Sort of like the Corkys of the world who say that opposing drone strikes on Americans means you want to give roses to the terrorists.

#32 FF

#36 Agreed, but no legislator will ever propose that because he will be targeted by political opponents as "anti-police," "pro-criminal," "anti-justice," etc.

If they are closing Gitmo where would they put them Zero?

How about a prison, retard?

He never tried to keep the troops in Iraq, that was what others were saying

If by "others" you mean "respected journalists at the Atlantic and Washington Post," then yeah...I guess "others" were saying that. And they were right.

Holy cow. #148 is a prime example of how far hyper-partisans will go to defend the indefensible.

Completely pathetic. Any adult typing a post like that ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Severally ideas that are either fundamentally new or haven't been articulated before in such unambiguous fashion have just been presented to the American people.

Like what? Closing Gitmo? Not indiscriminately shooting missiles at brown people? Excuse me for not being fired up about this.

The only thing surprising about this speech is that anyone would actually keep falling for Obama's phony progressive rhetoric.

He is acknowledging the unAmerican nature of Gitmo!

Have you forgotten that he did the same thing 5 years ago?

For those deflecting and saying Paul wasn't the first to bring it up, that wasn't really my point. The point is that Obama's claim to suddenly have values on this issue doesn't appear to be genuine.

Does anyone think for a second that Obama would "change" his drone policy if people like Rand Paul didn't raise such a stink about it? If you want to see what Obama really thinks about drones, look at how he handled them in the first place rather than how he says he will handle them in the future after taking some heat for it.

"[I]n some cases I believe we compromised our basic values."

Oh please. If he actually held these "basic values" he'd have put in more effort to retain them. It's not like he was dragged kicking and screaming into indefinitely detaining people and firing drone missiles at them.

I can't decide whether this is the douchiest thing I've ever seen, or if it's cool. The moustache guy makes me lean toward the former, but I have to admit this looks like a sweet place.

Corky, your entire argument in support of the drone program before this "change" was that the targets could not reasonably be captured and that they posed an imminent threat to the US. That's why you kept asking people for a reasonable alternative to the drone program. Remember?

Now you're telling me that a statement that "lethal force will be used only against targets who pose "a continuing, imminent threat to Americans" and cannot feasibly be captured," constitutes a "policy change." Do you see how ridiculous that is?

Flag:lol, people whine for a policy change, then when they get it what do they do?

Whine some more.

Tell me how this is a policy change.

"Lethal force will be used only against targets who pose "a continuing, imminent threat to Americans"

In other words, the same elastic definitions he's been using all along.

I think the more likely scenario is that the FBI agent knew this guy was an MMA fighter and came into the situation on edge, ready to use his weapon at the first sign of a threat.

We'll never know whether that was the case, but I'd hope the FBI would send someone who can physically defend themselves to an interview like this rather than some wuss who can't do anything but fire a gun.

Danni has spoken.

I like how one of the main problems he lists in his ad is that rent and housing costs too much in NYC. What is he going to do to push down those costs?

When you invoke your Fifth Amendment rights, you are stating your belief that your answers would be used against you in a criminal prosecution. Yes, there's the possibility that you're doing this because you think you might be framed, but I'd say there's a higher likelihood that you are the person who committed a criminal act.

And so too should Karl Rove

What a lunatic you are. Who cares about Karl Rove? Are you even capable of addressing this story?

She should also be subjected to a thorough criminal investigation, since she's essentially admitting that she has committed a crime.

can you tell us if it's possible to make partial statements in a hearing and then plead the 5th?

Not my area of expertise, but I imagine you can plead the 5th whenever it gets to the point that you decide that your answer would be self-incriminating.

I'm trying to come up with Lerner's possible reasons for doing this. Here's what I'm seeing.

1. She lied under oath previously, and having to admit that would be admission of a crime.

2. She actually committed a criminal act as head of this division of IRS, which she'd have to admit to on the stand.

Are there any other options here?

The appeals court accepted an assertion from the Obama administration that the images are so potent that releasing them could cause riots that would put Americans abroad at risk.

Are people unaware that he was killed?

When a 5'9" 155-lb monster is coming at you, lethal force is the only option.