Do you know what his job is? Because he sure doesn’t. Ask him, he’ll tell he doesn’t know and found out only when you told him because his Administration won’t let him know when there are problems. I don’t understand why people are trying so hard to protect a President who is so derelict in his job. How many people would be able to keep a job if all of this was happening under their watch? Whether or not he is responsible for the problem, it is his job to know what is happening in the country and abroad. Especially if someone close to him knows about it.
Mr. Obama seems to enjoy being a ‘statesman". He’s driving the car, though Congress may not let him go the direction or speed he wants, and he enjoys driving the car. But every GOOD driver should know how to check oil and transmission fluid, change out fuses, and perform basic maintenance. They also need to know when to take the car in to be more thoroughly inspected.This cartoon shows a driver who is barely watching his gas gauge, much less watching for any other problems.Was Mr. Obama given “Plausible Deniability” by people who did not tell him what was happening at the IRS or the AP? Did they deliberately leave him ignorant of these abuses of power? Did he ever ask or imply that he WANTED deniability? Why weren’t stronger & more rapid actions taken by those who did know?I’ve been “taken for a ride” by a lot of Presidents, but I prefer one who can avoid micro-managing without being kept in the dark.Those aren’t his dogs, but they were left in his care, so he needs to deal with them. The longer it takes to attach names to these issues, the worse he looks, and the more damage our ‘car’ takes as it travels without its needed repairs..Respectfully,C.
“……. killing Bin Laden with the training and support his predecessor put in place……”.Enough time and you’ll actually believe Bush got OBL. Selective memory is a wonderful thing.
Provide information that answer any question you would have if this was going on under a Republican Administration. There are too many unanswered questions. You could not let this go unanswered had it been your family in Benghazi or you were being targeted by the IRS. I am sure you would want things to continue until all information was uncovered. He has not been attempting to protect the Constitution of the USA from what I can see. Yet as I noted, he does not seem to know anything going on. Why do they always say they will investigate yet we never seem to get the full story. It is always the story they want told. I am not saying it would be different under a Republican administration and I would not be protecting the government if this was going on.
Ansonia said, “You can read that article and STILL believe the president didn’t know anything?”+I don’t know what the president knew or didn’t know. But I don’t see anything in the article to suggest that he did know. Here’s the relevant sentence: “The decision was made at the highest levels of the Justice Department, under longstanding regulations that are well within the boundaries of the Constitution.” I take it from this that the authors know or deduce from their experience that Holder knew. That’s all.+But what I do notice is that you make absolutely no attempt to deal with the argument of the article, which is that the subpoenas were justified and legal.
Bush and Cheney had their rats and dogs go after Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson, sorry, but treason trumps a Fux News created “crisis” when folks claiming taxes are illegal get “checked out” and folks who printed classified information are checked out to try to find their source.
claimed: "The yellowcake story WAS true. When the final report came out, it showed that Wilson was not telling the truth. The Brits stand behind that. "
Do they now. Prove it. Show us the “final report”. :-|
…also claimed: "Before going in, the UN agreed that Saddam didn’t offer adequate proof that he destroyed them. "
Er, “agreed”? With what did it agree? Please expound. Prove it. Show us this “UN agreement.” :-|
also said: “You need to educate yourself about Plame.Bush didn’t out her.”
I find it interesting the partisan arguments flying and forth on this forum. Any scandal witin the opposition’s camp is that president’s fault. If your own side’s president’s administration presided over another scandal, it is the administration, some official, that is the real culprit. If the scandal is on the other side, their president is personally responsible.I read the comments about the current IRS & AP stories and I see the current US president’s name being bandied back & forth as if he was personally responsible for these investigations. I don’t care either way; I’m just interested in how the mud sticks.Bush didn’t personally out Plame, but someone in his administration did, so it has become “Bush outed Plame”.But then you counter David’s statement "“You will note that there is zero evidence that Presidnet Obama was responsible for this”You replied: “”There probably never will be. Some underling will take the fall for him.“
Riiiight. Prove it.
also claimed ”History will judge Obama as an “asterisk president.”
That means that there will be an asterisk by his name to indicate that he won his re-election by illicit means."
Oh? Now his re-election was illicit? sighProve it
Interesting. Your politics is a far more better sideshow than others’.
It is easy to not have things attached to ones hands, it can be a wink and nod while saying if I don’t know what you do I can’t be held responsible. We all know from different media spots that Obama and many others had suggested it would be the right thing to make sure the Tea Party was check into because of their movement. As far as radical hate, I would say it starts in the Democrats court because of there desire to have total control of who gets money. The republicans want controlled spending and common sense laws that follow the constitution. Why not get behind the investigations and get to the bottom of things then move on. There has been stone walling from this Administration all along the way. You can’t say that these investigations are not warranted, it is not a biased request. You have information that memos were altered, requests for support/protection went unanswered along with the military being told to stand down. There is evidence that the Administration went above the law in their quest for uncovering a leak, just how far above the law is what they are looking at. There is more than enough evidence to prosecute many of those involved in the IRS scandal.
ossiningaling almost 11 years ago
“Zat is not my dog.”
neuturn almost 11 years ago
Do you know what his job is? Because he sure doesn’t. Ask him, he’ll tell he doesn’t know and found out only when you told him because his Administration won’t let him know when there are problems. I don’t understand why people are trying so hard to protect a President who is so derelict in his job. How many people would be able to keep a job if all of this was happening under their watch? Whether or not he is responsible for the problem, it is his job to know what is happening in the country and abroad. Especially if someone close to him knows about it.
chazandru almost 11 years ago
Mr. Obama seems to enjoy being a ‘statesman". He’s driving the car, though Congress may not let him go the direction or speed he wants, and he enjoys driving the car. But every GOOD driver should know how to check oil and transmission fluid, change out fuses, and perform basic maintenance. They also need to know when to take the car in to be more thoroughly inspected.This cartoon shows a driver who is barely watching his gas gauge, much less watching for any other problems.Was Mr. Obama given “Plausible Deniability” by people who did not tell him what was happening at the IRS or the AP? Did they deliberately leave him ignorant of these abuses of power? Did he ever ask or imply that he WANTED deniability? Why weren’t stronger & more rapid actions taken by those who did know?I’ve been “taken for a ride” by a lot of Presidents, but I prefer one who can avoid micro-managing without being kept in the dark.Those aren’t his dogs, but they were left in his care, so he needs to deal with them. The longer it takes to attach names to these issues, the worse he looks, and the more damage our ‘car’ takes as it travels without its needed repairs..Respectfully,C.
lonecat almost 11 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/opinion/stop-the-leaks.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130521&_r=0
Gypsy8 almost 11 years ago
“……. killing Bin Laden with the training and support his predecessor put in place……”.Enough time and you’ll actually believe Bush got OBL. Selective memory is a wonderful thing.
neuturn almost 11 years ago
Provide information that answer any question you would have if this was going on under a Republican Administration. There are too many unanswered questions. You could not let this go unanswered had it been your family in Benghazi or you were being targeted by the IRS. I am sure you would want things to continue until all information was uncovered. He has not been attempting to protect the Constitution of the USA from what I can see. Yet as I noted, he does not seem to know anything going on. Why do they always say they will investigate yet we never seem to get the full story. It is always the story they want told. I am not saying it would be different under a Republican administration and I would not be protecting the government if this was going on.
lonecat almost 11 years ago
Ansonia said, “You can read that article and STILL believe the president didn’t know anything?”+I don’t know what the president knew or didn’t know. But I don’t see anything in the article to suggest that he did know. Here’s the relevant sentence: “The decision was made at the highest levels of the Justice Department, under longstanding regulations that are well within the boundaries of the Constitution.” I take it from this that the authors know or deduce from their experience that Holder knew. That’s all.+But what I do notice is that you make absolutely no attempt to deal with the argument of the article, which is that the subpoenas were justified and legal.
lonecat almost 11 years ago
And President Obama could end all wars, solve the climate problem, and put a tofu dog in every pot, and you people would call for his impeachment.
Dtroutma almost 11 years ago
Bush and Cheney had their rats and dogs go after Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson, sorry, but treason trumps a Fux News created “crisis” when folks claiming taxes are illegal get “checked out” and folks who printed classified information are checked out to try to find their source.
OmqR-IV.0 almost 11 years ago
claimed: "The yellowcake story WAS true. When the final report came out, it showed that Wilson was not telling the truth. The Brits stand behind that. "
Do they now. Prove it. Show us the “final report”. :-|
…also claimed: "Before going in, the UN agreed that Saddam didn’t offer adequate proof that he destroyed them. "
Er, “agreed”? With what did it agree? Please expound. Prove it. Show us this “UN agreement.” :-|
also said: “You need to educate yourself about Plame.Bush didn’t out her.”
I find it interesting the partisan arguments flying and forth on this forum. Any scandal witin the opposition’s camp is that president’s fault. If your own side’s president’s administration presided over another scandal, it is the administration, some official, that is the real culprit. If the scandal is on the other side, their president is personally responsible.I read the comments about the current IRS & AP stories and I see the current US president’s name being bandied back & forth as if he was personally responsible for these investigations. I don’t care either way; I’m just interested in how the mud sticks.Bush didn’t personally out Plame, but someone in his administration did, so it has become “Bush outed Plame”.But then you counter David’s statement "“You will note that there is zero evidence that Presidnet Obama was responsible for this”You replied: “”There probably never will be. Some underling will take the fall for him.“
Riiiight. Prove it.
also claimed ”History will judge Obama as an “asterisk president.”
That means that there will be an asterisk by his name to indicate that he won his re-election by illicit means."
Oh? Now his re-election was illicit? sigh Prove it
Interesting. Your politics is a far more better sideshow than others’.
neuturn almost 11 years ago
It is easy to not have things attached to ones hands, it can be a wink and nod while saying if I don’t know what you do I can’t be held responsible. We all know from different media spots that Obama and many others had suggested it would be the right thing to make sure the Tea Party was check into because of their movement. As far as radical hate, I would say it starts in the Democrats court because of there desire to have total control of who gets money. The republicans want controlled spending and common sense laws that follow the constitution. Why not get behind the investigations and get to the bottom of things then move on. There has been stone walling from this Administration all along the way. You can’t say that these investigations are not warranted, it is not a biased request. You have information that memos were altered, requests for support/protection went unanswered along with the military being told to stand down. There is evidence that the Administration went above the law in their quest for uncovering a leak, just how far above the law is what they are looking at. There is more than enough evidence to prosecute many of those involved in the IRS scandal.