Obama administration transparency?

[pappy53]

Well, the news has been released that an NCIS report dated in 2009 had Bo Bergdahl marked as a deserter, and misbehaving with the enemy. When Bergdahl was being released, Obama held a Rose Garden news conference and just beamed about how he "served with honor", presumably knowing at the time about the NCIS report. Then, Susan Rice speaks out, and said that he "served with honor and distinction".
Where is the so-called transparency that this president promised? This administration has been anything but transparent.

 

[HankAZ]

Well, the news has been released that an NCIS report dated in 2009 had Bo Bergdahl marked as a deserter, and misbehaving with the enemy. When Bergdahl was being released, Obama held a Rose Garden news conference and just beamed about how he "served with honor", presumably knowing at the time about the NCIS report. Then, Susan Rice speaks out, and said that he "served with honor and distinction".
Where is the so-called transparency that this president promised? This administration has been anything but transparent.

You're kidding, right? Obama's administration has been the least transparent administration in my recollection. Instead of transparency, we get lies, end runs around the Constitution and cover ups.

 

[kilofoxtrot]

 

[kch50428]

View attachment 79597

The logical fallacy of equivocation... and a thought ending cliche. Nice work.

 

[kilofoxtrot]

The logical fallacy of equivocation... and a thought ending cliche. Nice work.

Equivocation

Definition: The same word is used with two different meanings.

Proof: Identify the word which is used twice, then show that a definition which is appropriate for one use of the word would not be appropriate for the second use.

Hmmmm... Pot.. Kettle.

I appreciate the complement, but I don't deserve it.

 

[HankAZ]

View attachment 79597

So rather than confront the administration that, in their own words, promised to be the most transparent administration in history (and clearly demonstrates the exact opposite reality), we continue to blame Bush and try to turn the argument back on him and his presidency?

Bush's issues notwithstanding, the fact remains that Obama lied. He lied about the promised transparency of his own house, as well as anything else he could get away with, and some are STILL focusing on Bush's presidency now approaching 7 years later. At some point Obama must be held accountable for his lies, his liberal agenda and open distain for the US Constitution.

 

[kilofoxtrot]

So rather than confront the administration that, in their own words, promised to be the most transparent administration in history (and clearly demonstrates the exact opposite reality), we continue to blame Bush and try to turn the argument back on him and his presidency?

Bush's issues notwithstanding, the fact remains that Obama lied. He lied about the promised transparency of his own house, as well as anything else he could get away with, and some are STILL focusing on Bush's presidency now approaching 7 years later. At some point Obama must be held accountable for his lies, his liberal agenda and open distain for the US Constitution.

Tell you what, I'll hold Obama accountable when you hold Bush accountable. Deal?

5,000+ dead over bad intelligence vs Bergdahl.

Which upsets you more Hank?

 

[HankAZ]

Tell you what, I'll hold Obama accountable when you hold Bush accountable. Deal?

5,000+ dead over bad intelligence vs Bergdahl.

Which upsets you more Hank?

Clearly you are on a mission to prop up the untenable Barack Hussien Obama. He is president now. Has been for going on 7 years. And all we hear is Bush this, Bush that. Obama was the one who promised a transparent administration, which is the ONLY topic for this thread. This thread is NOT about Bush (41 OR 43), Reagan, Clinton or any previous president. It's about the liar-in-chief, Barack Obama.

He promised transparency and yet all we get is obfuscation, misdirection and lies.

What upsets me most of all is the free passes that the liberals (including the media) want to give him on his lies and deception. None of them even pretend to hold him accountable for his actions and lies.

And concerning Bergdahl, he was a deserter, an enemy sympathizer, a hero and now he's a deserter again. Oh, yeah, and he was trade bait for some really bad terrorist types.

 

[kilofoxtrot]

What upsets me most of all is the free passes that the liberals (including the media) want to give him on his lies and deception. None of them even pretend to hold him accountable for his actions and lies.

Then its up to THIS REPUBLICAN CONGRESS TO IMPEACH HIM.

WHY HAVENT THEY????

 

[Ledsteplin]

Then its up to THIS REPUBLICAN CONGRESS TO IMPEACH HIM.

WHY HAVENT THEY????

They don't have the numbers to impeach in the Senate. It takes more than just a majority. It's pretty high. I'd have to look it up. You can Google it.


Sent from my ancient but trustworthy iPhone 5. ☮

 

[kilofoxtrot]

They don't have the numbers to impeach in the Senate. It takes more than just a majority. It's pretty high. I'd have to look it up. You can Google it.


Sent from my ancient but trustworthy iPhone 5. ☮

Articles of impeachment are brought by the House with a simple majority. The trial is in the senate.

 

[HankAZ]

Then its up to THIS REPUBLICAN CONGRESS TO IMPEACH HIM.

WHY HAVENT THEY????

Two words: Joe Biden

They don't have the numbers to impeach in the Senate. It takes more than just a majority. It's pretty high. I'd have to look it up. You can Google it.

Sent from my ancient but trustworthy iPhone 5. ☮

Saving him the trouble - removal from office requires a two-thirds majority of senators present - 67 votes.

 

[Ledsteplin]

Articles of impeachment are brought by the House with a simple majority. The trial is in the senate.

Bill Clinton was impeached by the house. But the Senate did not.


Sent from my ancient but trustworthy iPhone 5. ☮

 

[pappy53]

Then its up to THIS REPUBLICAN CONGRESS TO IMPEACH HIM.

WHY HAVENT THEY????

You just giving a smug answer because you know that it isn't going to happen. Fairly typical liberal response.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HankAZ]

Bill Clinton was impeached by the house. But the Senate did not.


Sent from my ancient but trustworthy iPhone 5. ☮

Impeachment is the process of bringing charges against one holding a political office. The "articles of impeachment" are functionally equivalent to the indictment in a criminal case. The House drafts the articles of impeachment, which are approved/ratified by a simple majority, which constitutes impeachment. The term "impeachment" applies IF articles of impeachment are brought, regardless of whether the office holder is convicted or not. If the articles of impeachment are brought, the Senate conducts the trial, at the conclusion of which, a supermajority (two-thirds of the Senators present) is required to convict. Conviction results in removal from office for the impeached. Failure to convict results in the impeached remaining in office.


Sent from my mobile device using Tapatalk v3.2.1.