New York Times thinks so:

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-york-times-arms-shipments-secretly-approved-by-obama-admin-ended-up-in-hands-of-islamic-militants/

 

My guess is thatObama gets a pass where Reagan did not.  After all, Obama is well meaning and Regan was just working for the 1%, which somehow has become the 2%

 

Yep.  Hypocricy in liberalland.

Well it certainly would be a problem.

Of course, we probably shouldn't worry about the differences between intentional gun running to terrorists on a large scale....

....and accidental transfer to militants on a far smaller scale.

 

Sort of like, in your mind, it doesn't matter that someone who wasn't a delegate snuck into a delegate's seat and used his microphone when you wonder why he was escorted out of the U.N. To you it was only the subject he spoke on.

 

I suppose you'd consider your first amendment rights violated if you broke into Obama's bedroom to lecture him about abortions, and got hauled off by security.

 

"A-derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!"

 

 

No wonder you like that site. The comments section is filled with paranoid ret@rds like yourself.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

Beck or Breitbart based sites are ridiculously paranoid and fact-free

Skeeter - the issue behind the Iran-Contra scandal was that people in the Reagan administration BROKE THE LAW.  Actually, I think they broke 2 laws.

So in answer to your question - NO.

In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

But, but... the liberal conspiracy is evil and must be defeated regardless of the "law".

This will be no more of a big deal than the time we sent 12 billion dollars in cash to Iraq in 2003 and 9 billion of it went missing and has never been recovered.  Clearly the Obama admin was trying to assist in an environment where there was no interest in putting ground troops into Libya and the "hidden hand" of assistance ended up not working very well.  This is why there is extreme reluctance to intervene directly in Syria, because unless our people are on the ground we have no real way of knowing that logistics will be handled properly. But as the Iraq situation with the missing 9 billion dollars demonstrated, even our people can be stunningly incompetent as well. 

In response to DamainAllen's comment:

And McCain wonders why Obama is rushing to give weapons to just anybody in Syria.

This post has been removed.

In response to NO MO O's comment:

But, but... the liberal conspiracy is evil and must be defeated regardless of the "law".

[/QUOTE]


Can I quote you senator ?

Federal immigration laws?.... Ohhh that's different.. we need their votes.

Selective enforcement and policy trumping existing laws is not a good thing.

[/QUOTE]

You are ranting mindlessly again.  No wonder you support my sarcastic response on the essential emptiness of fringe conservative belief.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

Hah!

i love it when the liberals try to justify Obama delivering arms to terrorists by calling them insurgents.

In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

I agree!!

The issue behind the Lewinski scandal was that Clinton lied under oath and obstructed justice; not that he got a BJ in the WH!!

 

True, but then again the problem is the cover-up. Isn't it?

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

Not sure Obama didn't break the law. How would we know? Itthe the most secretive administration in modern history.

Isn't this thread just skeeter20@13,500's finest moment -- the spelling and grammar in the title and throughout the OP, and the paranoia throughout the thread?  It may eclipse:

http://www.boston.com/community/forums/news/politics/general/what-is-are-the-benefits-of-obamacare-what-are-the-real-costs/80/6295252

[Bump]

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/15-reasons-why-the-obamacare-decision-is-a-mind-blowing-disaster-for-america

[And bump]

In response to Firewind's comment:

And I gess my speling mekes you wright.  sigh.  The left clings to foorm wile the right clings to substence.

So, are you seying that Obummercare is gud?

In response to skeeter20's comment:

If you are not sure that Obama's actions are illegal why on earth are you comparing them to actions that were illegal?   

Answer:  But, but... the liberal conspiracy is evil and must be defeated regardless of the "law".

 

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Would the feed or the paranoia be the substance in this thread and the earlier one?  This is the persistent question above and in most of the threads that are brought here about Libya.  Several comments already have asked the question in this one.

Stipulating that winning friends isn't skeeter20@13,500's goal, the "Edit post" button is still available for influencing people, as it was, and was applied, in the earlier thread.  Unless, taking the point above, we are also stipulating that this really is just for the base.

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

I'm not sure, that's my position. Considering Obama went to Libya without congressional approval, how can arming them be legal?  Maybe it is.  Not sure, asking the question.  Don't you think it is a bit early to draw definitive conclusions about an illegal war and the arms involved?

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Huh?

This post has been removed.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

"The Obama administration argued Wednesday that its nearly three-month-old military involvement in Libya does not require congressional approval because of the supporting role most U.S. forces are playing there, a position that puts it at odds with some Republican leaders and the antiwar wing of its own party.

The White House reasoning, included in a 32-page report to Congress, is the administration’s first detailed response to complaints from lawmakers of both parties, who say President Obama has exceeded his authority as commander in chief by waging war in Libya without congressional authorization."

 

You need to keep up.  Obama did not have congressional approval.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

And we didn't invade. We sent some CIA agents, some advisors, some money, and some guns.