Third Party & Independents Archives

Give It Back, Barrack!


Geir Lundestad, former secretary of the Nobel Peace Prize committee, in his book written after he left his position states:

“Even many of Obama’s supporters believed that the prize was a mistake,” Lundestad wrote in excerpts of the book read by The Associated Press. “In that sense the committee didn’t achieve what it had hoped for.”


The former secretary of the Nobel Peace Prize committee says the 2009 award to President Barack Obama failed to live up to the panel's expectations. He didn't disagree with presenting to Nobel Peace Prize to Obama, but he

thought it would strengthen Obama and it didn't have this effect.

In his own words, Geir Lundestad admits the award was given with expectations to be achieved in the future.

Other presidents have received this award while in office. Theodore Roosevelt won the 1906 Nobel Peace Prize with his successful efforts to end the Russo-Japanese War, and Woodrow Wilson for his sponsorship of the League of Nations. It remains to be seen if they violated Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: of the U.S. Constitution by accepting this award while in office. That aside, there is a major difference between the awards to Roosevelt and Wilson, and the award to Obama. Roosevelt and Wilson had already achieved merit for their awards. They had already accomplished the feat they were credited with. Obama was given the award with the expectations of earning the award at a later date.

Geir Lundestad writes in a book to be released on Thursday that the committee had expected the prize to deliver a boost to Obama.

In the Congressional Research Service's Report, Gifts to the President of the United States, it states:

The President remains subject to the bribery and illegal gratuities law which prohibits the receipt of a gift or of anything of value when that receipt, or the agreement to receive such thing of value, is connected in some way to the performance (or nonperformance) of an official act.

The provisions of federal law and regulation restricting the acceptance of personal gifts by the President of the United States casts the acceptance of this award by Obama in a very negative, perhaps illegal, light. The Nobel commission did not consider this an illegal act to bribe a sitting president, however by Geir Lundestad's own admission, they sought to influence the presidency toward a predefined path. The admission in his book confirms Obama did not reach those expectations.

U.S. Code defines the course of action that must be taken in this situation,

(2) Within 60 days after accepting a tangible gift of more than minimal value (other than a gift described in paragraph (1)(B)(ii)), an employee shall--
(A) deposit the gift for disposal with his or her employing agency; or
(B) subject to the approval of the employing agency, deposit the gift with that agency for official use.

but the thought of the American People retaining an award as prestigious as the Nobel Peace Prize without earning it is as egregious as Obama keeping it himself.

Give it Back, Barrack! Return the Nobel Peace Prize to the Nobel committee.

Give it Back, Barrack, so they can award it to someone who has actually earned the award.

One of the many people nominated along side Obama for the Nobel Peace Prize is Hu Jia, an activist and dissident in the People's Republic of China. His work has focused on the Chinese democracy movement, Chinese environmentalist movement, and HIV/AIDS in the People's Republic of China. Hu is the director of June Fourth Heritage & Culture Association, and he has been involved with AIDS advocacy as the executive director of the Beijing Aizhixing Institute of Health Education and as one of the founders of the non-governmental organization Loving Source. He has also been involved in work to protect the endangered Tibetan antelope. For his activism, Hu has received awards from several European bodies, such as the Paris City Council and the European Parliament, which awarded its Human Rights prize to him in December 2008.

Hu Jia's accomplishments go unrewarded and unrecognized because Barrack Obama received this award for expectations he didn't not fulfill. Barrack Obama needs to do the only honorable thing.

Give It Back, Barrack!

Posted by Weary_Willie at September 18, 2015 1:53 AM
Comments
Comment #398703

The money comes from the Nobel Prize Foundation, a private Swedish organization, using funds from Alfred Nobel’s estate. Neither the government of Sweden nor the government of Norway contribute any funds. As per Nobel’s will, the committee that awards the peace prize is chosen by the Norwegian Storting. However, this does not necessarily make the committee a part of the Norwegian government. If the Nobel Prize is considered to be awarded by a nongovernmental organization, than there are no Constitutional or legal issues for Obama to contend with.

In his own words, Geir Lundestad admits the award was given with expectations to be achieved in the future.
Just because Lundestad is disappointed with the way Obama has governed does not mean the award was prefaced upon future performance. Obama earned the award for his accomplishments: Being the first nonwhite person elected President of the United States, his nuclear nonproliferation work in the Senate and for being an antiwar advocate who opposed the Iraq War even when it was unpopular.
the thought of the American People retaining an award as prestigious as the Nobel Peace Prize without earning it is as egregious as Obama keeping it himself.
And who isn’t to say this is what happened? The money sat somewhere while Obama picked the organizations that would receive donations. Presumably, in a White House account. It’s hard to define what Obama’s “employing agency” would be, presumably it would be the White House operations account. Unfortunately, the media has not bothered to investigate this question. Posted by: Warren Porter at September 18, 2015 8:00 AM
Comment #398704

Weary still beating the dead horse I see. Is there an open investigation into Roosevelt or Wilson? Or Obama for that matter on this nonsensical bribes issue you bring up?

IMHO the prize was given to Obama and the American people for stopping in its track the terrible nation building war mongering neo-cons that ran the country prior to the election of Obama. Imagine the relief the rest of the world felt when the US rejected the McCain/Palin ticket and GWB and his crew of as some say “war criminals” left the white house.

Of course not all of the world was happy at this turn of events, the conservatives in this country were aghast and have behaved accordingly since. This gibberish from Weary about the Nobel Peace Prize conspiracy that isn’t is but one example.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 18, 2015 9:23 AM
Comment #398705

Sorry Weary, but this is a non issue.
Everybody knew at the time, and knows now, that Obama did not earn or deserve a Nobel Prize. Many of us knew it was just part of the plan to create a legacy for Obama, rather than let him build one as most Presidents do.
No matter what, our first black President can not be seen as a failure, so we have gotten the massive flood of hate and BS like this, from the left.

But, who the NP committee gives the prize to is on them. They are the one’s responsible for making themselves look like a joke.
IMO, I bet Obama is actually a little embarrassed about the whole thing.

Posted by: kctim at September 18, 2015 9:56 AM
Comment #398707
Everybody knew at the time, and knows now, that Obama did not earn or deserve a Nobel Prize. Many of us knew it was just part of the plan to create a legacy for Obama, rather than let him build one as most Presidents do.

I have to agree that it was rather silly to give the prize for the few accomplishments Obama made before becoming President. Now, he has the Iran deal, the Arab Spring and many other things as his legacy.

Is there an open investigation into Roosevelt or Wilson
Or Henry Kissinger for that matter? There wasn’t that much peace in Indochina in 1973. Posted by: Warren Porter at September 18, 2015 11:28 AM
Comment #398709
Many of us knew it was just part of the plan to create a legacy for Obama, rather than let him build one as most Presidents do.

Tee hee, tee hee, So let me get this straight kctim, your conspiracy theory is the Nobel Peace Prize committee plotted with Obama to create a legacy for him! Seriously?


No matter what, our first black President can not be seen as a failure, so we have gotten the massive flood of hate and BS like this, from the left.

And what “massive flood of hate and BS” would that be kctim? Calling out nonsense isn’t hate, what our elected repubs in Congress has done for the past 7 years is hate,kctim. A deliberate organized plan to thwart his every effort even when they are for it in theory was hatched and carried out.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/26/democrats-gop-plot-obstruct-obama

Come on guys see through your own hate a minute and think back to the days when Obama was first in office and reflect upon the collective sigh the rest of the world breathed when they knew the American voters threw out the neo naz… er…. umm….neocons. That alone topped anything the other candidates for the peace prize did that year. I know this may be hard to swallow for some of you on the right but it is true. The rest of the world, except Israel of course, saw relative peace as a real possibility for the first time in many years as our “cowboy diplomacy” was given the “boot”.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 18, 2015 11:34 AM
Comment #398710

The “bribe” and where it went, you silly boys.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/us/12nobel.html?_r=0

Posted by: j2t2 at September 18, 2015 11:39 AM
Comment #398711

The prize, announced as official Washington — including the president — was asleep, caught the White House off guard.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/world/10nobel.html


Well so much for the “plan to create a legacy” conspiracy guys but keep trying it is funny to watch, Release the hatred and the anger guys it will do you good.

But please learn from this, read this whole article and learn that the cowboy diplomacy was despised by the rest of the world.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 18, 2015 11:44 AM
Comment #398712

“many other things as his legacy.”

None of which have played out enough to justify the never ending blind adulation he receives.

Of course, he also now has as part of his legacy, ISIS, government spying on citizens, unjustified racial tensions, record number of people out of the workforce, record number of people receiving government money, and many other things.

To suggest that he has now done enough worthy of such reorganization, is absurd.

Posted by: kctim at September 18, 2015 11:48 AM
Comment #398713

Weary you have raised a point by focusing on the old Obama non-conspiracy. It seems to me you all have forgotten to include Hillary in the mix, what did she do the cause this mess? Who did she do it with? Was this whole nonexistent conspiracy her doing? Did anyone get killed whilst carrying out this plot to fame Obama? Come on guys, now that InfoWars has been totally discredited for the Jade Helm 15 nonsense we are running out of drivel and stupidity. Ste up guys and create some , hell it isn’t as if the far right needs and proof just the mention will be enough to get them going. Fuel the hatred guys, but don’t expect to wake up to a peace prize.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 18, 2015 11:51 AM
Comment #398714

“Ste up guys” should be “step up guys”

“hell it isn’t as if the far right needs and proof”
should be
“hell it isn’t as if the far right needs any proof”

Posted by: j2t2 at September 18, 2015 11:55 AM
Comment #398715

“your conspiracy theory is the Nobel Peace Prize committee plotted with Obama to create a legacy for him!”

Um, no.
My thoughts were and still are that Obama was given the prize because of who he was, not because of what he had done.

Disagreement with policy is not hate. Trying to block legislation you disagree with, is not hate.

I do not care what the people of the “rest of world” thinks. They are lemmings dependent on their government and have no idea what it means to be an American.

I know this may be hard to swallow for most of you on the left, but it is true: Your wishful thinking that a leftist would bring you some kind of “relative peace” didn’t happen.

Posted by: kctim at September 18, 2015 12:18 PM
Comment #398716

ISIS,kctim, is a product of the cowboy diplomacy we have suffered in the past. Government spying on citizens, is teh way Jeb tells us his brother kept us safe. Remember it was a repub law pushed by majority repubs and signed by repub president. Unjustified racial tensions, yep they just popped up out of no where right kctim, seems to me if the racist on the police departments across the country would just quit killing unarmed black guys. Record number of people out of the workforce, as baby boomers retire! Record number of people receiving government money, and a record number of people in the country as well, as conservative policies and tax credits for shipping jobs overseas has left it’s mark.

and many other things.and yadayadayada. Remember kctim, it is Congress that passes laws on to the presidents desk to be signed and he can’t sign them unless they put then there.

These sour grapres the hate and anger all focused on the president as if he is Congress as well as …well… read the constitution.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 18, 2015 12:22 PM
Comment #398717

After assuming office, President Obama abandoned the previous withdraw plan and followed a plan set up by President Bush in the Iraqis in late 2008. President Obama sought to keep troops past that timeline, but conflict over the status of forces agreement prevented troops from remaining past 2011.

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/President/US/Barack_Obama/Views/The_War_in_Iraq/

Maybe Bush should get a Nobel Peace Prize.

Obama voted in lockstep with the Democratic Party. His record is no different than many others. By the logic expressed here, the entire Democratic party should be awarded the prize.

Obama was awarded the prize on expectations, not accomplishments. He should give it back.


Posted by: Weary Willie at September 18, 2015 12:50 PM
Comment #398718

You need to keep up with the talking points, J2. You see, when something happens on your watch, YOU are responsible for it. He11, some would even say that you knew it was going to happen and that you allowed it to happen.

ISIS is reeking havoc on the world on Obama’s watch. The NSA has been spying on us on a whole new level, on Obama’s watch. The ridiculous notion that all cops are racist and targeting blacks, and the resulting hatred and attacks on cops, is happening on Obama’s watch.

All on Obama’s watch, J2. Your willingness to make excuses simply because of the mans color and politics does not change that.

Sour grapes? Hate? Anger? I can tell you exactly why I agree or disagree with the President on any of his positions.
Give up on avoiding the facts with such childish deflections J2. It’s getting old and tired.

Posted by: kctim at September 18, 2015 1:06 PM
Comment #398719
Obama was awarded the prize on expectations, not accomplishments. He should give it back.

Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize, and you want do overs! Wow Weary have you been leading this fight since 2009 and we are just now hearing about it?

Do you suggest the charities that received the monies also return them after all this time?

Maybe Bush should get a Nobel Peace Prize.

Maybe he should have gotten to pick a charity or two as he was indirectly responsible for Obama getting it. He was the measuring stick and all it took was for GWB to leave office, him and his neocons and the world became a better place, I won’t argue that Weary. But until Obama took office how did the world know it wasn’t gonna be more of the same? The truth is the world didn’t know, yet after just 9 months in office the world could see that Obama and his policies were peaceful, the whole change from war mongering “cowboy diplomacy” to peaceful intentions was apparent and well the rest is history, the prize went to Obama.

My thoughts were and still are that Obama was given the prize because of who he was, not because of what he had done.

Yep after only 9 months it was clear Obam wasn’t GWB nor was he a neocon. After suffering the neocon “cowboy diplomacy” for years the world was anxious the world was ready for change, they got it. They knew Obama to be a man of character, a man of peace, a statesman and they rewarded us Americans accordingly. We could have went the other way, continued on with McCain and god forbid Palin at the wheel and running amok around the world. We didn’t go that route and the world was grateful.

Disagreement with policy is not hate. Trying to block legislation you disagree with, is not hate.

kctim read the article that was hate. What you are describing is not related to this issue.

I do not care what the people of the “rest of world” thinks.

Then stop being so hateful towards Obama because he received the peace prize the rest of the world thought he deserved.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 18, 2015 1:33 PM
Comment #398720

j2t2, is there another word you can use besides hate? Any other word?

It’s you that is hating, j2t2. You’re projecting your hate onto everything you disagree with. You hate Republicans. You hate conservatives. You hate PP opponents. You hate people who disagree with Obama. You hate people who disagree with his policies. Is there anything you don’t hate, besides your god, Obama?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 18, 2015 1:51 PM
Comment #398721

Only 5 people thought he deserved it. The rest of the world was “shocked”!

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 18, 2015 1:53 PM
Comment #398722

What a truly odd article.

Obama was awarded the prize for improving international relations, winding down US involvement in the War in Iraq, and favoring the end of US torture, extreme rendition, and a network of secret prisons.

Did he deserve the Novel Peace Prize? I would say so. Others would disagree.

But give it back? That is just weird.
Bizarre.
Truly odd.

Posted by: phx8 at September 18, 2015 1:55 PM
Comment #398723
You need to keep up with the talking points, J2. You see, when something happens on your watch, YOU are responsible for it

I would ask that you think about this a moment kctim, What has the Congress been doing about these issues? I would suggest that instead of intentionally trying to block anything and everything Obama Congress put some bills on his table for signature to solve some of these problems.

You guys can’t have it both ways kctim, you can’t intentionally subvert the president then blame him for the problem. I would also suggest that instead of trying to repeal Obamacare for the 50th time, or defund planned parenthood Congress focus on real issue, but hey it is easier to blame the president.

Sour grapes? Hate? Anger? I can tell you exactly why I agree or disagree with the President on any of his positions.

Your elected representatives can’t which is why this is an issue, I would suggest that it it you deflecting.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 18, 2015 1:57 PM
Comment #398724

J2,
I said nothing hateful towards the President. In fact, I told Weary that I believed this was a non-issue.
It seems you are coming down with what afflicts another poster here on WB and arguing with yourself about what’s in your head, rather than what you actually read on the screen.

“I would ask that you think about this a moment kctim”

Are you saying Phx8 was wrong when he said Bush was responsible for 9-11 because it happened on his watch? Interesting J2. But sure, I’ll give it some more thought. LOL.

“Your elected representatives can’t which is why this is an issue”

Sure they can J2, but just as with legislation, it’s not exactly what you demand so you pretend it doesn’t exist.

Posted by: kctim at September 18, 2015 2:18 PM
Comment #398726

Demigods should be awarded.

“Former vice president Al Gore keeps racking up the hardware in his campaign to fight global warming. First An Inconvenient Truth, his documentary on climate change, nabbed an Academy Award for best documentary. (Although the Oscar actually went to director Davis Guggenheim, Gore gave an acceptance speech.) Then he was awarded, along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. And last night, to cap it all off, Gore’s print version of An Inconvenient Truth won the Grammy for best spoken-word album, thanks to its release as an audio book.”

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/news-blog/al-gore-nabs-elusive-award-triple-c-2009-02-09/

obama should keep his Nobel prize certificate on the same shelf with his Boy Scout “Tenderfoot” badge.

I understand the fix is in for Hillary to receive awards for something; done somewhere; at some time.


Posted by: Royal Flush at September 18, 2015 4:09 PM
Comment #398727

kctim,
Here is a statement Republicans can truthfully make about Bush: he responded forcefully after 9/11 by ordering an attack on Afghanistan, and he launched a War on Terror that killed many members of Al Qaida and resulted in the capture of one of the 9/11 masterminds.

Here is statement about Bush that is false: Bush kept America safe.

It is false because 9/11 happened on his watch. The blame and the responsibility for the murders falls on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. But Bin Laden did not appear out of thin air. Bush received a warning on August 6th, a month prior that Bin Laden was planning attacks in the US. The title of the briefing was “Bin Laden determined to Strike in the US.” There were other warnings too:

“On May 1 the CIA said that a terrorist group in the U.S. was planning an attack.

On June 22 it warned that this attack was “imminent.”

On June 29 the brief warned of near-term attacks with “dramatic consequences” including major casualties.

On July 1, the briefing said that the terrorist attack had been delayed but “will occur soon.”

On July 24, the president was told again that the attack had been delayed but would occur within months.”

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-report-shows-how-many-warnings-about-bin-laden-were-ignored-by-the-bush-white-house-2012-9

No, Bush did not keep us safe.

Bush was definitely responsible for the Invasion of Iraq and the Occupation. It resulted in the unnecessary deaths of over 4,400 American soldiers and over 30,000 wounded. That was not a failure to act, like 9/11 (or providing timely aid after the Indian Ocean tsunami or Katrina); the invasion and occupation of Iraq was an action that was wrong and probably constituted a war crime, along with torturing prisoners and running secret prisons abroad.

That is the thing about pushing war. It is really hard to win a Nobel Peace Prize by advocating violence or torture or secret prisons. But do like Obama, and advocate the ending of a war, and promoting international cooperation, and- well, there you go!

Posted by: phx8 at September 18, 2015 4:52 PM
Comment #398729

Lord obama dithers while the world burns and some lefties hail his leadership.

World leaders don’t abandon their role to challenge evil regimes at every opportunity and in every way possible. To succumb to dictators and killers because the road is hard is pitiful in an American president.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 18, 2015 8:02 PM
Comment #398730

RF
There is less conflict in the world than when Obama took office. How, pray tell, is the world burning? Please cite examples, and put them into context by comparing them with previous administrations.

How are the US, Germany, the Brits, the French, and other negotiating partners such as China and Russia, succumbing to dictators and killers “in every way possible”?
Please cite examples.

Posted by: phx8 at September 18, 2015 9:11 PM
Comment #398821
How are the US, Germany, the Brits, the French, and other negotiating partners such as China and Russia, succumbing to dictators and killers “in every way possible”?

Uh, this is obviously a reference to the recent negotiations with Iran. If our negotiation “partners” had more backbone, additional sanctions would probably have won additional concessions from the Iranian regime.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 19, 2015 7:42 AM
Comment #398829

Once team Obama (John Kerry) announced there was a deal; all bets are off with the sanctions. It wasn’t the “partners” who had no backbone, it was team Obama devising a legacy, no matter the cost.

Posted by: Blaine at September 19, 2015 11:50 AM
Comment #398836

Blaine,
Factually wrong. Our allies and negotiating partners announced publicly there would be no sanctions if this deal fell through. They privately briefed a dozen US senators that it was this deal or nothing. The deal was unanimously approved by the UN Security Council and publicly supported by virtually every country in the world. The notable exceptions were Netanyahu’s political party and the Republican Party.

That kind of unanimity is a testament to the leadership of Obama and the ability of this administration to work cooperatively with its allies and negotiating partners.

Posted by: phx8 at September 19, 2015 3:35 PM
Comment #398839

“They privately briefed a dozen US senators that it was this deal or nothing.”…..plus phx8 who was the fly on the wall…

Posted by: Blaine at September 19, 2015 4:01 PM
Comment #398840

RF
Hillary’s award will be the LGBT award, that is liars, gossipers before truth award.

This would be given in addition to the other LGBT award.

Shall we go for the trifecta?

Last gift before truth

Posted by: tom humes at September 19, 2015 7:41 PM
Comment #398841
Please cite examples, and put them into context by comparing them with previous administrations.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_in_Anbar_Province

The fighting was mostly over by September 2007, although US forces maintained a stabilizing and advisory role through December 2011.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26150727
Violence in Iraq’s Anbar province ‘displaces 300,000’

12 February 2014

Real Nobel Prize winning accomplishments there, right?


Libya with GW Bush:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_Libya

The Libyan disarmament issue was peacefully resolved on December 2003 when Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi agreed to eliminate his country’s weapons of mass destruction program, including a decades-old nuclear weapons program.

Libya with Obama:
Libya: New Proof of Mass Killings at Gaddafi Death Site

OCTOBER 17, 2012

Who did more as far as non-proliferation goes? Who really deserves a “Peace” prize?

There’s more, phx8. I’m only going to list these 2 because I know you refuse to educate yourself.

I probably should throw this one in as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama%E2%80%93Medvedev_Commission

Since the rapid deterioration of relations between Russia and the United States since 2012, the commission has largely curtailed its activities and is essentially defunct/

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 19, 2015 7:50 PM
Comment #398842

WW,
Under Obama, the US is not waging war in Iraq. Others might be fighting, but the US has dramatically reduced its presence there. The Nobel Peace Prize does not get awarded to someone for invading and permanently occupying another country.

Get over the idea that the US is the world’s policeman, and we are responsible for Libya. The Libyans are responsible for themselves, and their leader attacked civilians with the military. The US coordinated with allies and prevented Khaddafi from slaughtering his own people. Now there is a failed state. There was not much chance of a happy ending for that one. They had a chance to establish their own democracy on their own terms. They might yet. But that will be up to them.

If you really wanted to slam Obama, you should have mentioned drone strikes.

And golly gee, we were that close to being BFF’s with the Russians, and Obama blew it.

We did cooperate with the Russians on the deal with Iran because our interests in nuclear non-proliferation coincided.

Posted by: phx8 at September 19, 2015 8:21 PM
Comment #398843

Another slam on Obama: he violated international law and the sovereignty of Pakistan when he sent US troops in to kill Bin Laden.

Do you want to go there?

Posted by: phx8 at September 19, 2015 8:26 PM
Comment #398844

You’re always trying to change the subject.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 19, 2015 11:28 PM
Comment #398845

The original subject was taking away the Peace Prize from Obama. Drone strikes and killing Bin Laden could be considered reasons to retroactively take it away. Obama was directly responsible. He gave the order to go into Pakistan without permission and kill Bin Laden. And he owns the responsibility for the policy of using drone strikes to target terrorists, even if he does not actually give each individual order, and we now conduct strikes in more countries than we did under Bush.

Nevertheless, Obama wound down the War in Iraq. Obama never sent US troops into Libya. He helped convince Germany, the UK, France, Russia, and China to maintain a united front and force Iran to the negotiating table through sanctions, and a few years later achieve a breakthrough agreement- one that advanced the cause of nuclear non-proliferation. Again, he attained US goals through negotiations, not invasion.

Posted by: phx8 at September 20, 2015 12:40 AM
Comment #398848

Could someone please explain to me again why I should even bother to care about this subject. On a list of importance from one to one million this falls in the 999,000 range.

Somebody needs a hobby.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 20, 2015 10:44 AM
Comment #398850

People should be interested because this is how our government operates now. A total disregard for the constitution.

The sad, tragic part of this whole ordeal is that people accept it out of hand, just as all of you did.

You can’t expect government to adhere to the constitution if you ignore when it’s being violated.


Posted by: Weary Willie at September 20, 2015 11:31 AM
Comment #398854

How it operates now? Didn’t Woodrow Wilson win a Nobel Peace Prize in 1919? He even left the money in a bank to draw interest! Yet no “conspiracy” no violation of the constitution.

Everything was above board, your nonsensical linking of the Constitution to the award of a peace prize is telling in that we have a certain number of people in this country who think their reading of the Constitution qualifies them as experts and then are upset when they try to create an issue when their isn’t one.

But Weary what say you about Tel Aviv Tom and his crew accepting money from Israel lobbyist and then interfering in the work of the administration by writing a letter to Iran?

Good job shout out to Royal and Tom for getting Hilary involved in this thread, I knew it had to happen. Perhaps the “persecution of the innocent” award for you two is in order.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 20, 2015 5:34 PM
Comment #398855

Who is Tel Aviv Tom?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 20, 2015 6:30 PM
Comment #398856

The representative in the US House of Representatives for Israel and Arksansas, Tom Cotton.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 20, 2015 10:38 PM
Comment #398857

The author of the 47 traitors letter. That was sedition. The day after the letter, he held a closed door meeting with lobbyists for the defense industry. And the day after that, he proposed huge spending hikes for defense.

Posted by: phx8 at September 20, 2015 11:17 PM
Comment #398859

Sedition against who?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 21, 2015 3:51 AM
Comment #398868

Phx8

Unless one supports conspiracy theories, it is ridiculous to suggest Bush disregarded standard protocol and intentionally ignored credible warnings, which in turn allowed 9-11 to happen.
I object to the creation of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security more than the average person, but the absolute fact is that we were not attacked again on our own soil when we were the most vulnerable.

This penny ante blame Bush game has grown old. FFS, you guys can’t even keep your stories consistent anymore. Bush it totally responsible after what, only seven months on the job? But Obama isn’t responsible for anything after seven years on the job?

And now you are bringing up Bush being a war criminal and intentionally letting people die after natural disasters?

It’s gone way beyond absurd, my friend.

“But do like Obama, and advocate the ending of a war, and promoting international cooperation, and- well, there you go!”

Yes, he “advocated” peace, but has not lived up to it. War is still going on. Other countries have been attacked by the US. Civilians are still being droned. Torture is still being done.
That’s kind of the point of the OP, isn’t it?

Posted by: kctim at September 22, 2015 10:24 AM
Comment #398869
it is ridiculous to suggest Bush disregarded standard protocol and intentionally ignored credible warnings, which in turn allowed 9-11 to happen.

It was likely more a matter of negligence rather than intentional disregard, but it was risky and unsafe. The Bush administration made its decisions and those decisions that could have prevented the attacks were not made. We can debate the efficacy of the national security reforms implemented by the Bush administration after 9/12/01, but it is incontrovertible, George Bush did not keep us safe.

the absolute fact is that we were not attacked again on our own soil when we were the most vulnerable.
I’ll be perfectly honest here. The period immediately after the 9/11 attack was not our most vulnerable. Did people feel vulnerable? Certainly, but that is an emotional response. Rather, that period is distinctive because average people became much more vigilant against suspicious activity, which made terrorism much more difficult to conduct in 2002 than it had been before or than it is today. Recall that there was a 7.5 year gap between the previous Al Qaeda attack on US soil (the ‘93 bombing of the WTC) and the 9/11 attacks. So, it wouldn’t be surprising if there were no more attempts at attacking the US until 2009 after Obama became President.
Bush it totally responsible after what, only seven months on the job? But Obama isn’t responsible for anything after seven years on the job?
National Security and terrorist attacks are two different beasts. Only if a catastrophic terrorist attack happened in 2009-2010 and the Left blamed Bush you would have a point. Posted by: Warren Porter at September 22, 2015 11:06 AM
Comment #398870

Warren

What was standard protocol for handling that kind of chatter and how was Bush negligent in handling it?

Our security procedures were all questioned and in a state of change post 9-11. If not done correctly, transition is the best time to attack your enemy. It is when they are most vulnerable.

“Only if a catastrophic terrorist attack happened in 2009-2010 and the Left blamed Bush you would have a point.”

Yes, we have become VERY familiar with the ‘pick and choose’ game that has been going on. There’s always an excuse for how it’s supposedly “different” when it comes to Obama, isn’t there.

Posted by: kctim at September 22, 2015 11:53 AM
Comment #398871
What was standard protocol for handling that kind of chatter and how was Bush negligent in handling it?
The standard protocols themselves were negligent. Ultimately, the buck stops on the President’s desk. Perhaps it was impossible for Bush to have kept us safe on 9/11, but even so the fact remains that he did not do the impossible.
Yes, we have become VERY familiar with the ‘pick and choose’ game that has been going on. There’s always an excuse for how it’s supposedly “different” when it comes to Obama, isn’t there.
I’m not making stupid comparisons in a futile attempt to compare one of the worst Presidents in US history with Obama. Face it, Bush sucked. Say what you must about Clinton, but he handed a functioning country over to Bush in 2001. Sure, there was a minor recession after the fallout of the dotcom bust, but after the monumental economic growth of the late ’90s we were due a dose of harsh medicine. Compare that with Obama:

In the grand scheme of things, Obama had it pretty rough . He started his administration while the greatest postwar economic disaster unfolded. In 1929, another economic catastrophe occurred and 8 years later we were mired in a Great Depression. 8 years after the recent economic catastrophe we have a thriving economy which is absolutely unbelievable.

In the midst of all this, Obama has run a squeaky clean administration. No scandals, nothing. It is outstanding.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 22, 2015 12:29 PM
Comment #398902

“What was standard protocol for handling that kind of chatter and how was Bush negligent in handling it?”

I am not going to blame Bush for the 9/11 disaster. It was a unique and unexpected form of terrorism. But, on the other hand, the idea that Bush had no responsibility is disingenuous. He was repeatedly warned in briefings that al-Qaeda was on the verge of a major attack in the US. Despite those warnings, he did not order an “all hands on deck” to review intelligence and issue heightened security provisions.

Posted by: Rich at September 22, 2015 6:13 PM
Comment #398916

Warren

Of course the buck stops “on the President’s desk,” those on the right have been saying that for a while now.
And yes, the terrorists took advantage of negligent protocols, but somebody instituted new protocols that have resulted in no new attacks. For now, until the terrorists prove the new ones negligent.

“I’m not making stupid comparisons in a futile attempt to compare one of the worst Presidents in US history with Obama.”

No, as with the rest of those on the left, you are making ridiculous assumptions to ‘prove’ Bush was one of the worst and therefore deserves all of the blame for everything negative that happens to the country.
That’s BS.

“Face it, Bush sucked.”

Yep. And he deserves all of the legit criticism that can be placed upon him. But him allowing 9-11 to happen, or him doing nothing to help the country in the years following, are not legit.

“In the grand scheme of things, Obama had it pretty rough”

Yes he did. And while some will argue that our economic situation was worse than what Bush faced dealing with 9-11, or vice versa, I do not.

“In the midst of all this, Obama has run a squeaky clean administration. No scandals, nothing. It is outstanding.”

No, he hasn’t run a squeaky clean administration.
Yes, there have been many scandals.
No, everything is not outstanding.

IF you applied the same level of scrutiny to Obama as you did Bush, you would know that.

Posted by: kctim at September 23, 2015 9:46 AM
Comment #398933

“Yes, there have been many scandals.”

OK, name them.

Posted by: Rich at September 23, 2015 6:59 PM
Comment #398937

“And I have my disagreements, say, with President Obama, but President Obama has run an amazingly scandal-free administration, not only he himself, but the people around him. He’s chosen people who have been pretty scandal-free.”

David Brooks, conservative columnist. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/05/31/david_brooks_obama_amazingly_scandal_free_administration_chosen_people_scandal_free.html

Posted by: Rich at September 23, 2015 8:33 PM
Post a comment