Obama - Liar in Chief

Posted in the Fitchburg Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 14 of14
Concerned American

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Dec 19, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Within 24 hours, the White House knew the assault on our Libyan consulate was a terrorist attack, yet a president who has no time for intelligence briefings sent his minions out to say it was just a movie.

Five days before U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice went on the Sunday talk shows to say Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed at the hands of a spontaneous mob inflamed by a months-old film trailer insulting Islam that few had seen, U.S. intelligence sources knew the attack was planned and organized.

We believe President Obama also knew, or should have known, despite missing more than half his national intelligence briefings before the attack and those immediately afterward as he jetted to a Las Vegas fundraiser while our consulate still smoldered.

"No one," a source told Fox News, "believed that the mortars, indirect and direct fire, and the RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) were just the work of a mob no one."

Yet Obama sent forth Rice to tell NBC News on Sept. 16 that "putting together the best information that we have available to us today, our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was, in fact, initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo; almost a copycat of of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video."

That was a lie agreed upon, as were daily press briefings at which White House press secretary Jay Carney argued in the days after the attack that the violence was linked to an Internet video that ridiculed Islam until he told reporters on a plane it was "self-evident" that it was terrorism a day after National Counterterrorism Center Director Matt Olsen told senators on Sept. 19 that it was terrorism.

Even as the narrative was being corrected and the yarn about spontaneous outrage was unraveling before his eyes and ours, Obama devoted five minutes of his speech before the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday to what he called a "crude and disgusting video" that insulted Islam.

The threat of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon got all of a minute and 32 seconds .

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday there can be no doubt terrorists planned and carried out the attack on the consulate. So why didn't we see it coming? Is it because the president didn't want to?

Obama is a disgusting example of a President!!

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/0928...
notice

Fitchburg, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Dec 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Really, how comcerned were you when the Bush administration was caught torturing people and all you Republicans could say was "sometimes you have to just keep walking", you know, lalalalalalalalalalalalalalala lalaallaala

"On the Sunday morning news programs, several pundits went out of their way to either endorse waterboarding and other techniques endorsed in the torture memos - or to dismiss the idea of holding their authors responsible.

On ABC News' "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," George Will echoed several Bush officials when he criticized the release of the memos, saying "The problem with transparency is that it's transparent for the terrorists as well." Will expressed concern about the cost of letting "the bad guys" know what techniques, such as waterboarding, will be used on them. He went on to add, as noted by HuffPost's Jason Linkins, that "intelligent people of good will" believe the President of the United States can do whatever he wants to "defend the country."

Peggy Noonan went even further, articulating a position that upends George Santayana's famous quote: "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

"Some things in life need to be mysterious," said Noonan, adding, "Sometimes you need to just keep walking."

She also added:

"It's hard for me to look at a great nation issuing these documents and sending them out to the world and thinking, oh, much good will come of that."

So when it was Bush you were talking about, the President could do anything he wanted right!!!

POS Republicans!

Of course in order to be a Republican today you'd have to dismiss all reality, past history and everything you know about physics and laws of nature and just believe the world started when Obama became President.
notice

Fitchburg, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Dec 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Which is worse?

Your claim that Susan Rice, even if true, lied about WHY someone attacked a US consulate, a speculation!

OR, that Condi Rice LIED on Meet the Press saying something the Administration KNEW was not true at the time aimed at starting an un-neccessary War!

Condi's comments concerned a War that cost us 4000 troops, more than 1.5 trillion and more than 200,000 innocent Iragi lives!!!!!

"The remarks by Rice and her associates raise two uncomfortable possibilities for the national security adviser. Either she missed or overlooked numerous warnings from intelligence agencies seeking to put caveats on claims about Iraq's nuclear weapons program, or she made public claims that she knew to be false.

Most prominent is her claim that the White House had not heard about CIA doubts about an allegation that Iraq sought uranium in Africa before the charge landed in Bush's State of the Union address on Jan. 28; in fact, her National Security Council staff received two memos doubting the claim and a phone call from CIA Director George J. Tenet months before the speech. Various other of Rice's public characterizations of intelligence documents and agencies' positions have been similarly cast into doubt.

"If Condi didn't know the exact state of intel on Saddam's nuclear programs ... she wasn't doing her job," said Brookings Institution foreign policy specialist Michael E. O'Hanlon. "This was foreign policy priority number one for the administration last summer, so the claim that someone else should have done her homework for her is unconvincing."

You people are hypocritical pieces of sh*t!!
notice

Fitchburg, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Dec 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

With the Republican witch hunt against Ambassador Susan Rice showing no signs of abating as they try to derail her possible nomination as Secretary of State, let's consider some additional context surrounding the attacks and examine how Charles Krauthammer has altered his view on the central issue.

This is from a Washington Post column he wrote in January 2005, expressing dismay that Democrats were raising doubts about Condoleezza Rice's qualifications to be Secretary of State, in the wake of her role in marketing the Iraq War

Mark Dayton of Minnesota accused her of lying in order to persuade the American people to go to war -- a charge that is not just false but that most Americans don't believe. Rice was not a generator of intelligence. She was a consumer -- of a highly defective product.

Note the very specific point Krauthammer made as he tried to minimize Rice's central role in the unpopular invasion. The columnist and Fox News talker stressed that Rice didn't generate the intelligence about Iraq, which turned out to be "high defective," she merely consumed it.

And because she had merely consumed, and then marketed, bad intelligence about Iraq ("We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"), Condoleezza Rice wasn't really culpable, which according to Krauthammer meant Democrats were misguided in their criticism of her.

Fascinating.

Of course, that conservative spin now seems entirely disingenuous given the fact that a legion of right-wing pundits, including most of the Fox News on-air staff, are waging a war against Susan Rice not for being a "generator" of defective intelligence about the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, but for consuming it.

On November 14, appearing on Fox, Krauthammer expressed indignation over Rice's public comments about Benghazi:

It was clearly defensive and it was also a stonewall. I mean, after all, what she said was absolutely and completely misleading. Either inadvertently, in which case it's complete incompetence, or on purpose, in which case it's deception.

Today, Rice's sin in the eyes of Krauthammer and Fox News is that she relayed what the intelligence community told her about Benghazi. For that, she's guilty of incompetence or being misleading, in the words of Krauthammer. But in 2005, Krauthammer stressed that Condoleezza Rice should not be held responsible for relaying what the intelligence community told her about Iraq because she didn't generate it.

It goes without saying that the sprawling Iraq War was a far more important, costly and deadly event than the "small firefight" that engulfed the Benghazi consulate, as national security writer Tom Rick's described it. And it goes without saying that as national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice had a much more direct and influential role in initiaiting the Iraq War than United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice had responding to the terrorist attack in Libya.

Her only public role was being selected as an administration point person and asked to appear on Sunday morning talk shows to relay intelligence talking points, or what she said was "the best information we have at present" about the cause of the attack.

Conservatives are trying desperately to make Rice a central player in the alleged Benghazi cover-up. But when Condoleezza Rice was named to be Secretary of State, Krauthammer portrayed her as a paid actor in the Iraq War production, simply mouthing the lines given to her. For Krauthammer that wasn't a bad thing. It just meant she wasn't responsible for anything that went wrong with regards to the Iraq War, or the pervasive misinformation campaign that led up to the invasion.

. When you add into the mix the jaw-dropping hypocrisy of conservatives who have literally inverted the standards they used for secretary of state nominee Condoleezza Rice in 2005, you begin to understand how hollow and tiresome this partisan production has become.
Say what

Leominster, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Dec 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

notice wrote:
With the Republican witch hunt against Ambassador Susan Rice showing no signs of abating as they try to derail her possible nomination as Secretary of State, let's consider some additional context surrounding the attacks and examine how Charles Krauthammer has altered his view on the central issue.
This is from a Washington Post column he wrote in January 2005, expressing dismay that Democrats were raising doubts about Condoleezza Rice's qualifications to be Secretary of State, in the wake of her role in marketing the Iraq War
Mark Dayton of Minnesota accused her of lying in order to persuade the American people to go to war -- a charge that is not just false but that most Americans don't believe. Rice was not a generator of intelligence. She was a consumer -- of a highly defective product.
Note the very specific point Krauthammer made as he tried to minimize Rice's central role in the unpopular invasion. The columnist and Fox News talker stressed that Rice didn't generate the intelligence about Iraq, which turned out to be "high defective," she merely consumed it.
And because she had merely consumed, and then marketed, bad intelligence about Iraq ("We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"), Condoleezza Rice wasn't really culpable, which according to Krauthammer meant Democrats were misguided in their criticism of her.
Fascinating.
Of course, that conservative spin now seems entirely disingenuous given the fact that a legion of right-wing pundits, including most of the Fox News on-air staff, are waging a war against Susan Rice not for being a "generator" of defective intelligence about the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, but for consuming it.
On November 14, appearing on Fox, Krauthammer expressed indignation over Rice's public comments about Benghazi:
It was clearly defensive and it was also a stonewall. I mean, after all, what she said was absolutely and completely misleading. Either inadvertently, in which case it's complete incompetence, or on purpose, in which case it's deception.
Today, Rice's sin in the eyes of Krauthammer and Fox News is that she relayed what the intelligence community told her about Benghazi. For that, she's guilty of incompetence or being misleading, in the words of Krauthammer. But in 2005, Krauthammer stressed that Condoleezza Rice should not be held responsible for relaying what the intelligence community told her about Iraq because she didn't generate it.
It goes without saying that the sprawling Iraq War was a far more important, costly and deadly event than the "small firefight" that engulfed the Benghazi consulate, as national security writer Tom Rick's described it. And it goes without saying that as national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice had a much more direct and influential role in initiaiting the Iraq War than United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice had responding to the terrorist attack in Libya.
Her only public role was being selected as an administration point person and asked to appear on Sunday morning talk shows to relay intelligence talking points, or what she said was "the best information we have at present" about the cause of the attack.
Conservatives are trying desperately to make Rice a central player in the alleged Benghazi cover-up. But when Condoleezza Rice was named to be Secretary of State, Krauthammer portrayed her as a paid actor in the Iraq War production, simply mouthing the lines given to her. For Krauthammer that wasn't a bad thing. It just meant she wasn't responsible for anything that went wrong with regards to the Iraq War, or the pervasive misinformation campaign that led up to the invasion.
. When you add into the mix the jaw-dropping hypocrisy of conservatives who have literally inverted the standards they used for secretary of state nominee Condoleezza Rice in 2005, you begin to understand how hollow and tiresome this partisan production has become.
You're a queer right?
Obvious

Fitchburg, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Dec 23, 2012
 

Judged:

6

4

4

Lynch's mom is an idiot who failed him as a mother. She gets an "F" for failing to raise a responsible, productive and law-abiding citizen. She's a real winner.
Lynch

Fitchburg, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Dec 23, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Obvious wrote:
Lynch's mom is an idiot who failed him as a mother. She gets an "F" for failing to raise a responsible, productive and law-abiding citizen. She's a real winner.
You are a total POS! You mother is an active acoholic racist! Your mother is the loser as she gave birth to you! You have NO good qualities at all! Name one???? What do you do for a living???

As before, you will not state your ccupation becaus you area POS!!! I will tell you; I accept your challenge in the ring!! You coward POS You have NO RESPCT! You are a COWARD!

Isthis what your mother s proud of?? Let megues, yu are in an occupation where our active corrption is otected? And this is what mae you feel that you ar better than? You are the criminal as you HIDE your identity.

Lets debate openely,COWARD!!!! If you feel that you are a good person then do not hide, just state your occupation!!! COWARD,LMAO!!!!
Sigmond F

Leominster, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Dec 23, 2012
 
Lynch wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a total POS! You mother is an active acoholic racist! Your mother is the loser as she gave birth to you! You have NO good qualities at all! Name one???? What do you do for a living???
As before, you will not state your ccupation becaus you area POS!!! I will tell you; I accept your challenge in the ring!! You coward POS You have NO RESPCT! You are a COWARD!
Isthis what your mother s proud of?? Let megues, yu are in an occupation where our active corrption is otected? And this is what mae you feel that you ar better than? You are the criminal as you HIDE your identity.
Lets debate openely,COWARD!!!! If you feel that you are a good person then do not hide, just state your occupation!!! COWARD,LMAO!!!!
I'll tell you my occupation, I'm a psychiatrist and my conclusion is you need serious help.
notice

Fitchburg, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Dec 24, 2012
 
Sigmond F wrote:
<quoted text>I'll tell you my occupation, I'm a psychiatrist and my conclusion is you need serious help.
No, your occupation is to simply be an azzhole on these boards, period!
You are good at being said azzhole though.
notice

Fitchburg, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Dec 24, 2012
 
notice wrote:
With the Republican witch hunt against Ambassador Susan Rice showing no signs of abating as they try to derail her possible nomination as Secretary of State, let's consider some additional context surrounding the attacks and examine how Charles Krauthammer has altered his view on the central issue.
This is from a Washington Post column he wrote in January 2005, expressing dismay that Democrats were raising doubts about Condoleezza Rice's qualifications to be Secretary of State, in the wake of her role in marketing the Iraq War
Mark Dayton of Minnesota accused her of lying in order to persuade the American people to go to war -- a charge that is not just false but that most Americans don't believe. Rice was not a generator of intelligence. She was a consumer -- of a highly defective product.
Note the very specific point Krauthammer made as he tried to minimize Rice's central role in the unpopular invasion. The columnist and Fox News talker stressed that Rice didn't generate the intelligence about Iraq, which turned out to be "high defective," she merely consumed it.
And because she had merely consumed, and then marketed, bad intelligence about Iraq ("We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"), Condoleezza Rice wasn't really culpable, which according to Krauthammer meant Democrats were misguided in their criticism of her.
Fascinating.
Of course, that conservative spin now seems entirely disingenuous given the fact that a legion of right-wing pundits, including most of the Fox News on-air staff, are waging a war against Susan Rice not for being a "generator" of defective intelligence about the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, but for consuming it.
On November 14, appearing on Fox, Krauthammer expressed indignation over Rice's public comments about Benghazi:
It was clearly defensive and it was also a stonewall. I mean, after all, what she said was absolutely and completely misleading. Either inadvertently, in which case it's complete incompetence, or on purpose, in which case it's deception.
Today, Rice's sin in the eyes of Krauthammer and Fox News is that she relayed what the intelligence community told her about Benghazi. For that, she's guilty of incompetence or being misleading, in the words of Krauthammer. But in 2005, Krauthammer stressed that Condoleezza Rice should not be held responsible for relaying what the intelligence community told her about Iraq because she didn't generate it.
It goes without saying that the sprawling Iraq War was a far more important, costly and deadly event than the "small firefight" that engulfed the Benghazi consulate, as national security writer Tom Rick's described it. And it goes without saying that as national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice had a much more direct and influential role in initiaiting the Iraq War than United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice had responding to the terrorist attack in Libya.
Her only public role was being selected as an administration point person and asked to appear on Sunday morning talk shows to relay intelligence talking points, or what she said was "the best information we have at present" about the cause of the attack.
Conservatives are trying desperately to make Rice a central player in the alleged Benghazi cover-up. But when Condoleezza Rice was named to be Secretary of State, Krauthammer portrayed her as a paid actor in the Iraq War production, simply mouthing the lines given to her. For Krauthammer that wasn't a bad thing. It just meant she wasn't responsible for anything that went wrong with regards to the Iraq War, or the pervasive misinformation campaign that led up to the invasion.
. When you add into the mix the jaw-dropping hypocrisy of conservatives who have literally inverted the standards they used for secretary of state nominee Condoleezza Rice in 2005, you begin to understand how hollow and tiresome this partisan production has become.

"You're a queer right?"

You have no value to add right?
notice

Fitchburg, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Dec 24, 2012
 
And I like to touch myself while I watch the FSU football team practice. Love those tight pants. Oh, and I've taken Darn Tooten's load on my chin.
Notice

Fitchburg, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Dec 24, 2012
 
notice wrote:
And I like to touch myself while I watch the FSU football team practice. Love those tight pants. Oh, and I've taken Darn Tooten's load on my chin.
And apparently you like to hide in closets too, why do you feel the need to tell everyone about your perverted personal behavior?
Notice

Fitchburg, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Dec 24, 2012
 
I see attempting to have any rational discourse with you idiots is a lost cause, just like you idiots!!!!!!!

Buh bye, drown in your dense idiodic feces.
Notice

Fitchburg, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Dec 24, 2012
 
Notice wrote:
I see attempting to have any rational discourse with you idiots is a lost cause, just like you idiots!!!!!!!
Buh bye, drown in your dense idiodic feces.
Please get your own screen name and stop using mine!!! I go out for a quick rub and tug with a Japenese heshe and this is what I come back to? Can't a fella just go and give into his desires for an hour or two nad not have to worry about your dastardly scoundrels using my screen name? If you want to get close to me I'm sure we can arrange a more intimate meeting. ;)

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 14 of14
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

6 Users are viewing the Fitchburg Forum right now

Search the Fitchburg Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Union chief: Morale remains low at DCF 7 min DCF are MONSTERS 18
I'll be off topix for a month 34 min karen 3
Will Jtn ever post an Intelligent comment in th... 1 hr karen 23
Fitchburg gets $4.2M for mill project 3 hr Jtn 2
MA Who do you support for Governor in Massachusett... (Oct '10) Wed Kundrot dionkie 1,145
Liz Warren for President Wed Deloris 6
Who is Ken Wed Samuel 5
•••
•••

Fitchburg News Video

•••
•••

Fitchburg Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Fitchburg People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Fitchburg News, Events & Info

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

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••