I'm sorry, this thread is about that? Nice attempt to derail. Not going to bother with it. Want to blather on and on about it go ahead, you're pretty simple to ignore when you're yammering on about pointless things.
Of course you missed the point, it's convenient to your perverse equivalency you're running here.
I merely provided a clear example of Obama lying to demonstrate that Obama was not exaggerating or abusing rhetorical license as Bush might be guilty of regarding citing intelligence reports.
Are you going to simultaneously complain that he didn't appoint someone with exerience, and THEN complain he appointed someone from Washington? This isn't using the same "washington players" that was previously the type used for the CIA, instead he went with a person with a more business and management background. I'm not saying its the right choice, but it is a different direction. And its not a "lie".
Panetta is a longtime Washington insider, exactly the sort of Washington player that Obama railed against when he promised change to avoid the same result you get when you continue using the same Washington players.
And Panetta is only one of several like Hillary, Rahm, Holder, and his other two recent picks at DoJ who were also Clinton appointees.
This is why I asked if those Democrats who voted for Obama's promise of "change" felt that they were lied to.
Did he indicated he'd utilize ALL new players? Did he indicated they'd only be new to politics, to democratic politics, or that they'd be new ones other than the republicans we've been seeing? Congrats, assuming, just like the left.
He was unequivocal. His message was clear. New players to play a new game to realize new outcomes.
Instead, we get Clinton retreads and as we're now seeing with his economic plans, the same old Democratic model of priming the pump to spur economic activity.
Same players, same game, same outcome.
Awwww how, CUTE! You made the same statement you're relying on, without a link backing it up, and without any context to it AT ALL, in really really big letters! Isn't that just special.
I didn't make that statement.
Obama made that statement.
You didn't catch that?
Doesn't really prove a damn thing except my point that you're taking a statement and assuming and interpreting it to your will and then stating he's "lieing". Thanks.
My goodness...
The guy ran on a platform of change. He consistently argued that he was bringing change. He argued that he'd use new players.
There's nothing to assume into his own campaign declarations and promises.
Now, excuse me while I continue to ignore your hyper partisan, hypocritical blather in exchange for reading useful, worth while posts.
Hyper-partisan?
What? Like Democrats aren't similiarly complaining about this?
Why are you ignoring the plain reading of Obama's own campaign declarations?