Really Mr. President? Really?

[ImWithStupid]

Obama, and the left wing liberals were so against this...

 

Two More Victims of CIA’s Rendition Program, Including Former Guant?namo

 

(8/1/2007)

 

NEW YORK -- Today, two additional victims of the United States government's unlawful "extraordinary rendition" program joined a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., a subsidiary of Boeing Company. The ACLU charges in its amended complaint that Jeppesen knowingly provided direct flight services to the CIA enabling the clandestine transportation of Bisher al-Rawi and Mohamed Farag Ahmad Bashmilah to secret overseas locations where they were subjected to torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

 

“Being a victim of the CIA’s rendition program was horrific beyond words,” said al-Rawi. “Regrettably, there are many more like me who haven’t been fortunate enough to be released. No one should have to endure such illegal and inhumane treatment.”

American Civil Liberties Union : Two More Victims of CIA’s Rendition Program, Including Former Guant?namo Detainee, Join ACLU Lawsuit Against Boeing Subsidiary

 

We all know that "Rendition" was just a horrible Bush administration program that was designed to violate human rights.

 

BUT WAIT! Once the great one, Barack Obama started getting his security briefings, it appears it isn't so evil when he says it's OK as it was under the evil Bush administration...

 

Barack Obama to allow anti-terror rendition to continue

 

By Alex Spillius in Washington

Last Updated: 11:24AM GMT 02 Feb 2009

 

The highly controversial anti-terror practice of rendition will continue under Barack Obama, it has emerged.

 

Despite ordering the closure of Guantanamo and an end to harsh interrogation techniques, the new president has failed to call an end to secret abductions and questioning.

 

In his first few days in office, Mr Obama was lauded for rejecting policies of the George W Bush era, but it has emerged the CIA still has the authority to carry out renditions in which suspects are picked up and often sent to a third country for questioning.

Barack Obama to allow anti-terror rendition to continue - Telegraph

 

And the clouds cleared, the sun shines, and the "ONE" says, rendition shall be rightious now and is good.

 

Hahahah!!!!

[ImWithStupid]

Barack Obama adds Jeffery Immelt to his economic recovery team.

 

This is the CEO of GE, who ran the company into the ground. I wonder why he gets this reward. Wouldn't be because GE also owns NBC and MSNBC, would it?

 

Volcker said he expects Congress to share the president's "sense of urgency" that something must to be done to remedy a skidding economy.

 

Other members of Obama's panel include former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman William Donaldson, TIAA-CREF President-CEO Roger Ferguson and Harvard University professor Martin Feldstein, who wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece last year titled "John McCain Has a Tax Plan To Create Jobs."

 

Obama friend and campaign finance chairwoman Penny Pritzker also is on the board, as is Caterpillar Inc. Chairman-CEO Jim Owens and General Electric Co. CEO Jeffrey R. Immelt. Two labor officials ? Anna Burger of Change to Win and Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO ? also were named to the 15-member board designed to offer Obama advice as he seeks a way to rebuild the economy.

President Barack Obama Plans To Name Economic Recovery Advisory Board On Friday - cbs5.com

 

 

WTF? GE was the only US company that continued doing business with Iran and Syria, while they were funding and supplying insurgents that were killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. They didn't stop until last year, after several years of critcism. They claimed they had to finish out existing contracts.

 

Iran Policy

[ImWithStupid]

More reasons to seek out Immelt's guidance...

 

F.D.I.C. to Back $139 Billion in GE Capital Debt

 

November 12, 2008, 6:02 pm

 

General Electric said Wednesday that the federal government had agreed to insure as much as $139 billion in debt for its lending subsidiary, GE Capital. This is the second time in a month that G.E. has turned to a federal program aimed at helping companies during the global credit crisis.

 

 

GE Capital is not a bank, but granting it access to a new program from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation may reassure investors and help the lender compete with banks that already have government-protected debt, a G.E. spokesman, Russell Wilkerson, told Bloomberg News.

F.D.I.C. to Back $139 Billion in GE Capital Debt - DealBook Blog - NYTimes.com

 

The government will back $139 Billion of GE. Current value of GE. $116 Billion.

 

Really, Mr. President? Really?

 

I'm sure it had nothing to do with all the free campaign commercials that Immelt gave you under the guise of NBC News and MSNBC.

[ImWithStupid]

Really Mr. President?

 

updated 4:58 p.m. EDT, Tue March 10, 2009

 

Senators slam plan for wounded vets to use private insurance

 

By Adam Levine

CNN

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.

Senators slam plan for wounded vets to use private insurance - CNN.com

 

 

How the hell can this even be in consideration.

[wez]

Really Mr. President?

 

Senators slam plan for wounded vets to use private insurance - CNN.com

 

 

How the hell can this even be in consideration.

 

 

Well.. didn't we just hand AIG 100's of billions of taxpayer money? Why the hell not.. lines are blurrin'..

[ImWithStupid]

Obama Threatens the Peace of the World, How I Learned to Love the Bomb

 

by Jeremy D. Boreing

 

This week, President Obama took the unprecedented step of personally chairing a meeting of the United Nations Security Council. In an address to the General Assembly the day before, The President of the United States, with American power and influence on the decline around the world, declared yet again that, “No world order that elevates one nation… over another will succeed.”

 

It seems lost on the American President that he was not elected to create or perfect a world order, but to elevate the interests of the United States. He was not selected by a world assembly but by Americans, who extracted from him a sworn oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign or domestic. That same Constitution calls the president the Chief Executive of the Untied States. Imagine if the chief executive of Wal-Mart attended an economic forum and suggested a willingness to make his company less successful in the interest of promoting the perceived success of his competitors. It is unlikely that he would remain CEO for long…

 

The real show, however, came as the President of America positioned himself, at least temporarily, as President of the World. What did he do from this lofty position? Well, addressing a council whose purpose it is to maintain the security of the world, in an age in which jihadi terrorists are at open war with the west, democratic uprisings are being crushed, a resurgent Russia intimidates and openly invades its neighbors, North Korea threatens nuclear war, and Iran kills Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan and threatens the extermination of Israel, Mr. Obama chose to launch an attack on — the existence of nuclear weapons. In short, the would-be king of all he surveys backed a resolution to end all actual security in the world.

 

Utopian dreams rarely have any connection to reality. The socialist ideal of transferring power and wealth from the few to the many is proven a delusion once one realizes that the method socialists use to accomplish this goal is powerful government, thus making the true reality of socialism the transfer of power and wealth from the few to the far fewer. It is the same with this pre-adolescent belief that a world without nuclear weapons would be a better or more peaceful one. In actuality, nuclear weapons have maintained the closest thing the world has ever known to global peace for over sixty years.

 

Imagine this world without nuclear weapons for a moment. The atomic bomb made it’s debut on the world stage in 1945. Had it not appeared, or even been delayed by one year, there would have been, according to the best estimates, 500,000 to a million more American dead in World War Two. Since large numbers rarely have meaning, the context to understand that number is that it is more than double, maybe quadruple the actual number of casualties America suffered. Similarly, there would have been perhaps as many as six-million Japanese deaths and the entire nation would have been obliterated by sky-darkening waves of B-29 attacks that incinerated every city on the islands.

 

Of course, that’s just Japan. With over twenty-million dead, a number that is genuinely uncomprehendible to the American mind since we have never lost more than two percent of that number of men in any war (perhaps a half again that if you count both sides of the civil war), the Soviet Union had a blood lust that was not easily satiated. To ensure they were never subjected to such destruction again, and to grow their brand of satellite socialism, they would likely have devoured all of Western Europe by the end of the 1940s. Despite what we might like to believe, it is unlikely that any force on Earth could have stopped them. Untold millions would have perished as the USSR marched west, and far more would have died in the purges and gulags and re-education camps that followed.

 

From there, the shape of the remainder of the history of the twentieth century bends beyond recognition. If the People’s Republic of China ever actually existed, you can be sure Taiwan would have been destroyed. It is unlikely an Israel would have ever come into being since the whole world would have been locked in an unwinnable war with the Soviets during that time, and the middle east would have become the scene of open confrontation between the two super powers for resources. Suffice to say that the relative peace and advancement of western society President Obama grew up in would simply not exist.

 

Does any of this mean that nuclear weapons are good? Of course not. Nuclear weapons are neither good or bad. They are simply things. Tools. They have no intrinsic moral quality, any more than the sword or the plowshare, both of which can be wielded to kill a man. Much of the reason we assume that there is something inherently evil about nuclear weapons is because the average American has no idea what they actually are, apart from what we have learned from Hollywood. Of course, in Hollywood, spaceships moving through a vacuum make loud noises, like passing airplanes… They aren’t known for their science. Hollywood has advanced so many untrue myths about nuclear weapons that we have come to look upon them as almost living things, bent on our destruction. That is simply not the case.

 

First, we have been told that nuclear war was the actual goal of the two super powers during the cold war. Of course, this is untrue. The one man in all of history that we know was willing to use the bomb in war, the only man who actually did, was Harry Truman. This same man rejected a war plan proposed by his leading general to use atomic weapons against our enemies in the Korean War only five years later. Nuclear weapons may have their place, but they are not to be used wantonly.

 

Continued...

.

[ImWithStupid]

Continued from previous post

 

The second lie is that nuclear weapons release giant sums of radioactive fallout. To use even one of them would destroy the environment and give millions of people cancer. This is complete folly. For proof, one need only look to actual history. The most nuked spot on earth is, far and away, the desert of Nevada. The United States detonated over 1,021 individual nuclear devices in the Silver State in the second half of the twentieth century. Over a thousand. Sixty-five short miles away lives American?s playground city of Las Vegas. There are no three-eyed fish or giant city-eating lizards there, unless you?re into that sort of thing, in which case talk to the floor manager at Caesars? While it is true that nuclear weapons produce radioactive waste, it is only when they are detonated at ground level or below that those particles bind with the surrounding matter and create the kind of fallout we have all been raised to fear. In other words, deadly fallout is not a by-product of nuclear weapons themselves, but of certain uses of nuclear weapons (or certain types that are certainly not indicative of the whole). Nuclear weapons can be used just as surely without creating that sort of fallout, as was the case in Japan.

 

The third lie is that nuclear weapons are city killers. While it is true that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were largely destroyed, they were not really cities by our common definitions. Japan basically went from the feudal age, to the industrial revolution, to World War Two in the blink of an eye. These cities were constructed of wood that resembled paper. While nuclear weapons are indeed devastating, the average bomb in the US arsenal would only actually destroy a few square miles in a modern city. More, since the fifties, when so-called super-bombs were tested in the South Pacific, nuclear weapons have actually been getting smaller in physical size and in yield. They are getting weaker, not stronger. The reason is so that we won?t destroy cities. Modern nuclear weapons were actually designed to do the largest amount of damage to the smallest space possible, and our delivery systems have gotten so advanced that they can place these weapons within a few meters of the desired target. The point of the current crop of nuclear weapons is not to kill cities, but to kill hardened military targets in instantaneous strikes. Are they still horrifyingly powerful? Certainly, but their use would not look like a Terminator movie.

 

The last lie is that the bombs can somehow destroy all life on earth. At the peak, there were perhaps sixty-thousand nuclear weapons in existence. Now there are likely less than half of that number. America alone tested over a thousand of them on our own soil, sixty-five miles from one of our own cities. Sixty-thousand weapons could have done unthinkable damage to the cities of the world if so aimed, but it is inconceivable that they might have killed even a tenth of the world?s population. Again, horrifying in its own right, but hardly what people perceive.

 

With all of that said, a single nuclear weapon, or a series of them, used on hardened targets, or on the caves over Afghanistan, far from urban populations would be no more evil than the use of any other weapon. Still, we don?t use them for those purposes, even though it would likely save the lives of our soldiers, to avoid even the accusation of seeking to use them to dominate the world. What we do use them for is to prevent giant, industrialized, advanced societies from attacking one another and starting actual world wars. Throughout all of human history, excluding the sixty years since the nuclear bomb was created, the dominate powers of the world have always waged war on one another at the cost of countless lives and treasure. The two great wars of the twentieth century taught us that, because of advances in technology, those wars now had the power to destroy lives in the tens and possibly hundreds of millions, but that knowledge alone did nothing to alter the fundamentals of human nature, economies, tyrannies, or politics that caused wars. War is no longer sustainable, but it never-the-less still exists. The reason they are not fought between the large powers, the reason they cannot be, is that the nuclear weapon makes them unwinnable. For that reason, the major powers, America, Britain, France, Russia, and China do well to maintain their weapons. They do no harm, and yet they do great, great good. They have already saved perhaps hundreds of millions of lives, and even if one is one day used surreptitiously by a terrorist organization to kill tens of thousands of people, they still will have been a net gain to society of a thousand times that number of lives saved. Why then would the President of the United States, the country that has, armed with these devices, kept so great a peace for so long, seek to eliminate them? Does he believe the lie that disarmament of the great powers, who cannot afford to use the weapons because their own advanced societies could not withstand their use, would quail the ambitions of rouge states with nothing to lose? Or is it simply that his personal utopian dreams and astounding ego need the satisfaction of either uniting this world in his own skewed image, or destroying it because it is not worthy of his beautiful leadership? Either way, this CEO is destroying his company?s success, and the very real possibility exists that people are going to die trying to validate his false notions or faulty ego. Nothing less than the peace of the world is at stake.

 

Big Government Blog Archive Obama Threatens the Peace of the World, How I Learned to Love the Bomb

[ImWithStupid]

Really, Mr. Fukkin President, really?

Sep 30, 2009 3:17 pm US/Pacific

N.Y. Judge: CIA Can Keep 'Torture' Info Secret

 

Agency Won't Be Forced To Divulge Key Information On 2005 Destruction Of Tapes Of Interrogations

 

NEW YORK (AP) ― A New York judge says he will not order the release of names and other key information that the CIA has refused to divulge regarding the destruction of videotapes of detainee interrogations.

 

Federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled Wednesday after viewing a few of nearly 600 documents related to the CIA's 2005 destruction of videotapes documenting new harsh questioning techniques.

 

Hellerstein said a federal judge must defer to the CIA director in assessing information related to this issue of national security.

 

The judge in Manhattan also said he probably would have ruled on the same grounds that the videotapes would not have to be released if they had not been destroyed.

 

A lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union said he did not know if he would appeal.

New York Federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein Rules CIA Can Keep 'Torture' Info Secret - cbs13.com

 

 

Where's the outcry. The President turned over national security secrets because he claimed this legal effort wouldn't win.

 

Instead of waiting to see what happened, President, traitor Obama disclosed CIA memo's to the world and the enemy.

 

Now he's been proven to be wrong once again, but has already committed treason by letting our enemies know our tactics and strategy.

 

Really, Mr. Traitor, really?

[Old Salt]

While I detest "career politicians", this is what happens when someone with little, or no, experience gets elected.

 

Where are the President's advisors?

[snafu]

While I detest "career politicians", this is what happens when someone with little, or no, experience gets elected.

 

Where are the President's advisor's?

 

No no I don't think this has anything to with the lack of experience. IWS said it point blank and precise, this is treason. He knows damn well what he's doing. I strongly believe of the concept of the "enemy from within".

[ImWithStupid]

Really, Mr. President?

 

Really?

 

You think it was more important to attend the White House Corresponents Dinner, so you can get some last minute pokes in the eye at people you don't agree with, as opposed to go to the gulf coast in an environmental emergency.

 

And the left still blasts Bush for not landing in New Orleans with AF1 during Hurricane Katrina, when the reason was to not interfere with the aide effort there. (which we all saw with dumb ass leftie politicians and celebrities who landing in Haiti, made it so aide was delayed to the people there after the earthquake, but no mention by the press)

 

In alter we see no outcry that Pres. Obama wasn't even going to go to the gulf coast at first but decided it was politically expedient to do so.

[ImWithStupid]

Really?

 

We’ve heard the quote from the President. Now read it.

 

“I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick.�

 

No seriously. Read it again.

 

“I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick.�

 

He is talking to experts not to find out how to solve the problem but to find out whose ass to kick? Seriously?

 

That is the President of the United States in his own words.

 

 

The man has to call for a committee of egg-head, do nothings, to tell him who to be mad at.

 

Really?

 

 

There is one well leaking caused by the collapse of one platform owned by one company.

 

Not only has Barack Obama not once talked to the CEO of that company, his big donor British Petroleum, he overreacted and shut down every company’s offshore drilling — every single one. He put, effective immediately, tens of thousands of people on the unemployment line.

 

And in the President of the United States own words, he’s not talking to experts to figure out how to solve the problem, but to figure out who to assign blame to.

 

This is not leadership. Heck, this isn’t even bullying.

 

This is failure.

http://www.redstate....minute-on-this/

[builder]

Hi people. it's me again, trying to learn how to type once more.

 

Very quick to lambast your new prez, but how was your form on the last one? Handed the wrong speech, and read it anyway? Flew the Bin Ladens out of the country when everyone else was grounded? Made a victory speech before the war in Iraq (sorry, the war on terror) even got started? Denied using illegal wiretaps, then admitted to using them? Denied knowing about foreign CIYay rendition prisons, then having to admit to them? Claiming the constitution was "just a piece of paper"? Admitting that the WMD bullshit was just that?

 

If there's one thing I really can't stand for, it's hypocrisy.

 

I'm sure you can find some nice things to say about the shrub.

 

The only nice thing I can think of to say is that he's history, and he left no legacy but gross failure, and he opened up the coffers of the richest western nation, so his buddies could bankroll their retirements comfortably, at your expense.

 

Now, what good things can you say about the past prez?

 

Let's hear it before your next tirade about the most popular US prez in the last forty years.

[timesjoke]

Well Builder, put simply we have all spoken from one degree to another against some of the things Bush has done, there are very few koolaide drinkers who are conservative. I liked a lot of what Bush accomplished such as bringing the fight to the radicals that kept America safe while Obama has visibly weakened our security and we have seen everything from North Korea and Iran take advantage of his weakness to renewed American attacks even on our own military bases by Muslim soldiers because everyone is too scared to do their jobs for fear of an Obama administration attacking them for being racist against Muslims.

 

Some of the things you mention like the WMD's is an interesting thing, I once pinned Bender down by asking him what Lie did Bush tell? I have hundreds of quotes from both Clintons, Pelosi, Reed, etc who all said the same things Bush said, some of those comments before Bush ever took office.

 

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." ~ Bill Clinton in 1998

 

Of course Bender and no other hard liberal has ever been able to answer how it is possible for Bush to have lied when even Bill Clinton who had the same access to information as Bush did said the exact same things?

 

 

 

 

 

Lastly, even if it was all the same, Bush never ran on a promise of "change", Obama did.

 

Obama is the most partisan and divisive President to take office in over 20 years, he has broken almost every campaign promise he has ever made from not having lobbyists in his cabinet to being transparent and bringing people together from both sides of the asile. Obama has put down America as a whole and has made us weaker on the world stage. Even his healthcare reform was about rewarding his long standing political contributers with sweetheart deals like the break given to the Unions for their insurance policies that nobody else in America can get.

[builder]

The call for Bush jnr, Tony Blair, then Brit PM, and John Howard, then Australian PM, to be tried as war criminals has been in the ongoing stages for ages. See this link for progress on Blair.

 

And read here about what the "do nothing" Obama might be planning.

 

As Bush might have become aware, and Obama is definately aware by now, when dealing with such a convoluted heirarchical structure, sudden change happens very slowly.

[timesjoke]

Interesting but it does not really change anything. There was no lie, as I just pointed out, before Bush ever took office Bill Clinton and all the liberals who had their own access to information were saying the exact same things Bush said. For Bush to have spoken a lie, he would have had to have independent knowledge that the US intelligence groups did not have access to. With all the liberals all claiming how stupid Bush was, how is it they also say that he was smarter than Bill Clinton and should have seen a result out of the available information that Bill Clinton missed?

 

All the evidence clearly showed that Iraq had never "officially" accounted for many kinds of weapons, I personally believe he shipped them to other places or even destroyed them without telling anyone because he did not want to give America the satisfaction of finding them. Hell, huge areas of land, he could easily have just buried a lot of stuff then killed everyone who was involved in it so nobody could blab.

 

Nobody knows for sure what happened to these weapons, but we do know that there was no possible way Bush could have manufactured evidence of these things before ever taking office and we also know that everyone who had access to this information all agreed with what Bush said, many times Bush was repeating what was already said by people like Bill Clinton.

 

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." ~ Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

 

If this was all lies, it was lies created by the Clinton administration before Bush ever took office.

[ImWithStupid]

[attach=full]2259[/attach]

[ImWithStupid]