Swift Boating Obama

[thoughtone]

source: Mother Jones

"Yes, it's the swift boating of the president," says the founder of a dark-money group claiming to speak for ticked-off Navy SEALs.

Veterans for a Strong America describes itself "a grassroots action organization committed to ensuring that America remains a strong nation by advancing liberty, safeguarding freedom and opposing tyranny." Founded in 2010, the ostensibly nonpartisan group kept a low profile until earlier this week, when it posted a splashyonlinead that uses statements from President Barack Obama to suggest that the commander-in-chief boasted about his role in killing Osama bin Laden, dishonoring America's military in the process.

"Heroes don't politicize their acts of valor," the ad declares amid shots of American soldiers and quotes criticizing Obama's "shameless" and "despicable" attempt to claim credit for bin Laden's death. Not all of those quotes are in context: The video flashes "Obama Spikes the bin Laden Football," a headline from a post in which Mother Jones' Kevin Drum wrote that the bin Laden raid proved Obama's "leadership."



Karl Rove praised the ad on Twitter, calling it "powerful," and it rapidly burned up the right-wing blogs. "The swift boating of Obama has begun," The Atlantic announced. "One thing that's clear from this advertisement, if more current and former SEALs decided to come out of the woodwork in opposition to Obama, it could do real damage to him."

Joel Arends, Veterans for a Strong America's founder, chairman, and sole staffer, tells me he's proud of his organization's viral video, even if it's characterized as swift boating. "Yes, it's the swift boating of the president, in the sense of using what's perceived to be his greatest strength and making it his greatest weakness."

The 2004 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign featured some ex-sailors (though none had been shipmates of Sen. John Kerry), but for now the VFSA does not have any actual Navy SEALs speaking on its behalf. Arend says he's working on recruiting disgruntled current and recent commandos. "I've been in touch with a number of Navy SEALs and special operators. There is discontent, I believe, among them about Obama's excessive celebration," he says. "We're gonna be rolling some of those folks out soon."

It's impossible to know how many of America's 22 million veterans are actually represented by VFSA's political activities. "We don't pretend to speak for all veterans," Arends says. There is no doubt that Arends, a decorated Iraq War vet and longtime Army Reserve and National Guard member, cares deeply about his comrades in arms. But there's little evidence that VFSA is more than a dark-money group with connections to the Republican Party, the tea party group Americans for Prosperity, and Islamophobic activists.

Arends got his start in politics as a South Dakota Bush-Cheney field director in 2000. He's currently the Republican party head in Lincoln County, South Dakota. Though he doesn't list it on his public résumé, around 2006 Arends went to work for Craig Dewey, the state director of Americans for Prosperity, an advocacy outfit that's astroturfed everything from the tea party and the Wisconsin union fight to public school segregation. (AFP's nonprofit 501(c)3 wing is chaired by David Koch, who founded the Americans for Prosperity Foundation with his brother Charles.)

"I was consulting with Americans for Prosperity on a state level, helping to connect them with key decision makers," Arends says. Craig Dewey initially denied this to me in a phone conversation. "Joel was never on paid staff at Americans for Prosperity," he said before conceding, "He was an adviser to me."

After leaving AFP, Arends and Dewey went into business starting "grassroots" issue groups whose names tended to overstate their reach. There was Combat Veterans for Congress, a Sarah Palin-endorsed PAC that pushed "fiscally conservative" vets to run for office; the Coalition for Cures Not Cloning, set up to combat stem-cell research; and Children Need Parents, a group that succeeded in altering the South Dakota's mom-friendly divorce and custody laws. They also oversaw efforts to roll back EPA regulations, punish businesses that dealt with Iran, and ban Shariah law in South Dakota. "Our strength is grassroots organizing," Arends explains. "I love bringing people together."

In 2007, Arends became the executive director of Veterans for Freedom (VFF), whose members fought Obama's Supreme Court nominations, coordinated campaigns for right-wing candidates like Florida Rep. Allen West, and freaked out about the prospect of Islamic law being implemented in America. Arends' job included recruiting vets and flying them, expenses-paid, to Washington, DC, to attend events like the "Vets Take the Hill" rally with Republican members of Congress and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) in April 2008.

As an "independent" nonprofit, VFF tried to downplay its ties to the Bush-Cheney and McCain-Palin campaignteams. It also had ties to the Donatelli Group, the conservative fundraisers who'd seeded Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004. Arends and most of VFF's leadership have since moved on to lucrative or influential positions in the conservative establishment. "Everybody left VFF happy," he says.

More recently, Arends been struggling to roll back what he's called "the ever-present threat, the emerging threat, of sharia doctrine in the United States." He has worked closely with prominent Islamophobe Frank Gaffney, as well as the lesser-known groups Mary's Project and the United West. "The president certainly has reached his hand out to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt," Arends tells me. "Vets who have been to Iraq and Afghanistan have seen the effects and consequences of what Shariah law allows."

That's a more level-headed analysis than Arends has offered in the past. After VFSA hosted a forum for Newt Gingrich in Florida early in the primary season, Arends unloaded to a conservative journalist about how "Islamic Jihadists are infiltrating public schools and the military with their evil message" through the Council on American-Islamic Relations. He continued:

I've seen what radical Islam does, I've seen those car bombs…you know what? There are groups like CAIR today who are working to kind of, with this creeping Shariah here in America, who are working to plant the seeds of the Shariah code and Shariah law that finds itself manifested in the Middle East…

They're not going to assault us in the streets like they do in Iraq and Afghanistan. But what they are gonna do is they're going to try to infiltrate into our schools, try to get in front of young, impressionable children, and in our public school systems, you're gonna find a welcome audience. You're gonna find some administrators out there, these politically correct teachers and administrators who love to bring these kinds of organizations into the classroom because they think they're being politically correct.

Who's funding Vets for a Strong America, and how does it spend its money? There's no way to know. The group is registered as a 501(c)4—a "social welfare" group that can engage in political activities without disclosing its donors. So far, VFSA hasn't released any financial information, and Arends is coy about his group's backers. "We know we have supporters out there," he says. "People like what we're saying, and we're going to continue on, being very vocal with that message."

[thoughtone]

[yureeka9]

[QueEx]

Thanks for this.

I had to research the the term "astroturfing" to get a clearer understanding of the article (Okay, shoot me -- I should have know what astroturfing means) but in case there is someone else as uninformed as me:

• Astroturfing is a form of advocacy in support of a political, organizational, or corporate agenda, designed to give the appearance of a "grassroots" movement. The goal of such campaigns is to disguise the efforts of a political or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to another political entity—a politician, political group, product, service or event. The term is a derivation of AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like natural grass.
  
  Like other advocates, astroturfers attempt to manipulate public opinion by both overt (outreach awareness, etc.) and covert (disinformation) means. Astroturfing may be undertaken by an individual promoting a personal agenda, by organized professional groups for pay, or by activist organizations. Services may be provided by political consultants who also provide opposition research and other services. Beneficiaries are not the campaigners but the organizations that orchestrate the campaigns.

• The need to protect the internet from 'astroturfing' grows ever more urgent -
  
  The tobacco industry does it, the US Air Force clearly wants to ... astroturfing – the use of sophisticated software to drown out real people on web forums – is on the rise. How do we stop it?
  
  
  A real person using the internet. Unfortunately we can no longer assume
  what we are reading is written by one of these creatures. Photograph:
  Jeff Blackler/Rex Features
  
  The anonymity of the web gives companies and governments golden opportunities to run astroturf operations: fake grassroots campaigns that create the impression that large numbers of people are demanding or opposing particular policies. This deception is most likely to occur where the interests of companies or governments come into conflict with the interests of the public. For example, there's a long history of tobacco companies creating astroturf groups to fight attempts to regulate them.
  
  
  After I wrote about online astroturfing in December, I was contacted by a whistleblower. He was part of a commercial team employed to infest internet forums and comment threads on behalf of corporate clients, promoting their causes and arguing with anyone who opposed them.

  
  
  As the Daily Kos has reported, the emails show that:
  
  • Companies now use "persona management software", which multiplies the efforts of each astroturfer, creating the impression that there's major support for what a corporation or government is trying to do.
  
  • This software creates all the online furniture a real person would possess: a name, email accounts, web pages and social media. In other words, it automatically generates what look like authentic profiles, making it hard to tell the difference between a virtual robot and a real commentator.
  
  • Fake accounts can be kept updated by automatically reposting or linking to content generated elsewhere, reinforcing the impression that the account holders are real and active.
  
  • Human astroturfers can then be assigned these "pre-aged" accounts to create a back story, suggesting that they've been busy linking and retweeting for months. No one would suspect that they came onto the scene for the first time a moment ago, for the sole purpose of attacking an article on climate science or arguing against new controls on salt in junk food.
  
  • With some clever use of social media, astroturfers can, in the security firm's words, "make it appear as if a persona was actually at a conference and introduce himself/herself to key individuals as part of the exercise … There are a variety of social media tricks we can use to add a level of realness to fictitious personas."
  
  Perhaps the most disturbing revelation is this. The US Air Force has been tendering for companies to supply it with persona management software, which will perform the following tasks:

  
  a. Create "10 personas per user, replete with background, history, supporting details, and cyber presences that are technically, culturally and geographically consistent … Personas must be able to appear to originate in nearly any part of the world and can interact through conventional online services and social media platforms."
  
  b. Automatically provide its astroturfers with "randomly selected IP addresses through which they can access the internet" (an IP address is the number which identifies someone's computer), and these are to be changed every day, "hiding the existence of the operation". The software should also mix up the astroturfers' web traffic with "traffic from multitudes of users from outside the organisation. This traffic blending provides excellent cover and powerful deniability."
  
  c. Create "static IP addresses" for each persona, enabling different astroturfers "to look like the same person over time". It should also allow "organisations that frequent same site/service often to easily switch IP addresses to look like ordinary users as opposed to one organisation."

  
  Software like this has the potential to destroy the internet as a forum for constructive debate. It jeopardises the notion of online democracy. Comment threads on issues with major commercial implications are already being wrecked by what look like armies of organised trolls – as you can sometimes see on guardian.co.uk.

  
  The internet is a wonderful gift, but it's also a bonanza for corporate lobbyists, viral marketers and government spin doctors, who can operate in cyberspace without regulation, accountability or fear of detection. So let me repeat the question I've put in previous articles, and which has yet to be satisfactorily answered: what should we do to fight these tactics?
  
  
  
  
  

[MASTERBAKER]

Former Navy SEAL releases online documentary chiding Obama for taking credit for Osama bin Laden death


see my awesome thread on mainboard
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread....1#post11874660

[QueEx]

Swiftboating - The word swiftboating is an American neologism used pejoratively to describe an unfair or untrue political attack. The term is derived from the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth (formerly "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," or SBVT) widely publicized, then discredited, campaign against 2004 US Presidential candidate John Kerry.

Since the political smear campaign conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry, the term "swiftboating" (or "Swift-boating", or "Swift Boating") commonly refers to a harsh attack by a political opponent that is dishonest, personal and unfair. The Swift Boat Veterans and media pundits objected to this use of the term to define a smear campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating

[QueEx]

Much like 2004 campaign that helped sink Kerry's campaign,
Opsec questions Obama's credentials on Osama Bin Laden raid

The emergence of a group of former special operations soldiers dedicated to running adverts critical of President Barack Obama's national security policy has raised the prospect of a 2012 version of the infamous Swift boat campaign.

That effort in 2004 played a vital role in derailing John Kerry's bid to beat President George W Bush by casting doubts over the Massachusetts senator's Vietnam War record which Democrats had placed at the heart of their campaign.

Now the people involved in the tongue-twistingly named Special Operations Opsec Education Fund Inc appear to want to do the same by attacking Obama's handling of the death of Osama bin Laden, as well as a flood of national security leaks from inside his administration.

The 22-minute Opsec video attacking Obama

At first glance both Opsec and the Swift boaters appear to have many similarities drawn from the shadowy underworld of political dirty tricks. But there are important differences too:

Republican links

Both the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Opsec are avowedly non-partisan groups that claim not to be taking a party political stance. Instead they say they are just campaigning on a specific issue. Yet both display strong links to Republicans. Three major donors to the Swift boat campaign, including oil baron T Boone Pickens and Houston construction magnate Bob Perry, were prominent Texas Republican fundraisers. Several Republican-linked communication consultants gave media advice to the group. Numerous Swift boat veterans in the group were also Republicans.

With Opsec there are also clear links. Opsec president Scott Taylor is a former Republican congressional candidate. Another supporter and spokesman, Chad Kolton, was a former intelligence spokesman under Bush. Finally, one of the ex-CIA officials appearing in the group's 22-minute long introductory documentary is Paul Vallely, who has publicly cast doubt on the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.


Funding

The funding behind the Swift boat campaign was clearly linked to Republican party supporters. Tax filings for the group in 2005 revealed that more than half of it came from just three major Texan Republicans, including a $4.45m tranche from Bob Perry.

With Opsec the position is less clear. The group has filed its financial status as a social welfare group. Under American campaign finance laws that means it can keep its donors' identities private. It has, however, raised $1mof backing so far and has appealed for public donations in the wake of its launch.


Arguments


John Kerry's presidential campaign was derailed by the Swift boat campaign. Photograph: Haraz N Ghanbari/AP

The Swift boat group produced a series of TV adverts and a book, Unfit for Command, that sought to cast doubt on the veracity of Kerry's claims about his military service. It questioned whether he deserved certain medals and alleged that he had made up descriptions of part of his career in Vietnam. It also attacked him for joining the anti-war movement after leaving the service.

However, the Swift boaters were criticised for getting many allegations wrong or for being often made up of people who had served little or no time with Kerry themselves. Senator John McCain called the group's first ad "dishonest and dishonorable".

Opsec's claim to be non-partisan is dubious. In the 22-minute film only Obama is attacked. However, their argument is more solid. There is little doubt that Obama and his officials have sought to extract political gain from the death of Bin Laden. Nor is there any real doubt as to the scale of leaks from the administration on matters of national security like the controversial "kill list" of Islamic terrorists or the US involvement in the Stuxnet cyber-worm that was used against Iran.

The FBI is investigating those leaks, and Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein has called for political hearings about the matter. In campaigning on this issue Opsec is making a political argument that has support not just in Republican circles


Tactics


Barack Obama in the White House situation room during the mission against Osama bin Laden. Ospec has attacked him for taking credit for it. Photograph: Reuters/White House

The Swift boaters generated interest with a press conference, a book and a series of TV adverts. But their main impact was simply in getting people talking about them, even if it was negatively. Any debate over Kerry's war record could be seen as hurting something that had previously been seen as one of the candidate's strong points.

Opsec can be seen in the same light. The initial documentary, which is presented with flashy graphics and is slickly produced, is meant to get people talking. Opsec aims to follow up its launch with TV adverts in Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Colorado, North Carolina and Nevada – all key battleground states. Again the aim is to cast doubt on something currently seen as an Obama strong point: his hardline stance on national security and the success of killing Bin Laden.




Impact

The Swift boat impact has been seen as successful. Though the reasons for Kerry's loss are varied and complex, the Swift boat controversy is usually cited as a major contributing factor. At the very least it put the Kerry campaign on the defensive in a contest against Bush that it had expected to be mainly about the president's record.

Only time – and the airing of TV ads – will tell what the Opsec group's impact will be. So far it has not succeeded in entering the debate. On the day of its launch the group's documentary has just 302 views on YouTube and its website has less than 3,000 "likes" on Facebook. However, the Swift boat group also got off to a slow start, yet by the end of the 2004 election the term "Swiftboating" had entered America's political lexicon.

SOURCE

[thoughtone]

I'm nor sure if I should have posted this in the "PROOF! Republicans. Conservatives, Tea Partiers Are Liars! " Thread.


Admiral McRaven, Commander of Navy Special Operations Says "The President Deserves A Lot of Credit!"


source: Daily Kos


Wolf Blitzer gets his ass handed to him on a silver platter @ Aspen Security Forum (full video)


It was truly a thing of beauty. Wolf Blitzer did a live, on stage interview with Adm. Bill McRaven, Head of the U.S. Special Operations Command at the kickoff session of the Aspen Security Forum. Admiral McRaven was in charge of the Seals when they raided the bin Laden compound at Abbottabad, Pakistan.


If I had not seen this live, I would not have believed it. The transcript is from the CNN website and is heavily edited as is the video they posted. The video following the transcript is unedited and from the Aspen Security Forum. What you will see in the video but not the transcript is this little gem:[INDENT]Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney has suggested that the decision to launch the raid was a no-brainer. "Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order," Romney said in April.

McRaven refused to respond Wednesday when asked whether he agreed with Romney that any president would have made the same decision Obama did. However, at a couple of junctures, the Special Operations commander offered effusive praise for Obama.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-...en-130150.html

All bolding in this transcript is mine.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN: This is the guy who's sitting right here who had the guts to tell the commander in chief we should do it, let's do it. And when you ordered that raid and when you said you think you - you didn't even know for sure that bin Laden was in Abbottabad at that compound about a mile or so away from the West Point of Pakistan, did you?
ADM. WILLIAM MCRAVEN, COMMANDER, U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS: Well, let me make one thing clear. I didn't order the raid.
(LAUGHTER)
BLITZER: But he told the president of the United States that he thought he could do it.
MCRAVEN: I mean, and this is not a small point. The fact of the matter is it was the president of the United States that ordered the raid.
BLITZER: And he deserves an enormous amount of credit for that decision.
MCRAVEN: Absolutely, he does.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: And when he came to the head of special operations, that would be you, and said, what do you think, what did you say?
MCRAVEN: Well, first, I will tell you that it was a long process to get there.
And our piece of it, the military piece of kind of what I look at kind of three components was probably the easiest aspect of the entire raid. The two other pieces of this were the CIA's role. And I think when the history is finally written and outlined and exposed on how the CIA determined that bin Laden was there, it will be one of the great intelligence operations in the history of intelligence organizations.
And a tremendous amount of that credit goes to Director Leon Panetta at the time because he built the right team, he had the right people, he made some very gutsy calls. And he was not concerned about who got the credit. And so when you take a look at how he built that team, which was a military and intelligence team, tremendous amount of credit goes to the agency.
And the other piece of this really is the president and his national security team. I have made it very clear to people, again, the military piece of this, we did I think 11 other raids that evening in Afghanistan. Now, I don't want to diminish the nature of this raid. It was a little bit more sporty.
(LAUGHTER)
MCRAVEN: And we understood that there were some strategic implications to it.
But, at the end of the day, it was what we had been doing really for 10 years. The president and his national security team - I'm not a political guy, but I will tell you, as - as an interested observer in this, they were magnificent in how they handled the start to finish.
We went through a number of meetings. The president asked all the right questions. His national security team, with Secretary Gates, Secretary Clinton, Chairman Mullen, the vice chairman, Tom Donilon, Denis McDonough and John Brennan and others, really did a fine job of digging down to find out the facts, to make their recommendations based on the facts.
And of course the president gave me ample time to prepare once the concept was approved. But at the end of the day, make no mistake about it, it was the president of the United States that shouldered the burden for this operation, that made the hard decisions, that was instrumental in the planning process, because I pitched every plan to him.
So any indication that Bill McRaven ordered this raid, led this raid was, you know, the key piece of this raid is just patently false.
BLITZER: But you're a Navy SEAL.
MCRAVEN: Yes.
(LAUGHTER)
BLITZER: And these men who went in there, Navy SEALs, they were taking orders from you directly.
MCRAVEN: They were.
BLITZER: You were speaking to all of them. You knew each one of them personally. Here's just a technical question. Did you rehearse it in advance?
MCRAVEN: Well, I'm not going to talk about the tactical details.
But, obviously, we're not going to do a mission like that without rehearsing. We rehearse every operation, particularly significant ones like that. As I said, I have made a point of not talking about the tactical piece of this, other than to say that it is what we do.
We get on helicopters, we go to objectives, we secure the objectives, we get back on helicopters, and we come home. I was short one helicopter, but...
(LAUGHTER)
BLITZER: Well, that stealth helicopter, when it went down - and all of us have read about it, we have heard about it, I have spoken to people who were in that room, the White House SITUATION ROOM, which as opposed to another SITUATION ROOM - but when that helicopter went down, there was a gasp, because a lot of the folks there, correct me if I'm wrong, thought of Desert One in 1980, Jimmy Carter's plan to rescue Americans in Iran.
MCRAVEN: Well, I wouldn't pretend to tell you what they were thinking.
BLITZER: What were you thinking?
MCRAVEN: I was too busy, frankly. I mean, we had a backup plan. We executed the backup plan.
And at that point in time, you're worried about getting the mission done and getting the boys back home. So we had a plan, suffice to say.
BLITZER: And it worked.
MCRAVEN: And it worked.
BLITZER: That helicopter, by the way, all the stealth technology and all that, is that gone? Has it been shared with bad guys?
MCRAVEN: I'm not going to address that.
BLITZER: You don't want to talk about it.
(LAUGHTER)
BLITZER: I'm curious.
All right, let's talk a little bit about - and I want to nail this down as best as I can. You didn't have 100 percent knowledge. The president didn't have 100 percent knowledge that bin Laden was holed up in that compound. Did you have 80 percent, 50 percent? Give me a ballpark. How confident were you that a tall guy was hiding out in that compound?
MCRAVEN: Well, again, I'm not going to address the tactical piece of that.
Suffice to say we were not sure he was there. And, again, that gets back to some tough decisions that were made. My job was to get him if he was there. If he wasn't there, we would know that pretty quickly. And our intent was to get up and get out.

BLITZER: I suspect you're not going to want to answer this question, but I will ask it anyhow.

(LAUGHTER)

BLITZER: And as the admiral and I know -- we just spent some quality time together -- this is the United States of America. We can ask the questions. He doesn't have to answer them. But we can ask the questions.

And I think it's an important question that at least I have always been very, very curious about.

Was the mission to capture bin Laden or was the mission to kill bin Laden?

MCRAVEN: You know, that's a great question. I'm not going to answer it.

(LAUGHTER)

BLITZER: All right.

But there were contingencies this guy would be brought out in a helicopter and brought somewhere?

MCRAVEN: Did they teach you this, to do the end-around when your first question doesn't work?

BLITZER: Yes.

(LAUGHTER)

BLITZER: Just trying to make sure. You don't want to discuss that?

MCRAVEN: No.

A big THANK YOU to 'Second Gen' who found the full video. Wolf begins with the 'Obama doesn't get credit' crap at 2:50 point. Enjoy folks it doesn't get much better:
NOTE:
Blitzer will be interviewing Romney in Israel. Not sure of exact time and date but keep an eye on CNN where it will be announced.

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/...

[QueEx]

Navy SEAL Who Founded Anti-Obama
PAC: ‘I Have To Admit I’m A Birther’

Larry Bailey — the former Navy SEAL who founded Special Operations Speaks (SOS), the PAC critical of the president’s treatment of the military — isn’t shy when expressing his sentiments about President Barack Obama. In an interview with Foreign Policy magazine, Bailey characterizes Obama as a socialist, with a communist upbringing, who was not born in the United States.

“I have to admit that I’m a Birther,” the veteran said. “If there were a jury of 12 good men and women and the evidence were placed before them, there would be absolutely no question Barack Obama was not born where he said he was and is not who he says he is.”


SOURCE:http://www.mediaite.com/online/navy-...-im-a-birther/

[Wobble Wobble]

For the record, Jimmy Carter is one tough somabitch and if there had not been interservice rivalry, where the Navy insisted that minesweeper helicopter pilots be given the job of flying nap of the earth into mountains in enemy territory, and a simple accident, "Delta Force" or whatever it's name is would have been downtown Tehran and out before the Iranian government understood what was happening.

Mission accomplished.

[sharkbait28]

Great article thoughtone

I've been nursing this idea that these guys are using a 501(c)4 to hide their billionaire benefactors (take your pick.. Kochs, Adelson etc). Welcome to campaigning in 2012 smh.

Originally Posted by QueEx

Navy SEAL Who Founded Anti-Obama
PAC: ‘I Have To Admit I’m A Birther’

Larry Bailey — the former Navy SEAL who founded Special Operations Speaks (SOS), the PAC critical of the president’s treatment of the military — isn’t shy when expressing his sentiments about President Barack Obama. In an interview with Foreign Policy magazine, Bailey characterizes Obama as a socialist, with a communist upbringing, who was not born in the United States.

“I have to admit that I’m a Birther,” the veteran said. “If there were a jury of 12 good men and women and the evidence were placed before them, there would be absolutely no question Barack Obama was not born where he said he was and is not who he says he is.”


SOURCE:http://www.mediaite.com/online/navy-...-im-a-birther/

These people are completely unhinged.

[COINTELPRO]

They made some good points...



I deal with computer intrusions, spying all the time, there are no secrets...

Some of the information goes off to the media, government, and companies. There is a ton of garbage and ignorant people, if I did these things to them, I would be sitting in prison. They don't follow the law, but will prosecute somebody to the fullest when their information is disclosed.

It is something that does not exist or is possible in the real world.

[muckraker10021]

One of the Obama swift slime boaters can't handle a few fact based question when confronted with reality

Visit MSNBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by COINTELPRO

They made some good points...

For instance . . .

[COINTELPRO]

Originally Posted by QueEx

For instance . . .

I thought about it...

President Obama wanted to get the story out to eliminate speculation. They violated the sovereignty of another country with nuclear weapons and wanted to let them know why they had their military in their country.

The mission didn't go too smoothly when the helicopter crashed and had to explode the equipment. This left military hardware that identified the United States as being responsible. This would have been reported by the media in Pakistan and gotten back to the U.S. The Navy Seals really fucked up and forced President Obama to come out with the kill.

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by COINTELPRO

I thought about it...

But, who are the "They" that you were referring to ? ? ?