“My name is Barack Obama and I can’t stop lying”

By 99 Comments 4,632 views

obama ootl

Lightning strikes again. In the same place. For the eighth time. CBS’s Bill Plante, along with the rest of the Obama media, doesn’t even take notice of this utter impossibility.

President OOTL (Out of The Loop) claims to have learned about Hillary’s email system from news reports.

President Obama says he first learned from news reports that his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, used a private email account during her tenure, amid reports the White House and State Department may have known as far back as last August that Clinton did not use government email.

“The same time everybody else learned it, through news reports,” Obama told CBS’ Bill Plante, in response to a question of when the president learned of Clinton’s use of a private email account for conducting government business.

Obama, in an interview with CBS aired Sunday, continued to stand by his claims that “the policy of my administration is to encourage transparency… and that’s why my emails — the BlackBerry that I carry around — all those records are available and archived and I’m glad that Hillary has instructed that those emails that had to do with official business need to be disclosed.”

This is really curious, since the White House was notified of the violation back in August:

The White House, State Department and Hillary Clinton’s personal office knew in August that House Republicans had received information showing that the former secretary of state conducted official government business through her private email account — and Clinton’s staff made the decision to keep quiet.

Sources familiar with the discussions say key people in the Obama administration and on Clinton’s staff were aware that the revelation could be explosive for the all-but-announced candidate for president. But those involved deferred to Clinton’s aides, and they decided not to respond.

Sharyl Atkisson observes that this is the eighth time Obama has learned something critical to his administration from the new media:

1. Controversial Air Force One Photo Op Flyover
2. Fast and Furious Cross-Border Operation Supplying Guns to Cartels
3. Gen. Petraeus’ Sex Scandal
4. The IRS Using Nixonian Tactics Against Conservative Groups

The rest are at the link.

But….but….but……

Thing is, I don’t know how he can learn anything from the news because he doesn’t watch the news. Back in August he said he doesn’t watch the news because:

“whatever they’re reporting about, usually I know.”

Unless it’s something important. But that was like so….August. Remember how I always say liberals have zero long term memory? Not even six months’ worth.

Obama, according to Obama, spends most of his morning watching ESPN and golfing in the afternoons.

I know the press is hopelessly biased. I know the press is stupid. I know the press doesn’t get tough on Obama else he throws them off the big plane. But there comes a point at which, despite their low self esteem and long departed credibility, you would think that at some point members of the lamestream media have to ask themselves

“What the f*ck?”

Because you members of the press sure look like idiots to me. When you interview Obama and he says he learned of Hillary’s misdeeds “the same time everybody else learned it, through news reports” and you don’t burst out laughing, something’s really wrong with you.

Fatally wrong. Just how much bulls*t can you swallow with a straight face?

We should all be so fortunate to have this protective system of incompetent fools surrounding us.

UPDATE

And just like that, we learn Obama did exchange emails with Hillary and somehow the smartest man on Earth didn’t notice it was not on a .gov address?

UPDATE

Obama did remind me of one of my favorite songs:

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

99 Responses to ““My name is Barack Obama and I can’t stop lying””

  1. 51

    Bill

    @Tom: ” Obviously, there’s nothing illegal about the President negotiating a nuclear treaty. It’s not the first time this has happened, by the way (imagine if members of Congress had felt unconstrained to inject themselves destructively into Ronald Reagan’s negotiations with the USSR in the 80s). ” There is absolutely nothing illegal about the administration negotiating a nuclear treaty with Iran. Is that, however, what he is doing? Because, if he is, then the Congress just notified Iran of the obvious and something Kerry should have already told them: that whatever is negotiated has to be ratified by Congress and unless they do this or that, it will not be ratified, so do, instead, this or that.

    However, if Obama is negotiating some “understanding” that is merely implemented by a memo or EO, then it will surely be rescinded as soon as the adults take over and what is the result? The United States looks untrustworthy to negotiate with and it appears (which is, of course, a disappointing fact) that nowadays there is no continuity in our foreign policy, that what is fought against for 4 or 8 years by one administration could be acceptable and negotiated with by the next. In other words, just wait until the next weak, incompetent, liberal administration comes along and get all your demands met.

    Obama is making a deal he has no intention of having ratified by Congress; he already failed with his “give the farm away” disarmament treaty with Russia (after giving away the ABM system in Eastern Europe). Obama is out of control and is doing severe (if not irreparable) harm to the entire nation and possibly the world.

    ” if you mean “they did” as in Democratic Congressmen sent a letter to the Soviet Union stating they would do everything in their power not to honor any deal forged by Ronald Reagan, I would like to see that” Who has said that? What they said was that the treaty will have to be ratified by Congress to be permanent, otherwise it will be rescinded in two years. That is more of a courtesy than anything else and it makes our government look more credible, as opposed to one person pretending they are Czar of the United States.

  2. 52

    Redteam

    @Tom:

    Obviously, there’s nothing illegal about the President negotiating a nuclear treaty.

    Key word there: negotiating. Not making one, just ‘negotiating’ it.

    correspond with the mullahs of Iran and conduct rogue foreign policy,

    Key word there ‘correspond’, notice that even you admit they’re only ‘corresponding’ with. Logan Act doesn’t restrict ‘correspond’.

    why don’t you explain exactly how the United States can practically conduct foreign policy

    Eggzackly as it says in the constitution. The President reaches a deal, the Congress approves or disapproves of it. See, you had the answer all the time, you just needed someone to point it out to you.

  3. 53

    Redteam

    @Tom: 46

    What % of RepublicansAmericans think he’s a Christian? A Muslim? A Manchurian Candidate? You might be surprised at the answers. Y

    We all know he’s a Muslim. Manchurian Candidate? we’ve never heard that he went to Manchuria, but maybe. Seen those news reports that there are 6.5 million persons over 112 years of age still on Social Security rolls? Obama is 135 this year, according to age on Social Security application.

  4. 54

    Redteam

    @Tom: .

    Since they believe he hates America, anything he supports they see as an attack on America. There is no reasonable debate that can counteract this.

    You are correct. There can be no reasonable debate, just look at his history and actions.

  5. 56

    Tom

    @Aqua:

    They passed a bill in an attempt to undermine Reagan’s negotiations. Like I said, it wouldn’t matter anyway, as long as democrats did it, it would be fine.

    How is passing a bill analogous to communicating our intentions to a hostile foreign power so as to sabotage the President’s constitutionally enshrined authority over foreign policy?

    Completely and totally false. Be perfectly honest with yourself and imagine for a minute that Dick Cheney used a private email address. Just think about it for a minute and imagine the how quickly democrats would be calling for a special prosecutor to find out how much Bush knew and when he knew it.

    And that would be well within the norms of partisan hardball. That’s hardly comparable to 54% of Republicans believing that “deep down” Obama is a Muslim. That’s millions of people in American allowing conspiracy to drive their interpretation of everything the President says or does.

    Selective memory. Maybe you’ve forgotten the number of people that said it was an inside job.

    I addressed that above. A very small minority of people ever believed that. Much more animus toward Bush was driven by the Iraq war. My point still stands.

    Speaking of selective memory, Bush’s approval rating was 90% on 9/21/01. http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx
    You don’t get to 90% without an awful lot of Democrats and Liberals. Likewise, for better or worse, 98 senators gave Bush what he wanted and voted for the Patriot Act.

    Obama is not an emperor. We have a Constitution. We have laws. When one side decides they no longer have to abide by the laws of the land, what makes them believe the other side should?

    You are obviously free to oppose all his polices, but, hysteria aside, nothing Obama has done is without precedent. If he’s an Emperor, then he’s one in a long line. That doesn’t explain the GOP crossing multiple sacrosanct foreign policy lines in the past month. It’s pretty easy to go extreme when the majority of your constituents believe the President is lying about fundamentally who he is and how he feels about America.

  6. 57

    retire05

    @Tom:

    Another thing to recall would be the Democratic and liberal American response in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 vis a vis Bush. Sure normal partisan rancor would eventually return, but that’s an important thing to recognize if you’re going to contrast the two.

    The Democrats were all for taking Saddam Hussein out, until they weren’t. When it came to becoming anti-Bush foreign policy due to trying to get re-elected, the Dems turned on Bush even going so far as to denying what they had said on the floor of the Congress about Saddam previously. It was a political play that showed the Democrats were willing to change their position for political expediency.

    Bush wasn’t presumed by millions of Americans to be covertly working against American interest and sympathetic to terrorists. That is the world in which Obama operates. Many on the Right don’t need to know more than Obama’s position on a subject to know how they feel about it.

    Every American has an opinion on the actions of the President. Not all Americans are useful idiots that can be duped into believing that Obama acts according to the Constitution, which he does not. One has to look no further than Obama’s immigration policies to understand that he exceeds his limits as President. Immigration laws are strictly the purview of the Congress, not the Executive.

    Since they believe he hates America, anything he supports they see as an attack on America. There is no reasonable debate that can counteract this.

    If Obama were to side with the radical Muslims, what exactly would he be doing differently. He has blathered on about how Muslim nations should join in the fight against those that cannot be named (radical jihadists) yet when Jordan and Egypt pick up the banner to do exactly that, he flounders.

    You seen to have a lot of anger and angst surrounding your perception that Obama isn’t inclusive in his decision making, but explain to me how he can work with people who think he’s a secret traitor? It’s not two people who share the same goal arguing about tactics. It’s him, not the policy.

    Even the most left wing section of the press has reported that Obama, more than any previous president, refuses to confer with Congress. He is of the opinion that he can go it alone, and does not accept that he is just one leg of a three legged stool. Not one branch of our government, the Judicial, the Legislative and the Executive, have more power than the other two.

    A federal judge has placed Obama’s amnesty program on hold. Yesterday, in spite of the fact that the judge issued orders that Obama could not continue with his amnesty plan, the DOJ admitted that the DHS has already issued, illegally, work permits and Social Security numbers to at least 100,000 illegals. The Executive did not have the authority to do that while the program was in litigation, but they did. THAT, and other actions like that on the part of the Executive branch, is why it is clear that Obama thinks he is above the limits placed on his office by the Constitution.

  7. 58

    Redteam

    @Tom:

    when the majority of your constituents believe the President is lying about fundamentally who he is and how he feels about America.

    Yes, he doesn’t instill confidence does he? Maybe that’s because he issued a fake birth certificate and won’t show any school records and is using a 135 year old man’s SS number. That would cause a question of ‘confidence’ for a normal person, wouldn’t it?

  8. 59

    Aqua

    @Tom:

    That doesn’t explain the GOP crossing multiple sacrosanct foreign policy lines in the past month.

    Obama did away with sacrosanct a long time ago. If I had to pick a particular moment, it would be calling out SCOTUS in his SofTU address. Then tossing fuel on that sacrosanct fire by trying to influence the court over Obamacare.
    You don’t get to antagonize a Co-Equal branch of government and not expect some blow back. If Obama is willing to try to govern without including congress, certainly congress has the same rights as a Co-Equal branch of government. Obama has a pen and a phone, apparently congress does as well.
    And credit where credit is due (HotAir), it seems your native son Teddy Kennedy tried to get Moscow to intervene in the 1984 elections. Logan Act, eh?

  9. 60

    Bill

    @Tom: ” sabotage the President’s constitutionally enshrined authority over foreign policy?” Obama’s “authority” is to negotiate. It is still Constitutionally up to the Congress to vote it either up or down.

    ” Much more animus toward Bush was driven by the Iraq war.” Which was driven by the left, especially those who originally supported the Iraq war based on the intelligence on hand. All the left wing media harped on casualty lists, lists of KIA’s and “flag-draped coffins”…. until Obama was elected. Then all that was replaced with stories of imaginary economic growth and racist left wing accusations of racism, particularly since under Obama there were more Afghan and Iraqi US casualties than under Bush.

    “Bush wasn’t presumed by millions of Americans to be covertly working against American interest and sympathetic to terrorists.” Oh? Oh, really? The accusation of the time was that Bush lied about WMD’s in order to go to war so that he could reap war-profiteering profits and avenge an assassination attempt on his dad. These stupid accusations still persist, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary. Don’t think you can pass that “Obama is treated worse” crap on anyone that has had their eyes and ears open.

  10. 61

    Jeff

    @Redteam:

    Maybe that’s because he issued a fake birth certificate and won’t show any school records and is using a 135 year old man’s SS number.

    Do you really believe all that garbage? Maybe you should fact checking everything you assume is true. Keep in mind that most conservative websites can’t be relied on for truthful information anymore. They’ve lied so often for so long that they no longer know the difference.

  11. 62

    Redteam

    @Jeff:

    Keep in mind that most conservative websites can’t be relied on for truthful information anymore.

    You trying to break into comedy? Who you recommend, George Soro’s sites maybe?

  12. 64

    Aqua

    @Tom:

    You are obviously free to oppose all his polices, but, hysteria aside, nothing Obama has done is without precedent.

    Here is the world as I see it, and I believe there are many that see it the same way. Obama has said he will work around congress. That’s not how our system works, but in the eyes of democrats, the ends justify the means. In the eyes of our framers, the system is supposed to move slowly.
    Obama has rewritten laws for the ACA. He is rewriting immigration laws. Call it prosecutorial discretion or anything else you like, he is doing the job of congress because he can’t get his way.
    I could not be happier that there are some republicans in congress that seem to have some backbone and decided two could play that game. If Obama wants to do his job and the job of congress, they can certainly jump in and do his job.
    You say this is not without precedent. Show me. Show me an act a republican president has taken that comes anywhere close to what this president is doing.

  13. 65

    retire05

    @Jeff:

    Exactly what is it about Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution that you can’t seem to comprehend? Is it not written in English that has been dumbed down enough for you?

    The President, through the State Department, can negotiate treaties that have to be given the approval of 2/3rd of the Congress.

    Now you, and that blithering idiot, Tom, seems to think that the Republicans have violated the law with their letter. I noticed that no where do you specify the portion of the letter that violates the law. It is just another attempt to throw manure at Republicans thinking we will never see the dark brown residue on your hands.

    If you think the law was broken, man up and tell us how.

    If I am a city councilman, and my mayor tries to cut a deal with another town for something, have I violated the law when I sent that other town our municipal codes and city ordinances? The letter that has you radical lefties all in a tither simply quotes U.S. law.

    Meanwhile, the left will have their Hanes all in a wad over the letter, completely ignoring the real violations of our laws committed by Hillary Clinton. It’s what y’all do best. Obfuscate, re-direct, scream and yell and then hope the issues showing true violations of the laws by Democrats will go ignored.

  14. 66

    Tom

    @Aqua:

    And credit where credit is due (HotAir), it seems your native son Teddy Kennedy tried to get Moscow to intervene in the 1984 elections. Logan Act, eh?

    It’s curious to me that no one can defend the letter outside the context of “they did it to”.

    I haven’t read up on the Kennedy thing yet. The broad strokes don’t seem perfectly applicable to this situation, but certainly, if it’s true, he was wrong. See, it’s not so hard to say that. No one’s ever always right or wrong.

  15. 67

    Tom

    @Aqua:

    Here is the world as I see it, and I believe there are many that see it the same way

    I think you’re wrong there. Sure, there are many people who disapprove of Obama, but you seem unable to fact the truth of the matter that it’s not just on principle. I know for you it is, but not so for many others. if you want to refuse to see what’s all over the Far Right blogosphere, ignore the comments around you, so be it.

    I don’t expect any conservative to like Barack Obama. He is solidly liberal on social and domestic policy. (I wouldn’t go so far to say he’s liberal on foreign policy, despite what the neo-cons expect us to believe.) But I disagree that he’s exercised substantially more executive power than his predecessors.

    So I take it you support the scuttling of the Iran negotiation? So are you comfortable with the GOP putting us into a situation where war is inevitable?

  16. 68

    retire05

    @Tom:

    I think you’re wrong there. Sure, there are many people who disapprove of Obama, but you seem unable to fact the truth of the matter that it’s not just on principle.

    Are you trying to play the race card that has been so worn that it holds little value today? If so, then perhaps we can say that the only reason black Democrats voted against, and opposed President Bush was because he is white.

    I don’t expect any conservative to like Barack Obama. He is solidly liberal on social and domestic policy. (I wouldn’t go so far to say he’s liberal on foreign policy, despite what the neo-cons expect us to believe.) But I disagree that he’s exercised substantially more executive power than his predecessors.

    Actually, Obama told you himself that if the Congress did not act in accordance with his wishes, he would go it alone. That threat was simply a promise on his part to act unconstitutionally, which he has. Also, he is responsible for the actions of his cabinet members (since he is their boss) and there is no doubt that with the President’s approval, Eric Holder has violated not only our laws but violated actual Congressionally approved treaties. But I don’t see you complaining about that.

    The letter that has your Hanes all in a wad simply outlined U.S. law. If the man who promised the most transparent administration in the history of our government really wants to be transparent, he should have Secretary Kerry outline the terms being negotiated with Iran to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Obama and Kerry have not done that.

    What little has leaked out about the negotiations is that Obama is simply kicking the can down the road on the issue of Iran procuring nuclear weapons. He is making that someone else’s headache since he will be long gone. But just as no Congress can “bind” a future Congress, no President can “bind” a future president.

    Obama is a failure in foreign affairs. He showed his lack of foreign gravitas immediately with Honduras. He has not improved since.

  17. 69

    Jeff

    @retire05:

    Now you, and that blithering idiot, Tom, seems to think that the Republicans have violated the law with their letter.

    They violated the law. That’s fact, not opinion. The Logan Act is clear about what can’t be done. They just did it. The signers of the letter are relying on the stupidity and hypocrisy of people like you to give them cover. Nobody with an ounce of intelligence or integrity will be impressed by such a moronic political stunt.

  18. 70

    Aqua

    @Tom:

    So I take it you support the scuttling of the Iran negotiation? So are you comfortable with the GOP putting us into a situation where war is inevitable?

    Nope, I’d like to see negotiations. But I would also like to see it go to the senate for ratification. That is the only way it can be debated. I understand the closed door nature of the talks, but hearing that whatever Obama and his team decide is what the country gets is unacceptable. That is not how it works. And right now, his administration is saying the deal will not be sent to congress.
    I take it you’re ok with this?

    It’s curious to me that no one can defend the letter outside the context of “they did it to”.

    I think I did. If Obama can use a phone and a pen, a co-equal branch of government can do the same.
    You were correct earlier when you said no one was saying “shut up.” Obama’s team is perfectly fine with us talking about it, because they don’t really care what we think. They’re going to do it their way and the rules be damned. So yeah, I’m good with the letter. If you’re ok with Obama using his phone and pen, I’m fine with congress doing the same. It’s not the way it’s supposed to work, but what choice has the left given us?

  19. 71

    retire05

    @Jeff:

    They violated the law. That’s fact, not opinion. The Logan Act is clear about what can’t be done. They just did it.

    Still waiting on you to quote the part of the Logan Act that forbids the Congress from advising foreign nations on U.S. law? If that is your stance, then it is illegal for a police officer to advise you on traffic laws.

    Your whining about the Logan Act is going no where. It is only a diversionary tactic to ignore Hillary. Perhaps you would like to list all the people who have been prosecuted under the Logan Act?

    Clearly, Democrats have been in violation of the Logan Act yet we get crickets from you on that.

    So cite me stare decisis on the Logan Act or just admit that you are another useful idiot for the left that is easily lead to believe anything put out by the Democrats.

  20. 72

    Tom

    @Aqua:

    . And right now, his administration is saying the deal will not be sent to congress.
    I take it you’re ok with this?

    Where are you reading that? Just curious. I would prefer a vote. Does it bother you that sight unseen most of the GOP has already indicated they will not sign? What about the influence of foreign election politics upon our foreign affairs? This also isn’t a two party negotiation. How do we explain to our allies that we can’t negotiate in good faith because the GOP wants to undercut the President? There go the sanctions, just as Bibi hopes. I’m not saying Obama is a pro, but the GOP really don’t understand the basics of poker, do they? It’s never a good idea to tell the opponent exactly what you’re going to do, unless of course you want to lose.

    The point of all that being, there is lesser of two evils to consider. The presidents first job is to protect the American people.

  21. 73

    Nathan Blue

    @Jeff: No Jeff, they aren’t just because you say so. Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true. The Logan Act was not violated. Period.
    We’re a nation of laws, not public sentiment.

    You desperately need this psychological crutch so you can say “blame congress” when asked why you supported Obama.

  22. 74

    Aqua

    @Tom:

    Where are you reading that?

    Where are you reading that?

    Q And finally, you know there’s a move in Congress to say that if a deal is reached, that it should go before the United States Senate for approval, or not. And I understand the President would veto such a bill. Can you explain why Congress should not have a say in this? I mean, this is a major international agreement. Why are you opposed to allowing Congress to have a say in this?

    MR. EARNEST: Well, Jon, we have made as much progress as we have so far in these negotiations because we’ve been able to work closely and successfully with Congress to pass and implement one of the toughest sanctions regime that’s ever been put in place against any country. That has compelled Iran to the negotiating table.

    But, ultimately, we can’t put in place an additional hurdle for that agreement to overcome here at the 11th hour, that if the United States is going to sit at the table with our negotiating partners not just in Iran but with the rest of the international community, our P5-plus-1 partners, then we need to make sure that we can live up to our agreement.

    So there is an important role for Congress to play. There has been on the front end in terms of getting us to this situation. That’s why the administration has continued to carefully brief on a regular basis in detailed fashion, even in classified settings, the details and progress that are being made in these negotiations, because the administration considers, frankly, Democrats and Republicans in Congress to be partners in this effort. And, ultimately, when it comes to offering up statutory sanctions relief, essentially providing significant relief from the congressionally passed sanctions — that will require congressional action.

    But the fact of the matter is, Jon, what we’re envisioning as we work on this agreement is not offering significant sanctions relief at the beginning, that ultimately we’re talking about a phased agreement where Iran will start to take some steps and the international community will start to offer some relief. And that is consistent with verifying that Iran is serious about living up to their end of the deal.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/02/press-briefing-press-secretary-josh-earnest-3215

    It’s never a good idea to tell the opponent exactly what you’re going to do, unless of course you want to lose.

    Unfortunately, we don’t know what goes on behind the scenes. The administration is briefing congress on the progress and apparently the GOP doesn’t like what they hear. But they aren’t the only ones. There are democrats that feel the same way, Menedez is one of them.

    What about the influence of foreign election politics upon our foreign affairs?

    Seriously? Obama’s campaign team is in Israel working for Bibi’s opponent.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/28/obama-tied-operatives-hit-anti-netanyahu-campaign-/

  23. 75

    Nathan Blue

    @Jeff: They opposed Obama, legally, and I support it. The left made a point of saying things like “he’s not MY president” during the Bush years, legitimizing the idea we need not support the person in the office if they are making bad decisions. What goes around, comes around.

    Obama is a lame duck president who set the terms very early in his reign: what he wants, he gets. Republicans are not part of the plan.

    The Logan Act was not violated. the democrats rely on the stupidity of people like you to run cover. No one with an ounce of integrity or intelligence would support such a corrupt party, one that uses all controversy for political gain.

    They’ve rattled your chain, claiming the Reps “broke the law”, and now you bark like a good, mindless dog, parroting whatever they say.

    No, I think the “thinking” members of the electorate have had enough. Time to restore some sanity. You are dead wrong and you know it.

  24. 76

    Jeff

    @retire05:

    Still waiting on you to quote the part of the Logan Act that forbids the Congress from advising foreign nations on U.S. law?

    The leaders of Iran likely know how the U.S. government works as well as the idiots who claim to be giving them a lesson. Only a simpleton would believe that was the real purpose of the letter.

  25. 77

    retire05

    @Tom:

    .

    Does it bother you that sight unseen most of the GOP has already indicated they will not sign?

    Why would any in Congress refuse to sign a good deal for the United States? But as long as any deal that Obama cuts that has a “sunset” clause, it is not a good deal. It only kicks the can down the road.

    What about the influence of foreign election politics upon our foreign affairs?

    Funny you should bring that up.

    Perhaps you would like to comment on this letter sent by Presidential opposition to a leader of a foreign nation during a time when the President was holding negotiations with that nation?

    “As Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, we regret the fact that better relations do not exist between the United States and your country. We have been, and remain, opposed to U.S. support for military actions directed against the people or government of (nation named.)

    We want to commend you and the members of your government for taking steps to open up the political process in your country. (nation named) people have not had the opportunity to participate in a genuinely free election for over XX years. We support your decision to schedule elections this year, to reduce press censorship, and to allow greater freedom of assembly for political parties. Finally, we recognize that you have taken these steps in the midst of ongoing military hostilities on the borders of (nation named).

    We write with the hope that the initial steps you have taken will be followed by others designed to guarantee a fully open and democratic electoral process. We note that there are some who have become exiles from (nation named) have expressed a willingness to return to participate in the elections, if assurances are provided that their security will be protected, and their political rights recognized. Among these exiles are some who have taken up arms against your government, and who have stated their willingne_s to lay down these arms to participate in a truly democratic process.

    If this were to occur, the prospects for peace and stability throughout (the region) would be dramatically enhanced. Those responsible for supporting violence against your government, and for obstructing serious negotiations for broad political participation in (name of another country) would have far greater difficulty winning support for their policies than they do today. “

    This letter was written, and signed, by 10 Congressmen who were in opposition to the President who was a member of a different political party. I did not list the name of the nation, or the head of that nation to which the letter was written, because I want you to tell me if you think this was also in violation of the law you claim the Republicans have just violated?

    This also isn’t a two party negotiation. How do we explain to our allies that we can’t negotiate in good faith because the GOP wants to undercut the President?

    Then explain the letter above. Does it not undercut the president at the time, a time at which negotiations were being conducted with the nation that was named?

    It’s never a good idea to tell the opponent exactly what you’re going to do, unless of course you want to lose.

    Isn’t that exactly the goal of the letter I provided to you? To tell the opponent what is happening on the ground in the U.S.?

    So let’s see how you address the letter I provided to you or if you are honest enough to admit that it was doing exactly what you claimed the Republicans did with their open letter to Iran

  26. 78

    retire05

    @Jeff:

    Only a simpleton would believe that was the real purpose of the letter.

    So, as a left winger, you are capable of reading what isn’t written? Did you learn that ability at the Red School of Leftism?

  27. 79

    Jeff

    I’m capable of drawing logical conclusions from the facts that are in front of me. That’s something you don’t seem to have learned anywhere at all.

    Your party is harboring traitors.

  28. 80

    retire05

    @Jeff:

    I’m capable of drawing logical conclusions from the facts that are in front of me.

    Why should I believe that when you seem incapable of even answering simple questions? Not to mention that you refuse to address a letter written by U.S. Representatives in the past.

    Basically, you are just another simple minded leftist who can only parrot what you read in the press or on left wing blogs. When it comes to specifics, you are a child lost in the fog.

  29. 81

    Redteam

    @Tom:

    the GOP putting us into a situation where war is inevitable?

    War with who? Iran? You and Jeff planning a comedy duo? You quaking in your boots at the military might of Iran?

  30. 82

    Redteam

    @Jeff:

    They violated the law. That’s fact, not opinion.

    You started off with it ‘borders on treason’ to now it’s a ‘fact’ not ‘opinion’. You’ve been asked what in it is a violation of law and you said it was the ‘intentions’, when asked about that, you said they are clear, when asked to quote the specific part that ‘stated their intentions’ and now ‘it’s a fact’, not ‘opinion’. There is nothing in that letter that is a violation of law. Telling someone anywhere in the world what is in the US constitution is not a violation of law. If they were attempting to tell them to not deal with the president or to make any terms of the deal, then they would be doing something questionable. The only ‘lawbreaker’ in the room is Obozo.

  31. 83

    Redteam

    @Jeff:

    Only a simpleton would believe that was the real purpose of the letter.

    if it’s so simple, give us a quote from the letter that is clearly stating their intentions, otherwise quit making claims you can’t support.

  32. 84

    Redteam

    @Tom: 72.

    Does it bother you that sight unseen most of the GOP has already indicated they will not sign?

    The Congress doesn’t have to ‘sign’ anything. They just vote on approval or not approval.

    How do we explain to our allies that we can’t negotiate in good faith because the GOP wants to undercut the President?

    undercut? quote us the part where the Repubs ‘undercut’ the president.

    I’m not saying Obama is a pro

    a clear point in you not showing your ignorance. That’s one.

    The presidents first job is to protect the American people.

    You think he’ll ever figure that out?

  33. 85

    Nathan Blue

    @Jeff: Yet another lib troll here to air out their angst, and immaturity.

    I thought so.

    You are neither logical nor using facts. Sentiment, and bias against those you’ve been poisoned against: fellow citizens who are just like you.

    Sorry, but we’re all in this together. Can’t believe what happened to the left. I used to be liberal, until they embraced a very “us vs. them” while claiming to protect “the other”.

    Reps/Conservatives are now the “other” for the libs; they’ve lost all clout.

    It’s not your fault. I’ve heard on everything from NPR to the NYTs that Congress is actually supporting the Iranian “hardliners” with this move. The level of distortion one must make to use that conclusion. Well, I’d say THAT is treasonous: feeding fears by outright lying to those you know will run with it.

    Like you, Jeff.

    You’re dead wrong. Welcome to the Republic of the United States of America. It works differently than what the currently Zeitgeist is shlepping. We all compromise for the greater good, and Obama is no exception.

    As Jesus said, and quoted by Lincoln, “A House Divided, Cannot Stand”.
    (Note: Lincoln used differing language, so the NIV translation is different. See. I can do “facts” quite nicely)

  34. 86

    Tom

    @Redteam:

    You quaking in your boots at the military might of Iran?

    Listen to you, so gung-ho. It’ll be a breeze, just like Iraq huh? Remind me how many Americans died there after people like you told us that would be a walk in the park? Can’t teach an old dog much.

  35. 88

    Redteam

    @Tom:

    Can’t teach an old dog much.

    So, You quaking in your boots at the military might of Iran? Oh, I get it. You don’t think Obozo has the stones.

  36. 89

    retire05

    @Tom:

    Remind me how many Americans died there after people like you told us that would be a walk in the park?

    Prove that any conservative said the Iraqi war would be “a walk in the park.” PROVE IT.

    To answer your question: 4,489

    Wars lead by Democrats:

    WW 1 – total U.S. military deaths – 116,516

    WW II – total U.S. military deaths – 405,599

    Korean War – total U.S. military deaths 36,516

    Vietnam War – total U.S. military deaths 58,209

    ALL wars in which we were lead into by a Democrat sustained at least 9 times the number of U.S. military deaths as did Iraq. But then, you don’t want to discuss actual facts.

    Looks like you’re the dog that cannot be taught.

  37. 93

    Redteam

    @Tom:

    The fact that in your dull ignorance you remain annoyingly cavalier about the costs of war?

    The ‘real costs’ I’m worried about is when Obozo lets Iran get a nuke. But he’s your guy, so I know you’ll think it’s okay and Bush’s fault.

  38. 94

    Tom

    @Redteam:

    If that’s your worry it’s strange that you’re cheerleading the Republican attempts to kill the current negotiation and likely undermine future sanctions. You’re basically supporting actions that have the highest likelihood this will all come to a head while Obama is still President.

  39. 95

    Redteam

    @Tom:

    If that’s your worry it’s strange that you’re cheerleading the Republican attempts to kill the current negotiation

    There are no ‘negotiations’, Obozo’s boys are only delivering their surrender to the Iranians.

  40. 96

    Nathan Blue

    @Tom: Uh, I think this is the usual logical fallacy the media foists on us, and the lib populace eat it up.

    Reps aren’t disrupting “negotiations”. They are against a deal that allows Iran to have a non-weapon nuclear program. Obama is offering just that. The concern is that Iran will use this to develop nukes anyway. A valid concern.

    So in short, opposing Obamacare doesn’t mean you oppose healthcare reform..you just don’t support a really bad idea of it…

    Whoops. Wrong distorted Democrat, media-supported logical fallacy.

    Ahem…

    So in short, opposing a very generous deal with Iran to allow it to develop a nuclear infrastructure doesn’t mean you are against negotiations.

    From the noble New York Times:

    The negotiators have been talking about an agreement that would limit Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium to the point that, in theory, it would take it a year to “break out” and create enough fuel for a bomb if it violated the terms, to be verified by international inspectors. In exchange, the world powers would ease the sanctions that have strangled Iran’s economy. The deal would last at least 10 years, then expire.

    So the only way we’d know Iran violated the terms is if the inspectors find out, and I’m sure the Iranians would keep the violation out there for all to see….

    …or we’d find out they violated the terms when the mushroom cloud hits…

    It’s a bad deal, and while I’m sure there are some kernels of truth to it, it’s about trust. Iran has not earned that trust.

    Don’t forget your Friday Prayers, “Death to America!” (Yes, they actually say this every week in Iran).

    AND, I can’t wait for November 4th, the Iranian national holiday called “Death to America Day”. (Yes, this is real…since 1987…like a for-real national holiday…no mail…they celebrate the future death of our republic…).

    We are enemies, and the way we become friends isn’t by saying “yes, third-world county, you can build nukes that we know will find there way our of your country.”

    I assume there is a “bucket” list of things Obama has to do before he leaves office, and chalking up another “victory” by brokering some weak deal with Iran, to be cleaned up later by others, is on it.

    Every one of this guy’s failures is poised to be put on either Bush or a future Republican President…or any current Republican that doesn’t have to bow before King Obama and Queen Oprah.

  41. 97

    retire05

    @Tom:

    If that’s your worry it’s strange that you’re cheerleading the Republican attempts to kill the current negotiation and likely undermine future sanctions.

    If allowing Iran to create a nuclear weapon in 10 years due to a sunset clause negotiated by Obama is a good deal for you, you’re sick in the head. And about those “sanctions” and “inspections”, how’d that work out with Saddam? I guess you just forgot the Oil For Food program that allowed Saddam to build palaces with solid gold toilets.

  42. 98

    Ditto

    @retire05:

    This administration truly believes that the American people are stupid. And in 2012, Obama proved that over half of us are since he got re-elected.

    Technically incorrect. He was re-elected by a majority of electoral college votes, which itself is reflected only of the number of votes counted, and not “half of us.”

    @Tom:

    He is solidly liberal totalitarian on social and domestic policy.

    Fixed that for you.

  43. 99

    Stephen

    Base on the Bible and the Bible alone, Obama is by no means a Christian. His relatives in Kenya still refer to him as a muslim. Ponder that!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *