'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Se...

'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate

There are 258815 comments on the thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com story from Oct 1, 2010, titled 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate. In it, thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com reports that:

"Fox News Sunday" is heading to Louisville, Ky. Jack Conway, Kentucky's attorney general and the Democratic candidate for Senate , and Rand Paul, the Republican nominee and son of Representative Ron Paul, Republican of Texas, have agreed to a live debate on "Fox News Sunday" on Oct.3 at 9 a.m. (Eastern time).

Join the discussion below, or Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#122184 Sep 11, 2013
whitehair wrote:
The fact you think Obama should go on his own and bomb another Country that has done nothing to the U.S. makes me wonder, what do you think possibly could be his reason? His red line to save face? When is his power to start a WAR with out Congress, is the Constitution nothing anymore? He is a weak leader, Sorry , but that is the trouble and is a fact.
What kind of power crazed President would bomb a nation without Congressional approval?
President Reagan hit Libya with air strikes and deployed troops to Grenada. No approval.
President Clinton launched missiles into the Sudan and Afghanistan. No approval.
Looks like Obama may do what the most respected Presidents of our time have done. And yes, it would only be to save face after that red line crap.
RepubliCONS

Elizabethtown, KY

#122185 Sep 11, 2013
whitehair wrote:
<quoted text>
It becomes apparent you are full of B.S.
NO that would be you teabagger. You are a liar. Keep denying it. I reposted it for you several times. It's on that page, that post #, you bullshitting as usual, making stuff up as you go along. Go brew you some tea leaves.

TEA PARTIES ARE FOR LITTLE GIRLS AND THEIR IMAGINARY FRIENDS

whitehair
Eminence, KY
|#113506 PAGE 5026
Monday Aug 5
You have really sucked in to the false news of the Party.. One bad thing to do. Clinton trained the Pilots. Bush just got there in time to take the blow. He failed no one. You fail to look at the whole picture . Dark Glass is not easy to see thru. Keep trying, maybe squint a little!

ME:
#113624
Monday Aug 5
Talk about false news party...you teabagging republiCONS lead in that department. Clinton trained pilots? hahaha Please show me one mention of Clinton doing that. Let me remind you what a failure he was on 9/11. Find your bifocals and take YOUR blind dark glasses off. Do you squint when you see the truth? You do know that it was 9/11 2001 right? Your failed President Bush was in the White House. Let me educate you on the truth and feel free to research it yourself:

9/11 Flashback
In the Sept. 11 attacks, 19 foreign nationals hijacked four commercial airliners and used the planes as weapons to hit the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in the nation's capital. Several of the hijackers attended more than a dozen American flight schools in the weeks before the attacks to learn how to fly the jets.
http://news.yahoo.com/9-11-flashback-us-fligh ...

Here try reviewing the many 9/11 videos of people dying, jumping out of windows, firefighter running into a jet fuel burning building and tell me why you repukes will dwell on a terrorist attack with little warning killing 4 Americans in a hostile terrorist filled country and not the 3000+ Bush had months and months of warnings about? Can't answer can you old man.

September 11 2001 Video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch ...

#113625 page 5031
Monday Aug 5

Here you go old whitehair: Dispute this?

While America Slept: The True Story of 9/11

The big stories in the news were about shark attacks, wildfires and a missing Congressional intern named Chandra. A teenage baseball player became a hero, and then a villain, after he pitched a perfect game at the Little League World Series. There were also inklings that something might be amiss at an energy company called Enron. By the summer of 2001, Americans had become all too familiar with "hanging chads," but few had ever heard of al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden.
While the nation drifted through the dog days, however, a group of terrorists was in the final stages of planning a series of attacks that would kill 3,000 people on September 11. Much of the federal government seemed to have been in a summer daze as well, missing the warning signs of what would become the deadliest act of terrorism on U.S. soil. While some in the intelligence community raised red flags, the White House had brushed off warnings of an impending attack and the CIA was failing to share information with the FBI about the terrorists' travels.

We also watch as CIA analysts and FBI agents try to sound the alarm about the rising threat, and are ignored.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/ten-years-ago-t ...

There's more, but you know that. All the sites and stories of the warning as far back as May 2001 and the lie about Clinton training the terrorist pilots. As wacko as you are teabagger. YOU LIE

RIP LYING TEABAGGING GOP CONS

DITCH MITCH
RepubliCONS

Elizabethtown, KY

#122186 Sep 11, 2013
AND one of their favorite heroes in the news AGAIN. hahahaha Lawyer says "pay me"...PRICELESS

George Zimmerman Scammed Gun Nuts Out Of A Lot Of Money; Never Paid Attorneys

It appears that George Zimmerman may have conned the cons. After his recent altercation with his wife, his attorney, Mark O’Mara told ABC News in a September 10th interview that he would no longer be representing Zimmerman. That shouldn’t be surprising, considering that Zimmerman was almost arrested outside of the home of his estranged wife earlier in the week for an alleged domestic violence incident. While some media sites have claimed that the police stated Zimmerman didn’t have a gun, these reports, according to Zimmermans’s own attorney, are false. In an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, O’Mara said that Zimmerman was in possession of a weapon when he went to his wife’s home.

What might be surprising, however, is that O’Mara may not have dropped Zimmerman because of his tendency to get into trouble with the law. During the ABC interview, when O’Mara was asked if he had any advice for his former client, he said this:
“Pay me.”

Wait, Zimmerman never paid his defense attorney? What happened to all of the money he raised for his “legal defense fund?” It’s interesting, actually. If you visit Zimmerman’s Legal Defense fund web-site you can get a pretty good idea where the majority of the money was spent.

Zimmerman’s web page says that as of January 2, 2013, the “George Zimmerman Defense Fund” had raised a total of $314,099.07. That sounds like a lot of money. The web page goes on to give a not-at-all-detailed break-down of how the money was spent.

The first expense entered shows $95,000 for bail.
That money would have been returned following the not guilty verdict, however, which means this is no longer a valid expense. It also means the money should have been added back into the total at some point.

Next, we see that $61,747.54 was spent for 8 months of living expenses.

And that doesn’t include Zimmerman’s private security, which for 8 months cost an additional $56,100.00.

(Side note: Where was the militia? Shouldn’t there have been some gun advocacy group somewhere willing to provide this service for free?)

Leaving that page, and moving to one titled “Moving Forward” which addresses how future donations will be spent, it gets even more interesting. The predicted future expenses include the Zimmerman’s living expenses and private security as the first two items on the page. A bit further down the page, under the heading “Case Related Expenses” it clearly says “Mr. O’Mara and Mr. West have not been paid for their services.

Money has been used to pay rent on office space, for IT support, for staff dedicated to the case.”
So by his own admission Zimmerman did not use the Legal Defense Fund donations to pay his attorneys.

He spent the majority of the money on living expenses for himself and his wife, who was just paid more than $4,000 for one months living expenses out of the defense fund money. Wow.

Here’s a question: Did Zimmerman’s lawyer drop him because he’s a bad client with a bad history that just keeps getting worse, or did he drop him because he’s collected hundreds of thousands of dollars for his “legal defense” and not bothered to pay him a dime?

Oh, and another question comes to mind. Does Zimmerman need all that private security to protect him from death threats associated with the case or to protect him from all of the right-wing gun nuts who are likely to come looking for him when they figure out they’ve been had?

Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/09/11/georg...

RIP GOP

DITCH MITCH

“A proud Kentuckian ”

Since: Aug 13

At Your Mama's House

#122187 Sep 11, 2013
Aristocles son of Ariston wrote:
<quoted text>
The mass media misinformation campaign has been very effective.
YES we went after Al Qaeda, anywhere they had operations. Iraq was a base and a diversionary tactic...it focused their attention.
Are we having 50 bombings a day in the USA?
This discovery ( http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/graphics/... )
was made in 2004?
Ok I accept that some Sarin was found in Iraq in 2004. But since no large caches were discovered and these were found in private residences, it is more than likely they were smuggled in after the invasion.
This still doesn't show that Iraq trucked any gas to Syria (an enemy of Iraq at the time). Especially since Syria manufactures their own!
We made room for Al Qaeda in Iraq by taking out Saddam (Saddam saw Al Qaeda as a threat to his power).
But all that is ancient history. The Iraqi's can bomb each other to kingdom come for all I care.
I am more concerned with ending our military involvement in the middle east and bringing our soldiers home.

“A proud Kentuckian ”

Since: Aug 13

At Your Mama's House

#122188 Sep 11, 2013
whitehair wrote:
The fact you think Obama should go on his own and bomb another Country that has done nothing to the U.S. makes me wonder, what do you think possibly could be his reason? His red line to save face? When is his power to start a WAR with out Congress, is the Constitution nothing anymore? He is a weak leader, Sorry , but that is the trouble and is a fact.
Whom are you addressing?
RepubliCONS

Elizabethtown, KY

#122189 Sep 11, 2013
Lying flip flopping wannabe....

Senator Ted Cruz Directly Contradicts His Own Statements on Syria Threat

I love technology, but too many Republicans either seem unaware that it exists or can’t grasp the power it has. How else can you explain the seemingly endless examples where a Republican has publicly made comments concerning a particular topic, then a few weeks later completely contradicts their previous statements?

They do this, apparently unaware that almost anyone can use Google to verify what they’ve previously said, which often contradicts what they’re currently saying.

Case in point — my old pal Senator Ted Cruz.
Just over two months ago, Senator Cruz called the situation in Syria a “threat” to the United States and our allies in the region:

“We know Assad has used these weapons, and there is good reason to suspect the al Qaida-affiliated rebels would use them as well if they could get their hands on them. This poses an intolerable threat not only to our friends in the region, but also to the United States. We need to be developing a clear, practical plan to go in, locate the weapons, secure or destroy them, and then get out. The United States should be firmly in the lead to make sure the job is done right.”
So, let me get this straight. Two months ago, Ted Cruz calls the situation in Syria a threat to our national security and our allies in the region. He then says we need to go in, locate and either secure or destroy them—then get out.

“Go in.” So he means, send troops into Syria? Because that’s pretty much what I gathered from these comments. You can’t really “secure” chemical weapons with an aerial strike, so Cruz had to have meant that the United States needed to send troops into Syria to get these chemical weapons.

So what does Senator Cruz have to say now about the situation in Syria as it relates to U.S. national security? Well, we don’t need to look any further than the op-ed he wrote for the Washington Post:

“Assad’s actions, however deplorable, are not a direct threat to U.S. national security. Many bad actors on the world stage have, tragically, oppressed and killed their citizens, even using chemical weapons to do so.”

Wait, come again?

In June, the situation in Syria did pose a threat to our allies and the United States (according to Cruz’s own words), but now it suddenly doesn’t pose a threat?

What’s changed? Oh, I know, President Obama came out in support of a military strike in Syria—something Republicans weren’t expecting him to do. Now they’re having to backtrack on their previous comments in a feverish dash to continue the Republican political philosophy of simply doing the opposite of whatever President Obama supports.
Oh, but Ted Cruz has an explanation for why he’s changed his mind:

“If the president’s proposed military strike against Assad succeeds, al-Qaeda could be strengthened and terrorists could seize control of Syria’s vast cache of chemical weapons.”

Basically, if President Obama is successful with his strikes, the rebels (some of which are backed by Islamic radicals) might seize control of Assad’s supply of chemical weapons.

Tell me this, Senator Cruz — what if the rebels are successful anyway? Do we then invade Syria and go to war with them? Because that would make much more sense, right?

Cruz’s “explanation” for his change in his position since June might sound right to those who want to support the tea party darling of the Republican party—it just doesn’t make any damn sense.

CONtinued:

RIP LYING TEABAGGING GOP CONS

DITCH MITCH
RepubliCONS

Elizabethtown, KY

#122190 Sep 11, 2013
CONtinued:

He first calls the situation in Syria a “threat” to the United States and our allies in the region, calling for the United States to go in to get these weapons. Then he comes out and opposes a military strike because it might lead to the rebels getting their hands on Assad’s chemical weapons.

Except, in neither of his responses does he clarify exactly how we would keep them out of the hands of Islamic radicals. Well I guess he does, but his “solution” would call for the United States to send troops into Syria.

So is that what Senator Cruz is calling for, sending ground forces into the middle of the Syrian civil war?

Because back in June that’s essentially what he said we needed to do.

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/senator-te...

Typical CON

RIP LYING TEABAGGER GOP CONS

DITCH MITCH

ps. STOMP those icons crybaby...lmao
RepubliCONS

Elizabethtown, KY

#122192 Sep 11, 2013
Another lying teabagger wannabe:

Rand Paul Makes Ridiculous Comments Following Obama’s Syria Speech

You’d think being that Rand Paul’s father was in politics much of his life, he’d at least know a little something about government. But the more this guy speaks, the more clueless he appears to be.

Following President Obama’s speech to the nation where he addressed questions he’s received from Americans about Syria and outlined his new hope for a diplomatic approach, Rand Paul felt the need to prove once again that he just doesn’t “get it.”
Speaking on Fox News (shocking, I know), Senator Paul showcased either his inability to understand the English language, or that he didn’t watch the president’s speech.

Paul said,“I think what he needed to lay out for the American public was a compelling American interest or national security interest in Syria.”
He went on to say that Syria has nothing to do with U.S. national security and isn’t a threat to us.

Funny thing is, Obama did exactly what Paul claims he didn’t do. He explained why allowing Syria to use chemical weapons without any kind of response emboldens our enemies, and opens the doors for other nations to do the same thing. How accepting the use of chemical weapons could then lead to, in the future, our military facing the very real possibility of chemical warfare.

The president also made it clear Syria doesn’t have the capacity to be a threat to the United States, but for the reasons he laid out before, their use of chemical weapons does pose a possible threat to U.S. national security. Maybe not right now, but in the future.

I guess Paul didn’t catch that part.

But the most ridiculous part of his comments came when he seemed to imply that people like him are responsible for the fact Syria has now not only admitted to having chemical weapons, but is willing to reveal their locations and turn them over to international authorities.

“Some will say that only the threat of force brought Russia and Syria to the negotiating table.

But one thing is for certain. The chance for diplomacy would not have occurred without strong voices against an immediate bombing campaign. If we had simply gone to war last week or the week before, as many advocated, we wouldn’t be looking at a possible solution today. The voices of those in Congress and the overwhelming number of Americans who stood up and said ‘slow down’ allowed this possible solution to take shape.”
Come again?

It was President Obama who didn’t push Congress to come back early to debate this issue. It was President Obama who decided to seek Congressional approval before any sort of military strike. It was President Obama who wanted this to go to a full debate.

Because let’s be clear, President Obama did not need Congressional approval to conduct limited airstrikes in Syria. He chose to allow Congress to be involved.

And as I outlined before, I believe this Syrian deal is exactly what President Obama had in mind all along.

So it’s preposterous that someone like Rand Paul is trying to imply that his actions, and those like him, were also big players in this deal being reached. That it wasn’t just the threat of military action.

Senator Paul, answer me this: If many members of Congress had already opposed any hint at our involvement in Syria, why then wasn’t a deal brokered for Syria to surrender their chemical weapons prior to Obama’s threat of military action?
The answer is pretty simple. Because Obama’s threat of military action was the cause of the deal being offered.

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/rand-paul-...

Typical CON

RIP LYING TEABAGGING GOP CONS

DITCH MITCH

“A proud Kentuckian ”

Since: Aug 13

At Your Mama's House

#122193 Sep 11, 2013
RepubliCONS wrote:
<quoted text>
Please watch clicking on his links, he was bragging a month ago of his hacking abilities and how many socks he makes up to troll topix with. Just put the title/subject key word in your own search engine or got to the site (USA Today) itself and look for it. He tries to get people's ip addresses. Just a friendly warning. The others here can tell you that aren't part of his game or crowd.
RIP GOP
DITCH MITCH
Thanks but I have no need to worry as I have safeguards in place.
LOL I will give him my IP if he wants it. Not much he can do with it.
RepubliCONS

Elizabethtown, KY

#122194 Sep 11, 2013
Speaking of their hero Zimmerman.....oh lQQkie..lol

Attorney for Trayvon Martin Medical Examiner Claims He Was Told to ‘Shut Up’

Dr. Shiping Bao, the associate medical examiner in the Trayvon Martin case who was fired last week, is preparing a $100 million dollar lawsuit over wrongful firing.

His attorney alleges that Dr. Bao was scapegoated because Florida state prosecutors deliberately threw the case.

Dr. Bao was prepared to offer proof that Martin was not the aggressor, according to local Channel 9 (WFTV).

Dr. Bao’s attorney Willie Gary alleges that the medical examiner, state attorney’s office, and Sanford Police Department were all biased against Trayvon Martin. Gary told Channel 9,“He says their general attitude was that he got what he deserved. He was in essence told to zip his lips.‘Shut up. Don’t say those things.’”

Gary claimed that prosecutors never asked Dr. Bao a question crucial to the case, which would have allowed Dr. Bao to offer proof that there was no way that Trayvon Martin was ever on top of Mr. Zimmerman.

The state prosecutor’s office called Dr. Bao’s allegations unconscionable.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/09/11/attorn...

RIP GOP

DITCH MITCH

Since: Dec 11

.

#122195 Sep 11, 2013
RepubliCONS wrote:
<quoted text>
They are mad he didn't and laid it at the feet of the whining CONgressman.
You do know that is arisocks right? His tactic. I have ONE screen name, ONE location (unless my provider spins me back to Elizabethtown or Cecilia, don't live in either of those places either), ONE ip address, ONE pc...they just love playing their little games.
RepubliCONS
France wrote this:
RepubliCONS wrote:
it is funny though that Putin is telling Obama to shut up and sit down, the UN is laughing at Obama, the entire world is laughing at him, he is not a leader, he is a community organizer that stirs things up and then doesnt know what to do about them,
what a joke, here is what real people think of him,
https://www.youtube.com/watch ...
RIP LYING TEABAGGING GOP CONS
DITCH MITCH
It amazes me someone so simple can type and cut/paste to assemble a post! T-Rex must have been good at trigonometry and calculus!
OZombies

Los Angeles, CA

#122196 Sep 11, 2013
truthhere wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad Bush failed to stop the worst attack in American history. I remember that.
Too bad Clinton failed to get osama bin laden...we wouldn't have 9/11...he didn't have time to chase osama bin laden...too busy chasing skirts...and a bunch of them! Remember Monica the intern and a blue dress ???
Countrygirl

Dunmor, KY

#122197 Sep 11, 2013
OZombies wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad Clinton failed to get osama bin laden...we wouldn't have 9/11...he didn't have time to chase osama bin laden...too busy chasing skirts...and a bunch of them! Remember Monica the intern and a blue dress ???
He got head...and still
got the job done.
RepubliCONS

Elizabethtown, KY

#122198 Sep 11, 2013
whitehair wrote:
The fact you think Obama should go on his own and bomb another Country that has done nothing to the U.S. makes me wonder, what do you think possibly could be his reason? His red line to save face? When is his power to start a WAR with out Congress, is the Constitution nothing anymore? He is a weak leader, Sorry , but that is the trouble and is a fact.
Chemtrail, you need to read up on your history, He isn't the only one and just think, if Bush had taken those many warnings he could of saved all those 3000, the Twin Towers and all the deaths from the TWO WARS that HE started. Limit your time in that fog loser.

It's a 30 day event calendar with their daily stock up on supplies, tickets, clothes, hotels...feel free to read how they freely roamed our country plotting to kill thousands if not millions. But beat Benghazi in the ground because Congress defunded them.

The result was a national tragedy that left nearly 3,000 dead.

President Bush has said repeatedly that he would have done everything in his power to thwart the terror attacks had he known that they were coming.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/new -...

Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ ...

Bush ignored 9/11 warnings
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/11/bush_missed_9 ...

Bush Warned of Hijackings Before 9-11 - ABC News
abcnews.go.com › U.S.

New book points damning finger at Bush administration saying they were warned about 9/11 earlier than first thought classified documents and other sources, reported that the CIA first sounded the alarm on May 1 that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/new -...

BUSH WAS WARNED BIN LADEN WANTED TO HIJACK …
www.nytimes.com

CNN.com - Bush briefed on hijacking threat before September 11 ...
< www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/bush.sept.11/index .... ;

10 Warnings About 9/11 Attacks that Pres. George W. Bush …
voices.yahoo.com/10-warnings-9-11-attacks-pre ...

Apr 27, 2010 · It is a sad, tragic truth that the attacks of 9/11 could have been avoided. The Bush administration has tried to pretend they had no prior knowledge.

The Bush White House Was Deaf To 9/11 Warnings
< www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/10/bush-white -... ;

Bush Received More Warnings About 9/11 Than We Realized -…
< www.businessinsider.com/...warnings...by-the -... ;

< www.truth-out.org/...that-george-w-bush-was-a ... ;
Remembering that George W. Bush Was Amply Warned Before 9/11 and Did Nothing, Absolutely Nothing!

As the 9/11 Commission noted, "There were more than 40 intelligence articles in the PDBS [Presidential Daily Briefings] from January 21 to September 11

RIP LYING GOP CONS

DITCH MITCH
OZombies

South El Monte, CA

#122200 Sep 11, 2013
whitehair wrote:
Please explain , if the WMD`s now in Syria , per Obama, are the Poison gas, why were they not also WMD`s when in Iraq? I know, you expected something else?
WMD/Poisonous gas ...potatoe/patatoe..........
RepubliCONS

Elizabethtown, KY

#122201 Sep 11, 2013
Countrygirl wrote:
<quoted text> He got head...and still
got the job done.
GOOD ONE countrygirl. At least he didn't let the country go to hell. It's been downhill all the way except for the things PRESIDENT OBAMA has done to try to bring it back, with NO HELP. I thought he spoke well last night.

Ok I said I would strike, I let the American people and Congress have a say, now the two chicken shits want to jump on board the treat with the UN on chemical weapons, but if they don't, I can have the NAVY take those weapons out and no one can stop me. hahaha Sort it in a nutshell. I love to hear his speeches.

More to come.

Have a good night. Try not to pick on chemtrail zombie, she is about to cry over you. hahaha

RIP GOP

DITCH MITCH
OZombies

Los Angeles, CA

#122202 Sep 11, 2013
Phil wrote:
Republicans are borrow and spend and democrats are tax and spend. The best congress money can buy...535 idiots need to be unemployed... get rid of them all . From Mitch to Ried all of them
Amen...!!

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#122203 Sep 11, 2013
General Robert E Lee wrote:
<quoted text>
The more dead muslimes the better! Why don’t you go back where you came from, you treasonous bitch. Get on here and cry about your dead comrades on the 12th anniversary of slimy Islamic cocks—kers, killing innocent Americans! Why don’t you tell all the blacks that suck up to you and your kind about how your kind enslaved blacks from Africa 600 years longer than the whites did?
God bless America, and God bless Zion!
The only homes I have ever seen a confederate flag flying in front of had wheels. When's the next Klan get together?
RepubliCONS

Elizabethtown, KY

#122204 Sep 11, 2013
Obama Takes a Big Shot at Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in Syria Speech

President Obama responded to his Bush administration critics like Liz Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld with a not so thinly veiled shot at their failed foreign policy during his Syria speech.
Video clip:

Obama said:
And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. That’s my judgment as commander in chief.

But I’m also the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. So even though I possessed the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress. I believe our democracy is stronger when the president acts with the support of Congress, and I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together.

This is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the president, and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.

Now, I know that after the terrible toll of Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea of any military action, no matter how limited, is not going to be popular. After all, I’ve spent four and a half years working to end wars, not to start them.

Here’s a hint about who the president was speaking to. Recently, Liz Cheney who served in Daddy and W’s administration said that Obama had taken,“an amateurish approach to national security and foreign policy.” Donald Rumsfeld, one of the major architects of Bush’s disastrous wars has been all over cable television bashing Obama,“This president has tried to blame everybody or anybody, for everything and leadership requires that you stand up, take a position, provide clarity and take responsibility. And I can’t imagine him saying that he didn’t draw the red line. But he did draw a red line…. We have ears!”

President Obama was talking directly to Cheney and Rumsfeld when he mentioned the decade that put more war making power in the hands of the president. Rumsfeld and the Cheneys are some of the biggest advocates for the belief in unlimited Commander in Chief powers. Obama has rejected this argument from day one, and it is why the neo-cons despise him. They think that listening to the American people on questions of war is a sign of weakness. To them a real president shoots first and asks questions later.

One of the key nuances of the president’s Syria speech was that Obama was trying to build a consensus while directly confronting the failed policies of the past that created America’s distrust and war weariness.

Obama took a big shot at the grumbling war mongers of the Bush administration, and the message was sent that this president won’t be doing things their way.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/09/10/obama-...

"After all, I’ve spent four and a half years working to end wars, not to start them." AND he has.

"President Obama was talking directly to Cheney and Rumsfeld when he mentioned the decade that put more war making power in the hands of the president."

So if he gives the order (coz who can trust those tyrants or Russia) it will be thanks to the POWER that BUSH gave him. PRICELESS

RIP GOP

DITCH MITCH
OZombies

South El Monte, CA

#122205 Sep 11, 2013
Countrygirl wrote:
<quoted text> He got head...and still
got the job done.
Yeah...his head under Monica's blue dress...job well done...!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Harrodsburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Dope 1 hr Bear 1
teecuuumbassss 1 hr Shut up b_tch 2
Hate Groups and TWUMP 2 hr Donnie H 12
Harvey hines 2 hr Tecumbas 7
Danielle Davis 3 hr Stay away 4
Homeless, single mother of 3, HELP 4 hr Donnie H 61
hitachi boys (Sep '08) 7 hr Oh ya know 132

Harrodsburg Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Harrodsburg Mortgages