Friday, June 6, 2014

"With meek and mewling little voices, senators like South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham and House Speaker John Boehner, have been crying wolf about Obama all along," Canada Free Press

6/5/14, "Threatened Republican Impeachment of Obama a Useless Joke," Judi McLeod, Canada Free Press

"Given that five violent Taliban terrorists in the Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl tradeoff are now on the loose, (being in Qatar is on the loose), it’s got to be the biggest joke of all time that Republican lawmakers would call for President Barack Obama’s impeachment—”if he released more prisoners from Guantanamo Bay”.

Obama knows all about crying wolf and even includes it as one of the ploys from his own capacious political trick bag.

With meek and mewling little voices, senators like South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham and House Speaker John Boehner, have been crying wolf about Obama all along.

They never do anything about Obama,  only, from time to time,  make like they’re going to.

Like all RINOs and many Repubs,  Lindsey Graham is a mere mewling kitten in the wolf’s lair where Obama and Valerie Jarrett hunker down with total impunity. 

Obama seems none too worried about “Republican impeachment”, and only yesterday pictures likely meant to make him look manly while “pumping iron” somehow surfaced from a Marriott Hotel gym in Warsaw, Poland.  Obama looking manly is about as likely as “Republican impeachment”. 

“Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned Wednesday that Republican lawmakers would call for President Obama’s impeachment if he released more prisoners from Guantanamo Bay without congressional approval. (The Hill, June 5, 2014)

“Republicans worry Obama may try to shut down the prison camp unilaterally after congressional opposition has repeatedly stymied efforts to pass legislation to close it.”

(Earth to RINO and Repubs: The wild horse has already bolted out of the barn with a pen and a phone.) According to mainstream media reports, Republicans—and some Democrats—are “incensed” about the release of the Gitmo terrorists. 

Depends on your definition of “incensed”.  Some of us argue their “incensed” is about as tame as iced tea:

“In recent days, Republicans and some Democrats have been incensed about the release of the Guantanamo five, warning that this will inspire other militants to target more Americans for abduction. They say the exchange was too hasty, without even a month’s warning to Congress as the law requires.”  (AP, June 4, 2012)

Leave it to the Repubs to come along after the deed’s been done to steal the most dominant sentiment of the American populace: “incensed”.

And notice how Graham claims it will be “people on our side” calling for Obama’s impeachment “if he did that”:

“It’s going to be impossible for them to flow prisoners out of Gitmo now without a huge backlash,” Graham said. “There will be people on our side calling for his impeachment if he did that.”

Well, not only America but the Free World have been waiting for your “people” to make a move for the last long five years, Mr. Graham. 

And what’s with media outlets, treating Graham’s crying wolf as a real news story? 

The hard facts of the Bergdahl-Taliban tradeoff story, including a video complete with a Taliban white flag on a stick, make it an incensed outrage—without added mainstream media baloney.
The mainstream media, for example, repeats ad nauseum that Team Obama was “blindsided by the Bergdahl backlash”.

Nothing the Obama team does is by accident but by design.  Vulnerable citizenry can only hope that ‘design’  does not include having an anti-American military deserter trained for five years by Afghan jihadists planning terrorism attacks in America’s heartland. 

“Graham served as a House prosecutor during former President Clinton’s 1998 impeachment trial. (The Hill)

“Congress tried to build in a safeguard against Obama making unilateral decisions on releasing terrorist detainees by including language in the National Defense Authorization Act requiring the administration to alert Congress of such moves at least 30 days in advance.”
If Obama ignores the Constitution, why would he show any respect for the National Defense Authorization Act?

Dems like Sen. Carl Levin (Mich.), the Democratic chairman of the Armed Services panel, are already arguing that Obama had a plausible legal argument for ignoring the law.

“The White House did not comply with the requirement of the 30-day provision. However, the White House said it had power under Article II of the Constitution to do what it did,” Levin said. “I’m not a court that’s going to decide whether or not under Article II the commander in chief has the power to move this quickly even though Congress said you’ve got to give 30 days notice.”
Levin said Congress was notified that Obama might not follow the NDAA’s requirement in a signing statement attached to the law.
“The executive branch must have the flexibility, among other things, to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers,” Obama asserted in his Dec. 26 statement.
“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday applauded Obama’s decision to release five Taliban leaders because it would hasten the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.
“My own personal opinion, Guantanamo has been there far too long, and I think that we should get them out of there as quickly as we can,” he said.
“Reid noted that Democrats have tried to pass legislation to close the prison camp and transfer the detainees to the United States to face criminal trials but have been “held up from doing so by Republicans.”
“So I’m glad to get (rid) of these five people, send them back to Qatar, and I think the arrangements made there are, as far as I understand, what’s been explained to me, adequate,” he said (about) the Taliban militants released over the weekend.”
Folks are supposed to be mollified that the five Taliban leaders must spend at least a year in Qatar, which helped mediate the exchange, under the terms of the deal.

The five Taliban leaders released by Obama are not cowering in Qatar hideouts. Jihadists always return to Jihad.

In 2009 alone, Dept. of Defense spokesman claimed that at least 61 former Guantanamo captives who had been released returned to the fight.  They did not publish any of the captive’s names." image of Graham and Boehner from Canada Free Press. via Free Rep.

No comments: