• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House in damage control mode as potential scandals pile up [W:378]

shrubnose said:
The GOP lost the election so now they are trying to win by other means.

Not going to work because the American people aren't buying it..
Click to expand...

Did I miss a more recent election? how do you know what the American people are buying?

answer - you don't.
 
pbrauer said:
Sorry, Con, you are wrong!!!


David Ignatius: Benghazi intelligence revealed - The Washington Post

The Romney campaign may have misfired with its suggestion that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about the Benghazi attack last month weren’t supported by intelligence, according to documents provided by a senior U.S. intelligence official.

“Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

The CIA document went on: “This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.” This may sound like self-protective boilerplate, but it reflects the analysts’ genuine problem interpreting fragments of intercepted conversation, video surveillance and source reports.....
​
Click to expand...

Btw, if you believe this you also have to conclude that the CIA is as useless as tits on a board. Time to defund them and save ourselves the trouble of trying to recover from their next black box project.

So, which is it? Are they covering some POTUS ass, and their own, or should they be ****canned for total incompetence?
 
Conservative said:
Yes, your hero has done a wonderful job getting people to drop out of the labor force, letting the Muslim Brotherhood take over Egypt, North Korea build a nuke, letting our Ambassador die, allowing Iran to grow influence in Iraq and around the rest of the region. He is a true legend in your mind.
Click to expand...

Wow...that was completely off point. Nice string of talking points unrelated to the discussion. I guess deflect and shuffle is your mantra?
 
shrubnose said:
The GOP lost the election so now they are trying to win by other means.

Not going to work because the American people aren't buying it.





"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
Click to expand...

What you want to ignore

Obama?s tapped-out trust - Washington Post

Obama’s tapped-out trust

By George F. Will, Published: May 16

Leaving aside the seriousness of lawlessness, and the corruption of our civic culture by the professionally pious, this past week has been amusing. There was the spectacle of advocates of an ever-larger regulatory government expressing shock about such government’s large capacity for misbehavior. And, entertainingly, the answer to the question “Will Barack Obama’s scandals derail his second-term agenda?” was a question: What agenda?

The scandals are interlocking and overlapping in ways that drain his authority. Everything he advocates requires Americans to lavish on government something that his administration, and big government generally, undermines: trust.

Liberalism’s agenda has been constant since long before liberals, having given their name a bad name, stopped calling themselves liberals and resumed calling themselves progressives, which they will call themselves until they finish giving that name a bad name. The agenda always is: Concentrate more power in Washington, more Washington power in the executive branch and more executive power in agencies run by experts. Then trust the experts to be disinterested and prudent with their myriad intrusions into, and minute regulations of, Americans’ lives. Obama’s presidency may yet be, on balance, a net plus for the public good if it shatters Americans’ trust in the regulatory state’s motives.

Now, regarding Obama’s second-term agenda. His reelection theme — reelect me because I am not Mitt Romney — yielded a meager mandate, and he used tactics that are now draining the legitimacy that an election is supposed to confer.

One tactic was to misrepresent the Benghazi attack, lest it undermine his narrative about taming terrorism. Does anyonethink the administration’s purpose in manufacturing 12 iterations of the talking points was to make them more accurate?

Another tactic was using the “federal machinery to screw our political enemies.” The words are from a 1971 memo by the then-White House counsel, John Dean, whose spirit still resides where he worked before going to prison. Congress may contain some Democrats who owed their 2012 election to the IRS’s suppression of conservative political advocacy.

Obama’s supposed “trifecta” of scandals — Benghazi, the IRSand the seizure of Associated Press phone records — neglects some. A fourth scandal is power being wielded by executive branch officials (at the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) illegally installed in office by presidential recess appointments made when the Senate was not in recess.

A fifth might be from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who solicited funds from corporations in industries that HHS regulates to replace some that Congress refused to appropriate. The money is to be spent by nonprofit ¬— which does not mean nonpolitical — entities. The funds are to educate Americans about, which might mean (consider the administration’s Benghazi and IRS behaviors) propagandize in favor of, Obamacare and to enroll people in its provisions. The experienced (former governor, former education secretary, 10 years in the Senate) and temperate Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)compares this to the Iran-contra scandal, wherein the Reagan administration raised private funds to do what Congress had refused to do — finance the insurgency against Nicaragua’s government.

Obama’s in¬cred¬ibly shrinking presidency is a reminder that politics is a transactional business, that trust is the currency of the transactions and that the currency has been debased.

For example:

Obama says: Trust me, I do not advocate universal preschool simply to swell the ranks of unionized, dues-paying, Democrat-funding teachers. Trust me, I know something not known by the social scientists who say the benefits of such preschool are small and evanescent.

Obama says: Trust me, the science of global warming is settled. And trust me that, although my plans to combat global warming, whenever the inexplicable 16-year pause of it ends, would vastly expand government’s regulatory powers, as chief executive I guarantee that these powers will be used justly.

Obama says: Trust me. Although I am head of the executive branch, I am not responsible for the IRS portion of this branch.

Obama says: Trust me, my desire to overturn a Supreme Court opinion (Citizens United) that expanded First Amendment protection of political speech, and my desire to “seriously consider” amending the First Amendment to expand the government’s power to regulate the quantity, content and timing of political advocacy, should be untainted by what the IRS did to suppress advocacy by my opponents.

Because Obama’s entire agenda involves enlarging government’s role in allocating wealth and opportunity, the agenda now depends on persuading Americans to trust him, not their lying eyes. In the fourth month of his second term, it is already too late for that.
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
Glad to hear that Susan Rice didn't mislead the American people because the CIA talking points were wrong. Nice revisionist history
Click to expand...
Since when have you argued for totally open govt when it comes to CIA ops? (and please, don't think I am totally 100% behind what the CIA was doing in Libya.)
 
clownboy said:
Btw, if you believe this you also have to conclude that the CIA is as useless as tits on a board. Time to defund them and save ourselves the trouble of trying to recover from their next black box project.

So, which is it? Are they covering some POTUS ass, and their own, or should they be ****canned for total incompetence?
Click to expand...
Covering his ass for what? I believe that neither the administration nor the CIA wants the terrorist know what we know or don't know. Law enforcement agencies work this way as well
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Since when have you argued for totally open govt when it comes to CIA ops? (and please, don't think I am totally 100% behind what the CIA was doing in Libya.)
Click to expand...

Why then was Susan Rice sent out to represent the Obama Administration when she didn't have all the facts?
 
Conservative said:
The country lost with this last election as the economic results show. Too bad rhetoric trumps reality in the Obama supporter world.
Click to expand...




The country didn't lose, those on the right lost.

Most Americans aren't buying what they are trying to sell.

Deal with it.
 
Conservative said:
Do you understand that content was in that Op Ed Piece? do you know what content is?
Click to expand...

All of the content in the Op-Ed piece was his personal opinion. If you look closely you will see that there was not a single piece of hard evidence in there. You do know the difference between hard evidence and personal opinion, I'm assuming.....do you?
 
Conservative said:
You are so right, protesters always go to spontaneous rallies with rocket propelled grenades and heavy arms. You want to believe that Rice and the CIA didn't lie to you, so be it, nothing it seems is going to ever change your mind about the competence of this President and his Administration. He was too busy fund raising to take an active role but that is apparently ok for liberals never take responsibility for any failures.
Click to expand...
Do you believe the Obama administration had the obligation to tell the world the exactly what the knew about the attack at Benghazi? Would President Bush do this, if he were president on Sept 11, 2012?
 
shrubnose said:
The country didn't lose, those on the right lost.

Most Americans aren't buying what they are trying to sell.

Deal with it.
Click to expand...

How much of the 6.8 trillion dollar debt is yours and are you paying taxes to fund the debt service?

Are you one of the 21 + million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers today?

Did you lose one of the 10 million jobs lost during this Presidency?

Sounds to me like you are one of those who buys rhetoric and ignores results
 
pbrauer said:
Do you believe the Obama administration had the obligation to tell the world the exactly what the knew about the attack at Benghazi? Would President Bush do this, if he were president on Sept 11, 2012?
Click to expand...

I think the Obama Administration had no business sending Susan Rice out to give out information that was proven to be a lie. I further think that since no one has been fired for incompetence the Obama Administration shows its own incompetence.
 
disneydude said:
All of the content in the Op-Ed piece was his personal opinion. If you look closely you will see that there was not a single piece of hard evidence in there. You do know the difference between hard evidence and personal opinion, I'm assuming.....do you?
Click to expand...

Your opinion noted as is your partisan hackery
 
Conservative said:
Obama?s tapped-out trust - Washington Post
Click to expand...

I think the Washington post has jumped the gun. On approval ratings and the like, I do not pay any attention to the Republicans as they will always knock the president and the Democrats, because they will always defend the president. I look to see what independents think. Right now, independents view the president favorable at the 46% mark, up from 45% last week. The presidents was at 48% last November among independents when he won re-election. So the bottom line is none of these scandals has stuck with them or changed how they view the president. That may change latter as independents do not really pay much attention to the happenings in Washington. But for now, the president is doing okay in their book.
 
Conservative said:
Sounds to me like you are one of those who buys rhetoric and ignores results
Click to expand...





I'm one of those who voted for the winner in the election last November.

I'll bet that you will be voting for the loser in 2016.






"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP."
 
iguanaman said:
The Congress ended the Vietnam war by withdrawing funds. Nixon had little to do with it. America lost all credibility by staying involved in a conflict even when it was obvious we could not win. Thanks tricky Dick.
Click to expand...

Obvious to whom it was a war America could not win?

In fact the United States could have won quite handily if it were not for the left wing in the country. Now Americans cannot win any war, as we have seen. against the most rag tag opponents in the world.

The first thing the left asks for is 'an exit strategy', not a winning strategy. This is the only time in history such an open request was ever made to a leadership contemplating war. 'When do we retreat?' is now on the mind of every leftist.
 
disneydude said:
LOL....oh...I get it. You post an Op-Ed piece as supposed "proof" of your point....the OP-Ed is just a blog of Will's opinion and spin on it, lacking any attempt to use hard evidence...and because I point out to you that there is a difference between hard evidence and personal opinion....I am a partisan hack......gotcha.
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't read the op ed piece because specific content is listed along with the link to that information, information such as 12 revisions of the talking points which isn't opinion but rather fact. You continue to prove that facts don't matter at all to an Obama supporter
 
disneydude said:
LOL....oh...I get it. You post an Op-Ed piece as supposed "proof" of your point....the OP-Ed is just a blog of Will's opinion and spin on it, lacking any attempt to use hard evidence...and because I point out to you that there is a difference between hard evidence and personal opinion....I am a partisan hack......gotcha.
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't read the op ed piece because specific content is listed along with the link to that information, information such as 12 revisions of the talking points which isn't opinion but rather fact. You continue to prove that facts don't matter at all to an Obama supporter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom