SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (788790)6/9/2014 5:20:34 PM
From: TideGlider3 Recommendations

Recommended By
Brumar89
jlallen
one_less

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1575887
 
Only a racists thinks in the terms you express.



To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (788790)6/9/2014 8:27:06 PM
From: Brumar892 Recommendations

Recommended By
FJB
miraje

  Respond to of 1575887
 
It's a clown bow tie and an exploding cigar. Cause things keep blowing up in his face. Like the Bergdahl press conference.



To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (788790)6/9/2014 8:27:17 PM
From: Brumar892 Recommendations

Recommended By
FJB
miraje

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575887
 









To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (788790)6/9/2014 8:40:24 PM
From: Brumar892 Recommendations

Recommended By
FJB
tonto

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1575887
 
'I've Had Enough': When Democrats Quit on Obama Bergdahl swap is latest last straw for top Democrats frustrated with president's leadership.

The email hit my in-box at 9:41 p.m. last Wednesday. From one of the most powerful Democrats in Washington, a close adviser to the White House, the missive amounted to an electronic eye roll. "Even I have had enough."

Another Democrat had quit on President Obama.

The tipping point for this person was the Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl case—not the soldier-for-Taliban swap itself as much as how the White House mishandled its obligation to communicate effectively and honestly to Congress and the public. More than that, Obama's team had failed once again to acknowledge its mistakes, preferring to cast blame and seek cover behind talking points.

"DC is hard, and depressing," the Democrat wrote. "I still believe good comes from government (e.g. 8 million in ACA). But that Politico story is a cautionary one: good reminder that you can't go so in the bunker [and] no longer identify legitimate criticism." That day, Politico had posted a story channeling the White House communications team's response to the Bergdahl backlash.

White House aides were aware Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl had been tagged a deserter, and that they would be grilled over not keeping Congress in the loop. But they figured people would be most outraged over the national security implications.

The White House has been surprised by how much attention has remained on the questions about Bergdahl, from the circumstances of his disappearance to the wild beard his father grew while he was being held that's even led to Bergdahl's hometown canceling a celebration. All this, Obama aides say, is in their minds a proxy for the hatred toward the president.

The new approach: Frame the criticism as another example of Republicans complaining about something just because Obama was the one to do it.

To this senior Democrat, the Politico story showed the White House to be both tone-deaf and arrogant, two vices that are undermining what could have been a great presidency.

I share this email to make the broader point and to offer a disclosure: In the 18 months since I began writing columns focused on the presidency, virtually every post critical of Obama has originated from conversations with Democrats. Members of Congress, consultants, pollsters, lobbyists, and executives at think tanks, these Democrats are my Obama-whispers. They respect and admire Obama but believe that his presidency has been damaged by his shortcomings as a leader; his inattention to details of governing; his disengagement from the political process and from the public; his unwillingness to learn on the job; and his failure to surround himself with top-shelf advisers who are willing to challenge their boss as well as their own preconceived notions.

"Dem Party is F****d," wrote a Democratic consultant with strong ties to the White House and Capitol Hill during the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act website.

A Democratic House member whose endorsement in 2008 helped lift the Obama candidacy told me in January, "He's bored and tired of being president, and our party is paying the price."

"Talented guy but no leader," said a Democratic lobbyist and former member of Congress in March. "If he could govern half as well as he campaigns, he'd be a good-to-great president."

Questioning why the Veterans Affairs Department hadn't been overhauled months ago as promised by Obama, a senior White House official conceded privately to me, "We don't do the small stuff well. And the small stuff is the important stuff."

The level of disquiet among Democrats reminds me of President George W. Bush's second term, when my best sources were frustrated Republicans. (Interviewing Republicans today is like interviewing Democrats in 2006: predictably partisan, rarely insightful.)

Few frustrated Democrats are willing to complain openly. I grant them anonymity, which creates a problem: Readers, for good reason, don't trust anonymous quotes. One way to avoid deluging readers with unnamed Democrats is for me to digest their complaints along with other reporting to shape my columns and tweets. Like this one:

Ron Fournier ? @ron_fournier Follow
WH say communications team was surprised by
#Bergdahl backlash. Really? How is that possible? POTUS needs a new communications staff.

Or this tweet after Democrats and Republicans in Congress questioned the Bergdahl affair, and Obama pushed back by saying: "I'm never surprised by controversies that are whipped up in Washington, right?"

Ron Fournier ? @ron_fournier Follow
"Controversies whipped up in Washington" = "Controversies I began or fueled and refuse to shoulder any blame for, or to learn from"
#Obama

I got that one from an Obama family friend. The same mistakes get made again and again, provoking a familiar chorus of friendly fire, which leads me to conclude that either Democrats aren't being honest with the president, or he isn't listening. Either way, when those closest to him are quitting on him, it's hard to maintain the audacity to hope that Obama will change.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/i-ve-had-enough-when-democrats-quit-on-obama-20140609



To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (788790)6/9/2014 8:41:07 PM
From: Brumar892 Recommendations

Recommended By
FJB
jlallen

  Respond to of 1575887
 
A Clueless President That Wears His Incompetence With Pride


72 Comments Mon, Jun 09 2014 00:00:00 E A19_ISSUES

By ANDREW MALCOLM, Investor's Business Daily

President Obama was completely surprised by the IRS scandal. Dumbfounded, in fact, that government workers would help his 2012 re-election campaign.

And the NSA scandal. Who could possibly anticipate citizen outrage over government monitoring all their communications?

Obama was clueless about the ObamaCare debacle, even days after its botched rollout dominated national news. Months after staff warnings of fundamental tech troubles within his namesake legislation.

And Obama only learned of the recent VA corruption scandal, fraud and tardy treatment for vets from the media, which had chronicled his original outrage over unconscionable delays fully six years ago. Delays he vowed then to fix should he become king president.

But, according to Obama, he was not stunned or surprised at all, not even mildly shocked by the nationwide, bipartisan outrage over his illegal swapping of the Taliban's Terrorism Board of Directors for an American who not only volunteered for the U.S. Army, but then volunteered to walk over to the enemy busy killing his comrades.

And to see that man and his eccentric parents hailed in a special Saturday Rose Garden photo-op celebrating his release with an heroic tone. True, this prisoner-bargain controversy buried the VA scandal for the moment. But it's also hijacked coverage of the president's weeklong attempted reset of security policy in Europe.

"I'm never surprised by controversies that are whipped up in Washington," the president claimed in a Thursday news conference.

What planet has he been on? Does Obama ever talk with his staff, who didn't tell him about the IRS, ObamaCare and the VA?

They've been quoted all week saying (anonymously) they were caught flat-footed by the political wildfire ignited by the deal to release five of the world's worst bad guys in or out of prison. "Blindsided" was their preferred word.

"Sire," a minister once told the French monarch. "The peasants are revolting."

"I know," said that country's last king, "They never bathe."

Then, conveniently misunderstanding the target of widespread criticism, Obama added: "I make absolutely no apologies for making sure we get back a young man to his parents." What a thoughtful politician! Always thinking of others.

OK. Well, how about making sure that five top-ranking terrorists — two of them wanted elsewhere for crimes against humanity — don't get back with their IED-making, girls-school machine-gunning colleagues? No regrets there either, the Democrat professes, because he'll be "keeping eyes on them."

This from the man whose administration can't lay eyes on the Benghazi murderers 633 days after the president vowed swift justice for them and months after raid leaders were interviewed by U.S. media outlets.

According to Obama and his apologists, speed was suddenly of the essence in this bargain because the American might be in poor health and — who knows? — the Taliban might kill him.

Which — let's be honest for a change, sir — they could have done during any one of the 2,592,000 minutes they held him. But they didn't — did they? — because they knew he was worth more alive.

So, big Obama hurry after five years of nothing. Come to think of it, that's about the same time-frame Obama's held the Keystone XL pipeline as prisoner.

The U.S. commander-in-chief acts like he had no leverage on these Taliban guys, who kept returning to the table for years. What might that suggest to even the dimmest of used-car salesmen?

Vladimir Putin, Bashar Assad, Nouri al-Maliki, Kim Jong-un, Hamid Karzai and Iran's mullahs have been playing Obama like this for years.

The alleged need for speed is also Obama's excuse for violating the law he signed last December requiring 30 days' notice to Congress before moving any Guantanamo prisoner. Susan Rice's credibility is even lower than Obama's job approval. But she says the prisoner deal was essentially done May 27 and finalized the next day.

So, that's only three days to get a call through the 16 blocks to Capitol Hill.

"The White House," Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein observed with a collegial shrug, "is pretty unilateral about what they want to do when they want to do it."

Obama claims that years ago his people told Congress he might do a prisoner deal. But then, years ago he also promised the Recovery Summer of 2010.

Obama is so smart he doesn't want to waste time talking with mere Americans, as opposed to at us. So, we're left to mine news conference blather to detect his thinking.

Of course, Obama won't be the one to feel the blast of his mistakes. But in Warsaw, the president made a stunning public admission about the released Taliban for someone in charge of United States national security: "Is there a possibility of some of them trying to return to activities that are detrimental to us?" Obama asked himself out loud. "Absolutely!"

Obama said the possibility of freed terrorists returning to battle has been true of all the prisoners he's released from Guantanamo. And many have.

You almost have to admire someone with the nerve to cite his own failures as evidence he has the courage to repeat them.

Almost.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/060614-703778-andrew-malcolm-a-surprised-president-is-last-to-discover-his-own-incompetence.htm#ixzz34BSXMveK
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook



To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (788790)6/9/2014 8:43:37 PM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Respond to of 1575887
 
Fictions as Truth
June 8th, 2014 -



For the Obama administration narrative to be accurate about the swap of five Taliban/al-Qaeda-related kingpins for Sgt. Bergdahl, we are asked to believe the following:

1. Sgt. Bergdahl was in ill health; thus the need for alacrity. Surely we will expect to see him in an enfeebled state on his return to the U.S.

2. Sgt. Bergdahl was in grave and sudden danger from his captors; thus the need for alacrity. We expect to see proof of that on his return to the U.S.

3. The five Taliban detainees will be under guard in Qatar for a year. We expect in June 2015 to know that they are still there in Qatar.

4. The five Taliban detainees don’t really pose a grave threat to U.S. troops, given that we will be gone from Afghanistan in 2016. We expect not to hear that any of the five are reengaged in the war effort to kill Americans between 2015-16.

5. Sgt. Bergdahl served with “honor and distinction.” We expect to have confirmation of that fact once his intelligence file is released and more evidence is adduced that all of his platoon-mates were wrong (or perhaps vindictive and partisan) in stating that he voluntarily left their unit — deserted — to meet up with the Taliban.

6. Sgt. Bergdahl was captured on the “field of battle”; we expect to have confirmation that he was taken unwillingly by the enemy amid a clash of arms.

7. Sgt. Bergdahl was not a collaborator. We expect to learn confirmation of the fact that he did not disclose information to his captors.

8. Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers in his platoon are either partisan operatives or sorely misinformed, and we will shortly learn that their accounts of Bergdahl’s disappearance were erroneous.

9. The U.S. has traditionally negotiated to bring home even deserters, and did so frequently, for example, both during and after the Korean War when GIs crossed into North Korea.

10. The timing of the swap amid the VA scandal and the press conference with the Bergdahl family were not predicated on political considerations.

11. There is no law stopping the president from releasing terrorists from Guantanamo, only legal fictions promulgated by right-wing critics of the president.

12. The five Taliban terrorists are now old outliers, rusty, and mostly irrelevant to the war in Afghanistan.

For Benghazi, the Obama administration would have us believe:

1. A spontaneous demonstration erupted over a right-wing hate video of Mr. Nakoula, who was deservedly condemned for causing the deaths of four Americans by the Obama administration. His subsequent jailing was solely due to a parole violation.

2. The United States consulate in Benghazi was adequately secured before the attack and had expressed no prior serious warning about inadequate defenses.

3. There was no reasonable chance that U.S. military forces could have come to the aid of those killed in Benghazi.

4. President Obama was engaged in overseeing responses during the night of the attack.

5. Susan Rice simply relayed reasonable intelligence reports at the time that confirmed the violence was spontaneous and arose over a video. The president and Secretary Clinton seconded her assessment and have no reason to alter their judgment.

6. Intelligence operatives, not White House personnel, are largely responsible for any inconsistencies about the origins of the attack. There were no administration efforts to alter intelligence synopses.

7. CIA operatives in Benghazi were engaged in transparent and routine efforts to secure the Khadafy arsenal.

8. The Benghazi deaths were not connected to the general chaos in Libya that followed the lead-from-behind intervention to remove Khadafy.

9. Nearly two years after Benghazi, what difference does it make now?

For the IRS scandal, the Obama administration would have us believe:

1. Some low-level bureaucrats may have proved over-zealous in targeting some non-profit groups.

2. There was no real pattern in the political affiliations of those who were inordinately targeted by the IRS.

3. A number of conservative groups were unlawfully engaging in blatantly partisan activities, in ways not true of their liberal counterparts. So it is understandable why they in theory might have drawn the attention of IRS auditors.

4. We should not infer much from Lois Lerner’s pleading of the 5th Amendment, given right-wing attempts to smear and destroy a noble public servant.

5. The targeting of so-called Tea-party groups between late 2010 and late 2012 had no effect on the 2012 election.

6. The Obama administration has conducted a thorough investigation that now has mostly exonerated the IRS from the excesses of a few regional officials. The result is not even a smidgeon of corruption.

7. The Obama administration had no real contacts with the IRS director during the period in which the agency pursued conservative groups.

8. If any good comes from this melodrama, at least reactionary groups will think twice about their partisan giving.

For the Obamacare scandal, we are asked to believe:

1. The Obama administration consistently published up-to-date and accurate information about the number of ongoing enrollees and those who have paid their premiums.

2. The president’s promises that Americans could keep their health plans and doctors were misinterpreted; in fact, he referred only to those who had existing legitimate health plans, not substandard ones that of course were in need of government intervention and substitution.

3. Kathleen Sebelius and the president met frequently over the Affordable Care Act rollout and foresaw many of the problems beforehand.

4. The collapse of the website and general chaos upon implementation are the normal sorts of problems that accompany ambitious new government programs.

5. Because of Republican rejectionism, it became necessary for the president to delay a few of the provisions of the ACA in order to protect the interests of the formerly uninsured.

6. Most of the problems with the ACA have resulted from Republican obstructionism and nihilism that sought to deny the poor and needy access to health care.

7. The few million who lost their health care plans eventually will come to appreciate the president’s leadership, once they discover that they now have more comprehensive ACA coverage at cheaper costs.

8. Stories of patient, doctor and insurance chaos are largely partisan narratives promulgated by those who always opposed the ACA.

9. There is still a good chance, as Republican stonewalling wanes, that the ACA will lower insurance premiums and increase small-business competitiveness as originally promised. Likewise the ACA will help lower the deficit as promised.

10. That a large number of the new ACA enrollees simply switched over from Medicaid programs is either untrue or irrelevant.

11. The ACA will not fundamentally affect levels of Medicare coverage.

For the VA mess, the Obama administration would have us believe:

1. The mess, to the extent that it was a mess, was largely a result of prior policies of the Bush administration as Barack Obama pointed out as early as 2008.

2. The Bush wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were largely responsible for the delays in service, as hundreds of thousands of new vets were dumped into the system.

3. The problem at the VA was not necessarily the fault of Gen. Shinseki, an iconic figure who bravely opposed the Iraq war and a public servant who has largely been demonized by those seeking partisan advantage.

4. The VA scandal, such as it is, highlights why President Obama overhauled the health care system and gave us the ACA.

5. The VA scandal is mostly, like the IRS brouhaha, a regional matter with no national implications.


On illegal immigration scandals, the president would have us believe:

1. Almost all illegal aliens arrive here to work; very few are the old, young, sick, criminal, unskilled, uneducated, or those seeking public assistance.

2. The border is a fluid construct originally designed by largely illiberal interests to artificially claim land that was indigenously owned.

3. Mexico is an enlightened partner that wishes to help the U.S. with its labor needs.

4. At a time of worker scarcity, we desperately need more low-skilled laborers to keep the U.S. economy humming along.

5. The arrival of millions of illegal aliens is a boon to the economy; the few who depend on public assistance or encounter the criminal justice system or impact the health and education services are more than balanced by the millions who work hard at cheap wages and pay taxes for services they rarely draw on.

6. Opposition to illegal immigration is entirely race-driven by an angry but shrinking white minority, which needs to “get over it” and accept the new demographic reality.

7. There have been no real violations of immigration law. Such calcified statutes reflected race and class biases and therefore have no sanctity. Progressive interpretations of border controversies are far more ethical and deserve greater legal weight.

8. Current de facto immigration policy is merit-based and not predicated on racial or ethnic considerations. Proposed “meritocratic” changes to base immigration on education and skill sets are thinly disguised ways of discriminating against people of color.

I could go on with the NSA, AP, and Fast and Furious scandals, but you get the picture: the Obama administration does what it wishes, then says what it pleases, and assumes the media will offer the necessary mythologizing — and the Americans will get over it.

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/fictions-as-truth/?singlepage=true