The many faces/lies of the "WH:

[Guest]

the "WH" said it would refuse supoenas regarding the Solyndra investigation as Obama, in so many words, too busy upholding his constitutional duties.

And now that he is getting ready to leave Washington for Bali for an extended period of time, here is what the WH is saying:

"He is, as president of the United States, obligated to travel around the world and represent American interests abroad at these gatherings," White House spokesman Jay Carney said. "It is also true that he is fully capable, wherever he is, of exercising his authority and engaging with his staff here, with the administration, with members of Congress from abroad."

This part is worth repeating:

"...he is fully capable, wherever he is, of exercising his authority and engaging with his staff here,..."

The WH which of course is used interchangeably as a synonym for Obama, does not make any effort to keep track of what they said last or when ever. The only thing that matters to the WH or Obama is the here and now and the subject at hand. Which obviously by their actions and statements over the past three years have no concerns what so ever about continuity, credibility or truth. Just the subject and audience in front of them at the time. In this manner of "performing" they are very consistent.

Where is the credibility?

btk

[Guest]

Where is the credibility?

Where are the WMD's?
Where is the oil, the previous administration told us would pay for the war?

It is almost humorous (if it weren't so sad) to hear cons talk about credibility.

[Guest]

There is no crediblity. Hope and change for the absolute worst in history. There are so many scandals that have been happening and the press gives this guy a pass. One more year and this disgrace of a president will be gone.

[Guest]

now if we could only get the WH and Obama to look backwards as consistently as the followers need to do!!

btk

[Guest]

Where is the credibility?

Where are the WMD's?
Where is the oil, the previous administration told us would pay for the war?

It is almost humorous (if it weren't so sad) to hear cons talk about credibility.

Why not answer the questions from the OP first and if you have other questions about the previous administration, then start a new thread.

[Guest]

Why not answer the questions from the OP first and if you have other questions about the previous administration, then start a new thread.

You don't understand the method used by the libs. Change the subject, get it off track, do anything that will make you forget what you were originally talking (writing) aobut. Works really good on this board in the Pol Talk.

[Guest]

Gosh - where to start......

On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax."

[Guest]

On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.

[Guest]

On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government]."

[Guest]

:icon_bored: let us know when you reach the present....you will recognize it by the dates or current events planned or in process.

The technique (I am being polite by even giving it a label) is either a red herring, or a lateral arabesque, a diversion or denial. They all facilitate not dealing with the here/hear and now.

You have so much to look forward to when you finally arrive in November 2011!!!

btk

[Guest]

coralway,
Thank you for the history lesson but everything you listed points to everyone except Bush.
He was given bad intel. Pres. Bush also told the american people what he was doing as he was doing it.
Obama has so many hidden agendas going on I am not sure he can keep up with them.
Do you think it would have been OK for Bush to refuse supoenas from congress. It would have been blown up so big, you would have thought it was Watergate.

[Guest]

the "WH" said it would refuse supoenas regarding the Solyndra investigation as Obama, in so many words, too busy upholding his constitutional duties.

And now that he is getting ready to leave Washington for Bali for an extended period of time, here is what the WH is saying:

"He is, as president of the United States, obligated to travel around the world and represent American interests abroad at these gatherings," White House spokesman Jay Carney said. "It is also true that he is fully capable, wherever he is, of exercising his authority and engaging with his staff here, with the administration, with members of Congress from abroad."

This part is worth repeating:

"...he is fully capable, wherever he is, of exercising his authority and engaging with his staff here,..."

The WH which of course is used interchangeably as a synonym for Obama, does not make any effort to keep track of what they said last or when ever. The only thing that matters to the WH or Obama is the here and now and the subject at hand. Which obviously by their actions and statements over the past three years have no concerns what so ever about continuity, credibility or truth. Just the subject and audience in front of them at the time. In this manner of "performing" they are very consistent.

Where is the credibility?

btk

I agree