Barack Obama, our next President

Full story: Hampton Roads Daily Press

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ...
Comments
836,301 - 836,320 of 1,100,522 Comments Last updated 14 min ago

“Often imitated”

Since: Jul 07

never duplicated

#910766 May 24, 2013
lily sock queen wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! That little island of England can scramble fighter jets so quickly but Obama & Hillary wouldn't allow an single U.S. F-16 with drop tanks (sufficient range capability) to depart from Italy to help in Benghazi?
DOH! I forgot! Two weeks prior to Benghazi, Obama told us Bin Laden was dead and Al Queda was on its heels. I guess he was better off covering that mess up so close to the election.
Must have been a video that caused this problem too!
There were no american anti aircraft weapons in the hand of al queda in the area.

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#910767 May 24, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you want criminals working at the IRS?
Silly me, of course you do.
LOL;)

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#910768 May 24, 2013
Aunt Bettie Lou wrote:
<quoted text>
A statement from the 9/11 commission:
"The commission found the president and the vice president forthcoming and candid. The information they provided will be of great assistance to the commission as it completes its final report."
That's all you need to know.
What you should also know:
The report cited Clinton as fumbling repeated opportunities to get bin Laden: "The Clinton administration had as many as four chances to kill or capture bin Laden between December 1998 and July 1999...."
So why did Sandy Berger steal documents from the National Archives and there was missing informaton about 9/11 during the Clinton administration?
We'd all like to know that, wouldn't we?
fact check.com

It is here that things get murky. Erwa claims that he offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. Key American players – President Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke among them – have testified there were no "credible offers" to hand over bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence" that Erwa had ever made such an offer. On the other hand, Lawrence Wright, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Looming Tower," flatly states that Sudan did make such an offer. Wright bases his judgment on an interview with Erwa and notes that those who most prominently deny Erwa’s claims were not in fact present for the meeting.
Wright and the 9/11 Commission do agree that the Clinton administration encouraged Sudan to deport bin Laden back to Saudi Arabia and spent 10 weeks trying to convince the Saudi government to accept him. One Clinton security official told The Washington Post that they had "a fantasy" that the Saudi government would quietly execute bin Laden. When the Saudis refused bin Laden’s return, Clinton officials convinced the Sudanese simply to expel him, hoping that the move would at least disrupt bin Laden’s activities.
Much of the controversy stems from claims that President Clinton made in a February 2002 speech and then retracted in his 2004 testimony to the 9/11 Commission. In the 2002 speech Clinton seems to admit that the Sudanese government offered to turn over bin Laden:
Clinton: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [al Qaeda]. We got – well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him,’cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.

Ultimately, however, it doesn’t matter. What is not in dispute at all is the fact that, in early 1996, American officials regarded Osama bin Laden as a financier of terrorism and not as a mastermind largely because, at the time, there was no real evidence that bin Laden had harmed American citizens. So even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand bin Laden over, the U.S. would have had no grounds for detaining him. In fact, the Justice Department did not secure an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden.
We have to be careful about engaging in what historians call "Whig history," which is the practice of assuming that historical figures value exactly the same things that we do today. It’s a fancy term for those "why didn’t someone just shoot Hitler in 1930?" questions that one hears in dorm-room bull sessions. The answer, of course, is that no one knew quite how bad Hitler was in 1930. The same is true of bin Laden in 1996.
bright shiney objects

Coffeyville, KS

#910769 May 24, 2013
Eman wrote:
<quoted text>
She's always got alterior motives. I'm sure this is her attack on mormonism. She first posted the zimmerman story thinking a white guy killed a black kid. Shes an idiot.
Yeah, the "she is an idiot" thing I was able to pick up from reading her post. That was a "given".

Since: Apr 13

Orlando, FL

#910770 May 24, 2013
frontporchreactionary wrote:
<quoted text> And Darrell Issa was also fully informed by Shulmin numerous times way before the 2012 elections. Why did he choose to ignore it until now?
Issa is not the President of the United States.

If, however, Obama, who IS the President, knew the IRS was targeting his enemies months before it became news and did not take action to stop it, that is an impeachable offense.

We only have to wait until the people creating a stonewall around him begins to crack.

There are too many people too close to him who did know.

If they kept him out of the loop, they should all be fired. If he does not fire them, it's just a matter of time before Obama, himself, is implicated in this coverup. The other two coverups will then matter again at that point.

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#910771 May 24, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
The Fifth Amendment is not selective.
Lois Lerner's performance is like Jody Arias testifying that she didn't kill her boyfriend and then pleading the Fifth when cross-examination started.
Her $1,000 per hour lawyer must have been sleeping.
what do you mean the 5th amendment is not selective. I can refuse to answer any questions that may incriminate me...

she was ordered to testify, she came in made a statement and shut up all with in her rights. I suggest you get a law degree before making such an idiotic statement
Realtime

Deltona, FL

#910772 May 24, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
The Fifth Amendment is not selective.
Lois Lerner's performance is like Jody Arias testifying that she didn't kill her boyfriend and then pleading the Fifth when cross-examination started.
Her $1,000 per hour lawyer must have been sleeping.
Lerner was appearing in front of a congressional hearing which is much different than a federal or civil court.

You're once again wrong pally.

Boehner set the table for her and others to use their rights under the fifth amendment.

The press is having a good time with it though.
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#910773 May 24, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Those who believe in freedom hate Obama.
Those who want the government to steal from others to give to them love Obama. Unfortunately, there are too many of these people. Just like in Venezuela.
Just out of curiosity, what do you consider to be a straight down the middle, factual news source?
They're free to leave son.

Except there are those like you who want to change everyone else to your way of thinking.

Just like that 1930's German guy!

“Come Home America!”

Since: Nov 11

Claymont, Delaware 19809

#910774 May 24, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently the Obama admin did not like it either. She IS on leave. It is all about public image and the Obama admin prefer they sit there and say "Golly gee, I do not know or remember" a hundred times
rather than use the Fifth.
You will see more claims of the Fifth as they go down the IRS food chain. What they did was illegal.
So, you're now praising President Obama for his prompt actions to correct the problem over at the IRS.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#910775 May 24, 2013
Aunt Bettie Lou wrote:
<quoted text>
Issa is not the President of the United States.
If, however, Obama, who IS the President, knew the IRS was targeting his enemies months before it became news and did not take action to stop it, that is an impeachable offense.
We only have to wait until the people creating a stonewall around him begins to crack.
There are too many people too close to him who did know.
If they kept him out of the loop, they should all be fired. If he does not fire them, it's just a matter of time before Obama, himself, is implicated in this coverup. The other two coverups will then matter again at that point.
Obama can't fire any of them because he IS involved.
Realtime

Deltona, FL

#910776 May 24, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
fact check.com
It is here that things get murky. Erwa claims that he offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. Key American players – President Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke among them – have testified there were no "credible offers" to hand over bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence" that Erwa had ever made such an offer. On the other hand, Lawrence Wright, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Looming Tower," flatly states that Sudan did make such an offer. Wright bases his judgment on an interview with Erwa and notes that those who most prominently deny Erwa’s claims were not in fact present for the meeting.
Wright and the 9/11 Commission do agree that the Clinton administration encouraged Sudan to deport bin Laden back to Saudi Arabia and spent 10 weeks trying to convince the Saudi government to accept him. One Clinton security official told The Washington Post that they had "a fantasy" that the Saudi government would quietly execute bin Laden. When the Saudis refused bin Laden’s return, Clinton officials convinced the Sudanese simply to expel him, hoping that the move would at least disrupt bin Laden’s activities.
Much of the controversy stems from claims that President Clinton made in a February 2002 speech and then retracted in his 2004 testimony to the 9/11 Commission. In the 2002 speech Clinton seems to admit that the Sudanese government offered to turn over bin Laden:
Clinton: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [al Qaeda]. We got – well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him,’cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.
Ultimately, however, it doesn’t matter. What is not in dispute at all is the fact that, in early 1996, American officials regarded Osama bin Laden as a financier of terrorism and not as a mastermind largely because, at the time, there was no real evidence that bin Laden had harmed American citizens. So even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand bin Laden over, the U.S. would have had no grounds for detaining him. In fact, the Justice Department did not secure an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden.
We have to be careful about engaging in what historians call "Whig history," which is the practice of assuming that historical figures value exactly the same things that we do today. It’s a fancy term for those "why didn’t someone just shoot Hitler in 1930?" questions that one hears in dorm-room bull sessions. The answer, of course, is that no one knew quite how bad Hitler was in 1930. The same is true of bin Laden in 1996.
Correct you are!

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#910777 May 24, 2013
lily sock queen wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! That little island of England can scramble fighter jets so quickly but Obama & Hillary wouldn't allow an single U.S. F-16 with drop tanks (sufficient range capability) to depart from Italy to help in Benghazi?
DOH! I forgot! Two weeks prior to Benghazi, Obama told us Bin Laden was dead and Al Queda was on its heels. I guess he was better off covering that mess up so close to the election.
Must have been a video that caused this problem too!
okay so your knowledge of fighter jet range, there and back is somewhat lacking, plus the time to arm and scramble those jets

but suppose in your scenario, they arrived on scene, what the heck were they suppose to do??

there were no troops on the ground to lite (lase) the targets. they would have been in a foreign country's airspace without permission and they would have been over a foreign city full of civilians

are you that naive that you think battle harden terrorist would have run at the sight of a couple of jets that they knew couldn't drop any ordnance??

if that were the case, we wouldn't be in Afghanistan right now

the area military commanders made the call, and the civilian administration went along with it, unlike the iraq fiasco, where the civilians ignored the advice of their military commanders...and look where that got us

maybe you should read the Pickering/Mullen investigation report
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#910778 May 24, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Those who believe in freedom hate Obama.
Those who want the government to steal from others to give to them love Obama. Unfortunately, there are too many of these people. Just like in Venezuela.
Just out of curiosity, what do you consider to be a straight down the middle, factual news source?
As for news, I don't consider anyone "...middle, factual news source...", especially when the facts play out differently.

This is why I find things like fart news' "dismay" at Romney's loss telling.

And why I find it comical when cons point to a guy like John Stewart and proclaim 'even he's making fun of Obama.'

You wouldn't see that from the likes of rushie, or the beck-ster. That would be blasphemous.
lily sock queen

Anonymous Proxy

#910779 May 24, 2013
Eman wrote:
<quoted text>
There were no american anti aircraft weapons in the hand of al queda in the area.
??

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#910780 May 24, 2013
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>Lerner was appearing in front of a congressional hearing which is much different than a federal or civil court.
You're once again wrong pally.
Boehner set the table for her and others to use their rights under the fifth amendment.
The press is having a good time with it though.
anything she testified to in front of congress can be used against her in a criminal case....so it doesn't matter the 5th amendment still applies
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#910781 May 24, 2013
Eman wrote:
<quoted text>
Good. The government boat needs to be rocked.
Are you claiming 'the government' IS the republican party son?

interesting. VERY interesting......
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#910782 May 24, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
what do you mean the 5th amendment is not selective. I can refuse to answer any questions that may incriminate me...
she was ordered to testify, she came in made a statement and shut up all with in her rights. I suggest you get a law degree before making such an idiotic statement
The Fifth Amendment does not allow you to testify and then refuse to answer on cross examination, nor does it allow you to choose which questions you desire to answer.

The idiot should have kept her mouth shut from the start, rather than making her foolish statement.

Her attorney was much more effective when representing Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

Since: Apr 13

Orlando, FL

#910783 May 24, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
Breaking news from the Bush/Cheney days
<quoted text>
Goes back even further to the Clinton/Berger days.

But you libs don't like reminiscing about the Clinton era who fumbled four of five opportunities to get bin Laden before 9/11 and Berger stealing documents from the National Archives that were missing information about 9/11.

Too incriminating. Can't have that.
Lincoln

United States

#910784 May 24, 2013
Aunt Bettie Lou wrote:
<quoted text>
Issa is not the President of the United States.
If, however, Obama, who IS the President, knew the IRS was targeting his enemies months before it became news and did not take action to stop it, that is an impeachable offense.
We only have to wait until the people creating a stonewall around him begins to crack.
There are too many people too close to him who did know.
If they kept him out of the loop, they should all be fired. If he does not fire them, it's just a matter of time before Obama, himself, is implicated in this coverup. The other two coverups will then matter again at that point.
Write the President with your wisdom :-)
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#910785 May 24, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
You are close to the truth, but lost in your obsession with one news outlet.
Galt hates Obama for what he is, which is a leftist radical who wants to change America into a Socialist economy. So, what he does on any particular day or any particular issue is irrelevant, because his overall objective is completely unacceptable.
Actually, Obama is less radical than the right wing crazies.

He's shifted more and more to the right and each time he gives in, the rw crazies demand even more.

This might be one of the reasons why people like McCain are beginning to put their foot down.

Even he can recognize the danger that's brewing.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 19 min Insect Trust 68,995
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 23 min LRS 177,409
Song Titles Only (group/artist in parenthesis m... (Mar '10) 24 min Candy4Me 7,751
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr TRD 68,379
IL Illinois Governor Recall Amendment (Oct '10) 1 hr newpoly 1,910
Word (Dec '08) 1 hr andet1987 4,656
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 3 hr edogxxx 97,938
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••