• 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!

Obama Flips, Flops, and Now Fries Over Released Taliban Leader......

Perotista said:
regardless of Feinstien, for impeachment to work you first must have the backing of the American people. That backing is not there. The only backing for impeachment is among the hard core Republicans, no one else. Even with Nixon, although the Watergate hearings had been going on for quite a long time, they didn't start the Impeachment process until around June of 1974 when at least least 50% of all Americans favored it. In August of 74, he resigned. If you remember back to the Clinton impeachment, all that did was make Clinton more popular, gain more support among Americans as a whole. Bad mistake by the Republicans.

When you impeach a president, you are overturning an election. There are quite a lot of people who think Obama is doing a bad job as president, but are not willing to force him out of office. Besides, I do not think you could even get the articles of impeachment out of the Republican controlled House Judicial committee.
Click to expand...



What about Censure? Can't they censure without Impeachment? Oh and I know the Majority of the public doesn't. As most haven't heard anything other than whats been in the MSmedia.
 
Perotista said:
Afternoon CJ, Personally, I hate the word impeachment being thrown around. There is not a single chance it could succeed and could damage the Republicans a lot more than President Obama. Things are going the GOP way and there is a 50-50 chance today of them winning the senate in November. If the Republicans gain the senate that would basically as you say, make the president irrelevant.

To override a presidential veto it take 2/3rd vote in both chambers. That is 291 votes in the house and 67 in the senate.

As for foolish Americans, You did have a vulnerable sitting president. But the Republicans had a weak field of candidates to choose from and choose one that didn’t stack up against the president very good. In fact I was surprised to see he did as good as he did. He ran a very poor campaign, he and other Republicans suffered from foot in mouth disease. The choices was you had a candidate the people were losing faith in, Obama and one they didn’t quite trust, Romney.

In fact the trust factor with Romney was around since 2008. In the end the people chose the devil they knew vs. the devil they didn’t. You have to have somebody to beat somebody.
Click to expand...

Good afternoon Pero - we agree completely about impeachment and the effect it would have on Republican candidates going forward. As I said on a different thread, it will take a senior Democrat of some significance to push for impeachment hearings - otherwise, it's a non-starter.

As for Romney, he had a track record that was plain for everyone to see, from his taking over management of the Salt Lake Olympics to his Governorship in Massachusetts, to his business successes. He was hands down far superior to Obama, especially following the four year disaster that was Obama's first term. I don't care if he didn't run the best of campaigns - America has to get past this need to reward style over substance.

In order to determine how someone will perform in office you have to judge them by past performance as well as general success in life. Trust shouldn't have been an issue with Romney because he proved himself, particularly in the three areas I mention above. That's a track record you can trust, not just some mealy mouth words that a candidate spews on the campaign trail.

In any event, I sure hope talk of impeachment doesn't gain traction.
 
MMC said:
What about Censure? Can't they censure without Impeachment? Oh and I know the Majority of the public doesn't. As most haven't heard anything other than whats been in the MSmedia.
Click to expand...

Sure can, in fact that was suggested several times prior to the impeachment proceedings on Billy Boy Clinton. I'm from Georgia and I can call him Billy Boy. Although I am not sure, I think it only takes a majority vote to censure, not the 2/3rds required for impeachment.
 
MMC said:
Yeah, there are few in Congress talking about doing so? Why, you didn't think they would? Even with this type of Information coming out? One minute Obama is standing Before the Court fighting to prevent this guy from being released. Now he turns the guy loose he wanted locked up.

No.....actually they would have to go on record admitting that BO broke the Law.......but it would take Democrats showing the American People that they actually believe in the Law and not when it suits them.

Well in Chaos theory.....then the Democrats will need someone to run as by the time all of it comes out. Hillary wont be able to run and will be damaged beyond repair and the country won't tolerate Joe shooting his Warning shot with his Shotgun at a Putin Intrusion. So back to square one for the Left again and without hope and only a lil bit of change in their pockets.

Naturally it takes the Republicans doing what they say when they say it.....this is the only Possible way for anything to be done. As has been pointed out. The Demos wont lead the Charge.....and talk about Ethics, Conduct, and believing in the Law.

I doubt the Republicans will do it.....but then again. It depends on how much Pressure from their Constituients. The Usual in American Politics.
Click to expand...

Just one point I'd like to make about this MMC.

As you know, I'm no apologist for Obama, but as I recall the administration was trying to get the release of Bergdahl a few years back and the same five Taliban prisoners were the "ransom" at that time too and the Congress, in camera, said no. Now, I can see that the President and the administration would not want to see one of the five Taliban prisoners released without getting something in return for it. Having this guy walk free takes away him being used as one of the bargaining chips so I fully understand the President and the administration wanting to keep him locked up. There is a level of double talk involved when you tell a court one thing and the American people another, but from the perspective of those trying to work out a deal for Bergdahl's release, it makes perfect sense to me. In principle - but not how it was carried out, against the law of the land.
 
Perotista said:
regardless of Feinstien, for impeachment to work you first must have the backing of the American people. That backing is not there. The only backing for impeachment is among the hard core Republicans, no one else. Even with Nixon, although the Watergate hearings had been going on for quite a long time, they didn't start the Impeachment process until around June of 1974 when at least least 50% of all Americans favored it. In August of 74, he resigned. If you remember back to the Clinton impeachment, all that did was make Clinton more popular, gain more support among Americans as a whole. Bad mistake by the Republicans.

When you impeach a president, you are overturning an election. There are quite a lot of people who think Obama is doing a bad job as president, but are not willing to force him out of office. Besides, I do not think you could even get the articles of impeachment out of the Republican controlled House Judicial committee.
Click to expand...


Calls grow for Obama's impeachment over Bergdahl prisoner exchange.....


On Wednesday, Sen. Lindsey Grahan, R-S.C., warned that Republican lawmakers will push for Obama's impeachment if he unilaterally releases more prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, The Hill reported. The administration, emboldened by last weekend's prisoner exchange, is considering releasing another prisoner from Guantanamo Bay. “It’s going to be impossible for them to flow prisoners out of Gitmo now without a huge backlash,” he said. “There will be people on our side calling for his impeachment if he did that.”

Calls for Obama's impeachment, however, have already begun. On Tuesday, former GOP Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., said he believes the House of Representatives "should file articles of impeachment against Barack Hussein Obama."

A petition at change.org, started on Wednesday by bloggers Diane Sori and Craig Andresen, also demands Obama be arrested and impeached "on the grounds of 'aiding and abetting the enemy' as per 18 U.S. Code § 2339A." As of this writing, the petition has garnered 455 supporters.

Appearing this week on "Fox and Friends," Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed with Andy McCarthy, who said Obama should be impeached. Napolitano, Katie Pavlich said at Townhall, went so far as to accuse Obama of aiding the enemy with the release of what has been called the "Taliban Dream Team."

On Wednesday, however, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said Republicans are not currently discussing impeachment, saying Republicans simply do not have the votes in the Senate.....snip~

Calls grow for Obama's impeachment over Bergdahl prisoner exchange - National Policy & Issues | Examiner.com

The reason for the noise Pero.....is BO was planning on releasing another. ;)
 
Last edited:
MMC said:
Well.....myself I never called for the Impeachment of BO, even though I can't stand the guy and know he is nothing more than BS artist and always has been. But I have talked about using it as a tool or something to hold over his head to try and get BO to acting Right. But now.....I can no longer just accept the I-word as just being used as a Tool or something to hang over BO's head. With this Information that was declassified and is now out. With all the Other scandals.....and now BO breaking the Law on this issue, and never contacting the 8 Chairs to let them know what was going on. Then coming out and TRYING to PLAY on my Military Brethren.....AND that's AND.....outright Lying to the American People about these Taliban Leaders. Placing ALL Americans and our Assets overseas at greater Risk of Harm.....I now join the ranks of those calling For the Immediate Impeachment of Barack Obama, and I am on the J.O.B.

Lindsey Graham stated over the Weekend if that BO attempted another move like this The Republicans will draw up articles of Impeachment.....and with what Feinstein Stated. The Demos.....can't give BO any cover. Their careers are more important than BO who is on the downslide and will be done with Politics going forward. As none will ever go to him for any Advice on any Subject.....other than. How not to Lead and govern a Country. Where he is an Expert at that.

Now for all your viewing pleasure.....what do those who have been running around and Defending BO. Making BS up and Playing on the issue of We Never leave our people behind. Its amazing to see all these Non military Libs and Progs talking about this and about what they know nothing of. Now lets see you come to the dense of BO and His dog, uhm Team I mean.
rant.gif




Obama Flips on Taliban Commander.....
Three years ago, Obama went to court to keep a Taliban leader at Gitmo. Now he's out.

Khairkhwa.jpg


While some top Obama administration officials are downplaying threats posed the five senior Taliban officials released from Guantanamo in the prisoner exchange for Bowe Bergdahl, not long ago the administration went to court to prevent one of those men from going free. In a decision on May 31, 2011, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, ruled in favor of the government--and "Respondent Barack Obama"--in its effort to keep Khairulla Khairkhwa in detention. That decision, once classified "Secret," has since been declassified and released.

Today, with these Taliban leaders free in Qatar and already looking likely to rejoin the fight against America, top Obama administration officials are seeking to reassure Americans that the threats are minimal--or, in the words of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, "sufficiently mitigated." But just three years ago, the same administration argued in court against Khairkhwa's writ of habeas corpus because of his senior position with the Taliban, his close relationship with Taliban leader Mullah Omar, and his support for Taliban forces fighting against the United States.

The case provides a window on the Obama administration's concerns--concerns that many top intelligence and military officials continue to have. The court summarized the government's case this way. "The government contends that the petitioner, a former senior Taliban official, is lawfully detained because he was part of Taliban forces and purposefully and materially supported such forces in hostilities against the United States," the court wrote in the introduction to its opinion.....snip~

Obama Flips on Taliban Commander | The Weekly Standard


To all those that Lean to the Right and Independents.....Contact you Reps and Senators. Contact the MS media and Keep telling them. We want him IMPEACHED. He now has caused the Risk of Harm to this country and its people to Increase on scale that we have fought to decrease for the Last decade.

BO has no excuse now....nor can he be allowed to continue on with his People who don't have a clue about Anything concerning the governing of this Country and ABSOLUTELY no clue.....on how to Keep US SAFE.
angry20.gif
Click to expand...
We should have shot those guys a long time ago.

Bush's fault.
 
Perotista said:
Afternoon CJ, Personally, I hate the word impeachment being thrown around. There is not a single chance it could succeed and could damage the Republicans a lot more than President Obama. Things are going the GOP way and there is a 50-50 chance today of them winning the senate in November. If the Republicans gain the senate that would basically as you say, make the president irrelevant.

To override a presidential veto it take 2/3rd vote in both chambers. That is 291 votes in the house and 67 in the senate.

As for foolish Americans, You did have a vulnerable sitting president. But the Republicans had a weak field of candidates to choose from and choose one that didn’t stack up against the president very good. In fact I was surprised to see he did as good as he did. He ran a very poor campaign, he and other Republicans suffered from foot in mouth disease. The choices was you had a candidate the people were losing faith in, Obama and one they didn’t quite trust, Romney.

In fact the trust factor with Romney was around since 2008. In the end the people chose the devil they knew vs. the devil they didn’t. You have to have somebody to beat somebody.
Click to expand...

Let me remind you of all the things you said fellow Georgians felt about Romney.
And that was before Newt Gingrich put out that fim "when Romney came to town", bankrolled by Adelson.

Too bad Romney went back on all his responsible positions just to get the nomination.
The most egregious, which most Americans still miss, was when he said he wouldn't even allow one dollar in tax increase for ten dollars in cuts.
Only Huntsman had enough brains and integrity to say yes .
Sen. Coburn had originally proposed 1-for-8 and said that could go down.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Just one point I'd like to make about this MMC.

As you know, I'm no apologist for Obama, but as I recall the administration was trying to get the release of Bergdahl a few years back and the same five Taliban prisoners were the "ransom" at that time too and the Congress, in camera, said no. Now, I can see that the President and the administration would not want to see one of the five Taliban prisoners released without getting something in return for it. Having this guy walk free takes away him being used as one of the bargaining chips so I fully understand the President and the administration wanting to keep him locked up. There is a level of double talk involved when you tell a court one thing and the American people another, but from the perspective of those trying to work out a deal for Bergdahl's release, it makes perfect sense to me. In principle - but not how it was carried out, against the law of the land.
Click to expand...


Actually CJ the first deal was 21 lowlevel Taliban and 1 million dollars and to be released out of a prison in Afghanistan.....Then they came with the 5 in in Dec of 2013. This was 2011.....and BO was doing all he could to keep this guy locked up then.

Now he has been released as one of the 5.

Also like I showed Pero.....BO was planning on another release too. Which is why Graham is out on front with this and Rubio is playing catch up. Since he has been out fundraising.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Good afternoon Pero - we agree completely about impeachment and the effect it would have on Republican candidates going forward. As I said on a different thread, it will take a senior Democrat of some significance to push for impeachment hearings - otherwise, it's a non-starter.

As for Romney, he had a track record that was plain for everyone to see, from his taking over management of the Salt Lake Olympics to his Governorship in Massachusetts, to his business successes. He was hands down far superior to Obama, especially following the four year disaster that was Obama's first term. I don't care if he didn't run the best of campaigns - America has to get past this need to reward style over substance.

In order to determine how someone will perform in office you have to judge them by past performance as well as general success in life. Trust shouldn't have been an issue with Romney because he proved himself, particularly in the three areas I mention above. That's a track record you can trust, not just some mealy mouth words that a candidate spews on the campaign trail.

In any event, I sure hope talk of impeachment doesn't gain traction.
Click to expand...

Agreed on the impeachment side of things. Here is something from a CNN article that sums it up nicely why Romney lost:

But an adviser to one prominent Republican governor who campaigned for Romney said the campaign's problems were more fundamental.
"Obama ran a very smart but very small campaign, which he could afford to do because he was running against a very small opponent," this Republican said. "The fundamentals of the election were the same all along, and they were this: When there's an incumbent no one wants to vote for, and a challenger that no one wants to vote for, people will vote for the incumbent. At no point did Romney give people any reason to vote for him, and so they didn't."

Analysis: Why Romney lost - CNN.com

If you remember back to our days on Politico, I kept saying time and time again, Romney didn't give the people a reason to vote for him. He ran a campaign based on the fact he wasn't Obama and he expected that to win for him. He needed to introduce himself to the American voter and run some positive ads about himself and his vision for the future, he never did. He prefered to run nothing but attack ads and the voters never really got a chance to know him.
 
Republicans are not interested in the actual action of Impeachment.
Cantor's plan all along has been to keep that hope alive in the TEA-base to keep them revved up and voting.
Thus, there will be no action on Immigration to piss off the House.
In spite of the bi-partisanship with Sen. Rubio, who is still heckled by TEApees.

I do expect Cantor to throw us a few bones in October, to quell the anger .
Perotista said:
regardless of Feinstien, for impeachment to work you first must have the backing of the American people. That backing is not there. The only backing for impeachment is among the hard core Republicans, no one else. Even with Nixon, although the Watergate hearings had been going on for quite a long time, they didn't start the Impeachment process until around June of 1974 when at least least 50% of all Americans favored it. In August of 74, he resigned. If you remember back to the Clinton impeachment, all that did was make Clinton more popular, gain more support among Americans as a whole. Bad mistake by the Republicans.

When you impeach a president, you are overturning an election. There are quite a lot of people who think Obama is doing a bad job as president, but are not willing to force him out of office. Besides, I do not think you could even get the articles of impeachment out of the Republican controlled House Judicial committee.
Click to expand...
 
calamity said:
We should have shot those guys a long time ago.

Bush's fault.
Click to expand...


Heya Calamity. :2wave: I would have shot them.....who brought them in? I would like to ask them why they took them alive.
 
MMC said:
Heya Calamity. :2wave: I would have shot them.....who brought them in? I would like to ask them why they took them alive.
Click to expand...

Simpler times?
 
calamity said:
Simpler times?
Click to expand...

Well, Right now we as far as everybody Knows. We are still in a War on Terror. We have Labeled the Taliban as Terrorists. Currently as we speak. There about 50 of them in Qatar. Mainly Leader types. Where we could drone their Ass back to Allah.

So the real question is.....Why isn't BO doing so. Considering he has the chance to prove.....he just took out 50 of their top command. Hurting this Organization.....back to a new beginning.

Can't win the war doing Nothing. KnowhatImean.
 
MMC said:
Calls grow for Obama's impeachment over Bergdahl prisoner exchange.....


On Wednesday, Sen. Lindsey Grahan, R-S.C., warned that Republican lawmakers will push for Obama's impeachment if he unilaterally releases more prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, The Hill reported. The administration, emboldened by last weekend's prisoner exchange, is considering releasing another prisoner from Guantanamo Bay. “It’s going to be impossible for them to flow prisoners out of Gitmo now without a huge backlash,” he said. “There will be people on our side calling for his impeachment if he did that.”

Calls for Obama's impeachment, however, have already begun. On Tuesday, former GOP Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., said he believes the House of Representatives "should file articles of impeachment against Barack Hussein Obama."

A petition at change.org, started on Wednesday by bloggers Diane Sori and Craig Andresen, also demands Obama be arrested and impeached "on the grounds of 'aiding and abetting the enemy' as per 18 U.S. Code § 2339A." As of this writing, the petition has garnered 455 supporters.

Appearing this week on "Fox and Friends," Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed with Andy McCarthy, who said Obama should be impeached. Napolitano, Katie Pavlich said at Townhall, went so far as to accuse Obama of aiding the enemy with the release of what has been called the "Taliban Dream Team."

On Wednesday, however, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said Republicans are not currently discussing impeachment, saying Republicans simply do not have the votes in the Senate.....snip~

Calls grow for Obama's impeachment over Bergdahl prisoner exchange - National Policy & Issues | Examiner.com
Click to expand...

Rubio is right. Remember this, during Nixon in the House Judiciary Committee 6 Republican House member voted along with 21 Democrats to impeach Nixon, 11 Republican house member voted against. Can you get 6 Democrats on the House Judicary Committee today to vote to impeach Obama? I would say not a single one. Now the full House never got the chance to vote on the impeachment of Nixon, he resigned first.

Nixon resigned when Goldwater informed him that at least 15 of the 42 Republican senators would vote for conviction in the senate if it got that far. Do you have 15 Democratic senators that would vote for impeachment of Obama, you would be lucky to get one. Actually you would need 22 Democratic senators. You're missing the point and not learning from history here. First the people must support impeachment, it has to have a semblance of bi-partisanship. If not the Republicans are going to come off looking like witch hunters out for revenge or vengeance.
 
NIMBY said:
Let me remind you of all the things you said fellow Georgians felt about Romney.
And that was before Newt Gingrich put out that fim "when Romney came to town", bankrolled by Adelson.

Too bad Romney went back on all his responsible positions just to get the nomination.
The most egregious, which most Americans still miss, was when he said he wouldn't even allow one dollar in tax increase for ten dollars in cuts.
Only Huntsman had enough brains and integrity to say yes .
Sen. Coburn had originally proposed 1-for-8 and said that could go down.
Click to expand...

I remember it well, there was no energy down here for Romney. Georgia Republicans didn't trust him, in the end they did vote for him, but any Tom, Dick or Harry would have done just as good, that is as long as it wasn't Obama. Georgia Republicans voted against Obama, not for Romney.
 
Perotista said:
Rubio is right. Remember this, during Nixon in the House Judiciary Committee 6 Republican House member voted along with 21 Democrats to impeach Nixon, 11 Republican house member voted against. Can you get 6 Democrats on the House Judicary Committee today to vote to impeach Obama? I would say not a single one. Now the full House never got the chance to vote on the impeachment of Nixon, he resigned first.

Nixon resigned when Goldwater informed him that at least 15 of the 42 Republican senators would vote for conviction in the senate if it got that far. Do you have 15 Democratic senators that would vote for impeachment of Obama, you would be lucky to get one. Actually you would need 22 Democratic senators. You're missing the point and not learning from history here. First the people must support impeachment, it has to have a semblance of bi-partisanship. If not the Republicans are going to come off looking like witch hunters out for revenge or vengeance.
Click to expand...


Do you know 78 are cleared to go back to their country and or a third country. 78 out of 149. Cooks, bodyguards, drivers, all low level people. No money, no jobs, some don't even have family to go back to. Where do you think they are going and what they will do?
 
NIMBY said:
Republicans are not interested in the actual action of Impeachment.
Cantor's plan all along has been to keep that hope alive in the TEA-base to keep them revved up and voting.
Thus, there will be no action on Immigration to piss off the House.
In spite of the bi-partisanship with Sen. Rubio, who is still heckled by TEApees.

I do expect Cantor to throw us a few bones in October, to quell the anger .
Click to expand...

I disagreed with President Obama on the ACA and on the release of the 5 high ranking Taliban Officers to obtain Bergdahl’s release. Not trying to get Bergdahl back. But just because I disagree with his policies on these two things doesn’t mean he deserves to be impeached. I do not think some folks can ever learn from history and are bound to repeat its mistakes over and over. It took a year and one half of Watergate hearings and the presentation of hard evidence of high crimes before half of America would support impeachment of Nixon. Then in June of 1974 that percentage was 51%, barely half.

I haven’t seen anything the president has done to warrant talk of impeachment. If he broke federal law by not notifying congress about the swap, then censure him if you must. But again make sure it is at least semi bi-partisan. That could be as small as 20 Democratic votes in the house and 6 in the senate. But when things like impeachment and censure come up over policy differences, I get nervous.
 
Perotista said:
I disagreed with President Obama on the ACA and on the release of the 5 high ranking Taliban Officers to obtain Bergdahl’s release. Not trying to get Bergdahl back. But just because I disagree with his policies on these two things doesn’t mean he deserves to be impeached. I do not think some folks can ever learn from history and are bound to repeat its mistakes over and over. It took a year and one half of Watergate hearings and the presentation of hard evidence of high crimes before half of America would support impeachment of Nixon. Then in June of 1974 that percentage was 51%, barely half.

I haven’t seen anything the president has done to warrant talk of impeachment. If he broke federal law by not notifying congress about the swap, then censure him if you must. But again make sure it is at least semi bi-partisan. That could be as small as 20 Democratic votes in the house and 6 in the senate. But when things like impeachment and censure come up over policy differences, I get nervous.
Click to expand...


Yeah see.....I think he can be censured and they don't have to Impeach.


Another point is BO and his Pen.....trying to get around closing Gitmo. Yet what the Demos want are whatever top remaining terrorists that nobody wants and have to be tried can be put in a US Prison on US Soil.

Now should the Demos and BO be allowed to do that? They already have proven they cannot act competently in the face of adversity. Lets not forget Benghazi and Not putting the Nation on the Highest Alert at the Anniversary of 911. Allowing us to get hit with our assets overseas. Then there is all his other scandals he has running.

One thing is for certain.....he needs to be made to worry. About Breaking the Law.....Repeatedly!
 
MMC said:
Actually CJ the first deal was 21 lowlevel Taliban and 1 million dollars and to be released out of a prison in Afghanistan.....Then they came with the 5 in in Dec of 2013. This was 2011.....and BO was doing all he could to keep this guy locked up then.

Now he has been released as one of the 5.

Also like I showed Pero.....BO was planning on another release too. Which is why Graham is out on front with this and Rubio is playing catch up. Since he has been out fundraising.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying. Makes my point, well, pointless.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Thanks for clarifying. Makes my point, well, pointless.
Click to expand...

Nah it brought up good points.....as like I just discovered about the other 78 that's cleared to be released. All grunts who are broke and some with no family. So we know where they will be going.

Also we really don't know how many are back on the battlefield. As the only way we know. Is if they come up dead or get wounded.
 
MMC said:
Do you know 78 are cleared to go back to their country and or a third country. 78 out of 149. Cooks, bodyguards, drivers, all low level people. No money, no jobs, some don't even have family to go back to. Where do you think they are going and what they will do?
Click to expand...

If history is a guide, roughly 30% will go back to the battlefield. But I think we ought to wait and see if they are released. With all this brouhaha over the five leaders, the administration may not want to chance it. At least not yet.
 
Perotista said:
If history is a guide, roughly 30% will go back to the battlefield. But I think we ought to wait and see if they are released. With all this brouhaha over the five leaders, the administration may not want to chance it. At least not yet.
Click to expand...

Well Under Bush.....with some released by all and even a Democratic House and Senate. They did manage to release the Future Leader of AQIL and 2 Ansar al Sharia groups. All low level schmoes that went back home touted as a hero into the fight and given command. That would be Ansar al Sharia Yemen and the one in Libya.

So I guess their 30% produce some very capable people who want some payback on the US. In any way they can get it.....huh?
 
Perotista said:
I remember it well, there was no energy down here for Romney. Georgia Republicans didn't trust him, in the end they did vote for him, but any Tom, Dick or Harry would have done just as good, that is as long as it wasn't Obama. Georgia Republicans voted against Obama, not for Romney.
Click to expand...
Yet there is a solid Black minority that will still vote for any DEM candidate in the South,
as you'll see with Travis Childers, Michelle Nunn, Kay Hagan, David Pryor, Allison Grimes and Michelle Landrieu.
Going into the 5th inning, I feel pretty good with that line-up.

As for the rest, Begich, Peters, Braley, Udall, Warner and Merkley are all seasoned and capable, but also have their vulnerabilities.
MT is next, then SD, WV, and KS as chances for a DEM upset.
IMO, the first 12 listed are clearly in play both ways .
 
Perotista said:
If history is a guide, roughly 30% will go back to the battlefield. But I think we ought to wait and see if they are released. With all this brouhaha over the five leaders, the administration may not want to chance it. At least not yet.
Click to expand...
What do you propose to do with the rest of GITMO "prisoners/terrorists/uncharged", since this round of swaps went so well?
Do we really need to have to elect a Republican President again to have a chance at a bi-partisan foreign policy ?
 
MMC said:
Yeah see.....I think he can be censured and they don't have to Impeach.


Another point is BO and his Pen.....trying to get around closing Gitmo. Yet what the Demos want are whatever top remaining terrorists that nobody wants and have to be tried can be put in a US Prison on US Soil.

Now should the Demos and BO be allowed to do that? They already have proven they cannot act competently in the face of adversity. Lets not forget Benghazi and Not putting the Nation on the Highest Alert at the Anniversary of 911. Allowing us to get hit with our assets overseas. Then there is all his other scandals he has running.

One thing is for certain.....he needs to be made to worry. About Breaking the Law.....Repeatedly!
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton could have been censured too, the votes were there from both sides of the aisle. A censure is showing the displeasure of congress to the president. A strong disapproval of either him or his actions. Disregarding the law could very well call for a censure. Depending on the reasons gathering some Democratic votes may be possible. But like everything else the backing of such a sanction would have to be supported by the American people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom