Dems apologize for using Russian warships in convention tribute to vets

Published September 12, 2012
FoxNews.com

• *not_secure_link*a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/U.S./660/371/dncnavyships.JPG
  FILE: Sept. 6, 2012: The stage on the final day of the Democratic National Convention at the Time Warner Cable Arena in Charlotte, N.C. (GETTY)
  

Democrats apologized Wednesday for using a fleet of Russian warships as the backdrop for a Democratic National Convention tribute to U.S. military veterans, blaming a vendor for the mistake.
The event occurred on the final night of last week’s convention when retired Adm. John Nathman paid tribute to veterans, in front of a gigantic screen that showed four ships from the Russian Federation Navy.
“Due to vendor error, incorrect images appeared briefly on screen behind 51 veterans during the convention, and the (Democratic National Convention Committee) apologizes for this mistake,” the group said in a statement.
The DCCC also asked that the error not diminish the words of Nathman and others who touted President Obama's record on “issues that impact those who have served our nation.”
However, the group used the apology to criticize Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, whom they said “failed to even mention” veterans in his convention speech.”
The mistake was exposed earlier this week by at least two experts who told The Navy Times they were certain the ships were Russian and that the backdrop image appears to be a composite photo that includes U.S. trainer jets flying overhead.
The image shows ships with radar designs not used in the U.S. fleet.
Navy veteran Rob Barker reportedly detected the mistake and notified the publication. He said his assignment as an electronics warfare technician included the identification of foreign ships by their radars.
“The ships are definitely Russian,” said author Norman Polmar, a naval and aviation expert. “There’s no question of that in my mind.”





Read more: *not_secure_link*www.foxnews.com/po...ribute-to-vets/?test=latestnews#ixzz26LMttDDR

 

State Department corrects Obama, says Egypt is an ally

Published September 13, 2012
FoxNews.com

• *not_secure_link*global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Politics/obama_colo_091312.jpg
  Sept. 13, 2012: President Obama speaks during a campaign event in Golden, Colo. (AP)
  

The State Department, cutting through the confusion over President Obama's claim that Egypt is not a U.S. ally, contradicted his characterization Thursday.
For the record, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said, Egypt is considered a major non-NATO ally.
The comment came as White House aides also carefully clarified the president's remarks.
The president made the initial statement in an interview with the Spanish-language Telemundo. "I don't think that we would consider them an ally, but we do not consider them an enemy," Obama said, reacting to the ongoing and intense demonstrations outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.
The comment raised eyebrows, considering that Egypt - at least before the fall of Hosni Mubarak -- has long been among the top U.S. allies in the Middle East along with Saudi Arabia and Israel. And legally, it is still considered a major "non-NATO" ally, as Nuland confirmed.
Nuland and White House aides, though, tried to at the same time suggest that Obama was referring to the fact that Egypt is not part of any formal NATO treaty.
"'Ally' is a legal term of art. We don't have a mutual defense treaty with Egypt like we do with our NATO allies. But as the president has said, Egypt is long-standing and close partner of the United States, and we have built on that foundation by supporting Egypt's transition to democracy and working with the new government," White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a statement.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the same, claiming Obama was referring to the lack of an alliance treaty with Egypt. But they made clear that Egypt is a major partner, noting that Obama spoke Wednesday with President Mohammad Morsi
Not everyone was in the same page, though.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday would not go so far as to say Egypt is or will be a U.S. ally. "We'll see," she said.
Pelosi's comment and Obama's original comment indeed reflected concern about the direction of Egypt's post-Mubarak government, heavy with the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups.
Some have complained that Morsi has not cracked down hard enough on the demonstrators who two days ago breached the wall of the U.S. Embassy and continue to gather in large numbers outside the perimeter. They are purportedly angry over an anti-Islam film.
While condemning attacks on the embassies Thursday, Morsi reportedly said the Egyptian people need "breathing room." And he said he had called on Obama to "put an end to such behavior" like the anti-Islam film.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to explain Thursday that the U.S. government cannot prevent the airing of videos, even if they are offensive, because of America's constitutional free-speech protections.





Read more: *not_secure_link*www.foxnews.com/po...rects-obama-says-egypt-is-ally/#ixzz26NuvevV7

 

Fw:fw:fw:fw stupid republican lies. Quit posting your stupid republican cronies email here.

 

What lies sock? It's all true and you know it.:excited::excited::excited::excited::excited::excited:

 

heres one piece of interesting info
a republican appointed electrol college member just resigned due to the fact that she could not vote for romney
and now the republicans are looking for a romney supporter to replace her
so why does the party get to choose who gets to elect the president?
oh wait the were never meant to

 

Now here's the lie and hypocrisy of conservatism on grand display again.

Republican Leader Finally Admits That Federal Spending Cuts Kill Jobs

*not_secure_link*thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/13/847221/cantor-admits-spending-cuts-kill-jobs/

 

And yet again here's another perfect example of the lie of conservatism and the liars who practice it.

First they lie and falsely accuse President Obama of "gutting welfare reform by removing the work requirements," and then turn right around and actually try to do it themselves.

House GOP Bill Would Actually End Welfare Reform Work Requirements

*not_secure_link*tpmdc.talkingpoint...fare-reform-work-requirent.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

 

Obama's Justice Department Grants Final Immunity to Bush's CIA Torturers​

By closing two cases of detainees tortured to death, Obama has put the US beyond any accountability under the rule of law​

By Glenn Greenwald​

September 02, 2012 "The Guardian" - August 31, 2012 - The Obama administration's aggressive, full-scale whitewashing of the "war on terror" crimes committed by Bush officials is now complete. Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the closing without charges of the only two cases under investigation relating to the US torture program: one that resulted in the 2002 death of an Afghan detainee at a secret CIA prison near Kabul, and the other the 2003 death of an Iraqi citizen while in CIA custody at Abu Ghraib. This decision, says the New York Times Friday, "eliminat[es] the last possibility that any criminal charges will be brought as a result of the brutal interrogations carried out by the CIA".
To see what a farce this is, it is worthwhile briefly to review the timeline of how Obama officials acted to shield Bush torturers from all accountability. During his 2008 campaign for president, Obama repeatedly vowed that, while he opposed "partisan witch-hunts", he would instruct his attorney general to "immediately review" the evidence of criminality in these torture programs because "nobody is above the law." Yet, almost immediately after winning the 2008 election, Obama, before he was even inaugurated, made clear that he was opposed to any such investigations, citing what he called "a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards".
Throughout the first several months of his presidency, his top political aides, such as the chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, and his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, publicly – and inappropriately – pressured the justice department to refrain from any criminal investigations. Over and over, they repeated the Orwellian mantra that such investigations were objectionable because "we must look forward, not backward". As Gibbs put it in April 2009, when asked to explain Obama's opposition, "the president is focused on looking forward. That's why."​

On 16 April 2009, Obama himself took the first step in formalizing the full-scale immunity he intended to bestow on all government officials involved even in the most heinous and lethal torture. On that date, he decreed absolute immunity for any official involved in torture provided that it comported with the permission slips produced by Bush department of justice (DOJ) lawyers which authorized certain techniques. "This is a time for reflection, not retribution," the new president so movingly observed in his statement announcing this immunity. Obama added:

"[N]othing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past … we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future."

​

Note how, in Obama's new formulation, those who believed that Bush officials should be held criminally accountable for their torture crimes – should be subjected to the rule of law on equal terms with ordinary citizens – were now scorned as "the forces that divide us". On the same day, Holder issued his own statement arguing that "it would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the justice department."

But at least this limited immunity left open the possibility of prosecuting those agents who went beyond the limits of the DOJ memos in how they tortured: in other words, those "rogue" torturers who used brutality and savagery beyond even what was permitted by Bush lawyers. On several occasions, Holder had flamboyantly leaked that he was horrified by what he read in certain case files about detainees who were severely injured by torture or even killed by it – there were more than 100 detainees who died while in US custody – and that he could not, in good conscience, simply sweep all of that under the rug.
As a result, in August 2009, Holder announced a formal investigation to determine whether criminal charges should be brought in over 100 cases of severe detainee abuse involving "off-the-books methods" such as "mock execution and threatening a prisoner with a gun and a power drill", as well as threats that "prisoners [would be] made to witness the sexual abuse of their relatives." But less than two years later, on 30 June 2011, Holder announced that of the more than 100 cases the justice department had reviewed, there would be no charges brought in any of them – except two.
The only exceptions were two particularly brutal cases, both of which resulted in the death of the detainee. One involved the 2002 abuse of Gul Rahman, who froze to death in a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan known as the "Salt Pit", after he was beaten, stripped, and then shackled to a cement wall in freezing temperatures.
The other was the 2003 death of Manadel al-Jamadi at Abu Ghraib, who died in CIA custody after he was beaten, stripped, had cold water poured on him, and then shackled to the wall. It was al-Jamadi's ice-packed body which was infamously photographed with a smiling US Army Sgt Charles Granier standing over it giving the thumbs-up sign. ​

A US military autopsy declared al-Jamadi's death a homicide due to "blunt force trauma to the torso complicated by compromised respiration". Autopsy photos showed "lacerations and multiple bruises on Jamadi's feet, thighs and arms", though "his most significant injuries – five broken ribs – are not visible in the photos." A physician told NPR back in 2005:

"'How Jamadi was shackled 'makes it very difficult to breathe because you are suspended in a very awkward position. When you combine it with having the hood over your head and having broken ribs, it's fairly clear that this death was caused by asphyxia because he couldn't breathe properly.'"

​

So, those are the two cases which the DOJ this week announced it was closing without any charges of any kind being brought. Because the Obama administration has systematically blocked all other cases besides these two from any possibility of criminal charges, yesterday's decision means that nobody in the US government will pay any price for the systematic worldwide torture regime which that nation implemented and maintained for close to a decade.

This is so despite the findings of General Antonio Taguba, who investigated the torture regime and said that "there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes" and "the only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account." And it is done even in the face of General Barry McCaffrey's extraordinary observation that:

"We tortured people unmercifully. We probably murdered dozens of them during the course of that, both the armed forces and the CIA."

​

The ACLU's Jameel Jaffer yesterday said:

"That the justice department will hold no one accountable for the killing of prisoners in CIA custody is nothing short of a scandal … the decision not to file charges against individuals who tortured prisoners to death is yet another entry in what is already a shameful record."

​

Beyond the disgust that these events, on their own, should invoke in any decent person, there are two points worth making about all of this which really highlight just how odious all of it is.

First, Obama has shielded Bush torture crimes not only from criminal prosecution, but any and all forms of accountability. Obama himself vigorously opposed and succeeded in killing even a congressional investigation into the torture regime at a time when his party controlled both houses of Congress.
Moreover, Obama's top officials, as WikiLeaks cables revealed, secretly worked with GOP operatives to coerce other countries, such as Spain and Germany, to quash their investigations into the US torture of their citizens, and issued extraordinary threats to prevent British courts from disclosing any of what was done. And probably worst of all, the Obama administration aggressively shielded Bush officials even from being held accountable in civil cases brought by torture victims, by invoking radical secrecy powers and immunity doctrines to prevent courts even from hearing those claims.​

In sum, the Obama administration has been desperate to ensure that there will be no accountability or even that meaningful investigations ever take place. That is almost certainly due to the fact that numerous high-level members of Obama's own party were so complicit in these crimes. But at least equally important is this remarkable – and, it turns out, prescient – observation from a New York Times article by Charlie Savage in December 2008, on the prospect of torture investigations aimed at Bush officials:

"Because every president eventually leaves office, incoming chief executives have an incentive to quash investigations into their predecessor's tenure."

​

In other words, Obama is motivated to shield Bush officials from accountability for their crimes in the hope that once Obama leaves office, he, too, will be gifted identical immunity from the rule of law.

Second, although government torturers have now been fully protected by Obama from any accountability, those who blow the whistle on such crimes continue to be pursued by the same administration with unprecedented aggression. As Friday's Times article on Holder's announcement pointedly notes:

"While no one has been prosecuted for the harsh interrogations, a former CIA officer who helped hunt members of al-Qaida in Pakistan and later spoke publicly about waterboarding, John C Kiriakou, is awaiting trial on criminal charges that he disclosed to journalists the identity of other CIA officers who participated in the interrogations."

​

Here, again, we see one of the prime precepts of American justice: high-level official who commit even the most egregious crimes are shielded from all accountability; the only real "criminals" are those who speak publicly about those crimes.

When Obama first announced his intent to run for president, he vowed that "the era of Scooter Libby justice … will be over" – meaning high-level officials will no longer be able to break the law with impunity. In mid 2008, Holder denounced Bush's illegal torture and surveillance programs as showing "disrespect for the rule of law", and he vowed:

"We owe the American people a reckoning."

​

To say those pledges have been radically violated is to understate the case. Far worse, though, is that Obama officials have bolstered the warped precept at the root of so many of America's disasters: that crimes committed by and at the behest of the powerful reside above and beyond the rule of law. In so doing, they have ensured that Bush officials who authorized torture continue to command mainstream respectability, while future leaders tempted to torture again have no reason whatsoever to refrain from doing so.

This final act in the sorry spectacle has long been predictable, even inevitable. But that does not make it any less repellent.​

*not_secure_link*www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32343.htm​

 

Cantor is a major tool. He sent out this tweet on Labor Day:

Today, we celebrate those who have taken a risk, worked hard, built a business and earned their own success.

 

Video:Holder Exposed:The Trentadue Torture-Murder Cover-up



The Fast and Furious/Brian Terry Murder cover-up is just the most recent in a long line of cover-ups that Eric Holder has been involved in over the years. Holder cut his teeth on the art of cover-up with the Kenneth Michael Trentadue torture-murder case in the 1990s,learning the art of keeping facts out of the purview of the courts,media,public,and Congress. Learn about this horrific case that has Eric Holder’s fingerprints all over it.
[YOUTUBE]XL1X_homlJY[/YOUTUBE]

*not_secure_link*www.exposeobama.co...xposed-the-trentadue-torture-murder-cover-up/

 

I remember that and just had to laugh at the ignorant hypocrisy. But that's the lie of conservatism and one of its liars in action for you.

In the meantime, however, the conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers in congress are crumbling right now because President Obama and the Democrats are ahead in the polls and they don't want to lose their jobs.

And nothing is a better example of that than Lyin' Paul Ryan running reelection ads for his CONGRESSIONAL seat in his Wisconsin District.

That's a great symbol of his confidence in the Romney/Ryan ticket isn't it.

 

I'm not sure where to put this so I'm gonna stick it here.
View attachment

 

FAILED Obama Policy Leads to.............

QE3: Fed Primes Pump, Americans To Pay Even More At Gas Pump

The Federal Reserve announced a third round of quantitative easing Thursday afternoon, and it is big: A net $40 billion a month in additional purchases of mortgage-backed securities. And policymakers said additional accommodation will continue "for a considerable time after the economic recovery strengthens."​

Crude oil prices have been trending higher, and were up $1 to nearly $98 a barrel in mid-afternoon trade.​

That will quickly filter down to gasoline prices at the pump. Gas prices moved back to $3.847 a gallon last week, the highest since April. They've risen for 10 straight weeks in part on anticipation that QE3 was coming. Gas prices could once again threaten the $4 level — it's already well over that mark in California. ​

And that's with no major supply issues or feared disruptions around the world.​

But the impact of a big, open-ended QE3 is not so clear. The hope is that additional Fed action will lower interest rates, but they're already at rock-bottom levels. Treasury yields actually have moved slightly higher after the Fed announcement.
*not_secure_link*www.investors.com/image/BLOGgas0914_345.gif.cms

*not_secure_link*news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/091312-625616-federal-reserve-qe3-will-boost-gas-prices.htm​

 

You know what I feel is hilarious about this is I think this is another really really bad move on the part of the conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers in congress.

There's something here that touches nearly everyone.

House Republicans Plan Two Month Vacation, Leaving Key Bills Awaiting Action

*not_secure_link*thinkprogress.org/...h-vacation-leaving-key-bills-awaiting-action/

 

LOL*not_secure_link*2.bp.blogspot.com/-MA24pyETFTI/TuZd6ZdcIqI/AAAAAAAAAas/9JMdGQ_3FpI/s400/image001.jpg

 

Rick Santorum speaks the truth!

Christy McSweatervest speaking at the Values Voters Summit:

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side."

*not_secure_link*www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/rick-santorum-says-smart-people-will-never-be-on

I'm not even going to make a remark.

 

This reminds me of a story from the American presidential election of 1952. Adlai Stevenson was the governor of Illinois, and considered to be an intellectual. He was the Democratic candidate, with the hapless task of running against Dwight Eisenhower, the leading war hero from World War II.

Anyway, someone is said to have said to Stevenson, "Every thinking person supports you."

Stevenson replied, "I know, but I need a majority."

This may be apocryphal.

 

Here's the video:

*not_secure_link*youtu.be/0n5oa55EsmI

Hey, maybe I could make a killing selling those "I'm With Stupid" t-shirts at the conservative rallies.

 

Well here's another study that actually proves the lie of conservatism as it is preached and practiced in this nation.

Tax Cuts For The Rich Do Not Spur Economic Growth: Study

*not_secure_link*tpmdc.talkingpoint...tudy-taxes-economic-growth.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

 

Is Joe Biden Too Dumb To Be On a National Ticket?

As you have probably heard, Joe Biden did it again today: he forgot what century we are living in. This follows a bad day yesterday, when Biden forgot what state he was in, and then told a Virginia audience that the Republicans are “going to put y’all back in chains.” Oh, today Biden also referred to Paul Ryan as “Governor Ryan.”
Such blunders are conventionally referred to as gaffes, but with Biden they come so fast and furiously that one wonders whether something else is at work. Rudy Giuliani finally said yesterday what many have thought for a long time:

I think the vice president of the United States has become a laugh line on late night television. I mean, he — I’ve never seen a vice president that has made as many mistakes, said as many stupid things. I mean, there’s a real fear if, God forbid, he ever had to be entrusted with the presidency, whether he really has the mental capacity to handle it. I mean, this guy just isn’t bright. He’s never been bright. He isn’t bright. And people think, “Well, he just talks a little too much.” Actually he’s just not very smart.
​

But “not very smart” doesn’t fully capture Biden’s incapacity either. Biden is a blowhard, but one who often displays a shocking lack of knowledge. Recall, for example, his debate with Sarah Palin in 2008. The press charitably scored the event a draw, but it included a number of howlers by Biden, the most astonishing of which was when Biden, who chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee for eight years, referred to executive powers as conferred by Article I of the Constitution–which, if you haven’t checked lately, relates to Congress. The executive power is treated in Article II. It is hard to convey what a remarkable error this is for someone who holds himself out as knowledgeable with respect to constitutional law. It is roughly equivalent to a man claiming to be an expert on the Bible, who tells you that the life of Jesus is detailed in the Old Testament. Or a purported expert on American history pompously declaiming on George Washington’s role in the Battle of Gettysburg.
It does seem that Biden’s condition, whatever it is, is getting worse. He has generally been treated as an object of humor–”Slow Joe,” the crazy but somewhat lovable uncle in the attic–but when he can’t get through a day without making the wrong kind of headlines, the situation is no longer funny.
Is there any chance that President Obama will dump Biden from the ticket, as some are urging? I don’t think so. The Obama campaign, more than anything else, is feverishly trying to preserve the illusion that everything is going fine. Replacing Biden would be seen as an act of desperation and–even worse from Obama’s perspective–an admission of error. So for better or worse, we can look forward to being entertained by Joe Biden until November, even as our reaction to that entertainment grows increasingly queasy.
UPDATE: Michael Ramirez identifies the ball and chain that weigh Joe Biden down:
*not_secure_link*www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2012/08/RAMFNLclr-081612-biden-IBD-.jpg.cms_.jpeg

*not_secure_link*www.powerlineblog....biden-too-dumb-to-be-on-a-national-ticket.php