Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama/Biden Bin Laden/GM

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Obama/Biden Bin Laden/GM

    I am starting to see claims under the Obama banner- Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive.

    Well a couple of points.

    1. Bush not Obama bailed GM out.

    2. If the Obama team is going to claim credit for the actions of highly trained elite shooters then perhaps this statement would be more correct:

    Don't fuck with us or you'll end up like either Bin Laden or a short changed Colombian hooker...

  • #2
    Obama doubled, pardon, tripled the stakes in GM, adding $39bn to Bush's $13,4bn, right? If it didn't worked, was he willing to pour some more? At the moment federal stocks in GM are worth to cover Bush's intervention only ;)

    ROFLMAO on the hooker part.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

    Comment


    • #3
      You have to give Obama credit for authorizing the action.

      Comment


      • #4
        few military ppl lost their job for critisizing obama, i don't remember anyone loose their job for talking crap about bush, or anyone else.
        i do remember you'd get in trobble for critisizing leaders in ussr.
        what the hell is going on here.
        "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Native View Post
          You have to give Obama credit for authorizing the action.
          I have to agree here with giving credit to Obama for politically sticking his neck out in that situation. Otherwise under that logic, we should place no blame on Carter for Eagle Claw or LBJ for Vietnam.

          Although not completely in agreement with certain details of the move (almost exclusive to big businesses), I would also credit Bush for at least creating a stopgap measure late in his term to soften the economic blow in '08.
          "Draft beer, not people."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Native View Post
            You have to give Obama credit for authorizing the action.
            I do? Let me guess another new law passed by Obama- give credit or else... Why did Bin Laden deserve an honorable burial? Jodl, Kietel, Striecher, Ribbentrop et al have death pictures.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Native View Post
              You have to give Obama credit for authorizing the action.
              No I don't. That's his job. He doesn't get credit for doing his job.

              -dale

              Comment


              • #8
                Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.

                Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for "betting against America," and accuses you of having a "less-than-reputable" record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

                Are you worried?

                Richard Nixon's "enemies list" appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers—to jail, to fine, to bankrupt—are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.

                Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled "Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney's donors." In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having "less-than-reputable records," the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that "quite a few" have also been "on the wrong side of the law" and profiting at "the expense of so many Americans."

                These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having "outsourced" jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a "lobbyist") and Thomas O'Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a "bitter foe of the gay rights movement."

                These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them.

                Enlarge Image
                pw0427
                pw0427
                Associated Press/The News & Observer

                Barack Obama at the University of North Carolina, April 24

                "We don't tolerate presidents or people of high power to do these things," says Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general. "When you have the power of the presidency—the power of the IRS, the INS, the Justice Department, the DEA, the SEC—what you have effectively done is put these guys' names up on 'Wanted' posters in government offices." Mr. Olson knows these tactics, having demanded that the 44th president cease publicly targeting Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, which he represents. He's been ignored.

                The real crime of the men, as the website tacitly acknowledges, is that they have given money to Mr. Romney. This fundraiser of a president has shown an acute appreciation for the power of money to win elections, and a cutthroat approach to intimidating those who might give to his opponents.

                He's targeted insurers, oil firms and Wall Street—letting it be known that those who oppose his policies might face political or legislative retribution. He lectured the Supreme Court for giving companies more free speech and (falsely) accused the Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to bankroll U.S. elections. The White House even ginned up an executive order (yet to be released) to require companies to list political donations as a condition of bidding for government contracts. Companies could bid but lose out for donating to Republicans. Or they could quit donating to the GOP—Mr. Obama's real aim.

                The White House has couched its attacks in the language of "disclosure" and the argument that corporations should not have the same speech rights as individuals. But now, says Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation, "he's doing the same at the individual level, for anyone who opposes his policies." Any giver, at any level, risks reprisal from the president of the United States.

                It's getting worse because the money game is not going as Team Obama wants. Super PACs are helping the GOP to level the playing field against Democratic super-spenders. Prominent financial players are backing Mr. Romney. The White House's new strategy is thus to delegitimize Mr. Romney (by attacking his donors) as it seeks to frighten others out of giving.

                The Obama campaign has justified any action on the grounds that it has a right to "hold the eventual Republican nominee accountable," but this is a dodge. Politics is rough, but a president has obligations that transcend those of a candidate. He swore an oath to protect and defend a Constitution that gives every American the right to partake in democracy, free of fear of government intimidation or disfavored treatment. If Mr. Obama isn't going to act like a president, he bolsters the argument that he doesn't deserve to be one.

                Strassel: The President Has a List - WSJ.com

                Comment


                • #9
                  It seems Obama has flipped on his intention not to politicize his Bin Laden decision. "Not spike the ball" is the way he put it. Now he's running ads narrated by Bill Clinton praising his decisiveness in going after Bin Laden. I suppose he has to distract voters from his less than stellar economic record.
                  To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Salon did a good article on this



                    Selective bin Laden leaking

                    Earlier this week, an Obama-appointed federal judge ruled in favor of the government in a national security case (needless to say), when he denied a FOIA request to obtain all photos and videos taken during and after the raid in Pakistan that resulted in Osama bin Laden’s death. The DOJ responded to the lawsuit by arguing (needless to say) that the requested materials “are classified and are being withheld from the public to avoid inciting violence against Americans overseas and compromising secret systems and techniques used by the CIA and the military.” Among other things, disclosure of these materials would have helped resolve the seriously conflicting statements made by White House officials about what happened during the raid and what its actual goals and operating rules were.

                    But while the Obama administration has insisted to the court that all such materials are classified and cannot be disclosed without compromising crucial National Security secrets, the President’s aides have been continuously leaking information about the raid in order to create politically beneficial pictures of what happened. Last August, The New Yorker published what it purported to be a comprehensive account of the raid, based on mostly anonymous White House claims, that made Barack Obama look like a mix of Superman, Rambo and Clint Eastwood; The Washington Post called it “a fascinating, cinematic-like account of the operation that killed Osama bin Laden.” This week, Time Magazine has a cover story entitled “The Last Days of Osama bin Laden” based in part on “access to top decision makers in over 100 hours of interviews.” Among other things, the article features a handwritten memo by then-CIA Director Leon Panetta noting “for the record” the President’s decision to launch the assault; the article recounts: “As U.S. Navy Seals burst into his fortress-like compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, nearly one year ago, Osama bin Laden turned to the youngest of his four wives and said his last words: ‘Don’t turn on the light’.”

                    This is what the Obama administration does over and over. It’s a flagrant abuse of its secrecy powers. It uses anonymous leaks to selectively boast about what it does and thus shape media narratives and public understanding of its conduct (also called “domestic propaganda”). But it then simultaneously insists that the whole matter is classified — Top Secret — when it comes time to be subjected to any form of legal accountability or have its assertions publicly tested.

                    We just saw this deceitful pattern this week when Obama officials — yet again — ran around anonymously boasting about all the Bad Guy Corpses the Commander-in-Chief has produced with his steely use of CIA drones, only to turn around and tell a court that it cannot possibly respond to the ACLU’s FOIA request about CIA drones because National Security prevents the U.S. Government even from confirming or denying the existence of that program. They simultaneously use secrecy as a sword and a shield: they ensure that they can make whatever claims they want about their behavior in order to glorify the President, while preventing all attempts to obtain the full and real story and, more important, to obtain adjudications about whether their conduct comports with the law.

                    There is one other point worth making here about all this. As part of the Obama administration’s unprecedented war against whistleblowers, Bradley Manning is currently being prosecuted not merely for leaking classified information, but also for “aiding the enemy” (Al Qaeda), which carries a term of life in prison. Yesterday, the judge presiding over his court-martial (needless to say) refused to dismiss this charge, concluding that any deliberate release of classified information that one knows will end up in Al Qaeda’s hands can constitute this crime. As the ACLU’s Ben Wizner points out, “the implications of the government’s argument are breathtaking” because it would convert any unauthorized leak into this extremely serious offense.

                    So the question is: will the DOJ commence an investigation to discover the identity of these Obama officials who keep leaking flattering claims about the bin Laden raid (or the CIA drone program), information which the DOJ is simultaneously telling a court is classified and any disclosures of which will seriously harm national security? Or are leaks of classified information permissible when they glorify the President and prosecuted only when they expose government wrongdoing and deceit? Yes, those are rhetorical questions.

                    The corpse of Osama bin Laden will be one of the most featured props used by Democrats to venerate the President as a Tough, Strong Warrior and to argue that he deserves re-election (it will probably be the second-most invoked tactic, right after progressive celebrations over how “cool” Obama is, in contrast to the nerdy and awkward Romney: courtesy of the same political faction still so angry (and rightfully so) that the 2000 election became a referendum on the candidate with whom one would prefer to have a beer). Not that many people are interested in them, but there are still lingering questions over what happened in that raid. Either all of that information is classified, in which case the President’s aides should be barred from leaking unverifiable, politically beneficial snippets about it and should be criminally investigated on equal terms with other leakers when they do; or — despite John Kerry’s decree that everyone should simply “shut up and move on” – there should be real disclosure of the relevant information, which means not only on the campaign trail but in courts and media outlets.

                    The issue here isn’t so much the bin Laden raid as it is the ongoing abuse of secrecy powers by The Most Transparent Administration Ever™. The only thing worse than a government which operates as a regime of widespread secrecy is one which flagrantly exploits those powers to create a one-way tunnel of selected disclosures and thus propagandizes the citizenry while glorifying itself.
                    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                    Leibniz

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      dale,

                      No I don't. That's his job. He doesn't get credit for doing his job.

                      -dale
                      obama makes a strategic decision that ends well, and that is just... "his job". okay- what could obama do that would, to you, not just be him "doing his job" but doing something that deserves credit from you? i'm genuinely curious.
                      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by dalem View Post
                        No I don't. That's his job. He doesn't get credit for doing his job.

                        -dale
                        So...we can throw endless criticism to his methods and his personality but write off anything he does good for granted? I'm more than eager to say the man has more than a fair share of flaws but that view just wreaks of double standard.

                        Originally posted by zraver View Post
                        I do? Let me guess another new law passed by Obama- give credit or else... Why did Bin Laden deserve an honorable burial? Jodl, Kietel, Striecher, Ribbentrop et al have death pictures.
                        To my knowledge, getting a burial at sea in the Islamic religion is...less than desirable. I wouldn't call it an "honorable" burial by any means. That said, I really want to see death pictures in order to satisfy my sick sense of pleasure of justice done, as every New Yorker should damn well have and want. ;)
                        "Draft beer, not people."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by omon View Post
                          few military ppl lost their job for critisizing obama, i don't remember anyone loose their job for talking crap about bush, or anyone else.
                          i do remember you'd get in trobble for critisizing leaders in ussr.
                          what the hell is going on here.
                          Same thing thats been going on for a couple of hundred years - soldiers who 'talk crap' about the President risk discipline & dismissal. Happened during the ACW, WW2, Vietnam, under Clinton and under Bush too. Probably even more cases than that. Under Clinton, Bush & Obama there is a similar pattern in the public reaction. SOme serving & ex-military point out that this is not allowed. Only some, others divide as per the following- supporters of the President in question either point out that the conduct is not permissible under the UCMJ or simply hurl abuse. Opponents of the president in question hint or claim outright that the nation is becoming a dictatorship & that this sort of thing is 'unprecedented'. Congratulations for lapsing so quickly into cliche.

                          Watada was court-martialed in February 2007, with the case ending in a mistrial. On February 5, 2007, Watada's court-martial began with him entering a plea of not guilty to all of the specifications against him. He faced three specifications: one for missing movement, and two for "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman" related to his public comments criticizing the Bush administration and the war.
                          The military screwed up the trial, but eventually dismissed Watada.

                          Ehren Watada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                          Don't know what happened to Macek, but note 1) the comments of Maj. Mitchell; and 2) The comments of the right wingers on freerepublic. They seem not to be all that concerned about the freedom of speech of this 'bitch' (their words).

                          Macek's strident criticism of President Bush may have opened her up to disciplinary action according to US Central Command Spokesmen Major Pete Mitchell based at McDill Air Force Base in Tampa Florida.

                          "If she has said these things about the Commander-in-Chief she has opened herself up to disciplinary action," said Mitchell. "Just what that action is would have to be determined by her unit commander."

                          Mitchell said there is a mechanism to use for soldier's concerns by approaching it through the soldier's chain of command. "We don't publicly air our differences, we have a recourse through the chain of command," said Mitchell.

                          "At the moment she is not a private citizen. She is serving her country and while she wears the uniform she voluntarily agreed to curtail her behavior for the purpose of maintaining discipline and cohesion," said Mitchell. "As a non-commissioned officer, and as a leader, she has had this explained to her at some point in her career."
                          Soldier Blasts Commander In Chief On Rockford Radio

                          Robert Ferriol also seemed to believe that he was forced out of the Marines for his views after a fellow Marine reported him for writing a letter critical of Bush:

                          I was brought up on charges of "Disloyal Statements" under Article 134 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). Not because anything I wrote was disloyal, but because of my political views and how they differ from Mr. Simpson and others like him. The unfortunate aspect of this is not my demise, but their inability to understand or accept the opinions of others as different from their own. Nonetheless, I was forced to retain an attorney and undergo weeks of scrutiny before being cleared of the charges. I was, however, never allowed to work in Intelligence again; forced to separate the Marine Corps over threats that I would not be allowed to reenlist.
                          Liberal views force soldier out of military - The Item: Oped01
                          sigpic

                          Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Red Team View Post
                            To my knowledge, getting a burial at sea in the Islamic religion is...less than desirable.
                            A senior administration official tells ABC News, "We are ensuring it is handled in accordance with Islamic practice and tradition. It's something we take seriously and therefore it's being handled in an appropriate manner.‬"

                            Islamic law dictates that the body be bathed three times in a specific, ritualistic manner, while covered by a cloth. The bathers are generally same-gender family members of the deceased, though this clearly will not be the case for the body in question.

                            After bathing, the body is wrapped in a kafan - generally a white cotton cloth, to protect the modesty of the deceased. Prayers are then said to request forgiveness for the dead.

                            Burial customs vary by region, but it is tradition for the body to be buried the same day as death. In this case, Bin Laden's body is expected to be buried by 4 p.m. on Monday afternoon, before sundown.

                            Traditionally the body is buried in the ground without a casket, with a grave marker that does not rise more than 12 inches above the ground. However, U.S. officials say that Bin Laden is expected to be buried at sea to prevent his gravesite becoming a shrine and to discourage vandalism and grave desecration. This adheres with Islamic tradition, as there is a stipulation that if it is likely that an enemy may try to dig up the grave or destroy the gravesite, burial at sea -- while not ideal -- is allowed.


                            zraver- there are families who never got anything to bury and waited for days maybe weeks to find out if their loved ones made out of the towers before they fell. Osama should have been cut up fed to pigs and then the pigs should have been butchered for ham and bacon sandwiches to have a giant I love pork day in the middle of downtown Manhattan.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by zraver View Post
                              There are families who never got anything to bury and waited for days maybe weeks to find out if their loved ones made out of the towers before they fell. Osama should have been cut up fed to pigs and then the pigs should have been butchered for ham and bacon sandwiches to have a giant I love pork day in the middle of downtown Manhattan.
                              As appealing as that sounds to me, and as hungry as that makes me, doing that would have done more bad than good. The whole conceptual identity of the US is not only against injustice and cruelty, but is and should be above it entirely in its actions at any cost. Otherwise we'd look no better than the barbaric virgin lovers we're fighting.
                              "Draft beer, not people."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X