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)   Shhhhhh. Don't tell anyone   (reuters.com) divider line 332
    More: Obvious, Syrians, Free Syrian Army, clandestine operations, Qatari, United Nations Security Council, Syrian opposition, Assad, Damascus  
•       •       •

12102 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Aug 2012 at 12:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



332 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-02 01:27:12 PM

Deftoons: We have to start asking ourselves why we must be so tied to one country.

If the US became non-interventionist, any enemy of Israel would, after time, no longer become an "enemy by association" of the US. Israel isn't the 51st state of the union, why must we treat them as such?


You can start looking here for one.

Aside from that, they're our key "ally" in the region and a large component of our sphere of influence in the region, but unfortunately they're poisonous in that regard as well. This is another reason why regime changes in the region, even if they don't turn out 100% in our favor, are considered worth the risk, because the more US-friendly actors there are, the looser Israel's grip on our balls becomes.
 
2012-08-02 01:27:58 PM

NateGrey: Leeds: I'll bite.

The "best way to handle this" is to have an independent investigation into the leaks, followed by public hangings of the traitors in the White House.

//State Secrets aren't State Secrets any more when they are leaked by the Reds in the White House.


Like all Republicans you are a moron with nothing of value to add to any facet of international relations.

You guys broke the world from 2000-2008.

Thanks for nothing.


Nothing to add? That's your response to the comments I added above? That I have nothing to add? Odd little world you live in, friend.

First and foremost, I think that Obama is doing the right thing by backing the rebels. But his effectiveness in this situation has just been undermined because of the traitor in his administration.

It is baffling that Obama continues to allow traitors in his inner circle- this is what, the 4th time sensitive information has been leaked in as many months?

// I'd insult you back, but I'm fairly certain it would go over your head.
 
2012-08-02 01:35:59 PM

Leeds: The "best way to handle this" is to have an independent investigation into the leaks, followed by public hangings of the traitors in the White House.


I agree. Scooter Libby should've been hung.

/his wife would agree.
 
2012-08-02 01:46:48 PM
www.leninimports.com

What U.S. support for Syrian militants might look like...
 
2012-08-02 01:48:41 PM

Happy Hours: Well, I brought up cold war to begin with because someone used the excuse that Russia is supporting Assad so why shouldn't we support the rebels? That's cold war thinking right there.


That wasn't in the post you were responding to, so how would I have guessed that's what you meant

Funny you chose to quote that one line from my post though while not addressing our complete lack of national interest in supporting the rebels other than they're against Assad too.

I think having a peaceful Middle East is in our national interest. I think encouraging the development of friendly, democratic nations in the Middle East is in our national interest. I think stopping state-sponsored violence against civilians is in the interest of human rights. I think that those are some of many potential justifications that could be used to support our actions, as moderate as they are, in Syria. Whether or not our current strategy will lead to any of those goals is something worth discussing, but I don't think you can write off violence and unrest in any part of the globe as not affecting the US or our interests.

Note that I am not claiming that the mere demonstration of affect justifies US action, just that it's pretty easy to come up with a reason that an action would be in our nation's interest.
 
2012-08-02 01:50:26 PM

penetrating_virga: BeesNuts: penetrating_virga: EyeballKid: penetrating_virga: Obama is involving us in another civil war? Gat dammit! Where is the outrage?! If a Republican had done this there would be a sea of accusations about being a war monger, funding the war machine and how the President was personally benefiting from defense contracts. Fncking hypocrites.

And which company that Obama worked at previously as CEO is getting no-bid contracts into Syria?

I know this may come as a shock to you, but both sides aren't the same. Grab some smelling salts, and be sure to fall near the fainting couch.

This stinks of the same smell as our other military conflicts over the last decade. Fainting couch? clever Cletus, you need to wake the fnck up.

I mean, you're absolutely right. That's exactly what this stinks like... if you have literally not read or heard a single thing about Syria lately.


oh sure.. saddam hussein was a benevolent leader.. and afghanistan wasn't brewing a civil war between sunni vs shia.. ...and you believe everything CNN reports right? Especially when the last line of the report is "this story could not be verified." Your ignorance is showing.


You sure figured out a lot about me based on a two sentence post. Imagine what you could tell me about myself if you knew I was a Cancer! Do you do this professionally, or is this something you do pro bono?

/Actually I get all my news from Michael Moore's ass-drippings.
//They teach me how to force you to gay marry a turtle, buy every poor person in the country a ferrari and pay for it with YOUR tax dollars.
 
2012-08-02 01:51:38 PM

qorkfiend: Sometimes the straw doesn't have to be too heavy. I bet if you told the Europeans in 1913 that in one year, they'd all be at each other's throats over the actions of the Serbians, they would have laughed in your face.


Well, that's kind of the whole point of the fable.

But as historically relevant as your example is, is there any extant reason to believe that Syria is likely to spark a larger US/Russian conflict? Or are you just making the fine point that sometimes large events have small sparks?

In which case, thank you for your insight.
 
2012-08-02 01:54:23 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: Leeds: The "best way to handle this" is to have an independent investigation into the leaks, followed by public hangings of the traitors in the White House.

I agree. Scooter Libby should've been hung.

/his wife would agree.


Hanging is an appropriate punishment for treason. However, Dubya was only comfortable executing mentally retarded people who couldn't afford a decent defense.
 
2012-08-02 02:00:56 PM

machoprogrammer: Skleenar: machoprogrammer: Reagan having the CIA help rebels: Democrats scream it is bad, Republicans scream it is good.

Obama having the CIA help rebels: Republicans scream it is bad, Democrats scream it is good.

Just more of the same shiat.

I know. It's EXACTLY the same. I mean, of course, if you ignore the whole "Executive branch providing funding to the rebels in direct contravention of duly enacted legislation" thing.

but, I mean, that's at the END of the first paragraph in the wiki. No one has that long of an attention span.

I was actually referring to the whole Central and South America things that were pulled during the 80s, but nice try. Iran-Contra was bad no matter how you pull it.


Well, there was also the fact that much of the "Central and South America things" (which, by the way were more frequently about supporting existing governments than supporting rebels: Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador vs Nicaragua) was really about Reagan trying to fight a glorious crusade against the Soviets in the (real, this time) Cold War. This overarching strategy meant that we often were aligning ourselves, against what could be described as our immediate national interests and certainly against human rights, with many unsavory groups.

From that perspective, criticism over Syria still looks pretty different from a "both sides are bad" analysis
 
2012-08-02 02:10:52 PM

BeesNuts: penetrating_virga: BeesNuts: penetrating_virga: EyeballKid: penetrating_virga: Obama is involving us in another civil war? Gat dammit! Where is the outrage?! If a Republican had done this there would be a sea of accusations about being a war monger, funding the war machine and how the President was personally benefiting from defense contracts. Fncking hypocrites.

And which company that Obama worked at previously as CEO is getting no-bid contracts into Syria?

I know this may come as a shock to you, but both sides aren't the same. Grab some smelling salts, and be sure to fall near the fainting couch.

This stinks of the same smell as our other military conflicts over the last decade. Fainting couch? clever Cletus, you need to wake the fnck up.

I mean, you're absolutely right. That's exactly what this stinks like... if you have literally not read or heard a single thing about Syria lately.


oh sure.. saddam hussein was a benevolent leader.. and afghanistan wasn't brewing a civil war between sunni vs shia.. ...and you believe everything CNN reports right? Especially when the last line of the report is "this story could not be verified." Your ignorance is showing.

You sure figured out a lot about me based on a two sentence post. Imagine what you could tell me about myself if you knew I was a Cancer! Do you do this professionally, or is this something you do pro bono?

/Actually I get all my news from Michael Moore's ass-drippings.
//They teach me how to force you to gay marry a turtle, buy every poor person in the country a ferrari and pay for it with YOUR tax dollars.


right. you got me. you're right... we should totally get involved in Syria. Perhaps boots on the ground is the next step.
 
2012-08-02 02:17:42 PM

penetrating_virga: right. you got me. you're right... we should totally get involved in Syria. Perhaps boots on the ground is the next step.


/eyeroll
 
2012-08-02 02:32:22 PM

penetrating_virga: Oh yeah... all of the world's problems started in 2000.


Naw. They started 1/20/1981. They just didn't come to a head until 11/2000
 
2012-08-02 02:37:03 PM

qorkfiend: Deftoons: and it creates new enemies when the US already has made plenty.

What new enemies has it created?

Deftoons: I'd rather look for ways to help them privately and voluntarily.

What does "privately and voluntarily" mean, in this case?


I think he means like the international brigades during the Spanish Civil War.
I'm against the drone strikes (intentionally targeting civilians isn't anything to support), and I'm wary of Libya and Syria as a repeat of 1953 Iran (why Iran hates us so much) and 1980s-era supporting the Taliban against the Soviets. Granted, Assad is not democratically elected and I'm sure the reason for supporting this is something besides the theft of a country's natural resources (I hope anyway) and we're not supporting rebels against invaders, we're supporting rebels against a domestic dictatorship (it's pretty close though, the US backing Al Qaeda/the Taliban against the Soviets/Russians).
But this is the kind of meddling that farked us in the past. I guess it depends on which way your scale tips on the consequences of blowback versus consequences of letting someone else fill an opportunity, and whether or not your scale tips towards believing our intervention is for mostly humanitarian reasons versus mostly realpolitik/same old gangstering.
 
2012-08-02 02:39:44 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: Leeds: The "best way to handle this" is to have an independent investigation into the leaks, followed by public hangings of the traitors in the White House.

I agree. Scooter Libby should've been hung.

/his wife would agree.


Frankly, you may actually be right.

The point is that traitors hurt the country, regardless of their party or race or whatever else you want to use to define them.

And so far this year, the traitor(s) in the current White House have dealt an average of one major blow to our county every month. I think we all know that the Stuxnet one was the worst, but even this latest leak now ties Obama's hands in relations with both Russia and Syria, something the typical American does not want to see happen.

What we need to do is root them out and make examples of them. Obama has chosen to do none of that which is why the conspiracy theorists believe that he is the traitor. Luckily for him, all he has to do to fix this problem is to stop protecting the traitor(s) and allow the investigations to occur.
 
2012-08-02 02:48:56 PM
I can pretty much sum up the opposition to this in two ways.

One group's the Fark Libertarians who are non-interventionist as a rule, and actually mean it. Debate them however you want. I could care less.

The other group are Fark Conservatives who just don't like it because Obama's doing it. They're suddenly "non-interventionalist" after 10 years of being all for two, trillion dollar wars.
 
2012-08-02 02:57:58 PM

ourbigdumbmouth: I'd like to know how much money this is costing us. And the end game? Getting the brotherhood in there? Or is this a pregame to Iran?

Where have all the anti-war people gone?

Money!!!!


the pre-game to Iran left port already.
 
2012-08-02 03:09:43 PM

verbaltoxin: I can pretty much sum up the opposition to this in two ways.

One group's the Fark Libertarians who are non-interventionist as a rule, and actually mean it. Debate them however you want. I could care less.

The other group are Fark Conservatives who just don't like it because Obama's doing it. They're suddenly "non-interventionalist" after 10 years of being all for two, trillion dollar wars.


You're way off base. The issue at hand is the traitor that the Obama administration is choosing not to go after, prosecute and hang.

Almost no one is upset that we're taking sides in this conflict, they're upset that we just lost the ability to posture diplomatically because of the traitor(s).

Feel free to read the thread.
 
2012-08-02 03:43:59 PM

Leeds: verbaltoxin: I can pretty much sum up the opposition to this in two ways.

One group's the Fark Libertarians who are non-interventionist as a rule, and actually mean it. Debate them however you want. I could care less.

The other group are Fark Conservatives who just don't like it because Obama's doing it. They're suddenly "non-interventionalist" after 10 years of being all for two, trillion dollar wars.

You're way off base. The issue at hand is the traitor that the Obama administration is choosing not to go after, prosecute and hang.

Almost no one is upset that we're taking sides in this conflict, they're upset that we just lost the ability to posture diplomatically because of the traitor(s).

Feel free to read the thread.


actually quite a few fark righties were upset, or at least acted like it.

what make you think Obama isn't going after the leak perp?
 
2012-08-02 04:04:29 PM

unexplained bacon: what make you think Obama isn't going after the leak perp?


Do the leaks make Obama look worse, or look better.......the leak may be of a political nature......highly calculated.
 
2012-08-02 04:05:01 PM

unexplained bacon: Leeds: verbaltoxin: I can pretty much sum up the opposition to this in two ways.

One group's the Fark Libertarians who are non-interventionist as a rule, and actually mean it. Debate them however you want. I could care less.

The other group are Fark Conservatives who just don't like it because Obama's doing it. They're suddenly "non-interventionalist" after 10 years of being all for two, trillion dollar wars.

You're way off base. The issue at hand is the traitor that the Obama administration is choosing not to go after, prosecute and hang.

Almost no one is upset that we're taking sides in this conflict, they're upset that we just lost the ability to posture diplomatically because of the traitor(s).

Feel free to read the thread.

actually quite a few fark righties were upset, or at least acted like it.

what make you think Obama isn't going after the leak perp?


Because of his public silence on the topic.

And because he fought against the Congressional probes into this year's previous leaks he's already proved himself unwilling to do anything about the traitor(s). He's literally told his boys not to cooperate.

But I would applaud him if he actually did do the right thing, even well after the fact. The Stuxnet one is MASSIVE though. The mole in his administration literally admitted that the US has fired off the first volleys in the upcoming World Cyber war. That opens us up to legal issues we haven't even thought of yet.
 
2012-08-02 04:16:56 PM

Gotfire: This shiat never ends well


Just go look at a map of how much territory these rebels control. Assad isn't going anywhere unless we intervene to kill him. Having said that, it's probably likely that the recent spat of assassinations and bombing against Assad officials is, if not being carried out with the direct support of Western espionage services, at the very least being done with our advice. And you're right; when one of our presidents decides to play James Bond and use the CIA to overthrow some country it doesn't end well; we've pretty much got a perfect record of failure in that field. The court's still out on Libya of course, but regardless of how that turns out our intervention there has certain led to some major unintended consequences in Mali and other neighboring states.
 
2012-08-02 04:23:42 PM

Leeds: unexplained bacon: Leeds: verbaltoxin: I can pretty much sum up the opposition to this in two ways.

One group's the Fark Libertarians who are non-interventionist as a rule, and actually mean it. Debate them however you want. I could care less.

The other group are Fark Conservatives who just don't like it because Obama's doing it. They're suddenly "non-interventionalist" after 10 years of being all for two, trillion dollar wars.

You're way off base. The issue at hand is the traitor that the Obama administration is choosing not to go after, prosecute and hang.

Almost no one is upset that we're taking sides in this conflict, they're upset that we just lost the ability to posture diplomatically because of the traitor(s).

Feel free to read the thread.

actually quite a few fark righties were upset, or at least acted like it.

what make you think Obama isn't going after the leak perp?

Because of his public silence on the topic.

And because he fought against the Congressional probes into this year's previous leaks he's already proved himself unwilling to do anything about the traitor(s). He's literally told his boys not to cooperate.

But I would applaud him if he actually did do the right thing, even well after the fact. The Stuxnet one is MASSIVE though. The mole in his administration literally admitted that the US has fired off the first volleys in the upcoming World Cyber war. That opens us up to legal issues we haven't even thought of yet.


"mole"? Obama's admin chose to leak that as a brag and a threat; it didn't slip out unofficially. I'd wager that something like 99% of the "leaks" that show up in our news are government officials using anonymity to make falsely positive -unchallengeable- claims about the illegal activity they engage in without running the risk of criminal liability. Do you believe it was "moles" behind all those leaks about the drone assassination program? I guess that makes Obama a "traitor" for "leaking" the successful assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki then, don't it?
 
2012-08-02 04:48:27 PM

Heron: Leeds: unexplained bacon: Leeds: verbaltoxin: I can pretty much sum up the opposition to this in two ways.

One group's the Fark Libertarians who are non-interventionist as a rule, and actually mean it. Debate them however you want. I could care less.

The other group are Fark Conservatives who just don't like it because Obama's doing it. They're suddenly "non-interventionalist" after 10 years of being all for two, trillion dollar wars.

You're way off base. The issue at hand is the traitor that the Obama administration is choosing not to go after, prosecute and hang.

Almost no one is upset that we're taking sides in this conflict, they're upset that we just lost the ability to posture diplomatically because of the traitor(s).

Feel free to read the thread.

actually quite a few fark righties were upset, or at least acted like it.

what make you think Obama isn't going after the leak perp?

Because of his public silence on the topic.

And because he fought against the Congressional probes into this year's previous leaks he's already proved himself unwilling to do anything about the traitor(s). He's literally told his boys not to cooperate.

But I would applaud him if he actually did do the right thing, even well after the fact. The Stuxnet one is MASSIVE though. The mole in his administration literally admitted that the US has fired off the first volleys in the upcoming World Cyber war. That opens us up to legal issues we haven't even thought of yet.


"mole"? Obama's admin chose to leak that as a brag and a threat; it didn't slip out unofficially. I'd wager that something like 99% of the "leaks" that show up in our news are government officials using anonymity to make falsely positive -unchallengeable- claims about the illegal activity they engage in without running the risk of criminal liability. Do you believe it was "moles" behind all those leaks about the drone assassination program? I guess that makes Obama a "traitor" for "leaking" the successful assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki then, don't it?


If he is behind the illegal dissemination of classified information, then the answer is "yes." There's no grey area there.

But I suspect he's not quite that stupid. Even if he is the traitor he'd have put someone else up to actually doing the deed. He fears the hangman as much as any other red blooded person.
 
2012-08-02 04:50:02 PM
Shhhhhh. Don't tell anyone

Be vewy vewy qwiet. We're suppoating Sywian webows.
 
2012-08-02 05:04:49 PM

Leeds: Heron: Leeds: unexplained bacon: Leeds: verbaltoxin: I can pretty much sum up the opposition to this in two ways.

One group's the Fark Libertarians who are non-interventionist as a rule, and actually mean it. Debate them however you want. I could care less.

The other group are Fark Conservatives who just don't like it because Obama's doing it. They're suddenly "non-interventionalist" after 10 years of being all for two, trillion dollar wars.

You're way off base. The issue at hand is the traitor that the Obama administration is choosing not to go after, prosecute and hang.

Almost no one is upset that we're taking sides in this conflict, they're upset that we just lost the ability to posture diplomatically because of the traitor(s).

Feel free to read the thread.

actually quite a few fark righties were upset, or at least acted like it.

what make you think Obama isn't going after the leak perp?

Because of his public silence on the topic.

And because he fought against the Congressional probes into this year's previous leaks he's already proved himself unwilling to do anything about the traitor(s). He's literally told his boys not to cooperate.

But I would applaud him if he actually did do the right thing, even well after the fact. The Stuxnet one is MASSIVE though. The mole in his administration literally admitted that the US has fired off the first volleys in the upcoming World Cyber war. That opens us up to legal issues we haven't even thought of yet.


"mole"? Obama's admin chose to leak that as a brag and a threat; it didn't slip out unofficially. I'd wager that something like 99% of the "leaks" that show up in our news are government officials using anonymity to make falsely positive -unchallengeable- claims about the illegal activity they engage in without running the risk of criminal liability. Do you believe it was "moles" behind all those leaks about the drone assassination program? I guess that makes Obama a "traitor" for "leaking" the successful assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki then, don't it?

If he is behind the illegal dissemination of classified information, then the answer is "yes." There's no grey area there.

But I suspect he's not quite that stupid. Even if he is the traitor he'd have put someone else up to actually doing the deed. He fears the hangman as much as any other red blooded person.


Ah hahah ho hee hoo hooha he he ho ha.

You think president's are abject to laws. That's precious!
 
2012-08-02 05:08:49 PM

Ned Stark: Ah hahah ho hee hoo hooha he he ho ha.

You think president's are *subject to laws. That's precious!


They can't be tried in criminal courts until they step down from office.

This is potentially a motivating factor for Obama to win a second term.

Interesting point.
 
2012-08-02 05:12:50 PM

Leeds: Ned Stark: Ah hahah ho hee hoo hooha he he ho ha.

You think president's are *subject to laws. That's precious!

They can't be tried in criminal courts until they step down from office.

This is potentially a motivating factor for Obama to win a second term.

Interesting point.


Uh-huh. That'll be the Romney administrations first priority trying all the US's war criminals for their various crimes. Yep yep.
 
2012-08-02 05:26:00 PM

penetrating_virga: BeesNuts: penetrating_virga: BeesNuts: penetrating_virga: EyeballKid: penetrating_virga: Obama is involving us in another civil war? Gat dammit! Where is the outrage?! If a Republican had done this there would be a sea of accusations about being a war monger, funding the war machine and how the President was personally benefiting from defense contracts. Fncking hypocrites.

And which company that Obama worked at previously as CEO is getting no-bid contracts into Syria?

I know this may come as a shock to you, but both sides aren't the same. Grab some smelling salts, and be sure to fall near the fainting couch.

This stinks of the same smell as our other military conflicts over the last decade. Fainting couch? clever Cletus, you need to wake the fnck up.

I mean, you're absolutely right. That's exactly what this stinks like... if you have literally not read or heard a single thing about Syria lately.


oh sure.. saddam hussein was a benevolent leader.. and afghanistan wasn't brewing a civil war between sunni vs shia.. ...and you believe everything CNN reports right? Especially when the last line of the report is "this story could not be verified." Your ignorance is showing.

You sure figured out a lot about me based on a two sentence post. Imagine what you could tell me about myself if you knew I was a Cancer! Do you do this professionally, or is this something you do pro bono?

/Actually I get all my news from Michael Moore's ass-drippings.
//They teach me how to force you to gay marry a turtle, buy every poor person in the country a ferrari and pay for it with YOUR tax dollars.

right. you got me. you're right... we should totally get involved in Syria. Perhaps boots on the ground is the next step.


That's kind of my entire point. Bush policy was to put boots on the ground. Or more accurately, to automatically incorporate ground forces into his military planning. Obama policy hasn't indicated any particular predilection to get involved in any large scale ground invasion.

You said this smelled like Iraq/Afghanistan to you. I can respect that opinion, snark notwithstanding, but I disagree for a plethora of reasons. I won't outline em all or anything but for starters, the environment is entirely different in this case. We haven't been attacked so emotions are running pretty low compared to the run up to Afghanistan, which was pretty much a week long "debate" followed by troops marching across the country. As for Iraq, the run-up to Iraq was more of a PR campaign than an analysis of any sort. Internal memos even indicate that higher-ups in the planning sessions had talked about the inevitability of an Iraq invasion back in 2001. Before 9/11 even happened.

Nothing about Syria smells like that, to me.

Secondly, our dealings with the UN strike me as entirely different this go 'round, but I'll admit I'm not watching this story unfold exclusively with 100% dedication or anything. As I understand it, Damascus has been talking about Syrian chemical weapons in UN meetings for some time now, which culminated in a recent admission on the part of the Syrian government that they do in fact have chemical weapons "for national defense". This, again as I understand it, led to a followup in which they even said they would use them against other nations if need be. As one of like ... half a dozen countries who haven't signed on to the "let's not make VX gas anymore" treaty, that's kind of scary, I think. And many other nations also think that, apart from the obvious Israel. Less obvious are the ones mentioned in the article. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.

So whereas we had the Colin Powell Saltshaker Samba on the run up to Iraq, here we have many allies of ours, who aren't really too keen on one another, all agreeing that Assad is a problem that needs... "solving."

Agree or disagree with the action? I'm not sure yet... and the jury's still out on whether this is even happening or not (I think?)

Just like the wars of the last decade? I have to disagree.
 
2012-08-02 05:28:58 PM

Ned Stark: Leeds: Ned Stark: Ah hahah ho hee hoo hooha he he ho ha.

You think president's are *subject to laws. That's precious!

They can't be tried in criminal courts until they step down from office.

This is potentially a motivating factor for Obama to win a second term.

Interesting point.

Uh-huh. That'll be the Romney administrations first priority trying all the US's war criminals for their various crimes. Yep yep.


No, I bet he'll do the same as Bush did when he pardoned Clinton for his crimes.

But as I said before, there is plenty of evidence that there is a mole/traitor in the Obama White House. But there isn't much specific evidence as to who that traitor is because Obama is blocking the investigations that congress is seeking.
 
2012-08-02 07:44:58 PM

Leeds: Ned Stark: Leeds: Ned Stark: Ah hahah ho hee hoo hooha he he ho ha.

You think president's are *subject to laws. That's precious!

They can't be tried in criminal courts until they step down from office.

This is potentially a motivating factor for Obama to win a second term.

Interesting point.

Uh-huh. That'll be the Romney administrations first priority trying all the US's war criminals for their various crimes. Yep yep.

No, I bet he'll do the same as Bush did when he pardoned Clinton for his crimes.

But as I said before, there is plenty of evidence that there is a mole/traitor in the Obama White House. But there isn't much specific evidence as to who that traitor is because Obama is blocking the investigations that congress is seeking.


Congress just wants to help right?
 
2012-08-03 05:18:51 AM

RanDomino: LewDux
Seems reliable. Especially since people behind voltairenet claim that 9/11 was inside job

They're citing articles in mainstream German publications. If du kannst Deutsch lesen here's Hackensberger's blog.


Ich kann mit Google übersetzen Translate

it's blog that asks questions and provides the answer:
"If any part of the rebels hastily spoken of a massacre of innocent civilians? After all, you know that every other atrocity that the regime of President Bashar Assad is accused, she brings a Western-led military intervention a step closer.
 
2012-08-04 06:18:23 PM

Moosecakes: iawai: Knight of the Woeful Countenance: This makes the third? fourth? high level security leak in the last four months...

When Obama promised transparency, he really meant that he would scapegoat whistleblowers.

When Obama promised a foreign policy of diplomacy, he really meant that if you got in the CIA's way he'd drone you without second thought.

It's the craziest thing, watching conservatives try to now be against government secrets and war. Especially because they are simultaneously for war with Iran and against leaks. Just the gosh darnedest thing I just can't wrap my head around it.


Would it help if I told you I wasn't conservative?

Obama would be more at home in the Republican Party than I would.
 
Displayed 32 of 332 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report