I only call out Obama because he claims to be a liberal. Liberals don't support drone attacks, Gitmo, warrantless wiretaps and surveillance, endless wars that don't go anywhere, etc... Wait a minute. When a Republican president does those things, they are against it. When a liberal president does it, they support it blindly. I mean, what happened to the anti-war left movement? What happened to the ers that camped out at Bush's ranch in Crawford?
I see the problem here....some "liberals' don't conform to your distorted bias and your having trouble digesting it...I only call out Obama because he claims to be a liberal. Liberals don't support drone attacks, Gitmo, warrantless wiretaps and surveillance, endless wars that don't go anywhere, etc... Wait a minute.
True liberals don't support most of the that President Obama supports. Thank you. Anyways, you're drinking the koolaid so I'm done with you in this thread. Peace.
Very true.
The solutions we needed to close Gitmo were roundly rejected by Congress, i.e. Republicans in the house.
Pretty easy to lay that at their feet.
You do realize that Obama ended our large-scale presence in Iraq, right?
You do realize that Obama has scheduled a similar draw down for Afghanistan?
Riddle me this:
Why would someone who wants an end to those wars protest a president who ended the wars they dislike?
Except, for 2009 Democrats on Capitol Hill Rebel Against President Obama's Guantanamo Bay Plan http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story...1#.UZOcq6Ip98E
2011 Don’t Blame Obama: Only 6 Democratic Senators Voted To Fund Closing GITMOhttp://www.politicususa.com/dont-bla...ing-gitmo.html
Regrettably, they've pretty much been lockstep with the GOP on this issue.
But yeah, It's totally on the republicans.
OBAMA FACT SHEET: http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html
"In his press conference Tuesday, President Obama repeated that he wanted to shut Guantanamo Bay but blamed Congress for stopping him. "They would not let us close it," he said. But that's wrong. President Obama can lawfully release the detainees if he wants to. Congress has made it difficult, but not impossible. Whatever he's saying, the president does not want to close the detention center—at least not yet."*
Obama has repeatedly said he wants to close Guantanamo, but he took no action. Now, are people who previously opposed the inhumane treatment inside changing their tune because it's what Obama "wants?" Why won't he close it and let the detainees who have been CLEARED out of Gitmo's walls? Cenk Uygur breaks it down.
TYT News: Is Guantanamo Obama's Greatest Disgrace?
He didn't end the war in Iraq. He just turned it over to the CIA and State Department and mercenaries instead of using US combat troops.
How many of those have died since the transition?
He didn't end the war in Iraq. He just turned it over to the CIA and State Department and mercenaries instead of using US combat troops.
I accept your whining as an admission that the number is close to zero.
OK, how do you say they are fighting the war in the same manner as the US troops?
He didn't end the war in Iraq. He just turned it over to the CIA and State Department and mercenaries instead of using US combat troops.
How many troops does the State Department have on the ground there, and who is their commander?
Get to that vomitous mass later.
Lots. And I am their commander.
How many troops does the State Department have on the ground there, and who is their commander?
Also, I'm Batman.
I was just proven wrong
Fair enough I stand corrected.
Better source for data:
http://jurist.org/paperchase/2009/06...sure-funds.php
Gives links to bills, roll call votes, et al.
Democrats in Congress have repeatedly called for a detailed plan that has not been forthcoming.
Republicans just don't want it closed, period, plan or no.
At this point, even if Obama has a plan in hand, no vote would make it out of the House.
(edit)
Also, I found a good white paper on it:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40754.pdf
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-15-2013 at 11:49 AM.
Whatever you say, kid. (rolls eyes)
Honestly, I just don't care about most of the copy and paste you say. You are too stupid to really argue with, so it is generally a waste of time.
Even so, occasionally you bring up some valid points that are mildly worth addressing, as your spammed picture/video links were. As I have said on more than one occasion, I even agree with some of it.
Now you can either display a modi of maturity and wait a bit, or continue your junior high school strutting, in which case, you can off.
Your call, mature patience, or childish strutting. I don't care either way.
SA210 would have impeached JFK.
Wow, in the past you have always been quick to call names, jump the gun bc you didn't like the FACTS I posted. But yea, go ahead. Do the mature thing.
Why have the meeting? Let them go in front of the committee and answer the charges that were leveled during the hearing. I get the impression that Issa wants to know what they are going to say before a public hearing. He can't risk his committee looking like partisan hacks nor allow anything to get out into the public that exonerates Clinton... I guess it's smart to have the private meeting..Heads of Benghazi review board say they'll testify before Congress after criticism
Published May 14, 2013
Associated Press
WASHINGTON – The leaders of the panel that independently reviewed last year's deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, said Tuesday they were prepared to testify publicly before Congress to counter what they consider unfounded criticism of their work.
In a letter to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, veteran diplomat Thomas Pickering said he and former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen would answer any questions lawmakers have. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the panel, is pressing for the two men to agree to an interview with staff investigators prior to a public hearing.
The work of the Accountability Review Board is the latest focus of a broader Republican inquest into their claims that the Obama administration misled Congress and the American people after the Sept. 11, 2012, attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
The blistering report released in December by Pickering, Mullen and three other reviewers found that "systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels" of the State Department meant security was "inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place."
Pickering, however, noted how recently "some have called into question the integrity of the board and its work."
"We believe that such criticisms are unfounded and, if left unaddressed, undermine the essential work that the board has done," he wrote. "It is therefore important that we be afforded the opportunity to appear at a public hearing before the committee and answer directly questions regarding the board's procedures, findings and recommendations."
Republicans believe the report was flawed, and they want to know why top officials like Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton weren't interviewed. The panel absolved Clinton of any wrongdoing, faulting lower level State Department officials. Four were given paid suspensions.
On Monday, Issa asked Pickering and Mullen to meet privately with committee staff investigators to answer questions about their review. Democrats countered that if lawmakers wanted to talk to them, Issa should hold a full open hearing.
Pickering said the board "conducted a thorough review and produced a report that included detailed findings and frank and often highly critical assessments." It issued 29 recommendations for improving security at diplomatic facilities worldwide, and Pickering insisted that the board "fulfilled its role in identifying the lessons that must be learned and acted upon from Benghazi."
"We stand behind the board's report and look forward to discussing it in a public hearing," he wrote.
Frederick Hill, a spokesman for the committee, said late Tuesday that the panel was following up with Pickering and the State Department to determine whether he would appear voluntarily for an interview with committee staff investigators. Hill noted that Issa and Pickering appeared on a Sunday talk show together two days ago, and said the former diplomat had told the committee chairman that he would voluntarily submit to an interview.
"The committee is giving him a full opportunity to voluntarily follow through on his commitment," Hill said.
Issa, in his letter on Monday to Pickering and Mullen, had said that following the private interview, the committee would work with the report's authors on a date for a public hearing.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2TNHfg1QA
Nice lie and spin attempt. JFK learned from his mistake and even stopped a terrorist attack on US Citizens by its own government (Operation Northwoods), and he had more backbone than all Presidents combined after him, including your fraudulent Messiah. Your messiah is just a flat out psychopathic neo-con child murderer, killer of civil liberties and Wall Street sellout;
JFK gave up his entire Presidential salary to charity, and even gave more on top of that
lol
To what mistake are you referring?
Fair enough, I did call you stupid, and that was unnecessary, even if true.Wow, in the past you have always been quick to call names, jump the gun bc you didn't like the FACTS I posted. But yea, go ahead. Do the mature thing.
That said, I will take "you didn't like the FACTS I posted" as more strutting, and further, proving my point about you being stupid.
For most people who have two brain cells to rub together, you twit, that was actually an agreement.
Since you have pretty much proven you lack the reading comprehension to even read short posts with any understanding, and have doubled down on the childish strutting, you can off.
If it is one thing dealing with the like of Cosmored and mouse has taught me it is how to identify Massive Wastes of Time when I see them.
You are still acting like a child, you began that way and you still are. All I did was post facts about Obama and you started insulting like a kid. I can read just fine. When you read the facts I post, it makes you angry, hence your constant insults, whether you agree in part or not. Now back to what we were discussing, Obama is a fraud, a war criminal and Wall Street hack and you should support his impeachment. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would know this. I am all for civil discussion and have always been about that, but it's funny coming from twits who have always constantly tried insulting me bc they hate that I tell the truth about a corrupt Democrat the same as I did a corrupt Republican when Bush was in office.
4-5 years ago when I was hard on Bush, you hypocrites LOVED what I was saying and backed me ALL THE TIME in this forum. How the tables have turned, all because I remained consistent, and now it's YOUR guy, so you don't like it. And after all the childish trolling and insults..now the trolls want civil discussion/posts? (even though that's what I originally did) I'll believe it when I actually see it. (Awaits further insults or explanations)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
