The President

[RetiredGySgt]

Ok quick questions?

What would you think if ANY President announced he did not know what his justice Department was doing on two HIGH Profile cases, that he was never informed and he never heard about it? And then he announced after being informed of two serious offenses committed by the Justice Department that he had complete faith still in his Attorney General?

What would you think if ANY President was purposefully and willingly kept in the Dark about any suspect action by his Administration? And then claimed that he never knew but that it was a regular practice to have his aides and handlers keep him in the dark?

What would you think if ANY President not only did not know that his Ambassador was being denied security but when the shit hit the fan he claimed for 3 weeks the murder of the Ambassador was due to a video and a street riot, AFTER being briefed within hours of the attack and informed in no uncertain terms that it was a pre planned terror attack coinciding with the date it was carried out?

Well we know what most Liberals think, they find nothing wrong with the President being clueless, out of touch and leaderless. Much better he be these things then an obvious criminal.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Ok quick questions?

What would you think if ANY President announced he did not know what his justice Department was doing on two HIGH Profile cases, that he was never informed and he never heard about it? And then he announced after being informed of two serious offenses committed by the Justice Department that he had complete faith still in his Attorney General?

What would you think if ANY President was purposefully and willingly kept in the Dark about any suspect action by his Administration? And then claimed that he never knew but that it was a regular practice to have his aides and handlers keep him in the dark?

What would you think if ANY President not only did not know that his Ambassador was being denied security but when the shit hit the fan he claimed for 3 weeks the murder of the Ambassador was due to a video and a street riot, AFTER being briefed within hours of the attack and informed in no uncertain terms that it was a pre planned terror attack coinciding with the date it was carried out?

Well we know what most Liberals think, they find nothing wrong with the President being clueless, out of touch and leaderless. Much better he be these things then an obvious criminal.

Any wonder why you were only a gunny sarge?

Any wonder why your just a partisan hack? jack ass...

 

[rightwinger]

Ok quick questions?

What would you think if ANY President announced he did not know what his justice Department was doing on two HIGH Profile cases, that he was never informed and he never heard about it? And then he announced after being informed of two serious offenses committed by the Justice Department that he had complete faith still in his Attorney General?

What would you think if ANY President was purposefully and willingly kept in the Dark about any suspect action by his Administration? And then claimed that he never knew but that it was a regular practice to have his aides and handlers keep him in the dark?

What would you think if ANY President not only did not know that his Ambassador was being denied security but when the shit hit the fan he claimed for 3 weeks the murder of the Ambassador was due to a video and a street riot, AFTER being briefed within hours of the attack and informed in no uncertain terms that it was a pre planned terror attack coinciding with the date it was carried out?

Well we know what most Liberals think, they find nothing wrong with the President being clueless, out of touch and leaderless. Much better he be these things then an obvious criminal.

Sounds like Iran Contra doesn't it?

 

[konradv]

I can recall a president that was the darling of the right who sold weapons to one set of murderers and gave the proceeds to another set of murderers, but claimed he knew nothing about it. Sort of puts the Obama "scandals" in perspective, doesn't it?

 

[Big Black Dog]

The President knows full well what is, and has, been going on. He's lying his ass off - as usual.

 

[Sherry]

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Typical left wing responses. Dig up Republican "scandals", no matter how less-scandalous they were, and use them as excuses or as justifications to explain why Obama's scandals don't matter.

One way or another, heads will roll. Is it any wonder why the leftists don't like private citizens owning GUNS?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ok quick questions?

What would you think if ANY President announced he did not know what his justice Department was doing on two HIGH Profile cases, that he was never informed and he never heard about it? And then he announced after being informed of two serious offenses committed by the Justice Department that he had complete faith still in his Attorney General?

What would you think if ANY President was purposefully and willingly kept in the Dark about any suspect action by his Administration? And then claimed that he never knew but that it was a regular practice to have his aides and handlers keep him in the dark?

What would you think if ANY President not only did not know that his Ambassador was being denied security but when the shit hit the fan he claimed for 3 weeks the murder of the Ambassador was due to a video and a street riot, AFTER being briefed within hours of the attack and informed in no uncertain terms that it was a pre planned terror attack coinciding with the date it was carried out?

Well we know what most Liberals think, they find nothing wrong with the President being clueless, out of touch and leaderless. Much better he be these things then an obvious criminal.

Apparently not.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Online NewsHour: Presidents and Attorneys General -- December 3, 1997

 

[The Rabbi]

I have come to the conclusion that Obama is guilty as hell.

Let's say you were president and suddenly through news reports you discovered that one of you agencies was engagin in illegal behavior. What would you do?

I think most people would call for a thorough and impartial investigation. Perhaps appoint a special prosecutor, or the Inspector General. Or the FBI. They would have broad powers to subpoena and take testimony. I would include Congress through the House Ethics committee or somethng in this. Some members would be privy to the ongoing investigation. When the report came out I would make it public. Then I would fire people and recommend the Justice Dept prosecute criminal acts.

Instead what has Obama done? He has changed his story several times. He has deflected blame. He has asserted his innocence. He has done the very opposite of what someone wanting to prosecute and eliminate wrongdoing would do.

The logical conclusion is that he is part of it, or at least covering for subordninates, much like Nixon did.

 

[The Rabbi]

Online NewsHour: Presidents and Attorneys General -- December 3, 1997

Another scandal-ridden Democrat administration. The only president impeached in the 20th century.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I have come to the conclusion that Obama is guilty as hell.

Let's say you were president and suddenly through news reports you discovered that one of you agencies was engagin in illegal behavior. What would you do?

I think most people would call for a thorough and impartial investigation. Perhaps appoint a special prosecutor, or the Inspector General. Or the FBI. They would have broad powers to subpoena and take testimony. I would include Congress through the House Ethics committee or somethng in this. Some members would be privy to the ongoing investigation. When the report came out I would make it public. Then I would fire people and recommend the Justice Dept prosecute criminal acts.

Instead what has Obama done? He has changed his story several times. He has deflected blame. He has asserted his innocence. He has done the very opposite of what someone wanting to prosecute and eliminate wrongdoing would do.

The logical conclusion is that he is part of it, or at least covering for subordninates, much like Nixon did.

You are an idiot.

The President does not appoint special prosecutors.
The House ethics committee deals with ethics issues in the HOUSE.
The President does not make recommendations to the Justice Department.
The IG already investigated.
Obama has not changed his story.
He has not asserted his innocence.
He has done what is appropriate.

COMPLETE FAIL ON ALL POINTS

Congratulations.

 

[Clementine]

I thought the president would have regular meetings with all his appointees and the chiefs of all depts to keep up to date on things. Either that doesn't happen or he knows that the people he appointed will have a certain agenda. I can't believe he is at all surprised by any of this and he's been more defensive than outraged at what his administration has been up to. Instead of demanding investigations and promising the people that heads will roll over all these crimes, he defended people and, predicatably, denied any knowledge.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I am always interested in what some people just cannot believe.

 

[The Rabbi]

I have come to the conclusion that Obama is guilty as hell.

Let's say you were president and suddenly through news reports you discovered that one of you agencies was engagin in illegal behavior. What would you do?

I think most people would call for a thorough and impartial investigation. Perhaps appoint a special prosecutor, or the Inspector General. Or the FBI. They would have broad powers to subpoena and take testimony. I would include Congress through the House Ethics committee or somethng in this. Some members would be privy to the ongoing investigation. When the report came out I would make it public. Then I would fire people and recommend the Justice Dept prosecute criminal acts.

Instead what has Obama done? He has changed his story several times. He has deflected blame. He has asserted his innocence. He has done the very opposite of what someone wanting to prosecute and eliminate wrongdoing would do.

The logical conclusion is that he is part of it, or at least covering for subordninates, much like Nixon did.

You are an idiot.

The President does not appoint special prosecutors.
The House ethics committee deals with ethics issues in the HOUSE.
The President does not make recommendations to the Justice Department.
The IG already investigated.
Obama has not changed his story.
He has not asserted his innocence.
He has done what is appropriate.

COMPLETE FAIL ON ALL POINTS

Congratulations.

He first tried to blame Bush, pointing out this was under a Bush appointee. Next he tried to say that the IRS was an independent agency. Then he fired the temporary director, who hadn't been in office very long and was slated to leave soon anyway. We have many unanswered questions and more and more comes out every day.
He has done nothing to inspire confidence that he is serious about finding out exactly what happened and punishing those guilty. Now we have the woman who first broke it, in a scripted moment, taking the 5th. Was she advised to do this? Why does she not want to talk? Wouldn't the president, her boss, want her to reveal as much as possible, to clear this up?
You are a dunce.

 

[Spoonman]

the left loves to live in the past rather than solve the problems of the present.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I have come to the conclusion that Obama is guilty as hell.

Let's say you were president and suddenly through news reports you discovered that one of you agencies was engagin in illegal behavior. What would you do?

I think most people would call for a thorough and impartial investigation. Perhaps appoint a special prosecutor, or the Inspector General. Or the FBI. They would have broad powers to subpoena and take testimony. I would include Congress through the House Ethics committee or somethng in this. Some members would be privy to the ongoing investigation. When the report came out I would make it public. Then I would fire people and recommend the Justice Dept prosecute criminal acts.

Instead what has Obama done? He has changed his story several times. He has deflected blame. He has asserted his innocence. He has done the very opposite of what someone wanting to prosecute and eliminate wrongdoing would do.

The logical conclusion is that he is part of it, or at least covering for subordninates, much like Nixon did.

You are an idiot.

The President does not appoint special prosecutors.
The House ethics committee deals with ethics issues in the HOUSE.
The President does not make recommendations to the Justice Department.
The IG already investigated.
Obama has not changed his story.
He has not asserted his innocence.
He has done what is appropriate.

COMPLETE FAIL ON ALL POINTS

Congratulations.

He first tried to blame Bush, pointing out this was under a Bush appointee. Next he tried to say that the IRS was an independent agency. Then he fired the temporary director, who hadn't been in office very long and was slated to leave soon anyway. We have many unanswered questions and more and more comes out every day.
He has done nothing to inspire confidence that he is serious about finding out exactly what happened and punishing those guilty. Now we have the woman who first broke it, in a scripted moment, taking the 5th. Was she advised to do this? Why does she not want to talk? Wouldn't the president, her boss, want her to reveal as much as possible, to clear this up?
You are a dunce.

We know what happened. The IG report states it clearly. Only rabid nutters in search of a way out of their self-imposed Obama-nightmare have more questions regarding Obama's role in this matter.

You fuckers make one accusation after another......push one "possibility" after another. What you never do is provide evidence.

 

[Londoner]

Ok quick questions?

What would you think if ANY President announced he did not know what his justice Department was doing on two HIGH Profile cases, that he was never informed and he never heard about it? And then he announced after being informed of two serious offenses committed by the Justice Department that he had complete faith still in his Attorney General?

What would you think if ANY President was purposefully and willingly kept in the Dark about any suspect action by his Administration? And then claimed that he never knew but that it was a regular practice to have his aides and handlers keep him in the dark?

What would you think if ANY President not only did not know that his Ambassador was being denied security but when the shit hit the fan he claimed for 3 weeks the murder of the Ambassador was due to a video and a street riot, AFTER being briefed within hours of the attack and informed in no uncertain terms that it was a pre planned terror attack coinciding with the date it was carried out?

Well we know what most Liberals think, they find nothing wrong with the President being clueless, out of touch and leaderless. Much better he be these things then an obvious criminal.

First, With all do respect sir. The outrage over these overblown scandals seems silly when you consider that Republicans never seem to care when their side has similar "issues".

Second, Bush ignored the August 2011 memo that said Bin Laden was going to hijack planes. Bush failed to maintain basic defense protocols and have planes "scramble ready" so that he could at least engage these "flying bombs" before they entered high population airspace. He was also told to have airport security on ultra-high alert. He ignored all of this. Instead, he fired his terrorism advisor, Richard Clarke, who was first hired by Reagan and begged Bush to focus on Bin Laden rather than Saddam. Bush had no patience for anybody who took the focus off Saddam because of a pre-planned attack on Iraq which stemmed from a longstanding neocon goal of regime change (supported by Clinton as well). After the attack Bush made special provisions to let members of Bin Laden family fly out of the country without being interrogated. And Then his administration used intelligence that they were told was extremely suspect to invade Iraq, where over 4,000 Americans were slaughtered. Had Obama done this, he would absolutely be in jail. Republicans would get more than an impeachment for this. It makes Watergate look like a parking violation.

Third, this post is kind of hard to swallow given Iran-Contra. Reagan said he didn't know that his administration was selling massive amounts of weapons to the world's leading terrorist nation - than he continued to support many of the people in his administration who were involved.

 

[konradv]

the left loves to live in the past rather than solve the problems of the present.

The right likes to ignore the past because it really doesn't look very good for them: Nixon and Watergate, Reagan and Iran-contra, Bush and missing WMDs. They've got to pretend these "scandals" are bad, because if the American people really thought about it, they'd never vote for a Republican again.

 

[Spoonman]

Ok quick questions?

What would you think if ANY President announced he did not know what his justice Department was doing on two HIGH Profile cases, that he was never informed and he never heard about it? And then he announced after being informed of two serious offenses committed by the Justice Department that he had complete faith still in his Attorney General?

What would you think if ANY President was purposefully and willingly kept in the Dark about any suspect action by his Administration? And then claimed that he never knew but that it was a regular practice to have his aides and handlers keep him in the dark?

What would you think if ANY President not only did not know that his Ambassador was being denied security but when the shit hit the fan he claimed for 3 weeks the murder of the Ambassador was due to a video and a street riot, AFTER being briefed within hours of the attack and informed in no uncertain terms that it was a pre planned terror attack coinciding with the date it was carried out?

Well we know what most Liberals think, they find nothing wrong with the President being clueless, out of touch and leaderless. Much better he be these things then an obvious criminal.

First, With all do respect sir. These scandals seem largely manufactured in that Republicans never seem to care when their side has similar "issues".

Second, Bush ignored the August 2011 memo that said Bin Laden was going to hijack planes. Bush failed to maintain basic defense protocols and have planes "scramble ready" so that he could at least engage these "flying bombs" before they entered high population airspace. He was also told to have airport security on ultra-high alert. He ignored all of this. Instead, he fired his terrorism advisor, Richard Clarke, who was first hired by Reagan and begged Bush to focus on Bin Laden rather than Saddam. Bush had no patience for anybody who took the focus off Saddam. After the attack Bush made special provisions to let members of Bin Laden family fly out of the country without being interrogated. And Then his administration used intelligence that they were told was extremely suspect to invade Iraq, where over 4,000 Americans were slaughtered. Had Obama done this, he would absolutely be in jail. Republicans would get more than an impeachment for this. It makes Watergate look like parking violation.

Third, this post is kind of hard to swallow given Iran-Contra. Reagan said he didn't know that his administration was selling massive amounts of weapons to the world's leading terrorist nation - than he continued to support many of the people in his administration who were involved.

yea, the republicans manufactured 4 dead bodies