pokerfied.com
Promoting poker discussions.

Main
Date: 11 Jan 2009 21:15:32
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Obama guts America's national security
One of my greatest concerns about Obama is that he is weak on national
security and doesn't have the experience or toughness to fight the war on
terror and to keep America safe from terrorist attacks on our own soil.
Well, as the following article indicates, my concerns were well founded.


DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on January 8, 2009

"President-elect Barack Obama's appointments to Homeland Security, the
Justice Department and now the CIA indicate a virtual abandonment of the War
on Terror.

As Homeland Security chief, he's named a governor whose only experience has
been with the US-Mexican border. His attorney general pick, meanwhile, took
the lead in pardoning FALN terrorists. Now he has rounded out his
national-security and Justice Department teams by naming ultraliberals.

Leon Panetta, his choice for CIA chief, is as liberal as they come. Though
originally a pro-Nixon congressman, he long ago embraced the left with the
fervor of a convert and brings these values to the CIA.

As President Bill Clinton's chief of staff (a tenure that coincided with my
own work with Clinton), he was a dedicated liberal, opposing accommodation
with the Republicans who ran Congress and battling hard against a
balanced-budget deal. After winning re-election, Clinton jettisoned Panetta
for the more moderate Erskine Bowles in order to reach a deal with the GOP.



Plus, Panetta was a prime mover in the 1995 appointment of John
Deutch to head CIA, replacing hardliner Jim Woolsey. Deutch eventually
needed a presidential pardon after being caught committing a massive
security breach by taking home his laptop, laden with secret files.

Choosing Panetta to head the CIA culminates liberals' 35-year crusade
to take over the agency, humble its operatives and rein in its operations.
In 1977, President Jimmy Carter named liberal JFK adviser Ted Sorenson to
head CIA, only to have the nomination killed. In 1997, Clinton tried to name
his ultraleftist National Security Adviser Tony Lake (who had quit Secretary
of State Henry Kissinger's staff over Vietnam), only to have that nomination
rejected as well.



Each time, the intelligence community acted to protect its own and curbed
the liberal president's inclinations. But now, under Obama, the Democrats
will finally have their way and appoint a liberal zealot to head the agency.

Panetta will, presumably, curb such practices as waterboarding, rendition
and warrantless wiretapping. So we won't gather much intelligence - but our
spies will dot all the i's and cross all the t's.

Over at Justice, Obama is naming four liberals to staff the agency, each
determined to rein in effective intelligence-gathering.

Professor Dawn Johnsen of Indiana University Law School is to head the
Office of Legal Counsel. She distinguished herself by writing a law-review
article taking issue with President Bush's efforts to keep us safe. It was
titled, "What's a President To Do: Interpreting the Constitution in the Wake
of the Bush Administration Abuses." Presumably, she'll bring back the days
of the wall between criminal and intelligence investigations, which led to
our failure to examine the computer of "20th hijacker" Zacharias Moussaoui,
which contained wire-fund-transfer information on the other hijackers.

No less an authority than Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, who taught
Elena Kagan, the new solicitor general, predicted that she and Johnsen would
"freshly re-examine some of the positions the previous administration has
taken."

Obama's other Justice appointments, David Ogden as deputy attorney general
and Thomas Perrelli as associate AG, bring back Clinton/Reno Justice
Department retreads. Both participated eagerly in the constraints on
intelligence-gathering that left us so vulnerable on 9/11.

Bush's legacy shows one clear achievement: He kept us safe after 9/11. Now
his successor's policies are about to eradicate that singular achievement.
The liberals will, of course, all cheer these appointments and the policies
they'll pursue once in office, but these appointments make it frighteningly
more likely that we will, indeed, be hit again."

Irish Mike

Proud to be one of the 55,000,000+ Americans who did not vote for your
Messiah.







 
Date: 12 Jan 2009 12:26:05
From: OrangeSFO
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
The "War on Terror" SHOULD be abandoned.

It's a crock of shit invented by the defense industry to keep the
government contract spigot open.


  
Date: 13 Jan 2009 09:02:23
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
On Jan 13, 12:02=A0am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
>
>But Olberman and Matthews are the worst. =A0A couple of left wing shills t=
hat lost
> any journalistic integrity they might have had when they stuck their head=
s
> in The Messiah's kool aid bucket. =A0
>
> Irish Mike

Olberman and Matthews are not Journalists and neither is Rush or
Hannity. Journalism is dead in America! Poof! Done! Finished! Today,
it's called news entertainment with a twist and you get to pick a
flavor.



   
Date: 13 Jan 2009 23:05:59
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:02:23 -0800 (PST), Senator Millionaire
<moone99@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Jan 13, 12:02am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>But Olberman and Matthews are the worst. A couple of left wing shills that lost
>> any journalistic integrity they might have had when they stuck their heads
>> in The Messiah's kool aid bucket.
>>
>> Irish Mike
>
>Olberman and Matthews are not Journalists and neither is Rush or
>Hannity. Journalism is dead in America! Poof! Done! Finished! Today,
>it's called news entertainment with a twist and you get to pick a
>flavor.

Sad but true. And a big thank you to the Telecommuncations Act of
1996.


  
Date: 12 Jan 2009 19:44:43
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
Irish Mike is waiting to hear from the $35 million man (Rush) or is it
Hannity for his next RGP update. Hannity likes to come across as 'Joe
the Plumber'. How much does that overpaid Hannity earn a year? Anyone
know? My guess is around 10-12 million a year.

I heard that overpaid lefty goofball at MSNBC, Keith Olbermann, is
raking in $7 million a year. LOL!



   
Date: 13 Jan 2009 00:02:33
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security

"Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:edf6914a-e0dd-4fcb-8c57-5a86e039a40c@e10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> Irish Mike is waiting to hear from the $35 million man (Rush) or is it
> Hannity for his next RGP update. Hannity likes to come across as 'Joe
> the Plumber'. How much does that overpaid Hannity earn a year? Anyone
> know? My guess is around 10-12 million a year.
>
> I heard that overpaid lefty goofball at MSNBC, Keith Olbermann, is
> raking in $7 million a year. LOL!

Might surprise you to know that I never listen to Limbaugh - just an
egotistical gas bag with 20-20 hind sight in my book. I don't care much for
Hannity either - focuses on the wrong things at the wrong times. But
Olberman and Matthews are the worst. A couple of left wing shills that lost
any journalistic integrity they might have had when they stuck their heads
in The Messiah's kool aid bucket. Any time those two draw a pay check it's
an act of theft. I do listen to Krauthamer. He's one of the most
intelligent, insightful and under-rated political analysts around today.

Irish Mike




    
Date: 12 Jan 2009 21:05:45
From: Clave
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
"Irish Mike" <mjostar@ameritech.net > wrote in message
news:RfVal.10290$W06.4748@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> "Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:edf6914a-e0dd-4fcb-8c57-5a86e039a40c@e10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>> Irish Mike is waiting to hear from the $35 million man (Rush) or is it
>> Hannity for his next RGP update. Hannity likes to come across as 'Joe
>> the Plumber'. How much does that overpaid Hannity earn a year? Anyone
>> know? My guess is around 10-12 million a year.
>>
>> I heard that overpaid lefty goofball at MSNBC, Keith Olbermann, is
>> raking in $7 million a year. LOL!
>
> Might surprise you to know that I never listen to Limbaugh...

Heh.

NONE of you admit it.

Jim




  
Date: 12 Jan 2009 17:40:33
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
On Jan 12, 5:37=A0pm, "Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDam...@cablespeed.com >
wrote:
> "OrangeSFO" <intangible...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0a5fa91d-a172-469f-80c1-17a1e28e3832@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The "War on Terror" SHOULD be abandoned.
>
> > It's a crock of shit invented by the defense industry to keep the
> > government contract spigot open.
>
> Can we kiss the "War on Drugs" goodbye too?

<sigh > At best, we can hope the Obama administration cuts back on some
of the worst excesses.

- Bob T.
>
> Jim



   
Date: 12 Jan 2009 20:23:31
From: FL Turbo
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:40:33 -0800 (PST), "Bob T."
<bob@synapse-cs.com > wrote:

>On Jan 12, 5:37pm, "Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDam...@cablespeed.com>
>wrote:
>> "OrangeSFO" <intangible...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:0a5fa91d-a172-469f-80c1-17a1e28e3832@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > The "War on Terror" SHOULD be abandoned.
>>
>> > It's a crock of shit invented by the defense industry to keep the
>> > government contract spigot open.
>>
>> Can we kiss the "War on Drugs" goodbye too?
>
><sigh> At best, we can hope the Obama administration cuts back on some
>of the worst excesses.
>

Ain't that just the sad truth?

"Say hello to the new boss...."


  
Date: 12 Jan 2009 17:37:24
From: Clave
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
"OrangeSFO" <intangible103@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:0a5fa91d-a172-469f-80c1-17a1e28e3832@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> The "War on Terror" SHOULD be abandoned.
>
> It's a crock of shit invented by the defense industry to keep the
> government contract spigot open.

Can we kiss the "War on Drugs" goodbye too?

Jim




  
Date: 12 Jan 2009 14:34:33
From: da pickle no spam
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
"OrangeSFO"

> The "War on Terror" SHOULD be abandoned.
>
> It's a crock of shit invented by the defense industry to keep the
> government contract spigot open.

Absofucking-lutely

There has not been a "terror" lol strike in over seven years





 
Date: 11 Jan 2009 19:20:15
From: ChrisRobin
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
On Jan 11 2009 9:15 PM, Irish Mike wrote:

> One of my greatest concerns about Obama is that he is weak on national
> security and doesn't have the experience or toughness to fight the war on
> terror and to keep America safe from terrorist attacks on our own soil.
> Well, as the following article indicates, my concerns were well founded.
>
>
> DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
> Published in the New York Post on January 8, 2009
>
> "President-elect Barack Obama's appointments to Homeland Security, the
> Justice Department and now the CIA indicate a virtual abandonment of the War
> on Terror.
>
> As Homeland Security chief, he's named a governor whose only experience has
> been with the US-Mexican border. His attorney general pick, meanwhile, took
> the lead in pardoning FALN terrorists. Now he has rounded out his
> national-security and Justice Department teams by naming ultraliberals.
>
> Leon Panetta, his choice for CIA chief, is as liberal as they come. Though
> originally a pro-Nixon congressman, he long ago embraced the left with the
> fervor of a convert and brings these values to the CIA.
>
> As President Bill Clinton's chief of staff (a tenure that coincided with my
> own work with Clinton), he was a dedicated liberal, opposing accommodation
> with the Republicans who ran Congress and battling hard against a
> balanced-budget deal. After winning re-election, Clinton jettisoned Panetta
> for the more moderate Erskine Bowles in order to reach a deal with the GOP.
>
>
>
> Plus, Panetta was a prime mover in the 1995 appointment of John
> Deutch to head CIA, replacing hardliner Jim Woolsey. Deutch eventually
> needed a presidential pardon after being caught committing a massive
> security breach by taking home his laptop, laden with secret files.
>
> Choosing Panetta to head the CIA culminates liberals' 35-year crusade
> to take over the agency, humble its operatives and rein in its operations.
> In 1977, President Jimmy Carter named liberal JFK adviser Ted Sorenson to
> head CIA, only to have the nomination killed. In 1997, Clinton tried to name
> his ultraleftist National Security Adviser Tony Lake (who had quit Secretary
> of State Henry Kissinger's staff over Vietnam), only to have that nomination
> rejected as well.
>
>
>
> Each time, the intelligence community acted to protect its own and curbed
> the liberal president's inclinations. But now, under Obama, the Democrats
> will finally have their way and appoint a liberal zealot to head the agency.
>
> Panetta will, presumably, curb such practices as waterboarding, rendition
> and warrantless wiretapping. So we won't gather much intelligence - but our
> spies will dot all the i's and cross all the t's.
>
> Over at Justice, Obama is naming four liberals to staff the agency, each
> determined to rein in effective intelligence-gathering.
>
> Professor Dawn Johnsen of Indiana University Law School is to head the
> Office of Legal Counsel. She distinguished herself by writing a law-review
> article taking issue with President Bush's efforts to keep us safe. It was
> titled, "What's a President To Do: Interpreting the Constitution in the Wake
> of the Bush Administration Abuses." Presumably, she'll bring back the days
> of the wall between criminal and intelligence investigations, which led to
> our failure to examine the computer of "20th hijacker" Zacharias Moussaoui,
> which contained wire-fund-transfer information on the other hijackers.
>
> No less an authority than Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, who taught
> Elena Kagan, the new solicitor general, predicted that she and Johnsen would
> "freshly re-examine some of the positions the previous administration has
> taken."
>
> Obama's other Justice appointments, David Ogden as deputy attorney general
> and Thomas Perrelli as associate AG, bring back Clinton/Reno Justice
> Department retreads. Both participated eagerly in the constraints on
> intelligence-gathering that left us so vulnerable on 9/11.
>
> Bush's legacy shows one clear achievement: He kept us safe after 9/11. Now
> his successor's policies are about to eradicate that singular achievement.
> The liberals will, of course, all cheer these appointments and the policies
> they'll pursue once in office, but these appointments make it frighteningly
> more likely that we will, indeed, be hit again."
>
> Irish Mike

So essentially his argument is: Because of the Panetta nomination, the CIA
will have to once again obey the law. Well boo hoo. Guess what the FBI
had all of the information they needed to prevent 9/11, and they didn't
need warrantless wiretapping, or torture, to obtain it. They had been
watching several of the purported hijackers for more than a year. It
wasn't that they weren't given the proper tools to do the job, it's that
their investigations were stalled, derailed, and outright ignored by
higher ups in the intelligence bureaucracy. I can post dozens of published
articles detailing these incidents. Sibel Edmunds was probably the most
high-profile example. She's still under a DOJ gag order not to talk. Kind
of makes you wonder, doesn't it?

I get a kick out of those who insist Bush's legacy is one of "keeping us
safe after 9/11." Of course to swallow this line of horseshit, we have to
give them a pass for not preventing the ACTUAL 9/11. For instance, we have
to pretend that the Bush Administration never received the Presidential
Briefing entitled "bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States,"
and conveniently forget that high-ranking officials in the FBI shut down
investigations into the 9/11 hijackers (google "Able Danger"). This is
documented fact.

What a short memory this Dick Morris fella has. Next thing you know, he'll
forget which political party he supports.

---
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 12 Jan 2009 18:23:24
From: jpatk
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
On Jan 12, 8:16=A0am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
> "da pickle no spam" <jcpickeIs@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:=
AKudnWw1ntut1fbURVn_vwA@giganews.com...
>

> Give me a fuckin' break. =A0Obama sat in the pews listening to Jeremiah W=
right
> for twenty plus years and couldn't find a single racist, anti-American or
> anti-Semitic comment.

Mike, we've been over this so many times I'm surprised you don't get
it yet. Compared to your very own behavior in your Catholic church,
namely, giving the buggering priests and their enabling church a free
ride, Obama's shrinks to nothing in comparison. You need to find
someone else to make this case against Obama because of Wright,
someone who's not a hypocrite. Do you guys have anyone like that?


  
Date: 12 Jan 2009 16:18:58
From: OrangeSFO
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
On Jan 12, 3:59=A0pm, "Irish Mike" <mjo



> The better question is how much do you guys pay Chris "a thrill ran up my
> leg when I heard Obama speak" Matthews to shill for you?




There goes Mike fantasizing about Chris Matthews' leg again...





  
Date: 12 Jan 2009 16:16:50
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
On Jan 12, 6:59=A0pm, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
> "Senator Millionaire" <moon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:693af52f-142a-490a-8b33-4604bb1786e3@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Irish Mike, how much do they pay you to post here?
>
> Nothing. =A0Me and the other 55,000,000+ Americans who did not vote for y=
our
> Messiah state our opinions for free.
> The better question is how much do you guys pay Chris "a thrill ran up my
> leg when I heard Obama speak" Matthews to shill for you?
>
> Irish Mike

Hey Irish Mike. I did not vote for Obama or McCain!!! You know why?
Neither of these candidates sent a thrill up my leg. Now we have
Schrub leaving office tellling Republicans to not be "anti-immigrant."
LOL! This guy is fuckin' unbelievable!!!


  
Date: 12 Jan 2009 15:17:24
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
Irish Mike, how much do they pay you to post here?


   
Date: 12 Jan 2009 18:59:00
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security

"Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:693af52f-142a-490a-8b33-4604bb1786e3@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> Irish Mike, how much do they pay you to post here?

Nothing. Me and the other 55,000,000+ Americans who did not vote for your
Messiah state our opinions for free.
The better question is how much do you guys pay Chris "a thrill ran up my
leg when I heard Obama speak" Matthews to shill for you?

Irish Mike




    
Date: 13 Jan 2009 07:05:21
From: dddddd
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
> Me and the other 55,000,000+ Americans

Otherwise known as "The Minority"

>The better question is how much do you guys pay Chris "a thrill ran up my
>leg when I heard Obama speak" Matthews to shill for you?

Yup. The biggest knock on Obama is that people like him.


  
Date: 12 Jan 2009 12:41:55
From: OrangeSFO
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
On Jan 12, 6:16=A0am, "Irish Reich" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:


> This affirmative action clown couldn't find his own
> ass with both hands unless the left wing media pointed it out for him.



Would you care to have a wager on that assertion?



  
Date: 12 Jan 2009 12:40:35
From: OrangeSFO
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
On Jan 11, 8:12=A0pm, "Irish Reich" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:

>
> Well bucko, here are three facts you liberals can't spin. =A0First, there=
has
> not been a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. =A0




But there were four attacks ON 9/11



  
Date: 12 Jan 2009 07:03:21
From:
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security

> Well bucko, here are three facts you liberals can't spin. =A0First, there=
has
> not been a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. =A0

So, they anthrax attacks werent terrorist attacks? How about Lee Boyd
Malvo?

Second, in eight
> days your Messiah becomes commander and chief. =A0He controls the white h=
ouse,
> senate and the congress. =A0He appointed the people who are now running
> America's national security. =A0You think the people he appointed are goo=
d.
> There are 55,000,000+ of us who think they were appointed to destroy the =
CIA
> and handcuff America's intelligence gathering capability. =A0
55 million is the numebr of people who voted against Obama, not who
thought he was appointed to destroy the CIA.

Third, if there
> is another terrorist attack on American soil it will be 100% on the
> Democrats and your Messiah. =A0And if that happens, you're going to see a
> shift to the right in this country that will be so fast and so hard you
> won't even believe it.
>
> Irish Mike- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Mike, can you please be honest. You're an embarassment to
conservatives, as you say ridiculous things that simply arent true.
Why do you lie? There's plenty to honestly critique Obama on. But
you're so stupid you create these arguments that are not funded in
reality.

Please explain why you felt the need to make up these two points.


  
Date: 11 Jan 2009 20:58:11
From: da pickle no spam
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
On Jan 11, 8:12 pm, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net< wrote:
<
< Well bucko, here are three facts you liberals can't spin. First,
there has
< not been a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Second, in
eight
< days your Messiah becomes commander and chief. He controls the
white house,
< senate and the congress. He appointed the people who are now
running
< America's national security. You think the people he appointed are
good.
< There are 55,000,000+ of us who think they were appointed to destroy
the CIA
< and handcuff America's intelligence gathering capability. Third, if
there
< is another terrorist attack on American soil it will be 100% on the
< Democrats and your Messiah. And if that happens, you're going to
see a
< shift to the right in this country that will be so fast and so hard
you
< won't even believe it.
<
< Irish Mike-

Wake up I-Rush. Anything Obama and the Dems do that should turn out
poorly can be blamed directly on George Bush. His disastrous 8 years
(6 with Republicans controlling the senate and the house) is why THEY
are in control of everything now.


  
Date: 11 Jan 2009 22:46:41
From: bub
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:20:15 -0800, "ChrisRobin"
<a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid > wrote:

>Guess what the FBI
>had all of the information they needed to prevent 9/11, and they didn't
>need warrantless wiretapping, or torture, to obtain it. They had been
>watching several of the purported hijackers for more than a year.

according to you , cheney was behind it. come on ,get your
conspiracies straight, chrissy poo.

mommy used to tell you you were special and she loved you

well, she lied.



  
Date: 11 Jan 2009 23:12:34
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security

"ChrisRobin" <a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:fgpq36xmbv.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Jan 11 2009 9:15 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
>
>> One of my greatest concerns about Obama is that he is weak on national
>> security and doesn't have the experience or toughness to fight the war on
>> terror and to keep America safe from terrorist attacks on our own soil.
>> Well, as the following article indicates, my concerns were well founded.
>>
>>
>> DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
>> Published in the New York Post on January 8, 2009
>>
>> "President-elect Barack Obama's appointments to Homeland Security, the
>> Justice Department and now the CIA indicate a virtual abandonment of the
>> War
>> on Terror.
>>
>> As Homeland Security chief, he's named a governor whose only experience
>> has
>> been with the US-Mexican border. His attorney general pick, meanwhile,
>> took
>> the lead in pardoning FALN terrorists. Now he has rounded out his
>> national-security and Justice Department teams by naming ultraliberals.
>>
>> Leon Panetta, his choice for CIA chief, is as liberal as they come.
>> Though
>> originally a pro-Nixon congressman, he long ago embraced the left with
>> the
>> fervor of a convert and brings these values to the CIA.
>>
>> As President Bill Clinton's chief of staff (a tenure that coincided with
>> my
>> own work with Clinton), he was a dedicated liberal, opposing
>> accommodation
>> with the Republicans who ran Congress and battling hard against a
>> balanced-budget deal. After winning re-election, Clinton jettisoned
>> Panetta
>> for the more moderate Erskine Bowles in order to reach a deal with the
>> GOP.
>>
>>
>>
>> Plus, Panetta was a prime mover in the 1995 appointment of John
>> Deutch to head CIA, replacing hardliner Jim Woolsey. Deutch eventually
>> needed a presidential pardon after being caught committing a massive
>> security breach by taking home his laptop, laden with secret files.
>>
>> Choosing Panetta to head the CIA culminates liberals' 35-year
>> crusade
>> to take over the agency, humble its operatives and rein in its
>> operations.
>> In 1977, President Jimmy Carter named liberal JFK adviser Ted Sorenson to
>> head CIA, only to have the nomination killed. In 1997, Clinton tried to
>> name
>> his ultraleftist National Security Adviser Tony Lake (who had quit
>> Secretary
>> of State Henry Kissinger's staff over Vietnam), only to have that
>> nomination
>> rejected as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> Each time, the intelligence community acted to protect its own and curbed
>> the liberal president's inclinations. But now, under Obama, the Democrats
>> will finally have their way and appoint a liberal zealot to head the
>> agency.
>>
>> Panetta will, presumably, curb such practices as waterboarding, rendition
>> and warrantless wiretapping. So we won't gather much intelligence - but
>> our
>> spies will dot all the i's and cross all the t's.
>>
>> Over at Justice, Obama is naming four liberals to staff the agency, each
>> determined to rein in effective intelligence-gathering.
>>
>> Professor Dawn Johnsen of Indiana University Law School is to head the
>> Office of Legal Counsel. She distinguished herself by writing a
>> law-review
>> article taking issue with President Bush's efforts to keep us safe. It
>> was
>> titled, "What's a President To Do: Interpreting the Constitution in the
>> Wake
>> of the Bush Administration Abuses." Presumably, she'll bring back the
>> days
>> of the wall between criminal and intelligence investigations, which led
>> to
>> our failure to examine the computer of "20th hijacker" Zacharias
>> Moussaoui,
>> which contained wire-fund-transfer information on the other hijackers.
>>
>> No less an authority than Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, who
>> taught
>> Elena Kagan, the new solicitor general, predicted that she and Johnsen
>> would
>> "freshly re-examine some of the positions the previous administration has
>> taken."
>>
>> Obama's other Justice appointments, David Ogden as deputy attorney
>> general
>> and Thomas Perrelli as associate AG, bring back Clinton/Reno Justice
>> Department retreads. Both participated eagerly in the constraints on
>> intelligence-gathering that left us so vulnerable on 9/11.
>>
>> Bush's legacy shows one clear achievement: He kept us safe after 9/11.
>> Now
>> his successor's policies are about to eradicate that singular
>> achievement.
>> The liberals will, of course, all cheer these appointments and the
>> policies
>> they'll pursue once in office, but these appointments make it
>> frighteningly
>> more likely that we will, indeed, be hit again."
>>
>> Irish Mike
>
> So essentially his argument is: Because of the Panetta nomination, the CIA
> will have to once again obey the law. Well boo hoo. Guess what - the FBI
> had all of the information they needed to prevent 9/11, and they didn't
> need warrantless wiretapping, or torture, to obtain it. They had been
> watching several of the purported hijackers for more than a year. It
> wasn't that they weren't given the proper tools to do the job, it's that
> their investigations were stalled, derailed, and outright ignored by
> higher ups in the intelligence bureaucracy. I can post dozens of published
> articles detailing these incidents. Sibel Edmunds was probably the most
> high-profile example. She's still under a DOJ gag order not to talk. Kind
> of makes you wonder, doesn't it?
>
> I get a kick out of those who insist Bush's legacy is one of "keeping us
> safe after 9/11." Of course to swallow this line of horseshit, we have to
> give them a pass for not preventing the ACTUAL 9/11. For instance, we have
> to pretend that the Bush Administration never received the Presidential
> Briefing entitled "bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States,"
> and conveniently forget that high-ranking officials in the FBI shut down
> investigations into the 9/11 hijackers (google "Able Danger"). This is
> documented fact.
>
> What a short memory this Dick Morris fella has. Next thing you know, he'll
> forget which political party he supports.

Well bucko, here are three facts you liberals can't spin. First, there has
not been a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Second, in eight
days your Messiah becomes commander and chief. He controls the white house,
senate and the congress. He appointed the people who are now running
America's national security. You think the people he appointed are good.
There are 55,000,000+ of us who think they were appointed to destroy the CIA
and handcuff America's intelligence gathering capability. Third, if there
is another terrorist attack on American soil it will be 100% on the
Democrats and your Messiah. And if that happens, you're going to see a
shift to the right in this country that will be so fast and so hard you
won't even believe it.

Irish Mike




   
Date: 12 Jan 2009 18:03:04
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 23:12:34 -0500, "Irish Mike"
<mjostar@ameritech.net > wrote:

>Well bucko, here are three facts you liberals can't spin. First, there has
>not been a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.

Except for the anthrax attacks, that is. And exactly how many
terrorist attacks occurred on US soil in the 7 1/2 years *prior to*
9/11? And 9/11 occurred on whose watch?


   
Date: 12 Jan 2009 10:56:38
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
On Jan 11 2009 11:12 PM, Irish Mike wrote:

> >
> > What a short memory this Dick Morris fella has. Next thing you know, he'll
> > forget which political party he supports.
>
> Well bucko, here are three facts you liberals can't spin. First, there has
> not been a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.

That's just not true.

There have been multip,e anthrax attacks. Because of them you can't even
write a letter to your congressman anymore.


> Second, in eight
> days your Messiah becomes commander and chief. He controls the white house,
> senate and the congress. He appointed the people who are now running
> America's national security. You think the people he appointed are good.
> There are 55,000,000+ of us who think they were appointed to destroy the CIA
> and handcuff America's intelligence gathering capability.

The president does not control congress. Read the constitution.


Third, if there
> is another terrorist attack on American soil it will be 100% on the
> Democrats and your Messiah.

Huh? What does that mean? Are you saying that terroists will target
democrats only or that the democrats are responsible for every bad thing
that has been planned for years? (one hallmark of al queda attacks is
very long-term planning).



And if that happens, you're going to see a
> shift to the right in this country that will be so fast and so hard you
> won't even believe it.
>

The countries politics always shifts -- to the right, to the left, to thye
middle, towards comminisim, towards facism, towards socialism, towards
somewhere slightly different than where it is.

Idiot.

______________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




   
Date: 11 Jan 2009 22:44:14
From: ChrisRobin
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
On Jan 11 2009 11:12 PM, Irish Mike wrote:

> "ChrisRobin" <a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:fgpq36xmbv.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > On Jan 11 2009 9:15 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
> >
> >> One of my greatest concerns about Obama is that he is weak on national
> >> security and doesn't have the experience or toughness to fight the war on
> >> terror and to keep America safe from terrorist attacks on our own soil.
> >> Well, as the following article indicates, my concerns were well founded.
> >>
> >>
> >> DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
> >> Published in the New York Post on January 8, 2009
> >>
> >> "President-elect Barack Obama's appointments to Homeland Security, the
> >> Justice Department and now the CIA indicate a virtual abandonment of the
> >> War
> >> on Terror.
> >>
> >> As Homeland Security chief, he's named a governor whose only experience
> >> has
> >> been with the US-Mexican border. His attorney general pick, meanwhile,
> >> took
> >> the lead in pardoning FALN terrorists. Now he has rounded out his
> >> national-security and Justice Department teams by naming ultraliberals.
> >>
> >> Leon Panetta, his choice for CIA chief, is as liberal as they come.
> >> Though
> >> originally a pro-Nixon congressman, he long ago embraced the left with
> >> the
> >> fervor of a convert and brings these values to the CIA.
> >>
> >> As President Bill Clinton's chief of staff (a tenure that coincided with
> >> my
> >> own work with Clinton), he was a dedicated liberal, opposing
> >> accommodation
> >> with the Republicans who ran Congress and battling hard against a
> >> balanced-budget deal. After winning re-election, Clinton jettisoned
> >> Panetta
> >> for the more moderate Erskine Bowles in order to reach a deal with the
> >> GOP.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Plus, Panetta was a prime mover in the 1995 appointment of John
> >> Deutch to head CIA, replacing hardliner Jim Woolsey. Deutch eventually
> >> needed a presidential pardon after being caught committing a massive
> >> security breach by taking home his laptop, laden with secret files.
> >>
> >> Choosing Panetta to head the CIA culminates liberals' 35-year
> >> crusade
> >> to take over the agency, humble its operatives and rein in its
> >> operations.
> >> In 1977, President Jimmy Carter named liberal JFK adviser Ted Sorenson to
> >> head CIA, only to have the nomination killed. In 1997, Clinton tried to
> >> name
> >> his ultraleftist National Security Adviser Tony Lake (who had quit
> >> Secretary
> >> of State Henry Kissinger's staff over Vietnam), only to have that
> >> nomination
> >> rejected as well.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Each time, the intelligence community acted to protect its own and curbed
> >> the liberal president's inclinations. But now, under Obama, the Democrats
> >> will finally have their way and appoint a liberal zealot to head the
> >> agency.
> >>
> >> Panetta will, presumably, curb such practices as waterboarding, rendition
> >> and warrantless wiretapping. So we won't gather much intelligence - but
> >> our
> >> spies will dot all the i's and cross all the t's.
> >>
> >> Over at Justice, Obama is naming four liberals to staff the agency, each
> >> determined to rein in effective intelligence-gathering.
> >>
> >> Professor Dawn Johnsen of Indiana University Law School is to head the
> >> Office of Legal Counsel. She distinguished herself by writing a
> >> law-review
> >> article taking issue with President Bush's efforts to keep us safe. It
> >> was
> >> titled, "What's a President To Do: Interpreting the Constitution in the
> >> Wake
> >> of the Bush Administration Abuses." Presumably, she'll bring back the
> >> days
> >> of the wall between criminal and intelligence investigations, which led
> >> to
> >> our failure to examine the computer of "20th hijacker" Zacharias
> >> Moussaoui,
> >> which contained wire-fund-transfer information on the other hijackers.
> >>
> >> No less an authority than Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, who
> >> taught
> >> Elena Kagan, the new solicitor general, predicted that she and Johnsen
> >> would
> >> "freshly re-examine some of the positions the previous administration has
> >> taken."
> >>
> >> Obama's other Justice appointments, David Ogden as deputy attorney
> >> general
> >> and Thomas Perrelli as associate AG, bring back Clinton/Reno Justice
> >> Department retreads. Both participated eagerly in the constraints on
> >> intelligence-gathering that left us so vulnerable on 9/11.
> >>
> >> Bush's legacy shows one clear achievement: He kept us safe after 9/11.
> >> Now
> >> his successor's policies are about to eradicate that singular
> >> achievement.
> >> The liberals will, of course, all cheer these appointments and the
> >> policies
> >> they'll pursue once in office, but these appointments make it
> >> frighteningly
> >> more likely that we will, indeed, be hit again."
> >>
> >> Irish Mike
> >
> > So essentially his argument is: Because of the Panetta nomination, the CIA
> > will have to once again obey the law. Well boo hoo. Guess what - the FBI
> > had all of the information they needed to prevent 9/11, and they didn't
> > need warrantless wiretapping, or torture, to obtain it. They had been
> > watching several of the purported hijackers for more than a year. It
> > wasn't that they weren't given the proper tools to do the job, it's that
> > their investigations were stalled, derailed, and outright ignored by
> > higher ups in the intelligence bureaucracy. I can post dozens of published
> > articles detailing these incidents. Sibel Edmunds was probably the most
> > high-profile example. She's still under a DOJ gag order not to talk. Kind
> > of makes you wonder, doesn't it?
> >
> > I get a kick out of those who insist Bush's legacy is one of "keeping us
> > safe after 9/11." Of course to swallow this line of horseshit, we have to
> > give them a pass for not preventing the ACTUAL 9/11. For instance, we have
> > to pretend that the Bush Administration never received the Presidential
> > Briefing entitled "bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States,"
> > and conveniently forget that high-ranking officials in the FBI shut down
> > investigations into the 9/11 hijackers (google "Able Danger"). This is
> > documented fact.
> >
> > What a short memory this Dick Morris fella has. Next thing you know, he'll
> > forget which political party he supports.
>
> Well bucko, here are three facts you liberals can't spin. First, there has
> not been a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Second, in eight
> days your Messiah becomes commander and chief. He controls the white house,
> senate and the congress. He appointed the people who are now running
> America's national security. You think the people he appointed are good.
> There are 55,000,000+ of us who think they were appointed to destroy the CIA
> and handcuff America's intelligence gathering capability. Third, if there
> is another terrorist attack on American soil it will be 100% on the
> Democrats and your Messiah. And if that happens, you're going to see a
> shift to the right in this country that will be so fast and so hard you
> won't even believe it.

Way to spectacularly miss the point. Yet again.

______________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




   
Date: 11 Jan 2009 21:08:11
From: hanks
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
On Jan 11 2009 8:12 PM, Irish Mike wrote:

> "ChrisRobin" <a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:fgpq36xmbv.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > On Jan 11 2009 9:15 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
> >
> >> One of my greatest concerns about Obama is that he is weak on national
> >> security and doesn't have the experience or toughness to fight the war on
> >> terror and to keep America safe from terrorist attacks on our own soil.
> >> Well, as the following article indicates, my concerns were well founded.
> >>
> >>
> >> DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
> >> Published in the New York Post on January 8, 2009
> >>
> >> "President-elect Barack Obama's appointments to Homeland Security, the
> >> Justice Department and now the CIA indicate a virtual abandonment of the
> >> War
> >> on Terror.
> >>
> >> As Homeland Security chief, he's named a governor whose only experience
> >> has
> >> been with the US-Mexican border. His attorney general pick, meanwhile,
> >> took
> >> the lead in pardoning FALN terrorists. Now he has rounded out his
> >> national-security and Justice Department teams by naming ultraliberals.
> >>
> >> Leon Panetta, his choice for CIA chief, is as liberal as they come.
> >> Though
> >> originally a pro-Nixon congressman, he long ago embraced the left with
> >> the
> >> fervor of a convert and brings these values to the CIA.
> >>
> >> As President Bill Clinton's chief of staff (a tenure that coincided with
> >> my
> >> own work with Clinton), he was a dedicated liberal, opposing
> >> accommodation
> >> with the Republicans who ran Congress and battling hard against a
> >> balanced-budget deal. After winning re-election, Clinton jettisoned
> >> Panetta
> >> for the more moderate Erskine Bowles in order to reach a deal with the
> >> GOP.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Plus, Panetta was a prime mover in the 1995 appointment of John
> >> Deutch to head CIA, replacing hardliner Jim Woolsey. Deutch eventually
> >> needed a presidential pardon after being caught committing a massive
> >> security breach by taking home his laptop, laden with secret files.
> >>
> >> Choosing Panetta to head the CIA culminates liberals' 35-year
> >> crusade
> >> to take over the agency, humble its operatives and rein in its
> >> operations.
> >> In 1977, President Jimmy Carter named liberal JFK adviser Ted Sorenson to
> >> head CIA, only to have the nomination killed. In 1997, Clinton tried to
> >> name
> >> his ultraleftist National Security Adviser Tony Lake (who had quit
> >> Secretary
> >> of State Henry Kissinger's staff over Vietnam), only to have that
> >> nomination
> >> rejected as well.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Each time, the intelligence community acted to protect its own and curbed
> >> the liberal president's inclinations. But now, under Obama, the Democrats
> >> will finally have their way and appoint a liberal zealot to head the
> >> agency.
> >>
> >> Panetta will, presumably, curb such practices as waterboarding, rendition
> >> and warrantless wiretapping. So we won't gather much intelligence - but
> >> our
> >> spies will dot all the i's and cross all the t's.
> >>
> >> Over at Justice, Obama is naming four liberals to staff the agency, each
> >> determined to rein in effective intelligence-gathering.
> >>
> >> Professor Dawn Johnsen of Indiana University Law School is to head the
> >> Office of Legal Counsel. She distinguished herself by writing a
> >> law-review
> >> article taking issue with President Bush's efforts to keep us safe. It
> >> was
> >> titled, "What's a President To Do: Interpreting the Constitution in the
> >> Wake
> >> of the Bush Administration Abuses." Presumably, she'll bring back the
> >> days
> >> of the wall between criminal and intelligence investigations, which led
> >> to
> >> our failure to examine the computer of "20th hijacker" Zacharias
> >> Moussaoui,
> >> which contained wire-fund-transfer information on the other hijackers.
> >>
> >> No less an authority than Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, who
> >> taught
> >> Elena Kagan, the new solicitor general, predicted that she and Johnsen
> >> would
> >> "freshly re-examine some of the positions the previous administration has
> >> taken."
> >>
> >> Obama's other Justice appointments, David Ogden as deputy attorney
> >> general
> >> and Thomas Perrelli as associate AG, bring back Clinton/Reno Justice
> >> Department retreads. Both participated eagerly in the constraints on
> >> intelligence-gathering that left us so vulnerable on 9/11.
> >>
> >> Bush's legacy shows one clear achievement: He kept us safe after 9/11.
> >> Now
> >> his successor's policies are about to eradicate that singular
> >> achievement.
> >> The liberals will, of course, all cheer these appointments and the
> >> policies
> >> they'll pursue once in office, but these appointments make it
> >> frighteningly
> >> more likely that we will, indeed, be hit again."
> >>
> >> Irish Mike
> >
> > So essentially his argument is: Because of the Panetta nomination, the CIA
> > will have to once again obey the law. Well boo hoo. Guess what - the FBI
> > had all of the information they needed to prevent 9/11, and they didn't
> > need warrantless wiretapping, or torture, to obtain it. They had been
> > watching several of the purported hijackers for more than a year. It
> > wasn't that they weren't given the proper tools to do the job, it's that
> > their investigations were stalled, derailed, and outright ignored by
> > higher ups in the intelligence bureaucracy. I can post dozens of published
> > articles detailing these incidents. Sibel Edmunds was probably the most
> > high-profile example. She's still under a DOJ gag order not to talk. Kind
> > of makes you wonder, doesn't it?
> >
> > I get a kick out of those who insist Bush's legacy is one of "keeping us
> > safe after 9/11." Of course to swallow this line of horseshit, we have to
> > give them a pass for not preventing the ACTUAL 9/11. For instance, we have
> > to pretend that the Bush Administration never received the Presidential
> > Briefing entitled "bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States,"
> > and conveniently forget that high-ranking officials in the FBI shut down
> > investigations into the 9/11 hijackers (google "Able Danger"). This is
> > documented fact.
> >
> > What a short memory this Dick Morris fella has. Next thing you know, he'll
> > forget which political party he supports.
>
> Well bucko, here are three facts you liberals can't spin. First, there has
> not been a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Second, in eight
> days your Messiah becomes commander and chief. He controls the white house,
> senate and the congress. He appointed the people who are now running
> America's national security. You think the people he appointed are good.
> There are 55,000,000+ of us who think they were appointed to destroy the CIA
> and handcuff America's intelligence gathering capability. Third, if there
> is another terrorist attack on American soil it will be 100% on the
> Democrats and your Messiah. And if that happens, you're going to see a
> shift to the right in this country that will be so fast and so hard you
> won't even believe it.
>
> Irish Mike
The chairman of the joint chiefs is a Bush apointee and has a high regard
for president elect Barack Obama you booze guzzling, narrow minded
moron!!!!

hanks

-------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




   
Date: 11 Jan 2009 21:03:53
From: MrBookworm
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
> Third, if there
> is another terrorist attack on American soil it will be 100% on the
> Democrats and your Messiah.

Fair enough, so the last terrorist attack on American soil is 100% on the
Repulicans and the dumbfuck. That last one wasn't so bad, so I guess the
Dems and Obama are sure to screw the pooch compared to that.


Dean

"First of all, I cannot see Bookworm's post in my newsreader. Probably
just as well, he annoys the fuck out of me anyway." PP - Dec 29, 2008

------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 11 Jan 2009 20:18:56
From: Clave
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
"Irish Mike" <mjostar@ameritech.net > wrote in message
news:Cozal.1910$FM6.607@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com...

<... >

> Well bucko, here are three facts you liberals can't spin. First, there
> has not been a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11...

Why should there have been? Bush gave bin Laden everything he wanted.

And if you're going to credit Bush with "keeping us safe" since 9/11, you'd
also better be willing to credit him for letting 9/11 happen in the first
place.

Jim




    
Date: 12 Jan 2009 07:39:53
From: da pickle no spam
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
"Clave"

> And if you're going to credit Bush with "keeping us safe" since 9/11,
> you'd also better be willing to credit him for letting 9/11 happen in the
> first place.

Letting it happen? He was the one that gave the go ahead. Now that Obama
is in there, he will root out the ones that did it and there will be the
treason trial of the century.




     
Date: 12 Jan 2009 17:36:27
From: Clave
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
"da pickle no spam" <jcpickeIs@(nospam)hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:AKudnWw1ntut1fbURVn_vwA@giganews.com...
> "Clave"
>
>> And if you're going to credit Bush with "keeping us safe" since 9/11,
>> you'd also better be willing to credit him for letting 9/11 happen in the
>> first place.
>
> Letting it happen? He was the one that gave the go ahead. Now that Obama
> is in there, he will root out the ones that did it and there will be the
> treason trial of the century.

Doubtful, because the opinions they got from OLC, however cooked and bogus,
give them a pretty good legal defense, and Bush still has some pardonin'
left to do.

They could convene Truth Commissions though, and I think that's likely.

Jim




      
Date: 13 Jan 2009 06:42:03
From: da pickle no spam
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
"Clave"

> They could convene Truth Commissions though, and I think that's likely.

They don't need no Truth Commission. Obama is going to change the world. He
is not going to be deterred until the folks that killing those people in ny
on 9/11 are brought to justice. And Bush is only the first of the lot the
bunch of them are going down.




     
Date: 12 Jan 2009 09:16:11
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security

"da pickle no spam" <jcpickeIs@(nospam)hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:AKudnWw1ntut1fbURVn_vwA@giganews.com...
> "Clave"
>
>> And if you're going to credit Bush with "keeping us safe" since 9/11,
>> you'd also better be willing to credit him for letting 9/11 happen in the
>> first place.
>
> Letting it happen? He was the one that gave the go ahead. Now that Obama
> is in there, he will root out the ones that did it and there will be the
> treason trial of the century.


Give me a fuckin' break. Obama sat in the pews listening to Jeremiah Wright
for twenty plus years and couldn't find a single racist, anti-American or
anti-Semitic comment. This affirmative action clown couldn't find his own
ass with both hands unless the left wing media pointed it out for him.

Irish Mike




  
Date: 11 Jan 2009 20:11:19
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
"ChrisRobin" <a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:fgpq36xmbv.ln2@recgroups.com...

>
> What a short memory this Dick Morris fella has. Next thing you know, he'll
> forget which political party he supports.
>


"BUT BUSH! BUT BUSH!

So here y'go, folks, Chris Robin becomes a "but Busher". Sure, what Chris
Robin just said, is true. Bush did fuck up our country. And Bush did leave
our country in jeopardy and unsecured. But guess what, the mutherfucker is
packing his bags right now. Where is Chris Robin's concern over the
disaster that Obama promises to be? Where, oh where? I'll tellya where.
It's no where. That's where. Because Chris Robin is so blinded with his
one-sided foolish liberal bias. He's getting ready to suck Obama's cock for
the next four years. What a sell out! I've had about enough of his
sell-out ass, and I'm getting my killfile ready.

-PP
-------------------------------------------------------------
"But Bush! But Bush!" -- Chris Robin, rgp, 1/11/2009





   
Date: 12 Jan 2009 18:00:49
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:11:19 -0800, "Paul Popinjay"
<paulpopinjay@sbcglobal.net > wrote:

>"ChrisRobin" <a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>news:fgpq36xmbv.ln2@recgroups.com...
>
>>
>> What a short memory this Dick Morris fella has. Next thing you know, he'll
>> forget which political party he supports.
>>
>
>
>"BUT BUSH! BUT BUSH!
>
>So here y'go, folks, Chris Robin becomes a "but Busher". Sure, what Chris
>Robin just said, is true. Bush did fuck up our country. And Bush did leave
>our country in jeopardy and unsecured. But guess what, the mutherfucker is
>packing his bags right now.

Not a "ButBush". Bush was cited in the original article.


   
Date: 11 Jan 2009 23:29:40
From: ChrisRobin
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
On Jan 11 2009 11:11 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote:

> "ChrisRobin" <a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:fgpq36xmbv.ln2@recgroups.com...
>
> >
> > What a short memory this Dick Morris fella has. Next thing you know, he'll
> > forget which political party he supports.
> >
>
>
> "BUT BUSH! BUT BUSH!
>
> So here y'go, folks, Chris Robin becomes a "but Busher". Sure, what Chris
> Robin just said, is true. Bush did fuck up our country. And Bush did leave
> our country in jeopardy and unsecured. But guess what, the mutherfucker is
> packing his bags right now.

It wasn't a "but Bush," it was a clear explanation of why giving carte
blanche to our intelligence agencies, as Dick Morris suggests, is not the
answer; we HAD the pertinent intelligence, but it was suppressed. That
last line you snipped was actually a shot at Morris (not Bush), who will
happily ignores his principles (assuming he has any) to make a buck.

> Where is Chris Robin's concern over the
> disaster that Obama promises to be? Where, oh where? I'll tellya where.
> It's no where. That's where. Because Chris Robin is so blinded with his
> one-sided foolish liberal bias. He's getting ready to suck Obama's cock for
> the next four years. What a sell out! I've had about enough of his
> sell-out ass, and I'm getting my killfile ready.

Paul, you dispshit, I have repeatedly stated that I do not support Obama.
In fact, I'm starting to get the feeling that he's even MORE dangerous
than Bush. I think the general sense that he's an intelligent and
principled man will allow him to get away with even bigger frauds. Look,
you don't get elected President in this country unless you've already sold
your soul to the authoritarian military-industrial complex. Obama is
already beginning to distance himself on most of the major campaign
promises he made; he's appointed a gaggle of establishment players to key
cabinet posts (particularly the Treasury, which is the only one that
really matters right now); he promises more bloodshed and carnage abroad
(Afghanistan, Pakistan); and he fully embraces the lunacy of bailing out
failed financial institutions. He's a company guy. Duh.

I may be a social liberal, but I'm done with political parties and party
politics. DC is essentially a one-party town the elites. And the level
of corruption in Washington is so deep and endemic that there's really no
getting elected unless you're willing to check your principles at the
door. These people have no interest in the well-being of the average
citizen. NONE.

Paul, you might find this article from the former AD of the HUD, Catherine
Austin Fitts, interesting. It details the roughly $4 trillion that
disappeared from the Pentagon in the years before 9/11 (part of which was
finally announced by Donald Rumsfeld... on 9/10/01; coincidence?), and she
connects the dots between that theft and the current bailout.

Fitts got canned from the HUD after she developed a complex piece of
software that basically connected mortgage fraud happening within the HUD
to the S&L crisis. Start here:

http://solari.com/blog/?p=1400

This is actually part of a 9-part series that starts here:
http://solari.com/blog/?p=1340

Learn about Fitts' history here. She's a very, very interesting person,
and an old ally of our pal Michael Ruppert.
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/09.05.02/fitts-0236.html

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on these stories, you'll find some
interesting 9/11 nuggets in there as well. Assuming you haven't killfiled
me (which would break my heart).

-------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




    
Date: 11 Jan 2009 23:47:33
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
"ChrisRobin" <a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:348r36xq51.ln2@recgroups.com...

>
> Paul, you dispshit, I have repeatedly stated that I do not support Obama.
> In fact, I'm starting to get the feeling that he's even MORE dangerous
> than Bush. I think the general sense that he's an intelligent and
> principled man will allow him to get away with even bigger frauds. Look,
> you don't get elected President in this country unless you've already sold
> your soul to the authoritarian military-industrial complex. Obama is
> already beginning to distance himself on most of the major campaign
> promises he made; he's appointed a gaggle of establishment players to key
> cabinet posts (particularly the Treasury, which is the only one that
> really matters right now); he promises more bloodshed and carnage abroad
> (Afghanistan, Pakistan); and he fully embraces the lunacy of bailing out
> failed financial institutions. He's a company guy. Duh.
>
> I may be a social liberal, but I'm done with political parties and party
> politics. DC is essentially a one-party town - the elites. And the level
> of corruption in Washington is so deep and endemic that there's really no
> getting elected unless you're willing to check your principles at the
> door. These people have no interest in the well-being of the average
> citizen. NONE.
>
> Paul, you might find this article from the former AD of the HUD, Catherine
> Austin Fitts, interesting. It details the roughly $4 trillion that
> disappeared from the Pentagon in the years before 9/11 (part of which was
> finally announced by Donald Rumsfeld... on 9/10/01; coincidence?), and she
> connects the dots between that theft and the current bailout.
>
> Fitts got canned from the HUD after she developed a complex piece of
> software that basically connected mortgage fraud happening within the HUD
> to the S&L crisis. Start here:
>
> http://solari.com/blog/?p=1400
>
> This is actually part of a 9-part series that starts here:
> http://solari.com/blog/?p=1340
>
> Learn about Fitts' history here. She's a very, very interesting person,
> and an old ally of our pal Michael Ruppert.
> http://www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/09.05.02/fitts-0236.html
>
> I'm interested to hear your thoughts on these stories, you'll find some
> interesting 9/11 nuggets in there as well. Assuming you haven't killfiled
> me (which would break my heart).
>


I'm going to give you a pass right now, Chris, since you cleaned up your act
a little bit in this well-written, thoughtful, informative (and lengthy)
post. Consider this a warning, though, that any more "but Bushing" will not
be tolerated.

-PP




     
Date: 12 Jan 2009 07:54:17
From: da pickle no spam
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
"Paul Popinjay"

> I'm going to give you a pass right now, Chris, since you cleaned up your
> act a little bit in this well-written, thoughtful, informative (and
> lengthy) post. Consider this a warning, though, that any more "but
> Bushing" will not be tolerated.

Bush and all the people responsible for 9/11, even those that only "knew"
but did not participate, will be prosecuted for treason and be executed.




 
Date: 11 Jan 2009 18:48:13
From: MrBookworm
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
> One of my greatest concerns about Obama is that he is weak on national
> security and doesn't have the experience or toughness to fight the war on
> terror and to keep America safe from terrorist attacks on our own soil.
> Well, as the following article indicates, my concerns were well founded.

You can't be weaker than sending our country's sons and daughters to Iraq
to die for NO reason. Well, no US interest anyway.

Dean

"First of all, I cannot see Bookworm's post in my newsreader. Probably
just as well, he annoys the fuck out of me anyway." PP - Dec 29, 2008

________________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




 
Date: 11 Jan 2009 18:40:28
From: hanks
Subject: Re: Obama guts America's national security
On Jan 11 2009 6:15 PM, Irish Mike wrote:

> One of my greatest concerns about Obama is that he is weak on national
> security and doesn't have the experience or toughness to fight the war on
> terror and to keep America safe from terrorist attacks on our own soil.
> Well, as the following article indicates, my concerns were well founded.
>
>
> DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
> Published in the New York Post on January 8, 2009
>
> "President-elect Barack Obama's appointments to Homeland Security, the
> Justice Department and now the CIA indicate a virtual abandonment of the War
> on Terror.
>
> As Homeland Security chief, he's named a governor whose only experience has
> been with the US-Mexican border. His attorney general pick, meanwhile, took
> the lead in pardoning FALN terrorists. Now he has rounded out his
> national-security and Justice Department teams by naming ultraliberals.
>
> Leon Panetta, his choice for CIA chief, is as liberal as they come. Though
> originally a pro-Nixon congressman, he long ago embraced the left with the
> fervor of a convert and brings these values to the CIA.
>
> As President Bill Clinton's chief of staff (a tenure that coincided with my
> own work with Clinton), he was a dedicated liberal, opposing accommodation
> with the Republicans who ran Congress and battling hard against a
> balanced-budget deal. After winning re-election, Clinton jettisoned Panetta
> for the more moderate Erskine Bowles in order to reach a deal with the GOP.
>
>
>
> Plus, Panetta was a prime mover in the 1995 appointment of John
> Deutch to head CIA, replacing hardliner Jim Woolsey. Deutch eventually
> needed a presidential pardon after being caught committing a massive
> security breach by taking home his laptop, laden with secret files.
>
> Choosing Panetta to head the CIA culminates liberals' 35-year crusade
> to take over the agency, humble its operatives and rein in its operations.
> In 1977, President Jimmy Carter named liberal JFK adviser Ted Sorenson to
> head CIA, only to have the nomination killed. In 1997, Clinton tried to name
> his ultraleftist National Security Adviser Tony Lake (who had quit Secretary
> of State Henry Kissinger's staff over Vietnam), only to have that nomination
> rejected as well.
>
>
>
> Each time, the intelligence community acted to protect its own and curbed
> the liberal president's inclinations. But now, under Obama, the Democrats
> will finally have their way and appoint a liberal zealot to head the agency.
>
> Panetta will, presumably, curb such practices as waterboarding, rendition
> and warrantless wiretapping. So we won't gather much intelligence - but our
> spies will dot all the i's and cross all the t's.
>
> Over at Justice, Obama is naming four liberals to staff the agency, each
> determined to rein in effective intelligence-gathering.
>
> Professor Dawn Johnsen of Indiana University Law School is to head the
> Office of Legal Counsel. She distinguished herself by writing a law-review
> article taking issue with President Bush's efforts to keep us safe. It was
> titled, "What's a President To Do: Interpreting the Constitution in the Wake
> of the Bush Administration Abuses." Presumably, she'll bring back the days
> of the wall between criminal and intelligence investigations, which led to
> our failure to examine the computer of "20th hijacker" Zacharias Moussaoui,
> which contained wire-fund-transfer information on the other hijackers.
>
> No less an authority than Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, who taught
> Elena Kagan, the new solicitor general, predicted that she and Johnsen would
> "freshly re-examine some of the positions the previous administration has
> taken."
>
> Obama's other Justice appointments, David Ogden as deputy attorney general
> and Thomas Perrelli as associate AG, bring back Clinton/Reno Justice
> Department retreads. Both participated eagerly in the constraints on
> intelligence-gathering that left us so vulnerable on 9/11.
>
> Bush's legacy shows one clear achievement: He kept us safe after 9/11. Now
> his successor's policies are about to eradicate that singular achievement.
> The liberals will, of course, all cheer these appointments and the policies
> they'll pursue once in office, but these appointments make it frighteningly
> more likely that we will, indeed, be hit again."
>
> Irish Mike
>
> Proud to be one of the 55,000,000+ Americans who did not vote for your
> Messiah.
Anything and everything he does is LEGAL and in the best interest of our
country contrary to the actions of his outlaw, barely literate, despotic
predecessor!!!

hanks

--------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com