i don't think the right can push any scandal anymore. they have no credibility at all. maybe i'm in the minority, but i think there are people who really don't like obama much, but as soon as the rightwing brings up a new scandal, we move away as far as we can.
you have the obama lovers who think he can do no wrong. you have the group i just mentioned who think the rightwing wouldn't know the truth if it bit them in the behind and you have the rightwingers who believe whatever they hear on foxnews. i don;t think that latter group is enough to make any sort of difference.
I see plenty of people here on Covers who, in the abstract, say they don't like Osama but they never say specifically what they don't like about his presidency.
For the moderates (libs) which this describes, is there any particular legislation that this admin passed you disagree with?
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
i don't think the right can push any scandal anymore. they have no credibility at all. maybe i'm in the minority, but i think there are people who really don't like obama much, but as soon as the rightwing brings up a new scandal, we move away as far as we can.
you have the obama lovers who think he can do no wrong. you have the group i just mentioned who think the rightwing wouldn't know the truth if it bit them in the behind and you have the rightwingers who believe whatever they hear on foxnews. i don;t think that latter group is enough to make any sort of difference.
I see plenty of people here on Covers who, in the abstract, say they don't like Osama but they never say specifically what they don't like about his presidency.
For the moderates (libs) which this describes, is there any particular legislation that this admin passed you disagree with?
i don't think the right can push any scandal anymore. they have no credibility at all. maybe i'm in the minority, but i think there are people who really don't like obama much, but as soon as the rightwing brings up a new scandal, we move away as far as we can.
you have the obama lovers who think he can do no wrong. you have the group i just mentioned who think the rightwing wouldn't know the truth if it bit them in the behind and you have the rightwingers who believe whatever they hear on foxnews. i don;t think that latter group is enough to make any sort of difference.
The problem is that nobody has any credibility anymore, and it is clear. The right is just as guilty, because they were just as complicit when Bush was shredding the constitution. It is why investigations into no bid contracts did not lead to Cheeney dying of a heart attack behind bars, or those responsible for pushing the Iraq war on the American people were never tried.
It is why Obama skates on Fast and Furious, and why we will never truly know what happened in Benghazi. It is why the IRS targeting political enemies "is not a big deal". It is why whatever incoming president will pardon Obama for anything that he may have done as president, just as Obama did for Bush.
nobody has the moral high ground. IT is a den of vipers and thieves, and it is getting exponentially worse. We live in a police state, that is clear, and it isn't even tinfoil hat talk anymore. Snowden made it so that the American people can see it plain as day.
just waiting for that catalyst that changes things, because it is not going to be any vote, or any politician.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
i don't think the right can push any scandal anymore. they have no credibility at all. maybe i'm in the minority, but i think there are people who really don't like obama much, but as soon as the rightwing brings up a new scandal, we move away as far as we can.
you have the obama lovers who think he can do no wrong. you have the group i just mentioned who think the rightwing wouldn't know the truth if it bit them in the behind and you have the rightwingers who believe whatever they hear on foxnews. i don;t think that latter group is enough to make any sort of difference.
The problem is that nobody has any credibility anymore, and it is clear. The right is just as guilty, because they were just as complicit when Bush was shredding the constitution. It is why investigations into no bid contracts did not lead to Cheeney dying of a heart attack behind bars, or those responsible for pushing the Iraq war on the American people were never tried.
It is why Obama skates on Fast and Furious, and why we will never truly know what happened in Benghazi. It is why the IRS targeting political enemies "is not a big deal". It is why whatever incoming president will pardon Obama for anything that he may have done as president, just as Obama did for Bush.
nobody has the moral high ground. IT is a den of vipers and thieves, and it is getting exponentially worse. We live in a police state, that is clear, and it isn't even tinfoil hat talk anymore. Snowden made it so that the American people can see it plain as day.
just waiting for that catalyst that changes things, because it is not going to be any vote, or any politician.
The current truth of the matter is more people by the hundred's of thousands are losing their "current health insurance policy" and their doctor that "they like" vs the hundreds of Americans who have actually signed their name to Obamacare.This adminstration supposedly proposed that the American tax payer foot the bill to the tune of 150 billion dollars so people that lost their "promised" health care insurance can be subsidized to have their cancellation reversed. Say what! You guys on the Left love ideas like this at the expense of the tax payer. How does the Left even begin to defend this dystopic bs. We have real,positive leadership from the uselsess Congresswoman Wasserman Shultz. The blind is leading the blind.
0
The current truth of the matter is more people by the hundred's of thousands are losing their "current health insurance policy" and their doctor that "they like" vs the hundreds of Americans who have actually signed their name to Obamacare.This adminstration supposedly proposed that the American tax payer foot the bill to the tune of 150 billion dollars so people that lost their "promised" health care insurance can be subsidized to have their cancellation reversed. Say what! You guys on the Left love ideas like this at the expense of the tax payer. How does the Left even begin to defend this dystopic bs. We have real,positive leadership from the uselsess Congresswoman Wasserman Shultz. The blind is leading the blind.
How many CIA were on the ground? Was there a stand down ordered? Where are the weapons? What was the function of the site outside of the "embassy" where the CIA were? Was it an illegal black site?
If the president didn't know, why not?
If he did know, there has been a clear cover up of illegal actions.
Bottom line is that the American people will probably never get the whole story.
It was enough for killary to fake a brain tumor and then step down from office.
If you don't think it is all very fishy that is fine. I do not think we know the while truth.
Could it be that Obama is trying to protect the CIA and doesn't want to compromise the CIA's military objective?
You want to put American people who work for the CIA in danger and want to compromise their cover? You want the government to release CIA secrets?
The point of the CIA is to be covert and secret. They are spies that work for a spy agency. We aren't supposed to know about anything the CIA is doing.
How can the CIA help? If the CIA isn't supposed to be there to begin with. That would compromise the mission wouldn't it. Man... right-wingers are MORONS!
Too many Dems were complicit? Dems weren't going to vote against the wars for fear of being labeled not a true American patriot, anti-American or un-patriotic.
Remember the republican motto, "you're either with us or against us." The mission to get the evil doers.
Bush and Cheney could have sold anything to the American people. The US was on a patriotic high after 9-11.
The republican nwo machine/military industrial complex/party sold the imperialism crusade ... hook, line and sinker.
I don't know of any D's that were complicit. I would bet almost all the D's were most likely deceived. Just like all the American people were deceived.
0
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
How many CIA were on the ground? Was there a stand down ordered? Where are the weapons? What was the function of the site outside of the "embassy" where the CIA were? Was it an illegal black site?
If the president didn't know, why not?
If he did know, there has been a clear cover up of illegal actions.
Bottom line is that the American people will probably never get the whole story.
It was enough for killary to fake a brain tumor and then step down from office.
If you don't think it is all very fishy that is fine. I do not think we know the while truth.
Could it be that Obama is trying to protect the CIA and doesn't want to compromise the CIA's military objective?
You want to put American people who work for the CIA in danger and want to compromise their cover? You want the government to release CIA secrets?
The point of the CIA is to be covert and secret. They are spies that work for a spy agency. We aren't supposed to know about anything the CIA is doing.
How can the CIA help? If the CIA isn't supposed to be there to begin with. That would compromise the mission wouldn't it. Man... right-wingers are MORONS!
Too many Dems were complicit? Dems weren't going to vote against the wars for fear of being labeled not a true American patriot, anti-American or un-patriotic.
Remember the republican motto, "you're either with us or against us." The mission to get the evil doers.
Bush and Cheney could have sold anything to the American people. The US was on a patriotic high after 9-11.
The republican nwo machine/military industrial complex/party sold the imperialism crusade ... hook, line and sinker.
I don't know of any D's that were complicit. I would bet almost all the D's were most likely deceived. Just like all the American people were deceived.
Could it be that Obama is trying to protect the CIA and doesn't want to compromise the CIA's military objective?
You want to put American people who work for the CIA in danger and want to compromise their cover? You want the government to release CIA secrets?
The point of the CIA is to be covert and secret. They are spies that work for a spy agency. We aren't supposed to know about anything the CIA is doing.
How can the CIA help? If the CIA isn't supposed to be there to begin with. That would compromise the mission wouldn't it. Man... right-wingers are MORONS!
Too many Dems were complicit? Dems weren't going to vote against the wars for fear of being labeled not a true American patriot, anti-American or un-patriotic.
Remember the republican motto, "you're either with us or against us." The mission to get the evil doers.
Bush and Cheney could have sold anything to the American people. The US was on a patriotic high after 9-11.
The republican nwo machine/military industrial complex/party sold the imperialism crusade ... hook, line and sinker.
I don't know of any D's that were complicit. I would bet almost all the D's were most likely deceived. Just like all the American people were deceived.
Without the 9-11 inside job innuendos, this post is pretty spot on. The CIA works with the embassies in these countries. It is both a danger and a necessity.
0
Quote Originally Posted by MoneySRH:
Could it be that Obama is trying to protect the CIA and doesn't want to compromise the CIA's military objective?
You want to put American people who work for the CIA in danger and want to compromise their cover? You want the government to release CIA secrets?
The point of the CIA is to be covert and secret. They are spies that work for a spy agency. We aren't supposed to know about anything the CIA is doing.
How can the CIA help? If the CIA isn't supposed to be there to begin with. That would compromise the mission wouldn't it. Man... right-wingers are MORONS!
Too many Dems were complicit? Dems weren't going to vote against the wars for fear of being labeled not a true American patriot, anti-American or un-patriotic.
Remember the republican motto, "you're either with us or against us." The mission to get the evil doers.
Bush and Cheney could have sold anything to the American people. The US was on a patriotic high after 9-11.
The republican nwo machine/military industrial complex/party sold the imperialism crusade ... hook, line and sinker.
I don't know of any D's that were complicit. I would bet almost all the D's were most likely deceived. Just like all the American people were deceived.
Without the 9-11 inside job innuendos, this post is pretty spot on. The CIA works with the embassies in these countries. It is both a danger and a necessity.
Could it be that Obama is trying to protect the CIA and doesn't want to compromise the CIA's military objective?
You want to put American people who work for the CIA in danger and want to compromise their cover? You want the government to release CIA secrets?
The point of the CIA is to be covert and secret. They are spies that work for a spy agency. We aren't supposed to know about anything the CIA is doing.
How can the CIA help? If the CIA isn't supposed to be there to begin with. That would compromise the mission wouldn't it. Man... right-wingers are MORONS!
Too many Dems were complicit? Dems weren't going to vote against the wars for fear of being labeled not a true American patriot, anti-American or un-patriotic.
Remember the republican motto, "you're either with us or against us." The mission to get the evil doers.
Bush and Cheney could have sold anything to the American people. The US was on a patriotic high after 9-11.
The republican nwo machine/military industrial complex/party sold the imperialism crusade ... hook, line and sinker.
I don't know of any D's that were complicit. I would bet almost all the D's were most likely deceived. Just like all the American people were deceived.
If that is the case then I understand the silence. I know how this world works and sometimes we have to do some underhanded "black ops" stuff. It's like when Navy Seals or Green Berets get killed during a mission and their families are told it was a training exercise.
0
Quote Originally Posted by MoneySRH:
Could it be that Obama is trying to protect the CIA and doesn't want to compromise the CIA's military objective?
You want to put American people who work for the CIA in danger and want to compromise their cover? You want the government to release CIA secrets?
The point of the CIA is to be covert and secret. They are spies that work for a spy agency. We aren't supposed to know about anything the CIA is doing.
How can the CIA help? If the CIA isn't supposed to be there to begin with. That would compromise the mission wouldn't it. Man... right-wingers are MORONS!
Too many Dems were complicit? Dems weren't going to vote against the wars for fear of being labeled not a true American patriot, anti-American or un-patriotic.
Remember the republican motto, "you're either with us or against us." The mission to get the evil doers.
Bush and Cheney could have sold anything to the American people. The US was on a patriotic high after 9-11.
The republican nwo machine/military industrial complex/party sold the imperialism crusade ... hook, line and sinker.
I don't know of any D's that were complicit. I would bet almost all the D's were most likely deceived. Just like all the American people were deceived.
If that is the case then I understand the silence. I know how this world works and sometimes we have to do some underhanded "black ops" stuff. It's like when Navy Seals or Green Berets get killed during a mission and their families are told it was a training exercise.
If we were in fact giving weaponry to Al Qaeda LIFG rebels and other Jihadists, and they turned on us expatriating those weapons to other theatres of war. Repressing the ops does not help us, it merely gives cover of darkness to a horrible decision.
I figure we will know about 23 years from now when those records get declassified.
0
If we were in fact giving weaponry to Al Qaeda LIFG rebels and other Jihadists, and they turned on us expatriating those weapons to other theatres of war. Repressing the ops does not help us, it merely gives cover of darkness to a horrible decision.
I figure we will know about 23 years from now when those records get declassified.
Without the 9-11 inside job innuendos, this post is pretty spot on. The CIA works with the embassies in these countries. It is both a danger and a necessity.
I'm a skeptic, not a 9-11 truther. Let just say, I'm leery of the governments story. A part of me believes that republicans knew it was coming, did nothing to stop it, made sure no one could stop it, and saw it as an opportunity to capitalize on it.
Can't let a good terrorist act go to waste. That's the 1967-2013 republican way. The republican party needed an opening. 9-11 was what the nwo/military industrial complex needed to get the imperialistic crusade sold to the American people.
History says ... Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr. are the political heroes of the theo-fascist/imperialistic/moralist crusade and Carter, Clinton, and Obama are the political heroes of the socialist-communists.
I believe that the government is clearly covering the CIA's a$$ and that the government was clearly incompetent. There is NO stupid Benghazi scandal. If a republican was in charge, I would still feel the same way about this subject.
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Without the 9-11 inside job innuendos, this post is pretty spot on. The CIA works with the embassies in these countries. It is both a danger and a necessity.
I'm a skeptic, not a 9-11 truther. Let just say, I'm leery of the governments story. A part of me believes that republicans knew it was coming, did nothing to stop it, made sure no one could stop it, and saw it as an opportunity to capitalize on it.
Can't let a good terrorist act go to waste. That's the 1967-2013 republican way. The republican party needed an opening. 9-11 was what the nwo/military industrial complex needed to get the imperialistic crusade sold to the American people.
History says ... Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr. are the political heroes of the theo-fascist/imperialistic/moralist crusade and Carter, Clinton, and Obama are the political heroes of the socialist-communists.
I believe that the government is clearly covering the CIA's a$$ and that the government was clearly incompetent. There is NO stupid Benghazi scandal. If a republican was in charge, I would still feel the same way about this subject.
I'm a skeptic, not a 9-11 truther. Let just say, I'm leery of the governments story. A part of me believes that republicans knew it was coming, did nothing to stop it, made sure no one could stop it, and saw it as an opportunity to capitalize on it.
Can't let a good terrorist act go to waste. That's the 1967-2013 republican way. The republican party needed an opening. 9-11 was what the nwo/military industrial complex needed to get the imperialistic crusade sold to the American people.
History says ... Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr. are the political heroes of the theo-fascist/imperialistic/moralist crusade and Carter, Clinton, and Obama are the political heroes of the socialist-communists.
I believe that the government is clearly covering the CIA's a$$ and that the government was clearly incompetent. There is NO stupid Benghazi scandal. If a republican was in charge, I would still feel the same way about this subject.
I don't think it is as polarized as you describe. Reagan is a hero for many reasons. I personally think his foreign policy was both daring and brilliant, although many mistakes were made. I also think Clinton did amazing things as President and neither in retrospect was a fascist or socialist.
But as far as the CIA, I can say that from personal knowledge, you are pretty spot on. The CIA even scares government insiders because no one even knows who is and isn't.
I remember one higher ranking government operative telling me a few years ago that most subsequent Presidents think the CIA was involved in the Kennedy Assassination, but they are too scared to say it.
0
Quote Originally Posted by MoneySRH:
I'm a skeptic, not a 9-11 truther. Let just say, I'm leery of the governments story. A part of me believes that republicans knew it was coming, did nothing to stop it, made sure no one could stop it, and saw it as an opportunity to capitalize on it.
Can't let a good terrorist act go to waste. That's the 1967-2013 republican way. The republican party needed an opening. 9-11 was what the nwo/military industrial complex needed to get the imperialistic crusade sold to the American people.
History says ... Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr. are the political heroes of the theo-fascist/imperialistic/moralist crusade and Carter, Clinton, and Obama are the political heroes of the socialist-communists.
I believe that the government is clearly covering the CIA's a$$ and that the government was clearly incompetent. There is NO stupid Benghazi scandal. If a republican was in charge, I would still feel the same way about this subject.
I don't think it is as polarized as you describe. Reagan is a hero for many reasons. I personally think his foreign policy was both daring and brilliant, although many mistakes were made. I also think Clinton did amazing things as President and neither in retrospect was a fascist or socialist.
But as far as the CIA, I can say that from personal knowledge, you are pretty spot on. The CIA even scares government insiders because no one even knows who is and isn't.
I remember one higher ranking government operative telling me a few years ago that most subsequent Presidents think the CIA was involved in the Kennedy Assassination, but they are too scared to say it.
I don't think it is as polarized as you describe. Reagan is a hero for many reasons. I personally think his foreign policy was both daring and brilliant, although many mistakes were made. I also think Clinton did amazing things as President and neither in retrospect was a fascist or socialist.
But as far as the CIA, I can say that from personal knowledge, you are pretty spot on. The CIA even scares government insiders because no one even knows who is and isn't.
I remember one higher ranking government operative telling me a few years ago that most subsequent Presidents think the CIA was involved in the Kennedy Assassination, but they are too scared to say it.
I believe the government should follow what the first money said on it, Mind Your Business!
Foreign policy is just a dog-whistle word.
Foreign policy = imperialism
Entitlements = socialist
The drug war or any suppression of personal freedoms = fascist
If I had a time machine, I would take out Nixon and Reagan from history. Those two presidents are responsible for the mess we see today.
Kennedy had an enormous following and influence on the country. If you don't play the game the way the men in suits want. The suits will find a way to eliminate you from the equation.
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
I don't think it is as polarized as you describe. Reagan is a hero for many reasons. I personally think his foreign policy was both daring and brilliant, although many mistakes were made. I also think Clinton did amazing things as President and neither in retrospect was a fascist or socialist.
But as far as the CIA, I can say that from personal knowledge, you are pretty spot on. The CIA even scares government insiders because no one even knows who is and isn't.
I remember one higher ranking government operative telling me a few years ago that most subsequent Presidents think the CIA was involved in the Kennedy Assassination, but they are too scared to say it.
I believe the government should follow what the first money said on it, Mind Your Business!
Foreign policy is just a dog-whistle word.
Foreign policy = imperialism
Entitlements = socialist
The drug war or any suppression of personal freedoms = fascist
If I had a time machine, I would take out Nixon and Reagan from history. Those two presidents are responsible for the mess we see today.
Kennedy had an enormous following and influence on the country. If you don't play the game the way the men in suits want. The suits will find a way to eliminate you from the equation.
Weeks after she was forced to retract her "60 Minutes" report on the
attack in Benghazi, Libya, Lara Logan and producer Max McClellan will be
taking a leave of absence from the CBS News staple.
The Huffington Post's Michael Calderone broke the news.
In a memo circulated Tuesday and obtained by HuffPost, CBS News
chairman and "60 Minutes" executive producer Jeff Fager detailed the
findings from his review of Logan's report. Fager wrote that Logan did
not adequately attribute "her assertions that Al Qaeda carried out the
attack" and that she had an apparent "conflict" in covering the story:
--Questions have also been raised about the role of Al Qaeda in the
attack since Logan declared in the report that Al Qaeda fighters had
carried it out. Al Qaeda’s role is the subject of much disagreement and
debate. While Logan had multiple sources and good reasons to have
confidence in them, her assertions that Al Qaeda carried out the attack
and controlled the hospital were not adequately attributed in her
report.
--In October of 2012, one month before starting work on the Benghazi
story, Logan made a speech in which she took a strong public position
arguing that the US Government was misrepresenting the threat from Al
Qaeda, and urging actions that the US should take in response to the
Benghazi attack. From a CBS News Standards perspective, there is a
conflict in taking a public position on the government’s handling of
Benghazi and Al Qaeda, while continuing to report on the story.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Cool_Arrow:
Only took 3 weeks but looks like Lara Logan is getting the axe at 60 Minutes.
Weeks after she was forced to retract her "60 Minutes" report on the
attack in Benghazi, Libya, Lara Logan and producer Max McClellan will be
taking a leave of absence from the CBS News staple.
The Huffington Post's Michael Calderone broke the news.
In a memo circulated Tuesday and obtained by HuffPost, CBS News
chairman and "60 Minutes" executive producer Jeff Fager detailed the
findings from his review of Logan's report. Fager wrote that Logan did
not adequately attribute "her assertions that Al Qaeda carried out the
attack" and that she had an apparent "conflict" in covering the story:
--Questions have also been raised about the role of Al Qaeda in the
attack since Logan declared in the report that Al Qaeda fighters had
carried it out. Al Qaeda’s role is the subject of much disagreement and
debate. While Logan had multiple sources and good reasons to have
confidence in them, her assertions that Al Qaeda carried out the attack
and controlled the hospital were not adequately attributed in her
report.
--In October of 2012, one month before starting work on the Benghazi
story, Logan made a speech in which she took a strong public position
arguing that the US Government was misrepresenting the threat from Al
Qaeda, and urging actions that the US should take in response to the
Benghazi attack. From a CBS News Standards perspective, there is a
conflict in taking a public position on the government’s handling of
Benghazi and Al Qaeda, while continuing to report on the story.
A congresswoman at a town hall was recently asked if she was looking into what happened in Benghazi and she told her constituents she wasn't there to talk about Benghazi. She was there to talk about the Middle East.
A congresswoman at a town hall was recently asked if she was looking into what happened in Benghazi and she told her constituents she wasn't there to talk about Benghazi. She was there to talk about the Middle East.
Hot Forum Topics
