Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33
  1. #1 No Class: Obama Snubs Bush, Praises Himself 
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Bin Laden assassination wasn’t the result of Barack’s strategic genius

    It can be awkward when a dove tries to pass himself off as a war hero.

    From the tone of President Obama’s speech Sunday night, it’d be easy to conclude he was the one who came up with the idea that America should hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden. He also made it sound like he was the one who formulated the takedown plan. We can look forward in coming days to details of the actual operation, emphasizing Mr. Obama’s intimate involvement. “Shortly after taking office,” the president said, “I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to

    Comments:
    Exactomundo. When was catching or eliminating bin Laden not a high priority? If the trail of intelligence leading to bin Laden is as stated in numerous stories already posted, and more to come in the next days, then it is irrelevant that 0bama was in the White House that bin Laden was found at this time. He did okay the order to go and get him but we still are uncertain if that was alive if possible or to eliminate him.


    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...aises-himself/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,269
    The article goes on to say,
    Had Mr. Obama been in Mr. Bush’s position on Sept. 11, 2001, bin Laden would still be alive today, and probably winning.
    And that's a fact. But fact or not I remember my son in law, the liberal Democrat, pouting because we were "getting our ass kicked" in the middle east. Liberals predict failure. And when failure refuses to occur they work harder at it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    I'm hyper. Lanie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,794
    How can people say Obama would be willing to let Osama get away with things and let them win when he directed the CIA to kill him? He gave the order to kill him. Hello?


    If conservatives are going to cry wolf, at least make the appearance of a wolf. Otherwise, they can't be believed. Seriously, conservatives cry wolf so much that I don't even believe them when it's real.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,788
    Interesting that they use the word "assassination."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    How can people say Obama would be willing to let Osama get away with things and let them win when he directed the CIA to kill him? He gave the order to kill him. Hello?


    If conservatives are going to cry wolf, at least make the appearance of a wolf. Otherwise, they can't be believed. Seriously, conservatives cry wolf so much that I don't even believe them when it's real.
    Crying wolf is calling out a false danger.

    Crying Foul is what was done in this case. And Foul was called because as a candidate Obama was opposed to the very actions that resulted in the death of UBL. I am speaking, of course, of the vigorous interrogations carried on at Gitmo.

    To Obama's credit, he did announce early on that he would strike in Pakistan if necessary.

    To Obama's detriment, he managed the strike exactly the way Carter did. He got away with micro-managing the affair; Carter did not. In either case it should not be micro-managed at the level it was.........can you imagine trying to accomplish the mission with the entire executive staff watching over your shoulder? It's poor management, and it will work against him in the long run.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,788
    Quote Originally Posted by TruckerMe View Post
    Crying Foul is what was done in this case. And Foul was called because as a candidate Obama was opposed to the very actions that resulted in the death of UBL. I am speaking, of course, of the vigorous interrogations carried on at Gitmo.
    Where is the evidence of this? This sounds like propaganda based on nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,788
    Hmmm.

    Waterboarding stopped in 2003. 8 years is a mightly long fuse on that ticking time bomb.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    Hmmm.

    Waterboarding stopped in 2003. 8 years is a mightly long fuse on that ticking time bomb.
    Or so they say......
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    Where is the evidence of this? This sounds like propaganda based on nothing.
    I don't think the detainees at Gitmo - the ones Obama wanted to spoon feed and treat like Jaywalkers - just blurted out the identity of Bin Laden's courier.
    Proof? There can be none, of course. Can't prove that those guys at Gitmo are a threat; can't prove that they will go back and kill Americans if released; can't prove that they would have given valuable information just by being asked once. Can't prove any of that.

    But that's why you asked for it. There is no proof. And even if there were you wouldn't accept it. It's sort of like waking up in the morning, seeing snow on the ground and asking for proof that it snowed. Can't prove it. Didn't see it. "Reasonable proof", call it. But if you don't believe vigorous interrogation culled forth valuable information, then you're just not going to believe it, that's all.

    Prove that your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend has been faithful. Go ahead. Prove it. See? Based "on nothing".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,788
    Quote Originally Posted by TruckerMe View Post
    I don't think the detainees at Gitmo - the ones Obama wanted to spoon feed and treat like Jaywalkers - just blurted out the identity of Bin Laden's courier.
    Proof? There can be none, of course. Can't prove that those guys at Gitmo are a threat; can't prove that they will go back and kill Americans if released; can't prove that they would have given valuable information just by being asked once. Can't prove any of that.

    But that's why you asked for it. There is no proof. And even if there were you wouldn't accept it. It's sort of like waking up in the morning, seeing snow on the ground and asking for proof that it snowed. Can't prove it. Didn't see it. "Reasonable proof", call it. But if you don't believe vigorous interrogation culled forth valuable information, then you're just not going to believe it, that's all.

    Prove that your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend has been faithful. Go ahead. Prove it. See? Based "on nothing".
    No, I asked for it because it is an incredible claim. It is also the type of thing that would come from those who want to justify the actions of the previous administration with regards to the treatment of detainees. They did not get bin Laden, not to mention the ticking time bomb, with waterboarding so they want to take the events of 8 years later as retroactive justification.

    I call bullshit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •