Robert Gibbs, Barack Obama’s chief spokesman, got into hot water this week for daring to speak the truth – that the Democrats could lose control of the House of Representatives in November. But it could be even worse than that.
...
“The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,” says Rob Shapiro, another former Clinton official and a supporter of Mr Obama. “He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.”
In private, informal advisors to Mr Obama are almost as negative. According to one, the US public’s loss of confidence in Mr Obama’s leadership is a factor above and beyond their dissatisfaction over the state of the real economy, which continues to slow as last year’s $787bn stimulus starts to run dry. The adviser, who asked to remain anonymous, said the public did not know what Mr Obama really believed. Examples include his lukewarm support last year for a public option in the healthcare bill and his equally lukewarm support today for a Senate bill that would extend unemployment insurance and aid state governments to keep teachers in their jobs.
In both cases, Mr Obama has offered only token, negotiable, support. “I never thought I would say this, but even I’m unsure what President Obama really believes,” says the adviser. “Instead of outsourcing decisions to Congress, he should spell out his bottom line. That is what leaders are for.”
No comments?
Are the debunkers trying too hard to come up with a lie to justify these things and so just ignoring them?
Qaeda-Linked Imam Dined at Pentagon after 9/11 - CBS News
Now, this is a wanted man as it is... and consider, if you or I walked into the pentagon do you think that you would have lunch with ANYONE?? Nevermind pentagon brass??
In 2001, the FBI did not share this investigative information with the Pentagon, but officials say there was no reason to - Awlaki was not a suspect and was not believed to be connected to the 9/11 attacks. Instead he was viewed as a valuable liaison to the Muslim community and a potential investigative source. As one official put it, "he was a much different guy back then."
No comments?
Are the debunkers trying too hard to come up with a lie to justify these things and so just ignoring them?
No comments?
Are the debunkers trying too hard to come up with a lie to justify these things and so just ignoring them?
Look at Obama, his approval rating is getting close to the approval rating of herpes... how desperate do you think he might be to maintain power into 2012 and beyond??
... why would that be??
For the usual debunkers, if all of a sudden a truck bomb goes off in some federal building... are you still going to accept what is told about who perpetrated the attacks?? God forbid that happens... but what do you think 'buying back into Obama' might entail???
Or do you think Obama's just going to ride out his term and leave the most hated president in the history of america??
Or do you think he might want to hold onto that power??
Why comment? You're lying. I see who the poster is and just know all information contained in the post is a lie. Experience has taught me very well.
Perhaps you should read your own article.
[/quote](There is from the addendum to the article, and so is an afterthought, and is part of it's own context, the author means what he writes, and only makes the point of the statement it makes, this article doesn't make ALL the connections but that's fine)The imam also had several encounters with al-Qaida figures. In 2000, he met two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, at a San Diego mosque where al-Awlaki preached. The 9/11 Commission report says the men "respected al-Awlaki as a religious figure and developed a close relationship with him." They were aboard the plane that crashed into the Pentagon.
I'm willing to concede that... BUT considering WHAT DOES THAT SAY that Awlaki, since has become the 'alquaida mastermind'??The Pentagon had no knowledge he was linked to 9/11, and they dines him so they could reach out to the Muslim population.
And as for the rest, 'cause a few people say that Obama needs a terrorist attack to win the election, you want us to think that means he's going to stage a terrorist attack?
You're a bloody genius. :roll:
And what new little conspiracy will you latch onto when he is voted out and just leaves ???
Products of fertile imaginations most likely !!!
No, of course not... Beck is pointing this out because he KNOWS he's going to be a target IF such a thing becomes true, and he may be a lot of things, but not a moron.Are Beck and Penn some sort of psychics or soothsayers ... whose every word comes true ???
Or more likely just morons mouthing off !!!
And what will you do when absolutely nothing happens ???
Will you accept that your conspiracy gullibility led you to be overly paranoid for nothing ???
Or will you just seamlessly segue into some new claim ... just ignoring this previous one, which turned out without foundation or merit ???
Time shall see whom proves correct ... I feel supremely confident in my own side though !!!
I hardly think he will rate "the" most hated and will probably just accept defeat gracefully.
Doesn't your country have a two-term limit ... so no matter how much any one person wished to hold onto power, short of taking on dictatorship they would be out after the next term anyway ???
Besides what power anyway ... according to you they are all just dangling puppets, so why would he need fight to hold onto such "none" power anyway, surely since "you" know how little he counts, he must, by now, see it too ... :roll:
Ok, where am I lying? What specifically? Prove that this is a LIE rather then a misunderstanding?
Otherwise, stop trolling my threads... it's pathetic.
I just wanted to re-iterate an important question in all of this :
If, GIVEN THESE PEOPLE'S mentions, that some terrorist attack of the same level as an OKC bombing occurs, are you going to simply accept what is said about this?
Sorry if this was already posted. He was on MSNBC
YouTube - Mark Penn Says Obama Needs Another Oklahoma City Bombing To 'Click' With The Country
Amazing how that was drummed up to the sponsoring a terrorist attack. I'm sure Obama will take advice from Penn...the guy who steered Hillaryland's into the ground and snatched defeat from the Jaws of victory.
B"man" is just making stuff up again. He lies. He lies frequently
Ok... once again... let's agree that I'm a liar...
I apologize to the community. From now on, I'll just use the citation.
Is there any reason to trust future debates?
Is there any reason to trust you that you lack the honesty to even use the full quote??? You know, the part where I added : "Ok... once again... let's agree that I'm a liar, now look at the facts and sources to make the point."
I'm a liar
In a sense, Obama kinda did... that failed printer cartridge bomber from a planes originating supposedly from Yemen (though they deny that ANY SUCH PLANES left the country within the 48 hours prior to this coming out)... the original tests showed no explosives until Obama told the european police to test it again and 'voila' explosives... but that's really another issue... but if that is the case, which I may start a separate thread on the subject to dig deeper into that, that is STILL as much of a terrorist attack as if all those bombs detonated midair, just minus any death toll.
Just on this, if what these people say os true, and Obama will stage am "Oklahoma City" like event to win the election, why would he do it in Europe?
However, it was a reported fact that the first test for explosives came back negative, then Obama DID reportedly call european law enforcement and told them to test it again, and this was with the time difference almost simultaneously ...
It was ALSO reported by the Yemen govt that was supposedly where these flights originated, that they completely denied that ANY such flights left ANY of their airports for the 48 hours prior to this discovery.
Now whatever the case is, those are reported facts that haven't been retracted.
I don't know the full story, but at a certain point I don't see how you couldn't tell that something smells funny in this situation.
You time and again make big claims and do not provide the sources or links most times ... it makes debate that much harder and slower, for it is difficult to test your claims without knowing where you are getting them from in the first place ... so how about in future if you make a claim ... such as Obama "telling" the UK law enforcement to test ... please then show where YOU got the claim from, for WITHOUT source material we can only take it as your unqualified, unverified "opinion" ... which counts for nothing really !!!
Ok... once again... let's agree that I'm a liar...
Is there any reason to trust you that you lack the honesty to even use the full quote???
Perhaps this is to demonstrate the dangers of quote-mining to you !!!
And like it or not B'man the truth movement has HAD to rely, and rely heavily, on such tactics to make the claims of "explosions" and such like sound like they have even a modicum of credibility.
This shows why you need to look and examine FURTHER than just shortened quotes loudly touted as absolute pwoof !!!
Perhaps this is to demonstrate the dangers of quote-mining to you !!!
And like it or not B'man the truth movement has HAD to rely, and rely heavily, on such tactics to make the claims of "explosions" and such like sound like they have even a modicum of credibility.
This shows why you need to look and examine FURTHER than just shortened quotes loudly touted as absolute pwoof !!!
Ok... once again... let's agree that I'm a liar...
After that...what do you do? I mean...its like he's saying "I'm a liar...but hear me out." No thanks.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?