George Rebane
Forget the latest Obamacare website fiasco for a bit. A very surprising piece of news is making the headlines this morning about Obama’s reported ignorance that NSA was tapping the phones of certain world leaders. (more here) My surprise is not of the kind reported, and perhaps I’m the only one who is surprised by this “official’s” claim of yet another area of his administration’s activities about which this community organizer is also unaware. But what are we to make of the claim?
1. Obama is lying again, and he was fully aware, as he should have been, of NSA’s phone surveillance of peer world leaders and the relevant contents which were reported to him regularly.
2. Obama’s minions did tap friendly world leaders’ phones on their own (lower level) recognizance and purposely failed to report the policy and contents of such taps to their boss. If so, then how much more of such high level unawareness is going on in this administration?
The point here is that Obama’s ignorance of his regime’s monitoring of peer world leaders was disclosed as an official statement by a lower level lackey. Whether true or not, this does not project a good picture of our government being run by a cadre of competent leaders. (Lest some local liberals think that this view is again limited, check out Bob Woodward's asessment that this administration is "a rat's nest of concealment and lies.")
Now we are in danger of Obama doing the next sophomoric thing by issuing some ‘guarantee’ that we’ll never do it again. Or worse, that we’ll only do it again under the ‘guarantee’ that Obama is definitely not told about it. Or …?
For the bit of tricky logic involved here, I want to emphasize that I’m not advocating that we base our foreign policy on information made incomplete by purposely blinding ourselves to things we can see and should view. I question 1) how such surveillance policy is conducted within this administration (internal ignorance, incompetence, rogue agencies, …?), and 2) how we respond to charges of such surveillance from foreign leaders (further damage to our deteriorating image of being a trustworthy, strong, and competent ally).
[30oct13 update] H/T to RR reader.
[3nov13 update] I'm reminded of certain prescient readers who last spring assured us that all of the Obama scandals would be forgotten beyond recall by this time, most of all what happened in Benghazi on 11 September 2012. Reality is a bit different. Obama's job performance is so poor that he even invites the lamestream to start ressurecting the history of his administration's disasters. Last Sunday '60 Minutes' revived Benghazi with a re-examination of the events of that day and the treasonous response from Washington and the Snowden revelations. While today Sen Lindsay Graham (R-SC) has vowed to hold all remaining Obama appointments from Senate approval until Obama permits the Senate to hear from the Benghazi survivors before concluding its investigation. (Can you imagine the thinking that is going on in that puzzle palace to continue denying Congress that testimony?) Hillary should be scheduled for some industrial grade teflon treatments before all this is over. I think some reporters out there are beginning to smell one or more Pulitzers in the growing pile of garbage that continues to be buried in the Rose Garden.
Forget the latest Obamacare website fiasco for a bit. A very surprising piece of news is making the headlines this morning about Obama’s reported ignorance that NSA was tapping the phones of certain world leaders. (more here) My surprise is not of the kind reported, and perhaps I’m the only one who is surprised by this “official’s” claim of yet another area of his administration’s activities about which this community organizer is also unaware. But what are we to make of the claim?
1. Obama is lying again, and he was fully aware, as he should have been, of NSA’s phone surveillance of peer world leaders and the relevant contents which were reported to him regularly.
2. Obama’s minions did tap friendly world leaders’ phones on their own (lower level) recognizance and purposely failed to report the policy and contents of such taps to their boss. If so, then how much more of such high level unawareness is going on in this administration?
The point here is that Obama’s ignorance of his regime’s monitoring of peer world leaders was disclosed as an official statement by a lower level lackey. Whether true or not, this does not project a good picture of our government being run by a cadre of competent leaders. (Lest some local liberals think that this view is again limited, check out Bob Woodward's asessment that this administration is "a rat's nest of concealment and lies.")
Now we are in danger of Obama doing the next sophomoric thing by issuing some ‘guarantee’ that we’ll never do it again. Or worse, that we’ll only do it again under the ‘guarantee’ that Obama is definitely not told about it. Or …?
For the bit of tricky logic involved here, I want to emphasize that I’m not advocating that we base our foreign policy on information made incomplete by purposely blinding ourselves to things we can see and should view. I question 1) how such surveillance policy is conducted within this administration (internal ignorance, incompetence, rogue agencies, …?), and 2) how we respond to charges of such surveillance from foreign leaders (further damage to our deteriorating image of being a trustworthy, strong, and competent ally).
[30oct13 update] H/T to RR reader.
[3nov13 update] I'm reminded of certain prescient readers who last spring assured us that all of the Obama scandals would be forgotten beyond recall by this time, most of all what happened in Benghazi on 11 September 2012. Reality is a bit different. Obama's job performance is so poor that he even invites the lamestream to start ressurecting the history of his administration's disasters. Last Sunday '60 Minutes' revived Benghazi with a re-examination of the events of that day and the treasonous response from Washington and the Snowden revelations. While today Sen Lindsay Graham (R-SC) has vowed to hold all remaining Obama appointments from Senate approval until Obama permits the Senate to hear from the Benghazi survivors before concluding its investigation. (Can you imagine the thinking that is going on in that puzzle palace to continue denying Congress that testimony?) Hillary should be scheduled for some industrial grade teflon treatments before all this is over. I think some reporters out there are beginning to smell one or more Pulitzers in the growing pile of garbage that continues to be buried in the Rose Garden.
With 30 plus yeas of Foreign Service experience, the Diplomad has some thoughts on spying and how it is done in the Obama Administration:
My position is that spy organizations spy. The NSA has a mandate to collect intelligence. The problem we now face has come about because the NSA, particularly under this misadministration, is not only out of control on the domestic scene, but so sloppy, so poorly run that a weasel junior contractor such as the traitor Snowden can carry out a massive operation against them in cooperation with the world's stupidest newspaper, The Guardian, and, despite his disclaimers, probably with the Russians and the Chinese. One has to wonder if the NSA is employing ex-Abwehr or BND agents.
In addition, and perhaps more serious, as I have written at length, we have a misadministration so incompetent in the area of foreign affairs, so determined to make America weak and irrelevant, that nobody takes us seriously. Even allies such as Germany and France have no problem circling in to take a bite out of us while we are drowning and bleeding. They see no cost to venting their long-standing frustration. Believe me, this would not have happened were Bush president.
http://thediplomad.blogspot.com/2013/10/spies-spy-oh-horror.html
When the US built spy satellites to vacuum cellphone signals they did not have any method of selecting which signals they intercepted. The sorting comes during the analysis phase, searching the data base for know cellphone numbers. And, NSA had the phone number of 37 world leaders, that they were monitoring. I find it hard to believe our Narcissist in Chief did not want to know what those world leaders were saying about him. He just did not want anyone to know he was listening, but it was his own sloppy leadership that resulting in him being exposed. I do not believe for a single moment, that Obama did not know about the intercepts and what world leaders were saying about him on the cellphone.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 28 October 2013 at 11:47 AM
What does Obama know and does he know that he knows it?
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 28 October 2013 at 12:15 PM
George
What's the big deal? Plausible deniability was coined by the CIA during the Kennedy administration to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities by the CIA became public knowledge.
It is SOP for Presidents. Look at Reagan during Iran Contra. He claims he didn't know about the funding of the contras etc. I never hear a peep from you about that historical gem. And of course Clinton denied having sex with "that woman" and Bush didn't know anything about anything concerning WMD's or Abu Ghraib or the disgusting exploitation of Pat Tillman for propaganda purposes that involved even lying to his family about the nature of his death. We can go back to WWII and Roosevelt denying any knowledge of the imminent attack on Pearl Harbor. My uncle is a Pearl Harbor survivor and is convinced along with most other survivors that they were sacrificed to allow the Japanese to bomb them to create an overwhelming reason to go to war.
I think the actions of the NSA are disgusting and the whole lot should be cleared out but don't blame Obama without at least putting this in some kind of "business as usual" historical perspective.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 28 October 2013 at 04:35 PM
Changing to Obamacare for a moment, the news from Kudlow today is that Obama knew three years ago that most, if not all, individual purchasers of health insurance would lose their policies right about now.
The 'if you like your insurance or your doctor you can keep them under my plan' assurances were known to be false at the time.
Posted by: Gregory | 28 October 2013 at 05:02 PM
Gee Wally, I thought if I voted for Obama, the world would respect us again. Why are the Germans and most of South America mad at us? Gee Wally, I thought we were the good guys.
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 28 October 2013 at 05:25 PM
From the well known right wing Tea Party network - NBC
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite
I'm sure NBC worked on this for years. Most of us knew this as soon as details of the law became public. He didn't just say you could keep your health care plan, he emphasized it by adding "period". He also promised $2500 a year savings. More lies. At least if some one in private industry lies I can tear up the contract and get my money back.
I'm sure most Americans like Paul just shrug and go along with it. Once you go along with liars, don't complain later when you don't like the lies that follow. You abetted it.
Posted by: Account Deleted | 28 October 2013 at 05:53 PM
George - I just posted and refreshed the page. My post apparently went into the black hole.
Posted by: Account Deleted | 28 October 2013 at 05:55 PM
Oh my, now even the Frenchies are livid at us and we called them "our closest ally".
My favorite magazine as a kid was Mad Magazine and my favorite part of Mad Magazine was Spy vs Spy. This stuff makes me feel all giddy and silly and child like again.
Its not Obama's fault. He is disengaged! He did not know. Its the fault of mean ole Massive Big Government that Obama is powerless to do anything about except make bigger, ROTFLMOA.
Once again we have to trash out nation to save Obama from embarrassment. How could a community organizer possible be on top of the shady going-ons of those under his command? Its not fair to think Obama knew anything. Just look at his resume concerning this kind of stuff. He is to be absolved!
Good thing Hillary bailed after Benghazi and bonked her head so she can't remember squat. Oh Hillary did ask our diplomats in Argentina to find out what kind of head meds the Argentine Prez is taking to "calm her down." Guess Hillary could use some of that good stuff right about now.
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/10/28/nsa-spying-on-foreign-leaders-one-more-thing-obama-didnt-know-about/
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 28 October 2013 at 06:37 PM
Dr. Rebane: Perhaps this topic should have been included in your previous commentary "The Liberal Mind-Government Evil Unseen" :-)
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 28 October 2013 at 07:00 PM
We're spying on people? I'm shocked - just shocked. I'm sure Angela is pissed. At her own spy folks. "He can listen to me - why can't I listen in on him? They can only build crappy cars and motorcycles - why can he listen in on me?"
Everybody spies as much as they can on everyone they can. Obama is going with his first instinct as he does with anything that would portray him in anything less than a flattering light. He lies. Why not? Paul doesn't care. The press doesn't care. Most Americans don't have a clue. There is no downside to lying. As soon as some one points out that he is once again lying, he can go into victim mode and blame the Tea Party.
Posted by: Account Deleted | 28 October 2013 at 07:15 PM
Mr. Obermuller, excellente. There is no down size to lying. No moral dilemma here. Truth telling is bad, unwise, and gets you in hot water. That is exactly what every parent teaches their children. "Johnny, make sure to tell the lady at the movie theater you are 12 years old, not 13." No downside to lying.
Your family will even save $2,500.00 a year if you sign up for Obamacare! Obamacare will reduce the budget by billions. Benghazi was just a spontaneous demonstration that got a bit out of hand. Oh, you know how those wild Arab party animals get when celebrating in the streets. The New Black Panthers did not try to intimidate voters at the polling places. Fannie and Freddie were victims of unscrupulous banks and are doing fine. Downright peachy. The American people elected me to fix the economy and I need to get back to what I was elected to do. So, no more questions. I am just as surprised and shocked to find out about this as you are.
This is all part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. The Tea Party Patriots are extremists and terrorists along with vets and Christians and gun owners and House Republicans.
Yep, no downside. The only time Obama told the truth was when he said Trevon Martin was like him 37 years ago. That I believe.
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 28 October 2013 at 07:45 PM
The downside to telling the truth. Obamacare workers beware:
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/10/26/this-obamacare-call-center-operator-was-fired-for-being-honest/
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 28 October 2013 at 08:29 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaj8W6nPKUg
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 28 October 2013 at 09:54 PM
George,
Why is it you never actually acknowledge that most of the beefs you seem to have with Obama are policies that have been in place for decades or at least from former administrations?
I opposed these types of policies under Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan.
How about you?
You seriously don't think the CIA/ FBI were spying on people during the Reagan years? If caught do you really thing Reagan would have said he knew about it. Wait a minute I remember a a situation where the war criminal Reagan did the exact same thing.
"The charge has been made that the United States has shipped weapons to Iran as ransom payment for the release of American hostages in Lebanon, that the United States undercut its allies and secretly violated American policy against trafficking with terrorists.... Those charges are utterly false.... We did not--repeat--did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we."
--President Reagan, television address, November 13, 1986
"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not." President Reagan, television address, March 4, 1987
There is a special place in hell for politicians that order the killing of innocent civilians for power. Reagan is playing cards with Thatcher in that special place along with many other brutal leaders.
Posted by: Ben Emery | 28 October 2013 at 10:31 PM
PaulE 435pm - Again, you may have glossed over my post, please reread. Nowhere am I implying that nation-on-nation spying was invented under Obama, only that he's unusually incompetent at it. And my acknowledging Reagan's helping the Contras are a matter of record here, but not in your memory. Finally, 'what's the big deal here?', you should ask your own DiFi who's got her undies in a knot about it. (However, you go overboard again on Bush2's claim of Iraqi WMD's. There is no evidence that Bush2, Congress, or any of the other world leaders lied about it.)
BillT 700pm - Agreed, but this is now gaining an identity of its own in the lengthening litany of Obama's ineptitudes. The guy really belongs back on the streets of Chicago's south side.
Posted by: George Rebane | 28 October 2013 at 10:36 PM
Ben, spying on people is nothing new, duh. Neither is plausible deniabilty. Heck, just look at the Spanish American War and its origins. Yellow journalism and all that stuff. Evil William Randolph Hearst and his main stream chain of media.
Our FBI spied of Martin Luther King and had tapes of him bonking a woman who was not his dearly beloved wife. J Edgar Hoover tried to smear Dr. King as a pinko when Hoover himself was boinking his man-boy assistant. And our spies have always gotten the goods on our politicians as well. Look, we even had a bar bouncer magically appear in the White House basement pouring over FBI files of Republican politicians during the Clinton "feel your pain" years. Can you say blackmail? Can you say extortion?
Mr. Ben, lets be fair. Technology has changed everything. Instead of targeting individuals, we now can target countries. Spain is pissed off that in a 30 day period, we intercepted 30 million e-mails and texts. France is pissed cause in just a 30 day period we did the same to them, just the figure was 70 million intercepts. Germany? Brazil? Its the new game in town. The Russians and Israelis do it quite nicely, thank you. I suppose we should have been more sensitive to Merkel's unique sensibilities. After all, the German Chancellor did grow up in East Germany under the watchful spying of the commie bastards and she is a woman. I am woman hear me roar. Another shameful chapter in our War on Women, you thunk?
The problem is that everybody is doing it and knows about it...everyone except Obama. That is unbelievable. I know, he just got to Washington yesterday and could not possibly know what was going on under Bush, right? The only reason Obama's name is mentioned is because he is black, you thunk?
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 28 October 2013 at 11:20 PM
BenE 1031pm - I also recount to you my 1036pm to PaulE. Actually, the Obama policies that I have problems with are the ones that are limiting our freedoms and taking us into a collectivist world. The policies such as spying on other nations, trading arms, etc that have been going on forever I don't oppose as long as I judge them to serve our national interests. My problem with Obama in this area is the corollary fallout and the clumsiness in executing these policies. And more of this fallout will result from DiFi's upcoming hearings into the matter.
When Reagan, Obama, or any other presidents have such lapses, I condemn them all. International relations are a bitch, and always have been because everything must be played differently for every different audience. And that involves lying which everyone knows is going on and about which everyone will be publicly shocked when the matter leaks. Thoughts?
Posted by: George Rebane | 29 October 2013 at 06:41 AM
What does Obama know and does he know that he knows it?
Precious little....by design.
Posted by: fish | 29 October 2013 at 08:55 AM
Mister Emerys: This Administration has collected a string of pearls big enough to make a long necklace. Today's news is that Obama knew full well millions of people would lose their health insurance as a direct result of the ACA. Knew it full well when he spouted about keeping your doc and plan numerous times. Still, not his Katrina moment. Not even close to Watergate. Just stuff to be swept under the carpet. Hey, Bush lied too! Or its the Tea Party's fault. To me, the Tea Party is our checks and balances.
About spying and foreign affairs, it is a messy business. And complicated. We act shocked that Bin Laden was able to do what he did. We act shocked that we don't know exactly what is going on in the inner sanctums of Tehran or in every inch of some Somalia cave. We want and need good intel. We demand it. When the sticky brown stuff hits the oscillating device, the first thing we ask is where was the intel? How come we did not know??
Its a big dirty world and not for the Polly Annas. Heck, did you think for one moment that some mamby pamby Congressional inquiring could crack Ollie North for a split second or even make him flinch? That is a true Jarhead.
Reality is not pretty. While most focus of the NSA, we have 17 spy groups working overtime. The DOD, FBI, CIA, and some obscure agencies that report to secret courts that most averages Joes know little about. Don't even know what their initials stand for. Meanwhile, every time a question pops up, Obama knows nothing. He finds out all this stuff the same way we all do....by picking up a newspaper. Yeah right. At least he could some up with more creative lines besides Sargent Shultz's "I see nothing, I hear nothing." Its a dog eat dog world. Singing Kumbya and the like don't cut it outside of Nevada City.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w3E3eFMsLg
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 29 October 2013 at 09:55 AM
DiFi is shocked (SHOCKED!) the NSA information gathering was so extensive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME
Posted by: Gregory | 29 October 2013 at 10:30 AM
Good Morning. It's good to see everyone has tuned in for another chapter
of Obama Bin Lie'n. What will he be caught fibbing about in today's episode? ( Stay tuned) What will he blame the Right for? Who will he not fire?
When your new health care bill shows up, get the Tums
out, sit down and enjoy " As the stomach churns". ( Tums not covered in the "plan")
The mighty "O" will find out just how well things are going just like the rest of us. By watching the news. ( seems that's how he gets his daily briefings these days) That's how he learned about F&F, and other "high profile" incidents.
Personally,,,, I don't believe the Tea Party is in any real danger, despite what LIB news says, or what "poll" says so. Lefties are in full damage control. Especially the LIBS who are up for re election next year. They are now FOR that Obummercaretax extension, after they were against it. Their constituent phone lines are melting down. Their email box is plugged, and their tweets, are coming back,, " twit"..
Normally I would speak up for fellow miners. Not this time. It's the coal miners turn to march on D.C. Sorry guys, your more than a day late, and a dollar short. You were warned six years ago about what would happen. Deal with it.
From "O"'s war on coal, to the union waivers for unaffordable care. You were warned. ( how many power plants have closed? How may mines?)
You got what you voted for. Remember that next year. Maybe even vote for a Tea Party type. ( stranger things have happened.)
BTW,, Momma's health plan was just dropped! OH JOY!! At 94, getting any healthcare plan should be real easy.... Right....?
So much for being able to "keep our plan".
Posted by: Walt | 29 October 2013 at 10:43 AM
RE: Bill 09:55 AM
So Bill please show me the difference between Obama pleading Plausible Deniability and Obama using the same time proven tactic of deception? As to Iran Contral It was spoken under oath that Admiral Poindexter told Congress: "I made a deliberate decision not to ask the president so that I could insulate him from the decision and provide some future deniability for the president if it ever leaked out."
That is to say that Reagan was unaware of the whole affair. Do you actually believe that or is your indignation reserved for Obama when he clumsily uses the same tactics. Of course he knew just like Reagan and Bush 1 knew. They would be grossly incompetent if they didn't.
Please show me the difference between Obama and Reagan when it comes to using Plausible Deniability as a tactic to avoid responsibility for unpopular or illegal activities within their administration.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 29 October 2013 at 11:43 AM
Gotta jump in on THIS one Paul,, Iran/Contra was a LONG time ago.. " what diff. does it make?" So Reagan was kept out of the loop.. Funny how Moochel was actually batting for the other team ( Sandinistas)at the time.
That one incident pails in comparison to the BS coming from D.C. now.
" I,,I,,,,I didn't know! You can't pin that on me!! F&F was Bush's fault!!"
Then there is his denial of knowledge of Benghazi, " I just heard about it on the news" The same excuse goes for the NSA spying, IRS and the Tea Party,Syria
and now health care. ( I'm sure there are a few more I missed) But Hay!,,,
"O" didn't know... Right?
When will those that vote Lefty hold their own accountable for their blatant
disregard for truth?
BTW,, you forgot to mention Nixon. The Democrats of the day went blind with rage, and justifiably so. But when "O" and Co. did it, ( using the IRS to "attack ones enemies"),,, " nothing to see here,, move along,, move along."
So Paul,, just who lead the charge to remove Nixon from office? When you answer that,,, explain why the same didn't happen to "O", and the justification of "letting it slide".
Posted by: Walt | 29 October 2013 at 12:40 PM
Jeez Scott
You seem genuinely appalled that an American President is lying. You have more faith than I do.
Walt
Do you honestly believe that Reagan knew nothing about Iran Contra?
Posted by: Paul Emery | 29 October 2013 at 12:54 PM
Paul, for the sake of argument I will gladly concede your point that all do it/have done it concerning Plausible Deniability. No brainer. Even Clinton felt isolated and lonely in The White House when he would walk into a briefing room and was escorted out. Gotta keep ole Bill out of the loop with those irritating/embarrassing impeachment hearing going on. Nothing new, ok.
The thrust of Dr. Rebane's post is this is but one of many lies that Obama has told or knows squat didley about. Either ignorance, lack of leadership or deception. He was in the Situation Room during Benghazi for goodness sakes. He was briefed in 2010 that we have been tapping Merkel's cell phone since 2002. Sometimes it is best to say I know nothing about it or cite National Security reasons and clam up.
When George H. W. Bush was running for office, I was leery that a former CIA Director would be at the helm. But Bush #1 knew how to answer the media's questions. "I can't answer that. Its a National Security issue and that would be a breech of security". That is how you answer.
George Bush #1 will always be remembered by the Left for his unforgivable sin of "Read my lips. No new taxes." Don't know why the left would get upset when he raised our taxes. Puzzling. Even Harry Reid said over the weekend that all Americans WANT to pay more. Funny, I am not an American I suppose.
My point is not merely the shady dealings of foreign affairs. Obama never would say "Read my lips." Ever. Instead he said stuff like "The most transparent administration in the history of the human race, Obamacare will not raise your taxes, no lobbyist will work in my Administration, every pending bill will be posted on the web 7 days before I sign it, "Listen Up! If you like your doctor or insurance, you can keep it", ad infinitum.
Iran-Contra was NOT a major policy in the Reagen Administration. Destroying the Evil Empire was. Getting America back to work was Reagen's chief domestic policy. Obama's chief foreign policy is to throw all the weight of the US Government and the bully pulpit behind the Islamic Brotherhood and soothe relationships with the Islamic World. Even if that means supporting Syrian rebels who are fighting side by side with Al Qaeda and those who hate us. Obama's miscalculation/misreading of the Arab Spring is humungous. He thought the Islamic Brotherhood were moderates instead of Sharia Law dictators that lusted to squash human rights.
Obama's flaw with his foreign policy is he naively believes that everybody will love us if we are a kinder gentler America. Bull Pucky. The evil he sees in the world is us. We are the enemy.
Obama's domestic policy is built around Obamacare, combating Global Warming and the Stimulus. He even believes that Fast and Furious was just a continuation of W's policies. W squashed that as soon as he heard about it when W was in office.
This is no Iran Contra or apples to apples thing going on. Its a secretive paranoid distrustful of the American people Administration that has to cloak everything in secrecy and lies and getting them to fess up to the most benign issue is impossible.
Obama set the standard concerning transparency. He set it high. That is his "Read my lips" moment. And his purposeful lack of transparency permeates both foreign domestic policy from top to bottom.
Just look at Cindy Sheehan camping out at Fort Casey. W said she has a right to speak her mind and a right as an American to express her views. No biggy and he did not trash her or seen goons after her. Never ever would he do that. Yet, ask Obama a pointed question in a town hall meeting and the IRS is pouring over your tax records and the DNC is running around digging up dirt on ya. Apples to Apples would be Nixon and Obama.
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 29 October 2013 at 01:14 PM
George
You write: "When Reagan, Obama, or any other presidents have such lapses, I condemn them all." Can you refresh me on when and how you condemned Reagen on Iran Contra?
Posted by: Paul Emery | 29 October 2013 at 03:35 PM
Here is a link to four video clips of Obama lying about ObamaCare during the election campaign. If he had told the truth, he most likely would not have been elected.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/10/29/videos-here-are-four-times-during-the-2012-election-year-when-obama-promised-that-if-you-like-your-healthcare-you-can-keep-it/
How do you hold a lying President accountable? Especially when he know he was lying.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 29 October 2013 at 04:13 PM
Mr. Steele. You forgot to add this quote:
"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period," he said in 2009, during an American Medical Association conference. "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."
Now the Dems are saying President Obama was accurate, but not precise enough, lol. Beam me up, Scottie. I suppose it all depends on what the definition of "period" is or the definition of "no matter what" is.
Ok, more goodies from the White House spin room:
But White House Press Secretary Jay Carney claimed Tuesday that Obama did not mislead the American people.
"The president was clear about a basic fact," Carney said, explaining that those who liked their plan could continue to keep that plan so long as the policy didn't change.
That nuance, though, seemed lost in several of Obama's past statements.
Media sources confirmed on Monday that despite the president's assurances, a 2010 IRS document predicted a huge swath of customers could lose their coverage.
The document addressed a rule in the law that states individual policies purchased on or before March 23, 2010 would be "grandfathered" -- or exempt from changes required under ObamaCare. However, the provision was changed so that plans that undergo "significant changes" could lose that special status.
The IRS document estimated that "40 percent to 67 percent" of policies would in fact lose the status, meaning customers could be kicked off those plans because they don't meet minimum coverage requirements. The document was earlier reported by NBC News.
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 29 October 2013 at 05:23 PM
PaulE - I think you'll have to dig out my Reagan criticism yourself, and I will not be a participant with you on high-jacking the topic of this post which is about the here and now. If you're willing to excuse the ongoing incompetence of our president and his administration, please do so with like minded cohorts. I stand by my poetic admonition to all such attempts -
The time has come, progressives say
to speak of many things.
No not of Obama, the here and now,
or what the future brings.
But of the past, the then and there,
of Reagan’s sins and Bush laid bare,
and the shape of Clinton’s wings.
Posted by: George Rebane | 29 October 2013 at 05:35 PM
Yes Paul, Reagan didn't know. It's been a stated fact for a long time.
Even Col. North has said so. Also, people lost their jobs over I/C.
You can't say that about any of the scandals today. People tail tucking
and beating feet out the door, and away from being held accountable don't count.
Yet the news breaks of another scandal today, and once again our VETS and their families are one the receiving end of government Shenanigans.
Staging "arrival" ceremonies of our dead fighting men and women. This is a new low. Empty coffins, to plains that didn't fly, and were towed into "position".
(not to mention the shutdown actions by Dirty Harry and the boys)
Obummer's Administration show us all the time how they regard our troops... It's sickening.
Posted by: Walt | 29 October 2013 at 05:36 PM
I looks like "O"'s minions are getting sick and tired of falling on their sward
to protect Dear Leader. Remember how the W.H. has denied knowledge of spying
on "our friends"? Some in the NSA say otherwise.
"The White House and State Department signed off on surveillance targeting phone conversations of friendly foreign leaders, current and former U.S. intelligence officials said Monday, pushing back against assertions that President Obama and his aides were unaware of the high-level eavesdropping.
Professional staff members at the National Security Agency and other U.S. intelligence agencies are angry, these officials say, believing the president has cast them adrift as he tries to distance himself from the disclosures by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden that have strained ties with close allies."
http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-spying-phones-20131029,0,3235295.story#tugs_story_display
When the Right regains the Senate next year, is when things have a chance for the better. Starting with the impeachment of "O".
Even Lefty news has turned on him. They can't cover for him anymore.
OK my Progressive friends,, you can panic in public now.
Posted by: Walt | 29 October 2013 at 06:03 PM
Walt
With the Pubbers polling at historic lows what gives you the confidence they will take the Senate? My guess is the Demos will take the Senate and pick up seats in the House though they will likely not have a majority. Remember, Obama is not running again. He has a long way to go drop to Bush's poll numbers late in his admin which averaged 29% according to RCP which is a -32 deficit low.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_bush_job_approval-904.html
Posted by: Paul Emery | 29 October 2013 at 08:24 PM
Oh, the spin continues.
CBS News reported Monday that more than 2 million Americans have already been told they can't renew their policies.
White House spin:
White House spokeswoman Jessica Santillo said in a statement that those getting notices are in plans "that do not provide all these protections."
She still claimed, though, that "Nothing in the Affordable Care Act forces people out of their health plans: the law allows plans that covered people at the time the law was enacted to continue to offer that same coverage to the same enrollees - nothing has changed and that coverage can continue into 2014."
"nothing has changed and that coverage can continue into 2014."???????????????????????????????????????!!!!!
Lordy, Lordy. Fall on your knees and count your lucky stars. You can keep you insurance you like until March, 2014. My thank ya master Obama, thank you masta. I luvs you. Thank you Masta Barrack for allowing me to keep my chosen health plan for a few more months. Me no deserve your kindness.
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 29 October 2013 at 08:28 PM
Also Walt, impeachment would be a gift from heaven for the Demos matched only by the Tea Party dividing the Republican party causing big business to camp out with the Dems.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 29 October 2013 at 08:35 PM
George Pretty cheesy dodge (5:35 PM) How hard would it be for you to provide me with at least a link or search word to verify your alleged critical Reagan critique. Are you contendint that Reagan as Commander and Chief of the military didnt know what his troops were doing or that he did know and and lied to the American people and allowed his administration to perjure themselves.
To lend any credibility to your critique of Obama you at least have to hold your hero's to the same standards.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 29 October 2013 at 08:41 PM
Paul@08:14PM
You wrote “a link or search word”. As I recall I/C was in the 1980, some where around 1985. The Internet as we know it today was launched in 1995, and blogging as we know it today got a start in 1997. It was August 2004 when I started blogging and it was about 6 months latter when I introduced George to blogging, when he made some guest posts on NC Media Watch. Shortly there after he started RR. There was no place to link too in the late 1980s. Letters to the editor were not published on line. The Internet Wayback Machine only goes back to 2005. Where would “a link or search word” take you. Not back to the 1980s. I suggest you accept George at his word.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 29 October 2013 at 09:08 PM
Paul at 12:54 - appalled is not the word. I knew Obama to be a deceitful and untrustworthy piece of dog manure from the get go. He does let slip in the "proper" circles what his true leanings are if you watch the old clips. He is a socialist through and through. But he needed to put on an act to get elected in which he presented himself as quite the centrist politically and very conservative socially. The lame stream press went along with the ruse and the rubes ate it up. He has shoved through a massive new central govt power to tax and control the population based totally on lies. As I recall, Paul, folks who correctly pointed out O'blabber's lies were libelled as racist or worse. Some apologies are in order, but I'm not holding my breath. I was too young to know about Kennedy's true nature and the cover-up by the press. But I sure knew what a crooked lying racist Johnson was. Nixon was just petty and paranoid about his enemies, but his worse crime was double-crossing the other industrial nations when he decided to dump the gold standard. Ford was just there, for the most part. Carter started off by telling us he would never lie to us. That was his first lie. Mostly he was just incompetent. Reagan was totally honest about who he was and what his aims were. And he accomplished most all of them. He did plenty of damage as well, both as gov of Cali and as Pres. He probably did lie or just wanted not to know what he should have known, but it was to deceive the Dems, not to hurt Americans. Obama wants to bring down this country. And he's doing a bang-up job of it. He feels, like many of his sort, that America should not be powerful or prosperous. What he doesn't understand is that America really is a bulwark against the bad countries. America's sins are but nothing against what has happened and what will happen in the future of this planet.
Posted by: Account Deleted | 29 October 2013 at 10:19 PM
Part of what I modestly call the Rebane Doctrine is for America to maintain itself as a world hegemon so that it can be explicit in the statement of its interests on the world scene. In doing so our presidents can openly state what the world may already know and, perhaps, even accuse us. All nations wind up doing what is in their best interests (within the lights of their leadership). Be it Iran-Contra, attacking Iraq, or overthrowing Noriega, my criticism of our leadership has always been that we have tried to hide or obfuscate our reasons for doing something. All presidents have done that in the interests of America. But as stated here many times by me and others (see ScottO's 1019pm) I am convinced that Obama's interests or vision for America's tomorrow does not match mine nor the hopes of at least half the country. According to my readings of our history, Obama's ongoing fundamental transformation of America is a first.
Posted by: George Rebane | 30 October 2013 at 07:10 AM
Paul,
What George is admitting here is that there is nothing exceptional about the United States, we are just as brutal as every empire before us and we will go down in flames the same way.
It is not about Obama or Bush but rather about the unelected unaccountable interests that control our government through the Democratic and Republican Party's. Eisenhower warned us about it in his farewell address and the military industrial (oil/ gas) complex coupled with the Federal Reserve and banking industry has hijacked our federal government. It came very apparent during the lies that got us into Vietnam and has only snow balled into this enormous out of control monster that is in the process of destroying itself in a auto-immune disease type fashion.
Posted by: Ben Emery | 30 October 2013 at 08:16 AM
Ameruica did not become the greatest nation on the planet by having BenE types in charge. When that is tried we get run over. In order to have the greatest country with the most opportunity it must be protected from force that would destroyer it. It would be kinda funny though to see BenE with a arm band working for his Germanic masters if they had won (Star Trek did an episode on that one).
But sometimes our country has to impose the BUSH DOCTRINE and take out the killers before they kill us. That is just a terrible fact of life and no tomato gardening pacifist can change that.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 30 October 2013 at 08:44 AM
It is not about Obama or Bush but rather about the unelected unaccountable interests that control our government through the Democratic and Republican Party's. Eisenhower warned us about it in his farewell address and the military industrial (oil/ gas) complex coupled with the Federal Reserve and banking industry has hijacked our federal government. It came very apparent during the lies that got us into Vietnam and has only snow balled into this enormous out of control monster that is in the process of destroying itself in a auto-immune disease type fashion.
Not bad Ben....a not unreasonable assessment of our situation!
Posted by: fish | 30 October 2013 at 08:53 AM
In his farewell address, Eisenhower also warned about the nation's policy being captured by a scientific-technological elite created by scientific research being dominated by government funding, which is exactly what has happened with "Climate Change" research.
I'm going to guess that Ben is OK with that hijacking.
Posted by: Gregory | 30 October 2013 at 09:52 AM
Ben
You're making it too complicated. What George is really talking about is good old fashioned Imperialism.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 30 October 2013 at 10:41 AM
Websters defination:
a policy or practice by which a country increases its power by gaining control over other areas of the world
Posted by: Paul Emery | 30 October 2013 at 10:45 AM
Totally OT:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=225540
The only saving grace from this debacle is that it's working "much better" for Michael and Steve.
So it's got that going for it.....which is nice!
Posted by: fish | 30 October 2013 at 10:57 AM
Speaking of "hijackings" Didn't Repubs give us the EPA? So just who was ECO conscious
first? THEN the LIB Hippies in a three piece suit infested the joint.
Somali pirates would be proud.
"Rules for Patriots" now sits on the end table. It sure fun to see which care givers for Momma have a LIB streak in them. It's one way to weed them out.
So is Glenn Beck on the tube. The Blaze is a well watched program in this house.
On another note, Eastern LIBS are on a migration for money to the bay.
They are showing up in S.F. with their hand out here, so they can "oust"
a Repub back home. ( That's only if the Tea Party doesn't do so first)
What gives? Not enough LIBS back home? At least it's LIB money leaving the state
that won't be spent here.
Even UNIONS are starting to cough up money to the Right.( a finding of Jesus moment?)I guess they figure Conservatives are more pro jobs than their LIB pals.
Now that the unaffordable care is a month old, how many here have seen their rates go down? ( non paying freeloaders need not answer) Who has been able to keep what they "liked"?
Remember.. Those of us that have received a " notice to quit" in the mail from our insurance Co.'s,,, "really" haven't lost it.... we are only in,,, " transition" .
Posted by: Walt | 30 October 2013 at 10:57 AM
"Didn't Repubs give us the EPA? So just who was ECO conscious first?" Very true.. It was Nixon. He also gave us Title IX and Consumer Protection. So why are the Republicans now so anti ECO? Probably because the Repubs of yesterday are not cut from the same cloth as those of today.
Posted by: Joe Koyote | 30 October 2013 at 11:12 AM
Wow a roundabout Nixon praising from JoeK....that must have been one hell of a party.
Posted by: fish | 30 October 2013 at 11:25 AM
"So why are the Republicans now so anti ECO?"
Because the old EPA did things like clean up toxic waste and prevent bad practices that led to places like the Love Canal and other superfund sites. The new EPA has, in contrast, given itself the authority to regulate CO2 and everything that creates it. One of the best examples of "Erected a multitude of New Offices and sent Hither swarms of officers to harass our People and eat out their substance" of any arm of the Federal Government.
Posted by: Gregory | 30 October 2013 at 11:29 AM
Joe... Do a little digging and see how many jobs, and businesses
that have been snuffed by the LIB EPA, VS. the old "repub" EPA.
The "new" is still at the job genocide, full steam ahead.
How many needed power plant closers? Hear the coal miners were in D.C.?
( probably not)
Now word of the last "raw lead" smelter in the Country is closing.
A little rule changing was all that was needed. ( despite millions in upgrades.) Just think of the new added costs for ANYTHING with lead.
From bullets, batteries, and everything electronic.
Plus all the fresh unemployed needing Obummercare.
Posted by: Walt | 30 October 2013 at 11:51 AM
To my Lib counterparts.. Is this your idea of money well spent?
"The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which runs the federal government’s major health-care programs, and which was responsible for developing the Obamacare health-insurance exchange website, spent more than $1 trillion in just the first eleven months of fiscal 2013, according to the Treasury. From October 2012 through August 2013, according to the Treasury, this one federal agency spent $1,036,561,000,000. "
And just think. a handful of geeks can put together a porn site with over a million files, and categorized for your personal tastes, in less than two weeks, then run just about "glitch" free.. And on a shoe string budget no less.
Posted by: Walt | 30 October 2013 at 03:21 PM
Just to rub salt on that open wound, looky what the EPA under LIBS has allowed to happen. I guess being a BIG "O" and Co. "donation" slush funder
has it's perks.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/30/bankrupt-solar-panel-firm-took-stimulus-money-left-toxic-mess-says-report/
Now if this joint was a non "O" backer, the doors would have never even opened. ( all those toxic materials) Maybe if IMM had been LIBS getting piles of cash from D.C.,, things would have been a lot different.
GV may have fallen into the mine tunnels entirely?
Posted by: Walt | 30 October 2013 at 03:34 PM
Walt Re: 3:21
Link please. Quotes without atributes mean nothing.
thanks
Posted by: Paul Emery | 30 October 2013 at 04:30 PM
Sebelius was asked why she did not sign up for ObamaCare in a Congressional hearing today. She said I already have my Federal care, why would I change?
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 30 October 2013 at 04:39 PM
Paul. If I could find it, I'm sure you can.
Posted by: Walt | 30 October 2013 at 05:14 PM
Where did you get it from? Pretty simple question. Can you give me a couple google suggestions that you used or did you make it up.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 30 October 2013 at 05:44 PM
Todd. That is one house I would fear going to dinner at.
The guests would get orphanage grade gruel, on three times used "organic" paper plates with biodegradable plastic utensils.( break just stirring coffee) while the ones in the kitchen are dinning on Black Angus prime rib, with solid gold silverware. All the while cracking jokes on how they can't be fired or held accountable in any way.
"O" and Co. flat out refuse to chow down on their own cooking.
So... How's that Green eggs and Ham?? Still like it? Nephew of Uncle Sam?
Posted by: Walt | 30 October 2013 at 05:56 PM
Paul. I'm far from being computer literate.
But using just a few sentences in the search box,
the story can be found with vary little problem.
Since you hate homework,,,
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/cms-spent-more-1t-less-1-yr-more-entire-gov-t-spent-when-medicaid
Posted by: Walt | 30 October 2013 at 06:05 PM
Specifically walt are you saying a trillion dollars was spent on developing the Obamacare website, yes or no.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 30 October 2013 at 06:05 PM
BenE 816am - It looks like you didn't understand the 'Rebane Doctrine' (my 710am) in which I point out the exceptional behavior of explicitly stating our interests, which no nation has yet done in the ongoing execution of its foreign policy. Added to our other exceptional attributes, such openness would be an earth-shattering change.
Posted by: George Rebane | 30 October 2013 at 06:06 PM
The story speaks for itself Paul. I may be a knuckle dragging construction worker, but I can still understand the written word.
those are tax dollars we are talking about.
Posted by: Walt | 30 October 2013 at 06:26 PM
I remember a couple of movies Hollywood did years ago where they kept the Prex out of the loop so he had plausible deniability. So when the inception was asked about something he could truthfully say he knew nothing. Might have been Clea and Present Danger? Anyway, as it has become a way of life with Obama, we are truly a leaderless country.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 30 October 2013 at 06:27 PM
The Tea Party has been vindicated.
Posted by: Walt | 30 October 2013 at 06:33 PM
Walt, I heard last night that only 2/3 of a billion smackers was spent of just developing the web site. 650 million or so, just 200 million clams less than the entire Stimulus that was supposed to flood our country with cash and drop unemployment to 6% and save us from econimic uncertainty and save your job. Just 200 million shy of the Stimulus Package for a web site, ROTFLMAO! Add another 250 million to fix the site and we are approaching a billion clam shells. Plus all those part time low wage unisured workers manning the Obamacare phones who tell people to try again on healthcare.com in the wee hours of the morning. Shoot, they could have a recording on the 800# that tells them the same thing. Duh.
The way we are going under President B. Hussien Obama we will look just like Poland in 1959 or Rome after it burned or Athens after its fall. Or, Athens today, if you prefer. History is full of examples of doing the exact failed policies of our current Administration is doing and the outcome ain't pretty. Never was, never will. A modern day Greek tragedy to use a pun.
Mr. Walt, at least we told them so and are on record opposing Barrycare. So is the Tea Party. So is Ted Cruz who took tremedous amount of heat. So are the House Republicans whom the US Constituition gave the exclusive authority to have all revenue bills orginate there (the House). The House Republicians went to the mat at great political peril to stand up against Excutive Branch tyranny.
It is not becoming to say "I told you so, ass wipes", so I shall refrain and say look at the record. Politics can turn on a dime. Remeber when Hillary was the heir apparent to the throne in Nov, 2007? Article after article declaring her the first Female Prez of the USA and no one could beat her,not anybody from her own party or the opposition party. Hmmm. That was 3 months BEFORE Barry tossed his hat into the ring on a chilly Feburary morn in front of a sparce crowd in Chicago
The American voters will remember who caused them to lose health insurance, who sent heavily armed police in armored vehicles to subudue elderly crippled WW2 vets (who have been dyinbg off at a rate of 1,000/week since the 50th Anniveristy of Pearl Harbor), and they will remember who passed out Obamaphones while the budget was busted and the deficit soared. Read them and weep, libholes.
Barry just can't get around the House for his grand plans. He was so upbeat just 2 weeks ago after smashing the Republicans. Oh how sweet his victory was. He immediately turned his attention to Immigration reform and and More Green stuff while nixing fracking, the Pipleline form Canada, and dancing on the Tea Party's dead carcusses. Opps. I have said it more than once poll watchers: It is not wise to take off one's armor before the battle begins.
Barry has had a tough last few days. NSA, the glitch girl website, Benghazi. Don't think Barry is doing the Moon Walk of the Tea Party this week. Seems to have lost that bounce in his step. Transparency is the enemy of liars.
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 30 October 2013 at 08:05 PM
Where did you hear that Bill ( 2/3 of a billion smackers was spent of just developing the web site) . I challenge the truthfulness of that statement. It does not further your position to spread information that isn't true.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 30 October 2013 at 08:26 PM
George
Once again refresh me on your opinion whether Bush explicitly expressed to the American people the reasons for invading Iraq.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 30 October 2013 at 08:45 PM
Where did you hear that Bill ( 2/3 of a billion smackers was spent of just developing the web site) . I challenge the truthfulness of that statement. It does not further your position to spread information that isn't true.
The number the KosKids seem comfortable admitting to right now is $400 million dollars...all the bills aren't in yet so it could very well be much more!
Posted by: fish | 30 October 2013 at 09:03 PM
No Paul. I said 650 million to do the web site. What I was grossly in error on was a MUCH more grievous bonehead error than that concerning the Stimulus. Stimulus was 850 billion, not 850 million. That was bad, wrong, and inexcusable. Me bad, bad, bad, Much more serious than a mere politician's lapse of judgement. Now, about the glitch girl website. Opps, they took glitch girl's face down. Ok, I will call it the "site". The site:
Conservative estimates are only 1/2 billion if you throw out government employee salaries. I am off 150 million. Paul, you be correct! The final figures are not in and are wrapped in procurement contracts which always come in under budget, even with clauses that say "not to exceed..."...yeah, right. OK, have at it.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/obamacare-healthcare-gov-website-cost/
From just contacts and nothing else: 515 million. Hmm, now I am only off by 135 million
http://usaspending.gov/explore?tab=By+Prime+Awardee&fiscal_year=all&idvpiid=HHSM500200700015I&typeofview=detailsummary
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/10/how-much-did-obamacares-broken-website-cost.html
Ironically, the many failures could end up benefiting CGI, said Johnson. “What really terrifies me is that the contractor that built this is going to say, ‘Yep, that’s going to cost a lot more money to fix.’” In other words, we may go to war with Canada yet.
Well, the web site ain't done yet and we can't add all the OT by government employees working on this (with bennies, electricity,phones, etc.) I will leave them off the record because they probably are surfing Pregnant Women Face Sitting porn sites away.
Mr. Emery, the contract to CSI is just one of many contracts to built this thing and CSI is just one of 4 contractors as evidenced by the 2nd link posted about. The site is not yet completed as more contractors are being brought in to make it work....contractors from the private sector, and of course, more government employees on payroll assigned to this. Call centers are a different matter, as well as the cost to our own county to farm training out to Humboldt County...that is a different matter.
So, bottom line Paul; You are right, I am wrong. You win the prize. Now, lets cross our fingers and hope against hope it does not go above 900 million clams. That could buy a lot of health insurance for our po folk.
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 30 October 2013 at 09:33 PM
Thanks Bill for the clarification. I don't respond to sarcasm.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 30 October 2013 at 10:00 PM
However, we do know, according to CMS’s 2014 budget request (pdf), that agency spent more than $150 million in 2012 and 2013 in relation to the Affordable Care Act – a lowball figure considering that, in its 2013 budget request (pdf), the agency asked for more than $1 billion in additional funds “needed to support operation infrastructure” and open-enrollment preparations of the FFEs.
At this point I can only speculate on the total cost to build out Healthcare.gov and the overall technology portion of the FFEs. Based on the available data, however, a conservative estimate puts the cost so far at over $500 million. Considering the GAO estimates it will cost approximately $2 billion to build-out and operate the FFEs in 2014, this is, if anything, likely far too low.
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 30 October 2013 at 10:03 PM
On a different topic:
Teddy boy got the message. So much for the TP darling. Polirico writes...
"Extending an olive branch to GOP senators, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is privately making it clear he won’t engage in the Senate Conservatives Fund’s hardball tactics to defeat his colleagues in their primary races.
"At a closed-door lunch meeting of Senate Republicans Wednesday, the freshman conservative told his colleagues that he would not intervene in their 2014 primary fights or fundraise for the controversial outside group. Cruz added that the SCF’s decision to try to defeat sitting GOP senators in their primaries was its alone, according to several people familiar with the session."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/ted-cruz-republican-senators-99125.html#ixzz2jHJrGg00
Posted by: Paul Emery | 30 October 2013 at 11:29 PM
Teddy boy got the message. So much for the TP darling. Polirico writes...
I can't tell if you are sad or gloating.....interesting for a man who claims to be agnostic about left vs. right politically.
Posted by: fish | 31 October 2013 at 08:18 AM
Same here fish. Usually PaulE is trashing the Tea Party and bemoaning partisanship. Usually just trashing Republicans. (A giveaway to his true self) Politico is not a good source of info except as they are a cheerleader for the left. (I read DailyKos to see what George Soros is telling his brown-shirts to say and do)
Now, why would Ted Cruz, if he actually feels this way, decide not to campaign against fellow Senators in primaries? Hmmm. Well, maybe he believes he should not interfere in other state's politics. Isn't that what people like PaulE rail against? TedC could raise a lot of Koch money for those candidates right? So PAulE should be having a series of wet-dreams that TedC is on the sidelines.
One thing I have learned about the left is they are not to be trusted and their words and desires are never held close to the vest. Flipfloppers galore.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 31 October 2013 at 09:42 AM
PaulE 815pm - Upon review, I don't think I can do better than Victor Davis Hanson in answering why we invaded Iraq.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/343870/why-did-we-invade-iraq-victor-davis-hanson
Posted by: George Rebane | 31 October 2013 at 09:46 AM
Upon review, I don't think I can do better that Victor Davis Hanson in answering why we invaded Iraq.
With due respect George nothing in the VDH article convinces me that there was justification to invade Iraq.
I fall into the General Odom camp.
Retired General: Iraq Invasion Was 'Strategic Disaster'
By Evan Lehman
09/30/05 "The Lowell Sun" -- -- WASHINGTON -- The invasion of Iraq was the “greatest strategic disaster in United States history,” a retired Army general said yesterday, strengthening an effort in Congress to force an American withdrawal beginning next year., Retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom, a Vietnam veteran, said the invasion of Iraq alienated America's Middle East allies, making it harder to prosecute a war against terrorists.
The U.S. should withdraw from Iraq, he said, and reposition its military forces along the Afghan-Pakistani border to capture Osama bin Laden and crush al Qaeda cells.
“The invasion of Iraq I believe will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history,” said Odom, now a scholar with the Hudson Institute.
Homeward Bound, a bipartisan resolution with 60 House co-sponsors, including Lowell Rep. Marty Meehan, requests President Bush to announce plans for a draw-down by December, and begin withdrawing troops by October 2006.
The measure has not been voted on, nor has the House Republican leadership scheduled hearings. But supporters were encouraged yesterday, pointing to growing support among moderate conservatives and the public's rising dissatisfaction with the war.
Meehan, one of the first to propose a tiered exit strategy in January, when few of his Democratic colleagues dared wade into the controversial debate, pointed to “enormous progress.”
“Talking about this issue, having hearings on this issue, getting more Americans to focus on it will result in a change of policy,” Meehan told The Sun. “The generals and commanders on the field in Iraq overwhelmingly are saying we need less in terms of occupation and more Iraqis up front, and that's the only strategy I think that will result in getting American troops back home.”
© 1999-2005 MediaNews Group, Inc.
We should have employed Roman methods if we were going to intervene in the middle east at all. Much cheaper and not nearly so "sticky". Let your enemies fight each other until both sides (or more) are so enervated that none remain dangerous.
Posted by: fish | 31 October 2013 at 10:34 AM
George
That is quite contrary to Rumsfeldt's blunt statement about why we went to war.
Washington (CNN) - If the Bush Administration had known there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it probably wouldn't have decided to invade in 2003, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in an interview broadcast Sunday.
Speaking on CNN's "State of the Union" program, Rumsfeld noted there were multiple reasons for attacking Iraq and ousting Saddam Hussein from power. "No question it was the big one," he said. Asked if the United States would not have invaded if the administration didn't believe Iraq had the weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld said: "I think that's probably right."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/20/rumsfeld-wmds-werent-only-reason-for-war-in-iraq/
Posted by: Paul Emery | 31 October 2013 at 11:13 AM
So George with the position of the Sec of Defense clearly on record would you say that Bush was responsible as the Commander in Chief for the failure in intelligence that led to war?
Posted by: Paul Emery | 31 October 2013 at 11:49 AM
Paul you need to seek some help with your Bush Derangement Syndrome. Did Bush pee your shoes and he is never to be forgiven. Or, is your BDS just a distraction effort to keep us from discussing the real problems of the day being created by our current Community Organizer in Chief. My guess is both.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 31 October 2013 at 12:35 PM
No Russ, I'm just trying to illustrate that lying to the American public is endemic and is typical behavior for American Presidents. The hypocrisy is thick when you apply different standards according to your political affiliation. Nowhere will you find me supporting Obama on this site certainly not Obamacare which is a big mess. My preference is for single payer is well documented and I stand by it. Most but not all contributors to this site are Republicans and found no wrong with Bush conducting the Iraq war but do not apply the same standards when they view Obama and his bumbling. They have no problem with Reagan and Bush 1 trippling the national debt. They have no problem with Bush 2 lowering taxes and returning money to the taxpayers rather than balancing the budget and paying down the deficit. They have no problem Reagan claiming ignorance to the Iran Contra doings while being Commander and Chief. Walt can spread total bullshit that the Obamacare website cost over 1 Trillion dollars which is a complete lie and not a peep from those who claim to represent truth, awareness and honesty.Walt writes: "Obamacare health-insurance exchange website, spent more than $1 trillion in just the first eleven months of fiscal 2013........"
Posted by: Paul Emery | 31 October 2013 at 01:26 PM
Uh Oh Paul...look what just came in the mail!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57610154/states-insurance-exchange-websites-cost-taxpayers-$1b-contractors-often-paid-to-do-same-job-in-different-states/
Posted by: fish | 31 October 2013 at 02:24 PM
PaulE 126pm, fish 1034am - I was asked for reasons I would accept why we invaded Iraq, and have no requirement to convince you of such reasons. But I don't understand the charge that Bush2 lied - that involved knowingly telling a purposive falsehood - for which there is no evidence other than leftwingers making the naked assertion.
To practice effective statecraft, must leaders lie to their people. History answers YES. Do I understand why that is so, YES; do I like it, NO? But since I'm an ideologue with an accurate picture of the electorate, I will accept certain leaders' lies more willingly if I see them using such lies to take the country where I also think it should go. We all do that; and yes, that is a form of hypocrisy.
In Obama's case, there is not one direction that he has outlined for America, or browbeaten Congress to pass laws for, with which I agree - quite the opposite. As these pages attest, I believe that Obama has shown the federal government at its worst during his tenure.
Re Mr fish's 224pm - When all the accounting is done for that damn website (or more completely, implementing the functions of shopping for policies, applying for Obamacare, and signing up), then the bill will come to significantly over $1B. PaulE swaps trillions and billions with gay abandon, but he also should acknowledge that.
Posted by: George Rebane | 31 October 2013 at 02:45 PM
When all the accounting is done for that damn website (or more completely, implementing the functions of shopping for policies, applying for Obamacare, and signing up), then the bill will come to significantly over $1B. PaulE swaps trillions and billions with gay abandon, but he also should acknowledge that.
I assumed that the "trillion" reference was a typo. That this monstrosity will cost a billion is crime enough.
Posted by: fish | 31 October 2013 at 03:01 PM
I bet PaulE thinks Allende was killed by the CIA too. PaulE, did you criticize LBJ as much as you do BWB? You are stick on a rut.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 31 October 2013 at 03:24 PM
Todd
You are the one who likes LBJ not me. He escalated your beloved Vietnam War from a skirmish to a full war that we lost in the end under another one of your favorites, Richard Nixon. The Bay of Tonkin incident was a calculated lie to the American people justifying our military involvement which you support. It was much like the phoney WMD charges that Bush used to convince Congress to support his misadventure in Iraq. LBJ is your guy not mine.
You didn't like him enough though to enlist to support the war.
From WIKI for convenience:
"The outcome of these two incidents was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression." The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for deploying U.S. conventional forces and the commencement of open warfare against North Vietnam."
George
Was the Tonkin incident within the boundary of a justifiable lie from an American President?
Posted by: Paul Emery | 31 October 2013 at 03:56 PM
PaulE 356pm - Comparing the Tonkin incident to Bush2's WMD assessment is beyond apples and oranges. Tonkin was manufactured under LBJ's orders and the lie was spread across the world. Its cover to let us put combat troops into South Vietnam had no plan on what we were supposed to do with those troops - we just went in an pissed away 50K+ lives with strict orders not to fight to win. Quite a bit different than the Iraqi invasion, no matter how things turned out in the longer run.
But the bottom line is the same, you back presidents that do what you think is right for the country and excuse some of the means by which they get things done. And presidents that go the wrong way (according to your own lights), you ostracize. In this forum we argue vehemently to justify and condemn public policies and military adventures. And IMHO many of the arguments presented are quite good on both sides.
Posted by: George Rebane | 31 October 2013 at 04:30 PM
Give it a rest Paul, or go out to the overpass with your " Bush lied" banner.
All you got is whining about " NO WMDS!!!! Bush LIED!!!"
Do you need the complete list of Pinocchi"O" s lies?
Heck! I would probably need to take my boots off and use those extra digits
to help keep track. How many " I didn't know"s?( when he actually did)
" I will get to the bottom of this." ( then goes to the golf course)
" I will not rest until....." ( off on another vacation)
" It's not my fault,,, it's the other guy.." ( when he knows full well it is.)
" I have the most transparent...Bla,bla,bla...." I'm sure there is plenty more that I missed.
There as been NO truth out of him except for " I plan to fundamentally transform America." Nope,, there was NO lie there! He just had to, to get here.
The end justifies the means... Right Paul?
Then there is Jay the Carny flying cover for Dear Leader.
Posted by: Walt | 31 October 2013 at 04:49 PM
George
The comparison in my view is not beyond apples and oranges. Because of your Republican stain you are willing to give Bush and the dark crew of Neo-cons the benefit of the doubt that the false intelligible confirming WMD's is an intellegance mistake. I contend it was a deliberate lie to scare the American people into beleiving Saddam was a threat to this country therefore justifying invasion. Most lame was relying on British intelligence which was an entirely irresponsible justification and almost beyond comprehension. If Obama were to spend 5000 American lives and trillions of dollars on a military adventure based on foreign intelligence you would have jumped all over him and called for impeachment when the intelligence proved wrong. Bush was in charge of the CIA and their failure is his failure. You continue to hold on to the idea that the failure of intelligence was an honest mistake. I contend it was a calculated lie much like the Bay of Tonkin. I would love to debate you in public anytime on that issue. Consider this a challenge if you're up to it. For sure I'll have the Libertarians in my corner on this one.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 31 October 2013 at 05:18 PM
The numbers are out !! DAY 1!......(drum role please) ,,,, SIX!! That's right Boys and Girls,,, SIX!!
Maybe a 1000 by now!
Posted by: Walt | 31 October 2013 at 06:03 PM
PaulE, you never answered if you believe the CIA killed Allende. You changed to you usual BDS and the Gulf of Tonkin. Then the usual attack on me. You are so predictable. But rather than doing the exercise about you not going to Vietnam, I will take a pass.
I was 14 and in the ninth grade when the Maddox was attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin. I did support Goldwater that year though. LBJ was your bot not mine. I did vote for Nixon in 1972 when I came into voting adulthood. Long after Nixon tried to get us out of the war but your guy LBJ had us really entrenched there.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 31 October 2013 at 06:29 PM
Paul E,
Your proof that Bush lied is what? Where is your smoking gun pointing to the truth? Or, is Bush lied just your opinion?
If it is just your opinion then you have a serious case of BSD, and you may need some serious mental health help.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 31 October 2013 at 06:52 PM
Like my buddy Lt. Calley said, "What, Mei Li?"
Mr.Paul, there was some good music on your station this morning from 6:30-10am. Had me doing the smoothe movement thing after my cigs and coffee. Tell whoever played them blues this morning to keep it up. Yes, I digress again.
Guess we cannot say "moving forward" on the topic at hand until we all say Bush was a puke bucket low life lying yellow bellied bloodthirsty ogre who got his jollies off by pulling wings off spotted owls. We are still stuck on "Bush did it to!!!" as if there is no topic in and of itself that can stand by itself unless we find some moral equivelency to Reagen's ghastly dastardly deeds and dumbie Bush's immoral infidelidties. Mr. Paul can never let that happen, just can't let go and decompress. I am still mad as hell at the Teapot Dome Scandal that shook the foundations of my world under US Grant. Do you guys have any idea what went on durring the replusive Harding, Taft, and Harrison Administrations? Before we talk about our LIAR in CHIEF, we must first compare it to that harlot Andrew Jackson married or to that sad sack Andrew Johnson. And don't get me started on that egomanic Teddy Roosevelt who killed elephants for sport. And that walking talking abortion Wilson. Gives me heartburn.
Ronnie and George W had more character and integerity in their ear hairs than Obama will ever know. Can't buy it and Obama is beginning to can't even fake it.
Nothing, absolutely nothing can be discussed without little Johhny saying "Why are you picking on me, Suzie did it too. Ricky did it first!!" So unfair. It is just not right.
As my buddy Lt. Calley said "Two wongs don't make a Right."
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 31 October 2013 at 07:43 PM
PaulE 518pm - One can only hope that one day you'll be able provide substance for your assertion that Bush2 lied about the WMDs. Until then, your argument remains tiresome.
Posted by: George Rebane | 31 October 2013 at 08:00 PM
The archetypal "Bush lied, people died" was over the State of the Union claim that British intelligence believed Iraq was seeking yellowcake uranium in Niger. British intelligence still believes that, as did a bipartisan Congressional panel convened to investigate.
Regarding the Bush CIA, Bush, in an early fit of bipartisanship, left Clinton appointee (and Democrat) George Tenet, and it was Tenet who told Bush, 'It's a slam dunk, Mr. President' when challenged on the CIA WMD claims.
Then there was Saddam, who, before he was executed, admitted he'd been trying to convince neighboring countries he had WMDs to keep them from testing Iraqi in armed conflict.
And of course, let's not forget Senator Hillary who argued against US ground action against Iraq because of the WMD's that would be used against our troops.
Sorry, Paul, but there should be enough bad to say about Bush without making up more of it.
Posted by: Gregory | 31 October 2013 at 08:44 PM
Gregory
It is the job of the CIA to get things right. Bush was responsible for the CIA. If you say Obama was responsible for Benghazi because it was his State Department in charge then you have to say Bush was responsible for the CIA getting it wrong about WMD's.
George, let me amend my assertion about Bush and WMD's. Let's just say he was provided with good ole plausible deniability for the purposes of letting the Neo Cons in his Admin do what they wanted to do which is establish a military stronghold in Iraq to ensure the control of the resources of region.
Todd as to Allende. Officially he died of suicide during the CIA led coup but much controversy exists as to the details so I don't allege he was killed directly by the CIA.
It is established history that the CIA engineered a coup against his regime. If you go to the National Security Archives at George Washington University you'll find this and links to the actual CIA documents that have been declassified.
"In a secret cable, CIA deputy director of plans, Thomas Karamessines, conveys Kissinger's orders to CIA station chief in Santiago, Henry Hecksher: "It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup." The "operating guidance" makes it clear that these operations are to be conducted so as to hide the "American hand," and that the CIA is to ignore any orders to the contrary from Ambassador Korry who has not been informed of Track II operations.
Take a little time to read this page Todd then tell me what you think about our involvement in overthrowing a democratically elected leader in a sovereign nation.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm
Also Todd are you saying you were opposed to the war in Viet Nam? If you were what did you do to try to stop it? By the way, I supported Barry Goldwater but I was too young to vote. Later I became a Eugene McCarthy supporter.
Todd
Are you saying you were oppposed to the Viet Nam War? I also voted for Goldwater by the way.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 31 October 2013 at 09:17 PM
During Benghazi, Obama was at the end of his first term and had his own people in charge.. in fact, the same Hillary who was sure of WMD's in Iraq was running State, or at least pretending to.
So, Paul, your argument is that Bush was too bipartisan in failing to purge Democrats placed by Clinton? Interesting concept.
Posted by: Gregory | 31 October 2013 at 09:42 PM
Thanks for the history lesson PaulE.
Regarding Vietnam. I was a senior when I was asked by the civics teacher to take the USA side in a debate on Vietnam on the local cable program. I was not in favor or opposed at the time. I had lead time and asked the DOD for info as well as the Sec of State. I received much, studied it all and concluded we were following our treaty. Anyway, the fellow I debated kicked my ass and was thereafter known as the guy in school who supported the war.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 31 October 2013 at 10:10 PM
But Todd you have to admit the Bay of Tonkin was a lie and that was the basis for the resolution to Congress that was the legal justification for our involvement.
Gregory
Who cares if Tenet worked for Clinton he was Bush's hire at the time of the Iraq war therefore Bush was responsible for the performance of the Agency just like you claim Obama is for the State Department.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 01 November 2013 at 01:27 AM
PaulE 127am - I find it more than curious that you equate Bush2's acceptance of internationally sourced intelligence from very esoteric sources to be equivalent to Obama's months long ignoring of the Benghazi security situation, his unwillingness to respond during the attack, his obvious lies to cover up his ineptness after the attack, and no recourse taken against known attackers more than a year later. It highlights the gulf between how polarized America assesses its leaders and leadership.
Posted by: George Rebane | 01 November 2013 at 08:32 AM
George
What I'm talking about is accountability. Bush never took responsibility to this day for the failure of intelligence under his command. The CIA was certainly inept and their conclusion led to a needless war and the death and injury to thousands of Americans and a cost of at least two trillion dollars. Rumsfeldt finally admitted that the war would not likely have been fought had they known but not a peep from Bush.
Your harsh critique of Obama is hollow when tempered by your silence on the responsibility of Bush in accounting for the war on Iraq.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 01 November 2013 at 08:56 AM