Reply With Quote
A youtube!??!!!???
I'm outta here.
Addresses most of the criticism spammed on meme's and youtubes.
Thoughts?
A youtube!??!!!???
I'm outta here.
Asking for congress to repeal AUMF.
Response to the protester was not bad either.
A youtube!??!!!???
I'm outta here.
fake liberal buys his lies, per par
I hope you are not referring to me. I took some of what he said as valid because I considered it on my own or he made sense. Other things not so much. When he said the threat level was moving more towards regional guerrilla tactics I wondered then does that mean HSA goes away for example. I had thought about the validity of attacking Benedict Arnolds in Yemen as I have talked about that before as another example. I don't think he would lie about briefing Congressional committees prior to that.
What lies are you talking about? Did you watch his speech or are you just waiting on a Alex Jones video to tell you what you should think?
Of course I watched his bull as he was spewing it, you are just late to the game, he lied about everything and it's laughable that you believed any of it. I find it sad that EVERYONE including the war criminal ignoring the Patriotic protestor Medea Benjamin, bringing up the 16 year old boy he murdered, Abdulrahman Awlaki. He pretended like she only brought up Gitmo, and he used her for political points to get applause over her very real concerns while also pretending like he cared about her concerns lol the morons fell for it, per par. Why can't he specifically address killing that AMERICAN minor? He didn't come out with any new changes to the drone program, it was more of him just defending his ILLEGAL program, he lied about civilian casualties, he lied about the success of the program, he lied about signature strikes, he lied when he said he had been letting Congress know about every single drone strike. Alwalaki was killed BEFORE Congress was given the OLC memo. He lied about not being able to capture Alwlaki, but yet NEVER indicted him for any crimes, nor his 16 year old son of which Obama won't even utter the 16 year old's name Abdulrahman Awlaki, AT ALL, he won't even go there and completely ignored that point by the protestor. He lied about being within the law and protecting the cons ution, lied about being for due process, lied about "being at war"; he waged illegal war that was NOT necessary. He lied about the Afghanistan war ending in 2014. He lied that Alwlaki was an immediate threat that needed to be killed on the spot. HE STILL HAS PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE ON THIS.
You believed his bs, he impressed you with another speech, you thought you were bright by posting about it. You believed his lies that he was also so concerned about closing Gitmo. Just another bs speech by the war criminal politician. He lied just by opening his trap. Nothing to see here. But yea, go ahead, defend that guy that is aiding Al Qaeda rebels right. Why would that guy lie?
.
Medea Benjamin, a true hero putting the mass murderer on blast
I think this is interesting because while he didn't speak specifically to everything that you said, he did discuss several of your talking points.
I don't know. You tell me.
Well, yeah. Do you disagree that Congress gave the POTUS authorization to use military force in 2001? Do you have any evidence that Afghanistan or Yemen did not give permission to use military force inside their borders? He admitted that he violated Pakistani sovereignty in going after Bin Laden. Do you disagree with any of these facts? Because if you don't then this is a legal war. That is just how the law is written.He didn't come out with any new changes to the drone program, it was more of him just defending his ILLEGAL program,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040604121.htmlhe lied about civilian casualties, he lied about the success of the program, he lied about signature strikes, he lied when he said he had been letting Congress know about every single drone strike. Alwalaki was killed BEFORE Congress was given the OLC memo.
This is dumb. It was public knowledge that Al Waki was on a kill list much less only Congress a year before he got the missile. The military runs these types of operations. You think the armed services committee or the intelligence committee is just oblivious of what we're doing? Obama is just duping the legislature?
Again this is a pretty naive way of looking at things. The 'crime' was carried out by the US military. When you are talking about military actions on foreign soil, the rules change. Collateral damage is collateral damage. You are not going prosecute the CiC for an authorized military action.He lied about not being able to capture Alwlaki, but yet NEVER indicted him for any crimes, nor his 16 year old son of which Obama won't even utter the 16 year old's name Abdulrahman Awlaki, AT ALL, he won't even go there and completely ignored that point by the protestor.
He didn't say that we we're unable. He gave the choices they had and why he chose the drone strike. Many of the same things you have heard here. They are safer and cheaper than a cruise missile. The other alternative would be to go Bad Company. Since Moghadishu, the military is uncomfortable of putting our guys out there like that. This is not Bad Company 2 so the alternative is to deploy a battalion or more to have a firefight in the desert. Air strikes are out of the question by your rules.
There have been a whole ton of reports from various news agencies about the guys in Yemen beginning with the USS Coale up to the underwear bomber. What do you think al-Waki was doing in Yemen other than producing multiple jihadist magazines? Were they lying about the people that were in his prayer groups or any of the myriads that he had contact with? It's not as if this has not been international news for over a decade.He lied about being within the law and protecting the cons ution, lied about being for due process, lied about "being at war"; he waged illegal war that was NOT necessary. He lied about the Afghanistan war ending in 2014. He lied that Alwlaki was an immediate threat that needed to be killed on the spot. HE STILL HAS PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE ON THIS.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 05-23-2013 at 10:57 PM.
For the record...
In a First, U.S. Acknowledges Drones Killing 4 Americans
Last edited Wed May 22, 2013, 04:46 PM USA/ET - Edit history (4)
Source: New York Times
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: May 22, 2013
4:30 pm Eastern
WASHINGTON — One day before President Obama is due to deliver a major speech on national security, his administration on Wednesday formally acknowledged that the United States had killed four American citizens in drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan.
In a letter to Congressional leaders obtained by The New York Times, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. disclosed that the administration had deliberately killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who was killed in a drone strike in September 2011 in Yemen.
The American responsibility for Mr. Awlaki’s death has been widely reported, but the administration had until now refused to confirm or deny it.
The letter also said that the United States had killed three other Americans: Samir Khan, who was killed in the same strike; Mr. Awlaki’s son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was also killed in Yemen; and Jude Mohammed, who was killed in a strike in Pakistan. “These individuals were not specifically targeted by the United States,” Mr. Holder wrote.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us...trikes.html?hp
I think that there are a lot of bull rumors spread about drone attacks, but it's good to see more openness about who is being targeted...
Can you imagine if Bush had done this?
We would have saved thousands of lives and trillions of tax payer dollars?
From today's Counterterrorism speech:
Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...rrorism-policyAnd that is why I intend to engage Congress about the existing Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, to determine how we can continue to fight terrorists without keeping America on a perpetual war-time footing.
The AUMF is now nearly twelve years old. The Afghan War is coming to an end. Core al Qaeda is a s of its former self. Groups like AQAP must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States. Unless we discipline our thinking and our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states.
So I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is preparing a piece of legislation that would “sunset” the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), a foundational law passed in the days after the 9/11. “The current AUMF is outdated and straining at the edges to justify the use of force outside the war theater,” Schiff tells Danger Room.
Repealing the AUMF would be the boldest restriction of presidential war powers since 9/11. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have relied on the do ent to authorize everything from the warrantless electronic surveillance of American citizens to drone strikes against al-Qaida offshoots that did not exist on 9/11. Getting rid of it is certain to invite fierce opposition from more bellicose members of Congress, who have repeatedly demagogued efforts to roll back any post-9/11 wartime authority, let alone the most important one.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), the only legislator to vote against the authorization in 2001, has long fought unsuccessfully to repeal the AUMF. But Schiff is a moderate, not a firebreathing liberal, and while sunsetting the AUMF is sure to be a big legislative challenge, even conservative legislators like Rand Paul (R-Ky.) are raising fundamental questions about the merits of a never-ending war.
Stop with the act, please. You know that Obama gets a pass on this . I just want koolaid drinking liberals to admit that. I want them to admit that they bashed the out of Bush 24/7 for this yet their guy Obama gets a pass. Step up and humble yourself.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)“The President’s speech today will be viewed by terrorists as a victory," said Chambliss, who recently golfed with the president, in a statement. "Rather than continuing successful counterterrorism activities, we are changing course with no clear operational benefit. We knew five years ago that closing Guantanamo was a bad idea and would not work. Yet, today’s speech sends the message to Guantanamo detainees that if they harass the dedicated military personnel there enough, we will give in and send them home, even to Yemen. With the recidivism rate now at 28% and the increased threat from al Qaeda and its affiliates, including in Yemen, GITMO must stay open for business."
During His Campaign against Max Cleland, he released an ad
that included Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, highlighting Cleland's record on the war and terrorism..(Chambliss ad YouTube August 6, 2006)
Chambliss received criticism from both Republicans and Democrats for this ad poining out that he, who hadn't served in the Vietnam War due to receiving military defermentshad attacked a Vietnam War veteran who lost three limbs during his service for not being tough enough on issues of war and Homeland Security.
Republican Senator John McCain said of one ad, "It's worse than disgraceful, it's reprehensible." McCain, along with Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, made significant complaints to the Republican National Committee, until the ads were taken down.
The reason GITMO is still open is because of CONGRESS, not Obama.
Read the updates, from the bottom of the page upwards here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ention-center/
Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...rrorism-policyToday, I once again call on Congress to lift the restrictions on detainee transfers from GTMO. I have asked the Department of Defense to designate a site in the United States where we can hold military commissions. I am appointing a new, senior envoy at the State Department and Defense Department whose sole responsibility will be to achieve the transfer of detainees to third countries.
I am lifting the moratorium on detainee transfers to Yemen, so we can review them on a case by case basis. To the greatest extent possible, we will transfer detainees who have been cleared to go to other countries. Where appropriate, we will bring terrorists to justice in our courts and military justice system. And we will insist that judicial review be available for every detainee.
Even after we take these steps, one issue will remain: how to deal with those GTMO detainees who we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks, but who cannot be prosecuted – for example because the evidence against them has been compromised or is inadmissible in a court of law. But once we commit to a process of closing GTMO, I am confident that this legacy problem can be resolved, consistent with our commitment to the rule of law.
I know the politics are hard. But history will cast a harsh judgment on this aspect of our fight against terrorism, and those of us who fail to end it. Imagine a future – ten years from now, or twenty years from now – when the United States of America is still holding people who have been charged with no crime on a piece of land that is not a part of our country. Look at the current situation, where we are force-feeding detainees who are holding a hunger strike. Is that who we are? Is that something that our Founders foresaw? Is that the America we want to leave to our children?
Executive order. Thank you.
Won't happen. Truth is not important. For them it's only about Blue vs Red, any accusations, scandals, etc on either side will be refuted with rose colored glasses, spin and bs the entire time. Pretty sad and pathetic. All the while the truth is lost on them and people are dying, all bc of their blind loyalty to party over reality.
smh
.
A message as well to fake liberals on their ignorance and blind loyalty over truth.
"President Obama's speech today on U.S. counterterrorism policy was actually two speeches in one. The first outlined a supposedly new, restrictive policy on drone strikes that was neither new nor restrictive. The second called for shutting down the Guantánamo detention center—not a new position for the president but the revival of a long-dormant one, unfurled in blazing colors along with a vision of a genuinely new way of approaching global terrorism."*
During his speech at the National Defense University, Obama spoke about his drone strategy, but didn't distinguish between personality strikes and signature strikes, in which it's unclear who or what is being hit. Double taps also weren't mentioned. Are the civilian deaths being underwritten? Cenk Uygur breaks it down.
TYT: Obama Brags About Out of Control Drone Strategy
.
Double ouch..
"In a major speech Thursday at the National Defense University, President Barack Obama described in broad terms what his administration has framed as a new, more limited approach to waging what's known as the war against al Qaeda and associated forces. The speech covered many topics, including the role of drones and a potential repeal of the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force at some point in the future. It also marked the most extensive comment Obama has made publicly about Guantanamo Bay since an ongoing hunger strike brought renewed attention to the prison there."*
President Obama talked about alleged progress on finally closing Guantanamo Bay's detention center. We've heard it before...and we'll probably hear it again. Cenk Uygur explains why what Obama had to say was just rhetoric.
TYT: Did Obama Really Say Anything About Closing Gitmo?
.
Triple ouch.
"In his speech today about the future of American counterterrorism operations, President Obama said that he will order drone strikes less frequently and redouble efforts to transfer some detainees out of Guantánamo. He suggested a more focused approach to terrorist threats in light of the diminished capacity of al-Qaida. Yet he also maintained the administration's long-standing legal approach."*
President Obama gave a hope-filled speech on national security, and it sounded great. But dig a little deeper, and you'll see Obama's words do not match his actions on protecting the freedom of the press among many other topics. Cenk Uygur breaks down the ridiculous ironies.
TYT: Obama Says He Protects The Press - Too Bad It's Not True
Julie, YOU LIE
Dems never controlled the Senate. Blue Dog Dems, DINOs, and independents prevented obtaining the unCons utional 60 reliable votes.
And it was the Repugs who refused to approve the expense of $100M or whatever to close Gitmo.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
