Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 24, 2014, 06:13:16 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 80 81 [82] 83   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Obama: Corruption, Deception, Dishonesty, Deceit and Promises Broken  (Read 82774 times)
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7630


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #2025 on: April 29, 2014, 12:45:10 PM »

Judicial Watch: Benghazi Documents Point to White House on Misleading Talking Points

APRIL 29, 2014



(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that on April 18, 2014, it obtained 41 new Benghazi-related State Department documents. They include a newly declassified email showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.”  Other documents show that State Department officials initially described the incident as an “attack” a possible kidnap attempt.

The documents were released Friday as result of a June 21, 2013, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the Department of State (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-00951)) to gain access to documents about the controversial talking points used by then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice for a series of appearances on television Sunday news programs on September 16, 2012.  Judicial Watch had been seeking these documents since October 18, 2012.

The Rhodes email was sent on sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 8:09 p.m. with the subject line:  “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.”  The documents show that the “prep” was for Amb. Rice’s Sunday news show appearances to discuss the Benghazi attack.

The document lists as a “Goal”: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in and Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”

Rhodes returns to the “Internet video” scenario later in the email, the first point in a section labeled “Top-lines”:

[W]e’ve made our views on this video crystal clear. The United States government had nothing to do with it. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence. And we are working to make sure that people around the globe hear that message.

Among the top administration PR personnel who received the Rhodes memo were White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Deputy Press Secretary Joshua Earnest, then-White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, then-White House Deputy Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, then-National Security Council Director of Communications Erin Pelton, Special Assistant to the Press Secretary Howli Ledbetter, and then-White House Senior Advisor and political strategist Davie Plouffe.

The Rhodes communications strategy email also instructs recipients to portray Obama as “steady and statesmanlike” throughout the crisis. Another of the “Goals” of the PR offensive, Rhodes says, is “[T]o reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.” He later includes as a PR “Top-line” talking point:

I think that people have come to trust that President Obama provides leadership that is steady and statesmanlike. There are always going to be challenges that emerge around the world, and time and again, he has shown that we can meet them.

The documents Judicial Watch obtained also include a September 12, 2012, email from former DeputySpokesman at U.S. Mission to the United Nations Payton Knopf to Susan Rice, noting that at a press briefing earlier that day, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland explicitly stated that the attack on the consulate had been well planned.  The email sent by Knopf to Rice at 5:42 pm said:

Responding to a question about whether it was an organized terror attack, Toria said that she couldn’t speak to the identity of the perpetrators but that it was clearly a complex attack.

In the days following the Knopf email, Rice appeared on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News and CNN still claiming the assaults occurred “spontaneously” in response to the “hateful video.” On Sunday, September 16 Rice told CBS’s “Face the Nation:”

But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy–sparked by this hateful video.

The Judicial Watch documents confirm that CIA talking points, that were prepared for Congress and may have been used by Rice on “Face the Nation” and four additional Sunday talk shows on September 16, had been heavily edited by then-CIA deputy director Mike Morell. According to one email:

The first draft apparently seemed unsuitable….because they seemed to encourage the reader to infer incorrectly that the CIA had warned about a specific attack on our embassy.  On the SVTS, Morell noted that these points were not good and he had taken a heavy hand to editing them. He noted that he would be happy to work with [then deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton]] Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to develop appropriate talking points.

The documents obtained by Judicial Watch also contain numerous emails sent during the assault on the Benghazi diplomatic facility.  The contemporaneous and dramatic emails describe the assault as an “attack”:
•September 11, 2012, 6:41 PM – Senior Advisor Eric Pelofsky, to Susan Rice:

As reported, the Benghazi compound came under attack and it took a bit of time for the ‘Annex’ colleagues and Libyan February 17 brigade to secure it. One of our colleagues was killed – IMO Sean Smith. Amb Chris Stevens, who was visiting Benghazi this week is missing.  U.S. and Libyan colleagues are looking for him…

At 8:51 pm, Pelofsky tells Rice and others that “Post received a call from a person using an [sic] RSO phone that Chris was given saying the caller was with a person matching Chris’s description at a hospital and that he was alive and well.  Of course, if the he were alive and well, one could ask why he didn’t make the call himself.”

Later that evening, Pelofsky emailed Rice that he was “very, very worried.  In particular that he [Stevens] is either dead or this was a concerted effort to kidnap him.”  Rice replied, “God forbid.”
•September 11, 2012, 4:49 PM – State Department press officer John Fogarty reporting on “Libya update from Beth Jones”:

Beth Jones [Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs] just spoke with DCM Tripoli Greg Hicks, who advised a Libyan militia (we now know this is the 17th Feb brigade, as requested by Emb office) is responding to the attackon the diplomatic mission in Benghazi.”

Material is blacked out (or redacted) in many emails.

“Now we know the Obama White House’s chief concern about the Benghazi attack was making sure that President Obama looked good,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And these documents undermine the Obama administration’s narrative that it thought the Benghazi attack had something to do with protests or an Internet video.  Given the explosive material in these documents, it is no surprise that we had to go to federal court to pry them loose from the Obama State Department.”
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7630


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #2026 on: May 01, 2014, 12:30:02 PM »

http://fusion.net/leadership/story/obama-net-neutrality-campaign-video-surfaces-643645


More broken promises
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7630


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #2027 on: May 05, 2014, 09:13:24 AM »

http://washingtonexaminer.com/another-obama-backed-green-company-smith-electric-vehicles-leaves-trail-of-unpaid-bills-and-broken-promises/article/2548035?fb_action_ids=10152136631217424&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=.U2ejaak2yTA.like&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B745314465499560%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%22.U2ejaak2yTA.like%22%5D



Another failed backed Obama solar firm - 32 million down the rat hole
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7630


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #2028 on: May 12, 2014, 09:06:18 AM »

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/05/dhs-emails-reveal-u-s-may-terrorist-hands-list/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


The Obama administration appears to have a terrorist “hands off” list that permits individuals with extremist ties to enter the country, according to internal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) documents obtained by a United States Senator.

It’s unimaginable that any government would do this, but it seems like the Obama administration is constantly breaking new ground. The disturbing details of this secret initiative were made public this week by Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, who has obtained DHS electronic mail discussing what could be a terrorist “hands off” list. The exchange includes a 2012 email chain between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) asking whether to admit an individual with ties to various terrorist groups. The individual had scheduled an upcoming flight into the U.S., according to an announcement issued by the senator.

The person was believed to be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a close associate and supporter Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, according to the mail exchange obtained by Grassley’s office. The terrorist suspect had also been in secondary inspection “several dozen times of the past several years,” the agency emails reveal, but had not undergone a secondary inspection since 2010. This seems to imply that the suspect has been on the U.S. government’s radar for some time.

It gets better. The DHS emails also reveal that this particular terrorism suspect has actually taken legal action against the U.S., presumably because authorities violated the hands off policy. The subject “has sued CBP twice in the past and that he’s one of the several hands off passengers nationwide,” according to the DHS emails obtained by Senator Grassley’s office. The documents go on to say that the terrorist’s records were removed and that the DHS Secretary (at the time Janet Napolitano) was involved in the matter.

This is pure insanity and the senator has tried for months to get answers from DHS. In February he wrote a letter to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson saying this: “I’m puzzled how someone could be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, be an associate of [redacted], say that the US is staging car bombings in Iraq and that [it] is ok for men to beat their wives, question who was behind the 9/11 attacks, and be afforded the luxury of a visitor visa and de-watchlisted. It doesn’t appear that we’ll be successful with denying him entry tomorrow but maybe we could re-evaluate the matter in the future since the decision to de-watchlist him was made 17 months ago.”

The agency’s response, dated April 10, apparently frustrated the senator enough to make the whole thing public this week. DHS let CBP Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske get back to Grassley. His letter says the agency does not have the authority to ignore information that renders an individual alien inadmissible because CBP does not have the discretionary authority to admit an inadmissible alien. “Accordingly, CBP does not have any list or other mechanism which would render an individual free of the grounds of inadmissibility or from any other inspection requirements, including secondary inspections,” Kerlikowske writes.

He goes on to pass the buck to another agency, the Department of Justice (DOJ). “The Terrorist Watchlist is maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center, which was created by the Attorney General and is administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigations,” the CBP commissioner writes. “All questions related to the watchlist should therefore be referred to the Department of Justice for response.” Kerlikowske also offers to provide the senator with a “more detailed briefing on the particular case cited in your letter, in the appropriate setting.” That means nothing will be put in writing so as to avoid any sort of future incrimination in the event the scandal blows wide open.

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7630


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #2029 on: May 12, 2014, 12:33:33 PM »

Not surprisingly, they don’t take it that seriously at all. Here’s how Geithner describes the lying process:


“I remember during one Roosevelt Room prep session before I appeared on the Sunday shows, I objected when Dan Pfeiffer wanted me to say Social Security didn’t contribute to the deficit. It wasn’t a main driver of our future deficits, but it did contribute. Pfeiffer said the line was a ‘dog whistle’ to the left, a phrase I had never heard before. He had to explain that the phrase was code to the Democratic base, signaling that we intended to protect Social Security.”


http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/05/12/ex-treasury-sec-geithner-white-house-told-me-to-lie-for-sunday-news-shows-118478

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7630


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #2030 on: May 15, 2014, 06:35:34 AM »

 Wink


* 1512483_639007972826002_614391373_n.jpg (21.94 KB, 360x395 - viewed 39 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7630


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #2031 on: May 15, 2014, 02:14:36 PM »

"I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."
 
- Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA 
November 10, 2007 
 
Tom Wheeler, ex-lobbyist for cable and wireless industry, and the current Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission was appointed by Barack Obama in November 2013. During Barack Obama's presidential campaign Wheeler spent six weeks in Iowa aiding his campaign efforts and went on to raise over $500,000 USD for both of Obama's campaigns.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7630


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #2032 on: May 19, 2014, 07:37:58 PM »

http://freebeacon.com/politics/did-the-president-take-a-pay-cut-like-he-promised-white-house-wont-say


 Cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7630


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #2033 on: May 19, 2014, 09:07:52 PM »

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-motorcade-traffic-jam-play-catch-2014-5
 Angry

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7630


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #2034 on: May 20, 2014, 05:28:19 AM »


Obama Administration Health Agencies Accused Of Ethical Misconduct
 

 Posted:  05/20/2014 12:13 am EDT    Updated:  05/20/2014 12:59 am EDT   


 
WASHINGTON -- High-level government officials at the top federal health agencies placed inappropriate pressure on their own watchdog agency, a new report alleges.

The report by the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, released Tuesday, accuses the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health of breaching ethical boundaries by working too closely with their oversight group, the Office for Human Research Protections. In doing so, Public Citizen alleges, officials at the two agencies helped soften the watchdog's critical assessment of the conduct of NIH-funded researchers studying the optimal oxygen levels for prematurely born infants. The first version of the watchdog's report criticized researchers for failing to adequately inform the babies' parents of study risks.

Public Citizen's findings, based on internal government emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, were serious enough that at least one member of Congress -- a major NIH supporter -- is calling for a formal investigation "to prevent such improper and unethical interference" from reoccurring.

 "What appears to have happened here is that NIH, despite substantial conflicts of interest, was allowed to interfere and, in my view, improperly influence the investigation," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) in an interview.

At the heart of the allegations are the often gray lines of research ethics, specifically to what extent and in what fashion an agency can plead its case to its own watchdog committee. In a statement hours before the Public Citizen report was officially released, Tait Sye, an HHS spokesperson, argued that the NIH merely worked to correct incomplete information in the first report issued by Office for Human Research Protections, or OHRP, and that such communication was not uncommon.

"OHRP regularly works with entities such as NIH, [Institutional Review Boards] and others to ensure the protection of human subjects in research," said Sye.

 The case dates to 2004, when NIH started funding a $20 million-plus study to look into how much oxygen a prematurely born baby should be given during the early stages of life.

The study, called SUPPORT, involved tests on more than 1,300 infants. The research ended in 2009, with findings showing "that babies who got supplementary oxygen in the higher end of the acceptable range had no more blindness, but greater survival, than babies that got slightly less oxygen," according to The Washington Post.

 The SUPPORT study, however, was clouded by criticism over the conduct of those doing the investigation. In March 2013, OHRP -- part of HHS -- said 23 research sites had not given parents of infants in the trial a proper warning about the risks of the study, which included blindness, brain damage, even death. In addition, OHRP, told the University of Alabama at Birmingham -– the main institution conducting the research -- that it would begin screening university consent forms for compliance with HHS regulations. A class-action lawsuit has since been filed against University of Alabama at Birmingham providers over the Support study.

 The study's authors and members of the scientific research community, meanwhile spoke out against the OHRP ruling. There was no basis to predict that infants in one group or the other would be more at risk of death from participating in the trial, they argued, adding that all levels of oxygen given to the infants fell within the standard range, just at different ends of the spectrum. They also warned the compliance actions demanded of future research could have a chilling effect.

 Two months later, OHRP produced a second letter on the SUPPORT study, maintaining that more warnings about experimental risk should have been offered. But it also acknowledged the general guidelines for researchers in the field needed more clarification and pledged to hold a public meeting to discuss the issue further. In a reversal, OHRP also said it was dropping its compliance enforcement against University of Alabama at Birmingham for the time being, and that it wouldn't enforce disciplinary action against other studies until clearer guidance was finalized.

 "The OHRP has said, 'You're guilty, but we're not going to do anything about it," Alice Dreger, a professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics at Northwestern University, said at the time.

Seeking an explanation for the reversal, Public Citizen filed a Freedom of Information Act request for communications between OHRP and the NIH, as well as officials in the HHS Office of the Secretary, from March 2013 to early June. The records that were produced, Public Citizen argues, show an unprecedented amount of coordination between the agencies to sand down the rough parts of the first report.



 
According to the 439 pages of emails, during the period between the two reports, officials at the NIH reached out to senior HHS officials to "chat about" the SUPPORT study. On May 1, 2013, the director of the NIH, Dr. Francis Collins, wrote to Bill Corr, the deputy secretary at HHS, explaining that his staff had been working with top HHS officials "to develop a consensus set of statements that OHRP could put forward to clarify the situation with the SUPPORT study."

 Subsequent emails show continued discussions between HHS, NIH and OHRP. In mid-May, Jerry Menikoff, the director of OHRP, exchanged correspondence with NIH officials in which they appeared to be going over potential edits to the second letter. The day after that second letter was issued, a group of bioethicists published a piece in the New England Journal of Medicine defending the SUPPORT study. That same say, Collins co-authored a piece in the same publication titled "In Support of SUPPORT –- A View from the NIH." In it, he wrote that OHRP had put its compliance actions on hold.

Dr. Michael Carome, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said he found the timing more than suspicious, though emails in the FOIA tranche show the Collins' piece had been in the works well before the OHRP letter was released.

Concerns over OHRP's independence date back many years. In 2000, agency was moved from NIH to HHS after outcries about conflicts of interest and inappropriate pressure being placed on its oversight officials. With respect to SUPPORT, the documents uncovered by Public Citizens do not show instances of overt pressure being applied by NIH officials to get OHRP to amend initial conclusions. Rather, the emails suggest a collaborative process in which the two groups managed to find a middle ground.

"In the wake of extensive scientific and public discussions since OHRP’s March 2013 determination letter related to the SUPPORT study, OHRP became aware of different understandings of what is meant by 'standard of care' and risks that must be disclosed to potential subjects in the research context," said Sye.

Because some of the emails are heavily redacted, the view of what was actually said between NIH and OHRP is incomplete. And even then, the question being raised by DeLauro and Public Citizen is why that wall of demarcation between watchdog and agency was breached in the first place.

 "This type of interference is simply unprecedented and simply disturbing," said Carome. "This is like the Department of Justice preparing an indictment against some criminal and allowing the criminal to view the indictment and edit it before it moves forward. ... It is like the FDA investigating a drug trial and the FDA commissioner allowing a draft warning letter to be shared with the drug company before it was issued and lettering them review and suggest edits to the letter."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/20/support-study-public-citizen_n_5355346.html


Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 81755


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2035 on: May 20, 2014, 07:57:57 AM »

t


* 10303808_10152430796245520_6067250015149508887_n.jpg (55.49 KB, 738x540 - viewed 29 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged

Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7630


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #2036 on: May 20, 2014, 12:26:41 PM »

t

Straw twink? 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7630


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #2037 on: May 21, 2014, 07:24:40 AM »

When a President Learns Everything on TV



Jonathan S. Tobin | @tobincommentary
 05.20.2014 - 2:45 PM 


 
     


 
 


Today, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney sought to partially walk back his statement yesterday in which he said President Obama learned about the growing scandal at the Veterans Administration by watching a report on the topic on CNN. After realizing just how bad that sounded, Carney returned to the daily briefing with the White House press corps today to say that his statement was being misinterpreted. According to Carney, what he really meant to say was that the president had only heard of the “specific allegations” about misconduct at VA hospitals by watching television. But, he insisted, the president was aware of problems at the VA, as proved by statements he had made during his 2008 presidential campaign when he promised to fix the agency.

Which is to say that, yes, Barack Obama had heard of the VA and had some vague intention to improve it as part of an effort to pose as someone who cares about our nation’s veterans. But between his arrival in the Oval Office and his subsequent appointment of retired Army General Eric Shinseki to head the VA in 2009 and the moment when he stumbled into awareness about the scandal during the course of spending some quality time with his remote control, he hadn’t given the topic much, if any, thought.



The administration’s problem here is not just that the VA scandal is far more serious than even Carney is currently willing to admit and that any action it is currently taking to address the plague of mismanagement and corruption that may have cost the lives of at least 40 veterans while they awaited treatment is too little and too late. As I noted last week, having an absentee president is bad for both the health of veterans and the nation. The president may have gotten away with treating the IRS scandal as no big deal and questions about Benghazi as merely a Republican witch hunt. But the spectacle of widespread corruption at the heart of a government health-care system that led to the deaths of veterans is not one you can pass off as a product of the fevered imaginations of his opponents. That’s especially true when you consider that Rep. Jeff Miller, the chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, wrote specifically to the president a year ago to bring to his attention what was already believed to be a widespread problem involving inefficiency and deceptive practices.

The fact that the White House resorted to what has become its standard second-term excuse for government scandal with a line about the president hearing about it on TV or by reading the newspapers raises serious questions about both his leadership and the intelligence of his staff. After all, surely it must have occurred to someone at the White House that using the same excuse about hearing of it in the media wasn’t likely to work after it had been employed with little success to distance him from the IRS and other scandals. Such intellectual laziness speaks to a West Wing that is both collapsing from intellectual fatigue as well as having acquired an almost complete contempt for both the press and public opinion.

The consequences here aren’t limited to the growing credibility gap that this administration continues to build. It’s bad enough that no one—not even his most ardent supporters—really believe that the president is on top of these issues. But what really stings is that Carney and the rest of the inhabitants of the Obama echo chamber have really come to believe that no one cares whether they are telling the truth or not.

Just as important is the reality of a government that is out of the control of its leader. A year ago Miller noted that one of the chief problems at the VA was a lack of accountability. That’s still true of the agency, as the deaths of veterans has provoked a low-key administration response that has left Secretary Shinseki in charge of a problem that grew worse on his watch. But it is also true of President Obama.

While no president can micromanage every Cabinet department, if Obama really did care about veterans, how is it that in the years between his first use of the issue as a campaign tactic and the moment when it exploded in the media he managed never to do a thing about the issue, even when specifically warned about the “allegations” that Carney claims he didn’t know about?

The lack of confidence in government is a natural response to events like the VA scandal, but it is compounded by a presidential response that makes it clear that Obama doesn’t pay much attention to the issues he raised in his own campaigns and that he is slow to act even after learning about such disasters on television. This scandal makes it clear, if it hadn’t already been so, that the Obama administration has run out of steam, ideas, or even a willingness to pretend that it cares about public opinion. It’s going to be a long slog until January 2017.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7630


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #2038 on: May 21, 2014, 07:31:02 AM »

http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2014/05/fbi_issues_subpoena_to_cover_o.html#incart_m-rpt-1


Unbelievable., 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7630


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #2039 on: May 21, 2014, 01:43:16 PM »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Rjvcx_DARM" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Rjvcx_DARM</a>

Great clip - F Obama.   
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7630


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #2040 on: May 22, 2014, 07:39:41 AM »

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/21/obama-transition-team-told-about-3-audits-showing-

Warned 3 times and he didn't do shit
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7630


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #2041 on: May 22, 2014, 08:10:01 AM »

http://reason.com/archives/2014/05/21/anatomy-of-an-obama-administration-scand


 Wink
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7630


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #2042 on: May 22, 2014, 08:17:07 AM »

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/05/22/bill_oreilly_obama_gives_power_to_incompetent_people.html


 Wink
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7630


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #2043 on: May 22, 2014, 09:15:07 AM »

May 22, 2014 12:00 AM
The Obama Administration’s Ethics Problem 
 The executive branch continues to be plagued by scandal after scandal. 

By Victor Davis Hanson


Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki cannot get a handle on the recent scandalous treatment of veterans in VA hospitals, where more than 40 sick men were allowed to die without proper follow-up treatment. A cover-up allegedly followed. When the Walter Reed Army Medical Center scandal broke under the George W. Bush administration, heads rolled. So far, Shinseki seems immune from similar accountability.

Almost nothing that former secretary of health and human services Kathleen Sebelius promised before, during, or after the implementation of the ill-starred Affordable Care Act came true. She was also cited by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel for violating the Hatch Act, as she improperly campaigned for Obama’s reelection while serving as a cabinet secretary.

Former IRS official Lois Lerner used the federal tax-collection agency to go after groups deemed too conservative. She invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid telling Congress the whole truth.

Susan Rice, former U.N. ambassador and now national-security adviser, flat-out deceived the public in five television appearances about the Benghazi catastrophe. She insisted that the deaths of four Americans were due to a spontaneous riot induced by a reactionary video maker — even though she had access to intelligence fingering al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists as the culprits who planned the attack on the anniversary of 9/11.





Rice recently blamed Obama foreign-policy failures on domestic political polarization. But that is best described as the give and take of democracy and was once thought to be our foreign-policy strength.

Rice also knows little history. In 2007, in the midst of the surge, when Americans were fighting for their lives to stabilize Iraq, then-senator Hillary Clinton implied that the commanding general in Iraq, General David Petraeus, was a veritable liar. Senate majority leader Harry Reid agreed and declared that the war was already lost. Then–presidential candidate Barack Obama prematurely wrote off the politically inconvenient surge as a failure. Was Rice then shocked that “polarization” affected foreign policy?

Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton left office with American foreign policy in shambles. She has been unable to make the argument that a single initiative — reset with Russia, lead from behind in Libya, red lines on Syria, deadlines to Iran, complete withdrawal from Iraq, pressure on the Israelis, outreach to radical Islam and Latin American Communist dictatorships — had met with success.

Clinton infamously dismissed the lingering mysteries surrounding the Benghazi deaths with “What difference at this point does it make?” She also refused, despite numerous entreaties, to place the now-infamous Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram on a State Department terrorist watch list.

Eric Holder is the first attorney general to have been held in contempt of Congress. Aside from his divisive language (he called America “a nation of cowards” and referred to African Americans as “my people”), Holder always seems to find himself at the center of scandals. He permitted the federal monitoring of Associated Press journalists. He green-lighted the “Fast and Furious” gun-running scam. He has failed to bring to account rogue IRS officials. Holder is the most morally compromised attorney general since Nixon appointee John Mitchell.

Do we remember former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson? Her case was as unprofessional as it was surreal. Jackson fabricated for herself an alternate identity as a mid-level EPA employee. In communications, she used a fake e-mail address and name, and then unethically honored her own alter ego (“Richard Windsor”) as a “scholar of ethical behavior.” Who could have dreamed up such an unethical caper?

What has happened to NASA? We are currently trying to isolate Vladimir Putin for his territorial aggressions and yet beseeching the Russians to send our astronauts into space. Perhaps NASA administrator Charles Bolden should not have boasted that one of NASA’s “foremost” goals was “to reach out to the Muslim world” and “to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.” Americans might have preferred Bolden to stick with rockets.

Former secretary of energy Steven Chu left under a cloud of controversy involving crony capitalists’ getting millions of dollars in green loans that produced nothing but failed companies. Former labor secretary Hilda Solis slipped out of office, battling accusations of Hatch Act violations and freebie rides on private jets from insider union friends. Former top officials such as Timothy Geithner, Peter Orszag, and Larry Summers have given new meaning to the revolving door between Wall Street and the White House.

The common denominator?

In all of these cases, politics trumped ethics. Because Obama professed that he was on the side of the proverbial people, administrators assumed that they had a blank check to do or say what they wished without much media audit. The mystery is not whether some administration officials were incompetent or unethical or both, but whether there are any left who are not.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals. You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com. © 2014 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7630


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #2044 on: May 23, 2014, 07:27:40 PM »

http://allenbwest.com/2014/05/exclusive-confidential-source-reveals-really-happened-benghazi



 Wink
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7630


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #2045 on: June 06, 2014, 08:33:23 PM »

Skip to comments.

Uh oh: Feinstein says she’s seen no evidence that Taliban would've killed Bergdahl had deal leaked
Hot Air ^ | June 6, 2014 | Allahpundit
Posted on June 6, 2014 at 9:09:40 PM EDT by 2ndDivisionVet

Not sure how else to read this except as Feinstein accusing the White House of lying flat-out about its reasons for keeping Congress in the dark before the swap.

When asked whether there was a “credible threat” on Bergdahl’s life if word had gotten out, the California Democrat responded: “No, I don’t think there was a credible threat, but I don’t know. I have no information that there was.”

Feinstein’s comments, part of an interview with Bloomberg Television’s Political Capital with Al Hunt airing Friday evening, put her at odds with White House officials. At a briefing Wednesday, administration officials told lawmakers that they couldn’t give Congress advance notice on the Bergdahl deal because the Taliban vowed to kill him if any details about the prisoner exchange came out.

Just to make sure we’re all on the same page here, Feinstein’s no random member of Congress. She’s the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, routinely privy to all sorts of tightly held info that the White House shares with her and other committee members in the name of keeping the legislature apprised of threats. Nor is this the first time a member of the Intel Committee has claimed that information about Bergdahl was withheld from them. Saxby Chambliss says it was news to him to read in the New York Times that Bergdahl may (or may not) have left a note before he disappeared. That info wasn’t in his classified file.

Two possibilities here. One: It’s all true — the Taliban was set to kill Bergdahl if anyone blabbed — but the White House couldn’t share that info with Feinstein because she’s got a big mouth and would have spilled the beans. Any evidence to support that theory? Actually, yeah.

[A]t least in Feinstein’s case, the administration may have had a reason to keep her out of the loop. In March 2012 with Josh Rogin—then with Foreign Policy magazine—Feinstein accidentally acknowledged the negotiations, appearing to disclose classified information about a potential Bergdahl deal (Rogin also reported that the White House briefed eight senators, including Feinstein, on a potential deal in Jan. 2012).

They kept Congress in the dark about a potential Bergdahl exchange ever since. Even if it’s true that Feinstein was careless with information previously, though, that’s no defense to the White House breaking the law in refusing to notify Congress. They could have simply huddled with her, impressed upon her how high the stakes were — “you talk, he dies” — and then trusted her to be quiet. She’s known all sorts of things that she hasn’t disclosed. There’s no reason to think she couldn’t have been trusted to keep this a secret too, provided they gave her some reason to believe Bergdahl would be in jeopardy if she said anything. Why didn’t they? Or is this all a big lie and the Taliban never intended to kill him over a leak?

Second possibility: This is all a big lie and the Taliban never intended to kill him over a leak. You already know the arguments on this one if you read Ed’s post yesterday. It simply makes no sense to believe the Taliban would have cared much if anyone leaked. For one thing, the prospect of a Bergdahl/Taliban swap has been reported in papers like the NYT for at least two years. The Taliban themselves chattered about it to the AP last year. Plus, if you think about it, having the deal leak in advance would only enhance the propaganda victory for them. If news of an impending swap had broken a week earlier, American media had erupted over it, and then a battered Obama had bowed to the Taliban and done the deal anyway, it would have been a supreme humiliation. The only reason to think the Taliban was skittish about leaks was because they were afraid that news breaking in advance would cow Obama into scuttling the deal — but in that case, with Obama’s course of action uncertain, why would they have gone ahead and killed Bergdahl before O had made a final decision? It may be that they told the White House that they’d kill BB if Obama backed out at the last minute, but that’s not the same as saying they’d kill him if it leaked. And it’s certainly no justification for O to withhold notice from Congress.

Feinstein’s not the only big-name Democrat causing trouble for the administration about Bergdahl today, either. Remember that the next time Obama dismisses this as a phony scandal cooked up by Republican psycho-partisans. Exit question via Guy Benson: Remember when Jay Carney said that Bergdahl was a “prisoner,” not a “hostage”? How can that be true if the White House’s story is correct, that the Taliban were ready to murder him in captivity if the deal leaked? Legitimate armies don’t threaten to kill POWs; they hold them until the end of hostilities and then release them to the enemy. The word for a group that would slaughter a prisoner over a scuttled exchange is something different. It starts with a “T,” I believe.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7630


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #2046 on: June 09, 2014, 10:38:28 AM »

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2014/06/07/turley-obama-really-president-richard-nixon-always-wanted-be
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7630


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #2047 on: June 09, 2014, 11:31:42 AM »

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/8/holder-seeks-legal-team-for-children-on-border


 Angry
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7630


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #2048 on: June 09, 2014, 02:12:06 PM »

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-08/obama-s-destructive-war-on-the-media


Obama can rot in hell
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7630


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #2049 on: June 10, 2014, 05:05:38 AM »


Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Obama Lied, Americans in Afghanistan Died
Frontpage ^ | 6/10/2014 | Daniel Greenfield
Posted on June 10, 2014 at 6:55:01 AM EDT by markomalley

After presiding for six years over a war in which over 1,600 Americans were killed fighting the Taliban, Obama did not mention the enemy during his West Point Commencement Address.

That wasn’t unusual. Obama has a curious habit of avoiding the “T-word” in his official speeches. Even when delivering his Rose Garden speech about Bergdahl’s return, the Taliban were never mentioned.

Obama’s mentions of the Taliban vary by context. When speaking to the military he might say that the United States is at war with the Taliban. In international diplomatic settings however he emphasizes that the conflict is really a civil war between the Taliban and the Afghan government with the United States there to act as a stabilizing force.

The President of Afghanistan claimed that Obama had told him, “The Taliban are not our enemies and we don’t want to fight them.”

Joe Biden had expressed similar thoughts, stating, “The Taliban per se is not our enemy. That’s critical.” White House spokesman Jay Carney awkwardly defended Biden by arguing that the United States was fighting the Taliban, but was there to defeat Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda in Afghanistan however had already been defeated by Bush.

During the campaign and once in office, Obama had proposed outreach to the “moderate” Taliban. Biden estimated that only 5% of the Taliban were incorrigible while 70% and then another 25% could be reasoned with.

According to Biden, these Taliban were expected to end all ties with Al Qaeda, accept the Afghan constitution and offer equal treatment to women. Obama issued the same demand last year. The Taliban who hold strict religious beliefs about the evils of democracy and the inferiority of women did not rush to take Obama and Biden up on their offer.

Obama’s dual views of the Taliban made for an incompatible policy. When playing the role of commander, he delivers applause lines about “pushing the Taliban back” and large numbers of American soldiers were sent to Afghanistan. But the rest of the time he views the Taliban not as an enemy, but like Boko Haram or Hamas, as a group that is acting violently only because their legitimate political needs are not being met.

Some might say that it was as a commander that Obama sent Bowe Bergdahl to Afghanistan, but that it was as an appeaser that he brought him back. And yet both Obamas are the same man. Obama sent Bowe Bergdahl to Afghanistan for the same reason that he brought him back.

This is the discontinuity that bedevils modern liberal foreign policy which fights wars it does not believe in, rejecting war, while still attempting to use force as an instrument of diplomacy.

When Bush sent American soldiers off to war it was because he believed that there was a real enemy to fight. Obama, as we have seen, never believed that the Taliban were our enemy and his own intelligence people had told him that Al Qaeda only had a handful of fighters in Afghanistan.

Then why did he send thousands of American soldiers to die or be maimed fighting the Taliban?

The Afghan Surge had never been meant to defeat the Taliban. The American soldiers were there for political leverage while Hillary and Obama figured out how to seduce the Taliban into political participation. The military would batter away at the incorrigible 5% of the Taliban while a deal would be cut with the other 95%.

But the numbers didn’t hold up.

Obama had claimed that withdrawing from Iraq would force the Iraqis to work out their differences. It didn’t work in Iraq. By putting clear deadlines on the US presence in Afghanistan he hoped to pressure the Afghan government into becoming desperate enough to cut a deal with the Taliban. Instead he only made the Taliban aware that they had no reason to cut a deal because they could wait him out.

Like many peace initiatives with terrorists, the pressure used to convince another government to negotiate with the terrorists only succeeded in convincing the terrorists not to negotiate. Obama was recreating the Israeli-PLO Peace Process disaster, except that he was doing it using American, instead of Israeli, lives.

Obama and Hillary’s talk of an Afghan-led approach to reconciling with the Taliban completed the breach between the Afghan government and the US. By trying to play the middle man in a deal that no one wanted, Obama alienated the rest of the country. The US no longer had allies in Afghanistan. It only had enemies. The Green-on-Blue attacks increased dramatically. Even the people we were fighting alongside now saw Americans as the enemy.

Not only had Obama failed to turn the Taliban into friends, but he had turned friends into enemies.

Despite all the setbacks, Obama’s people continued to cling to the idea that trading Bowe Bergdahl for top Taliban commanders would open up the peace process. The idea was floated in 2011 and 2012 and set aside because of Republican opposition. Proponents of Taliban appeasement blamed the GOP for sabotaging the Qatar talks. They even suggested that Republicans wanted the war to drag on to damage Obama’s popularity rating.

Now that Obama has firmly embraced unilateral governance at home, the deal went through. He is determined to shut down the War on Terror, close Gitmo and end the War in Afghanistan before his term ends, but his policies have put the initiative into the hands of a rising network of Islamist groups, some openly associated with Al Qaeda, others more loosely aligned with its ideas.

Meanwhile the American people have been lied to about the war and the Bergdahl deal threatens to unravel some of those lies. Obama did not recommit to Afghanistan to defeat Al Qaeda, as he has claimed, but to engage the Taliban. The Bergdahl deal was a last ditch effort to revive a Taliban peace process that Obama believes will finally disprove the Bush approach to terrorism.

When Obama authorized the Bin Laden operation, he did so to arrest him and put him through a civilian trial in order to dismantle Gitmo. This perverse duality characterizes his entire approach to the War on Terror. A military tactic is joined to an anti-war aim. Force is used to prove that violence doesn’t work nearly as well as diplomacy and appeasement.

This is the disastrous policy that led to everything from the Bergdahl deal to the collapse of the US effort in Afghanistan.

Obama has spent far more time thinking how to win over the Taliban than how to beat them. It’s no wonder that the Taliban have beaten him instead.

TOPICS: Editorial; Government; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: Click to Add Keyword
[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]

1 posted on June 10, 2014 at 6:55:01 AM EDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: markomalley
Obama the Undocumented and the EXEMPT Congress
recognize ONLY conservative, especially white,
Americans as the ENEMY.

They sic the DO”J”, DH”S”, IR”S”, and N”S”A
on them, while ignoring every phone call,
and every salient event made by REAL terrorists,
including those they warned
about (like the murderers in the Boston Atrocity).


2 posted on June 10, 2014 at 7:02:26 AM EDT by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: markomalley
I don't know I agree that the Taliban has beaten Obama, more accurate is that the Taliban and Obama have beaten the US. Obama bonds with his brethren the Islamists and he advances their transnational causes wherever he can.
3 posted on June 10, 2014 at 7:03:21 AM EDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: markomalley
Our entire goal when the war if Afghanistan started was to remove the Taliban from power, because they were harboring al Qaeda. And now they don’t matter? Someone thinks we’re all stupid.


4 posted on June 10, 2014 at 7:05:19 AM EDT by Telepathic Intruder (The only thing the Left has learned from the failures of socialism is not to call it that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: markomalley
As ex-president Cheney said in 2009:
We developed a new policy in Afghanistan
We let Obama look at it
Obama adopted our policy
Now he is dithering

Criticize him dithering, then criticize for not dithering

5 posted on June 10, 2014 at 7:07:04 AM EDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Truth29
...more accurate is that the Taliban and Obama have beaten the US…
From, “The Quranic Concept of War”…

The universalism of Islam, in its all-embracing creed, is imposed on the be- lievers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political, if not strictly military. . . . The Jihad, accordingly, may be stated as a doctrine of a permanent state of war, not continuous fighting.”— Majid Khadduri
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 80 81 [82] 83   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!