If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Ssshhh..President Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for Libya rebels   (reuters.com) divider line 230
    More: Unlikely, President Obama, U.S. Government, Libyan, coverts, Members of NATO, Monopoly on violence, Libyan rebels, rebels  
•       •       •

4647 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Mar 2011 at 8:00 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



230 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-03-30 04:21:24 PM
Damn, WikiLeaks is good.
 
2011-03-30 04:22:47 PM
Well duh! Those aren't so secret now, eh newsflashmitter?
 
2011-03-30 04:23:23 PM
News that Obama had given the authorization surfaced as the President and other U.S. and allied officials spoke openly about the possibility of sending arms supplies to Gaddafi's opponents, who are fighting better-equipped government forces.

Why are they calling it secret?
 
2011-03-30 04:23:55 PM
News flash isn't.
 
2011-03-30 04:24:04 PM
Shhhh! Don't tell anyone. ;)
 
2011-03-30 04:27:16 PM
As I write this only seven of us know about this.

Keep it under your hat
 
2011-03-30 04:27:50 PM
So he is selling them newer Nissan pickups?
 
2011-03-30 04:28:58 PM
This is why I laugh at people that say the TWA 800 was shot down by the Navy or that 9/11 was an inside job.


8ace: As I write this only seven of us know about this.

Keep it under your hat


There's eight of us now, pal.
 
2011-03-30 04:29:01 PM
President Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for Libya rebels

www.mandypatinkin.net
 
2011-03-30 04:29:10 PM
So is this the followup to the ZOMG FOX NEWS IS ENDANGERING THE TROOPS thread?
 
2011-03-30 04:32:25 PM
How do you guys know more secrets than Reuters? Say, who are you guys? I know, you're the C.I_______
 
2011-03-30 04:37:18 PM
shhhhhh
 
2011-03-30 04:42:17 PM

manimal2878: News that Obama had given the authorization surfaced as the President and other U.S. and allied officials spoke openly about the possibility of sending arms supplies to Gaddafi's opponents, who are fighting better-equipped government forces.

Why are they calling it secret?


Subby knows how to get a greenlight?
 
2011-03-30 04:45:31 PM
Shocking. I almost spilled my cocktail.
 
2011-03-30 04:47:29 PM
Ok, now this is starting to annoy me. As I said, wait until April before we break out the anti-war stuff since this was only supposed to be a week. If we actually get involved on this level this is going to eventually scale up to an actual war.

Hell, this could easily put a Republican in the White House. Well, assuming they don't get questioned on why they were for it before we got involved, and why they're questioning the Commander in Chief in a time of war. I understand that is treason.

Thank goodness we have a liberal media to ask stuff like that.

Wait. Damn.
 
2011-03-30 04:49:30 PM
Apparently not?
 
2011-03-30 04:51:25 PM

Old_Chief_Scott: This is why I laugh at people that say the TWA 800 was shot down by the Navy or that 9/11 was an inside job.


8ace: As I write this only seven of us know about this.

Keep it under your hat

There's eight of us now, pal.


I'm not convinced those who commented after you know about the "thing". "Thing remains solvent or rapid" 4324
 
2011-03-30 04:52:07 PM
7
 
2011-03-30 04:52:50 PM

GAT_00: Hell, this could easily put a Republican in the White House.


Uh oh. Can't have that--we'd just end up with tax cuts for the rich and another war in the Middle East.
 
2011-03-30 04:56:21 PM

ne2d: GAT_00: Hell, this could easily put a Republican in the White House.

Uh oh. Can't have that--we'd just end up with tax cuts for the rich and another war in the Middle East.


LOL.
 
2011-03-30 04:58:26 PM

ne2d: GAT_00: Hell, this could easily put a Republican in the White House.

Uh oh. Can't have that--we'd just end up with tax cuts for the rich and another war in the Middle East.


Well played.
 
2011-03-30 05:00:47 PM
Oh come on, doesn't any one read history books?!
 
2011-03-30 05:02:53 PM

zymosan: Oh come on, doesn't any one read history books?!


So he's selling them elephants?
 
2011-03-30 05:09:08 PM

ne2d: GAT_00: Hell, this could easily put a Republican in the White House.

Uh oh. Can't have that--we'd just end up with tax cuts for the rich and another war in the Middle East.


Yeah because I was farking cheering on keeping the Bush tax cuts. I was cheering for them so much, it was what decided it for me that I wasn't going to vote for his re-election.
 
2011-03-30 05:15:49 PM

WTF Indeed: zymosan: Oh come on, doesn't any one read history books?!

So he's selling them elephants?


Ha! The Romans better watch the fark out.
 
2011-03-30 05:19:53 PM
It's times like these where I think the two parties are the same rhetoric might have something to it.

I guess I can still hold on to the idea that one of the parties won't make me worship jesus.
 
2011-03-30 05:22:29 PM

manimal2878: It's times like these where I think the two parties are the same rhetoric might have something to it.

I guess I can still hold on to the idea that one of the parties won't make me worship jesus.


i2.photobucket.com

Nah, he's just "doing the Lord's work."
 
2011-03-30 05:24:26 PM
You killed my news flash. Now prepare to die!


/stop saying that!
//not smitty
 
2011-03-30 05:24:50 PM

GaryPDX: This little nugget FTFA is interesting...

In 2009 Obama gave a similar authorization for the expansion of covert U.S. counter-terrorism actions by the CIA in Yemen. The White House does not normally confirm such orders have been issued.

Same shiat going on in Pakistan.


Yeah, it's called killing Al Qaeda without having to invade a country. You know, the smarter, cheaper way.
 
2011-03-30 05:33:22 PM

GaryPDX: This little nugget FTFA is interesting...

In 2009 Obama gave a similar authorization for the expansion of covert U.S. counter-terrorism actions by the CIA in Yemen. The White House does not normally confirm such orders have been issued.

Same shiat going on in Pakistan.


I'm perfectly okay with that. And with assassinations. We have high caliber rifles that can fire a bullet accurately from a mile away and we cant land a headshot on some of these dictators?
 
2011-03-30 05:34:48 PM
Shut the f**k up, you guys! It's supposed to be a SECRET! >_>
 
2011-03-30 05:37:35 PM

GaryPDX: This little nugget FTFA is interesting...

In 2009 Obama gave a similar authorization for the expansion of covert U.S. counter-terrorism actions by the CIA in Yemen. The White House does not normally confirm such orders have been issued.

Same shiat going on in Pakistan.


I don't think the same thing is going on in Pakistan. I do believe all of your presidents do what they're told
 
2011-03-30 05:48:41 PM

GaryPDX: Nice logic ya got going on there. I see the political goal posts have shifted significantly.


I'm pretty sure the goal after 9/11 was to find and kill the Al Qaeda leadership. Obama just found a cost-effective way to do it. Do you disagree with killing Al Qaeda's leadership?
 
2011-03-30 05:49:30 PM

8ace: GaryPDX: This little nugget FTFA is interesting...

In 2009 Obama gave a similar authorization for the expansion of covert U.S. counter-terrorism actions by the CIA in Yemen. The White House does not normally confirm such orders have been issued.

Same shiat going on in Pakistan.

I don't think the same thing is going on in Pakistan. I do believe all of your presidents do what they're told


You're right. Pakistanis are better at asassination then we are.
 
2011-03-30 05:50:12 PM

WTF Indeed: GaryPDX: Nice logic ya got going on there. I see the political goal posts have shifted significantly.

I'm pretty sure the goal after 9/11 was to find and kill the Al Qaeda leadership. Obama just found a cost-effective way to do it. Do you disagree with killing Al Qaeda's leadership?


What - you mean bring them back under the CIA's wing like they were in the 1980's?
 
2011-03-30 05:52:45 PM
Would those be seekrit muslin orders?
 
2011-03-30 05:57:24 PM
 
2011-03-30 05:59:01 PM

WTF Indeed: GaryPDX: Nice logic ya got going on there. I see the political goal posts have shifted significantly.

I'm pretty sure the goal after 9/11 was to find and kill the Al Qaeda leadership. Obama just found a cost-effective way to do it. Do you disagree with killing Al Qaeda's leadership?


You mean other than the #2 guy?
 
2011-03-30 06:00:56 PM

8ace: TheDumbBlonde: then


Than. Of course, this totally negates my point. Well done.
 
2011-03-30 06:09:33 PM

TheDumbBlonde: 8ace: TheDumbBlonde: then

Than. Of course, this totally negates my point. Well done.


TheDumbBlonde: asassination

 
2011-03-30 06:10:34 PM

muck4doo: You mean other than the #2 guy?


Nah, Oprah just gave him a show on her new network.
 
2011-03-30 06:21:55 PM
So which part of no-fly zone does arming the rebels fall under?
 
2011-03-30 06:38:52 PM
It's cool.

I won't tell anybody, dude.
 
2011-03-30 06:45:05 PM
For some reason I'm a bit skeptical that Reuters is going to get the same treatment from Media Matters as Fox News did (new window)
 
2011-03-30 06:47:51 PM
And if the UN no fly zone wasn't enough, then now we have a clear act of war.
 
2011-03-30 06:51:05 PM
How bloody covert is cruise missiles fired on half of Libya and the President saying things like "Qaddafi must go" in public? If America hasn't been supporting the rebels until now, America has been doing a really half-assed job of "letting the popular movement take care of Qaddafi".

Bring some of Ronald Reagan's cold warriors out of retirement. Those jerk-offs managed to get CIA-trained rebels and arms shipments into anywhere in the third world with even the slightest hint of a left-leaning, popularly elected ruler. I bet they'll be champing at the bit to take down Qaddafi after all these years, too.
 
2011-03-30 06:51:36 PM

manimal2878: It's times like these where I think the two parties are the same rhetoric might have something to it.


See? We told you!
 
2011-03-30 07:14:57 PM

TheDumbBlonde: Shocking. I almost spilled my cocktail.


okay... you're not shocked, cool, but do you have a problem with the order?
 
2011-03-30 08:04:59 PM

Nabb1: manimal2878: It's times like these where I think the two parties are the same rhetoric might have something to it.

I guess I can still hold on to the idea that one of the parties won't make me worship jesus.



Nah, he's just "doing the Lord's work."


I don't subscribe to the namby pamby New Testament God.

I'm a fan of the hardass Old Testament God. He's totally down for a little bloodshed.
 
2011-03-30 08:05:43 PM

GAT_00: Ok, now this is starting to annoy me. As I said, wait until April before we break out the anti-war stuff since this was only supposed to be a week. If we actually get involved on this level this is going to eventually scale up to an actual war.

Hell, this could easily put a Republican in the White House. Well, assuming they don't get questioned on why they were for it before we got involved, and why they're questioning the Commander in Chief in a time of war. I understand that is treason.

Thank goodness we have a liberal media to ask stuff like that.

Wait. Damn.


I didn't realize not agreeing with the president magically became treason in a time of war. Iirc we're not in actual declared wars in afghanistan or iraq either, let alone libya
 
Displayed 50 of 230 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report