Mitt Romney may have difficulties on the campaign trail because of his connections to birther Donald Trump. NY1's Errol Louis and Lehigh University professor James Peterson join Ed Schultz to talk about the issue.
Birtherism is rocking Romney
-
Mon May 28, 2012 10:22 AM EDT
Leave a Comment:
Not that I think either one of them is someone that I want to associate with, but if I had to choose between a revolutionary anarchist communist sympathizer (Bill Ayers) who wants to kill innocent Americans and a loon who questions the birthplace of the American president but that can not really do any damage to the country, I would think that the loon is a lot less dangerous.
Then there is reality. I know storm IOKIYAR. To bad for you that you support a party that has yet to call out right wing terrorists, funny how you go back 45 years to find something to whine about yet ignore just how many womens health care centers were bombed by right wing extremists in the last 3 years. Once again we get the typical finger pointer from Fox news.
stormguy,
you sound like sarah palin.
W. bush is the one who has blood on his hands for sending 4500 troops into iraq to die, and countless others to come home maimed and emotionally and mentally affected.
our country would be much better off were it not for the two-term "annointed" president, w. bush. two wars (one illegal) and medicare part D on the credit card, and not on the books.
bush is mostly responsible for the mess we are in, and he cooked the books, letting President Obama take the blame, and you all agree with the worst president in history.
wow..imagine that...complete avoidance and deflection by two democrats on the item discussed. What a surprise.
stormguy,
i am not avoiding or deflecting.
what does bill ayers have to do with Donald trump and birtherism?
when you stoop to that level, i automatically think of W. bush, the real killer of innocent american people and iraqi people (600,000 of them) under the guise of, "WMD in iraq", and, "my 'christianity' dictates that through my "decider"ship, i am trying to bring about the rapture".
please don't bring up stuff you have no proof of in regard to President Obama, because what your guy did is so much worse.
the point of this thread was the "difficulties" that Romney is having because of his "affiliation" with Trump. My point was that if I was one of the two candidates and had to choose someone to be associated with, I would rather be Romney and associate with Trump his loony nature instead of being Obama and associated with Ayers.
You mean those lies that all the Democrats spread prior to Bush being in office?
My guy? Who is my guy?
Ayers served time for his crimes. Neither Trump or Romney or Bush has served time that I am aware of.
the proof is readily available for ANY statement I make.
WHOM...I must have missed the press release when Obama, the DNC and the Justice Department condemned the actions of the NBPP. Can you please post that for all of us?
You know...that is the organization that was calling for the murder of a US citizen who had not even been charged with a crime at the time. I know that you, in your infinite ability to be fair, wouldn't even support that.
W. bush, your guy.
i bet you voted for him at least once.
You know the GOPT hollers about Bill Ayers as if he is figure from just yesterday. Do any of you know how long ago he did any of this, and how old he is now? Give us a break!
Lynn...wasnt it the Democrats who just 2 weeks ago were screaming about what a bully Romney was for something he did when he was in high school?
So...its okay for a man who planted bombs and tried to kill people to be forgiven, but not a man who tried to give a kid a haircut...
Hypocrisy runs rampant on the left...as usual!
twice?
Except Ayers was never convicted of any crimes all he ever did was admit to being with the Weatherman underground movement back in the 1960's. That the right try to say he was a criminal is laughable nonsense based on Fox news fake outrage.
Funny how the righties try to change facts until no one can recognize them as facts.
I believe it's called lying.
Except Bill Ayers isn't a friend of Obama that's a right wing political generalization that most people on the left don't have the smarts to look up and realize it's thrown far out logical proportion. Let's not forget Ayers isn't offering a dinner with himself and Obama or calling a national press conference over his worthless endorsement either. More importantly if that argument was true that only points to there not being enough outrage. No poor actions of anyone else excuse those same actions from another. So if there was no outrage over this alleged concept, which people wish to identify as bad and this is the same type of situation, doesn't mean the outrage quotient should be going up not down?
So one is bad but the other which is the same thing is okay. This political one side cancels out the other thing is going too far. I have a proposal how about we just blame everybody regardless of who ever else has done whatever......how 'bout we condemn it all the time instead of just accepting it as legit at any point. But that would be hard after all we do live in a country where there are folks who don't know how many sides a triangle has.....go on youtube and look up "geography lessons for americans" it will make you laugh and cry I promise
Now on the NBPP the justice department and this or any other administration would be wasting tax payer money trying to grandstand on that group. Should they call out the Klan everytime they say something racist.....there's only 24 hours in a day........racists say racist things, that why they're called "racists" we don't need to be reminded on any regular basis. Should we expect Obama or Romney to talk about a north carolina(I believe not quite certain maybe another state) who said gays should be put basically in internment camps? No, that's not their job we have no reason to think either of these men support that, we don't need a detailed list of all the things in the universe they like or dislike so why assume they might.....
Point is its no one's responsibility to call out craziness everytime it appears in creation. The KKK and NBPP are racists and they have the right to do so unless they are committing crimes which can like all others be proven in court who cares about what they think or say? Government, the American legacy and liberty belong to racists as well as everyone else whether we like that our not. Live with it.
Actually, I think it's more relevant to talk about what someone is doing TODAY that Romney as a candidate is connecting himself to than it is to bring up someone from 30 years ago that Obama as a president never connected himself to at all.
Ed, No one is keeping this Birther crap alive but you. Having a hard time finding something positive to say about Obama. Perhaps a story on how Obama Care is ending up costing billions more than Obama said it would. Maybe a story on the anniversary of GITMO closing. How about a story on the unemployment rate that never went over 8%. Maybe a story on the cost of living increases or the high cost of energy.
The bottom line is there are much more important issues to discuss, issues that affect all Americans, Taxes and the proposed increases coming in January, Increased Government spending, our dependence on Foreign Oil, Unemployment, etc....
There are also all the scandels, Secret Service and hookers, GSA lavished parties, Fast and Ferious, etc...
I know the common phrase these days is Too Big to Fail, but I see our Federal Government as Too Big to Succeed.
In other news Fox news viewers are more misinformed then people who watch no news. Congrats, you just showed that study to be correct.
2ez
you can catch any and every one of the stories you requested daily on any and all FOX News shows.
what you couldn't catch on FOX was the trumped up War started by Bush/Cheney and the needless deaths of 4500 patriotic Americans!
2ez
It is obvious MSNBC is not the NEWS station you believe. In order for Ed to say something about birthers it had to come from a person who is making it news. You got it. Donald Trump. So Ed is not keeping birther issue alive check your news sources like the Secretary of State in Arizona, the Rep. Coffman, the Iowa Republican party and once again Donald Trump. Those are the ones keeping the birther issue alive and mind you this is OLD NEWS. They have nothing else to talk about so here we go again 4 YEARS AGO OLD NEWS BIRTHER ISSUE.
2ez
It is obvious MSNBC is not the NEWS station you believe. In order for Ed to say something about birthers it had to come from a person who is making it news. You got it. Donald Trump. So Ed is not keeping birther issue alive check your news sources like the Secretary of State in Arizona, the Rep. Coffman, the Iowa Republican party and once again Donald Trump. Those are the ones keeping the birther issue alive and mind you this is OLD NEWS. They have nothing else to talk about so here we go again 4 YEARS AGO OLD NEWS BIRTHER ISSUE.
2ez,
you all would love it if we just let the donald have his say about President Obama's birth certificate. george will is right. trump is an ignoramus, and he's pissed because President Obama got the best of him at the White House Correspondence Dinner in 2011.
the donald really must carry a grudge
if you didn't see it, ez, its really funny.
2EZ. What do you think would happen if you had an original idea and were not just parroting what your diabolical wing-nut leaders were telling you to think and say ?
The mind is like a parachute. It has to be open to work.
If you do decide to try this experiment of thinking for yourself, be careful. Embracing the truth may be kinda scary for you at first.
Ed, keeping the birtherism issue alive????? hahahahahahaha! All you have to do is look on the Internet, TV, on any newspaper and there it is again, being raised by some loon from the GOPT. When did anyone but John McCain, in the GOPT leadership ever refute it? Name them and the place & time.
I really liked Hope's post comparing the mind to an open parachute. I guess the baggers had been not try sky diving.
Hope, Then I ask you to open your mind. As far as those in the public eye, there are maybe two so called Birthers, so why are these whack jobs given the time of day. Why are we discussing them? Trump is not a Government Official, Trump is not a representative of the Republican Party, so why is his opinion concerning Obama's birth so important to Ed? As I said I think there are far more important issues that need to be discussed.
Except that Donald Trump
Sarah Palin, who helped start the whole birther movement on the right where she claimed on atleast one occaison that people shouldn't listen to someone who ".....blah blah.....wasn't even born in america". Even toss that aside Palin has many times said the birther questions are legit...which is odd since she claims she believes he clearly is a citizen...so don't know how that works....
Michelle Bachmann has done the same
Joe Arpaio a hero in the rightwing world is a birther
Republican leaders like McConnell and Boehner when asked have said only that they take Obama at his word....why is that important you ask? Isn't it interesting how they release long ackward statements when they could have just said "no". If someone asks you something you believe to be false wouldn't you just say "no". Pretty simple....this is to court birthers and their sympathizers which account for atleast one in five republicans.
Jeb Bush has been noted as saying that the GOP should categorically reject any idea that the president was not born in America. If no one publicly or otherwise on the right was doing that why would he issue that advice in a memo? Seems like he wouldn't if no one really thought that on right. Why would he say this if it wasn't a problem
Fact is silence is a kind of support. I am not saying it is the job of republican politicians to seek out and denounce all birtherism everywhere but when it comes up organically the fact is they always seem to avoid. They don't need to go after all birtherism but when they see it they do nothing.
Source: Wikepedia
Obama-Ayers Controversy
Main article: Bill Ayers presidential election controversy
During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, a controversy arose regarding Ayers' contacts with then-candidate Barack Obama, a matter that had been public knowledge in Chicago for years.[61] After being raised by the American and British press[61][62][63] the connection was picked up by conservative blogs and newspapers in the United States. The matter was raised in a campaign debate by moderator George Stephanopoulos, and later became an issue for the John McCain presidential campaign. Investigations by The New York Times, CNN, and other news organizations concluded that Obama does not have a close relationship with Ayers.[64][65][66]
In an op-ed piece after the election, Ayers denied any close association with Obama, and castigated the Republican campaign for its use of guilt by association tactics.[40] In a new edition of his memoirs, Fugitive Days: Memoirs of an Anti-War-Activist, he added a new afterword describing the blogospheric characterization of their relationship as "neighbors and family friends" ("In 2008 there was a lot of chatter on the blogosphere about my relationship with Barack Obama: we had served together on the board of a foundation, knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fundraiser at my house, where I'd made a small donation to his earliest political campaign."). This was misleadingly characterized as his own claim by some.[67]
Much ado about nothing. Kind of like the Right-Wingers in general.
Fox news fake outrage of course it is all they can do because they are support a piece of crap called Mittens.
Totally whomitmay. They are like the kid who cried wolf one to many times and our society is about to begin watching them fade into oblivion !
Oh, he only served on a board with him, lived in the same neighborhood and hosted a fund raiser...yeah...they hardly knew each other.
Well storm you lived next door to the uni bomber and were seen outside when the uni bomber was outside and you were seen in the same restaurant as the uni bomber so that makes you guilty of the crimes the uni bomber did by your logic. But hey why let facts get in the way of storms fake outrage.
The gop are desperate since our economy has improved after President Obama got into office and most Americans trust him and not willard.
They can't find anything new that will work and for some strange reason they love to drag up tired old lies that most of us are bored with.
They are desperate.
Judy....
Please tell us which one was a lie?
Was Ayers not a convicted terrorist?
Did he not live in the same neighborhood as Obama?
Did he not kick off Obama's political career with a fundraiser?
Did they not serve on the same board of directors?
Please tell us which one of those is a tired old lie...
No Ayers was not a convicted terrorist nor was he ever charged for crimes that the weathermen committed because he wasn't involved with those crimes. No he did not kick off Obama's political career, there was a neighborhood meet and great that was at Ayers house. In fact all your lies have been debunked 4 years ago storm, so once again you prove just how misinformed you are.
stormguy,
the DA who tried to prosecute ayers, when Obama was 8 years old, said that there is NO LINK, that the link doesn't exist. bill ayers was protesting the viet nam war. no one died as a result of bombings that ayers may have participated in. Obama served on boards with ayers in the 90's. THEY WERE NOT FRIENDS.
living in the same neighborhood sure sounds like a strong case for the gutter politics of the mcCain campaign, and sean hannity, who has told many lies about President Obama's association with Bill ayers.
bill ayers did not kick off Obama's political career with a fundraiser. it was a "coffe", a "meet and greet". Obama kicked off his campaign at the Hyde park Ramada Inn on sept. 19, 1995.
i have served on boards with many people, but have not been friends.
when you say Obama and ayers lived in the same neighborhood, therefore Obama must be a terrorist, that would be like me telling you that you live in a neighborhood with sexual offenders, with pedophiles, therefore you must be a pedophile, or at the very least, you must agree with what a pedophile does.
tell me where i am wrong.
do some research on bill ayers and Obama. stop getting your talking points from fox news, especially sean hannity.
Where is Willard Mittens Romney's Birth Certificate?
Seriously. This guy's family is from, and still lives in, MEXICO!!
How do we KNOW he was not born on the family estate in MEXICO, either because the family lived there, or was visiting there?
How do we know that WMR is not an ANCHOR BABY?????
We must see Willard Mittens Romney's original, long form, birth certificate, or a MEXICAN NATIONAL could take over the US government!!!
Really Angelino ! Where was the Etch-A-Sketch Man born ? We want to not only see the Birth-Certificate of Willard Mitt Romney, we want conclusive proof that he is human and that he has a heart, a soul, a conscience, AND a spine ! ( not holding my breath on that last part )
Angeleno, I agree with you in a way. Even though I believe Romney was born in MI, if Obama had to show his birth certificate, it's only fair if Romney does and everyone running for President in the future too. But I have a feeling if he did, the Democrats would get blamed for creating a distraction and steering away from the more important issues. Because of that, I believe it should be ignored.
We must preserve the purity of our electoral process. We can't have someone engage in political preversions just because he's filthy rich! Willard Mittens Romney must adhere to the same high American standards as all candidates.
Beware: WMR may be an agent of the reconquista.
Willard Mittens Romney: Show us your Birth Certificate!
I understand, really I do, but because he was born in MI, I would be more concerned with his citizenship than his birth certificate. (Since his dad was born in Mexico, Romney can claim duel citizenship even though he has a US birth certificate.) Besides, my personal feelings on this is I see the subject of Obama's birth place coming up as a deflection because of the way Sarah Palin was so-called "vetted". But then again, maybe it's a way to deflect from Romney's citizenship.
Anybody can buy a copy of Romney's birth certificate if they go to the State of MI's online website if they want to pay for it. Does anyone know how to find out if someone is a citizen of another country?
Way to go hope, we should act and behave as ridiculous as the republicans do. If obama has to produce his birth certificate over and over again Then let willard do it. When he does we will reject it over and over again.
A web site birth certificate?? We all know how those things can be created by a clever 12 year old off his meds! And with the political power the Romney family had, how easy it would have been to fake it up.
NO. We need the original, paper, long-form certificate, the hospital certificate, the newspaper announcements, an affidavit from the attending doctor and nurses. Full, thorough documentation for this agent of the reconquista.
And he could still claim Mexican citizenship if he liked, which means he could destroy America and slip back over the border to duck out on the collapse of our country. You know how those super-rich are--no loyalty to country, just to maximizing their wealth.
Willard Mittens Romney: the Manchuriana candidate.
angeleno, it's an actual government website, not a kid sitting at home playing with Photoshop.
http:// www.michigan.gov/mdch/0,1607,7-132-4645---,00.html
(In order to get the link to work, remove the space between // and www.)
Everybody's birth certificate, marriage license and death certificates are public record. Everybody has access to them. That's what makes this whole birther issue so ludicrous.
This makes Romney the Juan percent.
Go for it Angelino and Easy 12 !
And belly laughing The Real Chris !! ROFLMAO !
Mitt is, of course, the Anglicized version of Mitin, Spanish for a right-wing political rally. What does it mean in the greater scheme he's perpetrating on us? Why its clearly code: his parents gave him a name that Mexican voters would instinctively respond to positively (we all know how conservative Mexican are) when he ran for President . . . Of Mexico!!!
The conspiracy gets deeper and deeper every day.
It is time that President Obama takes Donald Trump to COURT for DEFAMATION. It is then this kind of racism by the GOPs will stop.
Romney has big lead over Obama among military veterans
A new Gallup poll shows Mitt Romney leading President Obama by 24 points among military veterans, essentially accounting for Obama's 'gender gap' among men.
This public announcement was brought to you by your friendly neighborhood Fox news station, none of this message is meant to be factual or relevant to the topic.
Oh, you mean the station owned by the person said to be not fit to own a news conglomerate by the Brits?
Yeah. We don't have their high standards.
Well The saying "It takes one to know one" Sure fits those two. Trump and Romney. You know those wheels are turning on the next big gold mine.
The birtherism is going to bring him and Trump down! Trump is grand standing again. The man just can"t get enough attention and here he is again. Shock and say what again ,plus Trump has time on his hands. Remember he warned us about May and Hes Back!
Post 6, I am the wife of veteran and I am for Obama. Many vets have to realize Romney will keep us in war . It seems to be the Republican way !
To Think that President Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize after only 10 days in office
But then again Arafat also won one
Get some cheese why don't you.
watson,
President Obama was embarassed over that.
he knew it was not yet his time.
but it says alot about the warmonger, the liar, the idiot in chief, w. bush. he was "annointed" once in 2000, and stole the next election in 2004. hell, he wasn't even elected, but he was determined to run this country into the ground, and he did, in only 8 short years.
we have alot to blame W. bush for, and we need to keep reminding the american people, the voters, how we got to where we are. the repubs in office now, as gov.'s and in congress, are just as hapless as W. bush.
i don't know if W. is smart enough to do all the damage he did on purpose, but we are seeing the same thing from repubs today.
stupid or ignorant or self-serving.
i would bet all 3.
i forgot the most important one.
"christian".
bush2 didn't and he's wanted in various countries for war crimes.
Nice try watson. I bet you got that from fnc or some other right wing idiot.
@Suzette
To the right wingers Christian is another word for war monger. Ironic how if you read what Jesus was supposed to have really said, you wouldn't recognize what it's nothing like what the right wingers claim.
Judy,
how true.
Obama was given the Nobel prize not for what he did but for what he said he was going to do.
So you have a problem with that jerry boy? The 2010 republican congress said they were running on jobs jobs jobs yet not 1 jobs bill came out of congress that was worth spit.
If you are not worried about The Democrats never producing a budget, and then defeating Hussein's "budget" without so much as one democrat going to support it...where is the time to bring up a jobs bill?
Then we got scottie back with his version of Fox news reporting. None of which is meant to be factual but boy it sure does get the tea baggers tea bags all in knots.
We don't need a Republican jobs bill. Barry's stimulus created thousands of jobs that only cost 2 million apiece.
More lies jerry all you do when you post crap like that is prove 1) you have nothing to say 2) if you believe that then you are the most misinformed person on this blog.
How about bush2 how is guilty of war crimes in many countries? The only reason he's not on trial is that President Obama felt he had to deal with our economy first.
I bet you voted for bush2 twice, and cheered him on when he invaded Iraq.
jerry doesn't know that they don't give peace prizes out to people who start wars with lies of WMD's then lie and say its about Iraqs freedom.
If willard wants to rub elbows with someone as ridiculous as Trump Blossom, then let his suffer the consequences. It is worse that knowing Ayers, or Wright. If trump is an example of an American born citizen, I'd say, I'd rather have been born myself, in Kenya and take up residence there.
With Hussein's work on the economy...I wish he would have stayed busy prosecuting GWB.
At least they have better hair then Donald does, ffs with all the money he wastes you think he would get a top of the line hair piece instead of the bargain basement model he wears.
Hey Judy - Name the war crimes on Bush. Your breathing free air. The invasion in Iraq was simple. Al Quada was establishing a second front in southern Iraq. Remember Al Quada, You know, the ones that took down the Twin Towers. And yes Iraq had WMD. 55% of these chemical of WMD came from Germany. That's public information. Bush never would have SUCKED UP TO THE MUSILM OF BROTHERHOOD. THAT JUST HAPPEN 2 WEEKS AGO. This Ed Show sure has your HEAD SMOKING!
Except they were not that was another GWB lie to get stupid people all worked up and it failed. Gee Fox news sure fed you tea baggers a lot of nonsense and none of it was real. Why GWB sure did suck up to the Muslim Brotherhood in fact GWB was seen holding hands and smooching the Saudis in the white house rose garden, oh didn't Fox news inform you? Well the Saudi royal family are a part of the bothrhood.
Oh and hrdk for your information there were no WMD's ever found in Iraq, what was found was non lethal chemicals that WMD's degrade into when they are older then your Fox news misinformation.
You Idiot, are you telling that Mustard Gas is not WMD. Here is a quote from the Department of Defenses.
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.
"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.
The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended.
The Defense Intelligence Agency director said locating and disposing of chemical weapons in Iraq is one of the most important tasks servicemembers in the country perform.
Whom - These words came directly from the Department of Defense. Did youget your information on your UNCLE ED SHOW. It sounds like you were raised under some HIGH VOLTAGE POWER LINES when you were a youngster.
whomitmay - NO the Saudis Royal Family have no linked to the Musilm of Brother hood.
You better look it up all Muslim nations belong to the brother hood.
Oh nice try btw one Lt Col was reported to have said it was found in 2003 and who started the story none other then Fox news.
Funny how you continue to be so misinformed and full of fake outrage hdrk. While not belonging to the Brotherhood directly up until recently the Saudis had supported the Muslim brotherhood, it has been around for a rather long time, it started in 1928. The Saudis spoke out against the brother because Egypt is being taken over as is Syria by members of the Brotherhood.
outlaw did your know Mustard gas was before the first gulf war don't your and that he used on his own people and Bush didn't fine anything he just wanted the Oil period.
Palmquist1 - they used it on the Kurds. Sarin and mustard gas.
Yeah back in the late 80's and what did Reagan do? Why he tried blaming it on Iran until it was discovered Saddam did the deed. Really hdrk you need some newer fake outrages to go with your whines these are so old they make Mittens underpants look new.
didnt rummy sale that stuff to Saddam? i know there's a photo of him shaking hands over a deal.
hdrk believes in aging his whines.
outlaw,
your post 9.5-
AL QAEDA FOLLOWED BUSH INTO IRAQ.
he went into iraq, and left bin laden alone, because he had a personal vendetta against saddam hussein for threatening his daddy, and besides, as cheeeeney said, there are no good targets in afghanistan.
the bush administration (cheeeeney, scooter libby, karl rove) outed a CIA agent Valarie Plame, because her husband Joe Wilson wouldn't lie for them about WMD in iraq.
sarah palin bought into the whole "saddam hussein attacked us". you probably believe that, too.
it isn't really about whether saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction. its about, "did saddam hussein attack us on 9/11? he did NOT.
as W. bush HIMSELF said, "the biggest challenge i have as president is connecting the iraqi war to 9/11".
suzette-3194003 Al Quada had training camps in 2002 in the Anbar and Ninevah region. We invaded in 2003. Radical Sunni's supported them, Iran friendly.
whomitmay - that came from FOX NEWS TOO!
Anybody that calls GWB a "war criminal" is quite possibly stupid enough to support a miserable failure in the White house that according to Hussein Obama's bio that says thaT he has no legal right to actually hold.Why are the people that printed Hussein Obama's bio "birthers"?
Actually, it appears Judy is correct.
http:// www.politicususa.com/bush-cheney-war-crimes.html
(To get the link to work, remove the space between // and www.)
Cargiver - Please, you and Uncle Ed are killing me with laughter. This was based on The Kuala Lumpur Commission. With prisoners from Afghanistan and Iraq in Guantanamo Bay, in reference of WATER BOARDING. It wasn't signed as an executive order from the United Nations which the USA is a member of.
So what you and that Judy or whoever she is, saying in the most asinine way. Bush should be arrested for war crimes trying to defend this NATION from more 9-11's which also allowed this OBAMA to take the SPIKE THE FOOTBALL CREDIT on the call shot of BIN LADEN, which any U.S. Citizen in their right mind would of called in their sleep a WAR CRIME.
whomitmay- I can't wait to read your fantasy explanation on this one.
outlaw your are so funny I have to LOL.
Outlaw, you obviously didn't read the whole article. The last line in paragraph 7 states:
The witnesses who were tortured are also free because they were found to be innocent, but they still bear the physical and psychological scars from being rounded up like dogs, water-boarded, hung, had their fingernails pulled out with pliers, and kept in isolation by American military personnel and private contractors.
And if you read this article:
http:/ /theintelhub.com/2012/05/13/bush-found-guilty-of-war-crimes/
(Please remove the space between / and / to get the link to work.)
It states in paragraph 7:
Full transcripts of the charges, witness statements and other relevant material will now be sent to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations and the Security Council.
Will anything ever become of it? I doubt it but it's on record now.
scott you are nothing but a hateful bigot who spouts nothing but untrue facts. both bushes lied about iraq and yes they had their hands in the saudi's pockets
Caregiver - who cares, we can throw this crap all night at each other the bottom line is they murdered thousands of people. Tell it to the people of New York City and their loved one. Oh ooops IT CAME FROM FOX NEWS OOOPS
Billie - yes I'm a hateful person too. And your Obama wants to give these DETAINEES there rights. Hell he's building them a soccer field in Guantanamo. Are you out of your mind.
Outlaw, I'm not excusing what Al Qaeda did. I agree each and every one of them should pay but can you really excuse the torturing of innocent people? What kind of person does it take to pull out someone's fingernails with pliers to convince them they are innocent?
scott,
in january or feb. of 2011, bush cancelled a trip to switzerland because they could not guarantee that he would not be arrested.
w. bush is a war criminal. if not here, abroad he is considered a war criminal because he acted like one.
the bush family has business ties to the saudi's. king abduallah and W. know each other well. that's why we have seen so many pictures of W. bush hold hands with and kissing the saudi king. if you look for the bush/abduallah connection, i'm sure you will see it.
they also have business ties to the bin laden family. one might wonder if that's why he let bin laden go free. as bush himself said, "i'm not worried abut bin laden, i'm really not. he's just "one" in the war on terror".
i'll just add one more thing. many of the detainee's in gitmo are NOT guilty of anything. many innocent people have been there for years, locked in a cage. that's wrong.
would you just do some research on stuff before you come here, like fox news, and just anything that you think might be true, or that you wish were true.
Caregiver-6019954 -
Then let one of them live with you for a week. Now I'm being a little facetious LOL How many times did al Quada execute by head decapitation on video. Our troops took them in for a reason, reasons me and you really don't know nor understand. That's when me and you have to have faith in our system of government. Our military always come first, it's our survival. But something there. Even Obama knows something, he would of released them months ago.
Well, Obama has tried.
http:/ /globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/15/why-obama-cant-close-guantanamo/
I do agree we don't know all the details. I wouldn't be surprised if some or all of the detainees, if they weren't part of al Quada before, would join them if they were freed just because of the way they were treated at Gitmo. But that's just my feelings.
All of these whacked out Liberal goofballs that spout all of these claims of "war crimes" should really pick up a history book. Complain until your face falls off, but it doesn't change the nature of warfare. You committ atrocities equal to those comitted against you. Fire bombing,napalm,nukes...you have to save others by doing whatever it takes.
With today's technology there is no reason or excuse any war should last 10 yrs.
We did pick up a history book scottie only the ones we had had words in them not pictures you could color like the history books you and the tea baggers used.
Exactly what attacks did Iraq perpetrate on us? I'm not aware of any.
Scott...
Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11... It was GW Bush and FOX 'News' that constantly spread that "Big Lie"... I KNEW Saddam was innocent, long before GWB flexed his muscles to attack...
Osama bin Laden HATED Saddam Hussein! Osama wad a devout Shi'ite cleric who backed Iran in the Iran-Iraq War that killed over a million Shi'ites... Saddam Hussein was a secular Sunni despot who controlled the Shi'ites and Kurds in the Iraqi populace through fear and intimidation... Saddam Hussein served an important diplomatic purpose, by supplying a buffer against Iran's Shi'ite ambitions in the region... That is why the Saudis told Bush 41 to leave Saddam in power after Gulf War I... I can only imagine the jubilation and satisfaction Osama felt when GWB invaded Iraq, because he was doing exactly what Osama wanted...
Just because FOX 'news' says it was true, doesn't MAKE it true... Reality has a well-known liberal bias...
Gee look the tea baggers are playing Sarah Palins 50 greatest lies again.
Typical liberal distraction to keep the narrative away from a failed presidency a dismal economy, high unemployment,record # of foreclosures,home values at rock bottom,no transparency as promised,no closing Gitmo as promised (probably a good thing),no cutting deficit in half by first term as promised instead creating a 5 trillion dollar one,The Catholic churches 43 lawsuits,failed green endeavors like Solyndra,the 2010 midterms,the ever unpopular Obamacare (gotta pass the bill to find out whats in it) Rev Wright,Van Jones,Bill Ayers, Bill Maher,Acorn,record # of people on food stamps and many more. The President can not run on his record and he knows it .He must divide us by class,gender and race to have a chance.
LOL and again LOL
Do you ever get out? Or do you just scrawl this crap on the back of envelopes in your apartment?
Fox news viewers once again prove they are the most misinformed people in the country. Why even Bill Joe Jim Bob who lives in a swamp with no electricity who hasn't seen anyone in 25 years knows more then our tea bagging Fox news viewers.
Settle down whom,chris,palm your welfare check and food stamps are on the way.Trying to reason with a liberal is like trying to pick up a turd from it's clean end.
Do that often? Sounds like you're talking from experience. Too proud for welfare?
jeff once agian a right-wing nut spouting unfactual rants. first obama himself admitted that that promise went wrong, at least he admits when he is wrong. for the home debacle that happened on bush's watch (2006). the unemployment issue is slowly coming down. the deficit once again happened on the repukes watch. oh let's not forget about the jobs bill, that's the repukes fault again, they are the one's that killed it in the senate and house. i got all these facts when watching C-SPAN AND C-SPAN 2. i also watched them when they stated and i will quote, " OUR PRORITY IS TO MAKE SURE THIS PRESIDENT DOES NOT GET A SECOND TERM!" end quote. did i say i got this from c-span 1 and 2? no president could ever get anything done when the opposing party votes against them. so please take your lies and go to the repuke side of the blog. oh one more thing that food stamp remark totally a repuke thing since most americans started getting food stamps in the 90's, and yes there may be more in food stamps now but once again this is trickled down from bush. go watch c-span 1 znd 2 if you need real facts.
This is a letter from a citizen in Iowa, not only are the birthers crazy, insane and radical, so is their entire platform.
To the Iowa Republican Party,
I used to think you were a pretty straight-ahead place, what with all that flat land and healthy vegetables and honest living. I mean, Iowans rejected slavery 20 years before the Civil War and they approved interracial marriage a century before the U.S. Supreme Court. Homosexuality was decriminalized almost 30 years before the 2003 Lawrence vs. Texas decision did so nationwide. Today, control of the state’s Legislature is split between Democrats and Republicans and, a few characters aside, it is not known for political extremism. Like the corn it produces in such copious amounts, Iowa generally seemed a healthy and sensible place.
That idea of the state ended for me last week when I read the proposed platform released by the platform committee of the Republican Party of Iowa.
Are you people totally insane?
The platform is absolutely thick with ideas from the extreme right, lunatic conspiracy theories, and barely concealed hatred for President Obama and anything that smacks of multiculturalism. It sneers at science, is down on poor people, and despises, really despises, the United Nations.
Here’s a sampling of the deep-thinking goals of the Iowa GOP:
• Require candidates for president to prove that they are “natural born citizens,” beginning with the 2012 election. After all, non-citizens serving as president have been a longstanding problem in American politics.
• Reject the “claims” of global warming, which are “based on fraudulent, inaccurate information” and pushed by people using “extremist scare tactics.” The Iowa GOP “recognizes” that policies and laws designed to combat global warming are really “a plan to take our freedoms and liberties away.”
• Oppose “the diabolical collusion of the United Nations” in promoting its Agenda 21, a non-binding global sustainability plan signed by President George H.W. Bush and the leaders of 177 other nations in 1992. Like the Republican National Committee, the Iowa GOP apparently believes Agenda 21 is part of an effort to impose global political control on the U.S.
• Allow Iowa to “nullify” any federal laws it doesn’t like. Nullification was a failed legal argument made by opponents of the civil rights movement.
• Eliminate the Federal Reserve Act and implement a “sound commodity-backed currency” with a gold or silver standard.
• Fight the North American Union, “which would do away with our borders and sovereignty, and … the Amero, which would do away with our currency.” Although there actually are no secret plans to merge Mexico, the United States and Canada into a single entity — and replace our dollars with “Ameros” — that hasn’t stopped the conspiracy theorists.
• In the same vein, “oppose so-called ‘One-World Government.’ ”
• Entirely eliminate the departments of Agriculture, Education, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Energy, Interior, Labor and Commerce, along with the Transportation Safety Administration, the Food and Drug Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Endowment for the Arts, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
• Likewise, abolish the Internal Revenue Service and repeal the 16th Amendment, which legalized the federal income tax.
• Require judges to instruct jurors that in addition to judging cases, they may pass on the law at issue. Commonly known as “jury nullification,” this is a highly controversial notion that is embraced by the radical right.
• Oppose federal anti-bullying legislation because, after all, “students have the right and responsibility to stand up for themselves.”
• Pass a “stand your ground” law, like the one that many believe led to the death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla. By a large margin, most prosecutors and police oppose such laws, which make prosecuting many killings difficult.
• Allow parents to refuse to have their children immunized.
• Reject the teaching of multiculturalism.
• Only teach evolution as a theory, along with creationism.
• Repeal compulsory school attendance laws.
• Outlaw pornography.
• Impose “more severe consequences” for convicted juvenile offenders.
• Eliminate the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which oversees job safety.
• Repeal smoking bans because, as the platform statement asserts, “We believe this to be an issue of liberty.” Air quality in all businesses should be left up to owners’ “freedom to choose.”
• Repeal all hate crime laws.
• Oppose the imposition of Shariah, or Islamic religious law, in the United States, along with any other foreign or “United Nations Law.”
• Build a fence along the entire U.S. border with Mexico.
• Eliminate no-fault divorce laws and require “good cause” to get a divorce.
• End minimum wage laws.
• Oppose abortion and reject the Supreme Court’s decision authorizing it. Encourage adoption and aid to unwed mothers — but only if every dollar of support comes from the private sector.
These are the kind of things I expect to see in some crazie's diary after he dies and he's found by the smell.
Or one of our tea bagging Fox news fans might post, after all they are worrying about Obama's ties with the Muslim brotherhood, not that they can prove it but because Fox news said so. Really Reagan never did the country any good by shutting the mental hospitals, but if Reagan hadn't the GOP would have no base.
Interesting point.
When does Ed interview the Publisher that PERSONALLY vetted Hussein Obama and issued the bio stating Hussein Obama was "born in Kenya"? HIS publisher now tries to backtrack...Liberals are hilarious. Maybe Trump and BHO can have a "Dog summit" break bread with a little rover to straighten this whole misunderstanding out. LOL
Maybe the dead-serious Republicans can admit that they're happy with the mess the country's in because they deliberately made it this way-income of the rich up 275%, CEO pay in the millions-and admit that they've fought Obama every step of the way because they want the income of the rich to go up another 275%.
Maybe the ridiculous Liberals will realize that after 2 years of a Dem super majority, and 3+ years into this failures Presidency....He can be termed an immense failure due to his own policies.
If the Republicans had cooperated with him for the last 3 years instead of doing everything they could to destroy him, starting with announcing that as their intention the day he was elected, you could say that. But, as usual, you absent the behavior of the Republican party from everything that they do.
Making all you statements LIES.
You do remember...2 years of Liberal hegemony.....don't you? But hey, The American people was the ones who came out in big numbers against Bammycare. Not running on his healthcare accomplishment....is he?
Yeah, we should kick all the 26 and under kids off of their parents insurance, let the insurance companies go back to terminating people's insurance if it cost the company's too much of their unearned profits, and go back to not insuring people for pre-existing conditions. Or as the Republicans call it, "the good old days."
Chris, do you have a pre-existing condition? Yes you now can not be refused coverage if you have a pre-existing condition. Sounds great but what they do now is put an exclusion on your policy for that same condition. That means if you have heart problems anything heart related is excluded from your coverage or carries a very high out of pocket deductible.
So whoopty fricken do you get coverage for everything except what you need it for.
Please cite your source for that claim.
Other than you saying it, I can't find it anywhere.
The source is myself.
I have a pre-existing heart condition and I applied to Humana for coverage. Pre-Obama I was told to call back if I was still alive in 10 years.
After Obama passed legislation I was not refused coverage, but there was a $30,000 deductible for anything heart related on the coverage they proposed to me.
Long story short, I stuck with BCBS, which I had before my heart problem was discovered. I'm paying a substantially higher rate than a competing plan, but at least I won't be bankrupted if I have another problem.
That's how it works and that's how I know bro.
Then you admit, he got rid of pre-existing conditions. It doesn't take effect until 2014.
If the Republicans have their way, it will never take effect.
The fact that they're robbing you blind is courtesy of your insurance company, not Obama. And if the tea-party and the Republican party had worked with Obama on healthcare, rather than fighting him on it, they might have gotten the cost down.
LOL but he didn't "get rid of" preexisting conditions. He passed ineffective legislation that allowed the insurance companies to find a loophole to screw you out of any care you'd need for a pre-existing condition and at the same time not deny you coverage. That's not a fix to anything.
I don't blame Obama for what the insurance companies are doing, but passing ineffective legislation is a complete waste of time and looking the other way and letting them get away with it is contrary to the mantra that is Obama. He's responsible for that part of it.
And I've got news for you. Nationalized health care is NOT going to reduce cost. When the Federal Government gets involved with anything prices always go up and quality always goes down. It happened to Education, and Medicare drove the prices to where they are today with health care. All medical pricing is based on Medicare UCR pricing.
Don't think for a minute that Insurance companies and big pharma aren't going to profit just as much if not more with a Nationalized plan. Someone needs to process those claims and it will be subcontracted to an Insurance company, just like BCBS processes claims for FEP (The Federal Employee Program.) Getting a Federal contract to process claims is the equivalent to winning a powerball jackpot for these companies.
If he didn't get rid of pre-existing conditions, how is it you have a massive deductible for it?
If he did get ridh of pre-existing conditions, how is it that I suddenly have a massive deductible for it instead of it just being part of my standard coverage?
Getting rid of it would mean it's not a consideration in any way when an insurance carrier covers me. The legislation is written in a way that allows the insurance carrier to treat pre-existing conditions as exclusionary, therefore it's completely ineffective.
Chris/Chi, you both are right. Pre-existing coverage is possible for kids. Unfortunately, pre-existing coverage for adults won't start until Jan 1, 2014 so it doesn't apply to Chi right now so she isn't covered.
Chi, I'm sorry they couldn't figure out a way for everybody to be covered from the beginning. For what it's worth, I hope you are still around to apply for it come Jan, 2014.
This is very nice of you to say, but my health problem was discovered in December of 2004 and since then I gave up all of the things that were contributory to my illness. I am a workout freak and I'm in better physical shape than nearly everyone my age at this point.
The last stress test I took they terminated after 24 minutes of me being on the treadmill. The doctor was trying to push me to exhaustion and I beat the test.
So again, thank you for the kind words, but when this happened to me I made up my mind that I was either going to get better or die. Staying sick was not an option for me.
BTW I am male age 49
Keep up the good work! Hopefully, you'll be around for another 49 yrs! (That's not impossible.)
Caregiver you have a most fitting name.
Thanks again and with stem cell research who knows. They'll take the old worn out parts out and give us new ones. The plastic surgeons will make a fortune if we live for 150 years.
Romney. Trump. Birther issue. Perfect! If this is all the Romney campaign can come up with they have already lost the election. The only way this group of Capitalist Republicans can win the election will be to lie, cheat and try and supress votes.
Which is what they're doing.
Just cannot bring yourselves to admit that this guy can in no way run on his record,his "signature Legislation" is prepped to be struck down as illegal and unconstitutional and his own biography labeled him as Kenyan. Do you recall how just 3 years ago Bush was pretty unpopular and now.....people would die for another Bush instead of this complete failure? Everything he has touched has not turned out well for the American people.
Hundreds of thousands of people have already died for Bush.
This i gotta hear...elaborate on, oh wacky Liberal......
Ever hear of the Iraq war? You know, the "weapons of mass destruction search" that didn't exist, the "peace and freedom initiative" that didn't exist, the "mission accomplished" that wasn't?
And let's not forget the WTC that Bush and the ENTIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY failed to protect.
Wacky, eh?
You mean thre war that the dems voted for?...wacky indeed Chris. You violate signed treaties chris, those kind of things happen....buddy.
And what treaty did Iraq violate?
Just over 58,000 were killed in Vietnam..
The Iraq war 4,485!!!!!!!!!!!
Try to get some of your crap right will you!!!!
Interesting that you completely ignore the Iraqi casualties. Says a lot about you.
Oh, so if we had a Democratic President you're suggesting 9/11 wouldn't have happened?
It was the REPUBLICAN PARTY alone that failed to protect the WTC?
This has got to be one of the top ten most idiotic and delusional statements ever made on this board.
Well all GWB said when he was given the warning that OBL was planning an attack using commercial air craft was " ok you covered your ass now go away". Yep GWB sure kept you safe except for that time he didn't and OBL's minions brought the WTC towers down. To bad for you that gave away your rights for the illusion of safety.
Chitown Muscle-
You're leaving yourself out.
Republican president. Republican Congress. Republican Senate. Republican governor of New York. Republican mayor of New York. And Bush's own younger brother, Marvin, in charge of security of the WTC.
Clinton's counter-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke, met with Clinton every week. When Bush took office, he wouldn't even talk to him.
.
In his memoir, "Against All Enemies", Clarke wrote that when he first briefed Rice on Al-Qaeda, in a January 2001 meeting, "her facial expression gave me the impression she had never heard the term before." He also stated that Rice made a decision that the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism should be downgraded. By demoting the office, the Administration sent a signal through the national security bureaucracy about the salience they assigned to terrorism. No longer would Clarke's memos go to the President; instead they had to pass though a chain of command of National Security Advisor Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley, who bounced every one of them back.
At the first Deputies Committee meeting on Terrorism held in April 2001, Clarke strongly suggested that the U.S. put pressure on both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda by arming the Northern Alliance and other groups in Afghanistan. Simultaneously, that they target bin Laden and his leadership by reinitiating flights of the MQ-1 Predators. To which Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz responded, "Well, I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden." Clarke replied that he was talking about bin Laden and his network because it posed "an immediate and serious threat to the United States." According to Clarke, Wolfowitz turned to him and said, "You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don't exist."[10]
Clarke wrote in Against All Enemies that in the summer of 2001, the intelligence community was convinced of an imminent attack by al Qaeda, but could not get the attention of the highest levels of the Bush administration, most famously writing that Director of the Central Intelligence AgencyGeorge Tenet was running around with his "hair on fire".[10]
In a late November truthout interview, former Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal said, "Clarke urgently tried to draw the attention of the Bush administration to the threat of Al-Qaeda.. the Bush administration is trying to withhold documents from the 9/11 bipartisan commission. I believe one of the things that they do not want to be known is what happened on August 6, 2001. It was on that day that George W. Bush received his last, and one of the few, briefings on terrorism. I believe he told (Clarke) that he didn't want to be briefed on this again, even though Clarke was panicked about the alarms he was hearing regarding potential attacks. Bush was blithe, indifferent, ultimately irresponsible... The public has a right to know what happened on August 6, what Bush did, what Condi Rice did, what all the rest of them did, and what Richard Clarke's memos and statements were."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke
Well all GWB said when he was given the warning that OBL was planning an attack using commercial air craft
Bull$hit!!!
You never post any facts or any thing that is the truth.....
What's your point?
See above. And wake up.
But where was Clarke's proactive and concerning spirit when the Rwanda genocide took place? He was largely to blame for the Clinton administrations stand on it.
I would keep the writings of a "memoir" in perspective and recognize that there probably were embellishments to sensationalize this. Clarke is an author and his objective is to sell as many books as possible.
I'm not defending Bush. Clearly he dropped the ball and was an inept boob. To suggest that a Democratic administration would have prevented 9/11 is pure speculation on your part however. There is zero evidence to suggest this would have went any other way.
I also recognize and acknowledge that Iran had nothing to do with 9/11, and the Patriot Act is unpatriotic because it trades liberty for security. I'm against body scans and the TSA who give us the illusion of security when I know damn well we are no safer than we were on 9/10/11.
I also recognize and acknowledge that Obama has done nothing to reverse the things that are robbing us of individual freedom. Maybe it's you who should wake up.
Hmmm. Tried to change the subject to Rwanda, for god's sake.
And what should Obama reverse? What Bush started?
I assume you meant Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Typical tea baggers wanting democrats to clean up GOP messes while the GOP whine its not getting cleaned up fast enough while they throw more trash down.
Yes I meant Iraq.
And yes Obama should reverse what Bush started, which I've freely acknowledged in the above post.
I'm not trying to "change the subject to Rwanda". I'm pointing out a fact that questions the credibility of the author that YOU quoted.
And this is the difference between us.
A mess is a mess and you choose to argue and fixate on who created it rather than offer a solution. That's just a liberal cop out and you know it.
All that matters is that the CURRENT ADMINISTRATION (which happens to be Democrat) is doing nothing to clean it up.
I don't give a damn whose fault it is, and if you ever bothered to take the time to actually read any of my posts you'd see that there are many things regarding who did what that I agree with you on.
You can choose to fixate on blame if you wish but finger pointing gets us no closer to a solution.
Ignoring the Republicans' refusal to reverse course on the things they did to create the mess, steadfastly trying to continue it and blocking Obama's every attempt to fix it so they can make him look bad and regain power is a large part of the reason why very little is being accomplished.
I've yet to hear of a Republican politician that will admit to their culpability in the economic mess.
I've yet to hear it from either side actually.
Since I'm not a Republican, I agree with the rest of your statement to a point. Where we depart is that I feel Obama's ideas are being blocked largely because a lot of them are simply bad ideas (or too vague to be effective) to begin with.
One could argue that this perceived division of the parties is by design and something actually is being accomplished but it's not for our benefit, it never was, and it never will be.
Perceived division of the parties? Have you ever seen the behavior of a party like the Republicans saying "no" to everything for 4 years, even their own ideas, as soon as the president agrees with them? Has a political party ever come out and said their only goal is to throw a president out of office as soon as he is elected?
I'm saying the division is by design, and what we are perceiving as real division is a lie to divert attention away from the real truth. The agenda of both is control. The illusion they are projecting is that we have a choice in the matter when we clearly do not.
Nothing EVER REALLY changes. Not ever. No matter who is in office. The reason for that is simple. Nobody in control really wants anything to change. Not even Obama. Changing things would mean they'd have to give up control of everything and relinquish it to "we the people" and they are not going to do that. Not ever.
So instead they create the illusion of the other side being to blame or standing in the way of progress. The Government, the media and the law are ALL controlled by the elite... a club that none of us are ever going to be in.
The truth is they're both on the same side and their differences are completely trivial and irrelevant. These bickering points and vilification of the other side is nothing more than manipulation.
Do you know the difference between Capitalism and Corporatism?
Didn't think so.
scott-3860658 - If Trump is right, wouldn't that be a HOOT. Obama is going to turn up the Bain thing.
How surprising PT would have loved you. Hey look the Egress is over there----------> why don't you go see what it is.
Hundreds of thousands of people have already died for Bush.
What a line of Bull$hit that is!!!!!
I guess you don't consider Iraqi's people.
Liberals are wrapped just a bit too tightly.
Get a grip dude...
Bush didn't fly airplanes into buildings.
Do you not remember how (the other) Hussein closed UN inspectors out of sites? Or do you just throw ridiculous crap out there and hope nobody remembers what actually happened?
Sure. I remember Bush terrorizing America with "mushroom clouds on the horizon," "bio-toxic warfare", "anthrax" "Al-queda", etc.
And not a single word of it was true.
Bush is the real terrorist.
He didn't prevent it, either. The entire Republican party was too busy trying to figure out how to make a profit out of collapsing the American economy.
He didn't prevent it, either.
And just how would you have done that Sun Tzu??
See post #16.13, schmuck.
I just read post 16.13- nothing in there suggest an actionable plan to prevent the attack- the thread of the post would suggest suggest that GWB failed to stop the attack- which in effect assumes that plot was hatched, planned and effectuate all between Jan 20, 2001 and September 1, 2001-
If you want to add up dead US military(which is really a very said thing to do) say for example from 1950 to the present- the clear winner would be Democratic presidents- e.g. Truman, Kennedy and Johnson- yet they all seem to get a pass- and the only evil one who every was responsible for the death of US military was GWB-
I assume you posted this nonsense to placate yourself.
Amazing how righties will completely change the subject so they can feel like they're right even when they're not.
Change the subject? First neither left or right- labels make no sense- that said- I thought essence of your claim was that GWB has sufficient actionable knowledge to stop the 9/11 attache (or at least that seemed implicit) - the post you referenced provided no basis to support a claim of actionable knowledge to preclude the attack-
second as those that died in Iraq and Afghanistan- that really a senseless tragedy- we need to complete the pull of Afghanistannow not latter- that place is not worth the injury of one more US military let alone a death- again that said- there was in your post and the post of others the allocation of blame to GWB in terms of those deaths- which in a sense is true- but equally true is that Kennedy and Johnson were responsible for more loss of US military- in war that made even less sense then Iraq or Afghanistan-
If you want to say, globally, all wars since WWII have been unnecessary, I'd agree with that. My point about Bush is that it wasn't even a war. It was a slaughter, and ALL the reasons for it were fabricated.
I do, however, object to your giving Eisenhower a free pass. I found this:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_Eisenhower's_involvement_in_the_Vietnam_War
Overall Eisenhower increased American involvement in Vietnam compared to Truman.
In 1953 he had effectively ended the Korean War by withdrawing US troops, a very popular move back in the US. This would suggest he wanted to have less involvement in Indochina, even if only to gain popularity.
However, in 1954, France demanded more assistance from Eisenhower as she struggled at Dien Bien Phu against the Vietminh. Eisenhower gave more support than Truman had before him, though he did NOT send in ground troops. There are several main reasons for Eisenhower's increased involvement in Vietnam...
His actions were not totally supported at home - some felt that Vietnam wasn't important to the prevention of Communism (it wasn't mentioned in the list of countries that should be protected in Kennan's 'long telegram' in 1946). Also, the war on Communism wasn't completely popular; his pulling-out from Korea had been well-received.
But overall, he did indeed increase involvement in Vietnam.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_Eisenhower's_involvement_in_the_Vietnam_War#ixzz1wHsjndrW
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_Eisenhower's_involvement_in_the_Vietnam_War
And let's not forget Nixon bombing Cambodia.
He only pulled out of 'Nam because he had to.
Wasn't intending to provide a pass to Nixon or Eisenhower- although as I recall from living through those times- it was clearly Johnson and Kennedy that extended and escalated the war when each had all the opportunity to end it- my point is that just that from a "statistical" perspective since 1950 more US military died on the watch of Democratic presidents then Republican presidents- and to just focus on Bush and lay the blame by implication on Republican's ignores in my view the actions of the prior Democratic presidents-
what you see on this blog (an not suggesting that you are part of this one sided approach) is all Republicans are evil and have been evil since the beginning of time and all Democrats are saints and have been since the beginning of time- in terms wars and the death on US military there is plenty of "blame" to go around and in fact as I suggest more so for Democratic presidents.
And really Chris....would you leave the world to the tender mercies of a China or Russia as the sole worldcop? Has to be one you know. And you are a pacifist which is fine and dandy...but Pacifists have no role in the real world unfortunately. So you go on....being a sanctimonious, uneducated individual as to how the real world works....pass judgement on the good the U.S. military has done worldwide,enjoy the world that the service of the Amerecan military has created...but do us all a favor....and keep your wholly unrealistic worldview in between those pointy ears of yours, as they are pretty useless.
See post #16.13, schmuck.
That's the best you can do???
scott-3860658-
Your insults show how baseless your comments are. And how completely off-topic your thinking is. You come on this blog to insult and demean the people here, because you can't get away with it in person.
You are a coward.
Better than anything you've ever done. I include you in my response to Scott.
And you sir,a blowhard. Given your ethos...the people of eastern Europe would still be under boot. The people of Iraq would still be terrorized by a family that robbed it's wealth and killed and raped it's citizens. That you really do not care how other peoples are treated by their Government shows you really do not have a grasp of America's position in the world, and the continuing mission of the U.S. spreading personal freedom and self determination across the globe. I've been to other parts of the world.... and people other than self righteous, simplistic individuals like yourself actually admire America for her role in the world. BUT, you obviously know better than they.
The only freedom George Bush gave the Iraqis was the freedom of death.
You obviously see America as the policeman of the world. And you like it.
Typical attitude for a chickenhawk. Talk bravely and let someone else do the fighting. And suffer the consequences.
And as far as other people I've never met, I don't pretend to speak for them.
I sure as hell know better than YOU.
Neville Chamberlain proved a fool on top of a coward....see any resemblance?
To you? Definitely. He's also dead, which completes the resemblance.
to all you obama haters and troop haters, GO LIVE IN ANOTHER COUNTRY THAT HAS NO FREEDOM AND SEE HOW WELL YOU LIKE IT AND THEN COMPLAIN. otherwise take your idealogies and go talk to the repukes
Please...don't stop the meds unless told to by a physician. "troop haters" would often be used to describe Liberals attitudes towards the military. Be it Murtha calling them murderers or the relentless efforts during Iraq to defund the troops by the left.
And let's not forget the bespectacled Chris Hayes being "uncomfortable" calling the military heroes...hey,wait a minute....is that the real Chris?
You have nothing but insults. An empty suit.
Actually, that's a very real possibility. The Bush family and the Bin Laden family go back several years.
http:/ /lundissimo.info/wtc/bushbinladen.html
Granted, Osama Bin Laden was the black sheep of the family but he started hating the US because of the Persian War when George H W Bush was president.
http:/ /www.answers.com/topic/osama-bin-laden
Correction: Persian War should read Persian Gulf War.
stoemguy you sir are very dillusional on your shared lies with the repukes. bush did in fact send our troops into iraq and then so many died for his lies. as for that low-life american citizen he was a known terrorist who was not born in this country,but was naturalized. i would have killed him too. and all your other lies and fake news is defintely wr
oops sorry stormguy
well no different then LBJ- remember the gulf of tonkin- now there was a lie- oh forget LBJ was a democrat- so he couldn't possibly do no wrong-
So we got to go all the way back to the 1960's for you to find something to whine about and show that the democrats were equally guilty except we were already in a war that Ike started in 1954, so there is nothing similar between LBJ and GWB outside of what you made up in your own mind. Funny how you ignore that Nixon ran on ending the war then after taking office he escalated the war then tried starting a second war in Cambodia. But hey why let facts get in the way of your whining.
Bush Lied!!!!!! Thousands Died!!!!!
Obama Lead!!!!!! osama is DEAD!!!!
Donald Trump should seriously consider getting some mental help, he seems to be suffering from schizophrenia, why else would a man with such talent for business be so vacuous in public. Supposedly Howard Hughes who was a much better man in business as well ethics also suffered from this terrible mental malfunction.
Here's the typical Obama Liberal. - " well we got Bin Laden,TA TA spike the football."
How did we get Bin Laden? Obama wanted Guantanamo CLOSED. Then Obama wanted detainees torture stopped. The very people responsible for the slaughter of thousands of innocent people. By this location at Guantanamo, , with these methods of torture we found Bin Laden. Can you libs say thank you Mr. Bush.
Here's the best part. Obama is building a $750,000 compliment of your taxes a soccer field for these murders in Guantanamo. Are you Libs out of your mind!
Fox news misinformation marches on.
Outlawless.............TA TA we got Bin Laden!
No you did not. Seal Team 6 did. And that's your problem. Obama taking glory on somebody else courage. The man is clueless. Go play some golf BERACK and thump your chest on that one.
oh outlaw you are clueless. obama gave all the credit to the seal-6 then the others involved. and yes he can take credit for this also, he did kill the evil man that no repukes would do
outlaw, if Seal Team 6 had failed in their mission, who would you have blamed?
Billie - Caregiver I guess you'll get what you deserve, in life. You never take a decision such as this ordering courage's men into a mission. Succeed or fail for any type of political gain on either side, Democrat or Republican. I cannot recall if Reagan did with Carter on his failed mission. If Reagan did he was wrong.
No Reagan made secret deals with Iran for hostages for arms. Oh and btw yes Reagan did speak out on Carters failed rescue mission a number of times saying Carter was inept when reality was the mission failed due to equipment failure, but Reagan claimed the mission failed because Carter couldn't make up his mind.
And the Fast And Furious - Obamas Mexican Druggers what do call that brilliant move.
Even the loss of one American life is unacceptable but if you are going to give Seal Team 6 the credit for killing Bin Laden, why aren't you blaming the CIA for Fast and Furious? To me, to only place blame on our Commander in Chief and never give him credit for anything is unpatriotic. Like we were saying back on posts #10.9 & $10.10, there are probably things going on that we aren't made privey to and it has to be that way. If Obama gave us step by step details on the Bin Laden mission, do you think we (or in your case, Seal Team 6) would have gotten him?
so kennedy was killed in 63 and the war started in 65 also the republican president before kennedy and johnson was intsrtumental in starting viet nam because the french wanted our expertise then bailed on us. how do i know this you ask? i was raised in those times.
Billie - I'm not going try and answer that one. You better start breathing the air we have today. We might not have it tomorrow.
billie M- I also was lived during those times- and to suggest that Eisenhower was somehow responsibly for the war and the death of thousands of Americans- is way off the mark- the Vietnam war was all Kennedy and Johnson- stop (and granted probably had no choice) by Nixon a republican- but for the record more killed under Kennedy and Johnson then Nixon
No it was not, DDE sent the first advisers into Vietnam in 1950 the first American death happened in 1954. From 1946 until 1950 the US had been supporting the French in their effort in Vietnam. Really you need to put down your coloring book history books and learn to read real history books. You also leave out that not only did Nixon run on getting out of Vietnam but when Nixon entered office he escalated the war then attempted to start a second war with Cambodia.
Your knowledge of the War in Vietnam is nothing more than a wikipedia snap shot.
whomitmay - Truman was in Office in 1950 so what your saying is the Democrats sturred this up. I know Johnson started the real Vietnam War over the Gulf of Tonkin. He was a Democrat too wasn't he. Kennedy was pulling out of Vietnam until his assassination. MMMMMMM! whomitmay - you better check this out closer in your history books. Are you sure they were published by FOX NEWS?