Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (148816)	11/12/2012 10:37:48 AM
From: longnshort	7 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224864

British newspaper calls Obama “ineffectual, invisible, the weakest president in history”by EDITOR on MARCH 23, 2011 Pip, pip, cheerio, chaps. Blimey, guv-nah! (Sorry, but that’s the best we can do at faking that language they speak in the United Kingdom). The Express UK says what American newspapers are so hesitant to say, in an article entitled, “BARACK OBAMA: THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?”: When the Brits said, "It's tea time," President Obama said, "Let's play 18." INEFFECTUAL, invisible, unable to honour pledges and now blamed for letting Gaddafi off the hook. Why Obama’s gone from ‘Yes we can’ to ‘Er, maybe we shouldn’t’ Let us cast our minds back to those remarkable days in November 2008 when the son of a Kenyan goatherd was elected to the White House. It was a bright new dawn – even brighter than the coming of the Kennedys and their new Camelot. JFK may be considered as being from an ethnic and religious minority – Irish and Catholic – but he was still very rich and very white. Barack Obama, by contrast, was a true breakthrough president. The world would change because obviously America had changed.?? Obama’s campaign slogan was mesmerisingly simple and brimming with self-belief: “Yes we can.” His presidency, however, is turning out to be more about “no we won’t.” Even more worryingly, it seems to be very much about: “Maybe we can… do what, exactly?“ The world feels like a dangerous place when leaders are seen to lack certitude but the only thing President Obama seems decisive about is his indecision. What should the US do about Libya? What should the US do about the Middle East in general? What about the country’s crippling debts? What is the US going to do about Afghanistan, about Iran??? What is President Obama doing about anything? The most alarming answer – your guess is as good as mine – is also, frankly, the most accurate one. What the President is not doing is being clear, resolute and pro-active, which is surely a big part of his job description. Amazing, isn’t it, that people who have English as a second language would be able to state the situation so clearly. Source: Express UK

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (148816)	11/12/2012 10:49:35 AM
From: tonto	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224864

Kenneth...you are not being honest again...do the math. That made as much sense as when Obama claimed he would cut the deficit by 50% during his first campaign. It was immediately clear his numbers did not add up either but it did not matter to the ignorant partisan voters.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (148816)	11/12/2012 11:18:23 AM
From: longnshort	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224864

Did Petraeus mistress reveal secret CIA prison? Paula Broadwell may have divulged new information on Benghazi scandalPosted on November 11, 2012 at 11:49 AM EST By Aaron Klein TEL AVIV — Did Paula Broadwell, the alleged mistress of ex-CIA Director David Petraeus, reveal a secret CIA detention center in Benghazi during a public speech she gave last month? Broadwell, a former counterterror operative, co-authored a bestselling biography of Petraeus. She discussed the book during a keynote speech on Oct. 26 at a University of Denver alumni symposium. The speech is available in full on YouTube. During a question and answer session, Broadwell was asked about the September 11 attacks against the U.S. mission in Benghazi. She stated: “Now I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually had taken a couple of Libya militia members prisoner. And they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted.” The existence of a U.S. prison or CIA detention center in Benghazi would be a new development in the debate surrounding the attacks there. The information does not appear to be publicly known. An extensive KleinOnline search of news media coverage of the Benghazi attacks could find no mention of prisoners being held at the CIA annex. Today, a CIA spokesperson denied Broadwell’s claim of a prison at the Libyan annex. The spokesperson told The Daily Beast that “[t]he CIA has not had detention authority since January 2009, when Executive Order 13491 was issued. Any suggestion that the Agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless.” On Saturday, The New York Times reported that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor spoke to an FBI whistle-blower two weeks ago who accused Petraeus of not only having an extramarital affair but potentially jeopardizing the security of classified information. During the same university speech, Braodwell may have also divulged information that Petraeus knew “within 24 hours” of CIA annex’s request for reinforcements, reported Israel National News. “The challenging thing for Gen. Petraeus,”she stated, “is that in his new position, he’s not allowed to communicate with the press. So he’s known all of this – they had correspondence with the CIA station chief in Libya, within 24 hours they kind of knew what was happening.” Earlier she had said the military could have sent reinforcements. “They were requesting the – it’s called the C-in-C’s In Extremis Force – a group of Delta Force operators, our very, most talented guys we have in the military. They could have come and reinforced the consulate and the CIA annex.”