Obama Smacks Down GOP Presidential Candidates

[Soggy in NOLA]

Somebody explain to me what letting Seals cap a few rag-heads has to do with foreign policy?

In the absence of a foreign policy, killing foreign nationals becomes foreign policy.

 

[Katzndogz]

Somebody explain to me what letting Seals cap a few rag-heads has to do with foreign policy?

What is it about faking a photo op makes obama a hero?

 

[J.E.D]

The military kills enemies of the state and that is proof that Obama does not have an attitude of appeasement?

The what do you call him wanting to afford those enemies that survive a military attack the same rights that you and I have as American Citizens?

Just curious....

Civilian courts have a proven track record for convicting terrorists. Military courts do not.

 

[Jarhead]

The military kills enemies of the state and that is proof that Obama does not have an attitude of appeasement?

The what do you call him wanting to afford those enemies that survive a military attack the same rights that you and I have as American Citizens?

Just curious....

Civilian courts have a proven track record for convicting terrorists. Military courts do not.

American Citizen rights are for American Citizens. They are not for our enemies who are hell bent on eliminating our rights.

You may be correct with what you say, but I tend to believe the stats you saw are a bit skewed.

But either way....offering an enemy captured on the battlefield the same rights you would have when fighting a jay walking ticket is APPEASEMENT

 

[mudwhistle]

The military kills enemies of the state and that is proof that Obama does not have an attitude of appeasement?

The what do you call him wanting to afford those enemies that survive a military attack the same rights that you and I have as American Citizens?

Just curious....

Civilian courts have a proven track record for convicting terrorists. Military courts do not.

American Citizen rights are for American Citizens. They are not for our enemies who are hell bent on eliminating our rights.

You may be correct with what you say, but I tend to believe the stats you saw are a bit skewed.

But either way....offering an enemy captured on the battlefield the same rights you would have when fighting a jay walking ticket is APPEASEMENT

Obama's two-faced Islamic policy only confuses them and pisses them off.

 

[J.E.D]

The military kills enemies of the state and that is proof that Obama does not have an attitude of appeasement?

The what do you call him wanting to afford those enemies that survive a military attack the same rights that you and I have as American Citizens?

Just curious....

Civilian courts have a proven track record for convicting terrorists. Military courts do not.

American Citizen rights are for American Citizens. They are not for our enemies who are hell bent on eliminating our rights.

You may be correct with what you say, but I tend to believe the stats you saw are a bit skewed.

But either way....offering an enemy captured on the battlefield the same rights you would have when fighting a jay walking ticket is APPEASEMENT

So you'd rather see terrorists go free because of flimsy military trials than be convicted in civilian courts, which have a proven track record? This is America. We're supposed to uphold the rule of law and give all accused a fair and speedy trial - not treat one group one way and another group another way.

The current and former vice presidents -- Joe Biden and Dick Cheney -- battled it out on separate Sunday morning talk shows on Feb. 14, 2010, debating the Obama administration's policies on bringing accused terrorists to justice.

At times, their debate seemed more like a philosophical argument: Should terrorists be treated like vanquished military opponents or common criminals? If you believe the former, you would support trying the accused in front of military commissions at the Guantanamo Bay detention center. If you believe the latter, you would favor trying them in U.S. courts.

Biden offered a full-throated defense of Obama administration plans to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in U.S. courts, even though the administration supports commissions for some cases.

One of Biden's arguments was that U.S. courts work better and result in tougher sentences.

"Let me put this in perspective," Biden said on Face the Nation. "There have been three people tried and convicted by the last administration in military courts. Two are walking the street right now. There have been over 300 tried in federal courts by the last administration and by us. They're all in jail now. None of them are out seeing the light of day."

We're looking into Biden's assertion that more than 300 people have been tried in federal courts and will post our findings soon.

Here, we are examining Biden's assertion that three people were tried and convicted by the last administration in military commissions, and that two of three have been released.

After consulting news reports and military documents, we discovered that Biden was correct. We also checked with experts who both support and oppose military commissions for various reasons, and no one disputed Biden's numbers.

PolitiFact | Two of three convicted in military commissions have been released

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Civilian courts have a proven track record for convicting terrorists. Military courts do not.

American Citizen rights are for American Citizens. They are not for our enemies who are hell bent on eliminating our rights.

You may be correct with what you say, but I tend to believe the stats you saw are a bit skewed.

But either way....offering an enemy captured on the battlefield the same rights you would have when fighting a jay walking ticket is APPEASEMENT

So you'd rather see terrorists go free because of flimsy military trials than be convicted in civilian courts, which have a proven track record? This is America. We're supposed to uphold the rule of law and give all accused a fair and speedy trial - not treat one group one way and another group another way.

The current and former vice presidents -- Joe Biden and Dick Cheney -- battled it out on separate Sunday morning talk shows on Feb. 14, 2010, debating the Obama administration's policies on bringing accused terrorists to justice.

At times, their debate seemed more like a philosophical argument: Should terrorists be treated like vanquished military opponents or common criminals? If you believe the former, you would support trying the accused in front of military commissions at the Guantanamo Bay detention center. If you believe the latter, you would favor trying them in U.S. courts.

Biden offered a full-throated defense of Obama administration plans to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in U.S. courts, even though the administration supports commissions for some cases.

One of Biden's arguments was that U.S. courts work better and result in tougher sentences.

"Let me put this in perspective," Biden said on Face the Nation. "There have been three people tried and convicted by the last administration in military courts. Two are walking the street right now. There have been over 300 tried in federal courts by the last administration and by us. They're all in jail now. None of them are out seeing the light of day."

We're looking into Biden's assertion that more than 300 people have been tried in federal courts and will post our findings soon.

Here, we are examining Biden's assertion that three people were tried and convicted by the last administration in military commissions, and that two of three have been released.

After consulting news reports and military documents, we discovered that Biden was correct. We also checked with experts who both support and oppose military commissions for various reasons, and no one disputed Biden's numbers.

PolitiFact | Two of three convicted in military commissions have been released

All they need is 12 of you on a jury and terrorists will not only go free, but will probably also enjoy the bounties of a fruitful civil suit.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The military kills enemies of the state and that is proof that Obama does not have an attitude of appeasement?

The what do you call him wanting to afford those enemies that survive a military attack the same rights that you and I have as American Citizens?

Just curious....

Civilian courts have a proven track record for convicting terrorists. Military courts do not.

Is that why OJ is still working on his golf swing?

 

[Jackson]

Well that didn't work, perhaps they will accuse him of being overly aggressive next?

Just another example of CONZ inability to empathize with ANYONE or ANYTHING.

They apparently could not put themselves into Obama's shoes and predict that his response could not only refute the charge, but make those who leveled it appear to be petty and small about so grave a matter.

On the street, this sort of rebuke is known as a "bitchslap"

He talks like he pulled the trigger himself.

A bragging limp-wristed pencil-neck Harvard grad wouldn't know the first thing about combat.

Yep on your sig. I expect him to beat up on Republicans but why does he keep beating up on Americans by not doing anything for the economy and the safety of our nation?

 

[Jarhead]

Civilian courts have a proven track record for convicting terrorists. Military courts do not.

American Citizen rights are for American Citizens. They are not for our enemies who are hell bent on eliminating our rights.

You may be correct with what you say, but I tend to believe the stats you saw are a bit skewed.

But either way....offering an enemy captured on the battlefield the same rights you would have when fighting a jay walking ticket is APPEASEMENT

So you'd rather see terrorists go free because of flimsy military trials than be convicted in civilian courts, which have a proven track record? This is America. We're supposed to uphold the rule of law and give all accused a fair and speedy trial - not treat one group one way and another group another way.

The current and former vice presidents -- Joe Biden and Dick Cheney -- battled it out on separate Sunday morning talk shows on Feb. 14, 2010, debating the Obama administration's policies on bringing accused terrorists to justice.

At times, their debate seemed more like a philosophical argument: Should terrorists be treated like vanquished military opponents or common criminals? If you believe the former, you would support trying the accused in front of military commissions at the Guantanamo Bay detention center. If you believe the latter, you would favor trying them in U.S. courts.

Biden offered a full-throated defense of Obama administration plans to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in U.S. courts, even though the administration supports commissions for some cases.

One of Biden's arguments was that U.S. courts work better and result in tougher sentences.

"Let me put this in perspective," Biden said on Face the Nation. "There have been three people tried and convicted by the last administration in military courts. Two are walking the street right now. There have been over 300 tried in federal courts by the last administration and by us. They're all in jail now. None of them are out seeing the light of day."

We're looking into Biden's assertion that more than 300 people have been tried in federal courts and will post our findings soon.

Here, we are examining Biden's assertion that three people were tried and convicted by the last administration in military commissions, and that two of three have been released.

After consulting news reports and military documents, we discovered that Biden was correct. We also checked with experts who both support and oppose military commissions for various reasons, and no one disputed Biden's numbers.

PolitiFact | Two of three convicted in military commissions have been released

I suggest you read the details of your article.

I am done with you. You cite articles without reeading the details.

That is lazy and a wate of my time. You disappoint me.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Wow, Obama builds a strawman and beats it up publically. What a hero he is, that strawman didn't have a chance.

Strawman? Yeah, right. The Republican candidates who accused Obama of appeasement stepped in it all on their own.

So let me see if I've got this straight...President Obama's greatest foreign policiy achievement is killing Osama bin Laden? Remind me how we got the intel on where Osama was hiding? Wasn't that through the enhanced interrigation techniques that Barack Obama was against? So using something W. instigated and he opposed, Obama takes credit for "getting" Osama? Gotta love it...

Of course when your economic record is as bad as Obama's is you're going to claim successes anywhere you can...even on something as questionable as being the guy who "got" Bin Laden.

Eventually, even the dumbest kids realize that there is no Santa Claus.

At some point, nutters will grasp that torture does not render good intel. It just irks me that I can't see their fucking faces when it happens. And....yes....I know the ones that do will never admit it.

 

[J.E.D]

American Citizen rights are for American Citizens. They are not for our enemies who are hell bent on eliminating our rights.

You may be correct with what you say, but I tend to believe the stats you saw are a bit skewed.

But either way....offering an enemy captured on the battlefield the same rights you would have when fighting a jay walking ticket is APPEASEMENT

So you'd rather see terrorists go free because of flimsy military trials than be convicted in civilian courts, which have a proven track record? This is America. We're supposed to uphold the rule of law and give all accused a fair and speedy trial - not treat one group one way and another group another way.

The current and former vice presidents -- Joe Biden and Dick Cheney -- battled it out on separate Sunday morning talk shows on Feb. 14, 2010, debating the Obama administration's policies on bringing accused terrorists to justice.

At times, their debate seemed more like a philosophical argument: Should terrorists be treated like vanquished military opponents or common criminals? If you believe the former, you would support trying the accused in front of military commissions at the Guantanamo Bay detention center. If you believe the latter, you would favor trying them in U.S. courts.

Biden offered a full-throated defense of Obama administration plans to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in U.S. courts, even though the administration supports commissions for some cases.

One of Biden's arguments was that U.S. courts work better and result in tougher sentences.

"Let me put this in perspective," Biden said on Face the Nation. "There have been three people tried and convicted by the last administration in military courts. Two are walking the street right now. There have been over 300 tried in federal courts by the last administration and by us. They're all in jail now. None of them are out seeing the light of day."

We're looking into Biden's assertion that more than 300 people have been tried in federal courts and will post our findings soon.

Here, we are examining Biden's assertion that three people were tried and convicted by the last administration in military commissions, and that two of three have been released.

After consulting news reports and military documents, we discovered that Biden was correct. We also checked with experts who both support and oppose military commissions for various reasons, and no one disputed Biden's numbers.

PolitiFact | Two of three convicted in military commissions have been released

All they need is 12 of you on a jury and terrorists will not only go free, but will probably also enjoy the bounties of a fruitful civil suit.

Oh shut up already. Your hyperbolic nonsense is ridiculous. I believe in the rule of law, not convicting based upon emotion.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So you'd rather see terrorists go free because of flimsy military trials than be convicted in civilian courts, which have a proven track record? This is America. We're supposed to uphold the rule of law and give all accused a fair and speedy trial - not treat one group one way and another group another way.

All they need is 12 of you on a jury and terrorists will not only go free, but will probably also enjoy the bounties of a fruitful civil suit.

Oh shut up already. Your hyperbolic nonsense is ridiculous. I believe in the rule of law, not convicting based upon emotion.

Ouch. Hit a nerve did we?

Then you must be appalled we didn't capture Osama and bring him back here to face a jury, right?

 

[J.E.D]

The military kills enemies of the state and that is proof that Obama does not have an attitude of appeasement?

The what do you call him wanting to afford those enemies that survive a military attack the same rights that you and I have as American Citizens?

Just curious....

Civilian courts have a proven track record for convicting terrorists. Military courts do not.

Is that why OJ is still working on his golf swing?

OJ SIMPSON? He's in prison. I guess you missed that, huh? It was pretty big news. If you're referring to his acquittal for murder, well, that's the way it works. Welcome to America. If a jury doesn't feel there is enough evidence to convict somebody, then they acquit. If you ask me, he was guilty. But that doesn't mean the whole system should be turned upside down because some guilty people escape conviction. Throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't wise when you're talking about the rule of law.

 

[mudwhistle]

So you'd rather see terrorists go free because of flimsy military trials than be convicted in civilian courts, which have a proven track record? This is America. We're supposed to uphold the rule of law and give all accused a fair and speedy trial - not treat one group one way and another group another way.

All they need is 12 of you on a jury and terrorists will not only go free, but will probably also enjoy the bounties of a fruitful civil suit.

Oh shut up already. Your hyperbolic nonsense is ridiculous. I believe in the rule of law, not convicting based upon emotion.

I believe in trial via a bullet between the eyes.

That's one thing Obama did I agree with. Even though he doesn't do the killing himself.

Best thing for a terrorist is a hot lead injection.

 

[kaz]

Republican presidential candidates who criticized Obama's foreign policy credentials got a healthy taste of what they'll face if they want to continue down that road.

Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top al-Qaida leaders who have been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement. Or whoever is left out there, ask them about that," the president said during a news conference

Great point Josef. Obama's a complete moron, he doesn't even know what foreign policy is. He thinks military is foreign policy. Wow, what a moron. Way to keep up the heat on Obama, keep it up!

 

[J.E.D]

All they need is 12 of you on a jury and terrorists will not only go free, but will probably also enjoy the bounties of a fruitful civil suit.

Oh shut up already. Your hyperbolic nonsense is ridiculous. I believe in the rule of law, not convicting based upon emotion.

Ouch. Hit a nerve did we?

Then you must be appalled we didn't capture Osama and bring him back here to face a jury, right?

No, you didn't hit a nerve; you only made yourself look like a presumptive ass. Supporting fair trials doesn't mean that I support terrorism, moron. Ask the founding fathers how they feel. Or look at the Constitution some time. You're arguing AGAINST it.

 

[mascale]

So as the holidays approach in California, apparently the Jewish mothers-yet-to-be will be sent out to the horse-stalls, as is customary, to foal their blessed little . . .spawn.

The year-end fetish season yet continues, even in this economy. Anyone now has to go find a Jewish baby, and then find a dung heap: And hope that some dumb Arab brings enough incense.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(What did they know, and When Did They Know It! Possibly there was some common understanding of the nation of Israel at the time? Pundits like to thing that Frankincense and Myrhh were mainly expensive? Not even Hare Krishna, can easily believe that!)

 

[Jackson]

Strawman? Yeah, right. The Republican candidates who accused Obama of appeasement stepped in it all on their own.

So let me see if I've got this straight...President Obama's greatest foreign policiy achievement is killing Osama bin Laden? Remind me how we got the intel on where Osama was hiding? Wasn't that through the enhanced interrigation techniques that Barack Obama was against? So using something W. instigated and he opposed, Obama takes credit for "getting" Osama? Gotta love it...

Of course when your economic record is as bad as Obama's is you're going to claim successes anywhere you can...even on something as questionable as being the guy who "got" Bin Laden.

Uh, no.
Bush's TORTURE techniques did NOT lead to Osama Bin Laden. At least not right away.

Most experts said that had we done the OPPOSITE, treating prisoners with respect and plying them with friendship....which has PROVEN to WORK, we would have gotten him sooner rather than later.

Ever hear of shooting yourself in the foot? That's what Bush did with TORTURE.

And you are too stupid to figure that out? Or does Occham's razor and history suggest that Bush was brilliant and Obama a fool?

At least not away, lol! Comparing Obama and Bush is Occham's Razor does suggest that Bush was brilliant and Obama is a coward, stupid and doesn't learn from his mistakes. He's also the fool that crowded the whitehouse with friends and cronies who have questionable motives.

 

[kaz]

I believe in trial via a bullet between the eyes.

That's one thing Obama did I agree with. Even though he doesn't do the killing himself

He didn't? You're not following his press releases are you?