Posted on 02/02/2009 1:20:55 AM PST by Schnucki
HA!!! I said the left should expect more status quo from Obama, especially on foreign policy.
LOL! Oh, wow, there goes another campaign promise.
I am truly enjoying this, though that may make me a bad person. I don’t want Obama to “fail” and thus ruin my country, but I am really having a good time as another of his promises turns out to be nothing. He ran on the economy, and is continuing on the path Bush began; he ran against “secret renditions” or whatever, and he is following Bush’s lead, now that he knows what Bush was up against; he ran against Bush’s military policies, and kept on his Sec Def...
It will be fun to watch the Olberman’s spin this as NOT being more Bush.
Of course, I think Obama is just disappointing his fans early on to prep us for the REAL restructuring he wants to do later, once he’s gotten all this behind him. Then he will show how he IS different. I won’t be laughing then.
Commonsense prevails.
not really. This was the plan all along. See, Obama campaigned on symbolism. Closing Gitmo is part of that symbolic gesture that the US cares. It’s a visible and tangible place that everyone identifies with the war on terror. But rendition isn’t. It’s not a place or something physical that anyone can identify with. This news just further exposes what a hypocrite Bacrack is. And of course, will the media call him on this and ask him to explain why closing Gitmo is ok but ending the rendition program isn’t? Don’t hold your breath.
"Within certain parameters" means "when we Democrats do it".
If you read some of the Dim sites, even hard left sites, you’ll see every excuse in the world for the Zero doing this. It’s amazing how they can justify any reversal he makes.
Yes, it’s different now, as opposed to when Bush did it...well, because it IS, that’s why, and you’re a racist if you don’t see it!
I wonder how these people will respond when the New York Times starts revealing US military secrets now that Obama is president?
Oh, right—the NYT WON’T be revealing them, now.
“Within certain parameters” means “when we Democrats do it”.
Nailed it.
They are GOOD, so whatever they do, since it is being done by GOOD people, that, too, is GOOD by its very nature.
In reality, they are EVIL TO THE CORE!
In EVERYTHING THEY DO!
They have the devil’s MIDAS TOUCH!
> Any thoughts?
I’d guess the Secret Service are just the “hired help” and anyway one day they will be replaced by his Praetorian Guard from The ‘Hood.
So, no problem for The One.
They have the devil’s MIDAS TOUCH!
LOL!
They have the Judas Touch.
Are you serious? That is incredible. How hard would it be for someone to find out the identity of the agent?
Forget whether or not it's legal, why would you want to do that? This guy is protecting you and you're putting personal information out there?
This Obama guy, he ain't that smart.
That’s right!
You all got it wrong. It’s not a problem anymore, as Barack is now in charge of the policy.
I am quite serious.
I was at work, eating lunch in our employee dining room with six other people when the statement was made. Lauer was trying to kid around with Zero about the U of F’s claim to the National Title and Zero’s advocacy of a playoff system. He kept saying “Remember - 27 Electoral votes!”
Zero tried to smooth his way out and said that one of his Secret Service agents had a son who played tackle there (U of F). It would seem to me that in doing so he narrowed the man’s identity down to four, maybe five individuals - tops.
When he said it, three of us at the table (all military veterans) looked at each other and said “Did you hear what he just said?!?”
If someone was so inclined, finding out who’s daddy is guarding the President would be a snap.
Not much point in calling the Service “Secret”, is there?
I’m shaking my head at that. Amazing. I mean, I’m not president and even *I* would have let that pass without comment.
Which only feeds my pet theory about Obama, based on much research:
The guy has no friends.
This may seem like a minor, minor point but the man seems overwhelmed by the amount of attention he’s getting, and I don’t see much joy in him. He once said himself he is a screen on which people project their idea of what they want him to be.
I think he is looking to be liked for himself, but realizes he’s in the wrong place for that, and will never, ever be able to believe people like him for him, as opposed to the symbol.
This isn’t just creepy, it’s, as you point out, dangerous to our national security.
Change(?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.