You want a 'dealing with terrorists' conspiracy - try this on for size

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: beezzer

Again I will ask you, what is your point within the context of this post.

Reagan set the precedence (and broke the law) in much more selfish fashion.

Since when does the right care anything for the Rule of Law - only when it suits them. I'm not convinced that President Obama broke any laws. Were is your support for that statement.

My point is this;

As to whether or not American presidents negotiate with terrorists is probably moot. (They probably ALL do)

But the narrative has been manipulated.

Conservatives: Obama broke the law HE signed into place.

Progressive pundits reply:. . .Reagan negotiated with terrorists, why blame Obama?

Conservatives then end up debating and arguing about the differences between Reagan and Obama and the talk about Obama breaking the law goes away.

This all about misdirection, in my humble opinion, and is the reason I bring it up in this thread.

And more recently, what happened to Halliburton when they ignored sanctions and continued dealing with Iran in a nuclear capacity? A lil slap on the wrist. Freaking hypocrites. I'm sick of them.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: FyreByrd

Did Obama get Congresses approval to go ahead with the prison swap?

Or did he bypass congress and do it regardless.

Isn't that breaking the law that Obama, himself, signed?

Nixon: “If the President does it, it’s not illegal.”

Kissinger: “The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.”

Worrying insight into the thought processes of our "leaders." Well, wherever they're supposedly leading us to, I think I'll go the other way.

For those alive during that foul mark on American history known as the Nixon Administration, how would you compare it to the current administration? I wasn't even alive when that scum-sucking weasel was running the show, but reading about the rampant lawlessness of those days, I can't help but to see the parallels to what's going on recently.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I dont think anyone was happy about either. Reagan has nothing to do with Obama. He isnt vindicated because "Reagan did it."

He is no better. It makes for a good example though. Obama is as bad as Reagan with his current activities.

a reply to: FyreByrd
Reagan is dead and Bush is no longer president. Move on! Obama has had quite enough time to prove his incompetence and his criminality.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: FyreByrd

I dont think anyone was happy about either. Reagan has nothing to do with Obama. He isnt vindicated because "Reagan did it."

He is no better. It makes for a good example though. Obama is as bad as Reagan with his current activities.

Not even in the same league. Obama didn't cover-up his actions in any way or try to blame others for his actions. Reagan and company (as I said he was just a front man) tried to keep their dealings under wraps.

Whole different league.

a reply to: FyreByrd

entirely different people and times.

Obama is no better.

He routinely intimidates media. Always lashes out at criticism. Does whatever the hell he wants. Constantly goes over congress and actually sees it as an obstruction to his office instead of an ally on the same side....you know, THE LAW.

You try to vindicate Obama as though he has some saving grace. He has covered up more investigations by executive order than Reagan. Obamas interest in the spirit of truth is about as real as unicorns.

You are right about being a different league. Obama is in a league of his own as far as unconstitutional actions.

a reply to: FyreByrd

How, in your mind, does one wrong make another wrong somehow right? Does the wrong one man did over 30 years ago give your boy a pass to do all the wrongs he chooses?

I would love to hear your answer to the above...






Also, those arms to Iran were used to fight Iraq, who we gave chemical weapons to in order for them to more effectively kill more Iranians. That was only fair if you look at it... and NONE of them were used to fight us. Not one was used to fight us.

As far as freeing those civilians... well... freeing civilians was also much different than "freeing" someone who joined up with the other side in order to fight us. (I don't even see how it can be called freeing really, he was there willingly and just put on a bit of show to get the gitmo people out of gitmo)

I don't see how this is a close comparison really....

a reply to: OpinionatedB

I think its funny how they use the Iran contra issue as vindication for Obama but over look the fast and furious weapons trade to CARTELS that supplied weapons to criminals that are being used to kill our border agents.

a reply to: tadaman

Yeah I know.... it's crazy. I cannot believe they try to justify any of this.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: FyreByrd

How, in your mind, does one wrong make another wrong somehow right? Does the wrong one man did over 30 years ago give your boy a pass to do all the wrongs he chooses?

I would love to hear your answer to the above...

I do not and never have said one wrong acquits another wrong.

In the first place, I'm not convinced that Obama did anything wrong, morally or legally. The "detainees" that were released in the 'exchange' were being held 'ex-judicially' then how could it be illegal for the President to release them.

My position in this post was to point out the hypocracy of the right and the convenient dismissal of far worse crimes by their beloved St. Reagan.

The right (however you choose to define it) has changed it's position on this issue just because Obama did something about it. The right opposes anything this administration does on principal. Were Obama single handedly to bring an end to all wars, the right would oppose it.

The obstuctionism has come to the point of absurdity.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: FyreByrd

How, in your mind, does one wrong make another wrong somehow right? Does the wrong one man did over 30 years ago give your boy a pass to do all the wrongs he chooses?

I would love to hear your answer to the above...

I do not and never have said one wrong acquits another wrong.

In the first place, I'm not convinced that Obama did anything wrong, morally or legally. The "detainees" that were released in the 'exchange' were being held 'ex-judicially' then how could it be illegal for the President to release them.

My position in this post was to point out the hypocracy of the right and the convenient dismissal of far worse crimes by their beloved St. Reagan.

The right (however you choose to define it) has changed it's position on this issue just because Obama did something about it. The right opposes anything this administration does on principal. Were Obama single handedly to bring an end to all wars, the right would oppose it.

The obstuctionism has come to the point of absurdity.

First, your right those "detainees" were being held extra-judicially in accordance with United States law because they weren't citizens they were POW's to be held to the end of the war - and at that time, either to be tried for crimes or released - either way, not fighting us / working against us to the end of the war.

4 of those released were wanted by the UN to be tried for war crimes... they SHOULD have been turned over for trial in accordance with international law. But Obama refused to recognize international law when he released them.

According to law, one Obama himself signed, he was to give notice to congress and provide appropriate proof that we had absolute assurances any detainees who were released were not going to re-enter the fighting against the US. Should he not have proof of assurance congress could have said no, this is not safe.

That was in accordance to United States law, one Obama signed into law. He broke that law.

It is just that simple. Obama decided to be a dictator instead of recognizing the other branches of US government as well as international law.

a reply to: FyreByrd

4 out of 5 detainees were under UN sanctions. They were under indictment for war crimes, mass murder. . .

The president (Obama) screwed up.

He screwed up big time.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: FyreByrd

I dont think anyone was happy about either. Reagan has nothing to do with Obama. He isnt vindicated because "Reagan did it."

He is no better. It makes for a good example though. Obama is as bad as Reagan with his current activities.

Not even in the same league. Obama didn't cover-up his actions in any way or try to blame others for his actions. Reagan and company (as I said he was just a front man) tried to keep their dealings under wraps.

Whole different league.

How about the Fast & Furious example, the democrat first cry is Bush started it. When that didn't work documents were subpoenaed from Eric the Withholder, and when he finally had no choice Obama put them under executive privilege. The problem with is executive privilege is good only if the president has involvement, and Obama claims none. I think this meets the criteria for cover up, and illegal activity. This would be the same league for me. They are all criminals and need prosecuted. If it was acceptable for criminals to say before the judge "ole so and so did the same thing" and get away with it like presidents can, the streets would rampant with evil doers.

Obama is a Muslim - do the math...not hard to figure out at this point.

Allah Akbar

a reply to: OpinionatedB

How can they POWs when no war has been legally declared.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: OpinionatedB

How can they POWs when no war has been legally declared.

I'm not sure, but the Geneva Convention
might not actually "specify" any government to legally "declare" war. They refer to "armed conflicts", "occupations", etc. etc.

a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

There are various parallels . The fisa courts for domestic spying was created after Nixon but his use of agencies to spy on US citizens to keep the lid on Watergate was a major factor of its creation. Used IRS to target foes. Tried like hell to find deep throat. Tried to gag the Washington post and their reporters. The white house secrecy is comparable to today.

The big difference is Nixon's own party got fed up with his lawlessness and pushed impeachment. The present senate voting block of democrats it will never happen. If this was Nixon court would be in session.

After seeing that I am totally dumbfounded why nothing has came of all this bovine bio waste of today.



I remember Kennedy being shot white only water fountains or white only restrooms . Lying to the US citizens was political suicide if it was found out now no big deal next news cycle it will get buried .

Then the news were all different ownership and all different views now something like 5 people own 95 % of news outlets so every one is just parroting the standard line.

The parallel is there I am concerned on what is out there to be found. Nixon screwed up ONCE then covered it up . How many screw ups and coverups we got going today?

I keep waiting for Obama exclaim I am not a crook . And give a double v for victory sign or peace sign one on each hand.

This comedian has a cute conspiracy theory . Warning fowl language

a reply to: Lostinthedarkness

a reply to: Lostinthedarkness

Thanks for sharing your insight. It troubles me to see so many of my generation (born mid-80's) not respecting their elders. My high school history teacher had a yearly project for everyone to find and talk to a WWII vet within the community. Forever changed my perspective.

Big fan of Bill Hicks, straight shooter, tells it like it is. If thats not exactly what happens, I'm sure he's not far off.

One big difference I see, is back in the day, pre-internet, Nixon basically got caught because he went after physical documents. Now, to achieve the same goals, just ring up some NSA hackers to get any dirt you want. Want the press to shut up? Get the DOJ to issue a subpoena to seize the AP's phone records, basically letting it be known that, "Hey, journalists, we can (and will) find your confidential sources saying things about us we don't like."

I'd say Obama's "I'm not a crook" moment will be remembered as "If you like the health insurance you have, you can keep it."

Doing research, Nixon had A LOT of screw ups, most just not brought to light until after the fact, when a certain straw broke the camel's back. He had people break into Daniel Ellsberg's (Pentagon Papers whistleblower) psychiatrist's office to try and smear him.

I'm hoping the tipping point is near for our current leader.

The more I think about the point of Obama breaking his own law, the most troublesome aspect i can see is the precedent it sets in the long term.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: FyreByrd

I dont think anyone was happy about either. Reagan has nothing to do with Obama. He isnt vindicated because "Reagan did it."

He is no better. It makes for a good example though. Obama is as bad as Reagan with his current activities.

Not even in the same league. Obama didn't cover-up his actions in any way or try to blame others for his actions. Reagan and company (as I said he was just a front man) tried to keep their dealings under wraps.

Whole different league.

reagan got back a bunch of hostages for a few guns.

obama got back 1 dubious service man for 5 high level terrorist assets.
after 5 yrs.

obama is too stupid to cover his trails. hence all the scandals.

oh? he doesn't blame others? riiiiiiiiight.