Obama's Failures
Closed Thread
You guys convinced me. From now on I will get all my news from Fox.
__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula
X
User Lists
Nobody's suggesting you watch Fox News. We're suggesting you acquire a basic grasp of how logic works. Like, really basic.
Also, I realize this will probably break your brain, but I almost never watch Fox News.
Also, I realize this will probably break your brain, but I almost never watch Fox News.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
X
User Lists
I certainly wasn't trying to convince you to get all your news from Fox... although it's wise to watch/read even the stuff you consider to be propaganda, to stay informed of what they're saying and, more importantly, how they're saying it.
But I digress. All I did was point out that your cloak-and-dagger witch-hunt routine is so very transparently useless and laughable, and if anyone's motivations are questionable, yours are.
You act as if a republican posting a thread criticizing a democratic administration is an unthinkable outrage. Believe it or not, some of us are interested in Yoda's criticisms whether we totally agree or not. Grow the eff up and let the republican speak his mind without you constantly derailing with your ridiculous indignance at the nerve of these other parties.
But I digress. All I did was point out that your cloak-and-dagger witch-hunt routine is so very transparently useless and laughable, and if anyone's motivations are questionable, yours are.
You act as if a republican posting a thread criticizing a democratic administration is an unthinkable outrage. Believe it or not, some of us are interested in Yoda's criticisms whether we totally agree or not. Grow the eff up and let the republican speak his mind without you constantly derailing with your ridiculous indignance at the nerve of these other parties.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
It's not so much what particular news channel one watches, but certainly how many with opposing and diverging views, so that one can make an informed opinion.
It's surprising how one story can have so many slants if one watches FOX, CNN, NBC, RT (Russian Television ), BBC, CCTV ( Chinese Television ), Al Jazeera, TV Japan, TF1 ( French Television ) and RAI ( Italian Television ),
so it probably helps if one can read between the lines.
It's surprising how one story can have so many slants if one watches FOX, CNN, NBC, RT (Russian Television ), BBC, CCTV ( Chinese Television ), Al Jazeera, TV Japan, TF1 ( French Television ) and RAI ( Italian Television ),
so it probably helps if one can read between the lines.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Obama is a far better candidate than Romney. I'd like to have my pell grant available to me when I go to college.
X
Favorite Movies
- The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
- The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
- The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
- Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
- Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
- Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
- Raiders of the Lost Ark
- Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
- Alien
- It
X
User Lists
X
User Lists
Two updates on some of the issues listed earlier.
First, from the infamously hard right ABC News: The Untold Story Behind The "Fast and Furious" Scandal:
Second, here's a timeline of the administration's statements about the Embassy attack, followed by some simple questions:
There's really nowhere for the administration's defenders to go here: they simply didn't tell the truth about these events. They played down all the damaging angles and trotted out surrogates to contradict things that they ended up admitting to just a few days later. Theoretically, I don't have a problem with any administration failing to answer questions about sensitive matters. Sometimes that's necessary. But in this case, they actively misled and misstated the situation and openly contradicted people who, it now turns out, were correct all along.
This isn't just with surrogates, either; the President himself has repeatedly suggested or implied that the video itself was responsible for the violence, rather than a pretext for it, as his White House now seems to concede. He even said this in his speech to the United Nations. I think "disingenuous" is probably the nicest possible word you could use for trying to pretend this is all just about some video. But admitting otherwise could be politically damaging, so the charade must go on.
First, from the infamously hard right ABC News: The Untold Story Behind The "Fast and Furious" Scandal:
Who are the human faces of the U.S. government's botched "Fast and Furious" gun-walking operation?
Often lost amid the rancor in Washington are the stories of dozens of people killed by guns that flowed south as part of the undercover operation, and later slipped out of view from U.S. officials. Univision's Investigative Unit (Univision Investiga) has identified massacres committed using guns from the ATF operation, including the killing of 16 young people attending a party in a residential area of Ciudad Juárez in January of 2010.
Additional guns, previously unreported by congressional investigators, found their way into the hands of drug traffickers across Latin America in countries such as, Honduras and Colombia, as well as the U.S. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. A person familiar with the recent congressional hearings called Univision's findings "the holy grail" that Congress had been searching for.
Often lost amid the rancor in Washington are the stories of dozens of people killed by guns that flowed south as part of the undercover operation, and later slipped out of view from U.S. officials. Univision's Investigative Unit (Univision Investiga) has identified massacres committed using guns from the ATF operation, including the killing of 16 young people attending a party in a residential area of Ciudad Juárez in January of 2010.
Additional guns, previously unreported by congressional investigators, found their way into the hands of drug traffickers across Latin America in countries such as, Honduras and Colombia, as well as the U.S. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. A person familiar with the recent congressional hearings called Univision's findings "the holy grail" that Congress had been searching for.
There are two possible explanations. Either the information widely available to intelligence professionals was not shared with those speaking on behalf of the president. Or those Obama administration officials had the accurate information and chose not to provide it.
If intelligence professionals had immediately concluded that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the YouTube video, why did top administration figures point to it as the trigger?
If the Pentagon knew on “Day One” that the attacks were planned, why was U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice still denying this four days later?
If intelligence professionals had immediately concluded that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the YouTube video, why did top administration figures point to it as the trigger?
If the Pentagon knew on “Day One” that the attacks were planned, why was U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice still denying this four days later?
This isn't just with surrogates, either; the President himself has repeatedly suggested or implied that the video itself was responsible for the violence, rather than a pretext for it, as his White House now seems to concede. He even said this in his speech to the United Nations. I think "disingenuous" is probably the nicest possible word you could use for trying to pretend this is all just about some video. But admitting otherwise could be politically damaging, so the charade must go on.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
And the next time anyone wants to doubt that the media has its biases (even though I think that complaint is often an ideological crutch), observe the kind of questioning the administration got (or rather, didn't get) domestically, versus the questioning he received (and completely dodged, per the video at the link) at the Univision forum.
Terrorist attack on American soil? Diplomat dead? Al Qaeda involved? Administration mischaracterizing the attack repeatedly and forcefully for a solid week before reversing themselves? Yeah, why would any of that be news? We've got gaffes to cover. Priorities!
Terrorist attack on American soil? Diplomat dead? Al Qaeda involved? Administration mischaracterizing the attack repeatedly and forcefully for a solid week before reversing themselves? Yeah, why would any of that be news? We've got gaffes to cover. Priorities!
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Two updates on some of the issues listed earlier.
First, from the infamously hard right ABC News: The Untold Story Behind The "Fast and Furious" Scandal:
Second, here's a timeline of the administration's statements about the Embassy attack, followed by some simple questions:
There's really nowhere for the administration's defenders to go here: they simply didn't tell the truth about these events. They played down all the damaging angles and trotted out surrogates to contradict things that they ended up admitting to just a few days later. Theoretically, I don't have a problem with any administration failing to answer questions about sensitive matters. Sometimes that's necessary. But in this case, they actively misled and misstated the situation and openly contradicted people who, it now turns out, were correct all along.
This isn't just with surrogates, either; the President himself has repeatedly suggested or implied that the video itself was responsible for the violence, rather than a pretext for it, as his White House now seems to concede. He even said this in his speech to the United Nations. I think "disingenuous" is probably the nicest possible word you could use for trying to pretend this is all just about some video. But admitting otherwise could be politically damaging, so the charade must go on.
First, from the infamously hard right ABC News: The Untold Story Behind The "Fast and Furious" Scandal:
Second, here's a timeline of the administration's statements about the Embassy attack, followed by some simple questions:
There's really nowhere for the administration's defenders to go here: they simply didn't tell the truth about these events. They played down all the damaging angles and trotted out surrogates to contradict things that they ended up admitting to just a few days later. Theoretically, I don't have a problem with any administration failing to answer questions about sensitive matters. Sometimes that's necessary. But in this case, they actively misled and misstated the situation and openly contradicted people who, it now turns out, were correct all along.
This isn't just with surrogates, either; the President himself has repeatedly suggested or implied that the video itself was responsible for the violence, rather than a pretext for it, as his White House now seems to concede. He even said this in his speech to the United Nations. I think "disingenuous" is probably the nicest possible word you could use for trying to pretend this is all just about some video. But admitting otherwise could be politically damaging, so the charade must go on.
Is it really believable they deliberately mislead or lied when obviously the the facts would emerge?
You compare this to lying about weapons of mass destruction and trying to influence CIA intelligence reports?
X
User Lists
Here is some good news for Yoda, Romney really is going to win:
http://www.conservativehq.com/articl...is-inept-campa
http://www.conservativehq.com/articl...is-inept-campa
X
User Lists
The simple explanation is they didn't know exactly what happened at the onset and the timeline suggested the uproar about the video was involved.
Is it really believable they deliberately mislead or lied when obviously the the facts would emerge?
You compare this to lying about weapons of mass destruction and trying to influence CIA intelligence reports?
If you're trying to talk about Bush and Iraq--which I assume is going to segue into some predictable accusation of hypocrisy, in which case we're going to have to have another logic lesson--then the argument's over already. Even trying to do this, no matter how clumsily, is an admission that you can't defend this President's record.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Oh, and you'll get your wish: I'll be posting some analysis of the unemployment situation later.
WARNING: "Unemployment" spoilers below
It's freakin' awful, and all the standard excuses for it are paper thin.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
They kept insisting for a while, so what?
There is zero proof at this point there was a deliberate cover-up
But there will be an investigation, and if i was a betting man i wopuld bet they aren't going to find one.
Publish all the Obama failures you like.
You can add some more when he is re-elected.
There is zero proof at this point there was a deliberate cover-up
But there will be an investigation, and if i was a betting man i wopuld bet they aren't going to find one.
Publish all the Obama failures you like.
You can add some more when he is re-elected.
X
User Lists
will on giving assault weapons to cartels that are then used to murder people:
will on repeating falsehoods about the murder of a U.S. diplomat after knowing they were false:
Nothing to see here. 
Thanks, but this is like the fourth time you've given me permission to do the thing I'm already doing.
Things go wrong sometimess. Mistakes happen.
so what?
Publish all the Obama failures you like.
X
Favorite Movies
X