility. It didn’t.”

Power had strong words for Secretary of State John Kerry following his failed 2004 campaign for president.  Power thinks that it was a mistake for Kerry to assume his military record alone would be enough to deflect attacks on the merits of his service in Vietnam.

“The lesson we got was that the only thing worse than John Kerry being Swiftboated was his being slow to respond,” Power told the New Statesman. “God love him, he must have thought that having got shrapnel in his ass out there bought him some credibility. It didn’t.”
-----
Same paper, Susan Rice's 5 worst moments:   http://freebeacon.com/susan-rices-worst-5-moments/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4212


« Reply #1369 on: June 07, 2013, 11:05:46 PM »

FWIW Levin theorizes that Brock the Great's apt of Rice is not much ado about in your face "Republican boy" as bribe to her to shut her up from turning on the "One"/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1370 on: June 10, 2013, 10:07:03 AM »

Historian Victor Davis Hanson puts context on the current mess. Obama is just being Obama, 'who changed the rules?'

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/  June 9, 2013

Suddenly, half the country is upset with Obama for the recent flurry of scandals. Even some in the media are perplexed. Why the sudden angst, given that Obama is simply being Obama? We, not he, changed the rules.

Once Barack Obama was elected to the Illinois legislature, his career as a statesman was mostly an afterthought — either voting “present” on controversial legislation (cf. Hillary’s 2008 complaint) or simply showing up to sign off on a straight left-wing agenda. Even his supporters can cite no lasting legislative achievement other than his controversial votes to allow babies born alive from botched abortions to be liquidated. As a political unknown, he got elected and defined his tenure as a legislator into a perpetual effort to find higher office.

Ditto the U.S. Senate.  Obama was noted in his brief career mostly for compiling the most partisan record among a diverse group of 100 senators, while making the argument that he worked “across the aisle” and was a model of “bipartisanship.” Because newly elected Senator Obama swore that he would not run for the presidency, we inferred that he would certainly do just that. (Yes, it is axiomatic that when Obama swears ["make no mistake about it"/"let me be perfectly clear"], then we expect what will follow will prove to be the very opposite.)

In the Senate, there was no signature legislation, no principled opposition, not much of anything, except a vote against Justice Alito and some similarly failed efforts at other filibusters to deny nominees an up-or-down vote.  He spent most of his brief sojourn attacking George W. Bush for the very protocols that he as president would later embrace. The only thing important was getting elected in the first place as a left-wing senator, and Obama accomplished that in brilliant, if not Machiavellian, fashion — with the help of the leaked divorced records of both his primary and general opponents.

The Man Who Never Was

The saga of Obama is marked by the uncanny ability to soar through the academic and government cursus honorum without ever being held too accountable for what followed. Obama’s selection as editor of the Harvard Law Review broke new ground. But to this day, no one cares much that his record was mediocre with no scholarly work to show for his tenure.

For that matter, ditto also his law career at the University of Chicago: an impressive appointment, but no scholarly book as promised, not even an article, and no distinguished record of teaching. Not much of anything. The point of the Nobel Prize was winning it — not doing anything that might have earned it. Just as there was no foreign policy achievement that preceded the prize, so there was naturally none following it. Why expect anything different now?

The Mind of the Liberal Elite

Obama always has a unique insight into a disturbing pathology among wealthy white liberal elites, who often seek, in condescending fashion, to promote particular aspiring minority candidates into positions of power and influence by virtue of their profile rather than past record. Hence the prep-schooled Barry Dunham returned to the more exotic Barack Obama, an authentic enough “other” fresh out of Rev. Wright’s Church, but also the pet of the Ivy League. Had he been born in Chicago to a Daily ward boss, it would have been a bit much to win statewide office. Had Obama been named Reggie Davis I don’t think the liberal resonance would have been there. Had he intoned like Jesse Jackson — all the time — he would have worried big-money liberals. Had his mannerisms been Al Sharpton-like, that would have been a bridge too far. There is something in the liberal mind that ignores the anti-constitutional transgressions of a smooth Eric Holder, but goes berserk over the comparatively minor obfuscations of a twangy Texan Alberto Gonzalez, perhaps along the lines of “how dare he?”  Politics aside, liberal elites would always prefer to hear a Barack Obama fudge than a Clarence Thomas tell the truth.

Obama brilliantly threaded the multicultural, Ivy-League, prep-school, affirmative action, just like us-sorta, yuppie needle. I’ll let you decide whether wealthy liberals practice such racialist paternalism because of feelings of guilt, because of their intrinsic dislike of the NASCAR/Sarah Palin working and middle classes, or as a sort of medieval exemption — the huge “Obama for President” sign on the lawn of the Palo Alto professor means never having to put your kids in schools where some are bused in from East Palo Alto. But what is absolutely non-controversial is that Obama’s prior record as a university undergraduate, a Harvard Law Review editor, a Chicago law lecturer, an Illinois legislator, and a U.S. senator was as undistinguished as his efforts to obtain those posts were absolutely dazzling.

The presidency followed the same earlier script. Obama ran a brilliant campaign both in 2008 and 2012, more inspired even than Richard Nixon’s 1972 CREEP run, or Ronald Reagan’s “Morning in America” 1984 touchy-feely pastel effort. In 2008, Obama offered cadences of something known as “hope and change” that were supposed to cure the evils of George Bush — and left everything else to the media. The second time around, he turned a decent Mitt Romney into a veritable greedy ogre from the Utah nuthouse, who did everything from ignoring his African-American garbage man to torturing his poor dog to buying pricey horses for his wife who was found guilty of being an equestrian.

But Obama’s record as president? There is pretty much nothing other than ramming through an unpopular takeover of health care, leveraged by political bribes and deemed unworkable even before it is enacted. A “train wreck” is how its author in the Senate dubbed his own legislative offspring.  Otherwise it was golf, down time, and free rein for zealous subordinates to “fundamentally transform America” by any means necessary, usually through administrative fiat and subversions of the vast and always growing bureaucracy.

Obama is now somewhat shocked that a few in the media hold him responsible for lots of bad things that his administration did: destroyed the reputation of the IRS; had a rogue EPA director invent a phony persona; let the HHS secretary shake down PR money from corporations to sell Obamacare; turned the Justice Department into a veritable Stasi enterprise going after the phone records of reporters; reduced the State Department into an arm of the 2012 Obama reelection effort; and helped erode the reputations of both Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice, who advanced campaign narratives about Benghazi that were not just untrue, but were demonstrably false the moment they were presented.

So What?

So where’s the beef? Obama, who was given a pass from Rev. Wright to Tony Rezko, is justifiably confused: who now changed the rules? Why should he suddenly be held accountable in a way he never was prior? He signed up to be a transformational president who was above politics, not someone subject to the vagaries of Washington scandals.

The result of the serial dishonesty is that Obama almost immediately reverted to his natural campaign mode, the soaring rhetoric and non-traditional persona that won him everything on the guarantee that there would be no audit, no assessment, no final appraisal. In other words, Obama never really became president of the United States. He simply kept running for the office against “them” even when he is now “them” holding the highest office. So Pavlovian was his campaign mode that he never quite stopped to wonder why he was running against himself — now damning the very abuses of power that he committed, upset only that someone might be disturbed about a record in a manner that they never were at Harvard, in the Senate, or during his first term.

Quo Vadimus?

Where do the scandals lead? To about three more months of Washington inaction. At some point soon, the Democrats will accept that the novelty of Obama in opposition to the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments has worn off. Who cares to hound out our first black president, our first northern liberal commander in chief in a half-century? Likewise the media will strut a bit to show it is not entirely reptilian, but then will revert to the usual hagiography. Why endanger Obamacare, or “lead from behind,” or the apology tours, or the new 50 million on food stamps by cannibalizing your own?

There are lots of metaphors for Obama. Some cite King Henry II, who dreams out loud for advantageous things to follow, only to shed alligator tears when toadies reify his deadly desires (Becket dead? That was a bit much, wasn’t it?). Others cite the clueless Jimmy Carter, whose agendas proved unworkable and ended up as caricatures of a presidency. I still prefer Chauncey Gardiner of Being There. In January 2012, I wrote the following on these pages:

    What got Obama to the presidency was being a man without a past or present, Chauncey Gardiner of Being There — without a college record, a medical record, a scholarly record, or much of a legislative record, the “smartest” president in history without having to say or do anything smart, who “busted hump” his entire life without any proof that he ever did any such thing, who proclaimed himself a greater president than all but three, but left nothing great in his wake, now or in the past. Obama had forgotten that winning non-persona for a time, and so after 2009 fooled himself into thinking out loud that at times he would play a real Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Kennedy, or Reagan.

    But now Obama accepts what he was and always will be — Chauncey Gardiner.

    And just being there is apparently the way to being president a bit longer.

Nothing has changed in the last 18 months, and the Obama presidency remains what it has been since 2009:  a path-breaking candidate who was elected America’s first African-American president; a gifted teleprompted speaker who is as accomplished from a script as he flounders ex tempore; and an opportunist haunted by George Bush and the post-2010 Republican House that are supposed to be responsible for most of what he gets caught for.

Otherwise there is not a lot there—mostly a carnival of McCarthyite (AttackWatch, JournoList, IRS) henchmen and left-wing extremists trying to push through an agenda by any means necessary that the majority of America probably does not welcome.

Obama is perturbed that we question any of this malfeasance. I think he is right to be angry. In his case, we made up the Obama rules that symbolism (not performance) and amnesty (not accountability) count. So why break our covenant with him, and now start asking for concrete and honest accomplishment when the teleprompter was always enough? In 2008, did we ask for the specifics of “the audacity of hope,” or ponder how someone who did not miss a service at Trinity Church (“Yep. Every week. 11 o’clock service”) somehow missed Rev. Wright’s serial racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-American rants? That we now want to know the president’s role in Benghazi, or in the IRS, AP, and Fox scandals is something that was just not part of the smartest-president-in-history bargain—as if once upon a time America ever demanded, “What the hell is your hope and change?”

So as they say here in Selma, “Get over it”.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4212


« Reply #1371 on: June 10, 2013, 09:46:22 PM »

"Suddenly, half the country is upset with Obama for the recent flurry of scandals"

Well not exactly right.  Half the country has been disgusted with this guy for 5 years now.  But finally there is enough bad news that even the adoring MSM and fellow Dems are getting nervous reading the polls.

"At some point soon, the Democrats will accept that the novelty of Obama in opposition to the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments has worn off."

We'll see if the Republicans can figure it out.  Some have but most are still clueless.

In any case Obama was the front man.  He's got some backup on the stage (holder, Biden) while he is the lead singer.   The real brains are unclear to me.  Axelrod?   Soros?  Probably them and a whole slew of other liberals most likely from the Ivys funded by the entertainment complex and Wall street fascists.

Not only does he give a good tele-prompted speech reading his lines flawlessly with the novel yet annoying (to me anyway) up note at the end of every line he delivers, he has the personality suited for the job.

An effortless liar, narcissistic far beyond simply being confident or even cocky.  Supremely and ruthlessly political and an extraordinary believer in leveling the playing field.  Megalomaniac with only a  conscious to himself.   

Clinton was absolutely narcissistic.  He definitely has many narcissistic traits but I can't really say he rises to the level of being a narcissistic *personality disorder*.   While Clinton is a serial liar he still can garner sympathy as the son of the alcoholic just seeking love and approval.  Hence he was able to adapt to the polls and govern closer to the middle.  It was all about his approval ratings.  Of course polls ratings to count for power as he demonstrated his second term.

Obama on the other hand is far more angry.  Far more about getting even.   Is he white?   Is he black?  Is he Christian?  Is he Muslim?  Is he an American?  The answer to the first four no longer need matter.   He is human.   However with regards to the last one - is he American?   I hope to God most Americans still think that matters.  Many Ivy league libs who are the brains behind Obama, the front man, no longer that is important.  That portends poorly for us.   



Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4212


« Reply #1372 on: June 11, 2013, 09:07:58 PM »

It's OK for Obama to have access to everyone's contacts, credit buys, downloads, links, etc. 

Yet he can have media over to the WH for "off the record" meetings whatever the f* that means, and no one has a right to know who these people are.

He can have endless visits to his house scheming and plotting his politics as he works for us yet no one has a right to know.  Yet we have no privacy rights.

As someone for years who has been under surveillance - I can tell you it is not pleasant.  Most people don't think they are targets so they are aloof about this.  Just they wait.

Boehner - This is the leader of the party I have voted for?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1373 on: June 14, 2013, 10:19:57 AM »

As the scientific ties between CO2 and warming get weaker and weaker, our glib President tells his closed door, fund raising audiences he is getting ready to double down:

Obama Tells Keystone Foes He Will Unveil Climate Measures

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html

The actions will focus on governing from the executive branch alone, without a check or balance with the legislative branch.

And this guy used to teach constitutional law...
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4212


« Reply #1374 on: June 14, 2013, 10:52:18 PM »

Yes .  He is going to ram as much liberal agenda through as he can over the next 3.5 yrs. 
Now we are going to get involved in Syria.  He we go again with the tail that wags the dog.

Have you noticed the Clintons in the news nearly every day now?

Bush Clinton again?   As much as I don't agree with Bush at least he and his family seem honorable.   I can't say the same for either of the Clintons or Obama.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31821


« Reply #1375 on: June 15, 2013, 04:41:05 AM »

"And this guy used to teach constitutional law..."

Actually IIRC it was one particular Amendment and how to use it for progressive litigation , , ,
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1376 on: June 17, 2013, 11:23:28 AM »

I don't want to be anti-Michelle, but here she comes, getting all political, with all of the same glibness. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2013/06/13/is-there-another-elected-obama-in-our-future/
Is There Another Elected Obama In Our Future?
"she would likely embrace virtually all of her husband’s economic policies — and could be even further to the left."
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1377 on: June 19, 2013, 09:20:21 AM »

Note: All of the problems confronting the President today happened before the election and were investigated and reported after the election.
-----------------
In overall approval, the President was +8 in May's (CNN) poll, 53-45. But in the most recent poll the President's approval rating has dropped to 45-54 or -9.

That's a negative shift of 17 percentage points in one month.

Every Democrat who has been pointing to the President's fairly steady approval numbers as evidence that his goodwill among his base has an insulating property to protect him against the NSA snooping, the IRS, the Benghazi problem, the DoJ collecting reporters' phone records and targeting Fox's James Rosen, Syria, Turkey, and maybe a Kryptonite asteroid that might have the Earth in its sights.

On what are known as the "issue handling" questions (Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling:

The Economy - 42-57 (-15)
Foreign Affairs - 44-54 (-10)
Deficit/budget - 34-64 (-30)
Immigration - 40-56 (-16)
NSA/Surveillance - 35-61 (-26)

I didn't leave out the good issues. That's the whole list.

On the "Do you consider the President to be honest & trustworthy" question the result was 49-50.
That is only minus one so it doesn't look so bad. But a month ago that result was 58-41 (+17). So, it represents an 18 percentage point drop.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/19/headwinds_for_obama_118867.html#ixzz2WfhOvaGc
-----------------

Pres. Obama drew 200,000 in Berlin, 2009.  Today 6000.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31821


« Reply #1378 on: June 20, 2013, 11:50:30 AM »

Living Rich and Famous, Obama Style
If Not for Double Standards... The $100 MILLION Family Vacation
By Mark Alexander • June 20, 2013         

"We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape...? --James Madison (1788)
 

Obama One

For all the class warfare rhetoric spewed by Barack Hussein Obama and his NeoCom cadres, he and his co-conspirator, Michelle LaVaughn, live like royalty.

Their let-'em-eat-cake lifestyle is even more contemptible, however, when one considers that it comes at the expense of those whom they purport to represent.
For all the references to "fat cats," it turns out the fattest cats of all now occupy the White House, and much like their record accumulation of national debt, their unmitigated arrogance and bloated hypocrisy exceeds all that of previous executive administrations combined.

Perhaps there are no better cases in point than the Obamas' exotic resort vacations and golf junkets whilst the rest of the nation exercises austerity measures necessitated by the regime's failed economic policies.

This week, Michelle and daughters Malia and Sasha hitched a ride on Air Force One to the G8 Summit in Northern Ireland. Then MO requisitioned Air Force Two so that she and her entourage could spend two days touring Dublin and the surrounding area. Once there, MO, her 11- and 14-year-old kids, and 30 members of her retinue set up shop in the lavish 5-star Shelbourne Hotel, where she booked the $3,300-per-night Princess Grace Suite.

By day, they hobnobbed with glitterati, lunching over Dalkey Lobster and Crab Salad or Road Rack of Wicklow Spring Lamb with such notables as U2 singer Bono. By night they were treated to royal boxes at theater performances such as "Riverdance," where Michelle told an adoring crowd, "It is good to be home."

Conde Nast, leftist travel magazine of the rich and famous, devoted a special section under "Bigwig Vacations," to Michelle's travel plans, noting, "It looks like she has taken a leaf or two from our 'Iconic Irish Itinerary.'" The Huffington Post Style pages opined under the heading, "Michelle Obama's Ireland Trip Wardrobe Is Making Us Jealous," then gushed about her "awesome printed Lela Rose vest, an on-trend Burberry trench coat and a covetable utility jacket."

Isn't that special.

Michelle's two-day $5.2 million side trip, however, was a mere slum tour compared to the Obamas' next taxpayer funded junket -- a "heritage tour" of three nations in southern Africa the week of June 26 to July 3, with an estimated cost between $80 and $100 million.

Beyond the five-star accommodations, this Africa tour will put an enormous burden on the Air Force. In addition to the already-huge operational cost of Air Force One, USAF cargo planes will airlift 14 limousines and 42 support vehicles, including three trucks with sheets of ballistic glass for the royal family's hotel windows. Helicopters will be ferried in along with the largest Secret Service team and support network ever. The entire trip with be under 24-hour cover of Air Force fighter jets, and a large Navy presence will be maintained off the east coast of Africa in case of any security or medical emergencies.

Calculating the total cost of the Africa trip is difficult, because so many expenses are classified, but the $100 million estimate came from the Washington Post. When the Post questioned the added cost of one excursion, an exotic Tanzanian safari, the White House canceled it. Seems that would have just been over the top...

According to Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy adviser for strategic communications, "The infrastructure that accompanies the president's travels is beyond our control." (Yes, that's the same Ben Rhodes who's "credited" with the White House Benghazi rewrites, and the same Ben Rhodes whose brother David is the president of CBS News.) However, canceling exorbitantly expensive vacations is completely within Obama's control.

For the record, presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also made trips to Africa at enormous cost to taxpayers and military budgets, but not at the same time they were blaming what Obama calls "the Republican Sequester" for across-the-board cuts to government agencies, with the deepest cuts of all hitting our nation's military budgets. (Ironically, national defense is one of the few federal expenses that is actually authorized by the Rule of Law enshrined in our Constitution.)

Also for the record, neither Clinton nor Bush devoted reams of classist rhetoric condemning corporate depreciation of private aircraft all while commuting in the world's most expensive taxpayer-funded exec jet. On a political junket a few months ago, Obama said, "What we don't want to do is give somebody who's buying a corporate jet an extra tax break that ordinary people can't get because they don't need it. ... They don't need an extra tax break, especially at a time when we're trying to reduce the deficit. Something's got to give."

Barack's "Heritage Tour" Outfit

Only an archetypal case study of Narcissistic Personality Disorder would commute on Air Force One to Kansas for a socialist stump speech, at a cost to taxpayers of $181,757 per flight-hour, not including the enormous cost of support personnel, facilities, and additional support aircraft, and lecture laid-off aircraft workers about why private-sector companies shouldn't receive the same write-off for an aircraft that they do for other business equipment.

Need I also mention the enormous cost to states and local government treasuries, and the significant inconvenience to other air travelers and local commuters every time Obama comes to town for a fundraiser?

Writing about the opulence of this administration in "Presidential Perks Gone Royal," author Robert Keith Gray notes that $1.4 billion in taxpayer funds was spent on the Obamas last year, including "the biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever" and Air Force One "running with the frequency of a scheduled air line."

Not only does Obama have the audacity to chastise corporate use of aircraft, but among the high profile sequester cuts Obama demanded was the cancelation of traditional flyovers at the Air Force and Naval Academy graduations two weeks ago.

So here's the question nobody has asked Obama spokesman Jay Carney: How does Obama justify the cancelation of flyovers to honor the commitment and sacrifice of our next generation of young military officers taking their oaths "to support and defend" our Constitution with their blood and lives, while their commander in chief is using Air Force One to ferry him and his adoring entourage around the nation to political fundraisers, and around the world on vacation junkets, at colossal expense to the defense budget and American taxpayers?

USAF Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said this week that Obama's sequester has grounded 33 squadrons, and many pilots are losing their proficiency. "If we were ordered to go do" a no-fly zone over Syria, "we'd go do it," but we would be "accepting the risk of those people not being as current. For me, that's a risk we don't want to be accepting."

Perhaps we should sequester the use of Air Force exec jets, including Air Force One, and also sequester $100 million royal family vacations.

Perhaps these savings could offset the $70 million in IRS bonuses to be paid this year -- to administrators who have benignly supported the harassment of Obama's "Enemies List." The Africa heritage tour funds alone would be sufficient to reopen public White House tours for the next 25 years.

Indeed, if it weren't for double standards, BO and MO wouldn't have any. If there's one defining characteristic of Leftist protagonists that is universally true, it is their consummate hypocrisy.

Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis
 
Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1379 on: June 22, 2013, 11:42:00 AM »




"And then Obama compared himself to me. . ."









http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/06/the-week-in-pictures-obama-faceplant-edition.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-best-editorial-cartoons-of-2013-so-far/2013/06/06/72679fd8-cebe-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_gallery.html#photo=37
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31821


« Reply #1380 on: June 28, 2013, 09:33:06 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4AJ843ERnU
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1381 on: July 02, 2013, 11:49:45 PM »

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2013/07/02/poll-obamas-approval-rating-hits-historic-low-n1632622
President Obama's approval rating tumbled to a record low as Americans reacted to the government's sweeping surveillance programs and other scandals, according to the latest IBD/TIPP Presidential Leadership Index.

* http://www.creators.com/opinion/thomas-sowell.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1382 on: July 03, 2013, 10:45:08 AM »

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1383 on: July 06, 2013, 09:59:39 AM »

State department denies, denies, denies, then admits Sec. Kerry was out yachting during the Egypt coup. (CBS)  Bottoms up to the dreaded 3am phone call.  Let's party.

Meanwhile Pres. Obama cancelled fireworks displays on military bases due to budget constraints, takes his own $100 million extended working vacation, is the first(?) President to vacation outside the U.S. over the 4th of July.  What is all this liberty-mania about anyway?

This is a working trip; he is writing his own Declaration of Coercive Paternalism.

The winning tweet on Obama's handling of the Egypt crisis goes to Glenn Reynolds:

"On Egypt, Obama should strive for irrelevance. It’s the best he is going to do."
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31821


« Reply #1384 on: July 07, 2013, 08:46:01 PM »

http://www.examiner.com/article/overpasses-for-obama-s-impeachment-movement-growing-across-the-country
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31821


« Reply #1385 on: July 19, 2013, 12:48:21 PM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/19/ap-fact-check-obama-spins-exaggerates-benefit-of-health-care-law/


Scathing AP Fact-Check: ‘Another Year, Another Round of Exaggeration from President Barack Obama…’
Jul. 19, 2013 7:32am Billy Hallowell

 
Editor’s Note: The following is a fact check written by the Associated Press entitled, “Fact Check: Obama Spins Health Insurance Rebates.”



WASHINGTON (AP) — Another year, another round of exaggeration from President Barack Obama and his administration about health insurance rebates.

In his speech defending his health care law Thursday, Obama said rebates averaging $100 are coming from insurance companies to 8.5 million Americans. In fact, most of the money is going straight to employers who provide health insurance, not to their workers, who benefit indirectly.

Obama danced around that reality in remarks that also blamed problems in establishing affordable insurance markets on political opponents, glossing over complex obstacles also faced in states that support the law.
AP Fact Check: Obama Spins, Exaggerates Benefits of Health Care Law

President Barack Obama stands with families who benefitted from the health care law provision that provides consumers with a refund if their insurance company doesn t spend the majority of premium dollars on medical care as he speaks about health care reform and the Affordable Care Act in the East Room at the White House in Washington, Thursday, July 18, 2013. Credit: AP

A look at some of his claims and how they compare with the facts:

-”Last year, millions of Americans opened letters from their insurance companies. But instead of the usual dread that comes from getting a bill, they were pleasantly surprised with a check. In 2012, 13 million rebates went out, in all 50 states. Another 8.5 (million) rebates are being sent out this summer, averaging around 100 bucks each.”

- After introducing several people who got rebate checks last year: “And this is happening all across the country. And it’s happening because of the Affordable Care Act. Hasn’t been reported on a lot. I bet if you took a poll, most folks wouldn’t know when that check comes in that this was because of Obamacare that they got this extra money in their pockets. But that’s what’s happening.”

-”If they’re (insurers) not spending your premium dollars on your health care – at least 80 percent of it – they’ve got to give you some money back.”

THE FACTS: Just as he did a year ago, Obama made a splashy announcement about rebates that incorporates misleading advertising.

The health care law requires insurance companies that spend too much on administrative expenses to issue rebates to customers. But those customers are often employers that in turn offer insurance to workers and bear the bulk of the costs. In workplace plans, the rebate goes to the employer, which must use it for the company health plan but does not have to pass all or part of it on to the worker. People who buy their own insurance and qualify for a rebate get it directly.

Obama was on solid ground in saying “millions of Americans” got rebate checks last year, but the number was not close to 13 million as he implied.

Of the 12.8 million rebates announced last year, health policy experts estimated 3 million would go directly to the insured. The government didn’t know how many.
AP Fact Check: Obama Spins, Exaggerates Benefits of Health Care Law

President Barack Obama stands with families who benefited from the health care law provision that provides consumers with a refund if their insurance company doesn t spend the majority of premium dollars on medical care as he speaks about health care reform and the Affordable Care Act in the East Room at the White House in Washington, Thursday, July 18, 2013. Credit: AP

Nearly two-thirds of the 12.8 million were only entitled to pro-rated and decidedly modest rebates, because they were covered by employers that pay most of their premiums. Workers typically pay about 20 percent of the premium for single coverage, 30 percent for a family plan. Employers pay the rest.

And employers can use all the rebate money, including the workers’ share, to benefit the company health plan, perhaps restraining premiums a bit or otherwise improving the bottom line. The law requires insurers to spend at least 80 percent of premiums they collect on medical care and quality improvement, or return the difference to consumers and employers.

Altogether, this year’s rebates are worth $500 million, down from $1.1 billion returned last year. The government says the lower rebates mean insurance companies are becoming more efficient.



CLAIM: “I’m curious, what do opponents of this law think the folks here today should do with the money they were reimbursed? Should they send it back to the insurance companies?”

THE FACTS: Even in that unlikely event, most people could not send it back to insurance companies because the money doesn’t go “in their pockets” and they have no control over what their employers do with it.



CLAIM: “In states that are working hard to make sure this law delivers for their people, what we’re seeing is that consumers are getting a hint of how much money they’re potentially going to save because of this law. In states like California, Oregon, Washington, new competition, new choices, market forces are pushing costs down.”

THE FACTS: It is simply not known whether health insurance will become less expensive in those states — or nationally — than it is now, or than it would have been absent the law. And hitches in setting up the new insurance marketplaces called exchanges are not limited to Republican-led states where leaders object to the law, although that political pushback is certainly part of what’s going on.
AP Fact Check: Obama Spins, Exaggerates Benefits of Health Care Law

President Barack Obama applauds before he speaks about health care reform and the Affordable Care Act in the East Room at the White House in Washington, Thursday, July 18, 2013. Credit: AP

In California, for example, where there is plenty of competition by health insurers wanting to get into the exchange, an actuarial report commissioned by Covered California, the state agency running the insurance marketplace, found that middle-income residents could see individual health premiums increase by an average of 30 percent while costs go down for lower income people.

In West Virginia, Democratic Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin — also a cooperative partner in expanding Medicaid and setting up an exchange — complained to federal officials this week about delays in rules and guidelines from Washington as the state struggles to meet deadlines under the law.

“Many West Virginia families have expressed frustration” trying to find out how much policies from the exchange will cost them and whether they will get a subsidy, he said, and the state is “dangerously close” to falling short of requirements under the law.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31821


« Reply #1386 on: July 22, 2013, 12:07:25 PM »



http://savingtherepublic.com/blog/2013/07/obama-supporters-petition-to-grant-him-immunity-for-all-crimes-he-commits-while-in-office/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31821


« Reply #1387 on: July 22, 2013, 05:06:54 PM »

Second post:

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2013/07/obama-strongly-supported-stand-your-ground-when-in-illinois-senate.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1388 on: July 23, 2013, 10:56:48 AM »

Every once in a long while someone uses 'tweeting' for what it was designed - to send out a profound thought in a concise, repeatable format.  This one is from 'Kathy in SC':

The most famous white Hispanic helped rescue 4 Americans. The most famous black Caucasian refused to rescue 4 Americans! Who’s A HATER?

------------------------------

George Zimmerman grabs fire extinguisher, pulls family from overturned SUV
http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/22/george-zimmerman-grabs-fire-extinguisher-pulls-family-from-overturned-suv/#ixzz2ZstMVG9X

Pres. Obama for the first time in American history ordered rescue efforts to "Stand Down" while Americans were under siege in Benghazi.

If President Obama had a son, he would not look like Ambassador Chris Stevens.  After freeing the slaves 150 years ago and empowering women to vote nearly 100 years ago, when did we start caring, aloud from the bully pulpit, what Americans look like?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1389 on: July 25, 2013, 08:42:31 AM »

Forbes writes today,'The President Doubles Down on Moving Left - More of the Same':
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen/2013/07/24/more-of-the-same/
-------

I like this from the WSJ this morning:

"before a government can redistribute wealth, the private economy has to create it"

Too bad the Romney campaign, with a billion in the bank, couldn't resonate one sentence of economics to a suffering nation.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1390 on: July 30, 2013, 10:46:08 AM »

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I find it astonishing that he goes around making speeches in which he deplores the state of the economy, the growing income inequality, chronic unemployment, staggering middle class income, and it's as if he has been a bystander, as if he's been out of the country for the last five years. It's his economy; he's the president.

He's talking as if this is the Bush economy, I don't know, the Eisenhower economy, and he just arrived in a boat and he discovers how bad the economy is. This is a result of the policies he instituted. He gave us the biggest stimulus in the history of the milky way, and he said it would jump start the economy. The result has been the slowest recovery, the worst recovery since World War II, and that is the root of all of the problems he's talking about, the income inequality -- the median income of the middle class of Americans has declined by 5% in his one term. So who's responsible for that? Those were his policies. He talks about this in the abstract and he actually gets away with it in a way that I find absolutely astonishing, it's magical. This is his economy and he's pretending he's just stumbled upon it. And the policies he proposes are exactly the ones he proposed and implemented in the first term. (Special Report, July 29, 2013)
« Last Edit: July 30, 2013, 10:47:41 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1391 on: August 02, 2013, 11:32:32 PM »

Of 953,000 Jobs Created In 2013, 77%, Or 731,000 Are Part-Time

Obamacare discourages full time employment.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-02/obamacare-full-frontal-953000-jobs-created-2013-77-or-731000-are-part-time
------------
Posted in Race, black teenage unemployment rate is now 42%.
------------

What the hell is wrong with us that we want a sputtering economy?  How do we help people's long term chances for affordable health care by killing off real jobs?  The growth rate coming out of a hole this deep should be >8% IMHO.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31821


« Reply #1392 on: August 11, 2013, 08:35:23 PM »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/10236302/First-dog-Bo-is-airlifted-to-Obama-holiday-home.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12168


« Reply #1393 on: August 11, 2013, 09:09:59 PM »


The true face of imperial power.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1394 on: August 11, 2013, 10:23:17 PM »

Photo of the Day, With Commentary on Golf and Benghazi

Reporters have followed President Obama to Martha’s Vineyard, where they are standing by to inform us of any wonderful deeds He might perform. Today, pool reporters were ecstatic that they were permitted to watch Obama play golf. You can read their #kneepadmedia–Brad Thor’s hashtag–tweets about the golf outing here. Zeke Miller, a political reporter for Time, tweeted this photo of Obama, taken just after he missed a putt:



The pool report says: “He let out a little, ‘Ooooh,’ as it happened.” Like his fellow reporters, Miller apparently found the photo more adorable than it might seem to the average American, who–for example–may have been cut back to 29 hours a week because of Obamacare. Miller also tweeted the pool report’s description of Obama’s reaction to the missed putt:

    First putt was a miss, which Obama reacted to by leaning back & kicking his knee up, as if trying to coax the ball into breaking right.

So I’m wondering: when do you suppose our intrepid press corps will report on Obama’s whereabouts and actions during the Benghazi crisis in the same detail, and with the same enthusiasm, that they devote to his missing a putt?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/08/photo-of-the-day-with-commentary-on-golf-and-benghazi.php

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31821


« Reply #1395 on: August 14, 2013, 10:48:56 AM »

This was posted here by Doug and I pasted it on the Benghazi thread as well and somehow in the process I deleted it here so now that I re-post it, it appears under my name instead of Doug's.
======================================

The Mother of All Scandals   by Victor Davis Hanson
August 12th, 2013

IRS?

A system of voluntary tax compliance cannot survive a dishonest IRS. Lois Lerner and company have virtually ruined the agency. For the foreseeable future, each time an American receives a tax query, he will wonder to what degree his politics ensures enhanced or reduced scrutiny — or whether his name as a donor, activist, or partisan has put him on a watch list.

Worse still, when a high commissioner of the IRS takes the 5th Amendment, it sends a frightening message: those audited go to jail when they refuse to testify; those who audit them who do the same do not.

AP?

The Associated Press/James Rosen monitoring by the Obama administration was creepy not just because it went after a heretofore obsequious media, but because Obama’s lieutenants alleged that the reason was aiding and abetting the leaking of classified material.

Of course, disclosing top-secret information and thereby damaging the national interest is no small thing. But was leaking the real reason that Eric Holder lied under oath when he assured his congressional inquisitors that he was not monitoring the communications of Americans — after he had done just that in the case of James Rosen of Fox News?

No modern administration has leaked classified data like the Obama administration. Do we remember a frustrated Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warning White House National Security Adviser Tom Donilon “to shut the f— up” for disclosing the secret details of the bin Laden hit?

Or was John Brennan’s effusive blow-by-blow description of the Navy SEAL team protocol worse? Or for that matter, why did David Sanger and David Ignatius seem to have access to classified details about the bin Laden document trove and the Iranian Stuxnet cyber-war campaign? The obvious answer is that after the midterm election of 2010, a panicking Obama administration worried about reelection, and especially polls that suggested the president was weak on national-security issues.

To rectify that image, politicos began leaking the nation’s most intimate secrets to remind the public that, behind the scenes, Obama was a veritable Harry Truman. The problem with the AP was not that it leaked, but that it did not leak in a fashion and at a time of the administration’s own choosing. In other words, the Associated Press was a competitor when Obama wished a monopoly on the leaking franchise.

NSA?

No one knows much about the NSA mess. But already there are some disturbing developments. How can Director of National Intelligence James Clapper outright lie under oath without consequences after he assured the Congress that the agency did not monitor the communications of American citizens?

After the president’s press conference last week, an embarrassing paradox arose: the president promised all sorts of new NSA reforms. But why now, and for what reason the sudden worry? After all, Obama offered no new protocol to ensure that classified matters did not end up in the hands of a high-school dropout and highly ideological computer hacker like Eric Snowden.

Instead, the president de facto made Snowden’s case. It was only because of the illegal acts of Snowden that Obama promised future measures — not against the next Snowden, but against abuses promulgated by himself. Consider the logic: Snowden is supposed to be a criminal for leaking a top-secret intelligence gathering operation, but in response to that illegal conduct, Obama for the first time promises to address just the sort of abuses that Snowden outlined.

With enemies like Obama, the lawbreaking Snowden hardly needs friends.

Benghazi!

Of the four most prominent scandals — and by “four” I do not wish to deprecate “Fast and Furious,” or EPA Director Lisa Jackson’s fake email persona, or the arbitrary non-enforcement of the law, from ignoring elements of Obamacare to granting pre-election amnesty by fiat to over one million illegal aliens — Benghazi is by far the most disturbing; the scandal is insidious.

Death?

Four Americans were slaughtered under conditions that we still cannot fathom. It was rumored but not confirmed that Ambassador Stevens in extremis was either raped or brutalized, though those details remain murky — given that the assassination of an American ambassador is rare, and the vicious brutalization of his person is unprecedented. Witnesses of the attack on the CIA annex have either disappeared or gone silent. The families of the deceased have received conflicting accounts of how loved ones were murdered. All that we know for now is that the entire scene of the caskets arriving on U.S. soil — from the melodramatic assurances that the perpetrators would shortly feel American retaliation, to the demonization of Mr. Nakoula as the cause of the deaths — was a lie, and a cynical one at that.

Military protocol?

The American military takes incredible risks to come to the aid of its own beleaguered. When it does not — consider Wake Island in World War II — a national scandal erupts. For now, we know that those under assault requested aid; that sending such help was imminently feasible; and that no one yet can explain why such succor was not sent.

We are left with the suspicion that some official surmised that the reelection campaign did not want a Mogadishu-style shoot-out less than two months before the election, or a messy Libya, or the risk of beefing up security. The reelection mantra was instead that Osama bin Laden was dead; al Qaeda was nearly defunct; and that the “lead from behind” removal of Moammar Gaddafi had helped to energize the Arab Spring and lead to a new age of reform. No wonder someone ordered a stand-down to preserve that fantasy.

“Leading From Behind” has led to “Leaving Them Behind.”

If Obama can monotonously “spike the ball” on Osama bin Laden, cannot he offer a little clarity to the families of the deceased? Nearly a year after the murders, what happened to Obama’s reelection boast that he would bring the perpetrators to justice?

Cover-up?

Barack Obama, Susan Rice, and Hillary Clinton all falsely swore that the obscure amateur video maker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was guilty of prompting a mass riot at Benghazi. Nakoula — petty crook and loud opponent of Islam — was a fall guy right out of central casting.

A favorite topos of Barack Obama — consider the al-Arabiya interview, or the Cairo speech — is his courageous and principled opposition to supposedly ubiquitous Islamophobes. Beating up on the unsympathetic Nakoula killed two birds with one stone: it reminded the world that the multiculturalist Obama would not tolerate anti-Muslim thought on his shores, and it propped up the sinking narrative of an extinguished al-Qaeda.

There were absolutely no professional consequences for publicly lying — to the nation, to television audiences, to the relatives of the deceased, to the United Nations — that the Nakoula video was the cause of the deaths of our Benghazi personnel. Barack Obama was reelected. Hillary “what difference does it make” Clinton retired from the secretary of State post to congratulations and media frenzy about her likely 2016 presidential campaign. Susan Rice was promoted to National Security advisor.

There is almost no one left at his 2012 post. In addition to the above, General Carter Ham, in charge of Africa Command, has retired. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has retired. CIA Director David Petraeus has resigned.

How did it happen that just nine months after the attack, most all of the relevant decision-makers — Clinton, Ham, Panetta, Petraeus, Rice — have vanished from their jobs?

Ron Ziegler Redux

Jay Carney cannot be believed. He lied when he said that there were only “stylistic” changes made to CIA talking points, when in fact the administration’s revisions were both major and predictably aimed at serving a false narrative. Carney also did not tell the truth when he repeated on several occasions that Mr. Nakoula was the culprit for the violence, a fact that he knew at the time was false. And when Carney deprecated Benghazi as a “phony” scandal, we heard the ghost of Ron Ziegler stonewalling with “third-rate burglary.”

The Engaged President

We saw minute-by-minute pictures of Obama in command surrounded by advisors during the bin Laden raid. Why not the same level of photographed attention on the night of Benghazi? In a nutshell, in one operation we sent lots of soldiers after a few enemies, and in the other, lots of our enemies were sent after a few of our soldiers. Saving trapped Americans from a pre-planned al-Qaeda hit is not a photo-op in a way a preplanned American attack on al-Qaeda most certainly could be. Otherwise, I have no idea where the president was during that long tragic night, only that we will never know until he is well out of office.

“National Security”

The hallmark of most recent American presidential scandals — whether Watergate or Iran-Contra — has been the evocation of “national security” and often the supposed role of the CIA that must preclude full disclosures. For now, almost a year later, no one knows what exactly the CIA was doing in Benghazi, only that hiding whatever it was doing — perhaps gunrunning confiscated weapon stockpiles to insurgents of some sort in Syria — was of utmost importance, at least in the political context of late 2012. I have read the accounts of the original CIA talking points, reviewed the public statements of Gen. David Petraeus both before and after his resignation, collated the assertions of top administration officials — and the narratives cannot be squared. Someone at some point flat-out lied and thought it critical to hide American activity in Benghazi.

A False Campaign?

The election of 2012 may well have been altered by the Benghazi cover-up, in ways that transcend debate moderator Candy Crowley’s puerile and unprofessional efforts to shield Obama from Romney’s questioning about the deaths. Imagine the fallout on voters had we been told from the very beginning that an al-Qaeda affiliate had stormed our consulate — ill-prepared and unable to obtain needed beefed-up security, reliant for safety on local suspect tribal militias, in a country that had deteriorated into a failed society after our Libyan bombing — and slaughtered four Americans, apparently stationed in Benghazi to help in some way a covert CIA operation.

So here we have it: a beleaguered “consulate” that was refused additional security and relied on local militias, apparently due to administration worry over destroying an Obama campaign narrative of a reborn Libya and dying al-Qaeda. A CIA operation of some sort supplied something to someone, but what and why and to whom, we are not supposed to know. Four Americans, the very best the country had to offer, are dead, denied assistance when assistance could have saved them — the why and the how and the when of it all we are not told. We fear it might have been a crackpot cost-benefit analysis: four lives versus another Mogadishu and an Obama November defeat.

We know only that the dead were far more heroic than the leaders who chose not to aid them.

And in reaction to all this, we jail a petty video maker, who makes the perfect scapegoat as a supposedly right-wing Islamophobic hate monger whose take-down advances our president’s politically correct narrative of Muslim outreach. That yarn required a president, secretary of state, and UN ambassador to lie repeatedly. When we ask questions, witnesses are browbeaten, the knowledgeable fade into the Washington woodwork, the luminaries have all left their offices, and we are left with “phony” scandal and “what difference does it make.”

All in all — the mother of all scandals.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2013, 05:12:12 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1396 on: August 30, 2013, 04:44:53 PM »

The greatest leaders respond to the challenges of their times:

"We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and the oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."  - Winston Churchill

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." - John Kennedy

“In no event are we considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground, that would involve a longterm campaign.”  “We’re not considering any open commitment.”  - Barack Obama
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1397 on: September 03, 2013, 03:09:08 PM »

“This is not the time to be spectators to slaughter,” he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (When is the time to be 'spectator to slaughter'?)  “Neither our country nor our conscience can afford the cost of silence.” ("I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.")  Kerry said that Assad had used chemicals after repeated warnings from the president, Congress and U.S. allies.  ("[The American military] raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, bl(ew) up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages like Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside")


Too bad not to have leaders with credibility in a time of crisis.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31821


« Reply #1398 on: September 03, 2013, 09:31:30 PM »

It is true tragedy to have the leaders we have.
 cry cry cry
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1399 on: September 04, 2013, 10:40:20 AM »

Barack Obama, 2002, genocide can be contained without American intervention.  In 2007: Preventing genocide does not justify an American presence.

He is speaking about Iraq [adapted for Syria 2013] from a 2002 speech, links are below.

    "Now let me be clear--I suffer no illusions about [Bashar al-Assad]. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied U.N. resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

    He's a bad guy. The world, and the [Syrian] people, would be better off without him.

    But I also know that [Assad] poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the [Syrian] economy is in shambles, that the Syrian military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.


In 2007 Obama asserted that American troops should be withdrawn from Iraq [Syria] even if that would result in genocide:

    "Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now--where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife--which we haven't done," Mr. Obama told the AP. "We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea."

Credit: James Taranto, WSJ     

Speech quotes:
http://web.archive.org/web/20090108155556/http:/en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Iraq_Speech
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118541112759578392.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet


Logged
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 33 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!