Liberal Policies Lose on a Day America Wins
Sunday was an historic day for America, an historic victory in the War on Terror - Usama Bin Laden, the man who had ordered the death of over 3,000 Americans on 9/11, had finally been killed. It was also an historic revelation that, conducting the war according to far-left liberal policies would have prevented this day from ever happening.
If the United States had not been conducting a War on Terror in the Middle East, Bin Laden would still be alive. Yesterday, Karl Rove did something that President Obama was unable to do – thank former President Bush for his efforts in bringing those responsible for 9/11 to justice. In an Op-Ed on Fox News, Rove explained that Bush “policies provided the tools that led to the discovery of Bin Laden’s hiding place.” It was Bush who ordered American forces into Afghanistan, setting up the framework of U.S. policy for how to conduct the war, while eventually uprooting the Taliban and forcing Bin Laden to flee into neighboring Pakistan. It was at this point that Bush developed an interrogation policy that would prove key in finding Bin Laden.
If Guantanamo Bay had been closed and coercive tactics not used on its prisoners, Bin Laden would still be alive. Obama himself sought to appease his liberal base by signing a largely symbolic, yet unrealistic executive order to close Guantanamo Bay. The vision of that order never came to fruition, to the benefit of this nation. The Australian reported that “the man who led them to the al-Qa'ida leader was a trusted courier, identified by several detainees under questioning.” That identification was confirmed by two other sources, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi. How was that information attained? The AP is reporting that “CIA interrogators in secret overseas prisons developed the first strands of information that ultimately led to the killing of Osama bin Laden.” Essentially, the identity of Bin Laden’s courier was extracted from former Guantanamo prisoners, using interrogation tactics inside CIA prisons in Romania and Poland. Fortunately, those tactics were practiced during the Bush era, prior to Obama signing another executive order which formally banned torture. Proof of the interrogations and Guantanamo playing a vital role in this operation came in the form of a 2008 document drop by Wikileaks.
Speaking of Wikileaks, had proponents of the open government platform had their way, and details of this mission were released to the public, Bin Laden would still be alive. Early suspicions that Bin Laden had been located cropped up in August of 2010, when the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, was discovered. Operations were planned in a series of meetings between the President and the National Security Council in mid-March. Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, has stated that the organization’s goal ‘is to force governments into total transparency by making all official documents available to the public.’ Had documents, plans, and meeting notes been released prior to the day the actual operation was carried out, Bin Laden would easily have escaped.
And finally, had the military exercised a liberal war tactic known as ‘courageous restraint’, Bin Laden would still be alive. One year ago, NATO developed a plan to reward troops for exercising ‘courageous restraint’, in the hopes they would avoid using force that could endanger innocent lives in a firefight. In the firefight which eventually took down Bin Laden, a woman, possibly one of the terrorist’s wives, was used as a human shield. Had American forces thought twice about killing a civilian in this case, exercising ‘courageous restraint’, the operation may not have gone so smoothly. American lives may have been lost; the mission may not have been accomplished.
The victory that America can finally celebrate ten years after 9/11 is possible in spite of liberal peacenik platforms, not because of them. What does it say about these platforms that they are clearly losing policies, revealed on a day that America clearly won?
Rusty can be contacted at The Mental Recession
- Rusty Weiss's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Good morning Rusty
Submitted by shawn. on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 8:18am.
Bush has been out of office for over 2 years now. Obama and his military commanders have been coordinating this mission for months now and has succeeded to do something both his predecessors could not.
I admit Bush laid the framework Rusty but also bear in mind that thousands of our military have died and many more thousand have been severely injured in both our wars not to mention the monetary cost
Don't get me wrong, Killing Bin Laden is huge and should be celebrated, but came at a huge cost.
Now that is a sad sad sad post Shawn.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:02am.
But at least you got number right for once. Both our wars. Afghanistan and Libya. The Iraq war is over.
Iraq is not over yet.
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:11am.
Iraq is not over yet.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
That is the way it seems to me too
Submitted by shawn. on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:18am.
......sometimes it's easier to just agree
Yes, we always negotiate SOFA agreements with countries at war.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:38am.
The U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: "Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq") is a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States. It establishes that U.S. combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011...
Obama Declares an End to Combat Mission in Iraq - 31Aug2010
VFW Magazine - May 2011 - Page 39 - Combat deaths in Iraq (January) - Zero
Deaths due to accident and disease - Two.
The Iraq War is over as US troops head home
The Iraq War Is Over
The Iraq war is over. We won. Fly the Blue Star flag
NewsBusters August 2008 - Is Iraq War Over But Media Aren't Telling Us?
Michael Yon July 2008 - The war continues to abate in Iraq. Violence is still present, but, of course, Iraq was a relatively violent place long before Coalition forces moved in. I would go so far as to say that barring any major and unexpected developments (like an Israeli air strike on Iran and the retaliations that would follow), a fair-minded person could say with reasonable certainty that the war has ended.
Also, The Iraq War Is Over, And Russian & Chinese Oil Companies Won --- Oil companies always drill in a combat zone?
McCain On The Iraq War: ‘We Already Won That One’
Oh fudge. My linker overheated again.
If Iraq war was over, we
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:50am.
If Iraq war was over, we would not still be having our troops killed there.
Do you also believe in the Easter Bunny?
http://www.crawfordcountyavalanche.com/articles/2011/05/02/news/doc4db82b6113c69230866739.txt
http://www.heritage.com/articles/2011/05/03/belleville_view/news/doc4db85d07649d5931024816.txt
Hey, links do work! Makes everything you type true!
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Kindly inform Malaki we are still at war.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:02am.
He still thinks we are leaving the WAR in December.
From your link - Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has said that Iraqi forces are capable of managing the country’s security and that it will not be necessary for U.S. troops to stay.
Oh and inform Texas of it's status - 12 soldiers were killed there in 2009, what battlefied is that again?
Ok Vet, that report is from
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:18am.
Ok Vet, that report is from last Apr 30, 2011. Try to keep up. The 2009 date comes from the casualties per month to date. There were 5 US troops killed last month from hostile fire, and 11 this year. I don't know what your a veteran of, but in my experience, if they are shooting at me, its a war. Perhaps your not a combat veteran. Maybe you were a supply clerk.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Dude that is a cheap shot
Submitted by shawn. on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:22am.
My exchanges with the vet might get heated but I will never question his sacrifices for our country.
You a Vet Shawn? I did not
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:25am.
You a Vet Shawn? I did not question any sacrifices, only his MOS. That is not a cheap shot. Simply an observation.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
No I am not a vet
Submitted by shawn. on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:37am.
However I respect anyone that has served and they are automatically better than i am.
You are trying to belittle him with the supply clerk comment
shawn, if your not a vet, how
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:59am.
shawn, if your not a vet, how would you know that supply clerk would be belittling him? You sure seem to assume a lot. It was the supply clerks kept me in ammo. It is no simple job. You need to get a grip.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Whatever. Now I have to explain myself to bassndude.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:38am.
Can't disagree without giving bonafides. Whatever. Not trading insults.
More casualties of wars that never ended or started.
PB4Y2 from VP-26, Det A,
shot down by Soviet
aircraft, over Baltic Sea
off coast of Latvia,
8 Apr. 1950
++
P2V-3W from VP-6 shot down
by Soviet aircraft, over Sea
of Japan off Vladivostok,
Siberia, 6 Nov. 1951
++
PBM-5S2 from VP-731 attacked by
Chinese fighters over the
Yellow Sea, 31 Jul. 1952
++
USS Liberty, attacked by
Israeli forces in the
Eastern Mediterranean,
8 Jun. 1967
++
"Mayaguez Incident," battle with
Khmer Rouge forces, Koh Tang
Island, Cambodia, 14 May 1975
++
USS Stark struck by Iraqi
missiles, Persian Gulf,
17 May 1987
+++
Screw listing them all. There is a whole page of them here.
There are always isolated
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:52am.
There are always isolated incidents. Always have been, always will be. Vietnam was never a declared war. It was a "police action". In Rhodesia, they called it interdiction and training. But from my perspective on the ground, it was war. There was no other way to describe it. You call those parents and families of those 11 troops that have been killed this year in Iraq, and you tell them that is not a war. Just cause someone says the war is over, don't make it so. You confuse the issues. Fact of the matter is, we were never at war with the Soviets. The Liberty was a mistake from the get go. You use a tactic of confusing the facts with insinuations that ultimately are false assumptions.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
What I have to keep listing from that page?
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 12:20pm.
You give me definitions of police actions and interdictions and training. Then you tell me, this is your perspective. Which is it? Do you want to go by historical dates or your perspective? I did not declare the war over. I am not giving my perspective on the ground. I am repeating what I have read.
You did not qualify your initial statement - Iraq is not over yet.
I was arguing with what I have read.
Major combat operations ended with announcement of President Bush on the aircraft carrier.
We signed a SOFA in 2008 giving a date for us to leave.
President Obama, in accordance with that SOFA withdrew combat units in August of last year.
Deaths due to enemy action are few and far between. Iraq has a functioning government and somewhat functional military. Maliki is adamant we will leave as per the SOFA.
Senator McCain says the war is over.
Who are we fighting if we are still at war?
Now I respond to this statement before - If they are shooting at me, its a war... - and you make me out to be some kind of idiot that gets confused over what is classified as police actions, interdictions, training, and then tell me you are going by your perspective. I posted those examples to say that just because someone shoots at us, it don't make it a war. Your response? Yes, those weren't wars, they were something else. ThAT WAS MY POINT. Then you tell me I confuse facts with insinuations that ultimately are false assumptions.
I gave incidents of people trying to kill our military men when we were NOT at war AFTER you said if someone is shooting at you, it is war.
So yeah, I guess I did confuse facts and insinuations and false assumptions, huh? Are you arguing with me or yourself.
...if they are shooting at me, its a war...
Except when you want to call it isolated incidents. or not a declared war or a "police action" or interdiction and training.
But then that was my point before I got all confused with facts and insinuations and false assumptions.
Vet, now that is better,
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 12:32pm.
Vet, now that is better, except for your sarcasm. Why not just say so in the beginning? Instead of posting links and copy and paste incidents. All I was looking for was YOUR view. Not the media's, not copy and paste, and not what someone else printed in a paper.
Get a grip dude. Everyone that responds to a post you make is not hostile. Sometimes they are curious. I gave my view, and wanted yours. Not some senators bio.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Whatever.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 12:42pm.
You read hostility into my posts and taunted me then said I was confusing facts. It is my view. The Iraq War is over. I post links to back up my view. Sheesh. I read what you wrote. Thanks for reading what I wrote. <<< Sarcasm. Bull. You did not give your view until after I had to post 16 hundred links backing up what I said.
I gave my view in the post
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 12:57pm.
I gave my view in the post after your links. Links really do not say what the person linking is thinking. Whatever. I was not taunting you. It was a legitimate question, which you have not answered as yet. Nor did I expect you to, really.
It is my view, that as long as we are taking regular hostile fire casualties in Iraq, the troops are still at war. They carry weapons every where they go.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Yeah, I am thinking something now.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 1:10pm.
Take a hike. I can only take so much of your lecturing. I link because links say I AIN'T MAKING UP THIS CRAP.
The War in Iraq Is Over. What Next?
You wanted to disagree. Fine. You did nothing but belittle and taunt. I accepted it. Now you want to say, hey, just my view. I was just showing you my view when I said you were dead friggin' wrong. Don't overreeact man. Phweet.
Oh and up yours.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 1:00pm.
I back up what I say with others saying the same thing, you get smartass with easter bunny links. I give a bunch of facts, you say I am simply stating my view. You say if you are getting shot at, it is war, I give examples of us getting shot at outside of war. You say those are not wars when we were getting shot at that you consider war. You taunt me with crap about my MOS and act as though I can't have an opinion unless I was in combat. I was in the NAVY. We had ratings. Then at the end you tell me I need to get a grip. Cuz we is all just offerin' opinions here.
Well, it is MY opinion the Iraq War is over. Now why is it my opinion? Because the Iraq war is over. Damn, I do get confused, huh?
If I was taunting you, it
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 1:10pm.
If I was taunting you, it must have worked. But, on the flip side, if I was not, you have read more into the posts than what was meant. People see things through prisms of life experiences. Just looking to see where you were coming from. Seems that when I asked a question, your responded with links. Just did the same, as an illustration. And you tried to go all Psychic Wars on me.
And if up yours is civil discourse, well, you need to get a grip.
And how many times you gonna respond to the same post?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Whatever.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 1:13pm.
You asked a question designed to disqualify me from stating an opinion. Hey, just asking questions. You can't talk about men landing on the moon unless you were an astronaut. ARE YOU AN ASTRONAUT? No? THEN SHUT THE HELL UP.
Yeah, just asking a question. Bull.
Vet, seems your rather
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 1:21pm.
Vet, seems your rather sensitive about it. If so, I apologize. Had I known you were so sensitive about such things, I would not have asked. Seems a lot of folks seem to think that all the jobs in the military are not important. After all, only 10% of the troops are combat arms troops. The rest are support. And without them, combat troops cannot function. Don't know what all the hub bub is about.
Oh, and not shutting up.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Whatever.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 1:25pm.
Again. You only asked if I was in combat TO DISQUALIFY ME FROM GIVING AN OPINION..
Look Vet, I was honest with
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 1:38pm.
Look Vet, I was honest with you, here. If you cannot except that, nor the apology I offered, that's your hard luck. I was trying to apologize for that. Now if you wish to continue down this road, it will not get any better.
In the end, it is what you will accept. i tried. Believe what you will.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Wrong.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 12:45am.
bassndude: Hey Vet, you are a big sensitive sissy. I apologize for that. If I had known you were such a big sensitive sissy, I wouldn't have called you a big sensitive sissy.
Yeah, funny way of apologizing there. Somehow, I get the feeling it is just another insult.
Twice.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 1:15pm.
And how many times you gonna respond to the same post?
Twice. Got to get it up there good.
LOL Vet
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 1:22pm.
LOL Vet
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Heck, I thought all the wars ended
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 1:40pm.
With the election of Obama? Media sure seems to think so
Give him a break, Bass
Submitted by ckc1227 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 1:57pm.
He's not sure what he means yet.
"I did not declare the war over. I am not giving my perspective on the ground. I am repeating what I have read."
"You read hostility into my posts and taunted me then said I was confusing facts. It is my view. The Iraq War is over. I post links to back up my view."
He tells you the war is over, then tells you he didn't say the war was over, but posted links to support the view he said he doesn't have, only to finish by saying the war is over.
lol.....
I know CKC1227, but I still
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 2:13pm.
I know CKC1227, but I still was not trying to discredit him. I tried to apologize for hurting his feelings. But he seems to reject that to.
But if he thinks I was taunting him here, so be it. And if he thinks the war is over, so be it. Don't make it so.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Let sum up shall we?
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 12:40am.
The Vet: The Iraq war is over.
bassndude: Iraq is not over yet.
The Vet: Uh yes it is, here are a bunch of people saying the same thing as I
bassndude: If the war was over, we would not still be have troops dying. Your links are stupid. Look, I have a cool link! My link counts.
The Vet: Yeah, look what it says in your link. Malaki says our troops are leaving. We always leave in the middle of a war? Oh, and we had troops killed at Fort Hood by that nut, does that make it a war there?
bassndude: Reports in 2009! Non sequitur! You are not a combat vet. You cannot have this opinion! Iffen someone shoots at me, it is a war.
The Vet: Here are plenty examples of our military getting shot at outside of declared wars.
bassndude: Hey, I know I said if our troops are getting shot at, it is war, but yeah I will now say that it is not a war when our troops are getting shot at. Just in those examples mind you. My example, here, in Iraq, it is still a war just because I say so. Also, you are stupid, yeah, yeah, yeah, I contradicted myself there but you are stupid and confuse facts with all kinds of stuff. Ha!
The Vet: Whatever. Do you want to go by what history tells us or your opinion. I go by history and here is the history - blah blah blah. Oh and you contradicted yourself when you said every time they shoot at us, it is a declared war except for all those times you wanted to call it something else.
bassndude: Yeah, I am not going to read your post. I am just gonna make something up about you stating your view and my view. And even though this is my second non sequitur, I am gonna tell you to get a grip.
The Vet: Whatever. You did not state this was simply your opinion until after I proved I was not just making stuff up with 14 links.
bassndude: More red herrings. Links are for stupees. Yeah, you can't base your opinion on the 4 hours worth of printed material you go through a day. You can't link to others saying the exact same things as you. It all has to be about pulling opinions out your butt.
The Vet: I am not going to pull opinions out of my butt. I read. I get my opinions based on what I read. And that opinion is the Iraq war is over.
bassndude: Time for me to make some crap up. You responded with links when I asked a question. Yeah, don't bother going up and looking at the posts. They will show you posted links to back up what you said when I responded with this - Iraq is not over yet. - Yeah, I know that is not a question. Too bad. So sad.
The Vet: Yeah, your question was if I had ever served in combat because if I had not, I am incapable of rendering an opinion as only people in combat can discuss this issue. In other words, you are telling me to shut up.
bassndude: I know I told you to shut up but I am going with yet another non sequitur. I won't shut up!
+++++
side conversation
bassndude: Hey, I know The Vet said something and then backed it up but I am gonna pretend he didn't and repeat once again, you can't have an opinion unless you were in combat in Vietnam.
The Vet: Here is a guy that was in combat in Vietnam, Senator McCain. He says the same thing as I - the war is over.
bassndude: I am gonna now pretend we were not having a discussion as to whether the war in Iraq can be considered to be over. I am gonna pretend it was all about how you view the world and also I will pretend you have not said anything at about the war being over. So I will ask you like we just started talking. Say Vet, do you think the war in Iraq is over?
The Vet: Whatever. Not gonna repeat myself. Bye.
The Iraq War is over.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 12:32am.
I did not make it up. I do not appreciate being made to look like some kind of, what, I don't even know what my friends on the right are trying to do anymore.
Again, I did not make this up.
One more time. I did not make it up.
Whoops. What do I read to today? Today. THIS DAY. RIGHT NOW. HERE. NOW. REAL TIME.
Victor Davis Hanson: ...the truth is that the U.S. military remains preeminent and transcends the administration in power at any given time. It won the Iraq war....
The Iraq War is over. We won. Now all my friends on the right, spend the entire day attacking and belittling and taunting me because I said it. That is a good strategy to pound on someone when they are right.
I have a long memory.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 6:32am.
Disrespecting someone simply because they have a different opinion than you ain't a proper way to walk through life. “
Just treat them with respect as a fellow veteran and comrade,” he said. “Don’t judge them or say their service is inferior. They are vets just like any other vet and they are the future of VFW.”
Pack sand you lying coward.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 11:47pm.
Another cut and run backbiting post from the biggest sissy here. Lies about me and then runs, never to respond again.
Still have 50 posts of mine waiting for you to answer. At least bassndude stuck around to make his point, however flawed it may be.
A whole boatload of ckc1227 lying to/about me and then running like a coward is here. GO THERE AND START ANSWERING UP LIKE A MAN CKC1227.
ckc1227 LIES again.
the LYING COWARD ckc1227: He tells you the war is over, then tells you he didn't say the war was over.
An outright LIE. I said I did not DECLARE the war was over. I did not declare the war over. DECLARE YOU LYING SNIT. I don't have the authority to DECLARE the war over, others do.
You are a frelling cut and run coward that calls others lying, fails to back it up, and then runs to backbite again another day. IT IS ALL YOU ARE. IT IS ALL YOU WILL EVER BE.
It Doesn't Matter!!!
Submitted by GeneralAl on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:48am.
"Perhaps your not a combat veteran. Maybe you were a supply clerk."
It doesn't matter if the Vet was a supply clerk [I'm not saying he was!], he still served and did just as important a job as the combat troops. Perhaps while he was serving as a "Supply Clerk", you were out Bass fishing! At least he served!
"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!
So did I GeneralAl.
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:58am.
So did I GeneralAl. Just trying to find his perspective. I have a cousin was a personal clerk. We were in Vietnam at the same time. He was near Saigon, I was with MACV-CCC. Our perspectives on what war was were very different. I cast no disparaging comments. But to hear some of you, you seem to think supply clerk is a dirty name.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
No. You are taunting. Trying to get an emotional response.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 11:35am.
Why? Because we disagree with the current classification as to the status of the war in Iraq.
I now have to justify myself simply because I disagree with you.
You want my history in combat? Here ---
I began my early military career began when I was commissioned an ensign and started two and a half years of training at Pensacola to become a naval aviator. I completed flight school in 1960
I requested a combat assignment, and was assigned to the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal flying A-4 Skyhawks. My combat duty began when he was 30 years old, in mid-1967, when Forrestal was assigned to a bombing campaign, Operation Rolling Thunder, during the Vietnam War.
On July 29, 1967 I, by then a lieutenant commander, was near the center of the Forrestal fire. I escaped from my burning jet and was trying to help another pilot escape when a bomb exploded; I was struck in the legs and chest by fragments. The ensuing fire killed 134 sailors and took 24 hours to control. With the Forrestal out of commission, I volunteered for assignment with the USS Oriskany, another aircraft carrier employed in Operation Rolling Thunder. Once there, I would be awarded the Navy Commendation Medal and the Bronze Star for missions flown over North Vietnam.
My capture and subsequent imprisonment began on October 26, 1967. I was flying my 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam when my A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi. I fractured both arms and a leg ejecting from the aircraft, and nearly drowned when I parachuted into Truc Bach Lake.
Altogether, I was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years. i was released on March 14, 1973. my wartime injuries left me permanently incapable of raising my arms above my head.
Whoops. That was not me. That was Senator John McCain.
When Geoff introduced himself as chairman of the board of Iraq Veterans against the War, McCain retorted, "You're too late. We already won that one."
There is the bona fides Mr. bassndude. What is the deal with you? We disagree and you turn hostile on me?
Did not see any bona fides
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 11:58am.
Did not see any bona fides there Vet. Not looking for an emotional response. Just an honest one. Just looking to find the prism which you view Iraq from.
So far all I have seen is a bunch of mumbo jumbo. You still have not said why you believe the Iraq war is over.
I say as long as there are hostile fire directed at our troops, they are at war. Why do you say they are not?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Up yours.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 1:21pm.
I showed my DD-214 to my VFW post. I ain't whipping it out every time some guy wants to disqualify me from stating an opinion.
Looks like we are done here. You still have not said why you believe the Iraq war is over. I did. I so very did. RMP. Not repeating myself.
bass
Submitted by sentry_99 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 2:44pm.
I'm late to this party but I feel I must tell you....I was a supply clerk. Kiss my ass.
Edit: I should add this ---> ; )
It's ok sentry. I if not for
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 3:42pm.
It's ok sentry. I if not for that supply clerk in Pleiku, who could find anything by the way, we would have been in big trouble several times in camp. Good supply clerks are worth their weight in gold.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
That's nice bass
Submitted by sentry_99 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 4:10pm.
I don't know about gold but I could drink my weight in beer. Oh well, you go open contract, you do what they tell you. I could have been a cook, now that would have suck.....kidding, kidding. I love the cooks.
Cooks? I don't know. They
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 4:25pm.
Cooks? I don't know. They grilled a pretty good steak, but those C's sucked. LRRPS were better, but you had to keep them away from the "cooks". :-)
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
We are set to pull out Iraq soon
Submitted by shawn. on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:16am.
Your right vet. Out of curiosity if a person gets injured in Iraq now, would that person be considered a casualty of the war artist formerly named the Iraq war?
I have an idea. Let's play word games with The Vet.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:52am.
Robert Steadham - Navy diver killed in the hijacking of TWA 847 - 1985
Beirut Marine Barracks
Ridadh Air Force Barracks
USS Cole
The Marines at the Embassy bombings in Africa
Why don't you classify those as well.
What do you want another signing on the USS Missouri? Sorry, it is mothballed and currently a museum in Hawaii. And Saddam Hussein is dead. No one else to sit at the other side of the table. The war is over. Leave me alone.
Vet
Submitted by shawn. on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:59am.
I didn't classify those because none of those were after spending hundreds of billions of dollars and over 2500 lives and over 7 years if fighting
I am simply asking what thee terminally would be if not casualty of war? I will leave u alone if you want. I don't believe I directly initiated the dialogue with you in the first place. Oky doky then.
Good. Good. Good.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:10am.
Classify these deaths then -
DMZ Deaths after January 31, 1955
I counted 93 United States Military deaths in the DMZ since the Korean War ended.
Kindly classify those deaths since you are in the classifying mood.
Whoops. Forgot to mention. We did spend oodles of money and years of fighting there. So your criteria is done done done met.
To easy Vet. The Korean War
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:21am.
To easy Vet. The Korean War is not, nor has it ever been declared ended, over or finished. North and South Korea are still in a techincal state of war. It is only a ceasefire agreement.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Neither did the first Persian Gulf war.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 11:56am.
So we are still fighting that? The Korean War was considered over at the armistice for United States historical purposes.
The Korean War: The Forgotten War 1950 - 1953
The deaths since are not considered war casualties as far as I know.
You can't get the medal anymore -
The Korean Service Medal (KSM) is an award of the United States military and was created in November 1950 by executive order of President Harry Truman. The Korean Service Medal is the primary United States medal for participation in the Korean War and is awarded to any U.S. service member, who performed duty in the Republic of Korea, between June 27, 1950 and July 27, 1954
Vet, as a matter of fact, yes
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 12:06pm.
Vet, as a matter of fact, yes we are. A cease fire was declared with Iraq. We went into Iraq under the declaration of war passed by Congress for the "first" Gulf War.
Iraq did not live up to its obligation to the UN and we went back under the declaration of war declared in 1990.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Whatever.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 12:58am.
That is exactly what President Bush and the Congress in 2002 said. Ah, we don't need any new stuff, we will operate under existing declerations from the previous Congress in 1990.
Again. Whatever. I try to be honest here. People play games like I am some kind of idiot. Yeah, there was no Authorization for the use of force in Iraq in 2002. There was no taking the case to the U.N. It was all working off the paperwork from 1990. I dreamt all that. Right.
bassndude: We went into Iraq under the declaration of war passed by Congress for the "first" Gulf War.
Thanks for wasting my time today. You know that to be blatantly untrue. So you were just trying carve off a piece of me all along. It was never about what you think or I think. It was all about seeing how ticked off you could make me with a bunch of twaddle.
Vet
Submitted by shawn. on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:27am.
I am humbly leaving this debate. Looks like you and Bass can finish this
Your right Shawn. Bush laid
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:20am.
Your right Shawn. Bush laid the frame work for this years ago, in spite of Obama's railing against it. But Obama has kept Gitmo open, kept the secret prisons operating and maintained what the liberals call illegal interrogation techniques.
So, while Obama should get credit for finally making a decision that resulted in our military killing Osama, Bush should get credit for the frame work and making the whole thing possible.
One thing everyone should keep in mind, Obama did not get Osama. The military did. I don't think Obama has ever placed himself in harms way to defend this country. Or anything else for that matter.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Bass
Submitted by shawn. on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:24am.
The Military has much to with it and so did Obama. I appreciate what Obama has done, just like I appreciate Bush keeping us safe post 911.
Horsefeathers.
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:41am.
My dog would have put the bite on Osama and he wouldn't have driven gasoline to $4 per gallon into the bargain.
Obama only did this because circumstances did not offer him any other course of action. Can you imagine the political fallout if he let OBL slip through our fingers once again as Clinton did? Obama couldn't be elected dog catcher in Harlem if he had done that.
Obama couldn't be elected dog
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:50am.
Obama couldn't be elected dog catcher in Harlem if he had done that.
Well considering they keep on re-electing Charlie Rangel.................:-)
That being said, as I had stated yesterday on the OT, "Thank you President Obama for continuing with the policies of Pres. George W. Bush."
I truly do not think we would have bagged and tagged that POS terrorist if it were not for the info retrieved from captured terrorists in Gitmo and the prisons the CIA had set up around the world. And enhanced interrogation techniques? I say bring them back, they are not torture and I would say they have saved countless lives over the years.
Killing Osama
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 2:11pm.
accomplished very little other than meting out justice for the murders of 911.
I support the action solely because those victims demand Justice, a justice which is as yet incomplete : Zawahiri and a few others still draw breath. They, too, will be found and executed. When the task of rendering justice is complete then we as a nation should take stock of what we are doing with Islam.
I do not believe for one instant that Obama was capable of arranging for this on his own. Much of the credit goes to the systems Bush and Cheney established for this purpose.
The war Islam has been waging on the rest of the world has been going on for 1400 years now. The death of one of its perpetrators will not change that.
NL, this is going to turn out
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:01am.
NL, this is going to turn out a lot like the dead pirates tale. From what I understand, Obama wanted him captured, and if not then kill him. At this point, and being somewhat familiar with Special Operations mentality, having spent time with SEAL's and SEAL trainees, I would be willing to bet they did not ask Osama to surrender until after they shot him.
Now if Osama was armed is a rather mute point. You do not send SEAL teams in to "capture" people alive. You send them to capture the bodies.
I think Obama watched on the video, SEALS kill an unarmed Osama. He was probably as mad as he was after they killed the pirates. But not even the President is going to face off a bunch of SEAL's. Not sure the Secret Service agents would be willing to get in the way on that one.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Bass....
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 2:25pm.
I know all that.
My observation was simply that Obama could not, from a political perspective, do anything other than order the assault on Osama to proceed. If he did as Clinton had done, and passed and this decision became public knowledge, a political catastrophe would envelope his Presidency. Even his liberal apologists in the MSM would have largely deserted him.
Agreed NL. As it is coming
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 4:31pm.
Agreed NL. As it is coming out now that Obama took 16 hours to make up his mind on this one. He had to sleep on it. I mean, come on now! How hard is it to decide on killing a terrorist figure head, or not?!
Duh!
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Why?
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 4:34pm.
Why did it take 16 hours?
You would have to ask Obama.
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 4:37pm.
You would have to ask Obama.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
There's actually a good reason
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 4:57pm.
"President Obama single-handedly came up with the technique in order to pull this off," Limbaugh said on Monday. "You see, the military wanted to go in there and bomb as they always do. They wanted to drop missiles and drop bombs and a number of totally destructive techniques here. But President Obama, perhaps the only qualified member in the room to deal with this, insisted on the Special Forces. No one else thought of that. President Obama. Not a single intelligence adviser, not a single national security adviser, not a single military adviser came up with the idea of using SEAL Team 6 or any Special Forces."
The story goes, after Obama met with his cabinet the overall tone was that we should bomb, or wait for more intelligence. The president slept on it. I guess he could have made a decision at that very moment, gone along with his advisors, and shot off some missiles hoping for a happy ending. Instead he thought things through and made a decision that yielded 100% success.
It took almost 10 years to get bin Laden (after 9/11), yet you're concerned with 16 hours? With no visual confirmation of bin Laden?
Not what I said Irish. Leave
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 5:17pm.
Not what I said Irish. Leave it to an arm chair general to tell you what you mean. I simply reported what I read, and not what Rush Limbaugh said on Monday. Your going to have to do much better than that, anyway.
The mear fact that Obama could not make up his mind on weather or not to go with a mission to kill Osama is, to me, mind boggling.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Last Link
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 5:40pm.
The intelligence professionals said they did not know for sure that bin Laden was in the compound. The case was good, but circumstantial. The likelihood, officials told the President, was between 50% and 80%. No slam dunk. Obama went around the table asking everyone to state their opinion. He quizzed his staff about worst case scenarios - the possibility of civilian casualties, a hostage situation, a diplomatic blow-up with Pakistan, a downed helicopter. He was presented with three options: Wait to gather more intelligence, attack with targeted bombs from the air, or go in on the ground with troops. The room was divided about 50-50, said a person in the room. John Brennan, the President's senior counter-terrorism adviser, supported a ground strike, as did the operational people, including Leon Panetta at the CIA. Others called for more time. In the end, about half of the senior aides supported a helicopter assault. The other half said either wait, or strike from above
If Obama had made an immediate decision and we later learned bin Laden had not been at the compound, you'd be crucifying the president for the failed mission. Instead the president was given a variety of information with no absolutes, which he took a night to ponder.
It took almost a month to respond to the 9/11 attacks.
And of course,
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 6:17pm.
George Bush had almost two and a half years to prepare and consider contingincies in response to 9/11.
Check.
If you bothered to read the link I'd posted on the Behar thread, they'd known about this house for quite some time, he should have already had all of the contingincies covered and a decision made, if a, then b, if c, then d. Instead, he dawdled, hoping that he could get away with another non-decision.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
What are you saying?
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 7:04pm.
Are you asking if I read a link you posted on another thread? Was it directed towards me?
they'd known about this house for quite some time, he should have already had all of the contingincies covered and a decision made, if a, then b, if c, then d
I've previously stated this as well. My point I'm hanging onto is that even after months of monitoring the compound US Intelligence still had no certainty that bin Laden was there. No one had seen him. The best guarantee was in the 50-80% range. We're not going to agree on the type of president we each want in office, but after several months of spying and just 50-80% certainty, I'm glad Obama took a night to sleep on it.
I'm certain you are,
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:48pm.
and would you have been equally as "glad" if he'd let OBL slip away in the 16 hours it took him to play 9 holes of golf, and make up his mind? And, 16 hours? I thought this was the busiest, most intense POTUS ever? I thought he could get by on 16 minutes of sleep.
In case you haven't noticed, there are no certainties in the intelligence business, other than the certainty that, when you're standing over OBL's ventilated head, he's dead.
But, Blonde is absolutely correct, contingency plans are just that, contingencies if a, then do b, if c, then do d. Not, let's sleep on it.
For once, don't listen to what Rush says
Submitted by falcon on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 9:19am.
The fallout from Rush's comment above indicates that he said this very tongue-in-cheek on his radio program. The tone of voice doesn't translate well to the printed page. Even liberals who at first praised Limbaugh for congratulating the CINC had to walk it back when they realized what he really meant.
If you read it more closely, and if you're familiar with Limbaugh's style, you can see the dripping sarcasm. This, because he took 16 hours to make a decision that should have been a no-brainer.
Actually, had Ed Schultz said this, the Obama-worship would have been palpable. Same words, different tone.
“I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership, that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.” – Ronald Reagan, July 17, 1980.
It took almost that long to play both games of golf.
Submitted by NL207 on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 11:50am.
.
Your dog catcher
Submitted by shawn. on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:03am.
And George Bush and Bill Clinton was not the person that was part of a mission that took months to do, it was Obama
Obama, Is just too lazy to shred the policies that Bush
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 2:22pm.
and Chaney built.
Now that the osama saga is over. Time to apologize/ bow to Pakeestan for all that UAV collateral damage.
The focus will now be on Obama's true liberalism in court marshaling some SEALs for giving some bad guy a fat lip.
BTW, the mission took years.
You Didn't Build That.
Obama Falls...
Submitted by GeneralAl on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 8:53am.
Obama falls into a pile of manuer and the media makes him smell like a rose. Every successful anything he's been involved with has been the idea and the work of others. After two years of crying "I inherited this mess", he isn't man enough to admit that, for the most part, he "inherited" this success. He's just a big bag of wind with a teleprompter!
"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!
That was not a civilian.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 8:58am.
Rule number one for civilians in war --- If you find yourself on the battlefield, vacate the area riki tik.
There was a battlefield of 100 yard diameter around Osama Bin Dunwith. Has been for 20 years. It moved with him. Where he went, the battlefield went. If you find yourself on a battlefield and refuse to vacate, consider yourself an unarmed combatant. And in the heat of battle, when bullets are flying every which way, don't really expect the other side to take too much time to see if you are armed. My suggestion, might was well get yourself armed since you refuse to vacate.
To Quote a Clint Eastwood ....
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:35am.
character: "Then he shoulda armed hisself"
Pakistan was totally unaware...
Submitted by c5then on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:29am.
Usama has been living a few hundred yards from the gate of the Pakistani "West Point" for 6 years in a newley built luxury compound, but Pakistani "authorities" were completely unaware of this.
RIIIIIGHT.....
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Squirrelly Thoughts
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:49am.
Bush HAD to lay the framework for the task in Afghanistan. We were attacked and we responded appropriately and effectively.
What Cheney stated contradicts other reports. Mohammed admitted to knowing al-Kuwaiti, Obama's courier, but insisted he had no connection to al Qaeda, while al Libi completely denied knowing al-Kuwaiti. While both of these individuals helped lead us to bin Laden it is a gross misstatement to say either of them confirmed the identity of the courier.
The courier effed up, period. Obama made a gutsy decision in ordering the ground attack. Bush lay the framework. Intelligence and the US military made the mission a success.
And I'd like anyone to find a single soldier who would have put NATO's reward plan ahead of their commander's orders. A weak liberal peacenik ordered the death of bin Laden, and his soldiers carried out the mission with success. And that squashes the "what if" questions.
Obama made a gutsy decision ?
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:56am.
Obama has never made a courageous decision in his life and this one was no exception.
Obama is a political animal, a snake oil salesman and a liar. In political calculus, this was the ONLY decision he could make. To make any other and have it come to light during the election was to forfeit re-election. Obama will not knowingly forfeit his chances at re-election. Notions of Biblical right and wrong or criminal justice do not enter his calculation.
Biblical what?
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:08am.
Any chance you read the link I provided? There was no certainty bin Laden was even there. We shared this information with no one. We conducted a military operation on foreign soil without permission. Half the president's cabinet wanted to wait for more intelligence. Some wished for an airstrike that would have obliterated the compound making the identification of bin Laden near impossible. In the end Obama chose to go in on the ground with a small group of the most elite special ops soldiers in the world, despite having a majority of his advisors in disagreement. I think that's gutsy.
Myopia
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 2:41pm.
Obama only does political calculus. Nothing you've cited had any bearing on his decision. I will repeat this for the upteenth time since you don't seem to get it : if Obama does nothing, even if Osama wasn't there, and this inaction becomes public knowledge as it surely would, Obama's political fortunes would go down the flusher. If he acts, and Osama isn't there, he can claim he is being proactive and his friends in the MSM will trumpet his diligence in protecting us all from the nasty terrorists. If Osama is there, then Obama becomes an instant Hero to the MSM without taking a bit or personal risk himself.
This simple game theory. The only way Obama could lose was if the a fiasco occurred where Osama escapes and the MSM are hostile to Obama. The MSM love Obama, therefore he could not lose.
Why Why Why
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 3:04pm.
Do you think your theory of "ifs" means anything whatsoever?
The theory of lists is called
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 7:13pm.
Options. Instead of responding to the options you name them "that ifs" and somehow delude yourself to think that this is some clever retort. It's not. What it is is lame.
Do you even exist?
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 11:56pm.
.
NL -- I guess in Obama's
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 1:49pm.
NL -- I guess in Obama's leftist cliques, it is gutsy to stand up for America and kill the American peoples' most hated man.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Obama made a gutsy decision
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 12:42pm.
Obama made a gutsy decision in ordering the ground attack.
Huh? Get a grip.
What's gutsy about okaying an op to capture or kill America's most hated man? A man whom most Americans would personally volunteer to execute if he had been on death row.
I don't get the "guts"?
Nah - what was gutsy were the SEALs who dropped down from a helo over their target. Then engaged the enemy in a firefight.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Liberal guts, Jack. It's different.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 12:56pm.
Here's an example:
On a whim, you decide to feed your cats Minced Turkey Feast in Sauce instead of their favorite, Classic Salmon & Shrimp Feast.
Do they get angry? Yes. But it took guts.
SoL -- ha. Good points. Guts
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 1:21pm.
SoL -- ha. Good points. Guts is now a disputed concept to.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
You don't have to agree
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 1:05pm.
But my position is explained no more than 2 inches above your own post.
Crediting Obama or Bush takes nothing away from the bravery and accomplishments of the SEALs who carried out the mission. It's not one or the other. If we really want to credit someone, why not the the US intelligence officer who reported the resurfacing of bin Laden's courier upon listening in on a tapped phone call, which led to bin Laden's death.
Look, it you have to respond
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 1:20pm.
Look, if you have to respond why not respond to what I actually asked: what was GUTSY about an obvious decision?
Gutsy has a specific meaning -- courageous.
What was courageous about signing off on the op. against Santa Claus -- sorry, I mean AMERICA'S MOST HATED MAN? I would like to know.
Maybe that is the position we have reached with the left. Gutsy means doing the popular thing.
I really don't give a toss either way about your other points.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
My explanation has been posted
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 1:21pm.
You can either read it from the link I provided, or scroll ONE message up from your post.
It's right there.
Whenever you're ready I'm happy to address any arguments you have regarding that post, but I'm not going to post it again just because you refuse to read.
Humor me.What was courageous
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 1:27pm.
Humor me. What was courageous about the decision? One thing?
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Ask Hannity
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 7:06pm.
`
So you cant?
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 7:16pm.
I am pretty sure that was his point.
Read the thread
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 7:38pm.
I've already stated it. I can not read it for you.
Just as no-one can provide you with a
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 7:45pm.
Clue.
Ted
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 7:52pm.
Not sure if you saw my link on another thread- apparently the decision was quite taxing for The One. With Sammy Hagar in your head: "It took me 16 hours to make up my mind."
He had to sleep on it.
Courage.
Saw it
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 8:11pm.
Read it
Probably responded to it
I'm not surprised by your position, nor that of the rest of the conservatives who wish to make a big deal out of it. I suppose you could be arguing that Obama blew it by killing and not capturing bin Laden instead, or simply continue to give Bush the credit as if he's still in office.
I get it. Ya gots to stick up for your peeps through thick and thin.
Since the location of the compound had been known for months, why are you stuck on the number 16? At best Intelligence gave him a 50-80% chance bin Laden was there. With that information I sincerely hope anyone making the decision would take the appropriate time.
What?
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 8:27pm.
At best Intelligence gave him a 50-80% chance bin Laden was there.
You kidding? They knew he was there. BTW, why is the story changing? Obama's folks first say OBL was fighting behind his wife, but now says OBL may not had been armed? First they say there was a 40min fire fight, now, maybe not? Why are they still debating weather or not to release photos? T
This bunch of liars will not be believed until photos are released? But like his birth certificate, it's political for this cretin.
No Ted
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:20pm.
I didn't argue that Osama should have been captured. In fact, I stated somewhere on NB that I completely agree with the operation.
The location of the compound was known for months, and that time was utilized by the SeAL team to train at a mock up. This training allowed the mission to succeed even in the wake of losing one of the Blackhawks.
But he fact that we were training for this mission, at a facility specifically built to mimic the compound in Abbottabad, would lead me to believe that Obama had at least several weeks to ponder the decision to send out guys in after him. Then, when the time was right and the team was sufficiently trained to go in, and intelligence indicated no change in the suspected location of the subject, Obama had to sleep on it.
Get that? He had to sleep on it even after all the effort that was placed in preparation, and the advice from his advisers all indicated it was time to go, Obama needed a nap. This is not courage. He did what every president since -dare I say it- Carter would have done, yet Mr. Bravery had to sleep on it to work up the balls to say "go".
Mr. Dither.
Fine
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 9:20am.
At least we got him.
16 hours
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 8:51pm.
I'd be willing to bet those 16 hours were spent debating how this would affect his popularity abroad and at home, rather than weighing the risk of the lives of our men and the removal of a terrorist.
16 hours?
Submitted by buttercup815 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 8:54pm.
Jeez, it took me 5 years to make up my mind about marrying my wife when everyone around me was telling me it a no-brainer..just do it already. I think some decisions need time to reflect on.
Perfect screen name
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:09pm.
Do you think that the first time Obama heard of this was Friday? I'm quite sure he time to reflect, the only question was, when the time is right will yo give the go ahead? That decision could have just been a standing order. Instead, Obama needed to check his gut to see if he could stomach it. Fortunately, he was able to go forward.
You still married,
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:15pm.
buttercup?
A true American does not need 16hrs to decide weather or not to apprehend this mass murderer.
I have a feeling, your friends were right, but you still dont know it.
Yes, I am still married
Submitted by buttercup815 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:25pm.
I was just kidding around as you might guess from the name 'buttercup'. Truth is she wouldn't marry me till I completed my degree and got a job :)
Ah, so the truth comes out
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:49pm.
She must read NB's also, : ]
I'll take your repeated
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 5:57am.
I'll take your repeated non-answer as proof that there was nothing "gutsy" about Obama's easy decision to okay an op to take out AMERICA'S MOST HATED MAN.
Your inability to name one gutsy thing says it all. There wasn't anything gutsy about it, that's why you can't name anything.
Thanks for the confirmation.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Illiterate
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 9:21am.
It's been posted.
Then repeat it.
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 2:14pm.
Then repeat it.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Fine
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 2:45pm.
#78 Biblical what?
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:08am.
Any chance you read the link I provided? There was no certainty bin Laden was even there. We shared this information with no one. We conducted a military operation on foreign soil without permission. Half the president's cabinet wanted to wait for more intelligence. Some wished for an airstrike that would have obliterated the compound making the identification of bin Laden near impossible. In the end Obama chose to go in on the ground with a small group of the most elite special ops soldiers in the world, despite having a majority of his advisors in disagreement. I think that's gutsy.
Bollocks. That would be your
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 12:36pm.
Bollocks. That would be your entire farrago of LIES.
It's now emerged that Obama was forced kicking and screaming into the decision by Panetta and Clinton (of al;l people) AFTER being dragged in off the golf course.
You shouid stop your Obama arse licking right now, before anal poisoning sets in.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Super Agent
Submitted by The Irishman on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 12:40pm.
Yes, I've heard your tale as well. It's a shame the accusers have yet to back this up.
Says a chap who makes
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 1:38pm.
Says a chap who makes hysterically funny accusations of gutsiness without one iota of evidence, except in his own fevered Obamarse licking mind..
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Mr. Bauer.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 2:18pm.
Fair Warining - It is another Dead Zippers account. All he does is play troll games.
Cheers Vet. Waste of space
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 5:19am.
Cheers Vet. Waste of space that he is.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Tedish, So this is where you oozed to, threads of yesterdays.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 2:46pm.
ditcher....
Are you on dial-up...
Kuz you have "timed-out" here too, pluggerless-plug in.
You Didn't Build That.
Obama's War Games
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 1:47pm.
Remind me again.
What percentage of the Defense (military) budget is Obama (and the Democrats) proposing to cut?
Is it 10% or even more?
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Try 30%, Jack
Submitted by ckc1227 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 2:08pm.
Or thereabout, iIf Barney's Frank gets his way.
"WASHINGTON — The United States spends too much to defend itself and wealthy allies from military threats that no longer exist or are greatly exaggerated, said US Representative Barney Frank, who called for cutting annual military spending by $200 billion per year."
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2011/05/us_rep_barney_f.html
thanx ckc -- so that would
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 2:14pm.
thanx ckc -- so that would mean that the 22 man SEAL team which took down Bin Laden would have to be cut down to 15?
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Defense Spending cuts Barney Frank not Fife
Submitted by desert3030 on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 10:16am.
Claims $200 billion in cuts need to be made. This amount may be to the level of his Fannie and Freddie programs need funding. Check out the MILLIONS paid to his side kicks in bonus' and perks. Sure beats renting out your town house eh, Barney/