Axelrod re: Afghanistan & terrorists being tried in NYC

November 16, 2009

Are you aware that David Axelrod sits in the discussions about Afghanistan?

David Axelrod the WH’s resident lobbyist discussed Gitmo closure, Afghanistan decison and KSM being tried in NYC on State of the Union with John King (Lou Dobbs new replacement). Axelrod sets up Holder as the one responsible – barry was informed of the decision and the reasoning behind it. Axelrod admitted Gitmo won’t be closed completely, but wouldn’t give a deadline. He said they are going to “substantially meet the deadline”. barry said it would be closed. He ran on that and people voted for him because of it. Once the deadline passes – barry’s lies will be 100% complete and he will have been proven to be a complete fraud.

TRANSCRIPT

KING: Let’s begin with the controversial decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 alleged conspirators in the federal courts in New York City, just a short walk from the site of the twin towers collapsing….This is Jim Webb, Democratic senator from Virginia who says, “they do not belong in our country, they do not belong in our courts, and they do not belong in our prisons.”

Why, David Axelrod, did the administration decide to take this step?

AXELROD:

Well, I think for the same reason that Mayor Bloomberg and others felt strongly that we should. We believe that these folks should be tried in New York City, as you say, near where their heinous acts were conducted, in full view in our court system, which we believe in.

Translation: barry wants to make an impression on the world – 9-11 family members be damned. Just like 9-11 anniversary – neither POTUS or FLOTUS went to NYC and they named Sept 11 day of service – like it needed naming. No reason why Michelle couldn’t have been there. And who are the “others”? And the heinous acts were an act of terrorism that resulted in the deaths of 2974 innocent people.

AXELROD: We’ve had, you know, since 2001, have had 195 terrorism cases in the courts, and we’ve been successful 91 percent of the time. We’re very confident about these cases, and we believe this is the appropriate thing to do.

And what if this trial ends in that 9%?

They’re relying on the jury to convict and totally ignoring the judge and whether the confession will be allowed. In civil court, torture obtained confessions are inadmissible. Period. It will come down to whether a terrorist, who has no rights under the Geneva Convention, and who carried out an unprovoked on American soil was read his rights.

AXELROD: This is a judgment the attorney general made in concert with the secretary of defense. As you know, there were five other cases that were sent to military commissions, but we feel strongly that justice will be done here.

And frankly it’s been a long time in coming. A lot of these cases have been delayed for many, many years. And now, the people who suffered so much in that attack will get the justice they deserve.

Did he ask them what they wanted?

A daily reminder? Having to look at the murderers face in the papers and in TV and all over the internet?

KING: We will have later in the program the former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who of course was the mayor when the horrible tragedy of 9/11 took place. And he is among those who say, to him, this reflects returning to a pre-9/11 mentality of treating terrorism as a crime, not an act of war. How would you answer that?

AXELROD: You know, it is odd, because when the 20th 9/11 bomber was tried in Virginia, in a civilian court, and convicted, Mayor Giuliani testified in that case and he heralded the outcome. So he may have changed his view, but we haven’t changed ours.

It may have had something to do with the muslim murderer in Texas.

KING: You mentioned this was the attorney general’s decision. How involved was the president of the United States?

AXELROD: Well, the president was informed of the attorney general’s decision and his reasoning for the decision. This was a decision for the attorney general to make, in concert with the secretary of defense.

Translation: Doesn’t go well, it’s Holder’s head.

KING: It is a reminder bringing these terrorists to New York City for trial, alleged terrorists, a reminder of the controversy about Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We are just now two months and one week away from this promise from the president of the United States.

KING: If you talk, David Axelrod, to top officials at the Pentagon, top officials at the building you work at, in the White House, they say now it is a near impossibility that that deadline will be kept. When will Gitmo be closed?

AXELROD: We believe we are going to substantially meet the deadline. We may not hit it on the date, but we will close Guantanamo. And we are making good progress toward doing that.

“Substantially”?

Open – close are absolutes and barry said one year.

KING: Any idea? Two months, four months, six months more?

AXELROD: I‘m not going to put a deadline on it, John. But we are going to get it done. We are moving toward getting it done in all the different dimensions that are necessary to get it done. The president believes it is important to get it done and to end this chapter in our history. And we are going to get it done.

Too late you already have a deadline. And again, barry’s words mean nothing.

KING: Part of this chapter in our history is the 9/11 attacks, which, of course, were hatched in Afghanistan. And the president is closer to making this big decision he has to make about how many troops. When he makes that decision, will he lay out for the American people not only the rationale for the decision he has made, but an exit strategy for Afghanistan? If you travel the country as I do all the time, people keep saying, eight years later, how long is it going to take? How much is it going to cost? How many lives will be lost? Will the president give us an exit strategy?

AXELROD: Well, I think that is a concern. And it is obviously one of the factors the president is thinking through. We have been there for eight years; it is a long, long time. And we have to keep focused on what our purpose was in the first place. Our purpose was to disrupt and dismantle and destroy Al Qaeda. That remains our purpose.

But obviously we can not make an open-ended commitment. And we want to do this in a way that maximizes our efforts against Al Qaeda, but within the framework of bringing out troops home at some point. And the president has made that clear in all these discussions. There has to be a framework to this decision.

But we are getting close. It has been a good process.

And how many Americans have been killed? How many undeployed soldiers killed themselves so they wouldn’t have to go? He’s not going to make his decision until after the new year.

KING: As you know, conservatives have been critical of the president’s policy review, saying, why is it taking so long? The former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney gave a speech this weekend in which he said, not only why is it taking so long for the president to decide, but he also said, why is David Axelrod, his top political adviser, involved in these deliberations? Let’s listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIT ROMNEY, (R-MA,) FMR. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I find it incomprehensible and inexcusable that this president invites David Axelrod into national security meetings. Polls and politics have no place at that table. He is the commander in chief. What has he been doing? Do you realize he carried out more than 30 campaign visits in this last season, for various Democrats? While he can’t make up his mind on Afghanistan, or have enough time to meet with generals, he is out there campaigning.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Let’s take them in order. Why does David Axelrod deserve a seat at that table? And why is it taking so long?

AXELROD: Well, first of all, let’s be clear. David Axelrod does not have a seat at that table. I have observed these discussions because, as I am today, I have to help communicate the message of the administration. And so it is helpful for me to hear. I have not said a word in any of those meetings.

Now let’s take the second part. Governor Romney has to choose one argument or another. Either he has to say he is not paying attention or he has to say he is taking too long because he has been involved in a rigorous review.

The president has had hours and hours and hours of meetings with his military commanders, with his national security team, to run through every aspect of this, in order to get it right. And we’ve seen in the past what happens when we don’t do that; when we don’t do the necessary preparations. And he is determined to get Afghanistan right. It is something that Secretary Gates supports. It is something that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff supports. General McChrystal has been supportive of this process.

And, you know, I know that Governor Romney has never had responsibility for any decision akin to this, and so he just may not be familiar with all that it entails. But I think the American people are being well served by a process that is assiduous and in which every aspect of this is considered. Because, after all, lives of American servicemen are involved here. An enormous investment on the part of the American people. We ought to get it right.

He’s Philosopher in Chief not Commander in Chief. Gen McCrystal had to force barry’s hand. It’s clear what he wants.

And why is Axelrod cleared to “observe”?

Who else is in there?

Tags: 9-11 murderers, 9-11 terror attacks, barry soetoro, GUANTANAMO BAY CLOSURE, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, , president obama, september 11 attacks, state of the union,

Wanda Sykes: “I hope [Limbaugh's] kidneys fail”

May 10, 2009

Wanda Sykes is as classless as it gets. She has no idea what is appropriate and what isn’t. She mentions treason and then goes on to call Rush Limbaugh the 20th hijacker. And she doesn’t stop there. She says she hopes his kidneys fail.

RoachRadioTv

Here’s CNN’s Johnk King, Donna Brazile and Bill Bennett.

RoachRadioTV

Spineless Donna Brazile says she’s gonna leave it alone. Bennett’s pissed but doesn’t get to go off because wimpy John King goes to commercial – without weighing in himself.

CNN Transcript:

KING: Well, let me turn your subject to another person who told a joke at last night’s event. I don’t know if we have it to play. I hope we do in a second. But the president was very funny. Poked fun at himself, poked a little fun at John Boehner, a little fun at the Republicans, a little fun at us in the news media.

Wanda Sykes came on next, she was giving a very funny routine. Then she said something about Rush Limbaugh, we’ve talked a little about it, that many thought crossed the line. Because Rush is on record saying he thinks Obama is way left of center, socialist policies and that he wants that to fail, criticized for it even by some Republicans. But what Wanda Sykes last night said rolled some eyes. Let’s listen. She compared Rush Limbaugh to the 20th hijacker.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WANDA SYKES, COMEDIAN: The me that’s treason. He’s not saying anything differently other than what Osama bin Laden is saying. You might want to look into this. I think may be Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker but he was just so strung out on Oxycontin he missed his flight.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[Kind of says it all that they didn't even play the full clip.]

KING: You two politely debate the issues here all the time. You both always say let’s not keep it personal. Rush is fair game. He’s in this debate. He pokes fun at people. Was that over the line?

BRAZILE: No. It was funny. She thought it was funny. Some people thought it was funny. Some people did not think it was funny. So, I’m not going to debate whether or not a comedian said something over the line. She’ll be criticizing me tomorrow. I’m leaving it alone.

BENNETT: Way over the line. I hope he fails was the next line, I hope his kidneys fail. What the hell is that? Can we — I understand the dislike of Rush, the disapproval of Rush by liberals. But can we at least put some decency in our remarks? Michael Savage was criticized rightly for saying to a gay caller, I hope you die. You do not talk about people like that. You never talk about people like that. She was way over the line. This is why Elaine Bennett and I did not go to this dinner. We went twice and twice we had to leave because of remarks by comedians.

I’m for vigorous debate and exchange, but I don’t care who you’re talking about, and there are people I strongly dislike in this world, you don’t go beyond decency and she went way beyond that. “I hope his kidneys fail.” Come on.

BRAZILE: She was …

BENNETT: Joking.

BRAZILE: … trying to make fun of somebody who makes fun of everybody, Bill.

BENNETT: I understand that.

BRAZILE: He has said some things, Bill, I tell you, I won’t repeat because Rush Limbaugh, he has — he gives everybody the blues, including many Republicans.

BENNETT: He has said things in the past for which I have criticized him. But when it gets to the point liberals will not criticize their own when they step over the line, then they’re out there way over the line.

BRAZILE: We criticize our own. We’re not perfect.

BENNETT: I’d like to hear somebody step up on this one.

BRAZILE: What’s the point?

BENNETT: What’s the point? Just say that’s too much.

BRAZILE: What’s the point? She is an entertainer.

BENNETT: So is Rush an entertainer but you’re happy to criticize him.

BRAZILE: Of course.

BENNETT: What would have been too far? What would Wanda have said that would have offended you, anything?

BRAZILE: Of course. Of course.

BENNETT: Like what? She said I hope he dies.

BRAZILE: No.

BENNETT: I hope his kidneys fail.

BRAZILE: No. She was making fun of Rush Limbaugh and Rush Limbaugh makes fun of everybody else.

[In his own workplace not at a White House dinner. Even he knows what decorum is.]

BENNETT: I’m sorry, I know what it means to be made fun of and I know what it means for someone to say I hope you die.

KING: I’m going to call a time-out here because the last thing I want is a divide between you two.[Or be forced to grow a set.] So I’m going to call a little time out here. You both have very strongly held opinions on this one and did it in a polite way, which is the way we like debates here on STATE OF THE UNION.

—————–

One thing she said was funny:

SYKES: It’s funny to me that [photographers] have never caught you smoking. But they always catch you with your shirt off. I know you’re into this transparency thing, but I don’t need to see your nipples.

Castellanos: “listening to Barack Obama give a speech is like sex”

March 1, 2009

This man is very disturbed. And one wonders what type of friends he has. Alex Castellanos, who thinks “Hillary” deserves to be called a white bitch because she is one and that “it was time to take the family dog to the vet“, thinks listening to barry teleprompter is like sex. Do these people ever even hear themselves? And the last time I checked he was Republican. Even Hillary Rosen was blushing.

Think anyone will be shaking his hand after the next post barry speech panel on CNN?

arianfilms

KING: More on — more on that in a second, but I know you disagree with the policy, but as a performer?

CASTELLANOS (1:44): Well, I think, as a friend told me once, that — listening to Barack Obama give a speech is like sex. The worse there ever was, was excellent. He — it’s just terrific performance.

KING: It’s 9:35 in the morning.

He does make a good point.

CASTELLANOS: On a Sunday. And it’s a terrific performance. He’s — he’s reassuring. He demonstrates strength. You can see that he’s gotten stronger and more confident in the job. But the problem, of course, is the split personality disorder. He gives a speech to Congress in which he talks about, “We don’t want to spend, we want conservative government.” He touches all right-of- center chords while proposing just the opposite.

So, at some point, there’s just an inherent conflict between what he says and what he does, same thing with the military speech. I mean, it was really stunning in a way to see him say that, gosh, these troops succeeded beyond all expectations.

Well, actually, no, succeeded beyond his expectations.

barry’s conflicting view on Iraq is more than split personality - it is multiple poll-driven personality. Watch the clips of him at (3:05).

barry campaign: I have always believed that our invasion of Iraq was a strategic blunder for all of the reasons I’ve talked about, distracting us from Afghanistan, the enormous costs in blood and treasure.

barry as POTUS: You have borne an enormous burden for your fellow citizens while extending a precious opportunity to the people of Iraq. Under tough circumstances, the men and women of the United States military have served with honor and succeeded beyond any expectation.

Notice how he never says *my*. He never makes a stand. Then they continue the discussion. Amazing how folks are glossing right over how barry has changed everything he campaigned on - and won - on Iraq. Rosen said “we’ve already processed” it. I wonder how much more “processing” it is going to take before they realize they were totally scammed? She sold out her fellow Hillary and trashed her on CNN for a guy who picked Rick Warren. I hope she thinks it was all worth it in 6 months.

KING: Hilary Rosen, did the anti-war Democrats who thought he was the better nominee because he was saying it was a strategic blunder, is that what they voted for, a guy who says you went in and gave a precious opportunity to the people of Iraq and you have succeeded beyond anyone’s expectations?

ROSEN: There is a little irony in that, but I don’t need to go there.

KING: Just a little?

ROSEN: Because we’ve already processed that. I — I think what you saw, though, on these two speeches wasn’t so inconsistent. What he said early on was, it was a mistake to go into Iraq. And what he said yesterday was, we know that the people, the men and women of the Armed Forces who served there have done the best they can.

(4:08) But, look, the reason we’re getting out is because this has never been good and he was right all along and right today.

She then says he was consistent with his comments on Iraq - that he always included the caveat that he would talk with commanders on the ground. That is a bold-faced lie and she is smart enough to know that. Again, if I had the time and energy, I would look through her archives and use her own words to prove it. The only thing consistent about barry’s comments on Iraq is that they were/are inconsistent. His initial “speaking out”, which I can’t stress enough meant ab-so-lute-ly nothing, were uttered only for political expedience and everything after that has been the same. Just like everything else. I truly don’t believe this man believes - as in a viscerally held truth - in anything but himself.

And if she wants to keep claiming he was right all along, then why didn’t he do anything about it when he had a chance? Why did he wait a year to say anything about Iraq in the senate? Why did he vote the same as Hillary Clinton? Why was his first trip to Afghanistan - the reason for his speaking out - not until his world tour?

Historians are going to sit in their dusty little library cubicles and laugh themselves to death.

Then, finally, they bring up the truth that folks have totally forgotten. barry campaigned saying that The Surge was the wrong idea - even after he saw the success. He was forced to admit that it “succeeded beyond our wildest dreams” when he finally went on O’Reilly.

ROSEN (4:28): Because what he did say all along during the campaign was he was going to listen to the commanders on the ground about the best way to get out. And that’s the critical difference. George Bush never had a strategy there; Barack Obama’s strategy is to get out safely.

CASTELLANOS: I’m sorry. I’m having trouble processing that. What he should have said is, the reason we’re able to do this is because George Bush was right and I was wrong. I kept…

KING: How about John McCain?

CASTELLANOS: I kept — and John McCain was right.

KING: When it comes to the surge, how about John McCain?

CASTELLANOS: It worked. Our troops did their job. That’s why I kept the generals, George Bush’s generals. That’s why I kept his secretary of defense.

And that’s why he appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State…among many other reasons…the first being she was the most qualified to have tea with the 43% of the world she has already visited.

CASTELLANOS: He should have said, “George Bush was right. I was wrong. Mission accomplished, George Bush. Thank you.”

KING: I don’t think you’re going to get that.

No, but if things go well, that’s all you’ll hear on the way to 2012.

---

Quote of the day: "If my aunt had a male appendage, she'd by my uncle."

Real classy stuff. Jamal Simmons on CNN on 5-8-08, the night of the Indiana Primary. Watch how immature the whole panel is and how rude anderson cooper is. John King lies and says he doesn't have a horse in the race. Who believes this shit?

video courtesy of veracifier

Lanny Davis gets ridiculed on proobama CNN

May 8, 2008
Indiana primary
CNN had no Clinton supporter on the panel. They talked to Paul Begala (nastily) and they let Lanny Davis wait and then never got back to him after Sen Clinton's speech. They all laugh and think it's funny like a bunch of sixth graders pulling a fast one. CNN stood behind their coverage saying it was fair to both candidates. I had forgotten how one-sided CNN really was. This election is a joke.

Notable quotes:
John King: "I don't have a horse in this race."

Jamal Simmons: "If my aunt had a male appendage - she'd by my uncle."

video courtesy of veracifier
Lanny Davis is one sweet man and someone I would like to have in my corner.