As Disapprovals Move Up, Investigations Begin

[del]

I can't believe some people even use blogs as 'credible' sources...

Go figure.....

They aren't credible but they are handy for some who would just like to grab those talking points on the run.

I don't even read Democratic blogs. It's just someone's opinion, it isn't as if they have to research anything or be sure their commentary is correct.

I read them, but don't quote anything from them unless there is a hyperlinked source. With no originating source, the opinion often is way off the mark.

well, you could knock me over with a feather.

 

[MaggieMae]

do you think that's what happened when the repubs hounded the clintons?

funny how whenever a dem does anything, the wingnuts yell "wag the dog". some things never change.

and what's a little torture among friends, right?

but let's all listento the wingnutblogs!!!

That reminded me: Congress spent more time "investigating" Clinton's Christmas card list than it did the incidents at Abu Ghraib.

just like Clinton spent more time and money prosecuting Bill Gates than he did trying to get bin Laden.

Ya think?

WTC attack, 1993
Four followers of the Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman were captured, convicted of the World Trade Center bombing in March 1994, and sentenced to 240 years in prison each. The purported mastermind of the plot, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was captured in 1995, convicted of the bombing in November 1997, and also sentenced to 240 years in prison. One additional suspect fled the U.S. and is believed to be living in Tehran.*

Riyadh, 1995, Khobar Towers, 1997
On 13 November 1995, a bomb was set off in a van parked in front of an American-run military training center in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh, killing five Americans and two Indians. Saudi Arabian authorities arrested four Saudi nationals whom they claim confessed to the bombings, but U.S. officials were denied permission to see or question the suspects before they were convicted and beheaded in May 1996.

On 25 June 1996, a booby-trapped truck loaded with 5,000 pounds of explosives was exploded outside the Khobar Towers apartment complex which housed United States military personnel in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing nineteen Americans and wounding about three hundred others. Once again, the U.S. investigation was hampered by the refusal of Saudi officials to allow the FBI to question suspects. On 21 June 2001, just before the American statute of limitations would have expired, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted thirteen Saudis and an unidentified Lebanese chemist for the Khobar Towers bombing. The suspects remain in Saudi custody, beyond the reach of the American justice system. (Saudi Arabia has no extradition treaty with the U.S.)

Sudan Arrest of Osama Bin Laden
Clinton targeted bin Laden even before he moved to Afghanistan in 1996. His administration brokered an agreement with the government of Sudan to arrest OBL and turn him over to Saudi Arabia (the U.S. did not have extradition rights with Sudan). For 10 weeks, Clinton tried to persuade the Saudis to accept the offer, but they refused. Bin Laden had been kicked out of Saudi Arabia, was considered an expatriot and therefore a threat to their country too. With no cooperation from the Saudis, the deal fell apart and bin Laden fled to Pakistan, then Afghanistan.

US Embassy, Kenya and Tanzania, 1998
On 7 August 1998, powerful car bombs exploded minutes apart outside the United States embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 224 people and wounding about 5,000 others. Four participants with ties to Osama bin Laden were captured, convicted in U.S. federal court, and sentenced to life in prison without parole in October 2001. Fourteen other suspects indicted in the case remain at large, and three more are fighting extradition in London.

USS Cole, October 2000
The attack killing 17 occurred less than 60 days before the transition of power in Washington to the Bush administration. It took the Bush administration 4 years to track down and prosecute those responsible and the perpetrators currently in U.S. custody with varying sentences imposed.

 

[elvis]

That reminded me: Congress spent more time "investigating" Clinton's Christmas card list than it did the incidents at Abu Ghraib.

just like Clinton spent more time and money prosecuting Bill Gates than he did trying to get bin Laden.

Ya think?

WTC attack, 1993
Four followers of the Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman were captured, convicted of the World Trade Center bombing in March 1994, and sentenced to 240 years in prison each. The purported mastermind of the plot, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was captured in 1995, convicted of the bombing in November 1997, and also sentenced to 240 years in prison. One additional suspect fled the U.S. and is believed to be living in Tehran.*

Riyadh, 1995, Khobar Towers, 1997
On 13 November 1995, a bomb was set off in a van parked in front of an American-run military training center in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh, killing five Americans and two Indians. Saudi Arabian authorities arrested four Saudi nationals whom they claim confessed to the bombings, but U.S. officials were denied permission to see or question the suspects before they were convicted and beheaded in May 1996.

On 25 June 1996, a booby-trapped truck loaded with 5,000 pounds of explosives was exploded outside the Khobar Towers apartment complex which housed United States military personnel in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing nineteen Americans and wounding about three hundred others. Once again, the U.S. investigation was hampered by the refusal of Saudi officials to allow the FBI to question suspects. On 21 June 2001, just before the American statute of limitations would have expired, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted thirteen Saudis and an unidentified Lebanese chemist for the Khobar Towers bombing. The suspects remain in Saudi custody, beyond the reach of the American justice system. (Saudi Arabia has no extradition treaty with the U.S.)

Sudan Arrest of Osama Bin Laden
Clinton targeted bin Laden even before he moved to Afghanistan in 1996. His administration brokered an agreement with the government of Sudan to arrest OBL and turn him over to Saudi Arabia (the U.S. did not have extradition rights with Sudan). For 10 weeks, Clinton tried to persuade the Saudis to accept the offer, but they refused. Bin Laden had been kicked out of Saudi Arabia, was considered an expatriot and therefore a threat to their country too. With no cooperation from the Saudis, the deal fell apart and bin Laden fled to Pakistan, then Afghanistan.

US Embassy, Kenya and Tanzania, 1998
On 7 August 1998, powerful car bombs exploded minutes apart outside the United States embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 224 people and wounding about 5,000 others. Four participants with ties to Osama bin Laden were captured, convicted in U.S. federal court, and sentenced to life in prison without parole in October 2001. Fourteen other suspects indicted in the case remain at large, and three more are fighting extradition in London.

USS Cole, October 2000
The attack killing 17 occurred less than 60 days before the transition of power in Washington to the Bush administration. It took the Bush administration 4 years to track down and prosecute those responsible and the perpetrators currently in U.S. custody with varying sentences imposed.

I meant to only say more money. both presidents failed in protecting the country.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I can't believe some people even use blogs as 'credible' sources...

Go figure.....

well, you know, it's the old, say it over and over enough times til people think it's truth thang ...

You guys have perfected that art, now haven't you?

 

[Sinatra]

The Obama administration is getting downright screechy in its attempts to control the message.

Obama ran around the world and received shrugs both from abroad, and back home. His paper-thin persona is finally developing outright boredom even among those who supported him.

Combine that with the ever-worsening jobs numbers, and that boredom will quickly turn to anger.

The boy king is atop quickly shifting political sands...

 

[code1211]

So the radical liberals can only respond with:

1. They're wingnuts
2. It's a blog, never mind that it is a point of discussion
3. 'wag the dog' wasn't something the conservatives came up with, rather Clinton politicos
4. If we just tarnish the source, perhaps no one will add to the obvious merit of the observation.
5. BIG POINT: Obama is in trouble, most radical leftists understand that, many of them are even having doubts.

only with the 20 percent of right-wing, religious whackjobs in the US do I even become a liberal, let alone a radical. To the normal 80 per cent of Yanks and the rest of the western world I'm a centrist, and believe it or not, to some I'm even a conservative.

BIG POINT: Obama is not in trouble, the radical right would love him to be. He was left a mess by Bush, and in typical right-wing crapola, you shift the blame to Obama. You know, you guys would have a lot more credibility going after him, if you waited 18 months to see if his policies work. Going after him on January 21 just dented your credibility big time to us neutrals....He could pay of the debt in six months, have the US economy growing by 10 %, have the lowest taxes in 200 years, and 1% unemployment and you'd still hate him. This is not about policies, this is about you guys having a total moron in power for 8 years, being called on it, and now think you can do the same with Obama. Problem is, Obama is intelligent. Is he a great president? Doubt it. Will he fix everything? Doubt it. Is he doing the best he can. Yes.
As for blogs, they are just opinions. Big freaking deal. We all have those. Get a link from a political scientist without an agenda.

In poll takers parlance, I disagree strongly with the first statement. IF Obama had accomplished or even tried to accomplish what you say there, I'd be in his camp. Instead, he is trying to nationalize the nation, paying back the UAW for the presidency and working hard to bankrupt the treasury.

He has done nothing, NOTHING, to reduce unemployment, stimulate the economy or encourage investment. By waffling on every domestic decision and leaving the direction of the comeback to Pelosi and Ried, he has so confused the investors that they are frozen in doubt.

I agree with the second statement. He is doing the best he can do. He just has no clue what to do, how to do it, what the effect will be or when the effect will present.

 

[Dr Grump]

In poll takers parlance, I disagree strongly with the first statement. IF Obama had accomplished or even tried to accomplish what you say there, I'd be in his camp. Instead, he is trying to nationalize the nation, paying back the UAW for the presidency and working hard to bankrupt the treasury.

He has done nothing, NOTHING, to reduce unemployment, stimulate the economy or encourage investment. By waffling on every domestic decision and leaving the direction of the comeback to Pelosi and Ried, he has so confused the investors that they are frozen in doubt.

I agree with the second statement. He is doing the best he can do. He just has no clue what to do, how to do it, what the effect will be or when the effect will present.

He absolutely did something, he got the banks talking to each other again.

It's not his fault he had to nationalise some of the industries. That was CEO greed at its worst. And the alternative for not bailing them out was much worse...

 

[Meister]

I think this will come back and bite the democrats in the butt. It's a tactic that has been used so many times that people are wise to it.
Obama a few months ago stated he wasn't go to pursue issues like this. Now someone else is pushing the issue. Obama is not going to look to good on this if it moves forward.
Some say it's to vindicate Pelosi....I dunno what the reasons are, I don't need to know. But, perception is what will take root with this, and it might not go to well for the dems.
Just sayin....

 

[jeffrockit]

Shouldn't this be in the Conspiracy Theory section???

do you think that's what happened when the repubs hounded the clintons?

funny how whenever a dem does anything, the wingnuts yell "wag the dog". some things never change.

and what's a little torture among friends, right?

but let's all listento the wingnutblogs!!!

No, lets do some hard hitting journalism like parading out the father of Bristol Palin's baby, or continue to talk about non issues like why Palin resigned or what Rush Limbaugh is saying or better yet Michael Jackson. These are all very important issues for the US. After all, we just hit 1 trillion deficit and have 9.5% unemployment....but lets focus on the past, that way we don't really have to worry about the present.

 

[MaggieMae]

So the radical liberals can only respond with:

1. They're wingnuts
2. It's a blog, never mind that it is a point of discussion
3. 'wag the dog' wasn't something the conservatives came up with, rather Clinton politicos
4. If we just tarnish the source, perhaps no one will add to the obvious merit of the observation.
5. BIG POINT: Obama is in trouble, most radical leftists understand that, many of them are even having doubts.

only with the 20 percent of right-wing, religious whackjobs in the US do I even become a liberal, let alone a radical. To the normal 80 per cent of Yanks and the rest of the western world I'm a centrist, and believe it or not, to some I'm even a conservative.

BIG POINT: Obama is not in trouble, the radical right would love him to be. He was left a mess by Bush, and in typical right-wing crapola, you shift the blame to Obama. You know, you guys would have a lot more credibility going after him, if you waited 18 months to see if his policies work. Going after him on January 21 just dented your credibility big time to us neutrals....He could pay of the debt in six months, have the US economy growing by 10 %, have the lowest taxes in 200 years, and 1% unemployment and you'd still hate him. This is not about policies, this is about you guys having a total moron in power for 8 years, being called on it, and now think you can do the same with Obama. Problem is, Obama is intelligent. Is he a great president? Doubt it. Will he fix everything? Doubt it. Is he doing the best he can. Yes.
As for blogs, they are just opinions. Big freaking deal. We all have those. Get a link from a political scientist without an agenda.

In poll takers parlance, I disagree strongly with the first statement. IF Obama had accomplished or even tried to accomplish what you say there, I'd be in his camp. Instead, he is trying to nationalize the nation, paying back the UAW for the presidency and working hard to bankrupt the treasury.

He has done nothing, NOTHING, to reduce unemployment, stimulate the economy or encourage investment. By waffling on every domestic decision and leaving the direction of the comeback to Pelosi and Ried, he has so confused the investors that they are frozen in doubt.

I agree with the second statement. He is doing the best he can do. He just has no clue what to do, how to do it, what the effect will be or when the effect will present.

Why can't the unlearned just follow the money, available in a variety of spots, instead of just bitching and moaning? Your idiotic statements prove you don't actually know anything. Nothing at all.

Bimonthly Reviews | Following the Money | GAO.gov

 

[MaggieMae]

Shouldn't this be in the Conspiracy Theory section???

do you think that's what happened when the repubs hounded the clintons?

funny how whenever a dem does anything, the wingnuts yell "wag the dog". some things never change.

and what's a little torture among friends, right?

but let's all listento the wingnutblogs!!!

No, lets do some hard hitting journalism like parading out the father of Bristol Palin's baby, or continue to talk about non issues like why Palin resigned or what Rush Limbaugh is saying or better yet Michael Jackson. These are all very important issues for the US. After all, we just hit 1 trillion deficit and have 9.5% unemployment....but lets focus on the past, that way we don't really have to worry about the present.

As far as past spending, the numbers are equally as troubling. Reagan accumulated $1.26 trillion in deficit, Bush 41 accumulated $934 billion in just one term, Clinton accumulated $324 billion, and Bush 43 accumulated $1.98 trillion.

I for one can't conceive of those numbers and how, for example, so much money was able to be reduced down by Clinton and rise again to an unprecedented amount by GWB. Now Obama's is already at $1 trillion, but does that mean there's been a little less than $1 trillion shaved off Bush 43's accumulation? Wasn't his carried over?

Could it really be as easy to shift billions within 8 years of an administration as it is to shift hundreds in our own private accounts? I admit to being totally ignorant on how the big numbers are reported and exactly what they mean.

 

[Dr.House]

I think this will come back and bite the democrats in the butt. It's a tactic that has been used so many times that people are wise to it.
Obama a few months ago stated he wasn't go to pursue issues like this. Now someone else is pushing the issue. Obama is not going to look to good on this if it moves forward.
Some say it's to vindicate Pelosi....I dunno what the reasons are, I don't need to know. But, perception is what will take root with this, and it might not go to well for the dems.
Just sayin....

Agreed...

It will be seen as just more partisan politics...

Exactly what Barry said he's be "Changing"... Guess he didn't get arount to that yet...

 

[jeffrockit]

do you think that's what happened when the repubs hounded the clintons?

funny how whenever a dem does anything, the wingnuts yell "wag the dog". some things never change.

and what's a little torture among friends, right?

but let's all listento the wingnutblogs!!!

No, lets do some hard hitting journalism like parading out the father of Bristol Palin's baby, or continue to talk about non issues like why Palin resigned or what Rush Limbaugh is saying or better yet Michael Jackson. These are all very important issues for the US. After all, we just hit 1 trillion deficit and have 9.5% unemployment....but lets focus on the past, that way we don't really have to worry about the present.

As far as past spending, the numbers are equally as troubling. Reagan accumulated $1.26 trillion in deficit, Bush 41 accumulated $934 billion in just one term, Clinton accumulated $324 billion, and Bush 43 accumulated $1.98 trillion.

I for one can't conceive of those numbers and how, for example, so much money was able to be reduced down by Clinton and rise again to an unprecedented amount by GWB. Now Obama's is already at $1 trillion, but does that mean there's been a little less than $1 trillion shaved off Bush 43's accumulation? Wasn't his carried over?

Could it really be as easy to shift billions within 8 years of an administration as it is to shift hundreds in our own private accounts? I admit to being totally ignorant on how the big numbers are reported and exactly what they mean.

All of the past wrongs do not make it right to continue with more. Clintons numbers were just moved around from social security to make it appear as a surplus. I was critical of Bush's wasteful spending as I am of Obama. Partisan politics should not blind anyone but it always seems to, no matter which party is in control. We the people, are hurt regardless.

 

[Old Rocks]

I think this will come back and bite the democrats in the butt. It's a tactic that has been used so many times that people are wise to it.
Obama a few months ago stated he wasn't go to pursue issues like this. Now someone else is pushing the issue. Obama is not going to look to good on this if it moves forward.
Some say it's to vindicate Pelosi....I dunno what the reasons are, I don't need to know. But, perception is what will take root with this, and it might not go to well for the dems.
Just sayin....

I think the secret files should be daylighted for all to see. Not just part of them, but the whole thing. Then we can all see what went down. My bet would be that if that were to happen, Bush, Cheney, and most of that administration would seek to protection of the law to avoid what the populace would do to them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I think this will come back and bite the democrats in the butt. It's a tactic that has been used so many times that people are wise to it.
Obama a few months ago stated he wasn't go to pursue issues like this. Now someone else is pushing the issue. Obama is not going to look to good on this if it moves forward.
Some say it's to vindicate Pelosi....I dunno what the reasons are, I don't need to know. But, perception is what will take root with this, and it might not go to well for the dems.
Just sayin....

I think the secret files should be daylighted for all to see. Not just part of them, but the whole thing. Then we can all see what went down. My bet would be that if that were to happen, Bush, Cheney, and most of that administration would seek to protection of the law to avoid what the populace would do to them.

Sure thing you partisan hack. You really think that after 2 years of the dems controlling Congress and now A dem president to boot, that any of these turds would protect the past admin? Fucking hilarious. Wishful dreaming on your part does not ever make it true.

In fact you pea brain, the dems claimed in 2006 all we needed to do was elect them and they would get Bush. 2 and a half years later they are still claiming , when ever the polls dip for them, that they will get Bush.

Pelosi and all the rest of the Dems in office under Bush have been shown for the lying sacks of SHIT they are and are trying to drum up a witch hunt to take the public's eye off them. The problem is, eventually they will have to admit they got nothing. They are just hoping retards like you will just think Bush was to good at hiding all those evil plans.

 

[Meister]

I think this will come back and bite the democrats in the butt. It's a tactic that has been used so many times that people are wise to it.
Obama a few months ago stated he wasn't go to pursue issues like this. Now someone else is pushing the issue. Obama is not going to look to good on this if it moves forward.
Some say it's to vindicate Pelosi....I dunno what the reasons are, I don't need to know. But, perception is what will take root with this, and it might not go to well for the dems.
Just sayin....

I think the secret files should be daylighted for all to see. Not just part of them, but the whole thing. Then we can all see what went down. My bet would be that if that were to happen, Bush, Cheney, and most of that administration would seek to protection of the law to avoid what the populace would do to them.

I wish you brain would be daylighted along with the "secret files". But we both know that's never going to happen. With the secret files, the dems would be just as guilty as the repubs. With your brain being daylighted....well, you don't have one. You've proven that over and over again on this board.

 

[007]

Shouldn't this be in the Conspiracy Theory section???

You're right... it's more of a conspiracy theory than obama hiding his real birth certificate is.