No. of Recommendations: 77
I watched a bit of the news conference this afternoon, and it reminded me of the people who have insisted that President Obama cannot speak well without the aid of a teleprompter. Those folks should watch the man in action.

I saw an intelligent, reserved, thoughtful conference. Regarding the Petraeus matter, the President reminded us that he has no business interfering with an FBI investigation. About the fiscal cliff, the President seems willing to compromise on most things, although he’s standing firm on the matter of not extending the Bush tax cuts for those whose earnings are in the top 2%.

Those who hated Mr Obama will no doubt go on hating him. But they look
more foolish by the day.

Jack
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The fact that you even feel the need to defend the president in this way speaks a lot about your own lack of confidence in Obama after almost 4 years.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I watched a bit of the news conference this afternoon, and it reminded me of the people who have insisted that President Obama cannot speak well without the aid of a teleprompter.

You forgot Obama's ability to time travel.

He simply went forward in time, got the questions, then came back with enough time to prepare for them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Regarding the Petraeus matter, the President reminded us that he has no business interfering with an FBI investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. You have to attend the intelligence briefings if you want to know about FBI investigations.

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
heh heh

all the questions were softball questions his staff had given the reporters to ask and they were assigned a numerical order to ask them.

Joke joke.

Even worse, he rambled and rambled...gave five minute answers when 15 seconds would have done.


like a college lib professor would have done to fill up an hour class he was bored with.

We all know now that he new Patraeus was in hot water FOUR MONTHS AGO with a security alarm/leak.......

He managed to hush it up till after the election......

And you give him credit for that?


His UN Ambassador lied through her teeth..protecting him. Let's have her nominated for Sec of State...the senate will grill her mercilessly under oath and get the truth.


Obama...your game is up..the Libya cover up is being exposed.


You can blab...you can jab....you can jive....but you aren't going to escape the truth...


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You can blab...you can jab....you can jive....but you aren't going to escape the truth...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I can't tell if you are kidding or just really high. Of course he is going to get away with it. Ted Kennedy killed a woman. Bill Clinton raped a woman. I'm pretty sure Obama will get away with calling off an air strike to avoid political fallout.

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yes. You have to attend the intelligence briefings if you want to know about FBI investigations.

How long do you think those briefings last? The FBI does a lot of investigations.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Nemesis wrote:

The fact that you even feel the need to defend the president in this way speaks a lot about your own lack of confidence in Obama after almost 4 years.

I wasn't defending the President. He doesn't NEED to be defended.

I was merely pointing out the absurdity of the charge that the man cannot speak without reading from a teleprompter.

Jack
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How long do you think those briefings last? The FBI does a lot of investigations.
------------------------------------------------------------------
They last long enough to mention the investigations involving........THE DIRECTOR OF THE CIA.

Stick to unprovable assertions of the potential success of borderline Marxism. If you are going to try to argue that the President didn't know the CIA Director had been compromised you might as well wear big red clown shoes.

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I wasn't defending the President. He doesn't NEED to be defended.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
No, the President needs to be defended. It's the Ambassadors in Muslim countries that don't need to be defended.

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
telegraph wrote:

Even worse, he rambled and rambled...gave five minute answers when 15 seconds would have done.

like a college lib professor would have done to fill up an hour class he was bored with.


I know what you mean. I HATE it when professors talk for more than 5 minutes. It's SO hard to pay attention that long when you are used to thinking in short sentences.

Like, "DRILL, BABY, DRILL." Or BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, BOMB IRAN."

What we need is a total moron as president. The Republicans tried their best to nominate one, but all they got was Flipper.

BTW....who's that Patreus guy you mentioned?

Jack
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm glad the President is unplugged. Much easier to use the bathroom that way.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

I know what you mean. I HATE it when professors talk for more than 5 minutes. It's SO hard to pay attention that long when you are used to thinking in short sentences.


but can you imagine what the President sounds like if your
attention barely spans a syllable?!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The fact that you even feel the need to defend the president in this way speaks a lot about your own lack of confidence in Obama after almost 4 years.
_________________________

Ah ha, caught you!

Even you admit he is not a total idiot<grin>
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 47
We have President Obama for 4 more years. You can spout and spew nonsense and conspiracy accusations, but there isn't going to be any impeachment. Obama is a moral man. You don't like his policies? Suck it up, you are a minority voice. You don't like his culture, cut, or color? Take a long hard look inward. Liberalism and progressive thought are part of this country's political discourse and are not "treason".

I am a proud American and I served my country. I don't put down conservative points. There is something there to bring to the table.
Even socialism has something to bring to the table.

"My way or the highway" is a death spiral. Get along or get out.

MUS is not going to change a thing. What are YOU going to contribute to the next 4 years for our collective well-being other than a strident voice?

fd
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
They last long enough to mention the investigations involving........THE DIRECTOR OF THE CIA.

Stick to unprovable assertions of the potential success of borderline Marxism. If you are going to try to argue that the President didn't know the CIA Director had been compromised you might as well wear big red clown shoes.


Is the FBI part of the daily briefing? I've always imagined it as more of an NSA/CIA show.

And Obama gets briefings. The daily brief was always a written document. W apparently requested it be done in person (which is fine, some people absorb information better if they hear it than if they read it) - Obama has simply returned to the way things were always done.

And if the investigation of the CIA director didn't percolate up the FBI chain to get to Obama at some point (whether through the daily briefing or some other method) - I'd agree that there was a failure there.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
W apparently requested it be done in person (which is fine, some people absorb information better if they hear it than if they read it) - Obama has simply returned to the way things were always done.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not going to bother to look it up, but I doubt GWB was the first President to conduct daily intelligence briefings as a morning meeting with agency representatives in the room. I don't think having someone hand you a sheet of paper is "the way things were always done". I'm not looking it up.

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I'm not going to bother to look it up, but I doubt GWB was the first President to conduct daily intelligence briefings as a morning meeting with agency representatives in the room. I don't think having someone hand you a sheet of paper is "the way things were always done". I'm not looking it up.

Here you go: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-bo...

Summary - reads best bottom (Nixon, Carter, etc) on up - but I'm too lazy to reformat it.

Obama - combination of oral and written, gets and reads the written brief everyday. Has a daily national security briefing

W - wanted personal and oral, and that matched CIA’s institutional interest in face to face with the president

Clinton - Clinton the reader was known to comment that his morning papers were better than the intel brief, and better written — to the point that the CIA director James Woolsey joked that when that Cessna crashed into the White House, that was him seeking an audience with the president.

GHW - who had once served as CIA director, reinstituted an oral briefing, read the PDB closely and even examined raw intelligence reports.

Reagan - also almost never received oral briefings or had meetings with CIA personnel. Here is how the CIA history puts it:

Carter - scrapped the oral briefing and instead relied on a one-on-one meeting with his national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Ford - decided to add an oral briefing from a CIA official as his first meeting of the morning

Nixon - had few, if any, oral briefings and instead received his intelligence from the morning memo of his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So Carter met with Zbigniew, Ford met with a CIA official, Nixon met with Kissinger. Okay, that's what I would have guessed.

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Ted Kennedy killed a woman. Bill Clinton raped a woman. I'm pretty sure Obama will get away with calling off an air strike to avoid political fallout.

Ted killed a woman? Was that first degree murder, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, or accidental death?

Clinton raped a woman? really? Proof? Or you don't need proof?

It must be nice having your omnipotent knowledge of all events and intents of the people you hate.

I can't tell if you are kidding or just really high. but in either case, what you write is not true, nor based in fact or reality.

I expect you not to back up your vicious statements but to conjure up another attack, off-point, equally as vile. Go away. We don't need to hear further from you. You have nothing more to contribute.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I expect you not to back up your vicious statements but to conjure up another attack, off-point, equally as vile. Go away. We don't need to hear further from you. You have nothing more to contribute.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think I can come up with anything more vile than:

-Ted Kennedy driving his car drunk off a bridge and causing a woman to drown.

-Robert Byrd being in the KKK

-Anthony Weiner messaging pictures of his genitals to strangers

-Barney Frank's boyfriend running a gay whore house out of his basement.

-Bill Clinton being 'falsely accused' of rape, assault and sexual intimidation by over a dozen different women in what is clearly a total coincidence of false accusations

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't think I can come up with anything more vile

Look in the mirror and repeat this word, and see what vile stuff resides in your brain.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Look in the mirror and repeat this word, and see what vile stuff resides in your brain.

-Joel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huh? Repeat which word? What day is it where you are? Do your sleeves connect in the back?

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If you strictly interpret the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors", Obama deserves to be impeached, but as of right now it would be a useless exercise, because you could never get enough votes in the Senate in the current environment. If anybody really wants to impeach Obama, they need to get more evidence on him than is currently known.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If anybody really wants to impeach Obama, they need to get more evidence on him than is currently known.

You have a gift for understatement.
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement