Susan Rice new Secretary of State?

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Right, it's never terrorists. Obama won't call the Fort Hood massacre an act of terrorism, but rather, it was a case of "workplace violence", as if the shooter's agenda was similar to that of a disgruntled postal worker.

How do you ever win a war, when you refuse to admit who you are fighting against?

And one of the base commanders (Lt Gen Cone) said it wasn't an act of terrorism either. Why aren't you crying about him? Oh right, then it would prove you hate America!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

And one of the base commanders (Lt Gen Cone) said it wasn't an act of terrorism either. Why aren't you crying about him? Oh right, then it would prove you hate America!

Likwid, like the vast majority of Americans, I have no idea who Gen Cone is. If Gen Cone said that, he is also an idiot.

When the killer believes he is killing in the name of Islam, and he shouts "Allah Hu Akbar" (Allah Is Great) as he kills Americans, that is what makes him an Islamic terrorist.

Likwid, you are not going to get me with a simple Gotcha question. I'm not a glaring hypocrit. Every single person who says Ft Hood was not an act of Islamic terrorism, is an idiot. And sying he's an idiot, in no way "proves I hate America". Why would it imply I hate America? I have served America more than a person like you ever will.

Fair enough?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm not a glaring hypocrit.

Personally, I think your the biggest hypocrit on this site. Whenever you see something you don't like that you think is done by a liberal you start crying and attribute it to all liberals (Infact, John has had to repeatedly tell you to stop doing that). Yet when something is done by a conserv. and someone attributes it to a cons., you get your panties in a bunch.

The tone of the whole forum has changed since you have started posting.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The tone of the whole forum has changed since you have started posting.

Maybe because you didn't call folks racist until I came along. It's a ridiculous charge.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Maybe because you didn't call folks racist until I came along. It's a ridiculous charge.

And you know that was to show the absurdity of what you do daily with your labeling of people.

Frankly, I'm could care less if it was or wasn't a terrorist attack (other than the fact that Americans were killed) as we're going to continue to get attacked for many many years.

However, I think it is crazy to compare what was said by Pres. Bush's admin. that caused us to go war needlessly with what was said by Pres. Obama's Admin. AFTER an attack for the reason for the reason of the attack. It was shown that Pres. Bush admin. wanted to go to war w/Iraq and always looked at any evidence that they thought showed Iraq involvement in the worse way and ignored any evidence that Iraq wasn't involved (alumin. tubes, yellowcake, German intelligence and curveball).

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And you know that was to show the absurdity of what you do daily with your labeling of people.

Frankly, I'm could care less if it was or wasn't a terrorist attack (other than the fact that Americans were killed) as we're going to continue to get attacked for many many years.

However, I think it is crazy to compare what was said by Pres. Bush's admin. that caused us to go war needlessly with what was said by Pres. Obama's Admin. AFTER an attack for the reason for the reason of the attack. It was shown that Pres. Bush admin. wanted to go to war w/Iraq and always looked at any evidence that they thought showed Iraq involvement in the worse way and ignored any evidence that Iraq wasn't involved (alumin. tubes, yellowcake, German intelligence and curveball).

"I think it is crazy to compare what was said by Pres. Bush's admin. that caused us to go war needlessly with what was said by Pres. Obama's Admin. AFTER an attack "

So do I. And if you read this thread, you'll see that it was Likwid who brought that up, not me.

"It was shown that Pres. Bush admin. wanted to go to war w/Iraq "

Who showed that? With what evidence? If that's true (and it's not), are you aware that then-Senators Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden also voted in favor of the invasion? Why aren't they culpable as well?

Tell us, why did Bush want to go to war with Iraq?

[PaulS]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;971138
Who showed that? With what evidence? If that's true (and it's not), are you aware that then-Senators Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden also voted in favor of the invasion? Why aren't they culpable as well?

Tell us, why did Bush want to go to war with Iraq?[/QUOTE]

R. Clark said from day 1 Pres. Bush was saying - it's Iraq, we have to go after Iraq. They all voted on the evidence that was shown to them by the admin. If they were feed the wrong info, how can you hold them responsible?

I guess he wanted to finish what his father didn't do - get Hussain out of Iraq.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Likwid, like the vast majority of Americans, I have no idea who Gen Cone is. If Gen Cone said that, he is also an idiot.

When the killer believes he is killing in the name of Islam, and he shouts "Allah Hu Akbar" (Allah Is Great) as he kills Americans, that is what makes him an Islamic terrorist.

Likwid, you are not going to get me with a simple Gotcha question. I'm not a glaring hypocrit. Every single person who says Ft Hood was not an act of Islamic terrorism, is an idiot. And sying he's an idiot, in no way "proves I hate America". Why would it imply I hate America? I have served America more than a person like you ever will.

Fair enough?

The Defense Department hasn't labeled the Ft Hood shootings as terrorism for legal reasons...he's not up on terror charges.

To convict on terror charges would require a higher burden of proof around the conspiracy, motivation etc...Certainly with the Hassan case he appears to have gone a bit nutty and while there's communication with an al Qaeda operative there doesn't appear to be evidence his actions were necessarily directed.

Simply put, bringing Hassan up on terror charges would give him a chance to muddy the waters and escape a conviction or harsher charges.

As it is being prosecuted, the case should be open and shut.

It's funny, you like to accuse the left of acting on emotion rather than facts and rational thought.

Yet this is what you do all the time.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The Defense Department hasn't labeled the Ft Hood shootings as terrorism for legal reasons...he's not up on terror charges.

To convict on terror charges would require a higher burden of proof around the conspiracy, motivation etc...Certainly with the Hassan case he appears to have gone a bit nutty and while there's communication with an al Qaeda operative there doesn't appear to be evidence his actions were necessarily directed.

Simply put, bringing Hassan up on terror charges would give him a chance to muddy the waters and escape a conviction or harsher charges.

As it is being prosecuted, the case should be open and shut.

It's funny, you like to accuse the left of acting on emotion rather than facts and rational thought.

Yet this is what you do all the time.

-spence

Spence -


Earlier in this thread, you said Obama never misled anyone. I posted compelling evidence to the contrary. Can you respond, please?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence -


Earlier in this thread, you said Obama never misled anyone. I posted compelling evidence to the contrary. Can you respond, please?

If there's an ongoing investigation you don't jump out and make a conclusion just because you're being pressed in a debate.

You think this is compelling evidence???

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

If there's an ongoing investigation you don't jump out and make a conclusion just because you're being pressed in a debate.

You think this is compelling evidence???

-spence

That's the best you could come up with?

How was Obama being "pressed"? It was town hall debate, and the man asked a simple question. That's not being 'pressed', is it? God knows the moderator wasn't going to 'press' Obama.

Obama did not tell the gentleman, "gee, I know the answer to that question, but I can't answer because of an internal investigation". Spence, if that's the case, i agree it's a valid answer. But it's not what Obama said. You're going to greater lengths to excuse him, than he himself did. Can you appreciate that?

It's been 11 weeks, and we have no answers.

Spence that was weak...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The Defense Department hasn't labeled the Ft Hood shootings as terrorism for legal reasons...he's not up on terror charges.

To convict on terror charges would require a higher burden of proof around the conspiracy, motivation etc...Certainly with the Hassan case he appears to have gone a bit nutty and while there's communication with an al Qaeda operative there doesn't appear to be evidence his actions were necessarily directed.

Simply put, bringing Hassan up on terror charges would give him a chance to muddy the waters and escape a conviction or harsher charges.

As it is being prosecuted, the case should be open and shut.

It's funny, you like to accuse the left of acting on emotion rather than facts and rational thought.

Yet this is what you do all the time.

-spence

I want to make sure I understand...you are sayng, that Obama won 't call it a terrorist attack, so that it will be easier to convict Hassan at trial. Is that what you are saying?

Once again...is Obama even claiming that? Spence, if Obama says that Hassan is a terririst, does that mean you can't charge him with anything other than terror? Meaning, does calling him a terrorist preclude us from ever charging him with anything that doesn't make it harder to convict?

Answer - of course not.

Spence, if what you say is true (and as usual, it's not) why would any President, ever, refer to someone as a terrorist who is awaiting trial? Obama has referred to Khalid Shiek Mohammed as a terrorist. So why isn't anyone criticizing Obama for that, since using your logic, that would make it significantly harder to convict him?

Spence, you really threw some egg on your own face here...unbelievable...I've seen love drive some people to do some pretty strange things.

Spence, here is what happened in Benghazi. Stevens asked for extra security. He listed lots of reasons why he thought he needed it, lots of threats, lots of attacks. Someone in the administration denied that request, and even reduced the security.

Then the attack happened.

Now, Obama is not someone who, let's say, welcomes criticism. In this case, Obama can be criticized on 2 fronts...first, he looks like a clown for not granting the request for extra security. Second, since it was an Al Queda-affioiated group that carried out the attack, Obama looks inept for saying that Al Queda was ineffective since he killed Bin Laden.

So Obama tooka page rigt out of the Spence playbook, and came up with a ridiculous story, one that naturally absolves him of any responsibility for what happened. According to Obama...thsi wasn't an attack that Stevens saw coming, but rather, a protest over a video that spiraled out of control, therefore no one can blame Obama.

Except there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that immediately afetr the attack, the CIA, the State Dept, and the Libyans, knew there was no protest before the attack, and that the attack was sophisticated, and pre-planned by a known terror group.

Again, Obama's fantastic story is right out of your playbook. It doesn't matter if it's true, it doesn't matter if it passes the common sense test. All that matters is that it paints your Messiah in the most favorable possible light.

Unfreakinbelievable.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I want to make sure I understand...you are sayng, that Obama won 't call it a terrorist attack, so that it will be easier to convict Hassan at trial. Is that what you are saying?

only if he shaves the beard...I think the ACLU is defending him on that one




Again, Obama's fantastic story is right out of your playbook. It doesn't matter if it's true, it doesn't matter if it passes the common sense test. All that matters is that it paints your Messiah in the most favorable possible light.

Unfreakinbelievable.

it is an odd obsession of his

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I want to make sure I understand...you are sayng, that Obama won 't call it a terrorist attack, so that it will be easier to convict Hassan at trial. Is that what you are saying?

Once again...is Obama even claiming that? Spence, if Obama says that Hassan is a terririst, does that mean you can't charge him with anything other than terror? Meaning, does calling him a terrorist preclude us from ever charging him with anything that doesn't make it harder to convict?

The government specifically said they don't want to bias the open and shut case before the military court.

Spence, if what you say is true (and as usual, it's not) why would any President, ever, refer to someone as a terrorist who is awaiting trial? Obama has referred to Khalid Shiek Mohammed as a terrorist. So why isn't anyone criticizing Obama for that, since using your logic, that would make it significantly harder to convict him?

KSM was charged with terrorism.

Spence, you really threw some egg on your own face here...unbelievable...I've seen love drive some people to do some pretty strange things.

Usually when you say things like this is means you've waded into water a little too deep.

Spence, here is what happened in Benghazi. Stevens asked for extra security. He listed lots of reasons why he thought he needed it, lots of threats, lots of attacks. Someone in the administration denied that request, and even reduced the security.

Then the attack happened.

Now, Obama is not someone who, let's say, welcomes criticism. In this case, Obama can be criticized on 2 fronts...first, he looks like a clown for not granting the request for extra security. Second, since it was an Al Queda-affioiated group that carried out the attack, Obama looks inept for saying that Al Queda was ineffective since he killed Bin Laden.

So Obama tooka page rigt out of the Spence playbook, and came up with a ridiculous story, one that naturally absolves him of any responsibility for what happened. According to Obama...thsi wasn't an attack that Stevens saw coming, but rather, a protest over a video that spiraled out of control, therefore no one can blame Obama.

Except there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that immediately afetr the attack, the CIA, the State Dept, and the Libyans, knew there was no protest before the attack, and that the attack was sophisticated, and pre-planned by a known terror group.

Have you seriously tried to read ANYTHING about this attack that's not a half baked conspiracy theory?

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The government specifically said they don't want to bias the open and shut case before the military court.


KSM was charged with terrorism.


Usually when you say things like this is means you've waded into water a little too deep.


Have you seriously tried to read ANYTHING about this attack that's not a half baked conspiracy theory?

-spence

"KSM was charged with terrorism."

But why? If charging someone with terrorism makes it harder to convict them (compared to just charging them with murder), WHY charge KSM with terrirism?

"Have you seriously tried to read ANYTHING about this attack that's not a half baked conspiracy theory?"

Sure I have.

I posted Obama's dodge from the debate. You said Obama coukdn't answer, because of an ongoing investigation. Spence, did you even read Obama's response? Please show us where in that response, Obama said he couldn't answer because it might jeopardize an investigation?

"half baked conspiracy theory?"

Spence, is it a half-baked conspiracy theory that Stevens asked for extra security, and was denied? Am I making that up? Is that a Foxnews, right-wing conspiracy?

That's the most troubling part of this. And when Obama was asked about it at the debate, he absolutely misled America with his answer. You won't admit that, because you cannot admit that Obama would do something so sleazy. But the proof is right there in the transcript. You said Obama never misled anyone, but we have physical proof that he did.