Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More from the "Incredibly Stupid or Willfully Ignorant Crowdâ„¢"...
First, we have the ignorant masses on the right castigating President Obama for not signing the SOFA, which would have, in essence, put American troops and contractors under the jurisdiction of the Iraqi courts. Yes, ignorant righties wanted Iraqi courts to have the power to throw our American servicemen in jail and parade them through their kangaroo courts...
And now, these same dumbasses are ridiculing President Obama for not blowing up an HISTORIC nuclear treaty with Iran over 4 Americans in Iraq...who Obama has NOT forgotten about, and WILL have freed in a matter of months anyway...
As our illustrious HistorianDude use to say...
Those on the right are playing checkers, while the President is playing chess...
Excellent and deserving question. This is how it should be. They are the press, journalists. You are supposed to ask the tough questions, hurt feelings, dig for answers. Hats off to Major and we can only with the rest of the media weren't the lap dogs that they are. I dont care if you are liberal or conservative or whatever, you should demand the press ask these kind of questions. Put your stupid love affair for your agenda and 'saviors' aside.
Obama and company have been taking a victory lap. Foolishly. Not just because Iran basically doesn't lose anything and gained everything, but 4 Americans are still being held by Iran. I don't think we gained a damn thing with this deal, and even worse, we couldn't free these guys?! He makes a deal to release terrorists for a rogue treasonous soldier yet doesn't fight for these men's release?
It's a stupid question because of its sensationalist bias. It's right up there with asking, "when did you stop beating your wife?"
More from the "Incredibly Stupid or Willfully Ignorant Crowd™"...
First, we have the ignorant masses on the right castigating President Obama for not signing the SOFA, which would have, in essence, put American troops and contractors under the jurisdiction of the Iraqi courts. Yes, ignorant righties wanted Iraqi courts to have the power to throw our American servicemen in jail and parade them through their kangaroo courts...
And now, these same dumbasses are ridiculing President Obama for not blowing up an HISTORIC nuclear treaty with Iran over 4 Americans in Iraq...who Obama has NOT forgotten about, and WILL have freed in a matter of months anyway...
As our illustrious HistorianDude use to say...
Those on the right are playing checkers, while the President is playing chess...
You're too funny.
Obama could have negotiated a SOFA that would not have put American troops and contractors under the jurisdiction of Iraqi courts.
In fact, the Boy King didn't have to negotiate at all.
He could have said, "We're keeping troops and contractors here whether you like it or not, and they're not going to be subject to your jurisdiction whether you like or not."
What were they going to do to stop him?
Answer: Nothing.
Instead, he left Iraq defenseless, and now Iran and ISIS have taken over.
Obama's foreign policy shows that he is anti-American.
Last edited by dechatelet; 07-17-2015 at 12:43 AM..
It's a stupid question because of its sensationalist bias. It's right up there with asking, "when did you stop beating your wife?"
Wrong.
"When did you stop beating your wife?" is a poison pill question that you ask of someone you know has never beaten his wife or have no reason to believe has ever beaten his wife.
We know that Obama couldn't care less about the American prisoners.
To rational people, yes, he's the one who looked bad. He basically just made up some nonsense out of thin air and attributed it to Obama, then asked Obama to defend it. It was completely childish, and he rightly got put in his place.
It's one thing to lie about the president. It's quite another to lie about the president, to the president, when he's standing ten feet from you with mics and cameras rolling.
But, all that said, it was a pretty good move on his part if his goal was to throw some red meat to the Obama haters on the far far right. It doesn't matter that what he said was completely baseless and totally inappropriate because they'll cheer on anyone who will attack the president for any reason, made up or not.
Nope.
If the reporter was down in the sewer with that question, then Obama jumped into the same sewer to sling the s**t as well. The President should have ignored the insult, and replied with the actual facts. This didn't happen. One can only conclude that real effort only, on the part of the hostages, hasn't really taken place lest it interfere with this deal.
What Garrett did was perfectly acceptable. It's been done by journalists since the country was formed. It's the President who should have taken the high road. He is after all the President of the USA. I do have to give it to Obama for being a good politician (not a good thing). His response, made Garrett the issue, instead of the issue raised by the question.
A rational person would ask, in the zeal to get this deal done, were the hostages simply taken off the table by Obama. That is the real question, which has not been answered.
This is what a rational person would see. A partisan, i.e. someone lost in the world of political dogma only sees that Obama or Garrett as a bogyman.
The way Major asked the question was in the way of a major a$$***e. Reagan would have ripped him a new butthole. Clinton would have wagged his finger rigorously at him. He got off easy with a very civilized response from Obama.
Actually, Reagan would have probably made a joke about the wording of the question, and then he would have answered it, professionally.
Seems like the last time the President made a deal to get an American hostage freed from Muslims he was accused of giving away the farm for a psychopathic trader.
Seems like the last time the President made a deal to get an American hostage freed from Muslims he was accused of giving away the farm for a psychopathic trader.
"Mr. President, there are also four Americans being held in Iranian prisons. Why were they not included in these negotiations?" is a legitimate question. Garret did not ask that. Instead, he asked that Obama explain why he was "content" with them being in prison. That is not a question about the prisoners, or the negotiations around them, it's a question about the president's feelings. And the president called him out on his rude question, and then addresses what was actually important.
Seems like the last time the President made a deal to get an American hostage freed from Muslims he was accused of giving away the farm for a psychopathic trader.
... Well Obama is a moron. If he knows he's too stupid to negotiate the release of prisoners, what the hell is he doing trying to negotiate nuclear treaties with hostile countries?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
