Obama creates CTU
Ken_from_Chicago
um, fight against terrorism. This ... counter terrorism unit ... will
be under the direct supervision of the White House.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/23/AR2009082302598.html
-- Ken from Chicago (who wonders how long before they try to arrest
the head of this unit before secretly rehiring him)
P.S. "I get my orders from the President."--Kiefer Sutherland.
George Kerby
On 8/25/09 6:40 AM, in article
579b1935-b873-4340...@34g2000yqi.googlegroups.com,
"Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@comcast.net> wrote:
They, err - umm, want you to "Sign In" to read the article.
Looks kinda "fishy" to me...
BTW: What's the 'Czar count' up to now?
EvWill
> They, err - umm, want you to "Sign In" to read the article.
>
> Looks kinda "fishy" to me...
>
The Washington Post requires free online registration to read its
articles.
Everett W.
WM
"Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:579b1935-b873-4340...@34g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
In Obama's CTU the only people ever arrested are campus cops.
WM
WM
"EvWill" <everet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46902b34-1572-481b...@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Usually if you know the headline you can Google up a mirror source somewhere
online. Is this the article? Works for the NYT, too - not that they're much
of source for news anymore.
WM
Radioguy
Obama's only change has been, a country that appears to be in the
Twilight Zone.
Ken from Chicago
" WM" <clue...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
news:Rcmdne2Fh_0gZw7X...@earthlink.com...
Thanks.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ubiquitous
Ubiquitous
>The Obama administration creates a new governmental unit in its, er,
>um, fight against terrorism. This ... counter terrorism unit ... will
>be under the direct supervision of the White House.
ButButButButBut! Obama TOLD us the "War on Terror" is over!
(Not sure if we won, but he's said being victorious disturbs him...)
--
It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the Democrats did
to America.
David Johnston
wrote:
>kwic...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>The Obama administration creates a new governmental unit in its, er,
>>um, fight against terrorism. This ... counter terrorism unit ... will
>>be under the direct supervision of the White House.
>
>ButButButButBut! Obama TOLD us the "War on Terror" is over!
No, he didn't.
Ubiquitous
Yes, he did, actually.
George Kerby
On 8/26/09 1:04 PM, in article
VN2dndvHS4GD5AjX...@giganews.com, "Ubiquitous"
<web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> "David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 5:03:57 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> kwic...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>>> The Obama administration creates a new governmental unit in its, er,
>>>> um, fight against terrorism. This ... counter terrorism unit ... will
>>>> be under the direct supervision of the White House.
>>>
>>> ButButButButBut! Obama TOLD us the "War on Terror" is over!
>>
>> No, he didn't.
>
> Yes, he did, actually.
He sure did. Along with releasing the Gitmo terrorists on the good folks of
Montana...
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/29/national/main5050264.shtml?source
=related_story>
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> "David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 5:03:57 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >>kwic...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> >>>The Obama administration creates a new governmental unit in its, er,
> >>>um, fight against terrorism. This ... counter terrorism unit ... will
> >>>be under the direct supervision of the White House.
> >>
> >>ButButButButBut! Obama TOLD us the "War on Terror" is over!
> >
> > No, he didn't.
>
> Yes, he did, actually.
See, now, if he DID, you wouldn't just be saying so; you'd have a source
for it. Got one?
David Johnston
wrote:
>"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 5:03:57 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>kwic...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>>>The Obama administration creates a new governmental unit in its, er,
>>>>um, fight against terrorism. This ... counter terrorism unit ... will
>>>>be under the direct supervision of the White House.
>>>
>>>ButButButButBut! Obama TOLD us the "War on Terror" is over!
>>
>> No, he didn't.
>
>Yes, he did, actually.
Citation please.
David Johnston
That story contains no statement that the "war on terror" is "over" or
that he intended to release Gitmo detainees in Montana.
Ken from Chicago
"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:qLSdnTAFRqbP9gjX...@giganews.com...
> kwic...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>The Obama administration creates a new governmental unit in its, er,
>>um, fight against terrorism. This ... counter terrorism unit ... will
>>be under the direct supervision of the White House.
>
> ButButButButBut! Obama TOLD us the "War on Terror" is over!
> (Not sure if we won, but he's said being victorious disturbs him...)
It's "Overseas Contingency Operation".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR2009032402818.html
-- Ken from Chicago
Michael O'Connor
> BTW: What's the 'Czar count' up to now?
Last I heard it was 44. Only eight more and they can make a deck of
cards out of them.
Hunter
71bf03...@34g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, kwic...@comcast.net
says...
The New York Times is the same way. Don't worry, it is of no cost.
Just use a phony name and figure out a password you don't care about.
It will cost you nothing.
This is a stand alone department, not part of Homeland Security or
the FBI or the CIA? Because CTU was and is going to be a separate
alphabet department IIRC. If so this is another case of real life
mirroring fiction.
--
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
Shep Morelli
Ubiquitous
>>>The Obama administration creates a new governmental unit in its, er,
>>>um, fight against terrorism. This ... counter terrorism unit ... will
>>>be under the direct supervision of the White House.
>>
>> ButButButButBut! Obama TOLD us the "War on Terror" is over!
>> (Not sure if we won, but he's said being victorious disturbs him...)
>
>It's "Overseas Contingency Operation".
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR20090
32402818.html
I think the term they use now is "Manmade disaster".
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Ubiquitous
I stand corrected, Obama didn't literally say that, as far as I can
tell, but he has more than adequately done it
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hT7ZimsQHKfduYc-REToVF8EDwNw
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012203929.html
Ubiquitous
>David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>>>ButButButButBut! Obama TOLD us the "War on Terror" is over!
>>>>
>>>> No, he didn't.
>>>
>>>Yes, he did, actually.
>>
>> Citation please.
>
>You'll never get it.
Wrong again.
Brett Alan
>
> da...@block.net wrote:
> >"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >>"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote:
> >>>>ButButButButBut! Obama TOLD us the "War on Terror" is over!
> >>>
> >>> No, he didn't.
> >>
> >>Yes, he did, actually.
> >
> >Citation please.
>
> I stand corrected, Obama didn't literally say that, as far as I can
> tell, but he has more than adequately done it
>
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/01/mainstream-media-crowing-that-obama-has-declared-an-end-to-war-on-terror.html.
>
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hT7ZimsQHKfduYc-REToVF8EDwNw
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012203929.html
>
Wow, it took you a long time to admit that you were wrong.
Based on your sources, though, he only declared an end to those parts
of the "war on terror" that were illegal. "While Obama says he has no
plans to diminish counterterrorism operations abroad, the notion that
a president can circumvent long-standing U.S. laws simply by declaring
war was halted by executive order in the Oval Office." YOUR source.
(The last one above.)
Ubiquitous
>Ubiquitous wrote:
>> da...@block.net wrote:
>> >"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> >>"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> >>>>ButButButButBut! Obama TOLD us the "War on Terror" is over!
>> >>>
>> >>> No, he didn't.
>> >>
>> >>Yes, he did, actually.
>> >
>> >Citation please.
>>
>> I stand corrected, Obama didn't literally say that, as far as I can
>> tell, but he has more than adequately done it
>>
>
>http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/01/mainstream-media-crowing-that-obama-has-declared-an-end
-to-war-on-terror.html.
>>
>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hT7ZimsQHKfduYc-REToVF8EDwNw
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012203929.html
>>
>
>Wow, it took you a long time to admit that you were wrong.
I wasn't entirely wrong, actually. I guess I should have been more explicit and added that
although he has not literally said it, his actions have demonstrated he has no interest in
winning the "War on Terror".
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> bret...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Wow, it took you a long time to admit that you were wrong.
>
> I wasn't entirely wrong, actually. I guess I should have been more explicit and added that
> although he has not literally said it, his actions have demonstrated he has no interest in
> winning the "War on Terror".
Yes. That's vague enough that it doesn't need any actual relationship to
reality.
David Johnston
wrote:
>bret...@gmail.com wrote:
>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> da...@block.net wrote:
>>> >"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> >>"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote:
>
>>> >>>>ButButButButBut! Obama TOLD us the "War on Terror" is over!
>>> >>>
>>> >>> No, he didn't.
>>> >>
>>> >>Yes, he did, actually.
>>> >
>>> >Citation please.
>>>
>>> I stand corrected, Obama didn't literally say that, as far as I can
>>> tell, but he has more than adequately done it
>>>
>>
>>http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/01/mainstream-media-crowing-that-obama-has-declared-an-end
>-to-war-on-terror.html.
>>>
>>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hT7ZimsQHKfduYc-REToVF8EDwNw
>>>
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012203929.html
>>>
>>
>>Wow, it took you a long time to admit that you were wrong.
>
>I wasn't entirely wrong, actually. I guess I should have been more explicit and added that
>although he has not literally said it, his actions have demonstrated he has no interest in
>winning the "War on Terror".
You mean he isn't interested in achieving an impossible goal? That
sounds very healthy.
David Johnston
wrote:
>In article <Xns9C7B983273...@188.40.43.213>, Sh...@Morelli.Not wrote:
>>David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>>> "Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>ButButButButBut! Obama TOLD us the "War on Terror" is over!
>>>>>
>>>>> No, he didn't.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, he did, actually.
>>>
>>> Citation please.
>>
>>You'll never get it.
>
>Wrong again.
Well no. He wasn't. Your concession that Obama never said any such
was responsive, but it wasn't a citation that he told us it was over.
Anlatt the Builder
> bretta...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Ubiquitous wrote:
> >> da...@block.net wrote:
> >> >"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >> >>"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote:
> >> >>>>ButButButButBut! Obama TOLD us the "War on Terror" is over!
>
> >> >>> No, he didn't.
>
> >> >>Yes, he did, actually.
>
> >> >Citation please.
>
> >> I stand corrected, Obama didn't literally say that, as far as I can
> >> tell, but he has more than adequately done it
>
>
> -to-war-on-terror.html.
>
>
>
> >>http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hT7ZimsQHKfduYc-RE...
>
> >>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR200...
>
> >Wow, it took you a long time to admit that you were wrong.
>
> I wasn't entirely wrong, actually. I guess I should have been more explicit and added that
> although he has not literally said it, his actions have demonstrated he has no interest in
> winning the "War on Terror".
>
>
That's not "more explicit." It is a different statement. One that is
so vague that it can't be verified or refuted. Good work.
Brett A. Pasternack
Well, maybe it could be refuted if Obama said something like "We will
continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to
dismantle and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us, whether
they are from Afghanistan or Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, or anywhere
where they are plotting attacks against the U.S. homeland."
You know, like he did yesterday.
Dano
Didn't Bush say pretty much the same thing every time he spoke on this
stuff? Whether Bush or Obama, these are simply words.
George Kerby
On 12/29/09 12:53 PM, in article 4B3A50...@gmail.com, "Brett A.
Pasternack" <bret...@gmail.com> wrote:
I would surmise that Jack B. would not accept those hollow words.
David Johnston
Any more than he'd actually accept Obama's attacks in the middle east.
Neither word nor deed is sufficient.