Obama’s U.N. Nominee Thwarted Efforts To Capture Osama bin Laden

[dhalltoyo]

December 3, 2008 – President-Elect Barack Obama has picked Dr. Susan Rice to be the new United Nations Ambassador.

Rice served as Bill Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs and later worked as foreign policy advisor to John Kerry and John Edwards during their 2004 presidential campaign.

Terrorism experts blame Rice for having played a key role in blocking efforts to neutralize Osama bin Laden in the 1990s. According to Mansoor Ijaz, a former trouble shooter for Clinton, the FBI had their efforts to capture bin Laden “overruled every single time by the State Department, by Susan Rice and her cronies, who were hell-bent on destroying the Sudan.”

In a Washington Post Op-Ed published in 2002, Mansoor Ijaz and Tim Carney, U.S. Ambassador to Sudan blamed Susan Rice for being a major obstacle to accepting offers of help from Sudan and to share their intelligence on bin Laden’s terror network.

Rice was also influential in the Clinton Administration’s remaining uninvolved in the Rwandan genocide that took place in that nation in 1994.

The Atlantic (September 2001) published an article by Samantha Power titled: “Bystanders to Genocide,” and outlined Rice’s role in the do-nothing policy of the Clinton Administration. At one point during debate on what the Administration should do, Rice said: “If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?” Those present were stunned by her comment. Lt. Colonel Tony Marley remembers the statement: “We could believe that people would wonder that, but not that they would actually voice it.” Rice claimed that if she did make this statement it was inappropriate.

(Samantha Power is currently on Obama’s transition team to review State Department policies and employees. She was booted from the campaign earlier for having called Hillary Clinton a “monster.”)

“Susan Rice’s appointment as U.N. Ambassador sends a clear signal to United Nations lovers that the Obama Administration will be kowtowing to the wishes of this corrupt international organization,” said TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty. “Rice is viewed by one-world advocates as a positive sign that Obama will submit to U.N. edicts.”

Reprint from Traditional Values Coalition

 

[PalletJack]

Whats the point?

Are you going to post every Obama critical article
for the next four years and not contribute a personal
opinion related to the article?

Or are you just stirring the racial pot to generate negativity?

 

[LDB]

I think the point is the moron elect is appointing idiots.

 

[cheri1122]

I wonder, too: why post an article without any comment? Stirring the pot? Waiting to see which way the wind blows, before commenting? If I felt like responding to an article, I'd contact the author, or write a letter to the editor.
Replying to a post in which the OP keeps their own opinion to themselves makes me feel as if I'm dancing to someone else's drumbeat - no thanks. If one wants to open a dialogue, the general rule is: you begin with a comment. In your own words. Otherwise, there's nothing there that we couldn't find elsewhere, because we all know how to read newspaper articles.

 

[highway star]

Cheri, since he's publicly posted that he's not responsible for what he says, does it really matter if he says anything?

 

[letzrockexpress]

Oh yeah, Obama is a moron... Maybe for sh*ts and giggles he'll invade a sovereign nation while Usama Bin Laden (yes it's Usama with a U), is still wandering around in Kashmir. Whining is futile, not to mention unattractive.

 

[chefdennis]

letzroc wrote:

Maybe for sh*ts and giggles he'll invade a soverign nation

One can only hope so!! Works for me!!

 

[Pilgrim]

Whats the point?

Are you going to post every Obama critical article
for the next four years and not contribute a personal
opinion related to the article?

Or are you just stirring the racial pot to generate negativity?

The article seems to speak for itself, and it would seem redundant to throw in a comment just to confirm one's agreement. Regarding the racial pot - I wonder how long the democrats, the mainstream media and others will continue to label as racists anyone who dares to criticize this half-African Arab president elect? This article raises some legitimate points, and the skin color of the people being discussed should be irrelevant.

 

[cheri1122]

Pilgrim: perhaps you need to reread the statement defining what the Soapbox is for: expressing one's opinion. Posting articles without comment isn't expressing one's own opinion, IMO, it's letting someone else take the heat if folks disagree. If you haven't got the words to express yourself, what are you contributing here? Because we can get articles, sans comment, from a clipping service- if that's what we want.
I'll let Palletjack defend his words, because I didn't mention race - as you said, it's irrelevant.
(After which, you labeled Obama as "Half African Arab" - that was relevant, huh?)

 

[dhalltoyo]

Most truckers that I have met do not read the newspaper, or magazines; therefore, I am allowing them to have access to an article that they probably would not have had the opportunity to read.

Stirring the racial pot? What a joke! And its on you.

I have two nieces whose husbands are black.

They just laugh when they read such comments.

Quite often their children, Marcus and Makela, are over at our house so as to give mom and dad time to themselves. We love them! Do mom and dad have the same political views as mine? No. We do adamantly express our opinions regarding our personal and political convictions, but we do not attack one another's character.

Moreover, my stepfather is Filpino and I have a huge extended family of Filipino brothers and sisters. So let's not go there with such ridiculous comments regarding that which you know nothing about.

And since you didn't ask...my first choice for president was a black woman. A Christian lady that possess traditonal family values...Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

The article never mentions race, color or creed. Why did you make it an issue? Well duh, it is easier for you to attack me personally and insinuate that I am a racist inside of dealing with the context of the article.

I realize that posting an article that is truthful, you check the facts regarding Susan Rice for yourself, does set well with many folks. Why? Simple, folks just do not like hearing the truth. In fact, it more comforting for them to believe a lie.

That is why the Apostle Paul made this statement, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?"

Inside of dealing with the context of the article I posted...you attack me personally; you attack my character. No problem, I have come to expect such.

If you have any rebuttal...then stick to the context of the article.

The author of the information clearly stated exactly what I already knew about Susan Rice.

I didn't believe it necessary to type, "ditto".

But if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy here is my opinion regarding the author's article....DITTO.

 

[Pilgrim]

Pilgrim: perhaps you need to reread the statement defining what the Soapbox is for: expressing one's opinion. Posting articles without comment isn't expressing one's own opinion, IMO, it's letting someone else take the heat if folks disagree. If you haven't got the words to express yourself, what are you contributing here? Because we can get articles, sans comment, from a clipping service- if that's what we want.
I'll let Palletjack defend his words, because I didn't mention race - as you said, it's irrelevant.
(After which, you labeled Obama as "Half African Arab" - that was relevant, huh?)

So in order to be in compliance with Soapbox regulations, one should preface an article like this with "I agree/disagree with the content of this article"? OK, that's doable. Regarding the labeling - read the post again. You'll see that the "labeling" began with insinuations of racism in "stirring the racial pot". Once the race card is played, the other labeling starts as a consequence. You should also notice in the post that I suggested skin color should be irrelevant AFTER I attempted to make my point about the labeling.

 

[dhalltoyo]

Pilgrim, my response was in no way referencing your post.

It was directed toward those who delight in "piling on" whenever I post anything.

Evidence:

I wonder, too: why post an article without any comment? Stirring the pot? Waiting to see which way the wind blows, before commenting?

Interesting how Blonde Chick posts nothing but a hyperlink: "How Obama Got Elected" (look down a few posts below) and they had NOTHING to say about that posting.

It is so obvious to even the casual observer how personal are these attacks.

 

[cheri1122]

Most truckers that I have met do not read the newspaper, or magazines; therefore, I am allowing them to have access to an article that they probably would not have had the opportunity to read.

It's very kind of you to "allow" the drivers you've met who don't read newspapers or magazines access to an article (but if they can read EO, why can't they surf the net to find their own choice of reading material?) The membership of EO doesn't fit that description, though (MOST truckers?! Are you serious?!) I see plenty of evidence that we do indeed read newspapers and magazines. I see plenty who are willing to put their own words out here too, which takes a lot of guts, IMO. Whether I agree with them or not, I'm impressed by those who stand ready to defend their words & ideas. They know that it involves the risk of being challenged, it goes with the territory (posting on a public forum). Personally, I enjoy being challenged, because it forces me to think, and that's a good thing, in my book.
It helps to counteract those 'blonde' relapses I am prone to on occasion.
PS The 'warm & fuzzy' remark was uncalled for - if warm & fuzzy is what you want, maybe the Fuzzy Cuddly Bunny Forum is the place to look for it.

 

[cheri1122]

Pilgrim, my response was in no way referencing your post.

It was directed toward those who delight in "piling on" whenever I post anything.

Evidence:


The fact that "they" didn't reply to another post is what you call 'evidence' of "delight in piling on"? I disagree. It may be interesting to you, but then, it suits your agenda: 'proving' that challenges to your posts aren't merited by the posts themselves. I stand by my assertion: reposting the words of someone else isn't dialogue, it's evading any responsibility for those words, because they're not yours. It's something many do occasionally, but when the majority of posts consist of reprints, then yeah, I wonder why. (And the explanation you provided was pathetic, you know? Truck drivers don't read the papers? I'm highly offended by that remark.)
Interesting how Blonde Chick posts nothing but a hyperlink: "How Obama Got Elected" (look down a few posts below) and they had NOTHING to say about that posting.
Not every post merits a reply - not even every one of yours. Though I admit that I find most of yours cry out for a rebuttal, IMO.
What I find interesting, is how you deflect the conversation, away from your words, pointing to someone else's instead.


It is so obvious to even the casual observer how personal are these attacks.

It may be 'obvious' to you, but not to anyone else whose words I've disagreed with - most of whom happen to be my friends: Leo, Highway
Star, TennesseeHawk, Arkjar, even Lawrence. Heck, I can disagree with Leo twice a week, and still have tremendous respect for him, because he's willing to discuss what HE said, same as I am.
You, however, claim that I'm "piling on" and engaging in personal attacks, when I disagree, or question your words, instead of defending your words. But hey - you can question mine too, you know, any time, and I won't whine about any 'piling on' I promise.

 

[dhalltoyo]

Again, you deflect from the facts.

Maybe you should get a job as someone's campaign manager; you do it so well. I thought "Slick Willie" was good, but you far surpass his ability to deviate from the context.

You did not respond to Blonde Chicks post which was simply a hyperlink with no informatiom posted, but you did mine.

We can all go back through the posts and clearly see the pattern.

It does not bother me, just stating the facts.

Are you kidding? I have never walked into a truck stop and saw anyone reading a newspaper other than a traveler in the restaurant. Shall we take a poll?

The reprints are from RSS feeds to which I subscribe. They are from sources that are "like-minded", that is, from those with whom I share the same values. Why spend time rehashing what they have already written? I agree with the facts printed within the context of the article.

When I don't agree with the information then I would be incline to post an opposing view; as you have done, but I will not attack you personally; as you have done.

Let me know when you have something of substance regarding the context of the information found within the context of the article that was posted. Take a couple of milliseconds and enlighten us regarding everything that is not factual within the context of the article that was posted.

 

[cheri1122]

Again, you deflect from the facts.
One cannot deflect FROM something - please check the definition of the word, because you've embarrassed yourself again, by using the wrong word. I admit that I delight in pointing it out when you do that, because you have portrayed yourself as "highly educated", but I am not seeing that in your writing. (People who use words incorrectly are generally trying to convey the impression of being educated, but they trip themselves up by using words not common in the vocabulary of the less well educated.)

Maybe you should get a job as someone's campaign manager; you do it so well. I thought "Slick Willie" was good, but you far surpass his ability to deviate from the context.
I don't wanna be anyone's campaign manager, I like what I'm doing now, thank you.
Oh - "deviate from the context" doesn't make any sense, either. Remarks can be taken out of context, but deviating from the context is a semantic booboo.

You did not respond to Blonde Chicks post which was simply a hyperlink with no informatiom posted, but you did mine.
That I didn't respond to one post proves what? Only that I don't respond to every post, nothing more. I don't respond to every post of yours, what does that "prove"?

We can all go back through the posts and clearly see the pattern.
Yep, we can see a pattern alright: when I read a post I feel moved to comment on, I do so. My comments are related to what was posted, and that's what it's all about. If you take exception to what I post, you are free to do likewise.

It does not bother me, just stating the facts.
I'm not gonna touch the "it doesn't bother me" line, but what facts? Only one I read is that I didn't respond to another post - what does that "prove"? (Hint: the answer is above).

Are you kidding? I have never walked into a truck stop and saw anyone reading a newspaper other than a traveler in the restaurant. Shall we take a poll?
Another totally false extrapolation: you've never seen anyone reading a newspaper in a truckstop, so therefore, truckers never read newspapers. This is the kind of statement that defies rational thinking, you know?
Sure, let's take a poll - I'm game!

The reprints are from RSS feeds to which I subscribe. They are from sources that are "like-minded", that is, from those with whom I share the same values. Why spend time rehashing what they have already written? I agree with the facts printed within the context of the article.

When I don't agree with the information then I would be incline to post an opposing view; as you have done, but I will not attack you personally; as you have done.
That wasn't you who said "some who delight in piling on"? That wasn't a personal attack?

Let me know when you have something of substance regarding the context of the information found within the context of the article that was posted. Take a couple of milliseconds and enlighten us regarding everything that is not factual within the context of the article that was posted.

The subject here is NOT the article you posted, and I have no comment to make on the article. As I said before, if I did, I'd address it to the author of the article. The subject is the posting of articles, without any comment. Perhaps it seems clear to you that you agree with the article, but do you suppose that's always to be assumed? Might not someone post an article describing a situation they consider outrageous beyond belief? I might, and it doesn't mean I agree with it.
Even if we assume the poster is always in agreement, the point remains: the Soapbox exists to facilitate dialogue, and reprinting articles without comment leaves the reader to guess at the motive for posting it.
That's all I'm sayin.

 

[LDB]

My dime flips the following way. When someone who participates regularly and speaks their mind and convictions chooses now and then to post an article without commenting on it I see no problem with that. If someone were to join the forum and post articles all the time but never contribute a word of their own anywhere at any time that would get old quickly. I admire those who have the discipline to sit and write detailed posts explaining their positions. I have a thimble to hold my patience and it's chipped so it can't even be filled fully.

I don't read newspapers because the delivery boy can't keep up on his bicycle. I don't read magazines because they're overpriced and primarily filled with liberal foolishness anyway. I also don't read more than a few sentences of articles such as this that are posted here. That does give me a few more sentences than I'd otherwise have though. So, in finishing my dime's worth, we'll have to all agree to disagree on whether a thread start such as this one is correct or not. That said, let's abandon the deceased equine and keep any further discussion on topic re: the OP not the appropriateness or lack thereof of the thread. Thanks.

 

[highway star]

USA Today went up to a buck. But wait, who cares? No one here reads it! Are you kidding me? That's some kind of flawed study that showed truck drivers don't read newspapers. If that's the case, then why do I frequently see empty boxes in the evening? Someone bought 'em...

It seems to me that there are some "unwritten rules" as far as web etiquette is concerned. Why post an article when a link would do? Either way, it certainly seems like it would make sense to add a few of your own words as a starting point for discussion and/or debate. I would also never edit a post to change the substance. To me, it would reflect poor character on my part to do so. I'll defend what I say or admit I was wrong. I've done both.