• 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!

Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan war

Re: Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan w

Totally disingenuous. You Joe, you are a liberal, your moniker denotes it, your words for the past 5 + years shout it, and you are a liberal plain and simple.

This is what I mean, leaning liberal doesn't mean by any reasonable stretech of the imagination that I speak for all how lean liberal or that we are all one voice, agreeing on all things, speaking in unison as one. because you don't get this, you always completely miss the point.


You mean like calling your opponents "Idiots" because they don't agree with you?

Another thing you get wrong. Not my oppenents or those who disagree with me, but actual idiots. If you believe dissent equals treason, you're an idiot. If you buy into those type of idiotic arguments that those calling democrats tratiors have used, you're an idiot. You can disagree without being an idiot, but you can't use idiot reasoning and not be an idiot.

So again you got it wrong.

However, that is not to say that some of what opponents of the wars have done isn't traitorous.

I have not seen anyone give an actual example of anything actuallt treasonous. I no of no one actually charged with treasoon, which suggests those making the claim get it wrong. Most talked about dissent and critcism of the president as being treasonouos.
 
Re: Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan w

ANSWER THE QUESTION!


j-mac

J, it is disingenuous to ask a question that hs nothing to do with what we're talking about. I don't even know if anyone actually did this, and It was not part of our discussiona t all. As I have no idea what game you're trying to paly, I have to ask for more detail.
 
Re: Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan w

J, it is disingenuous to ask a question that hs nothing to do with what we're talking about. I don't even know if anyone actually did this, and It was not part of our discussiona t all. As I have no idea what game you're trying to paly, I have to ask for more detail.

It does have to do with our discussion, but as usual you will obfuscate. You just said:

I have not seen anyone give an actual example of anything actuallt treasonous.

*sigh* so since you won't play along I'll highlight whom I am talking about here...

By Bill Wilson, KIN Senior Analyst

WASH—Apr 5—KIN-- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit with Bashar Assad drew praise from various sectors of the world as a good first step toward peace in the Middle East, but her act of insolent treason brought anarchy to American foreign policy. Leaders of the terrorist groups Islamic Jihad and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, as reported by WorldNetDaily, praised Pelosi.

These two organizations have carried out every recent terrorist attack in Israel and are based in Syria. And the Syrian Foreign Minister said that Pelosi’s visit took place because Americans and Europeans had realized their policy of isolating Syria has failed. Pelosi also found praise from former President Jimmy Carter, who recently wrote a book in support of the Palestinian terrorists.

Strange how praise for Pelosi’s visit with one of the world’s foremost sponsors of terrorism is coming from the terrorists themselves and a former U.S. President whose bungling of foreign policy thirty years ago accelerated the development of modern terrorism.

One has to ask: do these people, Pelosi and the likes of Carter, actually believe they are doing right by legitimizing terrorists and the policies of governments who kill Christians and Jews, who oppress women, who sell children into slavery and prostitution, who sponsor the death of the innocent around the world? Or are they just willing dupes? Or has the desire for fame and power overridden their good sense about America’s national defense?

Here is an example of just how far off track Pelosi is: The Washington Post reports that Pelosi announced she delivered a message to Assad from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. She also announced that Assad was ready to "resume the peace process." The problem: Olmert, according to his office, never entrusted any such message to Pelosi. Olmert’s office told Pelosi that Assad often has said he wanted peace, but there has been no change in his country’s peace policy. The Post concluded, “In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.”

Fact is, the Constitution has granted foreign policy power to the chief executive of the nation-the President—for a reason. And the problem is that there are so many 1960’s radical anarchist communist-influenced politicians in Congressional leadership that they believe their personal missions far outweigh the laws of the land. Pelosi not only committed an act of treason by going against American policy toward an enemy during a time of war, she also misrepresented the position of another country to a terrorist-sponsoring regime. Proverbs 30:12 says, “There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.”

Results of Treason — Pelosi Brings Anarchy To U.S. Foreign Policy

Pelosi not only did this in total defiance of those in the government telling her not to, she then sent her little minions Slaughter, and Lantos to talk with the PKK in hopes of disrupting supply lines out of Turkey bound for American troops.

Then came back home to introduce a resolution condemning Turkey for a Genocide over a hundred years old so that she knew would piss off the Turks.

Did that Pelosi/Syria meeting amount to treason? And what of Carter?


Pelosi is a traitor scum, and should be in prison right now awaiting execution.


j-mac
 
Re: Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan w

It does have to do with our discussion, but as usual you will obfuscate. You just said:

You'll have to explain how as I don't see it.


*sigh* so since you won't play along I'll highlight whom I am talking about here...


Oh, I see, you're trying to throw in the partisan misreading of events to fit the tortured narrative of the idiot class. I gottcha now. But no, it had little to do with what we're talking about. Try reading the different opinions and note she was not charged with treason. If she had truely committed treason, she would have been charged. It may not have been a bright move, or even a proper move, but it was not teason. Nor should you accept your mindreading silly reasoning that idiot class attach to her motivations. ;)
 
Re: Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan w

You'll have to explain how as I don't see it.





Oh, I see, you're trying to throw in the partisan misreading of events to fit the tortured narrative of the idiot class. I gottcha now. But no, it had little to do with what we're talking about. Try reading the different opinions and note she was not charged with treason. If she had truely committed treason, she would have been charged. It may not have been a bright move, or even a proper move, but it was not teason. Nor should you accept your mindreading silly reasoning that idiot class attach to her motivations. ;)


Ok Genius, explain to me how working with a militant group to cut supplies to your own troops engaged in battle is not treason?


j-mac
 
Re: Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan w

Ok Genius, explain to me how working with a militant group to cut supplies to your own troops engaged in battle is not treason?


j-mac

J, that's just your silly interpretation of what she was doing. If she was actually do that, she would have been charged with treason. That's what I mean about being willing to accept any silliness tossed at you about democrats.
 
Re: Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan w

J, that's just your silly interpretation of what she was doing. If she was actually do that, she would have been charged with treason. That's what I mean about being willing to accept any silliness tossed at you about democrats.

Just like Jane Fonda and Joan Baez were charged with treason. Right?

Actually, what Pelosi did, was violate the Logan Act.
 
Re: Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan w

Just like Jane Fonda and Joan Baez were charged with treason. Right?

Actually, what Pelosi did, was violate the Logan Act.

No, they weren't. And they didn't do what j claims either. They were just being foolish stars and not telling state secrets or troop movements.
 
Re: Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan w

Actually, what Pelosi did, was violate the Logan Act.

Why Pelosi's Trip Did Not Violate Federal Law

"The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country."

The circumstances of Speaker Pelosi's trip to Syria were similar. The Bush administration was well aware of the "nature and purpose" of the proposed trip, and while President Bush discouraged it and is now harshly criticizing it, the executive branch took no action to prevent Pelosi from leaving the country. Indeed, the White House has not mentioned the Logan Act in relationship to Pelosi's trip.

Some other Americans accused of, but never prosecuted for violating the Logan Act include Ross Perot for his efforts to locate U.S. POWs in Southeast Asia and former Speaker of the House Jim Wright for his relations with the Sandinista government. In 1984, Reverend Jessie Jackson's trips to Syria, Cuba and Nicaragua drew accusations of Logan Act violations from President Reagan. And who can forget Jane Fonda's many controversial trips to Southeast Asia in protest of the Vietnam War? Yet, as far as the Congressional Research Service has been able to determine, no American has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act.

Why Pelosi's Trip Did Not Violate Federal Law

In medicine we say a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Too many on your side are easily swayed by venomous pndents because they know just enough to get it completely wrong. You may well disagree with her actions, and with good reason, but that doesn't mean she broke any law.
 
Re: Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan w

No, they weren't. And they didn't do what j claims either. They were just being foolish stars and not telling state secrets or troop movements.

They are ****ing traitors, straight up.

Article 3, section 3, of The Constitution of The United States defines treason as:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Fonda and Baez are guilty as hell, of treason and should receive the death penalty for their crimes, per The Constitution.
 
Re: Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan w

Why Pelosi's Trip Did Not Violate Federal Law

"The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country."

The circumstances of Speaker Pelosi's trip to Syria were similar. The Bush administration was well aware of the "nature and purpose" of the proposed trip, and while President Bush discouraged it and is now harshly criticizing it, the executive branch took no action to prevent Pelosi from leaving the country. Indeed, the White House has not mentioned the Logan Act in relationship to Pelosi's trip.

Some other Americans accused of, but never prosecuted for violating the Logan Act include Ross Perot for his efforts to locate U.S. POWs in Southeast Asia and former Speaker of the House Jim Wright for his relations with the Sandinista government. In 1984, Reverend Jessie Jackson's trips to Syria, Cuba and Nicaragua drew accusations of Logan Act violations from President Reagan. And who can forget Jane Fonda's many controversial trips to Southeast Asia in protest of the Vietnam War? Yet, as far as the Congressional Research Service has been able to determine, no American has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act.

Why Pelosi's Trip Did Not Violate Federal Law

In medicine we say a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Too many on your side are easily swayed by venomous pndents because they know just enough to get it completely wrong. You may well disagree with her actions, and with good reason, but that doesn't mean she broke any law.

Pelosi not only didn't have the authority to negotiatte foriegn policy, but she was negotiating policy that was contrary to the existing official foreign policy of the United States.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
 
Re: Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan w

Why Pelosi's Trip Did Not Violate Federal Law

Nonsense, pure and simple. Pelosi sent Lantos, and Slaughter to meet with the PKK. An insider tells of the plan here.

Tom Lantos and Louise Slaughter democrat from New York who had the actual meeting with Haji Amadi, the leader of the PJAK, which is an arm of the PKK who were tasked with handling the battle within Iraq, and other PKK and KCK officers. He said that one PKK officer Marrett Kereillin(sp) has even bragged on this and other meetings in interviews in English and Arabic and Farci language publications. This is all the source could and likely will say...He feels if we continue to talk about it the story could break in the national media...the possibility of some Kurd or even a PKK member or a sister terrorist organization might be willing to discuss what they know or one of the intelligent sources, French, US, Israeli, Iraqi, who already are aware of the meeting will finally see the need to leak it...or even a democratic staffer will come forward with the facts... If this is true we have a bunch of people in the congress of the United States who have committed treason...

PELOSI PERFIDY PLANNED US DEFEAT - Atlas Shrugs


j-mac
 
Re: Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan w

Nonsense, pure and simple. Pelosi sent Lantos, and Slaughter to meet with the PKK. An insider tells of the plan here.




j-mac

Once again j, you present mindless opinion as if it were fact. There were no charges and it wasn't what you claim. But you demonstrat how easy it is to lead those willing to suspend disblief in order to support a partisan view. Congrats.

:lamo
 
Re: Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan w

Pelosi not only didn't have the authority to negotiatte foriegn policy, but she was negotiating policy that was contrary to the existing official foreign policy of the United States.

Again, you're ignoring the rebuttal, and the fact she was not charged in any way.
 
Re: Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan w

today:

Military leaders and President Obama’s civilian advisers are girding for battle over the size and pace of the planned pullout of U.S. troops from Afghanistan this summer, with the military seeking to limit a reduction in combat forces and the White House pressing for a withdrawal substantial enough to placate a war-weary electorate.

At a meeting of his war cabinet this month, "the president made it clear that he wants a meaningful drawdown to start in July,” said one of the officials, who, like the others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to share internal discussions.

The divergent views about the withdrawal illustrate the unresolved tensions between Obama’s military and civilian advisers over the decision to send more troops to Afghanistan in a last-ditch attempt to salvage a failing war. Although military officials contend that the surge has enabled U.S. forces to blunt the Taliban in key areas over the past several months, White House officials remain skeptical that those gains will survive without the presence of American troops and without U.S. financial aid.

Complicating the debate is growing concern in Washington about the war’s cost, which is estimated to reach $120 billion this year, and polls that show increasing disenchantment, even among Republicans, with a mission that has turned into a complicated nation-building endeavor.

As both sides prepare for what they expect to be a vigorous debate, they are seeking ways to achieve their favored outcome by limiting what the other can do. For the military, that means crafting a narrow set of choices, because there is general agreement that reduction numbers need to originate in the field.

Two senior military officials said one set of options being developed by staff officers in Kabul involves three choices: the removal of almost no forces; the withdrawal of a few thousand support personnel, including headquarters staff, engineers and logisticians; and the pullout of a brigade’s worth of troops — about 5,000 personnel— by culling a battalion of Marines in Helmand province that was added after the surge, a contingent of soldiers training Afghan security forces and an Army infantry battalion in either the country’s east or far west.

Within Obama's war cabinet, a looming battle over pace of Afghanistan drawdown - The Washington Post

worry
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom