Reply With Quote
Nobody misses that dumb piece of except for racist incest practicing Tea Baggers.
Seems like hardly a day goes by that we don't hear of the Obama administration embracing yet another Bush policy -- usually one Obama, himself, railed against during his candidacy.
Opposition to U.S. trial likely to keep mastermind of 9/11 attacks in detention
What happened to that "rule of law" Obama claimed demanded terrorists receive a civilian trial? I'd prefer they take KSM out behind Gitmo and put a bullet in his head but, Obama decides to echo the Bush administration...yet again.Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, will probably remain in military detention without trial for the foreseeable future, according to Obama administration officials.
The administration has concluded that it cannot put Mohammed on trial in federal court because of the opposition of lawmakers in Congress and in New York. There is also little internal support for resurrecting a military prosecution at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The latter option would alienate liberal supporters.
I wonder what the Washington Post and other liberal rags were saying when Bush relied on the courts for indefinitely detaining terrorists. Anybody remember?The administration asserts that it can hold Mohammed and other al-Qaeda operatives under the laws of war, a principle that has been upheld by the courts when Guantanamo Bay detainees have challenged their detention.
Miss him yet?
Nobody misses that dumb piece of except for racist incest practicing Tea Baggers.
I hope you're able to maintain that level of intensity all the way through the 2012 election cycle.
It should come in handy.
this is not vindication. This is endictment of our govt. Obama/backers threw out the lure and pretty much guaranteed victory with their campaign platform. They said all the right things and the electorate swooned.
Then after election, the backers/wall st. pushed their agenda which was more of the same criminal bull we experienced under Bush and bore no relation to campaign promises (fraud, cronyism, corporate favoritism, criminal coverups, unnecessary war, civil liberty dissolution, etc).
Wake the up. New boss is owned same as the old boss.
By the by, I'm not so sure Tea Party members were than enthused with President Bush. After all, his signing the TARP bailouts is what got their panties in a wad to begin with.
No, George W's economic policy that last year pretty much put him in league with the Democrats as far as Tea Partiers are concerned.
But, hey, I give you a 10 on the spittle-flecked boutonesque post.
incidently its no suprise they pushed so hard with Obama, because they knew their fraud was about to hit the fan, and they knew they were about to need some serious cover. so they bought an executive for 4 years. pretty good return on investment if you look at the bailout result and the continued record profits through the Great Recession.
wake the up.
Maybe the cold, hard, reality of the situation just slapped Obama across the face.
Out of curiosity, what interest do the "backers/wall st." [en ies] have in Khalid Sheik Mohammed's disposition?
more info here:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165885
Seriously, I hope all of you guys can keep this level of bouton-like frothing up for another two years. It will play well during the next Presidential election.
Alas, I fear only boutons is capable of that level of crazy.
you tell me?
Inform on his disposition. I dont follow "terror news."
it did, but it was the cold hard reality of...
Back when Obama was a freshman candidate for Senator he was selected to be keynote speaker for the Democratic national convention in 2004. A nobody from Chicago was plucked from midair and cast into the most important slot in the convention. How he would up there remains to be revealed.
Just a little over one year after being elected as a junior senator, in 2006 Obama was the featured guest before a private gathering of the Goldman Sachs executives in Chicago, an honor unheard of for someone that politically insignificant, speaking before the most powerful financial firm on Wall Street and one of the most powerful in the world. This was quietly reported in Bloomberg News.
It was the launch of his presidential campaign and Goldman executives soon gave over $800,000 to jump start the Obama presidential bid along with collecting millions of dollars from their fellow Wall Street firms and clients. Oh yes, Robert Rubin became the Obama economic expert, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Billionaire Warren Buffet became his most trusted economic advisor, a man who was to invest $5 billion in Goldman Sachs in the height of the economic meltdown. Yet Buffet was also a personal guest of Lord Rothschild at a private conference at his English estate.
The story only gets better. On May 3, 2007, Barack Obama attended an event at the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan that was not on his public schedule and is only now surfacing. The exclusive private dinner was for Goldman Sachs traders and featured a discussion on issues by Obama moderated for the Wall Street firm by NBC's Tom Brokaw. Once again the cir stances are strange as a year later Brokaw would be moderating the second presidential debate between Obama and McCain and the economy and Wall Street were the main points of discussion. Of course the debate commission and McCain were unaware that Obama and Brokaw had already held a practice session the year earlier.
Then comes the financial meltdown which can be traced back to a couple of major events. The first major change to the regulatory framework that opened the door to Enron and the sub-prime crisis occurred in 1991, when Goldman Sachs, through a subsidiary called J. Aron, argued that even though it was an investment bank it should be granted the same exemption given to commercial traders in the commodity markets because it was in the business of buying commodities as a middleman. It was granted by the CFTC.
A second turning point came when Congress passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, that formally allowed investors to trade energy commodities on private electronic platforms outside the purview of regulators. Critics have called this piece of legislation the "Enron loophole," saying Enron played a role in crafting it. In the months after the act was passed, private electronic trading platforms sprang up across the country, challenging the dominance of NYMEX.
....
Do we really know anything about the long term relationship between Obama and Goldman Sachs other than their massive fund raising for him? Since he has been secretly guided and financed by Goldman people from the very beginning of his presidential campaign were they influential in his economic platform? Obama never questioned the role of Goldman in the sub-prime fiasco nor in manipulating the oil futures prices. When Goldman specialists tried to drive the price of oil up to $200 a barrel this year Obama never said a word.
Long before this time the Goldman Sachs Foundation had quietly channeled funds to Colin Powell's new group, America's Promise and Powell himself was collecting honorariums from $50,000 to $100,000 for speaking to various groups including Goldman sponsored events. At some point between the time he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then left government, only to come back as Bush Secretary of State, Powell acquired between $1 million and $5 million of stock in giant defense contractor General Dynamics, a firm in which the Roshschilds have extensive ownership. Powell eventually would be converted from a McCain financial contributor and friend to endorser of Obama in less than a year.
As for the Rothschilds and McCain, it was not until this year that they held a fund raiser for him in London hosted by Lord Jacob Rothschild and his son, Nathaniel Rothschild in the posh London Spencer House on March 28, 2008. As I said at the beginning, the Rothschilds are the oldest, biggest and most powerful of all financial houses and have long chosen to remain in the background while other firms fronted their interests.
....
In spite of being foreign based the Rothschilds have been one of the chief beneficiaries of the economic crisis in America as J.P. Morgan and Barclays, firms with significant equity held by the Rothschilds, were able to gobble up Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual in sweetheart deals for a fraction of their asset values in the midst of the crisis.
So what control do we really have over the election, over the president and over the Congress? We know control has been lost of the economy, of world trade and of international finance. Most government ins utions seem to be operating at the whim and call of the financial giants. Can we expect more after this election? Is America for sale to the highest bidder and is Obama's $500 million campaign the highest bid? All this bodes ill for the liberal, left wing groups and unions rallying around Obama as they may very well be discarded when they have served the purpose of winning the elections.
So, you link to another Spurstalk.com thread with a link to someplace called bignews.biz?
As best as I can tell, the story linked in your previous post, from this site, has no byline. I can't tell who wrote. Can you?About Us
Bignews.biz is a free press release and news distribution service.
Our founders have over 25 years of experience working for news organizations such as the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and the Associated Press.
The purpose of this site is to act as a place where businesses, individuals and organizations can post news and press releases.
There are currently about 27,000 registered publishers using this site to distribute their press releases. We then distribute this news to the media, the public, search engines, Web sites and social media outlets on their behalf.
We have some guidelines for the types of press releases we will accept. Please review our Terms of Service page for more information.
If you have any questions, feel free to use our online Contact Us form. Our postal mailing address is:
BigNews.biz LLC
16 Heath Place
Garden City, New York
11530-3005 US
And, a website that has, in it's banner, "Free Press Release and World News Distribution Service" that brags about having 27,000 publishers can't be that discriminating.
Sounds like a propaganda outlet if ever there was one.
Last edited by Yonivore; 11-13-2010 at 05:23 PM.
God, it's going to be an entertaining two years. Maybe better than the previous two.
Yoni proves again how eternally wrong he is, always a ranting dubya sucker.
But, hey Parker! It's a nice touch that Goldman Sachs is such a big advertiser at BigNews.biz!
if I know. You're the one that brought "backers/wall st." into this thread, not me.
He's still being detained at Gitmo...months after Obama bravely declared he would receive a civilian trial in New York City.
I don't see how Obama being too cowardly and unprincipled to try KSM as a criminal vindicates his predecessor in the least.
How does it vindicate Bush?
Obama runs . He is a front for Wall St and the MIC at this point. And both profit from the war on terror. he may want an open trial but he may not be able to get what he wants in light of those who are really in power in our federal govt.
He seems fairly comfortable using the Bush administration's defense for detaining KSM -- particularly after he spent the better part of 18 months bashing it.
I'd say that's vindication. If it just a matter of cowardice and lack of principles, I think he would have had no problem making up a lie that wouldn't associate him with policies he spent two years bashing.
You should also read what you post, especially the part you bold:
The administration has concluded that it cannot put Mohammed on trial in federal court because of the opposition of lawmakers in Congress and in New York.
So the opposition to the trial is not by the actual administration, but lawmakers somewhere else.
Okay, I'll write very slowly.
When someone who has criticized another's actions, incessantly, over a long period of time, adopts those actions, himself -- and both people occupied a unique position from which only they could know the realities that drove their decisions.
That's vindication.
I never said the administration opposed the trial.
It was to this quote I was referring when I asserted his adoption of a Bush-era policy:
If that's the case, why all the caterwauling when Bush asserted the same thing?The administration asserts that it can hold Mohammed and other al-Qaeda operatives under the laws of war, a principle that has been upheld by the courts when Guantanamo Bay detainees have challenged their detention.
No, repeating somebody's else coward actions is simply being another coward.
Vindication is to free from allegation or blame. As far as this is concerned:
1) It is not Obama or his administration that oppose the federal trial
2) At most, you could claim that by not proceeding with the trial he's attributing himself the same blame that was attributed to Bush.
Vindication is not the word you're looking for Yoni.
Because Bush held detainees indefinitely without evidence, didn't classify them as military prisoners, and denied them the basic challenge of such detention (habeas). In light of the amount of released prisoners from Gitmo, one would correctly assume that what Bush did was indeed an aberration.
The question with these guys is not if the administration has evidence against them, but when and where are their going to be tried. Is it going to be a federal court? Is it going to be a military court? That sort of thing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
