Jedno sasvim novo i drugačije Presidency..

[Sirius]

Ha, GOP krece tek sada protiv Obame. Izgleda da se evangelistickim zilotima nije dopadala religija gaca gospodina Romnija Obama, Graham in War Over Words Over Benghazi

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama lashed out at senior Republican senators Wednesday over their criticism of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice in the aftermath of the deadly Sept. 11 attack in Libya, saying they should "go after me" and not her.Setting up a possible Senate confirmation fight, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., had vowed shortly before Obama's remarks that he would take all steps necessary to block Rice's nomination if the president taps her to replace Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Sen. Lindsey Graham, who joined McCain at a Capitol Hill news conference, said he didn't trust Rice.A feisty Obama defended his U.N. ambassador."If Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham, and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me," Obama told reporters at a White House news conference. "And I'm happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous."Within minutes, Graham's response made clear he wouldn't back down from challenging Rice's nomination."Mr. President, don't think for one minute I don't hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi," the South Carolina Republican said in a statement. "I think you failed as commander in chief before, during and after the attack."Given what I know now, I have no intention of promoting anyone who is up to their eyeballs in the Benghazi debacle," he said.At issue are Rice's Sunday talk show statements five days after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. She attributed the incident to the outrage in the Arab world over an anti-Muslim video, not terrorism.The two lawmakers along with Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire pressed for a special, Watergate-style select Senate committee to investigate the attack. They complained that separate inquiries by various Senate panels will fail to get to the truth and a comprehensive probe "up to and including the president of the United States" was warranted.They introduced a Senate resolution calling for the special committee on Wednesday afternoon, and the measure drew immediate Democratic opposition and some doubts from Republicans. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said a select committee is unnecessary, as did Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.The three Republican senators argued that numerous questions about the attack remain unanswered, among them what Obama's national security team had told him about security in Libya, what steps were taken by Clinton and the roll of the U.S. military."This administration has either been guilty of colossal incompetence or engaged in a cover-up," McCain said on the Senate floor shortly after introducing the resolution.The Capitol Hill news conference inevitably led to questions about Rice, and the lawmakers made clear they would oppose her selection."We will do whatever is necessary to block the nomination that's within our power as far as Susan Rice is concerned," said McCain, the top GOP senator on the Armed Services Committee and Obama's presidential rival in 2008.Graham, who said last weekend that he would oppose her nomination, said Rice "is so disconnected from reality that I don't trust her. And the reason I don't trust her is because I think she knew better, and if she didn't know better then she shouldn't be the voice of America. Somebody has got to be paying a price around this place."Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, who is poised to replace McCain as the top Republican on Armed Services, said in a statement that Rice "would not be a fitting replacement at the State Department should Secretary Clinton step down.""During her time as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Rice has been the Obama administration's point person in pursuing liberal causes that threaten U.S. sovereignty," Inhofe said.More disconcerting for Rice's prospects was the unease expressed by Collins, who is also a member of the Armed Services panel and the top Republican on the Homeland Security committee."I would need to have clear answers from Ambassador Rice before I could support her for any position," Collins told reporters. "She has a lot of explaining to do. She has yet to come forward and explain why she gave the misleading information to the American public. And we don't have the answer to that yet. I would need the answers before I would be prepared to confirm her for any position."Another name mentioned as a possible candidate for the top job at the State Department is Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., who has taken on envoy roles for the administration in Afghanistan and had been mentioned for the post when Obama was first elected.Senior Senate aides and lawmakers have said Kerry would have no problem winning Senate confirmation and see him as a far better fit than Rice, who has had little contact with members of Congress. But the selection of Kerry would create an opening for the Senate seat in Massachusetts, and Republican Sen. Scott Brown, who lost re-election last week, would be a heavy favorite to win the seat.

Pored potresa u CIA, koji ovde pratite vrlo intezivno, smenjeno je nekoliko generala unutar Pentagona.

[Roger Sanchez]

Čovjek koji je izabrao 1 Saru Palin za svog Veepa izjavi ovo:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said on Wednesday that U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice is “not qualified” to become secretary of state and he called her claim that the deadly attack on the diplomatic facility in Benghazi was a spontaneous demonstration “not very bright.”“She’s not qualified,” McCain said on CBS’s “This Morning.” “Anyone who goes on national television and in defiance of the facts, five days later — We’re all responsible for what we say and what we do. I’m responsible to my voters. She’s responsible to the Senate of the United States. We have our responsibility for advice and consent.”

Rachel M, uništi ga... poslije tebe nek ga dovrše Stewart, Kimmel, Conan.

[luba]

samo je vijetkong vet ostao na braniku otadzbine. cak je i rasa rezignirano popustio.

No dispute will be finished and resolved until the Democrats win it. You just may as well, for the foreseeable future, resign yourself to that.

[WTF]

Barry and Nancy are done taking shit!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbgs3N40LSYhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEbkNkjew8kA Mitt i dalje neverue!

[WTF]

Stewart objasnio 1 sustinu US&A

[Roger Sanchez]

:D

Christine Rousselle ‏@crousselle @McKaylaMaroney i make the not impressed face in reference to our president daily.

-_- Edited November 17, 2012 by Roger Sanchez

[WTF]

I posle ovoga kako verovati da ce GOP da se unormali i umije™ za 2014 i dalje? Mislim, ovo je jedna od mladih nada, ako ce neko da okrene list™ i da krene da skida hipoteku verskog fundamentalizma izmedju ostalog, to bi trebalo da bude on.

[Gandalf]

Who said it?

Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?A: What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know.How do these quotes stack up? It seems to me that they're exactly in agreement on four crucial and dismaying points:1) Both senators refuse to give an honest answer to the question. Neither deigns to mention that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.2) They both go so far as to disqualify themselves from even pronouncing an opinion.I'm not a scientist, says Rubio. I don’t presume to know, says Obama.3) That's because they both agree that the question is a tough one, and subject to vigorous debate. I think there are multiple theories out there on how this universe was created, says Rubio. I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part, says Obama.4) Finally they both profess confusion over whether the Bible should be taken literally. Maybe the "days" in Genesis were actual eras, says Rubio. They might not have been standard 24-hour days, says Obama.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Gandalf

[Indy]

Meni je Obamina pozicija o ovome sasvim okej za jednog vernika. Ako se uzme da biblijski dan moze da znaci 10 ili 100 miliona godina, ili bilo sta tako arbitrarno, a moze (ako se ne tumaci doslovno), onda ne vidim tu problem. Takodje ni u onome sto kaze za evoluciju. On je ipak politicar u zemlji u kojoj nekih 85% ljudi ne veruje da je evolucija sama odradila posao (ili uopste ne veruje u nju, pola od toga), tako da kad bi drugacije pricao, ne bi ni bio tu gde jeste.E, kad bi isto tako lepo umeo da objasni kako je to okej raspaljivati navodjene raketle dzojstikom po nekim "sumnjivcima" (a bez odobrenja bilo kakvog suda), bio bih mnogo srecniji sa njim kao predsednikom slobodnog sveta™.

[Budja]

Meni je Obamina pozicija o ovome sasvim okej za jednog vernika. Ako se uzme da biblijski dan moze da znaci 10 ili 100 miliona godina, ili bilo sta tako arbitrarno, a moze (ako se ne tumaci doslovno), onda ne vidim tu problem. Takodje ni u onome sto kaze za evoluciju. On je ipak politicar u zemlji u kojoj nekih 85% ljudi ne veruje da je evolucija sama odradila posao (ili uopste ne veruje u nju, pola od toga), tako da kad bi drugacije pricao, ne bi ni bio tu gde jeste.E, kad bi isto tako lepo umeo da objasni kako je to okej raspaljivati navodjene raketle dzojstikom po nekim "sumnjivcima" (a bez odobrenja bilo kakvog suda), bio bih mnogo srecniji sa njim kao predsednikom slobodnog sveta™.

Onda ti je OK i Rubiova verzija.Samo sto se, kako su strane vec formirane, polazi od toga da Obama "folira" a Rubio ne.

[Indy]

Pa, ne izgleda meni tako. Jedno je "rastezati" arbitrarnost onog sto pise u Bibliji (najverovatnije iz razloga politicke popularnosti), a drugo je tvrditi da je svaki pogled na stvari jednako ispravan (ili sta vec kaze Rubio, nesto u tom stilu). Ili, ako hoces, meni je bolji Obama upravo zato sto je prilicno ocito da se folira (mada to ne mora bas da bude slucaj, kao vrlo mlad sam imao jednu "vernicku" fazu gde sam upravo tako objasnjavao svom naucnickom mozgu kako Biblija ipak moze biti u pravu, ako se ne shvati doslovno. Radio sam to sam sebi, bez prinude, haha.)

[WTF]

Onda ti je OK i Rubiova verzija.Samo sto se, kako su strane vec formirane, polazi od toga da Obama "folira" a Rubio ne.

Obama ima luksuz da moze da se "folira" jer je na celu partije koja je svojim delima u zadnjih 10-20 godina pokazala da ume da razdvoji religiju i crkvu od vlasti. Za to isto vreme partija kojoj Rubio pripada i ciji bi predsednicki kandidat hteo da bude 2016. srlja ka klerikalizmu i recima a i delima. Taj ekstremizam je jedan od glavnih razloga zasto gube vec 2 mandata za redom, i to mnogi njihovi clanovi znaju i pokusavaju da obuzdaju to klerofasisticko krilo. Mladi i prespektivni politicari iz GOP, buduci lideri ove partije su sad u situaciji da odluce kojem ce se krilu prikloniti. Rubio ovim svojim intervjuom nije sebi ucinio nikakvu uslugu, i za sada izgleda vise kao "part of the problem" nego "part of the solution" za GOP.Uvlacenje Obame i njegovih izjava u tom kontekstu je sasvim beznacajno. Obama vise nikad nece izaci ni na kakve izbore. Njegova dela i politika od 2008 do sada na funkciji predsednika imaju mnogu vecu tezinu nego 1 interview od pre 4 godine.

[Indy]

Razuman predlog za popravku preostalog Obaminog predsednikovanja. Bice zanimljivo videti da li ce se makar i jedna zamisao ostvariti, makar delimicno (sumnjam):

• The war on terror (also known as “overseas contingency operations”) is a pious fiction designed to justify intervention and regime change in Muslim majority countries. It has little to do with actual terror, which is a tactic. The White House should instead understand that not all Islamists are radicals and even radical Islamists are not necessarily terrorists who actually threaten the United States. The United States has a duty to respond effectively to those who wish to harm the American people but it also has to learn to live with political Islam, which will unite in hostility against the U.S. unless the basic perception of who the enemy is can be changed.
• A transparent, all source loss vs. gain assessment must be made on drone attacks. It is not enough that the Pentagon and CIA assert that they are necessary while the Justice Department says that they are legal. In Pakistan the independent evidence suggests that drones make more new enemies than they succeed in killing and it is also clear that they destabilize the governments where they take place. Their use has been universally condemned by many governments, NGOs, human rights organizations and even by the U.N. but they have nevertheless increased in number under the current administration. Their efficacy as a counter-terrorism tool should be challenged and the government must make a clear case and establish firm guidelines to limit their use if they are to continue. Even better, the U.S. should unilaterally suspend the use of killer drones.
• Asserting a right to kill people in foreign countries with only limited due process should be examined as part of the assessment of drone attacks, which are the weapons of choice. The constitutionality of killing American citizens overseas without a trial and without a chance to offer a defense should be challenged as a primary issue, but the killing of anyone without transparent judicial process and the justification of imminent threat should be determined to be unacceptable.
• A realistic assessment of the situation in Afghanistan should be made, but not by going to the generals who will offer a predictable response. Independent observers and non-government sources should be free to describe the situation based on their own on-the-ground experience. Such a study would likely conclude that the attempted nation building is beyond repair and that a settlement that includes the Taliban as a party of government is inevitable, so serious negotiations to that end should become a sine qua non. Continued pledges of support for the corrupt Karzai government should be conditional on genuine reform and efforts to establish good governance.
• The United States should finally embrace reality regarding Iran. It should openly state that Iran does not currently pose any serious threat to U.S. interests. It should accept that Iran is interested in getting out from under sanctions and Washington should agree to negotiate in good faith to reduce the punishment that is being inflicted commensurate with agreements by Iran to modify some worrisome aspects of its nuclear program, creating a step-by-step process. The threat to intervene military should be taken off the table and Israel should be informed that attacking an Iran that does not have nuclear weapons is not in the U.S. interest and will not be supported or in any way encouraged.
• Israel should also be informed that its relationship with the United States will henceforth be the same as that maintained with any friendly nation. Annual subsidies for Israeli defense will cease and Washington will no longer damage its own interests by protecting Israel in international venues including the United Nations.
• The government should admit that humanitarian interventionism under President Obama has not worked any better than preemptive attacks under President George W. Bush. The necessary lesson in that respect has been learned in Libya, which has become ungovernable and a source of weapons for genuine terrorists. Obama should also be encouraged to maintain his reticence over getting more heavily involved in Syria. He should tell Hillary Clinton to stop sermonizing.
• Obama should recognize that Russia and China will only become actual enemies again if the United States continues to criticize and even intervene in their internal politics by supporting dissidents and democracy-promoting NGOs. The internal politics of any nation, unless there is negative impact on actual U.S. interests, have nothing to do with Washington and should be off limits.
• End the war on drugs. Forty years is enough for an expensive and lethal program that has not stopped drug trafficking or use and has only destabilized America’s neighbor Mexico to such an extent that it has nearly become a failed state. Work out rational ways to deal with drug use as a medical condition and addiction without criminalizing tens of thousands of small scale offenders.
• There should be a broad understanding within the government foreign policy team that preemption based on the potential or actual use of force has essentially failed to make Americans safer, has generated new enemies unnecessarily, and has nearly bankrupted the United States. A new foreign policy should be shaped that is commensurate with and responsive to actual U.S. interests worldwide. Large overseas presence in the form of military bases should be eschewed and scaled back in exchange for a less muscular policy that would be cheaper, more welcomed by potential friends overseas, and ultimately capable of making the United States itself more secure.

[WTF]

Polako i mi stvaramo gastose i diasporu

[Аврам Гојић]

pa u novom Karate Kidu majka se seli u Kinu jer nema posla u US and A.