Breaking news on fox

[bedowin62]

Well, no, he does not. Obama voted against the war in Iraq. The people that lied us into Iraq, that ignored all warnings that it would be a colossal mistake, they own Iraq. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the war hawks that sold it to the American public own Iraq.

Hmmmmm...things were going well until obammy pulled out the troops.
And he knew this shit was about to go down and did nothing to stop it. So yeah,he owns it.

Uuuh no. Americans know who the blame belongs to. It's not Obama. You can try to blame Obama all you want, but your argument holds no water.

YAWN
another left-wing nutjob thinking he can speak for all Americans

 

[J.E.D]

Hmmmmm...things were going well until obammy pulled out the troops.
And he knew this shit was about to go down and did nothing to stop it. So yeah,he owns it.

Uuuh no. Americans know who the blame belongs to. It's not Obama. You can try to blame Obama all you want, but your argument holds no water.

YAWN
another left-wing nutjob thinking he can speak for all Americans

Not all, just 57%

Iraq | Gallup Historical Trends

Feb 6 - 9 2014

In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?

57% yes, a mistake
40% no, not a mistake
2% no opinion

 

[bedowin62]

Uuuh no. Americans know who the blame belongs to. It's not Obama. You can try to blame Obama all you want, but your argument holds no water.

YAWN
another left-wing nutjob thinking he can speak for all Americans

Not all, just 57%

Iraq | Gallup Historical Trends

Feb 6 - 9 2014

In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?

57% yes, a mistake
40% no, not a mistake
2% no opinion

sorry nutjob; but that poll doesnt address what we were talking about; that obama owns iraq

that's the problem with you losers; y ou just throw stuff from your diaper at the wall to see what sticks

pardon me for going off topic then leftard; but if you want to talk about opinion polls in the 50-something range; what is obama's approval rating these days?

what is the approval rating of obamacare:?

 

[bedowin62]

obama and biden "owned" it when biden was saying "this is a really big $#@kin deal!"
and "this will be remembered as one of obama's biggest foreign policy achievments"; and when obama said "we are leaving Iraq a stable and vibrant democracy" or something to that effect

but now that it's turning to shit it's back to the Bush years

you left-wing losers on these boards are good for laughs and that is all!

 

[J.E.D]

Sorry Bedwetter......you fail

 

[Katzndogz]

Most of the dead in Iraq didn't happen under Bush but under obama.

obama intended that Iraq fall apart. He couldn't accept Bush's success. He tried to take credit for it then decided it would be more beneficial to just destroy the country.

 

[Camp]

Why the deflection? Are you really that angry that Obama stopped the blood letting of American soldiers in Iraq. A poster mocked Biden for calling Iraq a great achievement of the administration. It seems to be a popular talking point to indicate that ending the war and getting out of Iraq was a bad thing. I find it a disgusting talking point. I am one of those people that is happy the flag draped coffins and maimed military members are no longer coming home from that waste of American blood and treasure.

Again you fail to mention how many American soldiers died in afghanistan under obammys watch. Why the double standard?
The ol Sargent Schultz defense. It never gets old.

No double standard. Some of us just aren't swept up with the emotional partisan politics and we remember exactly who attacked us on 9/11 and who have vowed to return to attack us again. They were not from Iraq, they were from Afghanistan. Sad that so many have forgotten that simple little fact and haven't a clue about why our military is still in Afghanistan.

Their are still a few actual al Qaeda members who helped plan the 9/11 attacks hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to the Muslim owned news organization al Jazeera we killed five of them two weeks ago with a drone strike.

 

[Pheonixops]

Maybe if he empties Gitmo the terrorists will cut him a deal--------------

Where did I state anything like that? You don't think that the detainees aka prisoners in Gitmo deserve due process and to be put on trial and sentenced if they are found guilty or freed if they are found not guilty?

NO, they are prisoners of war. The war is still going on. They should not be released until the radical muslims are defeated or surrender.

"due process" are you a fricken moron. Did Danny Pearl get "due process"? how about the 3000 innocents killed on 9/11? Did they get due process?

you libtards live in a fantasy world.

A "tard" calling me a "tard"! Thanks for the laugh!

"On 5 December 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case of Boumediene v. Bush. Plaintiffs in the case argue that Guantánamo detainees deserve the right to habeas corpus and that the U.S. court system, not the military CSRT system, should have jurisdiction in such cases. On 12 June 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) that detainees do have the right to challenge their detention in civilian courts, overturning the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which abridged such rights.[175] It said the act was unconstitutional for trying to restrict use of habeas corpus.

Starting 16 November 2009, as enabled by the Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene, dozens of detainees began to use habeas corpus petitions in U.S. courts to seek freedom from the Guantánamo Bay prison. In some cases, they testified by video from the U.S. naval base in Cuba. Fifteen Federal judges have found the government's evidence against 30 detainees wanting and ordered their release. That number was expected to rise as the judges were scheduled to hear challenges from dozens more prisoners.[176][dated info]

In the summer of 2012, the government instituted a new protocol for civilian attorneys representing Guantanamo prisoners. It required lawyers to sign a Memorandum of Understanding, in which they agreed to certain restrictions, in order to continue to see their clients.[177] For years, a federal court order has governed lawyers' access to their detainee clients and classified information related to their capture and confinement. Government lawyers had sought court approval to replace the court's protective order with the MOU, to enable military officials to establish and enforce their own rules about when and how detainees could have access to legal counsel.[178]

Under the rules of the MOU, lawyers' access was restricted for those detainees who no longer have legal challenges pending. The new government rules tightened access to classified information and gave the commander of the Guantanamo Bay Joint Task Force complete discretion over lawyers' access to the detainees, including visits to the base and letters. The Justice Department took the position that Guantanamo Bay detainees whose legal challenges have been dismissed do not need the same level of access to counsel as detainees who are still fighting in court.[177]

Six detainees challenged the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) requirement, which covers those who no longer have an active or pending habeas petitions.[179] On 5 September 2012, Chief U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth said the government has no right to deny counsel access to detainees. Writing that the federal government is confusing "the roles of the jailer and the judiciary," Judge Lamberth struck down the military's assertion that it could veto meetings between lawyers and detainees.[177][180] Judge Lamberth ruled that access by lawyers to their detainee-clients at Guantánamo must continue under the terms of a long-standing protective order issued by federal judges in Washington.[178]

The judge said that the MOU would give the government

"final, unreviewable power to delay, hinder, or prevent access to the courts."[178] He went on, "The government actions thus far demonstrate that it cannot be trusted with such power."[178] The MOU, Lamberth noted, strips counsel of their "need to know" designations, and explicitly denies counsel access to all classified documents or information which counsel had "previously obtained or created" in pursuit of a detainee's habeas petition.

Counsel can obtain access to their own classified work product only if they can justify their need for such information.

Lamberth wrote,

"At its heart, this case is about whether the Executive or the Court is charged with protecting habeas petitioners' right to access their counsel."[179] Further, "It is clear that the government had no legal authority to unilaterally impose a counsel-access regime, let alone one that would render detainees' access to counsel illusory," Lamberth declared.[179]

Lamberth concluded:

If the separation-of-powers means anything, it is that this country is not one ruled by Executive fiat. Such blanket, unreviewable power over counsel-access by the Executive does not comport with our constitutional system of government. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Court that the Protective Order continues to govern detainee-counsel access for the purpose of bringing habeas petitions so long as detainees can bring habeas petitions before the Court.[181]

Judge Lamberth said the government has the right to run the facility at Guantanamo, but that the courts have authority to make sure prisoners have access to the courts, and that cannot happen unless they have access to their lawyers.[177] Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said: "We have no comment on whether the Department plans to appeal the Lamberth decision on counsel access to GTMO detainees."

" The primary purpose of drafting the Constitution was to limit government power. The Due Process guarantees found in the Bill of Rights were meant to empower individuals against arbitrary government action. This is a bedrock principle of American jurisprudence and is being completely ignored as a policy concern in relation to Guantanamo detainees.

Ironically strong notions of Due Process are embedded in the current version of the Rules for Military Commissions (R.C.M.). Pursuant to R.M.C. 707, "within 120 days of the service of charges, the military judge shall announce the assembly of the military commission, in accordance with R.M.C. 911." This is being completely ignored.

"The U.S. Supreme Court recently cited Army Regulation 190-8 as an example of a procedure which would satisfy the due process requirements for determining the status of the Guantanamo Bay detainees."

The Many Faces of Guantanamo ? LewRockwell.com

 

[Pheonixops]

Maybe if he empties Gitmo the terrorists will cut him a deal--------------

Where did I state anything like that? You don't think that the detainees aka prisoners in Gitmo deserve due process and to be put on trial and sentenced if they are found guilty or freed if they are found not guilty?

If they are found not guilty, where do you imagine they would be freed at? New York City, Chicago, Miami? The countries they came from do not want to take them back.

BTW, what ever happened to due process for Anwar al-Awlaki, or his son? Apparently, your due process is only applicable to foreign born terrorists.

They would be deported.


Apparently, you don't know what you are talking about. You dumb down the conversation when you make such an ignorant assertion.

 

[Pheonixops]

I'd rather him try to help negotiate for peace than to deploy any more of our military there.

z

As hard as he tries to blame this mess on Bush, it's his! He took ownership of it when he Swore the Oath Of Office Of The President Of The United States Of America. He doubled down when he sent his lap dog, Biden, out to say Iraq will be the greatest acheivement of his Presidency. He tripled down on it when he decided not to leave 10,000 troops, just so he could meet his own deadline of getting all the troops out. He gave the terrorists a heads up on the date they could come back with impunity and he kept that date.
And don't blame it on Malaki either, Obama is so weak he let a two bit tin horn dictator use him like a "Saturday night special".

That SOFA that dictated the exact date of the withdrawal of our troops by Jan 1, 2012 was SIGNED BY G.W. BUSH in 2008.

Part of the reason Obama didn't want to leave our troops there, was the Iraqi government's decision not to give our troops immunity to their laws. I'm sure that people like you would be crying "He made our troops subject to Iraqi law!" , if Obama agreed to Malaki's terms.

How was he allegedly used like a "Saturday night special"?

 

[Camp]

Most of the dead in Iraq didn't happen under Bush but under obama.

obama intended that Iraq fall apart. He couldn't accept Bush's success. He tried to take credit for it then decided it would be more beneficial to just destroy the country.

Nobody puts out more misinformation than you do. You seem to just be a hard core liar. This one is a huge, giant outrageous one. Am I wrong? Show us a link. Show us how many died in Iraq under Bush and how many under Obama.

 

[deltex1]

I'd rather him try to help negotiate for peace than to deploy any more of our military there.

z

As hard as he tries to blame this mess on Bush, it's his! He took ownership of it when he Swore the Oath Of Office Of The President Of The United States Of America. He doubled down when he sent his lap dog, Biden, out to say Iraq will be the greatest acheivement of his Presidency. He tripled down on it when he decided not to leave 10,000 troops, just so he could meet his own deadline of getting all the troops out. He gave the terrorists a heads up on the date they could come back with impunity and he kept that date.
And don't blame it on Malaki either, Obama is so weak he let a two bit tin horn dictator use him like a "Saturday night special".

That SOFA that dictated the exact date of the withdrawal of our troops by Jan 1, 2012 was SIGNED BY G.W. BUSH in 2008.

Part of the reason Obama didn't want to leave our troops there, was the Iraqi government's decision not to give our troops immunity to their laws. I'm sure that people like you would be crying "He made our troops subject to Iraqi law!" , if Obama agreed to Malaki's terms.

How was he allegedly used like a "Saturday night special"?

That Obabble could not wrestle Maliki to the floor ( this is a figure of speech not to be read literally by morons) speaks volumes as to the weakness of the magic neeeeeeeeeegro.

 

[Pheonixops]

I'd rather him try to help negotiate for peace than to deploy any more of our military there.

You mean besides the 250+ that are already sent there? Yeah, I agree.

If they were sent to protect and or evacuate the embassy there (if necessary), I have no problem with it. I can sadly see the next transition will be air strikes, and possible "boots on the ground" in order to "stabilize" things.

I say let them fight and kill each other and if some people are left that want to do us harm after that, take them out. This nation building B.S. doesn't work over there in my opinion. China gets nearly 50% of Iraq's oil and they aren't doing anything militarily about this situation, why should we?

“We lost out,” said Michael Makovsky, a former Defense Department official in the Bush administration who worked on Iraq oil policy. “The Chinese had nothing to do with the war, but from an economic standpoint they are benefiting from it, and our Fifth Fleet and air forces are helping to assure their supply.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/w...its-of-iraq-oil-boom.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

"Bush administration officials suggested shortly after the invasion that revenue from Iraq’s oil fields could largely pay the cost of rebuilding the country. That turned out to be wrong, and $60 billion in American taxpayer funds ended up going into the reconstruction of Iraq. The war devastated Iraq’s oil industry, as kidnappings, sabotage and attacks on infrastructure made it virtually impossible to do business.

Read more here: WASHINGTON: Iraqi oil: Once seen as U.S. boon, now it?s mostly China?s | Middle East | McClatchy DC

 

[Pheonixops]

z

As hard as he tries to blame this mess on Bush, it's his! He took ownership of it when he Swore the Oath Of Office Of The President Of The United States Of America. He doubled down when he sent his lap dog, Biden, out to say Iraq will be the greatest acheivement of his Presidency. He tripled down on it when he decided not to leave 10,000 troops, just so he could meet his own deadline of getting all the troops out. He gave the terrorists a heads up on the date they could come back with impunity and he kept that date.
And don't blame it on Malaki either, Obama is so weak he let a two bit tin horn dictator use him like a "Saturday night special".

That SOFA that dictated the exact date of the withdrawal of our troops by Jan 1, 2012 was SIGNED BY G.W. BUSH in 2008.

Part of the reason Obama didn't want to leave our troops there, was the Iraqi government's decision not to give our troops immunity to their laws. I'm sure that people like you would be crying "He made our troops subject to Iraqi law!" , if Obama agreed to Malaki's terms.

How was he allegedly used like a "Saturday night special"?

That Obabble could not wrestle Maliki to the floor ( this is a figure of speech not to be read literally by morons) speaks volumes as to the weakness of the magic neeeeeeeeeegro.

Now Maliki is paying the price for not agreeing to give Our troops immunity in order to stay there.

Personally, I think we should have left there when we did. That place is pretty much a cluster fuck.

 

[paulitician]

My advice to the President would be to simply stay out of it. Then i would advise him to stop meddling in Syria as well. Our Government's constant meddling has caused this horrific mess over there. The President should stop making things worse. Just stay out of it.

 

[J.E.D]

Most of the dead in Iraq didn't happen under Bush but under obama.

obama intended that Iraq fall apart. He couldn't accept Bush's success. He tried to take credit for it then decided it would be more beneficial to just destroy the country.

You are a lying sack of shit.

US fatalities by year:

Bush years:
2003 - 486
2004 - 849
2005 - 846
2006 - 823
2007 - 904
2008 - 314

Obama years:
2009 - 149
2010 - 60
2011 - 54
2012 - 1

This list only goes to 2012, but you get the picture.

Stop lying.

Source

 

[paulitician]

Our Government's constant meddling has caused this awful mess over there. Only a poor misguided dupe would believe more meddling is gonna fix it.

 

[Redfish]

Our Government's constant meddling has caused this awful mess over there. Only a poor misguided dupe would believe more meddling is gonna fix it.

yeah, and like we did in viet nam, we will declare defeat and let the radicals take over, gas will go to $8/gallon, food and energy prices wil skyrocket, unemployment will remain high: in other words, obama will have succeeded in "fundamentally tranforming" two countries.

Going in was dumb, going in and not trying to win is even dumber. We will never learn the lesson of viet nam-----so we are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Redfish]

Where did I state anything like that? You don't think that the detainees aka prisoners in Gitmo deserve due process and to be put on trial and sentenced if they are found guilty or freed if they are found not guilty?

NO, they are prisoners of war. The war is still going on. They should not be released until the radical muslims are defeated or surrender.

"due process" are you a fricken moron. Did Danny Pearl get "due process"? how about the 3000 innocents killed on 9/11? Did they get due process?

you libtards live in a fantasy world.

A "tard" calling me a "tard"! Thanks for the laugh!

"On 5 December 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case of Boumediene v. Bush. Plaintiffs in the case argue that Guantánamo detainees deserve the right to habeas corpus and that the U.S. court system, not the military CSRT system, should have jurisdiction in such cases. On 12 June 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) that detainees do have the right to challenge their detention in civilian courts, overturning the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which abridged such rights.[175] It said the act was unconstitutional for trying to restrict use of habeas corpus.

Starting 16 November 2009, as enabled by the Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene, dozens of detainees began to use habeas corpus petitions in U.S. courts to seek freedom from the Guantánamo Bay prison. In some cases, they testified by video from the U.S. naval base in Cuba. Fifteen Federal judges have found the government's evidence against 30 detainees wanting and ordered their release. That number was expected to rise as the judges were scheduled to hear challenges from dozens more prisoners.[176][dated info]

In the summer of 2012, the government instituted a new protocol for civilian attorneys representing Guantanamo prisoners. It required lawyers to sign a Memorandum of Understanding, in which they agreed to certain restrictions, in order to continue to see their clients.[177] For years, a federal court order has governed lawyers' access to their detainee clients and classified information related to their capture and confinement. Government lawyers had sought court approval to replace the court's protective order with the MOU, to enable military officials to establish and enforce their own rules about when and how detainees could have access to legal counsel.[178]

Under the rules of the MOU, lawyers' access was restricted for those detainees who no longer have legal challenges pending. The new government rules tightened access to classified information and gave the commander of the Guantanamo Bay Joint Task Force complete discretion over lawyers' access to the detainees, including visits to the base and letters. The Justice Department took the position that Guantanamo Bay detainees whose legal challenges have been dismissed do not need the same level of access to counsel as detainees who are still fighting in court.[177]

Six detainees challenged the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) requirement, which covers those who no longer have an active or pending habeas petitions.[179] On 5 September 2012, Chief U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth said the government has no right to deny counsel access to detainees. Writing that the federal government is confusing "the roles of the jailer and the judiciary," Judge Lamberth struck down the military's assertion that it could veto meetings between lawyers and detainees.[177][180] Judge Lamberth ruled that access by lawyers to their detainee-clients at Guantánamo must continue under the terms of a long-standing protective order issued by federal judges in Washington.[178]

The judge said that the MOU would give the government

"final, unreviewable power to delay, hinder, or prevent access to the courts."[178] He went on, "The government actions thus far demonstrate that it cannot be trusted with such power."[178] The MOU, Lamberth noted, strips counsel of their "need to know" designations, and explicitly denies counsel access to all classified documents or information which counsel had "previously obtained or created" in pursuit of a detainee's habeas petition.

Counsel can obtain access to their own classified work product only if they can justify their need for such information.

Lamberth wrote,

"At its heart, this case is about whether the Executive or the Court is charged with protecting habeas petitioners' right to access their counsel."[179] Further, "It is clear that the government had no legal authority to unilaterally impose a counsel-access regime, let alone one that would render detainees' access to counsel illusory," Lamberth declared.[179]

Lamberth concluded:

If the separation-of-powers means anything, it is that this country is not one ruled by Executive fiat. Such blanket, unreviewable power over counsel-access by the Executive does not comport with our constitutional system of government. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Court that the Protective Order continues to govern detainee-counsel access for the purpose of bringing habeas petitions so long as detainees can bring habeas petitions before the Court.[181]

Judge Lamberth said the government has the right to run the facility at Guantanamo, but that the courts have authority to make sure prisoners have access to the courts, and that cannot happen unless they have access to their lawyers.[177] Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said: "We have no comment on whether the Department plans to appeal the Lamberth decision on counsel access to GTMO detainees."

" The primary purpose of drafting the Constitution was to limit government power. The Due Process guarantees found in the Bill of Rights were meant to empower individuals against arbitrary government action. This is a bedrock principle of American jurisprudence and is being completely ignored as a policy concern in relation to Guantanamo detainees.

Ironically strong notions of Due Process are embedded in the current version of the Rules for Military Commissions (R.C.M.). Pursuant to R.M.C. 707, "within 120 days of the service of charges, the military judge shall announce the assembly of the military commission, in accordance with R.M.C. 911." This is being completely ignored.

"The U.S. Supreme Court recently cited Army Regulation 190-8 as an example of a procedure which would satisfy the due process requirements for determining the status of the Guantanamo Bay detainees."

The Many Faces of Guantanamo ? LewRockwell.com

A ruling by a court does not make it right. Prisoners of war are not entitled to due process like a convenience store robber.

Our current thinking in this country on such things is very fucked up. Just like our current thinking on our southern border is very fucked up.
we, the american peoplem, are going to suffer from this libtardian way of thinking.

the 5 that obozo set free will kill more americans---------count on it.

some of the thousands crossing the border illegally will kill more americans---------count on it.