The President Obama Thread - Part 5

[Kelly]

True. The President is far removed in terms of actually being able to tell the IRS what you do, that its near impossible to find any proof Obama signed off on anything. Politically though Americans understand being unfairly targeted by the IRS, but they don't associate it with Obama with being involved.

To me, its not necessarily that he signed off on them to do what they did. The fact that the head of his campaign, she met with the heads of the IRS, and in particular the area where this came from....THAT bothers me somewhat.

But, my biggest problem with ALL OF THESE SO CALLED SCANDALS, is...
1. His seemingly lack of knowledge on any of them...
2. When he is finding out about the problems....ie: when we do, on the news.
3. The people HE HAS PUT IN CHARGE OF THESE AREAS, seemingly had no idea of what was going on...
4. Or, the same people above, have amnesia.

Those are problem areas for me, because that shows lack of leadership (which he promised we would see...), and lack of transparency (which was one of the mantras of his campaign in 2008).

 

[Comics N' Toons]

The bottom line that none of you seem to realize is that OBAMA doesn't care. Why do you guys act like he's ignorant etc.? He knows everything and he doesn't care about you or the media or anything. He will do whatever he wants.

 

[Shazam]

The bottom line that none of you seem to realize is that OBAMA doesn't care. Why do you guys act like he's ignorant etc.? He knows everything and he doesn't care about you or the media or anything. He will do whatever he wants.

Yep....They gave him 4 more years.....he's locked in.......

 

[Shazam]

The Nobel Peace Prize was ridiculous.

But considering Yasser Arafat also got one, it's meaningless and a joke anyway.

LOL!! so true! t:

 

[Shazam]

I think because the IRS scandal may be easier for the General Public to be outraged about than the whole AP and NSA stuff. When it comes to national security in this post 9/11 world , I think alot of Americans are more willing to give the Federal Governmnet lee way to go to extremes in the name of security.

From the media's pov , Its alot harder to convince people their government is going too far in those type of matters than it is with situations like the IRS . Additionally ,most of people don't know even know what the AP is, and they don't really like/trust journalists anyway so the press has a harder time getting joe public to see things their way on that issue.

I think the Bengazi issue which has gotten alot of play in the beltway press core, but is kinda of muddle as far as most Americans are concerned. The issue suffers from the "Its happened over there , why should I care" syndrome as it relates to most non political junkies.

The only reason its a muddle is because the media wanted it to go away! Only FOX gave this the full attention it deserved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DS-tQFV-dU
This is ridiculous!!!

They want this to go away. The media are his guard dogs....they use to be the watch dogs for us....

CBS, NBC, CNN and most of rest of the media would have covered the hearing and gave more attention to it if it had been a Republican in the White House. This further supports the assertion that the media has bias for the Democratic party and a bias against the Republican party. The media should start doing its job by covering real news that affects American lives instead to BS stories on celebrities and lurid, sensational "fluff" topics that are more appropriate for show like TMZ and ET Tonight.

 

[Frodo]

Yeah the MSM does have a liberal bias , though I would point out that the MSM were pretty much in lock step with the Bush and his administration even going back to the 2000 election , and only really started opposing him after Katrina.

They supported the war in Iraq, NSA wiretapping ,and were kinda neutral on torture the whole way through. In other words , when Bush implimented these policies , they stood by him or remained silent. They were still Liberal but that certainly didn't stop them from cheerleading the Bush administration for six years.

Then they threw their weight behind Obama and he became "the one" so to speak and have only now started to go after him.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Iraq was a war based on US pushing for it, while in the case of Libya the US was more of a passenger in a war that was going to happen one way or another

It's still the same. Your logic of overthrowing a horrible and awful dictator who murdered his own people can be applied towards Iraq. The circumstances that built up to it are different, but the end goals of violating another nation's sovereignty, overthrowing the legitimate government, messily attempting to install a pro-Western government with limited success, and having that government adopt economic policies that are favorable to the West are the exact same things we did with Iraq. People who arguing in favor of Libya yet argue against Iraq are complete and total hypocrites.

 

[SV Fan]

It's still the same. Your logic of overthrowing a horrible and awful dictator who murdered his own people can be applied towards Iraq. The circumstances that built up to it are different, but the end goals of violating another nation's sovereignty, overthrowing the legitimate government, messily attempting to install a pro-Western government with limited success, and having that government adopt economic policies that are favorable to the West are the exact same things we did with Iraq. People who arguing in favor of Libya yet argue against Iraq are complete and total hypocrites.

I think Libya was a much bigger success(and more importantly a bad place of alot cheaper) then Iraq. I just happy the US didn't feel the need to spend 8 years in Libya and didn't feel the need to go against the world doing it

The only reason its a muddle is because the media wanted it to go away! Only FOX gave this the full attention it deserved.

How come FOX news didn't give the 12 embassies that got bombed during Bush's term any attention they deserve, oh yeah because like Frodo said most people view it well it happened over their we can care less. Did the diplomatic facility in Beirut which got bombed 2 times in the year before the 1984 election while having over 80 deaths combined have any effect on Reagan?

 

[Webfoot Hero]

I think Libya was a much bigger success(and more importantly a bad place of alot cheaper) then Iraq. I just happy the US didn't feel the need to spend 8 years in Libya and didn't feel the need to go against the world doing it



How come FOX news didn't give the 12 embassies that got bombed during Bush's term any attention they deserve, oh yeah because like Frodo said most people view it well it happened over their we can care less. Did the diplomatic facility in Beirut which got bombed 2 times in the year before the 1984 election while having over 80 deaths combined have any effect on Reagan?

Difference between those and Benghazi is that those 12 had clear, concise stories and responses from the President and his team while Benghazi hasn't. Plus, Benghazi had a prolonged attack that could have had something done as it was being committed while the others were typically over once a bomb went off.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Judging by your response, I doubt you know anything about those other attacks.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Judging by your response, I doubt you know anything about those other attacks.

You talking to me or SV Fan?

 

[SV Fan]

Difference between those and Benghazi is that those 12 had clear, concise stories and responses from the President and his team while Benghazi hasn't. Plus, Benghazi had a prolonged attack that could have had something done as it was being committed while the others were typically over once a bomb went off.

But the problem is 12 embassies is a bad place of alot places to get bombed in an 8 year period and in the case of Reagan it was the exact same place that had issues, once can be like well ok crap happens, the 2nd time was like why weren't they ready.

 

[Hobgoblin]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/07/us-usa-security-records-idUSBRE9560VA20130607

Obama Defends Loss of Privacy for Security

 

[Widowmaker]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/07/us-usa-security-records-idUSBRE9560VA20130607

Obama Defends Loss of Privacy for Security

I have to say President Obama is talking a good game, but if there was the transparency that he promised that this wouldnt be half the issue that it is. In a post 9/11, Patriot Act world we should expect the bending and flexing of our privacy, that's a give in, but not this way. He essentially got his hand caught in the cookie jar for the third time in such a short amount of time. I voted for him twice and lately Ive been sorely disappointed.

 

[Schlosser85]

Maybe I'm just cynical but I'm not at all convinced he was ignorant about any of this.

I think it's naive to just automatically make that assumption.

 

[Hobgoblin]

I voted for Obama twice and I really want to believe him when he says that the eavesdropping that is being done is minimal.Still, I am uncomfortable with taking someone in a position of nearly supreme power at their word. I want to believe that the IRS spends our tax money wisely but clearly that is a foolish thing to think. What I want to think is very different from what the facts are telling me.

I wouldnt mind impeachment.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I think Libya was a much bigger success(and more importantly a bad place of alot cheaper) then Iraq. I just happy the US didn't feel the need to spend 8 years in Libya

Without a doubt that Libya was a more successful mission militarily. And it was much better planned than the non-planning that was involved with Iraq. Still doesn't change the fact that it's the exact same damn thing as Iraq. Just far more successful.....for now.

and didn't feel the need to go against the world doing it

The reason why nations such as France, Germany, and Russia were against going into Iraq was because they were fearful of losing their own economic interests in Iraq. They were afraid that their companies would have their contracts be declared null and void in favor of American and British companies (which ended up happening). Their opposition to Iraq is extremely hypocritical considering that they supported doing the exact same thing in Libya. And to make it even worse, even their intelligence agencies believed in the same conclusions that the American and British intelligence concluded, that Iraq had WMDs.

So basically it's okay to overthrow one brutal tyrant that everyone knew didn't have WMDs and had an intentionally weak military and was going to get overthrown anyways, but it's not okay to overthrow an even more brutal tyrant that everyone thought had WMDs.

Basically from what I'm getting from those who support Libya but oppose Iraq is: it was their guy (Obama) who led the charge as opposed to the one they dislike (Bush) and thus it's automatically okay even though it's the exact same damn thing.

 

[Schlosser85]

It doesn't really matter if illegal wiretapping is "minimal".

 

[hippie_hunter]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/07/us-usa-security-records-idUSBRE9560VA20130607

Obama Defends Loss of Privacy for Security

And this is the guy who called for a return for a pre-9/11 terror policy.

 

[Thundercrack85]

You talking to me or SV Fan?

You. Several of those attacks were preplanned, and the government got warnings well ahead of time.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Wiretapping is the least of it.

Data mining should be a lot more disconcerting to people.

Emails, chats, file transfers, photos, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)

That makes wiretapping seem quaint.

 

[SV Fan]

Basically from what I'm getting from those who support Libya but oppose Iraq is: it was their guy (Obama) who led the charge as opposed to the one they dislike (Bush) and thus it's automatically okay even though it's the exact same damn thing.

Obama didn't lead, he followed. It should also be noted that one difference in Libya and Iraq is I didn't see a big push by people in Iraq to get rid of Sadam, it seemed the World with the US along for the ride jumped into a natural strung movement to get rid of Gaddafi. I would argue Libya is more like Syria then it was Iraq

While I get what you are saying that we went in and removed a dictator was the basic outcome to both Iraq and Libya there was huge difference in how we got that result and results we got(mainly cost, planning, reasons stated to go there(ie no BS excuse, they basically wanted to help the rebels) and I believe Libya had a much better outcome when all is said and done). Iraq basically was one huge clusterf--- from start to end. The logic going into Iraq was ridiculous(ie i might be more open helping the Iraq people if they were pushing the war themselves, but WMD was beyond idiotic)

All that being said when you support rebel groups in places like Libya and Syria, you better be sure they are an improvement on the current dictator(and I would argue in the case of Libya that is true). Libya was the US's most successful war since Grenada. lol

You. Several of those attacks were preplanned, and the government got warnings well ahead of time.

I think it's just a case crazy people do crazy crap all the time and you have to expect something to slip through the cracks every now and then. I don't see why Benghazi is viewed any different. I think in the case of most of these bombings, you can find screwups at some level but simple fact is you can't stop 100% of all the crap that happens.

Personally I think the problem is the questions ask are wrong. More then asking how did this happen, they should be asking why are these people crazy enough to do these things(a question the Congress will never ask because chances are it wouldn't put the US in a nice spotlight)

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Dem. Senator disputes Obama’s claim that Congress was briefed

 

[Webfoot Hero]

You. Several of those attacks were preplanned, and the government got warnings well ahead of time.

Still, the US embassies did have security posted with them and local law enforcement agencies were brought in right away to deal with the attacks, unlike in Benghazi. Plus, Bush and his administration never tried to spin the motives of the attacks as anything else but Islamic terrorism related to opposition to America's foreign policy, not on a video that none of the attackers apparently were aware of that was the initial explanation for such attack.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, I'm not going to defend Obama. But, my point is no one made a fuss when embassies were attacked under Bush - or at least not this extent. The embassy in Karachi was attacked three times, resulting in multiple deaths.

Doubt most people know where Karachi is without using Google.