Obama '08?

No. If you had read my posts, you would know this already.

There is a thread dedicated to the McCyrstal issue, but folks, lets face it, this illustrates a few important points:
1. There is hypocrisy on the Left, because if this had been under Bush, the press and other Leftists would be eating this up, printing and talking about all the derogatory comments directed at the Bush administration, how this would prove how Bush did not know how to run a war, on and on, rather than calling for McCrystal to resign.
2. I don't hear much about the points that McCrystal was unhappy about, just maybe we should be hearing more about this and perhaps discussing the merits or non-merits of them. Perhaps those things are the really important things that we are missing and overlooking here.
3. Its not as if this is the first time a president and a general in the military disagreed about how a war is being managed. Slight criticism of a general for his boss or president can be tolerated to an extent as long as the general follows orders and is not in derelection of duty. If it goes too far, then obviously the chain of command is weakened to the point that resignation may be justified, however it should not be lost on the rest of us that the general could be more correct than the president, and that is for us to figure out for the upcoming elections.
4. I see this as just another indication that Obama is in way over his head, again demonstrating that he does not have the ability to manage much of anything efficiently. If Obama judges this to be a case of insubordination, of course he has the authority to fire McCrystal, and in so doing, he will possibly be continuing the mismanagement of a failed presidency, which the population deserves by virtue of electing the man. Then the question remains for the population to decide who the real problem is. And perhaps McCyrstal knew he would be sacrificing his career for the sake of trying to tell the American people what kind of a problem we have in the Whitehouse, and just perhaps he had the country and his troops at the top of his priority in terms of their long term well being.

http://able2know.org/topic/153411-1#bottom

See, the funny thing here is: you're eating this up, you're talking about the comments directed at the Obama administration, and you're arguing that this proves how Obama doesn't know how to run a war. And you don't call for McCrystal to resign:

Do you think that's a bit hypocritical of you?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~We shall support


only those candidates who advocate the impeachment of Barack Obama, because Barack Obama is a lying, thieving gangster, who is stealing our property, our liberty under the law, our Constitutional government, and our capitalist economy.


EVIDENCE JUSTIFYING IMPEACHMENT OF BARACK OBAMA

http://www.altavista.com/web/results?fr=altavista&itag=ody&q=REASONS+FOR+IMPEACHING+BARACK+OBAMA+&kgs=0&kls=0
1. Barack Obama unlawfully takes private property from those persons and from those organizations who have lawfully earned it, and gives it to those persons and organizations who have not lawfully earned it.

a. Barack Obama unlawfully exercised the authority of his office to take private property for public use in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees to the People that “private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation,” and without “due process of law.”

b. Barack Obama unlawfully interfered with the management of private companies for the purpose of achieving government control of them, in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

c. Barack Obama unlawfully interfered with the economic rights of the people by imposing unreasonable impairments in the fulfillmeny of their intended contractual obligations, and their ability to enter into such contracts.

d. Barack Obama has unlawfully changed our fundamental economic system from one governed by the rule of law to one governed by presidential dictate.


2. Barack Obama signed an unconstitutional health care bill.

a. It is not based on any enumerated power of Congress, not even on a very expansive reading of the power to regulate interstate commerce.

b. It violates the Tenth Amendment by commandeering state governments.


3. Barack Obama violated his oath to defend the US Constitution by exercising powers forbidden by the Constitution:

a. Barack Obama has unlawfully used public money to purchase private companies.

b. Barack Obama has unlawfully illegally tried to use public money to create publicly owned companies.

c. Barack Obama has unlawfully embezzled public money allocated by Congress for rescuing distressed private financial institutions, and used it to purchase automobile manufacturing companies.

d. Barack Obama has unlawfully given our public money to finance foreign automobile companies.

e. Barack Obama has unlawfully given our public money to a foreign state to finance their state-run oil company while refusing to allow us to develop our own oil resources.

f. Barack Obama has unlawfully violated the balance of powers by appointing Czars with far reaching powers who are accountable to no one but himself.

g. Barack Obama has unlawfully as a matter of patronage stolen private industries from shareholders and given them to workers’ unions.

h. Barack Obama has unlawfully substantially benefitted his political financial supporters by giving public money to foreign industries.

i. Barack Obama has unlawfully arranged very large unscrupulous deals with private companies to exchange public money for his political advertising.

j. Barack Obama has unlawfully attempted to create a public industry, a health insurance company, that would compete with existing and similar private industries in open defiance of the consent of the people, and the letter and intent of the Constitution.

k. Barack Obama has unlawfully attempted to annul freedom of speech by setting up an illegal reporting system for recording the names of dissenters and by publicly attacking private citizens who oppose him.

l. Barack Obama has unlawfully counted illegal aliens as citizens to skew his standing with Congress.



4. Barack Obama has unlawfully engaged in a conspiracy to suppress evidence of the true place of his birth, and has thereby violated the Constitutional provision that a President of the United States shall be a natural born citizen of the United States: Article II, Section 1, 5th paragraph.

Again, have you been able to identify one single candidate in a U.S. House or Senate race running on an impeach Obama platform? There must be one, somewhere, I suppose, but we can't find him/her. So who will you support if there are none?

The fact that Maddow was a Rhodes Scholar and holds a doctorate in politics from Oxford should be respected. This total disregard of knowledge and authority is unsettling. Calling the work of someone of that stature "garbage" reflects badly upon the name caller.

Be a gentleman and remove that ghastly red lettering and I will read it.

You have to understand that just as I would not buy a used text book from a student who made public claims that the Nazis were leftists and that Lincoln freed the slaves because he was a conservative, I will not read the highlighting of someone who seems to be slightly older than me who makes such claims.

In literature, such a person would be an unreliable narrator.

I just did a little quick research on whether bin Laden was "offered" to Clinton, an expression that sounds slightly obscene.

The only "source" that offered this story was NewsMax, the extreme right blog site.

This is from FactCheck.org"

Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?
Was Bill Clinton offered bin Laden on "a silver platter"? Did he refuse? Was there cause at the time?
A:
Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.
Let’s start with what everyone agrees on: In April 1996, Osama bin Laden was an official guest of the radical Islamic government of Sudan – a government that had been implicated in the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993. By 1996, with the international community treating Sudan as a pariah, the Sudanese government attempted to patch its relations with the United States. At a secret meeting in a Rosslyn, Va., hotel, the Sudanese minister of state for defense, Maj. Gen. Elfatih Erwa, met with CIA operatives, where, among other things, they discussed Osama bin Laden.

It is here that things get murky. Erwa claims that he offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. Key American players – President Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke among them – have testified there were no "credible offers" to hand over bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence" that Erwa had ever made such an offer. On the other hand, Lawrence Wright, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Looming Tower," flatly states that Sudan did make such an offer. Wright bases his judgment on an interview with Erwa and notes that those who most prominently deny Erwa's claims were not in fact present for the meeting.

Wright and the 9/11 Commission do agree that the Clinton administration encouraged Sudan to deport bin Laden back to Saudi Arabia and spent 10 weeks trying to convince the Saudi government to accept him. One Clinton security official told The Washington Post that they had "a fantasy" that the Saudi government would quietly execute bin Laden. When the Saudis refused bin Laden’s return, Clinton officials convinced the Sudanese simply to expel him, hoping that the move would at least disrupt bin Laden’s activities.

Much of the controversy stems from claims that President Clinton made in a February 2002 speech and then retracted in his 2004 testimony to the 9/11 Commission. In the 2002 speech Clinton seems to admit that the Sudanese government offered to turn over bin Laden:
Clinton: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [al Qaeda]. We got – well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.
Clinton later claimed to have misspoken and stated that there had never been an offer to turn over bin Laden. It is clear, however, that Berger, at least, did consider the possibility of bringing bin Laden to the U.S., but, as he told The Washington Post in 2001, "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States." According to NewsMax.com, Berger later emphasized in an interview with WABC Radio that, while administration officials had discussed whether or not they had ample evidence to indict bin Laden, that decision "was not pursuant to an offer by the Sudanese."

So on one side, we have Clinton administration officials who say that there were no credible offers on the table, and on the other, we have claims by a Sudanese government that was (and still is) listed as an official state sponsor of terrorism. It’s possible, of course, that both sides are telling the truth: It could be that Erwa did make an offer, but the offer was completely disingenuous. What is clear is that the 9/11 Commission report totally discounts the Sudanese claims. Unless further evidence arises, that has to be the final word.

Ultimately, however, it doesn’t matter. What is not in dispute at all is the fact that, in early 1996, American officials regarded Osama bin Laden as a financier of terrorism and not as a mastermind largely because, at the time, there was no real evidence that bin Laden had harmed American citizens. So even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand bin Laden over, the U.S. would have had no grounds for detaining him. In fact, the Justice Department did not secure an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden.

We have to be careful about engaging in what historians call "Whig history," which is the practice of assuming that historical figures value exactly the same things that we do today. It's a fancy term for those "why didn't someone just shoot Hitler in 1930?" questions that one hears in dorm-room bull sessions. The answer, of course, is that no one knew quite how bad Hitler was in 1930. The same is true of bin Laden in 1996.

Correction: We originally answered this question with a flat 'yes' early this week, based on the account in "The Looming Tower," but an alert reader pointed out to us the more tangled history laid out in the 9/11 Commission report. We said flatly that Sudan had made such an offer. We have deleted our original answer and are posting this corrected version in its place.
Sources
"1996 CIA Memo to Sudanese Official." Washington Post, 3 Oct. 2001.

9/11 Commission. 9/11 Commission Report Notes. 21 Aug. 2004. 17 Jan. 2008.

9/11 Commission. "Chapter 4: Responses to al Qaeda's Initial Assaults." 21 Aug. 2004. 9/11 Commission Report. 17 Jan. 2008.

NewsMax.com. "Berger Flashback: Hard Spin on Sudan Offer," 19 July 2004.

Clarke, Richard. Testimony before the House and Senate Intelligence Committee. Lindsey Graham, Chair. 11 June 2002.

Clinton, William. Speech to the Long Island Association. Long Island, NY, Feb. 2002.

Gellman, Barton. "U.S. Was Foiled Multiple Times in Efforts To Capture Bin Laden or Have Him Killed." Washington Post, 3 Oct. 2001.

U.S. Grand Jury Indictment Against Usama bin Laden. United States District Court: Southern District of New York. 6 Nov. 1998.

Wright, Lawrence. "The Looming Tower." New York: Vintage Books, 2006.

First of all, Factcheck.org is supported by Leftists, the Annenberg Foundation, pom, the same foundation Obama was involved with in Chicago. And so it is perfectly logical that all of this has been explained away, starting with Clinton, and also by Berger, the guy caught with papers in his pants before having to testify before the 9/11 Commission. And needless to say, the commission was loaded with Democrat apologists anxious to absolve any Democrat of guilt.

Most importantly however, the words of Clinton have been recorded for history, for anyone with an ounce of common sense to interpret with common sense: They are as follows:
"He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

Now, anyone with any logic at all would know that Clinton would not have said he did not bring him here because he couldn't, but because of the reasons he stated, because he did not think he had any basis to hold him. You must use logic, pom. Try it, if it is possible for you?

Since you have no other evidence, I guess we know what the final word is and should be.

I knew you would say FactCheck is a leftist front.

From their own website:


The Annenberg Foundation is a private foundation established in 1989. It is the successor corporation to the Annenberg School at Radnor, Pennsylvania founded in 1958 by Walter H. Annenberg.
For information on the Annenberg Foundation, please select from the titles below:

Mission, Values and Vision
Encouraging the development of more effective ways to share ideas and knowledge.

Board of Directors
Led by two generations of family members

Our Story
Established in 1989 by publisher, ambassador and philanthropist Walter H. Annenberg.

A Strong History of Grantmaking
Arts, Education, Health and Human Services, Animal Services and Civic Responsibility

Financial Information
Annual IRS information available.

Staff
Headquartered in Los Angeles with a presence in Radnor, PA and Washington, DC.
----------------------
and this:

ublic Media: The Annenberg Foundation has given millions of dollars to support public media, beginning with its $90 million pledge to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 1981. Support continues through grants to organizations such as National Public Radio. Building upon Ambassador Annenberg's life in publishing and broadcasting, the Foundation directed a $15 million grant towards the Newseum. The Newseum is a 250,000-square-foot museum in Washington, D.C., which offers five centuries of news history with up-to-the-second technology and hands-on exhibits. The Foundation gift is the largest received to date.
__________

and this:

Civic Responsibility: Ambassador Annenberg was deeply patriotic and grateful for the opportunity and freedoms America offers. He believed that every citizen had a civic duty to his or her country. The Foundation continues to build upon his passion and commitment by supporting education and institutions of democracy such as the Annenberg Center for Education and Outreach at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and the Foundation's own effort called the Civic Education Initiative. The Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands in Rancho Mirage, California was established in 2001 by the Foundation to improve public understanding of the Constitution, the democratic process, and to address serious issues facing the country and the world. The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania was established in 1994 to conduct research and convene discussions on the critical intersection of media, communication, and public policy. The Public Policy Center has developed such initiatives as FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan advocate for voters which aims to increase public knowledge and understanding by monitoring the factual accuracy of political dialogue.

_____________

Finally:

Our Mission
The Annenberg Foundation exists to advance the public well-being through improved communication. As the principal means of achieving this goal, the Foundation encourages the development of more effective ways to share ideas and knowledge.
Values
The Foundation is committed to core values of responsiveness, accessibility, fairness, and involvement.

Vision
Funding proposals are evaluated with criteria that identifies strong organizations and vision-driven leadership, capable of impact and change. The Trustees believe in funding organizations that have a deep level of community involvement, are led by effective leaders, and tackle challenging and timely problems. Specific organizational attributes valued by the Foundation are: visionary leadership, impact, sustainability, innovation, organizational strength, network of partnerships (i.e. collaboration) plus the population being served-thus, creating the acronym VISION+--the criterion used to evaluate requests for funding.

Walter Annenberg was an entrepreneur who founded both Seventeen magazine and the TV Guide.

His close personal friend Richard M. Nixon appointed him Ambassador to the Court of St. James.

Hmmmmm. Doesn't sound all that left-wing, does he?

Here you go, and its a democrat...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100621/us_time/08599199807600



And while the dem party refuses to support her, she IS a dem.

A majjority of those present in the House are required to impeach Obama. A two-thirds majority of those present in the Senate are required to remove Obama from office.

Yes! I have been able to identify more than one single candidate for the U.S. House that advocates impeaching Obama. I will post all these candidates for the House in October.

Impeaching is equivalent to indicting. Removing is equivalent to convicting.

We are working on convincing many more candidates running for the House to advocate impeaching Obama.

That's an awkward set of sentences. Reread them and see if they convey your meaning.

Interesting things going on in Texas. The GOP put an anti-oral sex plank in its platform.

You may find it interesting, but I don't, and I doubt very many other people do.

pom, the tentacles of leftists in this country is difficult to sort out, its kind of a can of worms type of problem, all interwoven. If Annenberg was so conservative originally, how come Bill Ayers and Obama were involved with the board of the Annenberg Challenge in Chicago? Yes the same Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground that had as its mission to overthrow the United States of America and was involved in the bombing of the Pentagon. That is most definitely not only liberal, but extreme radical leftist. And that is the same Bill Ayers whose home Obama used to kick off his political career.

In regard to Factcheck.org, there have been many times I have referred to it, and have found their conclusions to be somewhat out of phase, not totally logical, and probably biased, and I think this Clinton / OBL / Sudan issue is a very good example, because different people looking at the same evidence come to two totally different conclusions based upon simple logic. Now, in the first place, if you are going to portray yourself as the last word on any subject, such as Factcheck.org does, supposedly clearing up all the disagreements, you should in fact have enough facts to do that, but instead they only add to the mix of existing opinions as another opinion based upon their own particular view of an issue. I am not the only person that has concluded they are just another biased source, there are probably thousands if not millions of us out here that have concluded that, for good reasons. Now, I would not dismiss Factcheck.org as totally useless, but I am just pointing out that it is far from perfect, and is probably skewed to the left, in part due to who is currently funding and running the operation.