Another Day...Another Lie...Another Impeachable Offense

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 2:39 pm

So...our brainless, polesmoking picaninny in chief decided it would be a swell idea to swap five high ranking Taliban operatives for a US Army deserter and blatantly violated the law to do so.

Awesome. Great job, shitdicks. You know who you are.

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 2:49 pm

What is maddening is that nothing will be done about it.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 3:02 pm

Evidently he didn't even bother to run it by Karzai either. Completely idiotic.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 4:11 pm

Probably the same one that prevent him from being prosecuted for his capital offense.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 4:53 pm

Roach wrote:Making deals with terrorists. What could go wrong with that?

Like any other deal, you have to look at what we got and what we gave up to get it. What we got was a deserter and traitor. What we gave up was five very dangerous individuals who go back to work doing their best to kill more American troops. Kind of a lose/lose from any sane perspective.

Stupid deal brokered by a stupid man in charge of the most pathetically inept administration in United States history.

Y2K · Post by **Y2K** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 6:26 pm

88 wrote:Has the urgent medical condition that required this action been disclosed, as yet?

a good bet would be a gender change operation.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 7:29 pm

hey, but he's 5 detainee's closer to being able to close Gitmo like he stated he was going to do 1 day after his first day in office.

what a naïve cocksucker.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 7:45 pm

Don't get hung up on small issues like this.

Enjoy the bigger picture.

By proclamation of the President of the United States, June is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... -pride-mon

Bucmonkey · Post by **Bucmonkey** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 10:00 pm

Stick to WWII History...you miserable fuck...

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 10:20 pm

Leg humping fucktard says what?

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 10:41 pm

mvscal wrote:So...our brainless, polesmoking picaninny in chief decided it would be a swell idea to swap five high ranking Taliban operatives for a US Army deserter and blatantly violated the law.

What part violated the law? Was it the chocolate cake he included in the deal or was it the 1000 TOW missiles?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 11:09 pm

The part where Oshitskin is required to give 30 days notice to Congress before moving detainees from Gitmo. That is the law.

Here is the lie (from 2013):

JAY CARNEY: What I can tell you is that the main dialogue that we support is the dialogue between Afghans -- between the Taliban and the Afghan government. However, there are some issues that we would like to discuss with the Taliban directly, and this includes the safe return of Sergeant Bergdahl, who has been gone for far too long.

We continue to call for and work toward his safe and immediate release. We cannot discuss all the details of our efforts, but there should be no doubt that on a daily basis we are continuing to pursue -- using our military, intelligence and diplomatic tools -- the effort to return him home safely. And our hearts are with the Bergdahl family.

With regard to the transfer of Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay, we have made -- the United States has not made the decision to do that, though we do expect the Taliban to raise this issue in our discussion, if and when those discussions happen.

As we have long said, however, we would not make any decisions about transfer of any detainees without consulting with Congress and without doing so in accordance with U.S. law.

Questions?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 11:22 pm

Moving Sale wrote: the 1000 TOW missiles?

Do you really want to go down that path?

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 11:44 pm

mvscal wrote:The part where Oshitskin is required to give 30 days notice to Congress before moving detainees from Gitmo. That is the law.

Boo fucking Hoo. Congress may have not gotten notice. Go ahead and try and enforce an unconstitutional law.

fucking pansy.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 11:46 pm

mvscal wrote:
Moving Sale wrote: the 1000 TOW missiles?
Do you really want to go down that path?

You are the one bitching about shitty hostage deals. We get it. You are a racist shitstain and the POTUS is black. Go crawl back under your white sheet potato peeler.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:17 am

Moving Sale wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Moving Sale wrote: the 1000 TOW missiles?
Do you really want to go down that path?
You are the one bitching about shitty hostage deals.

And you're the one bitching about utterly brilliant hostage deals. I get it. You're a fucking idiot.

Iran Contra: We sell TOW missiles to Iran in exchange for the release of hostages. The missiles are then used against Iraqi tanks and the proceeds are used to kill Communists in Nicaraugua.

Gain:
1. The return of hostages from Lebanon.
2. Stalemate in the Iran-Iraq War
3. Dead Commies in Central America.

Risk:
1. Nothing whatsoever.

The Bergdahl Exchange: We trade a useless shitbird for five Taliban.

Gain:
1. A deserter who abandoned his post in a combat operation (a capital crime)...ie nothing.

Risk:
1. The return to duty of five high level Taliban operatives who will certainly kill more American troops before we finally leave.

Questions?

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:27 am

So you like the Iranians and don't care about legality anymore. Nice take... For a vapid racist shitstain.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:38 am

Moving Sale wrote:So you like the Iranians...

Ah, no. We fucked them over too by giving satellite intel on their troop movements to the Iraqis. The Boland Amendment was of little consequence and was quietly repealed without comment.

Certainly a far cry from Bath House Barry's cockpuppet publicly declaring the administration would comply with the law and then blatantly violating that law.

There is absolutely no comparison between the devious brilliance of the Reagan administration and the bumbling ineptitude of the buffoon calling the shots today.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:40 am

mvscal wrote:The part where Oshitskin is required to give 30 days notice to Congress before moving detainees from Gitmo. That is the law.

The law? Unclutch your pearls, for fuck's sake. DoD and the White House bend Congress over on a regular basis when it comes to "the law" (especially in procurement), it's only when Congress can actually make something of it when it really matters. See: James Clapper, drone warfare, Keith Alexander and the NSA, revolving door arrangements, Et fucking Al.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:42 am

Screw_Michigan wrote:
mvscal wrote:The part where Oshitskin is required to give 30 days notice to Congress before moving detainees from Gitmo. That is the law.
The law?

Yes, the law. You know...the thing the Executive branch is sworn to uphold and enforce? Ringing any bells...?

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:50 am

So you are pissed because your ox got gored this time. Gothcha. As for the Iranians you can say you are not sucking their dicks but giving them TOWs was the best BJ they got that whole damn decade.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:59 am

Moving Sale wrote:As for the Iranians you can say you are not sucking their dicks but giving them TOWs was the best BJ they got that whole damn decade.

It served our purpose. We didn't want either side to win so we played them off against each other, bled them white and got the outcome we desired. It's not about oxes being gored. It's about wins for the country.

I'm not one to get too hung up on legalities of dubious constitutional provenance if there is some compelling national interest at stake. So, here is your opportunity. Tell me where the 'win' is for the United States maybe I've missed something. You're supposed to be a lawyer, right? Make a case for this exchange.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:02 am

mvscal wrote:Yes, the law. You know...the thing the Executive branch is sworn to uphold and enforce? Ringing any bells...?

Yes, you idiot. I'm not saying your wrong. I'm a realist. Thought you would be as well.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:23 am

mvscal wrote:We didn't want either side to win so we played them off against each other...

Fucking nonsense revisionist history.

Why is it so difficult for you to admit that Iraq was a "regional partner" during that era?
No bullshit psuedo-Manichean subtext required.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:25 am

Screw_Michigan wrote:I'm a realist. Thought you would be as well.

Oh, I am. If the Chief Executive of the nation is going to break the law, there had better be a goddamn good reason for doing so. Maybe you can walk me through the 'win' for the country here. And, no, knocking the VA scandal out of the news for a cycle or two doesn't count.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:28 am

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:Why is it so difficult for you to admit that Iraq was a "regional partner" during that era?

Probably because Iraq was a Soviet client during that era. Or is there something about Iraq being equipped with Soviet tanks, Soviet APCs, Soviet artillery, Soviet small arms, Soviet fixed wing aircraft and Soviet rotary wing aircraft that is still confusing you?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:36 am

mvscal wrote:
Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:Why is it so difficult for you to admit that Iraq was a "regional partner" during that era?
Probably because Iraq was a Soviet client during that era. Or is there something about Iraq being equipped with Soviet tanks, Soviet APCs, Soviet artillery, Soviet small arms, Soviet fixed wing aircraft and Soviet rotary wing aircraft that is still confusing you?

...and Iran was flying F-4 Phantoms.

Go fuck yourself, you semantic cunt.

Y2K · Post by **Y2K** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:09 am

...and Iran was flying F-4 Phantoms

The F-4 was an out of date POS

thats called getting over

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:46 am

mvscal wrote:
Screw_Michigan wrote:I'm a realist. Thought you would be as well.
Oh, I am. If the Chief Executive of the nation is going to break the law, there had better be a goddamn good reason for doing so. Maybe you can walk me through the 'win' for the country here. And, no, knocking the VA scandal out of the news for a cycle or two doesn't count.

He didn't break the law you stupid asshat. Hr4310sec1027 is clear that they have to be released to us soil to trigger the 30 day notice. Go fuck a porcupine.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:59 am

A few dullards have chosen to chase phantom rabbits down phantom holes in this thread, but this is the key point...

mvscal wrote:Like any other deal, you have to look at what we got and what we gave up to get it. What we got was a deserter and traitor. What we gave up was five very dangerous individuals who go back to work doing their best to kill more American troops. Kind of a lose/lose from any sane perspective.

Once again, the fraud in the WH has chosen an option which hurts the nation he is supposed to be leading and uplifting.

Aren't leaders supposed to always seek to take actions to the benefit of his own?

Why the hell would this _resident continually take actions designed to inflict damage on his own?

Well, maybe because it's not his nation?

:idea: *ding* :idea:

Either that or he's a psychotic nutter who is completely unfit for the office he holds.

Yeah, wonderful job, American voter.
You failed your IQ test... twice.
lol

I say with all sincerity, there is nobody more ignorant than the fat, loud American.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:10 am

Btw, what was the deal with Blow's father standing there at the WH with Barry and breaking off with Pashto, because Blow is supposedly having trouble speaking English.

LOL

Uhhh... yeah.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:23 pm

Moving Sale wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Screw_Michigan wrote:I'm a realist. Thought you would be as well.
Oh, I am. If the Chief Executive of the nation is going to break the law, there had better be a goddamn good reason for doing so. Maybe you can walk me through the 'win' for the country here. And, no, knocking the VA scandal out of the news for a cycle or two doesn't count.
He didn't break the law you stupid asshat. Hr4310sec1027 is clear that they have to be released to us soil to trigger the 30 day notice. Go fuck a porcupine.

There is no section 1027, dumbfuck. Are you sure you're a lawyer? In any event, section 1037 reads as follows:

SEC. 1037. REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF DETAINEES AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND OTHER FOREIGN ENTITIES.

(a) CERTIFICATION REQUIRED PRIOR TO TRANSFER.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may not use any amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2013 to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or control of the individual’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity unless the Secretary submits to Congress the certification described in subsection (b) not later than 30 days before the transfer of the individual.

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cf ... fc9e75488a

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 2:40 pm

You are an idiot and so is Buck McKeon.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112h ... 310enr.pdf

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... nt-hr-4310

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 2:56 pm

Moving Sale wrote:You are an idiot and so is Buck McKeon.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112h ... 310enr.pdf

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... nt-hr-4310

OK, thanks for the full version.

SEC. 1027. PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FUNDS FOR THE TRANSFER
OR RELEASE OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT UNITED
STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.
None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act
for fiscal year 2013 may be used to transfer, release, or assist
in the transfer or release to or within the United States, its territories,
or possessions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other
detainee who—
(1) is not a United States citizen or a member of the
Armed Forces of the United States; and
(2) is or was held on or after January 20, 2009, at United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department
of Defense.

Note that section 1027 makes no mention whatsoever of reporting requirements to Congress. Probably because those requirements are found in section 1037 which I posted previously.

In any event, you flat out wrong. No if ands or buts about it.

And signing statements are entirely irrelevant. They are nothing more than marginal notation for posterity. They have no effect on the actual law or its execution.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 4:10 pm

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:Why is it so difficult for you to admit that Iraq was a "regional partner" during that era?
Probably because Iraq was a Soviet client during that era. Or is there something about Iraq being equipped with Soviet tanks, Soviet APCs, Soviet artillery, Soviet small arms, Soviet fixed wing aircraft and Soviet rotary wing aircraft that is still confusing you?

...and Iran was flying F-4 Phantoms.

Because Iran, under the Shah, was a "regional partner" during that era so we equipped him with American weapon systems.

Are you really this dumb?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:29 pm

mvscal wrote:
Because Iran, under the Shah, was a "regional partner" during that era so we equipped him with American weapon systems.

Are you really this dumb?

You kept supplying Phantom parts to Iran throughout the 80's, also various weapons systems through Israel.

YOU are really this dumb.

Go ahead...make your next move. I got one in the chamber...

Sirfindafold · Post by **Sirfindafold** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:36 pm

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:I got one in the chamber...

Is it half black?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:53 pm

Sirfindafold wrote:
Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:I got one in the chamber...
Is it half black?

:|

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:08 pm

So again there is no prohibition and all we are talking about is a regulation (signing statement) overriding a law which you seem to be ok with and even if the reg is found to illegal we are down to a notice violation. Boo fucking hoo.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:53 pm

This pathetic cunt again...

Five years later, they still haven't been able to determine if Birdshit was a deserter.

rotf...