Did Obama Wait Nearly A Year To Take Out Bin Laden for Political Reasons?

Talk about karma… Obama isn’t just experience backlash for politicizing the death of Osama bin Laden, but new details are emerging that contradict the White House version of the story. This week we learned of a memo indicating Obama has preemptively assigned blame to the military had the raid gone bad, and other details about how Leon Panetta had actually issued the order the take out bin Laden, and that Obama was essentially “overruled” in taking action.

Now retired Top General Jack Keane reveals that Obama knew of Osama bin Laden’s location for nearly a year before he was taken out.

One has to ask why would Obama hesitate to act for nearly a year? Was it really about confirmation of the target? Doubtful. I think the answer is obvious, based on Obama’s current reelection strategy to take credit for the raid. Obama wanted to hold off as long as possible in order to gain the most political advantage from bin Laden’s death. He did get a measurable, but short-lived bump in the polls, but Obama is now trying desperately to keep the event in the voters’ minds, which is a hard task when they are preoccupied with losing their jobs or trying hard to afford to fill up their gas tanks.

Obama is lucky that his hesitation didn’t result in bin Laden’s whereabouts being lost again.

UPDATE, by Mark NoonanLooks like Obama blew the cover of a Brit intelligence asset in order to score a political point.  Liberals, of course, were outraged when the non-covert Plame was “exposed”…bet we won’t hear a peep from them about this.

229 thoughts on “Did Obama Wait Nearly A Year To Take Out Bin Laden for Political Reasons?

  1. neocon1 May 6, 2012 / 11:27 am

    because he had only played 300 rounds of golf?

  2. J. R. Babcock May 6, 2012 / 11:49 am

    What I’d love to know is who took the photo of Bin Laden watching TV, and when was it taken?

  3. mitchethekid May 6, 2012 / 12:24 pm

    What I’d like to know is where do you get your breath-taking cynicism? Do you buy it or is it a genetic defect?
    How are you going to play it when he wins re-election? Oh yeah, I know. He cheated by punching a bully who is so used to no push back square in the jaw.

    • neocon1 May 6, 2012 / 12:27 pm

      you been toking already boy?

    • steelturman May 6, 2012 / 12:34 pm

      What is ‘breath-taking’ is the vacuum in your cranial cavity sucking all the air from wherever you happen to be.

      • neocon1 May 6, 2012 / 1:14 pm

        Obama Hesitated – Panetta Issued Order to Kill Osama Bin Laden

        Note:This update comes some 24 hours after our longtime Washington D.C. Insider first outlined shocking details of an Obama administration having been “overruled” by senior military and intelligence officials leading up to the successful attack against terrorist Osama Bin Laden. What follows is further clarification of Insider’s insights surrounding that event.

        Q: You stated that President Obama was “overruled” by military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound. Was that accurate?

        A: I was told – in these exact terms, “we overruled him.” (Obama) I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president’s “persistent hesitation to act.” There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so. President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president.


  4. mitchethekid May 6, 2012 / 2:11 pm

    Pat Dollard. Obscure website master who posits opinion, hearsay and urban myths as fact. You seek out sources that reinforce your bias and then act as if you are justified in exposing something that doesn’t exist. In this case, you refuse to give credit when it’s due. The right cannot stand the fact that it was under his watch that Bin Landen was killed. More and more reputable pundits are pointing out the obvious. The Republican party has been hijacked by The Teaparty and theocrats. Come November the party will get the rejection it so richly deserves. Do you honestly believe that without women, Latino’s and the younger vote that Mr. Shape-shifter will prevail? If you do, I have a birth certificate I’d like to show you.

    • Cluster May 6, 2012 / 4:15 pm

      Congratulations Mitch, you nearly fit ever single taking point into one paragraph. That could qualify you as a DNC strategist. Well done.

      I will give Obama credit for allowing our military to continue the pursuit of UBL and other high value targets and want to congratulate the military for a job well done, and quite frankly, the military are the ones that deserve the credit as they also did in capturing Saddam. Obama just happened to be the one that benefited from the fine work of our military and I for on am ok with that. That comes with the office.

      But let’s discuss your other assertion of the tea party. Hijacked? That’s such a negative connotation and not deserving of a movement that was responsible for the biggest mid term election sweep in history in 2010. The tea party is comprised of hard working Americans who are quietly working behind the scenes to elect responsible politicians that respect the founding of this country and are focused on bringing back fiscal prudence to a government that has lost its way in a never ending pandering effort to give away as much of the treasury as possible to earn a vote. Sadly this tactic works on people like you, fortunately though the number of common sense, hard working Americans who actually respect the constitution out number morons like yourself. The democrats have been so condescending to women that I can’t believe any self respecting woman would vote for a democrat. Seriously, the “Life of Julia” is embarrassing and sets back the woman’s movement by 50 years, and this is how Obama plans to win the women’s vote?? Good luck on that.

      Now let’s take a look at results, ok? Obama’s policies have resulted in a record number of people in poverty, a record number of people on food stamps, a record number of people on welfare, and a record number of people who have just given up. Which of those democratic achievements are you most proud of?

      The fact that you support complete failure, suggests that you either don’t pay attention or are just too stupid to be an American. We need smarter, more independent and harder working people living in this country, and if you don’t want to participate, then GTFO 2012!!

    • Cluster May 6, 2012 / 4:20 pm

      Let’s take another example of the small and petty man you call your president. He hails from Chicago, right? Was a community organizer, activist and Senator correct? Yet today, Chicago is one of the most violent and impoverished urban areas in the country. He failed Chicago, and is now failing with America. But really, what were we to expect from someone who has never even managed a lemonade stand?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 6, 2012 / 6:11 pm

        Well Cluster there you go again. The guy who ran two oil companies into the ground left the US economy in a similar mess by your own standard. If the economy now is Obama’s fault then who’s fault was the economy in September of 2008?

      • Cluster May 6, 2012 / 6:17 pm

        2008? I thought this was 2012. But let’s play your stupid little game – in 2008 unemployment was 7%, gas prices were less than $3, and the labor force was much higher.

        Now, do you want to speak of the here and now? Or do you want to continue to deflect?

      • irisspirit May 7, 2012 / 10:10 am

        That is the usual response for the right wing ilk on this blog. “2008? I thought this was 2012.” The same petty denial that Bush left this country in shambles and no way can the right own up and say, yes, Obama had a lot on his plate the day the took over the office of President of the United States. And yet, it was perfectly ok for years to blame President Clinton for the 9/11 attacks on the US. After all, Bush had only been in office for 9 months. Never mind that he was briefed about AQ and made some smart-alec response to the briefer about he had his behind covered so move on. The Democrats never blamed George Bush for the 9/11 attacks, however, there is not a doubt in my mind had a Democratic president been in office for 9 months when this terrible attack come to the US the Republicans would have NEVER let that president forget that s/he was totally responsible. That is the difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Decency. But Democrats are going to blame George Bush and the Republicans for the economic catastrophic events in 2008 and the continued impact on our economy. Yes, it is 2012 and President Obama has worked hard to turn this country around to make the economy better but you cannot fix in 6 months, 1 year or even 3 years the kind of damage that was done by the previous administration. And it is down right petty and immature to try to spin that anyone but the President gave to order to kill Bin Laden. Grow up righties. You are behaving like spoiled children who have not had your way and just cannot accept facts as truth. You are a bunch of whiners!

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 11:12 am

        Retired Spook, That article is from February 2012. Go look at a calendar and come back to the computer. Okay it’s May when cyclically fuel prices across the board in a normal economy should be rising but they aren’t and here’s why from Business Week:

        “The average price for regular gasoline at U.S. filling stations fell 6.75 cents to $3.8452 a gallon, according to Lundberg Survey Inc.

        The survey covers the two-week period ended May 4 and is based on information received from about 2,500 stations by the Camarillo, California-based company. The price is 15.49 cents lower than a year earlier, when the average was $3.9998. The highest average this year was $3.9671, during the period ended April 6.

        “It is crude oil that has delivered this retail gasoline price decline,” Trilby Lundberg, president of Lundberg Survey, said yesterday in a telephone interview. “This is good news for motorists.”

        The price of gasoline has become an issue in the 2012 U.S. presidential election. Republicans have said President Barack Obama’s decision to delay construction of the $5.3 billion Keystone XL oil pipeline has contributed to higher prices at the pump.

        Obama rejected the pipeline after Nebraska state officials and environmental groups objected to the route that crosses the Ogallala aquifer, a drinking-water source for 1.5 million people. TransCanada reapplied for a U.S. permit for the pipeline May 4.

        Crude Oil Prices

        Prices at the pump fell as West Texas Intermediate crude in New York slid 4.4 percent in the two weeks ended May 4. Crude for May delivery on the New York Mercantile Exchange fell $4.56 to $98.49 a barrel, the lowest settlement since Feb. 7.

        Gasoline futures on the Nymex fell 16.69 cents, or 5.3 percent, to a two-month low of $2.9758 a gallon in the two weeks ended April 20. Since March 26, when gasoline reached $3.4166, the front-month contract has fallen 13 percent.

        Oil may decline next week after U.S. and European data signaled that economic growth and fuel demand will slow, a Bloomberg survey showed.

        Eighteen of 33 analysts, or 55 percent, forecast oil will decline through May 11. Eleven respondents, or 33 percent, predicted prices will rise and four estimated there will be little change. ”

        And there’s this from the Chicago Tribune:

        “Also, U.S. gasoline demand is down 4.2 percent from a year ago, according to a recent report from the Energy Information Administration, and projected demand for oil was impacted by a weaker than expected job growth report Friday.

        Oil dropped below $100 per barrel Friday for the first time since February, closing at $98.49.

        “The U.S. economy is recovering but the last couple jobs reports have been a little weaker than what we saw earlier in the year. The expectations for global oil demand have been tempered down a little bit by the lack of strength in the recent economic indicators,” said Chris Lafakis, an economist for Moody’s Analytics.”

      • Retired Spook May 7, 2012 / 11:40 am

        Retired Spook, That article is from February 2012. Go look at a calendar and come back to the computer. Okay it’s May when cyclically fuel prices across the board in a normal economy should be rising but they aren’t

        Thanks for making my point for me, Fred. Now go back and stand in the corner.

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 6, 2012 / 5:41 pm

      The President cannot be overruled by the Secretary of Defense, which Panetta is now or DCI which he was then. Had Obama said no go the op wouldn’t have gone down. Obama had to give the final order. Folks, go back and read your Constitution again.

      • neocon1 May 6, 2012 / 5:45 pm

        freddy schwartzputz

        the one Uboma has wiped his azz with for three years?

        I have some land to sell you in Fla freddy….

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 6, 2012 / 5:53 pm

        Okay neocon clearly you are a know nothing since you didn’t address what I said and that’s because I’m right. Some WSJ memo found a year after the fact?? I call bs on that. And Pat Dollard isn’t as good as a broken clock and anyone listening to that dolt isn’t worth debating. All i hear from you guys is that Progressives can understand conservatism. You know what I can understand it and I know it’s something that should never be the primary ideology of the American people because it is anti-Freedom and pro mass control because of a real fear of Freedom. Everyone doesn’t want to live by your rules necon and that’s the difference. If we had it your way my civil rights as an American would be in jeopardy. If Liberals have their way you’d be living in a better society where you could do as you please under the law and so could I.

        You can go back to worshipping your picture of Rush Limbaugh now.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 6, 2012 / 5:54 pm

        And as far as Obama wiping his butt the Constitution, only one President in the last 50 years really has and that one was Richard M Nixon who wasn’t a modern conservative but he was a member of the GOP.

      • neocon1 May 6, 2012 / 6:03 pm

        you could be right about one thing the POS FRAUD is not the pResident he is the Manchurian kenyan

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 6, 2012 / 6:13 pm

        Oh whatever man, if you guys got your wet dream it would just be the end of your republic. If Obama loses a fair election I get to harp on Romney for four years of flat growth and unemployment at 6.5%. If Obama wins you get to see me write about 6.5% unemployment being the new normal for two years until Business decides it has to get off the 3 trillion they’ve been hoarding these last three years. Win win.

      • neocon1 May 6, 2012 / 6:15 pm

        ill take our wet dream over your SHIITE sandwich.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 6, 2012 / 6:25 pm

        Let me ask you this have you bought a gallon of gas lately? Is it cheaper than it was two months ago? Are you smart enough to realize that this isn’t good news? No you’re not are you? So I’ll explain it to you. Gas prices being high means there’s high demand and high RBOB gas speculation both good indicators for the economy. Now I didn’t hear this from any of the dumb as a box of rocks gang here but I did hear it from quite a few economists. Guess what dropping gas prices in May mean. It means you have to be a hypocrite now to be right by saying that low gas prices mean a sluggish economy because you shot your big dumb mouth off about how rising gas prices were hurting the economy. What’s the inflation rate right now neocon. I’ll give you a crayon and some construction paper and you can take your shoes off to count if you need to.

      • neocon1 May 6, 2012 / 7:12 pm

        this from a fat bald cab driver….ROTFLMAO

      • Retired Spook May 7, 2012 / 10:16 am

        So I’ll explain it to you. Gas prices being high means there’s high demand and high RBOB gas speculation both good indicators for the economy.

        Well, except that it didn’t and it wasn’t..

      • Amazona May 7, 2012 / 1:44 pm

        Another freddyism: (conservatism) “… is anti-Freedom and pro mass control because of a real fear of Freedom. ”

        Pro mass control, right, freddy?

        OK, here is a little task for you—it ought to be easy, you being a professional researcher and all.

        Take the United States Constitutional form of government 50 years after its implementation as a government and political system, and compare it, on a scale of personal liberty and as you like to capitalize it, Freedom, with the Leftist collectivist system of government 50 years after it was begun in Russia and took over in the second decade of the 20th Century.

        OK? Got that? Not too many words for you?

        Good. You’ve had time to process it and even get some help in figuring out the question.

        So—you now have two countries, the United States of America and Russia, which became the USSR. One governed by a US Constitutional political system, one by a Leftist collectivist political system. 50 years under each system.

        Now—which of the two nations had the most personal liberty for those living under those forms of government?

        Which of these two systems produced the most economic prosperity?

        Which of these two systems created nations which people were willing to risk death to enter, and which had people willing to risk death to escape?

        Which had fences to keep people IN, and which had to have laws to limit the number of people wanting to enter?

        Remember, freddy, you are the one bleating about Freedom. So educate us on the relative Freedoms represented by Constitutional and Leftist political systems—-with historical examples, please, not just more opinion.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 1:50 pm

        Well that’s a bit of an unfair comparison isn’t it? The Marxist Leninist model grew too large a bureaucracy from the start and then here comes WWII. But of course America is more free than the Soviet Union ever was but that’s not to say there wouldn’t be a regression if Conservatives gained full power over the federal governments two elected branches.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 1:51 pm

        Well you have to keep in mind that 50 years after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified you still had millions of people in bondage in the US. there’s that.

  5. bardolf May 6, 2012 / 4:18 pm

    With Mitt Romney’s nomination all but decided, Ron Paul supporters wrested control of the Maine Republican Convention and elected a majority slate supporting the Texas congressman to the GOP national convention, party officials said as the two-day convention neared its end Sunday. The results gave the Texas congressman a late state victory.

    Mitt was labeled the ELECTABLE candidate by the GOP elite. Like McCain and JFKerrey before the party establishment would rather lose with a candidate that won’t make any changes to the government handouts to Wall Street because they already have an ally in the White House.

    With Obamacare going down in the Supreme Court the only support Ann Coulter can give is that Romney will crack down on corporations which higher illegal aliens. Problem is nobody believes that for a second.

    • Cluster May 6, 2012 / 4:28 pm

      Romney will probably submit a budget that will actually pass – imagine that? Not only a budget, which we haven’t had in three years, but one that will pass, unlike Obama’s which didn’t receive one single vote, not even from his own party. Romney might even address tax, entitlement and regulatory reform, you know those three crucial components that are strangling the private sector and creating crushihing debt. Lord knows Obama, and his merry band of brain dead liberals won’t be responsible enough to address those issues.

      How about speaking to Americans as……wait for it…..Americans? Wouldn’t that be refreshing? As opposed to Obama who continues to divide and single out victims. Or how about having a president that actually believes in individual Americans and their ability to make good decisions and take care of themselves? Obama seems to think that without the oh so caring democratic party, most Americans would become victims of other Americans. Such a lovely vision he has, of course I believe that you share that vision stool and Lord knows most Americans have really grown tired of this juvenile thought process. So bring it on – conservatives are ready for the battle.

      • bardolf May 6, 2012 / 6:15 pm

        “Or how about having a president that actually believes in individual Americans and their ability to make good decisions and take care of themselves?” – Clueless

        That is in 100% conflict with Romney’s position on legalization of drugs, even on medical marijuana.

        “Romney will probably submit a budget that will actually pass – imagine that?”

        A bloated budget with giveaways will pass. That’s something you’d be proud about I guess.

        ” … those three crucial components that are strangling the private sector ..”

        You have a very precise vision of what is strangling the private sector. There is 0 evidence beyond wishful thinking that lowering taxes would significantly spur domestic spending.

        “Obama seems to think that without the oh so caring democratic party, most Americans would become victims of other Americans.”

        Yes, Obama is delusional. Then again, there are those on this blog who believe without guns most Americans would become victims of other Americans.

        It’s a bizarre, but that’s what you get in a paranoid Clusterfilled world where Obama is a socialist. BTW, if you want to see a socialist, France just elected one.

      • Cluster May 6, 2012 / 6:27 pm

        I think I read the same post from you about a month ago


      • neocon1 May 6, 2012 / 7:26 pm

        Don’t use that racist term again. Why do you have to be told so many times?


      • neocon1 May 7, 2012 / 6:16 am

        not sure what “RACIST” term you are talking about???

      • neocon1 May 7, 2012 / 6:08 pm

        10 SHOT in C-H-I-C-A-G-O last week including a 12yo girl.

        16000 MURDERED in 2005

        ALL by “fellow Americans”

  6. tiredoflibbs May 6, 2012 / 4:40 pm

    As more information comes forth, the “gutsy call” is more and more like “ok I give in, get him”. And of course, if anything went wrong there was a process and a scape goat in place to divert all blame.

    We all know that obAMATEUR did not want to get stuck with the same blame as Clinton did for not getting UBL when the opportunity arose (3 times). At least, not a year away from the campaigning for the next election.

    • neocon1 May 6, 2012 / 5:42 pm

      dumb and dumber paired together…….and the present is dumbest with dumb as his sidekick.

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 6, 2012 / 5:47 pm


      Martin O’Malley, Deval Patrick, Beverley Perdue, Jay Nixon, Christine Gregoire have all been making small noises among the DNC elite that they would be interested in the nomination or the VP slot in 2016. Those governors plus Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Corey Booker trump anything you have in the GOP.

      Nikki Haley and to a lesser degree Mike Pence and Mitch Daniels have too many skeletons in their closets to make a serious effort. Palin, Santorum, Gingrich Paul and Cain are done.

      • neocon1 May 6, 2012 / 5:51 pm

        freddy schwartzputz

        Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Corey Booker trump anything you have in the GOP.

        Bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha
        you are a funny guy freddy….deluded but still a riot…….you forgot to mention al $harpton and calypso louie…in that stellar group….

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 6, 2012 / 5:55 pm

        Gloating over the deaths of conservatives will not only get that post deleted but possibly all of your posts. Post something besides gloating and insults or go away. //Moderator

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 6, 2012 / 6:06 pm

        And you can’t run reagan because he wasn’t a conservative. He’d never get the nomination now. You guys are toast man even Ahnold has turned his back on the far Right.

      • Cluster May 7, 2012 / 11:58 am

        Actually there are a lot of similarities between Romney and Reagan

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 12:02 pm

        Cluster there are absolutely no similarities outside of both being governors, between those two men at all. How many businesses did Reagan run? Reagan was a Democrat at one point and Romney acted like one to try to beat Kennedy. And the latter of those two is the problem Romney is forced by the TEA Party to be “multiple choice.”

      • Cluster May 7, 2012 / 12:08 pm

        Many similarities – Reagan was a social moderate, as is Romney. Reagan is a fiscal conservative, as is Romney. Reagan had confidence in the private markets and the individuals, so does Romney. Reagan lowered taxes, so will Romney. Reagan had common sense, so does Romney.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 12:24 pm

        When Romney goes to Neshoba County MS and gives his first campaign speech then I’ll believe you. Romney’s biggest flaw is that he’s terribly uncomfortable with the TEA Party and other cultural ideologues within the GOP.

      • Retired Spook May 7, 2012 / 12:42 pm

        Romney’s biggest flaw is that he’s terribly uncomfortable with the TEA Party and other cultural ideologues within the GOP.

        Fortunately, (or unfortunately, depending on your POV), the Tea Party is getting comfortable with Romney.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 12:46 pm

        Homosexual fantasies about Mitt Romney do not qualify as legitimate discussion on this blog. //Moderator

      • Cluster May 7, 2012 / 12:52 pm

        I kinda knew they would have to back off their values, – freddy

        So invading sovereign countries and killing people is a far left value? Or did you back away from that value?

      • Amazona May 7, 2012 / 1:25 pm

        Spook, are you actually addressing freddy’s rants with FACTS? That’s a tough sell, exposing him to something with which he is not only totally unfamiliar but toward which he is quite hostile.

        (word count: 32)

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 1:29 pm

        Wow! Brevity from Amazona!

        [word count 4]

      • Amazona May 7, 2012 / 1:33 pm

        “Wow! Brevity from Amazona!”

        [word count 4]

        Idea: 0

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 1:36 pm


        [word count:1]

      • irisspirit May 7, 2012 / 1:10 pm

        Reagan raised taxes many times. How soon you forget. Or is it just selective memory?

      • Amazona May 11, 2012 / 1:26 pm

        Which taxes, and when?

        And tell us the mechanism by which Regan single-handedly raised taxes.

        Congress, during Reagan’s term, raised some taxes. We need to know which taxes, when, by how much, and also to be fair which taxes were lowered, and by how much.

        And, of course, the results of each of these actions.

        Or, you can just be Parrot Velma, regurgitating PL talking points.

      • neocon1 May 6, 2012 / 6:09 pm

        RR would be a TEA party leader,
        why dont you guys try running the other FRAUD and band aid “hero” JFnK
        or janet reno with mad maxine watters?


      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 6, 2012 / 6:20 pm

        LMAO a Tea party leader? Reagan? The guy who didn’t go to church 50% time while he was in office? The guy that was divorced? The former Democrat? He’s your new Tea Party g-d? really? That’s like saying Sarah Palin was a virgin on her wedding night.

      • neocon1 May 6, 2012 / 6:24 pm

        RR never had homosexual liaisons and wasnt a doper. Uboma belonged to a racist cult for 20 years and did both.

        Hillary is still a virgin except for the fling she had with weiners wife

        then there is the grand old bwany fwank……..a stellar donk

      • Cluster May 6, 2012 / 6:25 pm

        Freddy, do you ever engage in policy talk, or is this simply a game of personality and identity politics to you? You are very juvenile in most of your comments. If you care to answer a hard question, please see my post below

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 6, 2012 / 6:30 pm

        Maybe Reagan was gay he was an actor in the 1950s. Who knows I wasn’t around him 24/7/365 and if he was or if Obama is what does that matter. If the cop that comes to your aid when a robber has taken your gun from you is a lesbian would you say, “Oh no I’ll just be killed and my family slaughter because I hate them gays?” Enough of that man it’s tired try to answer a simple set of questions. And yes, I’m using Alinsky tactics because he was great man and they work. Did ya know he got a Catholice Peace award? Yeah that same Saul Alinsky. Saul was a dove if we used Cleaver’s tactics now you would need to move to Canada bro. OWS has nothing on the Panthers of old. The Man was and should have been terrified of them.

      • Cluster May 6, 2012 / 6:33 pm

        Freddy, thank you for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt the juvenile nature of your posts. Wow. This latest example is mind boggling immature

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 6, 2012 / 6:38 pm

        Overt religious bigotry is also not allowed. You are very close to the edge, posting nothing but bigotry and insults. //Moderator

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 6, 2012 / 6:42 pm

        And neocon you lost the Vietnam war and it wasn’t because of John Kerry it was because it was a war that only the MIC wanted. With a little help from the Viet Cong and the NVA, of course. But thank you for your service.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 6, 2012 / 6:48 pm

        So what neocon you want her to live by your 13th century rules though. That’s my problem with you. I don’t think you’re really a bigot anymore than I think Limbaugh is. Your both cranks with an axe to grind. Grind away bro. But keep your religious beliefs out of the lives of other people. You live your way and let them live by theirs and as long as the toilets flush and the lights come on you both live in the wealthiest nation that you know of.

      • Cluster May 7, 2012 / 8:19 am

        So Freddy, I am guessing you have no interest in answering my earlier question as to how the failed Keynesian liberal policies of the last 50 years, of which you ardently support, will somehow reverse the trends of the past in the next few years. Any insights?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 9:16 am

        I’m not an economist so I called Carl Pryor this morning and he sent me this:

        “I wouldn’t call the economic policy of the last 50 years either Keynesian or liberal. Since the late 1970s America has a dopted a policy of New Classical macroeconomics of the type promoted by the University of Chicago’s Robert Lucas. Only the housing crisis which was in part caused by a pure focus on microeconomic monetarism on the part of a series of large banks [Gold Sachsman, Lehman, Bank of America, Bear Stearns, Citi, Merrill Lynch and State Street] who saw an opportunity to capitalize on creating more and more new mortgage vehicles from which they could generate profit and mainting a high volume of new home construction. One of the greatest microeconomic profit vehicles that came from the New Classical economic theory was the credit default swap which allow mortgage lenders to hedge their bets on collateralized debt obligations [CDOs] allowing them to loan money for homes to those with far riskier credit scores.

        I do support a raw Keynesian solution to the situation America is in now but I fear the conservatives in their government have no stomach for actually solving the problem that would cost now upwards of $2 MMMM in raised taxes and government spending.”

        I hope that helps.

      • Cluster May 7, 2012 / 10:45 am

        That actually answers nothing, but thanks for the effort.

        The housing crisis originated with the policies of Fannie and Freddie, the GSE’s, which encouraged banks to give fairly high risk mortgages to those with less than desirable credit at the risk of not being able to tap into low interest Fed loans if they didn’t. Fannie and Freddie were buying every MBS bundle banks could sell them, and in 2005, despite the warnings of GW Bush, Barney Frank and Maxine Waters said there was nothing wrong with Fannie and Freddie, so most of the blame lies with our federal government and their social engineering dreams. One remedy for this would havebeen the investigation, indictment, and prosecution of those that knowingly gamed the system, but democrats, knowing that they were at the origin of it, avoided that remedy at all costs. This also has nothing to do with the question I asked, so Carlton was just deflecting – nice try though.

        In the last 50 years, the federal government has spent a few trillion dollars, some say $4 trillion, on the “war on poverty” – ie; food stamps, welfare, low income housing, WIC, etc, etc. However today, the poverty problem is as bad as it’s ever been, so I will ask you again, how will a continuation of these policies reverse the trend? It’s not a difficult question.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 11:00 am

        No Cluster this crisis began when mortgage lenders [see WaMu and Countrywide] began the race to see who could make the most profits by loaning money to people with bad credit. Fannie & freddie got into the game a long time after the then major mortgage companies.

      • Cluster May 7, 2012 / 11:28 am


        That statement of yours really displays a complete lack of understanding of business. BANKS DO NOT MAKE PROFITS FROM PEOPLE WHO DEFAULT ON THEIR LOANS. Really, really stupid statement.

      • Retired Spook May 7, 2012 / 12:01 pm


        Cluster, actually, in a sort of round about way, they did; at least on the loans they were able to bundle and sell to Fannie and Freddie and AIG, and Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros. and ……well, I think you get the point.

      • Cluster May 7, 2012 / 12:09 pm

        When the music stopped, someone was left without a chair. It was a game of hot potato spurred on by the government

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 12:18 pm

        See credit default swaps.

      • dbschmidt May 7, 2012 / 10:07 pm

        I still love the one by, and I hope I give credit to whom it is due, Ama for the statement some time ago (bad paraphrasing here) “It doesn’t matter if we lose money on every individual sale–we will make it up in the quantity of sales.”

      • Cluster May 7, 2012 / 11:37 am

        Oh and Freddie and Fannie don’t loan money. They play in the secondary market – just FYI

      • tiredoflibbs May 7, 2012 / 12:28 pm

        freddy the forker, see CRA and the financial instruments created from that forced lending program. These requirements forced banks to give ANYONE with a pulse a loan. That means ANYONE could have acquired mortgages on heavily extended credit – the poor, the middle-class, the rich – ANYONE.

        …your dumbed down talking points have been thoroughly debunked EVERYWHERE!

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 12:43 pm

        The CRA had nothing to do with the housing crisis because the majority of the homes in default lie OUTSIDE of CRA loan jurisdictions. These CRA zones were lfor oans for urban housing and urban small business development not McMansions in the burbs. Please try again, elsewhere.

      • Cluster May 7, 2012 / 12:47 pm

        I live in an area that was arguably the poster child for the housing crisis – Phoenix. And those loans that were defaulted on were made to people with high DTI ratios, and less than desirable FICO scores, and were lent to purchase homes all over the city, many of them 1800 – 2200 square feet – not exactly McMansions.

        I think your problem Freddy is that you have a very distorted view of reality.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 12:51 pm

        And what makes you think these loans had anything to do with the CRA? Subprime loans are not always loans granted under the guidelines for CRA credit.

      • Cluster May 7, 2012 / 12:53 pm

        And what makes you think these loans had anything to do with the CRA?

        Loans made to people of less than desirable standards was the entire thrust of the CRA

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 1:24 pm

        for you and tiredoflibbs:

        “The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.””

      • GMB May 7, 2012 / 1:30 pm

        Fred, is there anyway we could get you to immigrate to cuba or venezueala? You will have all the free health care you could want in those socialist paradises. You might have to wait in long lines for food and toilet paper but it’s well worth it, right?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 1:35 pm

        oh you mean emigrate. I gotcha. No been to Havana nice place to visit but i wouldn’t want to live there. Kinda feel the same way about the US too though. caracas would be okay for a few years but you never know with South American governments. I’m perfectly happy where i am.

      • GMB May 7, 2012 / 1:41 pm

        Really? You don’t want to participate in a real socialist paradise? Hugo or Fideal could use you expertise.

        I hear that the the inflation rate in chavez land was a measly 27.6 percnt last year. Maybe you could help it get higher, or you could stand in line for hours just waiting to buy a couple pounds of flour?

        It’s your life. don’t waste it. che is counting on you.

      • GMB May 7, 2012 / 1:45 pm

        “oh you mean emigrate” No, actually I do mean immigrate with an i and two m. Not be a spelling nazi or anything here. Thats how it is spelled at least according to my worterbuch.

        I misspell enough words, please don’t go adding to my total. 🙂

      • Amazona May 7, 2012 / 2:19 pm

        GMB, it hurts to say this, but as it is only the second time I have ever had to, the first being when he admitted that the United States IS a socialist nation, freddy was right when he corrected you.

        “Immigrate” means to come into a country, “emigrate” means to leave it.

        So freddy would “emigrate” to Cuba or Venezuela, and there he would be considered to have “immigrated” into the country—right before being shown the great Freedom of Leftist regimes by being thrown into jail.

      • GMB May 7, 2012 / 3:07 pm

        Hmmm, context here is the issue. “Zu gehen und in einem anderen Land zu leben” roughly translates as “to immigrate to another country”
        Traslation of “auswandern” to immigrate or to emigrate. Again context is the issue.

        Aber daß ist nicht meinen probleme. Ich möcte herr fred und alle seinem freunde zu wandern von Der Vereingten Staaten aus. Ich wünche aber Ich halte nicht an. 😦

        Sorry folks the translation is up to you.

      • Amazona May 7, 2012 / 3:18 pm

        And as relevant to English speakers as Greek conservatism is to American politics.

        In English, to “emigrate” means to move out your country to another, and “immigrate” means to move from another country to this one, or to the one in question.

        Therefore, an American would ask freddy, “Why did you EMIGRATE to Cuba?” and in Cuba the question would be “Why in HELL did you decide to IMMIGRATE here, to Cuba?”

      • GMB May 7, 2012 / 3:49 pm

        So he be immigrating to another country? Which was my point but thanks for the grammer leson anyway.

      • Amazona May 7, 2012 / 4:16 pm

        No, he would EMIGRATING from this country, and IMMIGRATING into that one.

        It’s the difference between leaving and arriving.

        I thought you wanted to improve your English, not defend your mistakes.

        And it’s “grammar”.

        You’re welcome/ I know I make mistakes in Castellano, some of them rather embarrassing–such as thinking that the word “dia” ending in “ia” is feminine, and referring to “la dia” when a “ladilla” (pronounced the same) is a pubic louse, and quite a vulgar term. Tossing that out in polite company was the verbal equivalent of a stun grenade. Ouch.

      • GMB May 7, 2012 / 4:36 pm

        LOL, Amazona, you are making me laugh here. If I want him to arrive at another country then I want him to “immigrate” to that country. Not so.

        Here let me end this.

        Hey Fred get the hell out of the United States and go to one of the socialist paradises out there, ok? I would even even buy you a ticket , hows that for a deal?

        Better? I hope so

      • neocon1 May 7, 2012 / 5:23 pm


        “I wish he had mentioned that Obama excelled in college in his Communism class inspite of bad Marx.

      • Amazona May 7, 2012 / 5:26 pm

        Not much. You are clearly having a hard time figuring out the difference between “come” and “go”, between “leave” and “arrive”.

        Just remember, when we tell the Left we need to have clear definitions of words and use them properly, we have to do the same ourselves.

        I agree, it would be nice if freddy were to emigrate FROM the United States, and immigrate INTO nearly any other country.

        The question is, who would have him? A pudgy 63-year-old cab driver who thinks he is part of an interstellar hive of trillions of bits of something, who thinks he lives in Hell, who has to invent elaborate fake credentials to try to achieve some—ANY—degree of credibility, and who can’t process the written word and gets tetchy when too many of them are used, is hardly the stuff of an ideal immigrant, though from our perspective quite an excellent candidate for emigration.

      • neocon1 May 7, 2012 / 5:38 pm

        dont forget the GUMDROP “computer” LOL

      • neocon1 May 7, 2012 / 6:11 pm


        ahhh the beginning of a Loooong HOT summer…race riots to soon follow.

      • neocon1 May 7, 2012 / 6:20 pm

        CURL: Hip-hop legend MCA passes on; Obama says not a word

        This column is about politics. Today, it’s not. Still, there’s Watergate, Paul Revere, Edward R. Murrow, fighting for your right, so, kinda still.

        Adam Nathaniel Yauch died Friday. If you’re age 16-66 — maybe 106 — you know him as MCA, one-third of the Beastie Boys. He was 47. Way too young. But gone.

        Now, half-white Barack Obama (exactly my age) didn’t say a word, even though he was talking to college kids that day, but make no mistake, MCA was no Jay-Z or Kanye West. This guy was the real deal, groundbreaker, up from his bootstraps, Brooklyn boy made good. Funny the “coolest president ever” doesn’t say a word about the passing of MCA. Weird and kinda sad, actually.

        “Yauch was born an only child in Brooklyn, New York, the son of Frances, a social worker, and Noel Yauch, a painter and architect,” Wikipedia says. “His father was Catholic and his mother was Jewish.” Kinda like Barack, all over the place, half this, half that, and a tough life ahead from the outset. But nothing from the first half-white, half-black president (MSM has made him black — he’s not; he’s half-and-half. No, Trayvon Martin wouldn’t have looked like his son.)

        The boys, the Beastie Boys, started out as a thrash hard-core punk band in ‘79, at the tail end of the movement.


      • neocon1 May 7, 2012 / 6:27 pm

        what a POS…….

        Admin drafted memo to shield Obama if OBL raid failed

        Email Us
        BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff – May 7, 2012 12:45 pm

        The Obama Administration drafted a “highly lawyered” memo to shield the president from blame if the mission to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden failed, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey told Sean Hannity of Fox News Friday.

        According to Mukasey, the memo would have pinned the blame on Navy Admiral William McRaven, who was commander of Joint Special Operations Command at the time of the raid.



      • Amazona May 8, 2012 / 1:22 am

        Wrong color?

      • Amazona May 7, 2012 / 8:04 pm

        I know—that any of these loons could claim credibility while also making their other bizarre claims is pretty funny.

      • neocon1 May 7, 2012 / 5:37 pm


      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 1:46 pm

        Dude you already live in the greatest socialist paradise on Terra! How much was spent on Social Security, SSI, Medicaid, Medicare, Food Stamps TANF and farm subsidies last year? heck even oil companies get money from the government. Viva Fidel!

      • Amazona May 7, 2012 / 2:11 pm

        “Dude you already live in the greatest socialist paradise on Terra”

        Uh-oh, freddy, you blurted out a truth there. Don’t you pay attention to mega-minds like doof, who constantly lecture us that the redistributionist policies of the Left (even when some of them have an R after their names—politics is ideology, not identity) are not, repeat NOT, repeat NOT socialist?

        I love watching you guys stumble all over yourselves, getting so tangled up in your rhetoric and knee-jerk opposition (emphasis on “jerk”) and desperate need to post something, ANYTHING, that seems clever to you at the time, that you end up exposing a truth.

        Aside from the infantile “Terra” meme of the fantasy role-playing hive mentality of you forkers, you just did what Barry did when he went off script, and blurted out something that the true Left tries to keep hidden—-the true Leftist agenda of socialism and its inroads into what used to be a Constitutional form of American government.

      • Cluster May 7, 2012 / 2:33 pm

        Dude you already live in the greatest socialist paradise on Terra! – freddy

        Can’t wait to hear the response from Barstool, James, etc.

      • GMB May 7, 2012 / 2:17 pm

        Have to admit you got that right. You leftys with ever increasing help from the non-opposition other party have got spending OPM down to an art form. What you going to do when the OPM finally runs out?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 2:44 pm

        Sorry GMB US entitlements ain’t my problem.

      • Retired Spook May 7, 2012 / 1:58 pm

        Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly.

        Not the original 1977 law, Fred. What precipitated the crisis was when the Clinton Administration put the CRA on steroids in 1999.

      • Amazona May 7, 2012 / 12:59 pm

        “I think your problem Freddy is that you have a very distorted view of reality”

        But how can you possibly say that about someone who describes himself as “Dis, Hell. I am the Managing Editor–Research for The Dis Brimstone Daily Pitchfork”” ?

        Get a grip, Cluster, and stop claiming that a cab driver who invents a string of bogus credentials, and who refers to something he does as ” Managing Editor–Research” for a Hell-based online fantasy role-playing clump of self-described demons and/or part of a starborn hive, has a distorted view of reality.

        Shame on you.

      • Retired Spook May 7, 2012 / 1:15 pm

        I think your problem Freddy is that you have a very distorted view of reality.

        Cluster, I think he’s totally DIVORCED from reality. I suspect that the hole he’s dug himself into is so deep that the lack of oxygen has affected his brain — or it could just be a congenital defect.

      • tiredoflibbs May 7, 2012 / 6:27 pm

        Freddie, you suffer from the same poor reading comprehension that troubles all you proggies.

        I said the CRA gave us financial instruments and loan practices that resulted in the crisis. These loan practices and mortgage packages were given to ALL individuals at any income levels. Loan practices were massively relaxed in the false elevation of the housing market.

        The resulting crisis was not due to loaning poor people money (who could not pay) alone.

        Try again, drone. Your talking points will not help you here.

      • Amazona May 7, 2012 / 3:39 pm

        Are you as fascinated as I am by the PL fantasy of a bunch of billionaire bankers getting together and saying “We’ve been making plenty of money lending money to people who can pay it back—just think of how much more we can make by lending money to people who CAN’T”.

        There can be no greater indictment of the economic ignorance of the Left, and its PL lemmings, than this bizarre concept of finance.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 11:04 am

        And Cluster Carl Pryor did answer your question. The cost will be 2 trillion plus to apply a Keynesian soultion to the current high unemployment low inflation situation. Out of this you get some of what Mark wants people making mining and growing things. WPA, CCC and more alphabet departments that use federal funds to put people back to work.

      • Cluster May 7, 2012 / 11:36 am


        I again just have to laugh again at your asinine comment about banks making profits off of people with lousy credit. If that were the case, then banks would be loaning lots of money right now, don’t ya think? There are a whole lot of people with bad credit these days that could use loans to get them through. Why aren’t banks falling all over themselves to loan them money? Huge profits are just sitting there according to your logic.

        Do you see the inanity of your comment?

      • Retired Spook May 7, 2012 / 11:53 am


        It’s a good thing Fred doesn’t live in the U.S. and can’t vote. I certainly hope he doesn’t breed.

      • Amazona May 7, 2012 / 12:19 pm

        I certainly hope he doesn’t breed.

        Not much likelyhood of that. Not only is he gay, but I understand that stellar beings, when crossbred to humans, produce infertile offspring—much like mules.

      • Cluster May 7, 2012 / 11:56 am

        Let’s take your asinine comment another direction ok Freddy? If women were making 23% less than men, why wouldn’t corporations hire all women?

      • Retired Spook May 7, 2012 / 11:14 am

        I do support a raw Keynesian solution to the situation America is in now but I fear the conservatives in their government have no stomach for actually solving the problem that would cost now upwards of $2 MMMM in raised taxes and government spending.”

        Fred, could you cite an example of where that approach has ever achieved the desired results?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 11:26 am

        See the New Deal.

      • Cluster May 7, 2012 / 11:32 am

        First of all, it was WWII that ignited the growth engine of the 40’s and 50’s, not the New Deal, and secondly, nearly $1 trillion has been spent thus far with nearly zero impact, so I again have to question your claim that $2 trillion will do it. And knowing that we now borrow 42 cents of every dollar, do have any concerns of adding to the already exploding debt? Or does debt even matter to you? It appears that debt has seriously effected Europe, do you think that America is immune?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 11:56 am

        Answer me this Cluster was it or was it not government spending that ended the Great Depression?

      • Cluster May 7, 2012 / 12:05 pm

        It was the war that ended the depression – and without that war, government spending then would have had the same impact it has today. Simply read what Spook posted re: Morgenthau. A war changes the paradigm completely, especially a war of that magnitude. Do you support starting another war?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 12:10 pm

        No but I do support a similar amount of government spending.

      • Amazona May 7, 2012 / 12:15 pm

        Wow. Gone for a day and I come back to a hard-hitting blog thread about Obama’s dithering and obstructionism regarding the Bin Laden raid, met with scathing rebuttal from Hell, consisting of “huh-uh” and “Reagan was not a conservative” and “Bush did it all, whenever “all” is really really bad” and “Bush ruined two oil companies” and “Dear sweet perfect Obama is a victim of far-right meanies” and”Amazona uses too many words” and “Reagan was an actor so he was gay” and, well, you get the idea.

        Oh, and “birthers”. Can’t forget the relevance of the dreaded and omnipresent “birthers” to the account of presidential incompetence.

        To sum it up, typical issue-dodging blame-everyone-else-for-everything mindless Psuedo-Left claptrap.

        Funny how none of this is related in any possible way to the topic of the thread.

        These revelations about Obama delaying and obstructing the Bin Laden campaign came out right after the attack, and were buried by the Complicit Agenda Media.

        Here is something from one of the links that I don’t believe even the gumdrop demons can argue about—-not that they address issues anyway.

        Obama’s …disclosure immediately following the event not only that bin Laden was killed, but also that a valuable trove of intelligence had been seized, including even the location of al Qaeda safe-houses. That disclosure infuriated the intelligence community because it squandered the opportunity to exploit the intelligence that was the subject of the boast.

        I am sure Velma remembers Barry bragging about the intel recovered from Bin Laden’s hideout—after all, she was kneeling at his shrine when the speech was played, and probably TeVoed it so she could dwell on The Magnificence That Is Obama. The fact that he made this statement is not disputable. He said it.

        Why did he say it? To burnish the image he was trying to create of the brilliant strategist that he was, to emphasize the vast success of the mission, obviously. But why would a Commander in Chief tell the enemy that we had recovered their own records, their own private stash of information, before we had a chance to act on any of this?

        Clearly if Obama had been President during World War II, he would have given a big press conference to announce that we had broken the German code (thanks to his personal brilliance and leadership, of course) and then fought Eisenhower on the decision to invade at Normandy.

        I am at a loss about how to explain the gross negligence of revealing classified information to the enemy. All I can say is, “negligence” is far too kind a word.

        We had locations of A-Q safe houses, and he stood up in front of TV cameras and said “Hey, Al Queda, we know where you are because we just got that information at Bin Laden’s house”.

        Defend THAT, gumdrop starborn demons and starstruck Velma.

      • Retired Spook May 7, 2012 / 12:21 pm

        I am at a loss about how to explain the gross negligence of revealing classified information to the enemy.

        An E-5 analyst who did that would be in Leavenworth.

      • GMB May 7, 2012 / 12:45 pm

        An E-3, soon to be an E-0, analyst that did do it is currently undergoing a courtsmartial right now. Too bad the prosecution has not asked for the death penalty.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 12:21 pm

        Amazona that is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard you say. Do you think it was equally dangerous to US national security when the Bush administration let OBL go when they had operatives 600 yards away when he was in Tora Bora? Grow up girl.

      • Retired Spook May 7, 2012 / 12:30 pm

        when the Bush administration let OBL go when they had operatives 600 yards away when he was in Tora Bora?

        Uh, Fred; even the Congressional investigation didn’t come to that conclusion.

        The committee report, prepared at the request of Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the committee’s Democratic chairman, concludes unequivocally that in mid-December 2001, Mr. bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, were at the cave complex, where Mr. bin Laden had operated previously during the fight against Soviet forces.

        The new report suggests that a larger troop commitment to Afghanistan might have resulted in the demise not only of Mr. bin Laden and his deputy but also of Mullah Muhammad Omar, the leader of the Afghan Taliban. Mullah Omar, who also fled to Pakistan in 2001, has overseen the resurgence of the Taliban.

        And please stop venturing out of the corner without permission. And no dessert for you tonight.

      • Cluster May 7, 2012 / 12:44 pm

        Details, facts and reality mean nothing to Freddy. Take for example his call for $2 trillion in government spending, without any regard to the debt, without any recognition of the previous $1 trillion spent, or without any detail as to where and how that additional money should be spent.

        Nothing to see here folks

      • Retired Spook May 7, 2012 / 1:08 pm

        without any detail as to where and how that additional money should be spent.

        Or worse — where the hell that money will come from.

      • Amazona May 7, 2012 / 1:28 pm

        Or where this money would come from. It’s just Magical Thinking, which is really all one could expect from someone who postures as living in Hell and consorting with starborn demons who are part of an interstellar Collective, and who invents a series of bogus credentials to try to make himself less pathetic. (Though what can be more pathetic than having to invent bogus credentials…)

      • tiredoflibbs May 7, 2012 / 12:53 pm

        Spook, again, freddie the forker is part of the proggy echo chamber.

        All they can do is regurgitate easily debunked dumbed down talking points.

        Bush let him go… what a hoot!

      • irisspirit May 7, 2012 / 1:15 pm

        What is a “forker”? Please explain in clear English. You use the term so often it needs to clearly defined.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 1:32 pm

        Google my name Iris. It’s a term of derision for the site where I’m the managing editor for reasearch. If I post the name here it’ll be deleted. Easy moderator! I didn’t post a link or type out the name. 😉

      • Amazona May 7, 2012 / 1:33 pm

        Awwww, Velma is being obtuse again.

        Vel, all you have to do is click on the avatars of certain posters, such as freddy and the major pain, to see that they claim to be part of an interstellar Collective, living in Hell, and writing for “The Brimstone Daily Pitchfork”.


        Though interestingly enough, the term can also be applied to Mrs. Bill Ayers, the creature who gloated over the fact that the pregnant Sharon Tate’s unborn child was repeatedly stabbed, in utero, with a dinner fork, and who praised the person who did this and started using the first and fourth fingers extended to represent a fork as a gesture of her approval.

        You really need to get your head out of Obama’s nether regions and start learning a little, Vel.

      • Retired Spook May 7, 2012 / 1:42 pm

        What is a “forker”?

        I realize mentally you’re hiding under a rock, Velma, but seriously…….

      • tiredoflibbs May 8, 2012 / 6:14 am

        velma: “What is a “forker”? Please explain in clear English. You use the term so often it needs to clearly defined.”

        My my my…. exceptionally dense today? Do you read anything else on this blog besides your own posts of dumbed down proggy talking points?

        This has been explained SEVERAL times.

        velma: “With that philosophy, the US should be in fabulous shape with all the war spending we had done in the past 10 plus years. Why isn’t it working this time?”

        Wow, where did you dig up that simple minded little question? Are you seriously trying to equate war spending in the 11940s with that of the past 10 years?

        Not philosophy, FACT. Practically, the ENTIRE country was in a state of war (something not happening now). Practically, the entire industrial economy was geared up for war material production. As amazona said, entitlement spending, earmark spending, taxation, etc. etc. of today cannot be compared to that of the 1940s.

        Go back to being a pseudo (look it up in the dictionairy) lawyer and stay away from simple subjects.

        I won’t even touch the latest talking point from the proggies about Reagan and raising taxes. That, definitely, is way too complicated for you.

      • Amazona May 7, 2012 / 1:21 pm

        A couple of years ago some friends and I stood on a ridge deep into a National Forest looking out to the west, and all we could see all the way to the horizon was a series of ridges, each pair of ridges separated by a deep valley much like the ones behind us. I looked out at this expanse of high mountain ridges, as far as the eye could see, and said “Imagine if each of these ridges was full of tunnels linked to other ridges. How likely would it be that someone could corner a group of people, and keep them from escaping?”

        Entering a valley by descending a steep rocky slope, or coming into it from one end or another, makes it nearly impossible to deploy a large number of troops, and stealth is nearly impossible. Going after people who know the area, who know the tunnel systems, and who have sentries posted, is quite a daunting task.

        Anyone who bleats that somehow it should have been possible to contain the escape of people who were on their own ground, in their own mountains, using their own tunnel systems, in rugged and nearly impenetrable terrain, needs to get his pudgy ass out of his taxi seat and get it into the wilderness where he can see what it is like to negotiate terrain more difficult than potholes.

        It would have taken many thousands of men to close off just three or four of the valleys we could see, and that is not taking into consideration the presence of elaborate tunnel systems that spiderweb underneath mountains in Afghanistan. When it is possible to traverse several ridges and simultaneously move laterally to exit at the end of a valley or mountain wall miles away from the entrance, the only way to even come close to covering all possible exits would be to mount a military expedition of massive size and extensive specialized training.

        I note that the squealers about “letting Bin Laden go” tend to be urban PL trolls who have never set foot in any terrain more demanding than a city jogging path, if that.

        But I posit a simple question: Which would be easier, taking large numbers of military forces into hostile enemy territory to navigate steep rocky mountains and deep valleys, to search out tunnels and caves, well hidden, to find natives who have had decades to learn the territory and how to hide there, or to simply accept the invitation of a nation to enter it and pick up a man whose location is not in the mountains and is known and revealed?

        In other words, who had the harder job, re: Bin Laden—Bush or Clinton? And whose lack of success had the most impact on Americans in their own country?

      • Amazona May 7, 2012 / 12:35 pm

        But back to the thread topic:

        “…..Obama stated an on-ground campaign would be far more acceptable to him than a bombing raid. This was intended as a stalling tactic, and it had originated from Jarrett. Such a campaign would take both time, and present a far greater risk of failure. The president had been instructed by Jarrett to inform Mr. Panetta that he would have sole discretion to act against the Osama Bin Laden compound. Jarrett believed this would further delay Panetta from acting, as the responsibility for failure would then fall almost entirely on him. What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him –and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound. Basically, the whole damn operation was already ready to go – including the specific team support Intel necessary to engage the enemy within hours of being given notice. Panetta then made plans to proceed with an on-ground assault.

        The following day, and with Panetta’s permission, Clinton met in private with Bill Daley and urged him to get the president’s full and open approval of the Panetta plan. Daley agreed such approval would be of great benefit to the action, and instructed Clinton to delay proceeding until he had secured that approval. Daley contacted Clinton within hours of their meeting indicating Jarrett refused to allow the president to give that approval. Daley then informed Clinton that he too would fully support Panetta in his actions, even if it meant disclosing the president’s indecision to the American public should that action fail to produce a successful conclusion. Clinton took that message back to Panetta and the CIA director initiated the 48 hour engagement order. At this point, the President of the United States was not informed of the engagement order – it did not originate from him, and for several hours after the order had been given and the special ops forces were preparing for action into Pakistan from their position in Afghanistan, Daley successfully kept Obama and Jarrett insulated from that order.”

        This is certainly worth discussing, though I can understand the heebie-jeebies this kind of disclosure about Obama gives the kneepad PL contingent.

        Their problem is, they wanted and thought they elected a passive, appeasing, anti-conflict guy, and then they were faced with the reality of a guy who kept Gitmo open, and dropped bombs on people. So they were faced with the kneepad aspect of their devotion, which is based on slavish adoration of every word and action by The One We Have All Been Waiting For, and the fact that so many of those actions belied the words that so entranced them.

        Then when Bin Laden was killed, they were so tickled they could barely stand it, because it happened on Dear Leader’s watch, and suddenly they had a new rallying cry—“Bush Couldn’t Do It And Obama Did, Hooray!!” The centerpiece of this new excitement had to be the image of Obama as a strong, resolute, decisive LEADER—you know, something to counteract the reality of constantly voting “Present” and/or hiding in the coatroom during key votes. and definitely something to offset the Don Knotts image of Bobblehead Barry wobbling along on on what kind of looked like a girl’s bicycle.

        Learning that the strong decisive one was Valerie Jarrett, who had Barry under her thumb and who was calling the shots, can’t be happy news for the BarryBots.

        Poor babies.

        So let’s see what they come up with to counter this. Maybe they can resurrect the claim that Laura Bush was a murderer, or that Dick Cheney moonlighted as a euthanizer of family pets. You know, something relevant.

        (word count: 624)

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 2:55 pm


        In a May 3rd NBC news interview Panetta told reporter Brian Williams that the President signed the mission order on the previous Thursday, the 28th of April.

        Dialog from the NBC interview:

        BRIAN WILLIAMS: When did the President’s order in this mission become real and go up and become a possibility?

        LEON PANETTA: Well, as you know as we’ve been- debating this issue for a long time. And we had a number of sessions at the White House going over all of the intelligence and all of the approaches as to how we would conduct these operations.

        But it wasn’t until Thursday morning that the national security advisor called me and said that the President had made a decision to proceed with this operation. And then later that day I received orders signed by the President of the United States to proceed to conduct this operation under Title 50, which means it was a covert operation. And we would be responsible from the President for seeing that this mission was accomplished.

        This on 2 May 2011 from leon Panetta DCI, CIA:

        “Persistent hard work produced the results that the American people expect of their intelligence service: We gave President Obama and his team accurate, relevant, timely intelligence—providing the information and insight they needed at key points as this mission developed. I offered my personal thanks to the President for his willingness to make the courageous decision to proceed with the operation.”

      • Amazona May 7, 2012 / 3:22 pm

        Yes, Panetta knows better than to embarrass his boss. Political and career suicide is clearly not on his agenda.

        Everyone involved was very kind to Obama. They even let him sit in long enough to be photographed.

        It’s one thing to do what has to be done in spite of opposition from above. It is quite another, and quite foolish, to make this opposition public.

        Not everyone in the Obama administration is a glory hound, sniffing after public acclaim, career politicians know enough to make the boss look good no matter how badly he screws up, and military folk never advertise having to override a foolish position taken by a superior.

        Life in the cab, and/or in Hell, and/or in the hive, clearly does not do much to educate the naive on the realities of life.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 3:35 pm

        This is the problem I have with you guys. Anything no matter how outrageous as long as it casts doubts on President Obama is credible. I wrote a quite lengthy piece in 2004 about the 9/11 tragedy and while i was shocked at the poor performance by the FBI, CIA, DIA and NSA to cooperate when it was known by several of these agencies that there was an attack in the planning I never questioned the fact that Bush didn’t know what was coming. And furthermore, I would never have thought of suggesting that the DoD, CIA or any other department would authorize the use of deadly force without the express written authority of the C-in-C. If you are among the best conservatism has Amazona I shouldn’t be so worried about you guys grasping power.

      • Retired Spook May 7, 2012 / 4:32 pm

        while i was shocked at the poor performance by the FBI, CIA, DIA and NSA to cooperate when it was known by several of these agencies that there was an attack in the planning I never questioned the fact that Bush didn’t know what was coming.

        That is somewhat surprising, Fred, considering the belief of over half of Democrats. Are THEY all kooks?

      • Amazona May 7, 2012 / 5:47 pm

        freddy, you say “….. i was shocked at the poor performance by the FBI, CIA, DIA and NSA to cooperate when it was known by several of these agencies that there was an attack in the planning…”

        This related to an article you wrote in 2004, two to three years after 9/11?

        Gee, by that time you should have heard that in the Clinton Administration, Jamie Gorelick (later rewarded for her effort with a plum position with Freddie Mac, accompanied by millions in “bonuses”) created a wall between all intelligence agencies, forbidding them to share information of any nature.

        Sure the intent of the wall was to short-circuit information-sharing about illegal foreign campaign contributions to Clinton, but those damned Unintended Consequences slopped over into not allowing information sharing about other things, like threats to the nation.

        If you were shocked by this in 2004, you simply had not been paying attention. Maybe you don’t have cable TV in Hell.

      • Amazona May 7, 2012 / 3:30 pm

        BTW, careful reading of this careful answer shows that it does not state that the President acted swiftly and decisively before any action was taken.

        On the contrary, Panetta was very very cautious in his wording, implying but not stating that the President’s approval signaled the beginning of the mission.

        “…later that day I received orders signed by the President of the United States to proceed to conduct this operation .” Not to begin, but to proceed to conduct, ambiguous enough to skirt the truth without overtly stating that the mission was already underway and the orders merely gave presidential permission “to proceed”.

        “……providing the information and insight they needed at key points as this mission developed

        Not to begin the mission, not to initiate the mission, but as the mission developed

        Not a word of Panetta’s in this interview contradicts the other information about the mission beginning without Obama’s approval, or his dithering, or his control by Jarrett.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 3:45 pm

        Nothing but the fact that the order was signed on 28 April 2011. And the operation carried out days later.

      • Amazona May 7, 2012 / 5:31 pm

        It’s nearly all Agenda Journalism now, now that the word “journalism” has been redefined as the use of a position within a news medium to promote a policy or political agenda.

        The very IDEA of presenting all aspects of an issue, without taking a side, is quite alien to our new breed of “journalists” and the term “journalistic integrity” is now an oxymoron.

        I might add that the same mentality is now often applied in the judiciary, as recently seen by the refusal of the former Solicitor General, whose job it was to advocate for the President’s position on government health care, to recuse herself from a case hearing the constitutionality of the very plan she promoted and defended—and who then overtly attempted to aid the current advocate for the program in his presentation of his case, making arguments for him.

      • Amazona May 7, 2012 / 4:23 pm

        How many days? One day? Two days? Be specific. How long did it take the team to arrive? How long after the mission was ordered, that is? Which time zone? One time zone? Different time zones?

        At least I know the ideology of my chosen political system, I based my choice upon my understanding of that system and the belief, based upon comparing it with its opposition, that it is not only the only LEGAL system for governance of this nation but the best.

        In any debate on the relative merits of each system, I can and do define and defend my position, based on actual political ideology and not on fatuous dependence on identity, scandal, etc.

        Neither you nor any of the Pseudo Libs who post here can do this, or at least will do this.

        And I repeat that being an individual, a human, Earthborn, not part of an interstellar Collective, not living in Hell, and not being part of an infantile role-playing little clique of invented names and invented credentials, all serve to place me quite firmly in a superior position to anything that comes from one who IS part of the clique I just described.

      • Amazona May 7, 2012 / 8:03 pm

        Let’s say the Obama order really was signed on April 28.

        Pick a time—I’ll start with 5:00 p.m. since I don’t know.

        That is 1:30 a.m. in Kabul, on April 29.

        Say the mission did not begin till the order was signed. Where was Seal Team 6 stationed? Where did the mission begin? Jetliner speeds would have put them in Kabul, just for reference, at about 12:30 a.m. on April 30.

        OBL was officially killed on May 1—-Paki time or DC time? It matters. It matters where the mission began, how long it took to get from wherever to the OBL compound in helicopters.

        In other words, it is far from unreasonable to acknowledge the possibility that the order was signed after the mission was initiated.

        If an effort is made to use the alleged date of the signing of the order to confirm that the order preceded the beginning of the mission, then one has to establish firm and correct time lines, using consistent dates and time zones.

      • Cluster May 7, 2012 / 9:24 pm

        Timelines do matter and it’s a hell of lot easier to call off a mission than to ramp one up.

        I had also heard that the mission was originally scheduled for April 30, but was delayed a day due to weather.

      • GMB May 7, 2012 / 10:04 pm

        Hatred from James? Who would of ever thought it? Did you even hear barkys speech from kabul? So many “I” did this and “I” did that. Had Bush done the same thing, you leftys would have been outraged.

        Turn about is fair play. Deal with it James.

      • James May 8, 2012 / 1:17 am

        Like I said Gmb, you’re an idiot. Learn the difference between immigrate and emigrate. Thanks for playing, good day.

      • Amazona May 8, 2012 / 1:21 am

        GMB’s use of a language not his native language is quite impressive, “James”.

        As I noted, acquiring the nuances of another language is daunting, and I find very very few errors, and those of a minor nature, in GMB’s writing.

        He certainly has a much better grasp of the written word, and of politics and political history, than you do, “James”.

      • Amazona May 9, 2012 / 10:15 am

        Based on the personality “James” shows here, he is probably forced to just play with himself.

      • GMB May 8, 2012 / 9:53 pm

        Playing with you? Only in your dreams Thomas. You have nothing to play against. The deck is stacked against you there fella.

        Deal with it. Or not. I don’t care. 🙂

      • Cluster May 7, 2012 / 12:27 pm

        You’re not distinguishing between effective, purposeful government spending, and that spending of which is not effective based on historical evidence. Stay focused

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 12:41 pm

        If the government sent you a check for $10,000 what would you do with it? now multiply that 10K by 247,000,000 and you get the recovery that’s needed.

      • Cluster May 7, 2012 / 12:50 pm

        If the government sent you a check for $10,000 what would you do with it? now multiply that 10K by 247,000,000 and you get the recovery that’s needed.

        Many people would use that to pay off debt. Not exactly a stimulator.

      • Retired Spook May 7, 2012 / 12:15 pm

        Do you support starting another war?

        Geez — don’t give him any ideas.

      • tiredoflibbs May 7, 2012 / 12:49 pm

        freddie the mindless forker: “Answer me this Cluster was it or was it not government spending that ended the Great Depression?”


        See the thread where a study shows that gov’t spending does not stimulate the economy as you proggies believe.

        A little skirmish known as WWII ended the Great Depression, but of course you are not interested in facts that stomp your dumbed down talking points and your ideology into the ground.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 12:53 pm

        I take it that all those shipbuilders et cetera were not working on government projects? Like it or not it was government spending on the war effort that ended to Great Depression. But what you overlook is that there’s no 6 month fix to a severe economic crisis.

      • Cluster May 7, 2012 / 12:54 pm

        Like it or not it was government spending on the war effort that ended to Great Depression

        Again, it was purposeful war spending. There is a clear distinction. Conservatives don’t oppose ALL government spending, that’s just another distortion of reality you have.

      • irisspirit May 7, 2012 / 1:18 pm

        With that philosophy, the US should be in fabulous shape with all the war spending we had done in the past 10 plus years. Why isn’t it working this time?

      • Amazona May 8, 2012 / 1:27 am

        Velma queries: “With that philosophy, the US should be in fabulous shape with all the war spending we had done in the past 10 plus years. Why isn’t it working this time?”

        Velma, try a comparison of entitlement spending in, say, 1943 with that of today and see if you can figure it out.

      • neocon1 May 8, 2012 / 6:07 am

        President Barack Hussein Obama is certainly a President of firsts. Here’s a fairly comprehensive list: (Read them and weep for our nation)

        1st African-American President (actually 1/2 African-American) in history.
        1st President to claim that under his presidentcy the, “rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
        1st President to rack up over 5 trillion dollars in debt in less than four years.
        1st President to bow to foreign heads of state.
        1st President to have the national debt exceed 10, 11 , 12 , 13 ,14 and 15 trillion dollars.
        1st President to preside over a cut in the credit rating of the United States.
        1st President to spend a trillion dollars on shovel ready jobs that he later admitted never existed.
        1st President to invest/loan hundreds of billions to solar energy firms going bankrupt, then re-write the loans so the taxpayers were in last place when they did go bankrupt and his supporters walked away with their pockets full.
        1st President to have coninuous 8% or higher unemployment for over a continuous three year period.
        1st President to preside over a period where over 45% of the American public paid no taxes.
        1st President to appoint a Secretary of Treasury (and five other top posts), an individual who is a tax evader owing the US government tens of thosuands of dollars.
        1st President to have over 45% of the American people on Government assistance.
        1st President to publically threaten the Supreme Court while it was deciding a case…particular a case regarding his own initiative.
        1st President to preside over passing legislation to take over the entire health industry, which proposal and legislation is what the Supreme Court is deciding on.
        1st President to deliver a eulogy for a communist activist (Saul Mendelson)
        1st President to openly state his refusal to uphold Federal Law (DOMA)
        1st President to have 17 vacations in his first four years.
        1st President to issue an unlawful recess appointment when the Senate was not in recess (against the advise of his own Justice Department).
        1st president whose Attorney General presided over an illegal sale of thousands of illegal weapons to the Mexican drug cartels.
        1st President whose Attorney Genral blatantly dismissed charges against New Black Panthers who were filmed wearing camo uniforms and wielding Billy Clubs initmidating voters during the 2008 elections. Simply dropped the charges.
        1st President to repeatedly and purposely fail to issue Presidential statements at Christmas and Easter.
        1st President to call for our ally, Israel to retreat back to the pre-war 1967 borders.
        1st President to actively support the overthrow of an allied leader, at peace with Israel, in Egypt and support his replacement by militant Islamics, the Muslim bortherhood.
        1st President to cancel the celebration of the National Day of Prayer at the White House but hold a day of Islamic Prayer there during Ramadan.
        1st President to sue a State for requiring valid IDs to vote.
        1st President to halt deportation of illegal aliens in order to issue them temporary work permits.
        1st President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing Oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
        1st President to sign into law a bill that permits the government to hold anyone suspected of being associated with terrorism indefinitely, without due process. No indictment. No judge or jury. No evidence. No trial
        1st President to appoint 45 czars to issue directives in lieu of legislation
        1st President to bypass Congress and implement the DREAM ACT by executive fiat.
        1st President to threaten a private Auto Company (Ford) after it publically made light of bailouts to GM and Chrysler.
        1st President to threaten insurance companies after they publically complained that the President’s health care legislation was why the had to increase rates.
        1st President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.
        1st President to require private companies to disclose their political contribution records before being able to bid on government contracts
        1st President to golf over 90 times in his first four years.
        1st President to have 22 personal assistants/servants for the 1st lady.
        1st Presidnet to have a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000/year at taxpayer expense.
        1st president to defy a Federal Court order to cease implementing his “Health Care Reform” law.
        1st President to tell a private manufacturing company which state it could or could not locate a factory in.
        1st President to refuse to comply with a Congressional Oversight Committee supoena.
        1st President to withdraw an existing coal permit to a private company that had been properly applied for and granted years earlier.
        1st President to take over a US Auto Company and determine who its executives would be.
        1st President to aborgate US Bankruptcy law so he could turn the company over to his Union supporters.
        1st President to issue an Executive Order making his educational, travel, and health history a national security secret.
        1st President to fire an inspector General of Ameri-corps for catching a friend of the president in a corruption case.

        Yep…this is the list of “1st”s this President, Barack Hussein Obama, has accomplish3ed in his first four years.


      • Robin Naismith Green May 8, 2012 / 10:46 am

        1st President to halt deportation of illegal aliens in order to issue them temporary work permits.
        That one’s a lie.

        You need to check out the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Pub.L. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359, enacted November 6, 1986.

      • Amazona May 8, 2012 / 11:16 am

        You say lie.

        I say mistake.

        But then I am not the “crime and PUNISHMENT” reporter for a paper located in Hell, so I am not exclusively focused on the nastiest way to phrase anything.

        Thanks for checking in, Robin. Got any more snot to distribute?

      • Count d'Haricots May 8, 2012 / 1:05 pm

        See: Bracero Program under FDR.

      • neocon1 May 8, 2012 / 3:41 pm

        Holy SHIITE……
        GMB…DO NOT LOOK!!!!!

        Hillary Clinton: Don‘t hate me because I’m beautiful

        we dont, we hate you because are a commnist and married to a communist pig.

      • neocon1 May 8, 2012 / 3:58 pm

        WOW !!!!!

        A Loooong hot summer in store for us by the communist party USA …AKA democRATS, Uboma, and the left in general

        LOCK N LOAD…………..

        White House Adviser Defends Class Warfare by Citing Karl Marx

        “I am not picking sides in this war…but I believe such a war is justifiable, and indeed ultimately inevitable.”


        Bill Ayers Calls on Students to ‘Act’ and Join Him in ‘Driving Out NATO’ From Chicago

        “It’s not enough to simply have good ideas and then sit on your couch smoking a joint”


        ‘You’re Not Gonna Be Allowed Back In’: Journalist Booted from Van Jones Event For Asking Tough Questions

        “I might have something to say, and maybe that’s why our opponents were so interested in shutting me up.”


        Cher Goes on Twitter Rant Against Romney & His ‘Racist Homophobic Women-Hating Tea-Bagger Masters’

        “TOO HARSH? Thats me Holding BACK!”


        Piven Uses Class Lecture to Lay Out Strategy to Illegally Occupy Foreclosed Homes, Default on Student Debt

        “In the occupation of homes, we have to figure out how to provide services, how to reconnect utilities often.”


        Egyptian Cleric Claims Muslim Brotherhood Presidential Candidate Will Make Jerusalem ‘The Capital of the Caliphate’

        “Our cry shall be: ‘millions of martyrs march toward Jerusalem.'”


        Charles Barkley Gets Political Again During NBA Broadcast: We‘re Going to Beat Romney ’Like a Drum’

        “you’re going down, bro”

        Pssssttttttt charley….mitt is NOT the “bro”


      • Amazona May 9, 2012 / 10:49 am

        Cher—-didn’t Ms Plastic-Face promise us—PROMISE us—that she would move out of the US if Bush was elected?

        Didn’t she hold out the lovely promise of a place far from this country where she and Alex Baldwin and Sean Penn, et al, would live in Constitution-free bliss?

        Sorry, Cher, Aspen doesn’t quite count. It may be removed from reality, but not from the United States.

      • Amazona May 9, 2012 / 7:38 pm

        The problem may solve itself—if Cher can’t breathe the same air as Mitt, even through that schnozz of hers (can anyone say “deviated septum”?) then she may just expire on her own and save us from more of her tirades.

        I notice that she disappeared during the Obama reign, coming out only on Twitter to hurl her mental excrement against yet another (!!!!) CONSERVATIVE!

      • Cluster May 10, 2012 / 8:57 am

        But Cher did sing Elizabeth Warren’s theme song – Half Breed. So that counts for something, right?

        Seriously is Cher even relevant anymore?

      • Count d'Haricots May 10, 2012 / 11:15 am

        1/32 Breed was a hit?

      • J. R. Babcock May 10, 2012 / 1:14 pm

        Yeah, pay attention, Cluster. Half Breed was Obama’s song.

      • GMB May 8, 2012 / 9:56 pm

        LOL there Neo. Too late. Saw it somewhere else . not as bad as the code pinko fatty but still bad. 😛

      • GMB May 9, 2012 / 10:47 am

        40% of West Virginia donks vote for a guy sitting in a federal prison in thier presidential primary. Thomas claims to be in Texas, or is it North Carolina nowdays? Where they just defined marriage in thier constitution as between one man and one woman.

        Either way Thomas looses again. I didn’t even have to lift a finger.

        Bite it Thomas. 🙂

      • Count d'Haricots May 8, 2012 / 7:18 pm

        Should read, “1st President to halt deportation of illegal aliens in order to issue them voter registration forms.”

        There, fixed it.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 1:27 pm

        Paying off debt would free up disposable income for quite a few tens of millions of American adults. Then they would go out and spend money on things they need. Home improvement, cars, clothing and on and on. Those shelves would have to be restocked and services provided which means more hiring and that is the recipe for renewal Keynesian style.

      • Cluster May 7, 2012 / 2:31 pm

        Paying off debt would free up disposable income – freddy

        Paying off debt would free up discretionary income, not disposable. And considering the current economic climate, a lot of that freed up discretionary income would go into savings, I know it would for me.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 2:45 pm

        That would place you in the minority among Americans Cluster.

      • tiredoflibbs May 7, 2012 / 6:33 pm

        Geez, freddie, majority of the funds for government spending were on the war effort. PLUS it was financed by WAR BONDS. It was not the magical government spending. IF it was just good old fashioned government spending, then the Depression would have ended sooner.

        Too bad, Morganthau, Treasury Secretary, has debunked your proggy dumbed down talking point. Regardless of all the evidence presented, you drones will continue to spew the same lies.

      • dbschmidt May 7, 2012 / 10:13 pm

        Read about the real “Great Depression” of 1920-1921 in which the government did not intervene at all.By all accounts this depression exceeded the “Great Depression” of 1929 by all measures but was quickly ended as the free markets quickly adjusted and lead to the Roaring 20’s

      • Retired Spook May 7, 2012 / 11:50 am

        See the New Deal.

        Now THAT’S funny, Fred. You mean the New Deal that prolonged the Depression so long after the rest of the world recovered, that only ours was called “The GREAT Depression? That New Deal? Or are you referring to the New Deal where, FDR’s own Treasury Secretary said, eight years into the Depression:

        The Great Depression and its rampant unemployment were of primary focus for Morgenthau. And after almost two terms served by Roosevelt, Morgenthau, assessed the federal effort to relieve economic conditions by proclaiming, “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. […] After eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started […] and an enormous debt to boot!”[4] Indeed, the unemployment rate for 1939 was higher than the unemployment rate for 1931

        You mean THAT NEW DEAL?

        ROTFLMAO, Fred. Please resume your place in the corner.

      • tiredoflibbs May 7, 2012 / 12:45 pm

        Spook, I and others have cited Morganthau’s quote to these mindless forkers and ALL of them have simply dismissed it simply stating, “Morganthau was wrong”. No backup evidence what-so-ever, other than the Depression ended.

        And the bubblehead computer says the forker is NOT an echo chamber

      • Amazona May 7, 2012 / 3:50 pm

        WEll, “Carl” Pryor, otherwise known here as “Carlton Pryor” otherwise known as “Lead Economist” has only one professional identity, that of astrophysicist Carlton Pryor of Rutgers University. While he seems familiar with various star systems, none of his writings mention the discovery of a hive intellect in Alpha Centauri, or of economics. I don’t think this guy wastes any time on infantile role-playing.

        The only reference to anyone using that name in connection with a claim of economic expertise is —surprise, surprise—yet another in the fantasy role-playing Collective of interstellar bits of data, currently residing in Hell, though his self-description does not mention whether or not he is dead, was dead, or is hovering somewhere in between.

        “Gender Male
        Industry Banking
        Occupation Economist
        Location Dis, Hell
        Introduction I am the lead economist for TED-OG the government economic consulting arm of the Universitje Di Dis responsible for all Hellac economic data.”

        Ah, yes, stellar credentials (sarcastic pun intended) indeed and quite compelling as an economic theorist.

        For Hellac economic data, anyway, or we can surmise.

        For Earthbound reality, not so much.

      • neocon1 May 6, 2012 / 6:49 pm

        well freddy if you call packing your bags and going home letting the country we were helping fend for them selves is losing the war only in your deluded head.
        I dont recall Khe Sanh and Hue working out to well for the NVA
        26,000 killed in two battles is winning??

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 6, 2012 / 6:53 pm

        You’re overlooking the mad dash out of Saigon in April 1975 brother. I don’t recall any victory parades in manhattan in 1976.

      • neocon1 May 6, 2012 / 6:52 pm


        13 th century rules?
        Im not a muslim. but when your beloved islam makes it’s mark here you will be the recipient of their love….count on that.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 6, 2012 / 6:56 pm

        I’m a Jew I got no more love for Islam than I do for catholicism.

      • Cluster May 6, 2012 / 6:53 pm

        Freddy, you have gone from being irrationally juvenile to making no sense whatsoever.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 6, 2012 / 6:55 pm

        You could simply just say that you’re out of anything other than ad hominem. I get it. You people don’t deal in facts or grasp abstract ideas because it’s against your ideology to do so. Amazona can’t fill out a deposit slip without writing a 650 word letter to the teller about fiscal responsibility.

      • dbschmidt May 6, 2012 / 11:03 pm

        Soon to be Ex-Governor Beverley Perdue, who rode Obama’s coattails into the position, is not running for reelection because she has seen the cards. Her numbers are lower than Obama’s and that takes some real “work.”

        Locally, the House & Senate are Republican for the first time in, IIRC, 140 years and NC is soon to elect the next Republican Governor. Now, it is time for us to work to elect real fiscal conservatives and constitutionalists an finally rid the political spectrum of Liberals, Progressives, and their ilk.

        I have a feeling that after this election that their will be enough Republicans (some of who are actually Conservative) that another Constitutional Convention would not be out of reach.

      • Amazona May 7, 2012 / 1:53 pm

        “LMAO a Tea party leader? Reagan? The guy who didn’t go to church 50% time while he was in office? The guy that was divorced?”

        And once again, freddy explains his total and abject ignorance of politics. Yes, folks, to the freddies of the world (and thankfully there are few) “conservative” means having one wife and going to church a lot.

        It has nothing at all to do with ideology. It is not even remotely connected with a belief in the need to follow the Constitution of the United States of America. It can’t possibly be related to an objective intellect-based belief in small central government, government power and authority concentrated at the state and local levels, and a free market economic system.

        Nah. Jes’ ask freddy. Nope, it’s all about the most superficial fluff you can imagine. It’s really about personality, and scandal (real or invented, usually invented) and the underlying foundation of all of these, emotion, and pretty much anything but actual political philosophy.

        At least that’s what it is for the Pseudo Left like freddy, and he and his kind simply cannot imagine any other approach to political decisions. The very concept of choosing a candidate based on his or her allegiance to a proven political system is just so alien to people who depend on swooning, weeping, and tingles running up legs.

    • neocon1 May 6, 2012 / 7:06 pm


      funny though freddy , catholicism.is derived from a Jew and incorporates the OT for historical purpose of God.
      They are huge supporters of the Jews both here and in Israel.
      The other one hates you and wants to wipe you off the face of the earth including the usurper Ubomba

  7. Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 6, 2012 / 5:42 pm

    The Ulsterman Report??? Really???

    • neocon1 May 6, 2012 / 5:46 pm

      hells leading news paper REALLY? REALLY?
      and demons……..Pfffffttttttttt

      • neocon1 May 6, 2012 / 6:00 pm

        Ryan Zinke, a former Commander in the US Navy who spent 23 years as a SEAL and led a SEAL Team 6 assault unit, said: ‘The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call. ‘I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice – it was a broader team effort.’

        MR Obama was exploiting bin Laden’s death for his re-election bid. ‘The President and his administration are positioning him as a war president using the SEALs as ammunition. It was predictable.’


        A serving SEAL Team member said: ‘Obama wasn’t in the field, at risk, carrying a gun. As president, at every turn he should be thanking the guys who put their lives on the line to do this. He does so in his official speeches because he speechwriters are smart. ’But the more he tries to take the credit for it, the more the ground operators are saying, “Come on, man!” It really didn’t matter who was president. At the end of the day, they were going to go.’

      • neocon1 May 6, 2012 / 6:20 pm



  8. Cluster May 6, 2012 / 6:23 pm

    Stool, you are as much of a liberal as Freddy is, so this is the perfect opportunity to ask both of you – the democrats have been waging war on poverty for nearly 50 years and today, we have more people in poverty than ever before. We have more people on food stamps than ever before and we have more people on welfare than ever before. Secondly, Obama has been demonizing corporations for 3 years now and today, the labor participation rate is the lowest point it’s ever been at – so please tell me how a continuation of these policies will reverse the trend?

    • neocon1 May 6, 2012 / 6:35 pm


      • neocon1 May 6, 2012 / 7:00 pm

        just out…….

    • bardolf May 7, 2012 / 4:47 pm


      The labor participation rate is not the lowest it has ever been. When you throw up 10 lies and 2 truths is it my job to find all 10 or is finding 1 lie enough?

      Waging war on poverty means nothing. I would say a smaller portion of the population goes to bed hungry than 50 years ago. One the main beneficiaries of the food stamp programs are grocers and farmers. They also benefit from free lunch programs.

      Of course NCLB was a Bush program designed specifically to combat poverty. I don’t see Romney backing away from such programs.

      Obama is a corporate stooge. Look at today’s Fortune 500 and notice the oil companies made record profits along with Fannie Mae etc. This is just social corporate welfare. Obama barely said a word to either the Tea Party or OWS movement. That is because both question the handouts to too big to fail companies. You are blind.

      • Retired Spook May 7, 2012 / 7:22 pm

        Obama is a corporate stooge. Look at today’s Fortune 500 and notice the oil companies made record profits along with Fannie Mae etc.

        Fannie May Made record profits? I don’t think so.

        “When you throw up 10 lies and 2 truths is it my job to find all 10 or is finding 1 lie enough?”

  9. GMB May 6, 2012 / 9:02 pm

    “It’s a bizarre, but that’s what you get in a paranoid Clusterfilled world where Obama is a socialist. BTW, if you want to see a socialist, France just elected one.”

    Todays modern American “socialist” as Bardolf would put it, are just a teensie bit away from becoming full blown fascist. Scratch a fascist and you smell a communist and vice versa.

    But hey, it’s not like the communist or fascist ever murdered anyone so it would make implementing thier utopia easier?

    I personally just can’t wait until the United States has a “Dear Leader” like north korea or china.

    Oh wait, we do.

    • bardolf May 7, 2012 / 4:50 pm

      How many deaths in the Iraq War vs. how much freedom extended?

      There are no socialists anywhere near power in the U.S. government.

      • dbschmidt May 7, 2012 / 10:02 pm

        I guess that is why they hung a Mao ornament on the Kwanzaa ummm, Christmas ummm Winter Holiday tree.

  10. irisspirit May 7, 2012 / 9:56 am

    I know you Tea Party members and ultra far righties here love to put down President Obama in every way possible, even with your made up fiction. Fox News is not a credible source on anything that has anything to do with this president. They hate him. That is all there is to it and will make up lies for their faithful followers to discredit anything President Obama does. We shall see if it will work when the election takes place in November. It might – but I hope the American public is smarter than to take Fox News at face value. By the way, why no discussion on Rupert Murdoch and the problems he is facing in Europe and quite possible here in the US in the very near future? Not newsworthy?
    Mitt has a few problems of his own he will need to deal with and explain to potential voters.


    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 10:58 am

      irisspirit, the folks here only take anything from the Continent that pushes along their Obama is a Socialist or Birther agendas. I note no one yet has mentioned how well the Right did in Greece and how poorly they fared in France.

      • Retired Spook May 7, 2012 / 11:09 am

        I note no one yet has mentioned how well the Right did in Greece

        Say what?

        Sunday’s big winner was the anti-bailout Radical Left Coalition, or Syriza, whose unprecedented second place with 16.76 percent gives it 52 seats.

        Please just go stand in the corner, Fred. You are too f’ing stupid to participate in an adult conversation.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 11:25 am

        For clarity it was the center right party in Greece that got the greatest number of seats in the greek parliament.From the Huffington Post:

        “Official results showed conservative New Democracy came first with 18.85 percent and 108 of Parliament’s 300 seats. Samaras, who backs Greece’s bailout commitments for austerity but has called for some changes to the bailout plan, will launch coalition-forming talks later in the day.”

      • Retired Spook May 7, 2012 / 12:11 pm

        For clarity it was the center right party in Greece that got the greatest number of seats in the greek parliament

        For further “clarity”, Fred, your original comment was about how well the “conservative” New Democracy Party had done in the Greek election.

        With about 99% of votes counted, centre-right New Democracy (ND) is leading with 18.9%, down from 33.5% in 2009.

        I guess only in the weird, alternate reality world of the Pitchfork is a drop of nearly 45% seen as “doing well”.

        And no one said you could leave the corner, Fred.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] May 7, 2012 / 12:19 pm

        The conservatives do get to form the coalition because they won.

      • Amazona May 7, 2012 / 2:00 pm

        Spook, freddy is just strutting his political ignorance again.

        Yes, AGAIN.

        Whatever “conservative” may mean in France, or Greece, or even in his native star system, it has no real relevance to the meaning of “conservative” in 21st Century American politics.

        These PL mouthpieces for a system they can’t be bothered to study and understand love to slap the word “conservative” on anything they can, but all they do when they do this is prove how ignorant and clueless they are.

        Does a Greek “conservative” believe the United States should be a nation governed by its own Constitution, that it should be a nation with a federal government severely restricted as to size and scope, and with an economic system based on free market principles?


        Then whatever it DOES mean in Greece is relevant to Greece, and not to us. People who believe that GREECE should have a small central government and fiscal responsibility may be called whatever you want to call them, even “conservative” but that has nothing to do with the political system American conservatives are promoting for the governance of the United States.

        But thanks for playing, freddy.

    • Cluster May 7, 2012 / 11:48 am

      Fox News is not a credible source on anything that has anything to do with this president. They hate him. That is all there is to it and will make up lies for their faithful followers to discredit anything President Obama does. – irisspirit

      Thank you for the comment from the 5th grade. Always refreshing.

    • Retired Spook May 7, 2012 / 12:02 pm

      Velma, go join Fred in the corner.

  11. Cluster May 7, 2012 / 12:57 pm

    Oh my……

    Poll: Romney Opens 10-Point Lead Among Key Independent Voters

    Read more on Newsmax.com: Poll: Romney Opens 10-Point Lead Among Key Independent Voters

  12. GMB May 7, 2012 / 1:25 pm

    Don’t mind me folks, just checking to see where this post ends up. 😛

  13. GMB May 7, 2012 / 4:23 pm

    Yearly trillion dollar deficits, the DOJ is killing Mexicans via fast and gurious not to mention our own border patrol agents. We have an out of control TSA violating everyones dignity. Are you really all that worried because barky is taking too much credit for killing obl?

  14. Jeremiah May 8, 2012 / 9:34 pm

    Maybe Obama waited to take out obl about the same time as the birth ceritificate, so that obl would detract from the bc issue. At least that’s my thinking.

  15. Cluster May 9, 2012 / 10:12 am

    Any chance we can get a new thread? Even an open one?

  16. Amazona May 10, 2012 / 2:31 pm

    freddy claims that the problem with Marxism/Leninism is just, well, it “grew” too darned fast. Yep, the problem is that the bureaucracy got “too big”, “..too large a bureaucracy from the start and then here comes WWII. ”

    Evidently fighting in a world war inhibited the greatness that would have been Marxism/Leninism, once they got that too-big bureaucracy thing resolved.

    Of course, the heart and actual definition of Marxism and Leninism (and Castroism and Maoism, etc.) IS bureaucracy. Can’t hardly have an all-controlling Central Committee without it, can you?

    So freddy is acknowledging that the problem with Marxism/Leninism is the basic inherent structure of Marxism/Leninism. Which is true—that and its inherent opposition to human nature and the unquenchable thirst for liberty that have been at odds with this system, in all its incarnations.

    Oh, and the economic fallacies that are part and parcel of it.

    “But of course America is more free than the Soviet Union ever was ….”

    Thanks for that grudging admission, freddy.

    ‘…..but that’s not to say there wouldn’t be a regression if Conservatives gained full power over the federal governments two elected branches.”

    And there, as if by magic, freddy wipes out any credit he might have gotten from his admission about the relative freedoms of the US and the USSR.

    And here we come back to that pesky word IDEOLOGY again.

    The IDEOLOGY of the Left centers on a massive and all-powerful bureaucracy. The IDEOLOGY of the Right, in 21st Century America, centers on a small federal bureaucracy, severely limited as to size, power and scope.

    This is why, you see, the two are opposites.

    So poor befuddled freddy says the real problems with radial Leftism when implemented in the early part of the last century were too-rapid expansion of its bureaucracy and then that damned war. Yes, I know, without a bloated bureaucracy there can BE no Leftist system and Leftists started the war but freddy doesn’t pay attention to inconvenient facts.

    And then, ignoring the Rule of Holes, he digs faster and deeper by explaining to us, you see, that if the Right—-a system based on a belief in a small and severely restricted bureaucracy—gains control it will then result in the same lack of freedom created by the massive bureaucracy of the Left.

    Don’t bother trying to make sense of this, because it can’t be done.

    And don’t ever get in freddy’s cab—–clearly all he can do is go in circles, turning, as we can see, always to the left.

  17. theshadowiswatching May 11, 2012 / 4:58 pm

    Moderator note: We have seen courteous and thoughtful responses here and have decided to be more discerning about leaving posts which are primarily attacks or insults. Some expression of dislike is acceptable but gratuitous insults and attacks will be deleted and it is possible that posters will be deleted automatically if they continue to post in attack and insult modes instead of offering content. Speculation about the identity of moderators is futile. //Moderator

Comments are closed.