Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next
AuthorMessage
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6018

PostSubject: Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures   5/15/2013, 8:44 am

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-obama-20130515,0,1109593.story

Obama and overreach

Americans see evidence of truth-shading, arrogance and intrusion

May 15, 2013

Multiple White House claims about Washington's handling of the murderous raid in Benghazi stand exposed as false.
•Internal Revenue Service officials admit a worse-by-the-day scandal that appalls fair-minded Americans.
•The U.S. Department of Justice scrambles to explain its clandestine collection of records on work and personal telephone lines that The Associated Press says are used by more than 100 of its journalists.
In reaction, the White House blames political opponents, disavows ownership or pleads ignorance.
Hard as it may be, then, set aside your own politics and ask yourself which of these Monday statements rings truer:
"The whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow. ... And suddenly, three days ago, this gets spun up as if there's something new to the story. There's no 'there' there."
— President Barack Obama, dismissing congressional scrutiny of his and his subordinates' statements about Benghazi as a "political circus"
"Americans should take notice that top Obama administration officials increasingly see themselves as above the law and emboldened by the belief that they don't have to answer to anyone."
— House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa
For now, many among us would take Option 2. With each of these troubling disclosures, the Obama administration finds itself reacting to appearances of overreach, of arrogance, of determination to dodge its embarrassments rather than to take ownership of them.
We don't expect unanimity of agreement on this. On each of these controversies, though, even some of the president's most loyal supporters — from Capitol Hill to the liberal commentariat to Main Streets across the land — are questioning the government's conduct on his watch. That turnabout either angers or amuses opponents inclined to ask the supporters, "Where have you been?"
At each of these turns, the Obama administration has looked manipulative, defensive and peevish. In one sense those aren't startling reactions; they're vulnerabilities for any White House that, like this one, wants an image of moral righteousness, honesty and transparency.
Taken together, though, these controversies project a less flattering image of truth-shading, hubris and intrusion. In the week of humiliating disclosures that started with last Wednesday's congressional hearing on Benghazi, Americans haven't seen the administration exhibit ... one shred of humility:
•The White House and State Department have taken vague responsibility for Benghazi mistakes, but neither has produced answers to the most crucial questions, starting with:
Who, exactly, had rejected repeated requests for security upgrades from U.S. officials in Libya? Who, exactly, decided not to attempt a military rescue, an F-16 flyover, a NATO or other allied reaction, something, during the eight-hour assault? Who, exactly, let the task of informing the American people deteriorate into an orgy of tail-covering and lies? And why, exactly, does the president's spokesman still mislead Americans by suggesting that the Central Intelligence Agency, rather than the State Department or White House, drove that process — essentially blaming CIA staffers who did the typing rather than blaming administration officials who told them what to type?
•The IRS' disclosure that it had inordinately targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status was astonishing. No more astonishing, though, than Tuesday's news that the IRS allegedly gave nonpublic information about nine of those groups to ProPublica, an investigative journalism organization.
Obama called the early disclosures outrageous and vowed to learn "exactly what happened on this." The president would have better served himself and his administration, though, by acknowledging the shriekingly obvious: If IRS officials were trying to hinder conservative groups that opposed Obama, that means high-level federal officials were trying to steer the Nov. 6 election to the president. There was no such candor from the president or, Tuesday, from his spokesman.
•Americans thus far know less about the Justice Department's grab of AP staffers' phone records. But here, too, many of those Americans can't help but ask if all the president's men and women stay up late, trying to look intrusive.
By the AP's account, Justice subjected the organization to an unprecedented invasion of its news-gathering operations. The evident goal: to identify the government source(s) of a May 2012 AP story about a CIA operation in Yemen that had stopped an al-Qaida plot to bomb a U.S.-bound airplane.
Once again, a question raised by the Benghazi debacle resonates loudly: As the 2012 presidential election approached, were some federal officials overstepping bounds to shore up the president's campaign claim that, as he said at the Democratic National Convention, "al-Qaida is on the path to defeat"?
The easiest way for the president and his White House to further that rising suspicion — we emphasize that it's thus far unproven — is to demonstrate three things to his newly energized foes and to his friends who didn't expect this sort of conduct: that his subordinates will end their egregious stonewalling on Benghazi, will pursue the IRS scandal as high as it goes and will demand full disclosure of whether his Justice Department scrupulously followed the law in its pursuit of journalists' phone records.
Until the president makes and keeps those three assurances, he'll continue to make Issa's accusation ring true: This administration looks guilty of overreach — of believing it is above the law.

Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures   5/15/2013, 9:05 am

happy jack wrote:
Who, exactly, decided not to attempt a military rescue, an F-16 flyover, a NATO or other allied reaction, something, during the eight-hour assault?
The Pentagon, that's who.
The F-16's needed to be refueled for such a mission and there were no tankers available.

When partisan political hacks pretend to not know the answers to questions that in fact have been answered dozens of times, then you know it's nothing more than partisan bullshit.

Quote :
"The whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow. ... And suddenly, three days ago, this gets spun up as if there's something new to the story. There's no 'there' there."
— President Barack Obama, dismissing congressional scrutiny of his and his subordinates' statements about Benghazi as a "political circus"
- 100% spot on


Last edited by edge540 on 5/15/2013, 9:23 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6018

PostSubject: Re: Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures   5/15/2013, 9:12 am

edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Who, exactly, decided not to attempt a military rescue, an F-16 flyover, a NATO or other allied reaction, something, during the eight-hour assault?
The Pentagon, that's who.
The F-16's needed to be refueled for such a mission and there were no tankers available.

When partisan political hacks pretend to not know the answers to questions that in fact been answered dozens of times, then you know it's nothing more than partisan bullshit.

Quote :
"The whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow. ... And suddenly, three days ago, this gets spun up as if there's something new to the story. There's no 'there' there."
— President Barack Obama, dismissing congressional scrutiny of his and his subordinates' statements about Benghazi as a "political circus"
- 100% spot on

Keep telling yourself these things.
It will be much less stressful for you.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures   5/15/2013, 9:18 am

happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Who, exactly, decided not to attempt a military rescue, an F-16 flyover, a NATO or other allied reaction, something, during the eight-hour assault?
The Pentagon, that's who.
The F-16's needed to be refueled for such a mission and there were no tankers available.

When partisan political hacks pretend to not know the answers to questions that in fact been answered dozens of times, then you know it's nothing more than partisan bullshit.

Quote :
"The whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow. ... And suddenly, three days ago, this gets spun up as if there's something new to the story. There's no 'there' there."
— President Barack Obama, dismissing congressional scrutiny of his and his subordinates' statements about Benghazi as a "political circus"
- 100% spot on

Keep telling yourself these things.
It will be much less stressful for you.

Right wing partisan bullshit doesn't stress me out at all. I find it rather amusing. Take for example Robert Gates calling conservative clowns "cartoonish."

9 months later and 9 investigations and all you have is jackshit, how pathetic.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3112

PostSubject: Re: Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures   5/15/2013, 9:33 am

edge540 wrote:
When partisan political hacks pretend to not know the answers to questions that in fact have been answered dozens of times, then you know it's nothing more than partisan bullshit.

I checked out after the first sentence. If your opener is Benghazi, it's clear you're bringing absolutely nothing to the table.

And whatever grievances this idiot has with Obama, they all pale in comparison to our last President, so its hard to take any of them seriously.


Last edited by Heretic on 5/15/2013, 9:44 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6018

PostSubject: Re: Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures   5/15/2013, 9:37 am

edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Who, exactly, decided not to attempt a military rescue, an F-16 flyover, a NATO or other allied reaction, something, during the eight-hour assault?
The Pentagon, that's who.
The F-16's needed to be refueled for such a mission and there were no tankers available.

When partisan political hacks pretend to not know the answers to questions that in fact been answered dozens of times, then you know it's nothing more than partisan bullshit.

Quote :
"The whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow. ... And suddenly, three days ago, this gets spun up as if there's something new to the story. There's no 'there' there."
— President Barack Obama, dismissing congressional scrutiny of his and his subordinates' statements about Benghazi as a "political circus"
- 100% spot on

Keep telling yourself these things.
It will be much less stressful for you.

Right wing partisan bullshit doesn't stress me out at all. I find it rather amusing. Take for example Robert Gates calling conservative clowns "cartoonish."

9 months later and 9 investigations and all you have is jackshit, how pathetic.

Serenity now, edge.
Serenity now.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6018

PostSubject: Re: Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures   5/15/2013, 10:08 am

Heretic wrote:
I checked out after the first sentence.

Y’know what the funny thing is about ignoring something?
It generally doesn’t make it go away.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9392

PostSubject: Re: Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures   5/15/2013, 10:31 am

From the article:
Quote :
The easiest way for the president and his White House to further that rising suspicion — we emphasize that it's thus far unproven
Yoo Hoo...Anybody home?

As "Heretic" put it:
Quote :
If your opener is Benghazi, it's clear you're bringing absolutely nothing to the table.

Interesting sub note: In the print edition of the Tribune that I have in front of me,the words "we emphasize that it's thus far unproven" do not appear. Shocked Obviously someone at the Tribune needs to get their accusations straight.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6018

PostSubject: Re: Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures   5/15/2013, 10:55 am

Artie60438 wrote:
Interesting sub note: In the print edition of the Tribune that I have in front of me,the words "we emphasize that it's thus far unproven" do not appear. Shocked Obviously someone at the Tribune needs to get their accusations straight.

I think they threw those words into the on-line edition just in case some idiot was reading it who didn't grasp the meaning of the word 'suspicion'.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3112

PostSubject: Re: Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures   5/15/2013, 10:58 am

happy jack wrote:
Y’know what the funny thing is about ignoring something?
It generally doesn’t make it go away.

What are your thoughts on the article? Why post this one? Was there anything in it you found particularly compelling? If so, why? Any particular points you wanted me to address?
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures   5/15/2013, 11:28 am

happy jack wrote:

Americans see evidence of truth-shading, arrogance and intrusion
You betcha, here's the evidence:
Quote :
PPP’s newest national poll finds that Republicans aren’t getting much traction with their focus on Benghazi over the last week. Voters trust Hillary Clinton over Congressional Republicans on the issue of Benghazi by a 49/39 margin and Clinton’s +8 net favorability rating at 52/44 is identical to what it was on our last national poll in late March. Meanwhile Congressional Republicans remain very unpopular with a 36/57 favorability rating.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6018

PostSubject: Re: Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures   5/15/2013, 12:14 pm

edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:

Americans see evidence of truth-shading, arrogance and intrusion
You betcha, here's the evidence:
Quote :
PPP’s newest national poll finds that Republicans aren’t getting much traction with their focus on Benghazi over the last week. Voters trust Hillary Clinton over Congressional Republicans on the issue of Benghazi by a 49/39 margin and Clinton’s +8 net favorability rating at 52/44 is identical to what it was on our last national poll in late March. Meanwhile Congressional Republicans remain very unpopular with a 36/57 favorability rating.


Gotta love that irrefutable "evidence" of yours.
Good one, edge.
Quite the knee-slapper.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_Polling

PPP is described as one of the "most accurate" polling companies[3][4] and as a "Democratic-leaning"[5] polling company because in its private client work, it conducts polls only for Democratic campaigns and progressive organizations.
The company is known for asking unexpected and unusual questions, including those without bearing on politics, such as the approval rating of God,[6] whether voters believe President Obama would be eligible to enter heaven in the event of the Rapture[7] and whether hipsters should be subjected to a special tax for being annoying
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures   5/15/2013, 1:07 pm

happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:

Americans see evidence of truth-shading, arrogance and intrusion
You betcha, here's the evidence:
Quote :
PPP’s newest national poll finds that Republicans aren’t getting much traction with their focus on Benghazi over the last week. Voters trust Hillary Clinton over Congressional Republicans on the issue of Benghazi by a 49/39 margin and Clinton’s +8 net favorability rating at 52/44 is identical to what it was on our last national poll in late March. Meanwhile Congressional Republicans remain very unpopular with a 36/57 favorability rating.


Gotta love that irrefutable "evidence" of yours.
Good one, edge.
Quite the knee-slapper.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_Polling

PPP is described as one of the "most accurate" polling companies[3][4] and as a "Democratic-leaning"[5] polling company because in its private client work, it conducts polls only for Democratic campaigns and progressive organizations.
The company is known for asking unexpected and unusual questions, including those without bearing on politics, such as the approval rating of God,[6] whether voters believe President Obama would be eligible to enter heaven in the event of the Rapture[7] and whether hipsters should be subjected to a special tax for being annoying

Ya'll left this out:
Quote :
A study by Fordham University found that, of 28 firms studied, PPP had the most accurate poll on the presidential national popular vote, both its independently conducted poll and the one it does in collaboration with Daily Kos and the SEIU. PPP correctly called the winner of the presidential election in all 19 states it polled in the final week of the election, as well as the winners of all the U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races it surveyed.

Yeah I love it too and I agree, it's pretty much irrefutable.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures   5/15/2013, 1:10 pm

Heretic wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Y’know what the funny thing is about ignoring something?
It generally doesn’t make it go away.

What are your thoughts on the article? Why post this one? Was there anything in it you found particularly compelling? If so, why? Any particular points you wanted me to address?

Yep. Slapping up an opinion piece really doesn't lend itself to a meaningful discussion. But I'd be more than happy to discuss Jack's "thoughts." (if he actually has any... )

Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9392

PostSubject: Re: Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures   5/15/2013, 1:21 pm

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
Interesting sub note: In the print edition of the Tribune that I have in front of me,the words "we emphasize that it's thus far unproven" do not appear. Shocked Obviously someone at the Tribune needs to get their accusations straight.

[b]I think they threw those words into the on-line edition just in case some idiot was reading it who didn't grasp the meaning of the word 'suspicion'.
Suspicion with out proof = You got nuthin!
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6018

PostSubject: Re: Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures   5/15/2013, 1:29 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
Interesting sub note: In the print edition of the Tribune that I have in front of me,the words "we emphasize that it's thus far unproven" do not appear. Shocked Obviously someone at the Tribune needs to get their accusations straight.

[b]I think they threw those words into the on-line edition just in case some idiot was reading it who didn't grasp the meaning of the word 'suspicion'.
Suspicion with out proof = You got nuthin!

Hence, the use of the word 'suspicion'.
I guess they altered the on-line version with you explicitly in mind.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures   5/15/2013, 1:57 pm

Scorpion wrote:
Heretic wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Y’know what the funny thing is about ignoring something?
It generally doesn’t make it go away.

What are your thoughts on the article? Why post this one? Was there anything in it you found particularly compelling? If so, why? Any particular points you wanted me to address?

Yep. Slapping up an opinion piece really doesn't lend itself to a meaningful discussion. But I'd be more than happy to discuss Jack's "thoughts." (if he actually has any... )
The clowns on ClusterFox and republicans keep railing about some 'cover-up' but never explain exactly WTF is being covered up.
Maybe jack can help us out and tell us exactly what is being covered up.
I sure would like to know.


Last edited by edge540 on 5/15/2013, 3:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9392

PostSubject: Re: Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures   5/15/2013, 2:56 pm

Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6018

PostSubject: Re: Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures   5/15/2013, 4:13 pm

Heretic wrote:
Why post this one?

I just wanted to see how long it would take edge and Artie to break out their spinning wheels.
edge won, coming in at 00:16, with Artie not far behind at 1:47.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures   5/15/2013, 4:25 pm

Nice to see jack admitting he's a troll and has absolutely no interest in discussing anything.

Scorpion hit the nail on the head:
Quote :
Yep. Slapping up an opinion piece really doesn't lend itself to a meaningful discussion. But I'd be more than happy to discuss Jack's "thoughts." (if he actually has any... )
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6018

PostSubject: Re: Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures   5/15/2013, 7:42 pm

edge540 wrote:
Nice to see jack admitting he's a troll and has absolutely no interest in discussing anything.

Scorpion hit the nail on the head:
Quote :
Yep. Slapping up an opinion piece really doesn't lend itself to a meaningful discussion. But I'd be more than happy to discuss Jack's "thoughts." (if he actually has any... )

.... says the genius who slapped up this opinion piece without discussing anything:


edge540 wrote:

PPP’s newest national poll finds that Republicans aren’t getting much traction with their focus on Benghazi over the last week. Voters trust Hillary Clinton over Congressional Republicans on the issue of Benghazi by a 49/39 margin and Clinton’s +8 net favorability rating at 52/44 is identical to what it was on our last national poll in late March. Meanwhile Congressional Republicans remain very unpopular with a 36/57 favorability rating.

You never fail to crack me up, edge.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3112

PostSubject: Re: Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures   5/15/2013, 9:22 pm

happy jack wrote:
I just wanted to see how long it would take edge and Artie to break out their spinning wheels.

Why?
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6018

PostSubject: Re: Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures   5/16/2013, 4:29 am

Heretic wrote:
happy jack wrote:
I just wanted to see how long it would take edge and Artie to break out their spinning wheels.

Why?

Curiosity.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6018

PostSubject: Re: Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures   5/16/2013, 6:29 am

For someone who sits at the right hand of the Smartest Man In The World, this fucker sure doesn’t seem to know a whole lot about anything.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/15/holder_on_ap_scandal_i_was_not_the_person_involved.html
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: "There's been a lot of criticism. The head of the RNC asked for my resignation. I was not the person involved in that decision. But be that as it may, I was recused in that matter as I described in a press conference held yesterday the decision issued the subpoena was made by the people involved in the case."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/holder-95-99-certain-deputy-ag-authorized-subpoena-acting-my-stead_724558.html

At today's Capitol Hill hearing with Attorney General Eric Holder at first wasn't sure who subpoenaed the AP's phone records, but later blamed his deputy attorney general:
"I'm trying to find out who authorized the subpoena," Rep. Sensenbrenner said. "You can't tell me if Deputy Attorney General Cole authorized the subpoena. Somebody had to authorize the subpoena because the code of federal regulations is pretty specific that this is supposed to go as close to the top as possible."
"No, what I'm saying is that I can't say as a matter of fact," said Holder. "I have to assume, I say I would probably 95%, 99% certain the deputy attorney general acting in my stead was the one who authorizes the subpoena."
A little bit later, Holder said, "Let me say this: I've been given a note we have confirmed that the deputy was the one who authorized the subpoena."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/15/holder_i_am_not_sure_when_i_recused_myself.html

REP. SPENCER BACHUS (R-AL): Let me ask you this, on what date did you recuse yourself?

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: I'm not sure, I think it was towards the beginning of the matter. I don't know exactly when but it was towards the beginning of the matter.


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/15/184138253/holder-isnt-sure-how-often-reporters-records-are-seized?ft=1&f=1001

As his Justice Department faces bipartisan outrage for searching phone records of Associated Press reporters and editors, Attorney Gen. Eric Holder says he is not sure how many times such information has been seized by government investigators in the four years he's led Justice.
During an interview with NPR's Carrie Johnson on Tuesday, Holder was asked how often his department has obtained such records of journalists' work.
"I'm not sure how many of those cases ... I have actually signed off on," Holder said. "I take them very seriously. I know that I have refused to sign a few [and] pushed a few back for modifications."


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325076/Eric-Holder-faces-congressional-grilling-IRS-investigation-Boston-bombing-Benghazi-spying-journalists-phone-records-scandal-fever-sweeps-Washington.html

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder today told the House Judiciary Committee he 'knew nothing' about his agency's possession of two months' worth of phone records from reporters and editors of the Associated Press.
Like White House Press Secretary Jay Carney a day earlier, he professed to know little or nothing about the case.
California Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren told Holder she was frustrated by his Department of Justice's seizure of the phone records, and insisted that notifying the AP could not have threatened the integrity of the investigation into a leak of classified information to a reporter.
'This is both an ongoing matter, and an ongoing matter about which I know nothing,' Holder replied.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9392

PostSubject: Re: Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures   5/16/2013, 8:34 am

edge540 wrote:
Nice to see jack admitting he's a troll and has absolutely no interest in discussing anything.
Yep,and he's now validated what I've been saying about him for quite a while. cheers
Quote :

Scorpion hit the nail on the head:
Quote :
Yep. Slapping up an opinion piece really doesn't lend itself to a meaningful discussion. But I'd be more than happy to discuss Jack's "thoughts." (if he actually has any... )
I'm sure Scorpion isn't holding his breath waiting for an intelligent reply. If he even gets one it will probably be the usual straw man argument.

It's time to start ignoring his juvenile attempts for attention.

Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures   

Back to top Go down
 
Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 3Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: