Pres. Obama Describes Terrorist as 'Alleged', Extremist' Bomb 'Suspect'
A good solid B+Yesterday Barack Obama finally commented on the Detroit undie bomber’s attempt to blow up flight 253. The president reported that he had the “suspect” arrested for the “alleged” bombing. Obama wont take responsability for anything. Janet Napolitano said everything worked and then Obama comes out and said it didn't work but it was Bush's fault and the CIA's fault. The Three Stooges were less of buffoons then this admin. I can't wait to hear what that brainiac Bidden thinks of all this "stuff". Even the liberals aren't cheering for their man and their party of buffoons as much anymore. Bush kept us safe after 9/11 but the Democrats are impowering our enemy with everything they do. All during the Bush terms the Democrats were saying we were loosing the war on terror and this is their way to be right. But it is their war on terror to loose not Bush's war. I think we will see a lot more terror in this country and it will all come from Muslims and the left wing.
Does anyone believe that The Trillion Dollar Health Care President — as in, all he can do is spend and print a trillion dollars — cares one wit about the war on terror?
ReplyDeleteThis is the same Trillion-Dollar-all-I-care-about-is-health-care-President who strains mightily to ever use the word terror, or the phrase war on terror.
His Homeland Secretary went a whole hearing with out using the word terror, but prefers the term a “man-caused disaster.”
This is the same President and White House who refused to term the Fort Hood attacks by a deranged Muslim terror — and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to any where near that point only because of an email trail by the shooter to radical clerics and websites.
I’ll bet the only reason that President Obama waited three days to make his statement about the system’s failure is that the White House took a poll which showed the Trillion Dollar Health Care President being pummeled.
So, let’s get straight what happened. (Our own little review.) First, the woman who refuses to acknowledge or use the word terror is in charge of, well, protecting us from terror. Great start. This is logical if you want to cram down (a la health care) people’s throats the message that we are not at war — even if we are.
Did you know the I’m-in-charge-of-security-but-can’t-use-the-word-terror-Secretary said there is “no indication of a larger plot?.”
Obviously, she lied. She knew better.
Lets see Terrorist tries to BLOW up Air Craft and Nobama uses the WORD Alledged! Police Officer has confrontation with a Buddy of Nobama and with NO Facts calls Officer "STUPID"! Dont believe it took THREE days to call the officer STUPID!
ReplyDeleteSeems by his Actions he is MORE concerned about Upsetting Terrorist than CALLING them what they ARE and that is Murders and that IS Stupid!
Great Blog Chris, I put you as one of the blogs I follow on my blog. Keep up the great work.
ReplyDeleteChris, why do you hate America so much and its legal system. Maybe you remember from civics class that one of the things that makes America great is its legal system, where no matter how heinous the crime, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Even if there is video and pictures of someone committing a crime, that presumption is there.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama was perfectly correct to say "alleged" in his statement.
If you want to live in a Communist state where guilt is presumed, you should move to China, Russia or Cuba. I'm sure with your view of things you'd feel right at home.
Bruce Criminal Law is for Criminals!
ReplyDeleteAs our Great Attorney General has said Terrorist Acts are Act of War and to Me that means it AINT Criminal!
Terrorist on Airplane tries to Bring Down Aircraft and the WORD Alledged is USED Three days AFTER Incident!
Police officer has Run in with one of Nobamas Pals and before Nobama has ANY FACTS he calls Officer STUPID! I guess its what you CONSIDER Important!
Bruce YOU go Ahead and Presume with Terrorist! There is No way OUR Justice System can Handle Terrorist Trials without giving up OUR Intell and Putting Americans at RISK. You However once again PUT Terrorist before Security as DO LIBS and when the New York Circus Trials are over, Nobama will be ASSURED as a ONE TERMER! New York is a Political Payback ,NOTHING else !
The Only Mistake regarding OUR incident at Metro was that a BODY Bag was NOT NEEDED and thats the TRUTH!
Bruce when was the last time we used our criminal system for a foreign war criminal? Did we do it to the Japanese when they used planes and bombs on Hawaii? Don't be such a jerkoff Bruce I don't hate our criminal system. I just hate the fact that you America hating Democrats/progressives want to make history by turning these trials into a political game. Why do you on the left hate our military so much that you don't trust them with our war criminals? So Bruce tell me when has America done this in is great history? Eric Houlder couldn't answer it either when asked by Congress. Why do you want to give our rights away Bruce? Why do you want to impower the Islamic Jihadist? Could it be you see yourself in them? We have seen the amount of terrorism you on the left have done over the decades. We are at war no matter how many time you say we aren't we are. It doesn't take two to be at war. Just look at what a laughing stock Obama has made of this country and our court systems. We hung Hussein and he is already forgotten. This is just torturing ino9cent people just so you and your left wing America haters can set presidents in the way war is fought with "Lawyers".
ReplyDeleteSimply amazing? Bruce asks Chris why he hates America?
ReplyDeleteWhen the context of the post is about two people: one who wanted to kill Americans not Chris and about someone who watered down our defences in order to let the former happen and again not Chris.
Any REASONABLE reader would immediately deduce those two people hate America and not the blogger.
But I will give you one thing Bruce,you are consistent in your absolute,unfettered stupidity.
The New York congressman who thinks terrorists should be tried by a military tribunal instead of a civilian court is getting some support from a terrorism expert.
ReplyDeleteCongressman Peter King (R-New York) says the Nigerian man accused of attacking an airliner as it approached Detroit on Christmas Day should be tried by a military tribunal rather than a civilian court. The suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, has been charged in federal court with trying to detonate an explosive device as the plane approached Detroit on Friday. Authorities say the device burst into flames instead, and he was subdued by passengers.
King, who is the leading Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, said Tuesday it will be more difficult for authorities to get useful information from the suspect if he is given the legal rights afforded to defendants in civilian courts -- including the right to a lawyer.
Cdr. Kirk Lippold (USN-Ret.), who commanded the USS Cole when it was hit by terrorists, agrees with King. Now the senior military fellow at Military Families United, Lippold says America is being lead by an administration that does not believe that the United States is at war.
"They believe that every act of terrorism should be handled within the criminal justice system, and that [accused terrorists] should be granted full constitutional rights," laments the retired naval officer. "They don't want to recognize the legitimacy of the military commissions system.
"The reality of it is regardless of whether they liked or disliked how the Bush administration ran policies, we cannot afford to change our lifestyles simply because you have an administration that does not want to admit that we have an enemy, al Qaeda, that is working to defeat our way of life."
Lippold, like King, argues that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should be tried by a military tribunal -- not by a civilian court.
Bruce are you an anarchist like JoeC? Is that why you want this to happen?
Great observation Christopher. You have a great perspective on these libs like Bruce. Thanks for pointing it out my friend.
ReplyDeleteBruce maybe YOU should take a civics course and ask Obummer and his AG Holder to attend as well. After all, they are the ones who have already declared KSM to be guilty and indicated that even if he were found not guilty (a distinct possibility with these clowns running the show, just like OJ Simpson, etc), they still will not release him. Are these facets of the greatest legal system in the world?!?!
ReplyDeleteEven most Hypocrats and LIEberals, who I wouldn't call the sharpest knives in the drawer, are saying what a huge mistake and countless blunders this administration is making. Nice to see what a buffoon and ideologue you are that you blindly follow these idiots. Why don't you losers just move to Cuba or Venezuela; those countries are already nice and communist, just like you like it.
John, so why did we try Richard Reid, the shoe bomber from the Bush era in a United States court of law allowing him all the rights of criminal defendants in the United States? What is the difference between Richard Reid and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab?
ReplyDeleteI anxiously await your reply.
Richard Reid is and American terrorist just like McVei was. Umar is under the Obama clown show. When the left wing terrorist like ELF blow up things in America they are tryed as Americans in our courts. See the difference Bruce? Umar is an enemy combatenbt that has been part of this Jihad"holy war" on America? Bruce you do know this trial is making presidence don't you? That means we as a nation have never ever handled an enemy combatent in our court system. And as John has pointed out,they will not be set free if found not guilty. So why would you act like this is nothing more then a dumb political show for the Democrats? Bruce you wanted to know what thwe difference is? One is an American and the other is an enemy combatent that falls under the military not civil courts. That is what has been don for houndreds of years up until Obama the LAWYER came into office. Ah, now we get to the point. No tort reform and now these trials. Obama is giving another bone to his constituents the lawyers.
ReplyDeleteDemocrat Spinners: Obama More Aggressive Than Bush Against Al Qaeda
ReplyDeletehttp://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/12/democrat-spinne.html
by Van Helsing at December 31, 2009
New Year's Eve is a great time to lighten up with a big old belly laugh. Here goes:
Democratic strategists Wednesday asserted President Barack Obama "has been far more aggressive in fighting al Qaeda" than the previous administration.
Bwahahaha! At least they have a sense of humor!
In an e-mail this afternoon to supporters — which incidentally excoriated Republicans for politicizing the attempted bombing of Flight 253 — the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) stressed it was President George W. Bush, not his successor, who relegated the fight against the terrorist network to the back burner by turning "its focus from al Qaeda to Iraq."
In case these clowns are actually serious, here's a little news quiz. Ayman al-Zawahiri, a top terrorist killed by US forces in Iraq, was affiliated with:
A) Saddam Hussein's regime of butterflies and daffodils
B) Those nasty Rethuglicans
C) The Boy Scouts
D) Al Qaeda
If you picked D, you haven't been getting your news from NBC.
Although he certainly had his flaws, George W. Bush devoted himself wholeheartedly to fighting Al Qaeda, with the result that despite nearly universal expectations following 9/11, there were no significant terror attacks on US soil until the Fort Hood massacre after he had left office. Obama for his part has fought terror by bowing to its financiers, installing a pro-terrorist activist as Attorney General, granting the architects of 9/11 a carnival show trial a stone's throw away from Ground Zero, condemning the interrogation of terrorists, closing Club Gitmo, and sanctimoniously denouncing America for its alleged misdeeds. No one who hasn't spent the last two years in a cave could be clueless enough to think Chairman Zero would exert even a tiny fraction of Bush's energy to fighting Al Qaeda.
But who knows? Maybe if the lie is sufficiently preposterous, liberals will strive to be politically correct enough to believe it. Nothing else could explain Obama being passed off as presidential material.
On tips from Conan, John R, and scottthong.
Bruce you loser, you never answer any of OUR questions, why the F**K would I ever answer any of YOUR idiotic questions? As Christopher pointed out, all you do is change the subject or try to create a whole new argument/discussion out of NOTHING with your straw-men. Your ideology, your President, your Hypocrat Party, your libertardedness, nothing but EPIC FAIL. I hope your New Year sucks Bruce, you loser.
ReplyDeleteHave you all seen the things that Bruce has done? If I was you I wouldn't use your names with him. He is a real terror. I wouldn't put anything past him and his crew vomamike and djtyg.
ReplyDeleteBruce Nobama is showing his LACK of Leader Ship ONCE again with these Criminal Trials, which as you have been told will HURT our Intell and Possibly cause MORE problems here.
ReplyDeleteOne Great Democratic President Once said "the Buck stops here" BUT Nobama took DOWN the STOP SIGN! Just POOR POOR POOR Leadership and it will cost him and LIBS come Election Time!
Did anyone hear about the poll about the most admired women in America? Mind you Laura Bush was #1 on their first term. #1 is Operah,#2 is Sarah Palin and all the way down on the list at #4 is Michael Obama. How could that be? Could it be her views about America? Michael Obama is #4 but the kicker is Sarah Palin is #2. It looks like Michael Obama isn't all that and Sarah Palin is. No matter what the left say about Sarah Palin she's better then Michael Obama and every other political woman in America. I would like nothing more then to see a conservative women like Sarah Palin influencing our government. She is a force to be recond with that is for sure. And the best part is all the people that are distroying this country hate her. That is both Democrats and Republicans alike. That is so great that she is one of the top two women. Got to love it. And if you libs say anything bad about her then you are sexist pigs.lol
ReplyDeleteAnother blow to Feckless and his moveon comrades...a federal judge has dismissed charges against 5 Blackwater contractors accused of killing unarmed Iraqi civilians in 2007.
ReplyDeleteThe sad truth is our Constitution has no provision for the prosecution of independent terrorist groups. Historically (read: prior to 2001), all attacks on our country by foreigners have been directed by another nation. The process for prosecuting war criminals is clearly defined, as is the process for prosecuting civilians. Since there hasn't been any evidence indicating that recent attacks have been orchestrated by a nation (Nigeria, Afghanistan, etc.), according to our Constitution, foreign terrorists are entitled to a civilian criminal trial. A person or militant group cannot commit an act of war according to our Constitution, and therefore cannot be tried by military tribunal.
ReplyDeleteI think this is an opportunity to amend our Constitution and define clearly who is and who is not protected by the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and how aliens will be prosecuted for crimes committed on our soil (or airspace, as it were).
Wow, now we want to revise the constitution. but its not a living document the right has been telling us libs for years.
ReplyDeleteChris, ima let you finish, but richard reid was the best british shoe bombing terrorist ever. He was not an american and was traveling on a british passport.
My point is the Constitution is what it is. If we're not happy with it, our founding fathers were wise enough to give us the means to alter it.
ReplyDeleteWhat must not happen however is the continued drifting of the interpretation of it. Both the left and the right are guilty of this.
Why are you lefties all for 'progress' except when it comes to amending the Constitution? Are objectives like defining what documents are presentable as proof of US birth, when they are to be surrendered and who is to review the documents, as well as more clearly defining who is entitled to the rights enumerated in our Constitution not 'progressive' enough for you?
ReplyDeleteI'm going to start calling myself a 'Progressive Conservative' because there's significant progess to be made to pull our country away from the cliff the DNC and the GOP have driven us toward.
I love it 'Progessive Conservative'. Big Chris you need to post that in one of the newer posts so everyone can read it. There are a lot of Libertarian and Republican groups reading this blog.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBig chris, you want to amend the constitution thats fine by me, but amend it to gurantee freedoms not take them away. The past 30 years of my life i have seen one conservative idea after another to restrict freedoms proposed.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking you had a thoughtful point there and out pops the birther conspiracy. Just another nut waiting for a squirrel you are.
As far as defining who is entitled to our rights are you on crack. This assnine concept of illegal combatant shit is just what it is, assnine. Even the Bush justice dept. wasn't crasy enough to try that shit.
What rights did the Republicans take away that the Democrats didn't take? Why aren't you bitching about the Democrats taking away even more of our right while at the same time doing nothing to fix the Patriot act? If anything the Democrats are spending more time on Tea Party and our vets then the Islamic extreemists that trully do attack us. You on the left are no different then Bush when he started the Patriot Act. That is why no one listens or respects you Democrats any more. You stopped your rallies when we got Democrats to run the country and the 'sins of the Republicans' still happen without a peep from the left. As long as obama looks at the right wing you on the left don't care. But if Homeland looked for terrorists in our own country then that is out of the question. You on the left care more about the Islamic terrorist then Americans.
ReplyDeleteChris,
ReplyDeleteyou and I have very different views of rights, but i did say "freedoms" not rights. Take Marriage, not a right, but a freedom. we are free to marry and have it recgonised by the government, depending on state laws from there. Its not our right, but a freedom our government offers. you might consider it a social right, that which is granted by the government. you might not. thats another discussion.
Anyways the mere fact that in the case of states extending that freedom to homosexual couples, many rightwingers want to disolve that freedom by the way of a constitutional amendmant banning it.
that is a restriction on freedoms, which i don't think the constitution was meant to do.
If marriage is a right then why do we need a license? If marriage is a freedom then why the license? How many people can a person marry? Is driving a freedom or a right? Gay marriage is already banned. Marriage is the backbone of our society. Is that why you want to make it a freedom or a right?
ReplyDelete