Obama has an epiphany. Finally admits we are at war.

ad hominems[/I].

This from the master of dishonesty and ad homs. You make my day, bright eyes. :lol:

Well g-bag, I do use the "art" of the ad hominem with more wit and greater acumen than you do.

But, as you knew when you just muttered your latest lie, it is you who does the lying, not me.

Aren't you overdue, now, to fire up your sock puppet account?


(By the way, GREAT use of the quote function. So simple, yet so difficult for you morons.)
 
Mumbling and bumbling and stumbling, Liability moves down the road baying at the moon.

I will leave him there for now.
 
Mumbling and bumbling and stumbling, Liability moves down the road baying at the moon.

I will leave him there for now.
 
Mumbling and bumbling and stumbling, Liability moves down the road baying at the moon.

I will leave him there for now.

Jokey always sees valid criticism of Jokey as mere mumbling and stumbling ...

Jokey has no credibility for good reason.

His quoted post (like almost all of his other posts in this thread) establish that he is totally lacking in ability to engage in adult discourse.

Let's put Jokey to the test. The balance of this post will be ON TOPIC:

Hey, Jokey, when the President finally acknowledges in a meaningful way that we are, in fact, "at war," what do you suppose he intends to DO now that he has found his voice on that topic?

Is it even possible that he will acknoweldge that he has made a serious mistake in having a "criminal" case presented against the terrorist underpant's bomber? I mean, even YOU must agree (don't you?) that what the underpants bomber did -- what he tried to do -- was an act of war. It WAS an act of war, now, wasn't it, Jokey?

Does that fact come with any implications?
 
cmike, before worrying about the report, please be specific and give us the casualty domestic terrorist count for 2001 and 2009.

Hmmm. . . seems you don't want to what you ask. No wonder why you guys have to leave the party if we are going to win nationally again.

I'm going to write the following in big blue letters because:

1) I know it annoys you :tongue:

2) I want to make a point

Sudan offered to arrest and extradite Osama bin Laden to the US, Clinton declined the offer.

Would 911 have happened if Clinton took Sudan's offer to take OBL in custody? Doubtful.
 
Typical bullshit from the resident ****. It doesn't have the word "tactic." Damn you are one seriously unbelievably dumb and dishonest bitch.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrllCZw8jiM[/ame]

So far I have backed up all my arguements from the source material. You have had to distort and leave words out to try and backup your arguements.


ROTFL! How does your punk whiny ass ignore the Pentagon report that points out no link between Iraq and alkida? (only asking for the comedic value)

Once again, your headlines of the lefty "news sources" don't match the source material.

The 911 commission did NOT say that there were not ties between Hussein and Al Qaida. It said there was no "collaborative operational relationship".

The pentagon report did NOT say that there was no ties between Al Qaida and Hussein. It said there was "no smoking gun", whatever that means.

It also said that terrorism by Hussein was so routine that he gave certifications in car bombing and suicide vests.

Don't take my word for it.

Open up the reports, and read them for yourself. They are available. I posted the links.
 
Let's see if cmike's logic adds up. One attack under Bush (about 3000 dead and America heartbroken that Bush let us down). Two or three attacks under Obama (less than 20 dead, and of those attacks foiled). Sure, America is going to support Bush.

That's why cmike, liability, patek etc don't count when the chant and rant, whine and opine, squall and bawl. All are impotent, particularly L-steer. :lol:

Sudan offered to arrest and extradite OBL to the US, Bill Clinton declined.

That would have probably solved a good chunk of this mess.
 
I am not the one who cares about blue. Use it all you want, if you need my permission.

cmike does not want to admit, so I will do it for him, that a hundred times more American died in the US under Bush's watch than that of Obama.
 
I am not the one who cares about blue. Use it all you want, if you need my permission.

cmike does not want to admit, so I will do it for him, that a hundred times more American died in the US under Bush's watch than that of Obama.

And Sudan offered to arrest and extradite Osama bin Laden to the US, and Bill Clinton declined.

So who is at fault for 911 again?
 
cmike can't get away from the fact that Bush failed: that a hundred times more American died in the US under Bush's watch than that of Obama.
 
cmike can't get away from the fact that Bush failed: that a hundred times more American died in the US under Bush's watch than that of Obama.

Since it is Bill Clinton that refused to take OBL into custody when he had the opportunity to just accept him from Sudan, how is it that Bill Clinton didn't fail?
 
If Bill Clinton did not have good reason to do so, then he fails also, right along with Bush, who got outflanked by the AQ gang.

Give us more on Bill and Sudan and OBL, some fair and objective reporting, cmike.
 
If Bill Clinton did not have good reason to do so, then he fails also, right along with Bush, who got outflanked by the AQ gang.

Give us more on Bill and Sudan and OBL, some fair and objective reporting, cmike.

If you go to to the link, there is a link of the audio tape that has Bill Clinton talking about how he passed up Osama.

On Tape, Clinton Admits Passing Up bin Laden Capture; Lewinsky Played Role

"During a February 2002 speech, Clinton explained that he turned down an offer from Sudan for bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., saying, "At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him."

But that wasn't exactly true. By 1996, the 9/11 mastermind had already been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by prosecutors in New York.

9/11 Commissioner former Sen. Bob Kerrey said that Clinton told the Commission during his private interview that reports of his comments to the LIA were based on "a misquote."


During his interview with the 9/11 Commission, Clinton was accompanied by longtime aide and former White House counsel Bruce Lindsey, along with former national security advisor Sandy Berger, who insisted in sworn testimony before Congress in Sept. 2002 that there was never any offer from Sudanese officials to turn over bin Laden to the U.S.

But other evidence suggests the Clinton administration did not take advantage of offers to get bin Laden -- and that the Monica Lewinsky scandal was exploding during this time period.

At least two offers from the government of Sudan to arrest Osama bin Laden and turn him over to the U.S. were rebuffed by the Clinton administration in February and March of 1996, a period of time when the former president's attention was distracted by his intensifying relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

One of the offers took place during a secret meeting in Washington, the same day Clinton was meeting with Lewinsky in the White House just miles away.

On Feb. 6, 1996, then-U.S. Ambassador to the Sudan Tim Carney met with Sudanese Foreign Minister Ali Osman Mohammed Taha at Taha's home in the capital city of Khartoum. The meeting took place just a half mile from bin Laden's residence at the time, according to Richard Miniter's book "Losing bin Laden."

During the meeting, Carney reminded the Sudanese official that Washington was increasingly nervous about the presence of bin Laden in Sudan, reports Miniter.

Foreign Minister Taha countered by saying that Sudan was very concerned about its poor relationship with the U.S.

Then came the bombshell offer:

"If you want bin Laden, we will give you bin Laden," Foreign Minister Taha told Ambassador Carney.
"
 
Let's put Jokey to the test. ON TOPIC:

Hey, Jokey, when the President finally acknowledges in a meaningful way that we are, in fact, "at war," what do you suppose he intends to DO now that he has found his voice on that topic?

Is it even possible that he will acknoweldge that he has made a serious mistake in having a "criminal" case presented against the terrorist underpant's bomber? I mean, even YOU must agree (don't you?) that what the underpants bomber did -- what he tried to do -- was an act of war. It WAS an act of war, now, wasn't it, Jokey?

Does that fact come with any implications?
 
cmike, now give me the reasons why Clinton didn't do it. Once again objective and to the point. No spin.
 
cmike, now give me the reasons why Clinton didn't do it. Once again objective and to the point. No spin.

Because he is an idiot.

I don't care about his excuses. OBL could have been in prison for the last about 15 years, if Bill Clinton simply accepted Sudan's offer to accept him.
 
Yeah, cmike, the reason does matter.

And, yes, GWB was responsible for 100x the number of American deaths due to domestic terrorism in his first year compared to that of BHO.
 
I am not the one who cares about blue. Use it all you want, if you need my permission.

cmike does not want to admit, so I will do it for him, that a hundred times more American died in the US under Bush's watch than that of Obama.

And Sudan offered to arrest and extradite Osama bin Laden to the US, and Bill Clinton declined.

So who is at fault for 911 again?

9/11 occurred because Bush's father put troops in Saudi Arabia, and Clinton and Bush Jr. left them there.

Only AFTER 9/11 did Bush remove our troops from Saudi Arabia.
 
I am not the one who cares about blue. Use it all you want, if you need my permission.

cmike does not want to admit, so I will do it for him, that a hundred times more American died in the US under Bush's watch than that of Obama.

And Sudan offered to arrest and extradite Osama bin Laden to the US, and Bill Clinton declined.

So who is at fault for 911 again?

9/11 occurred because Bush's father put troops in Saudi Arabia, and Clinton and Bush Jr. left them there.

Only AFTER 9/11 did Bush remove our troops from Saudi Arabia.

Since we are going that far back, why don't we just go ahead and blame the real culprit


His name is MOHAMMED, you know, the prophet ;)
 

Forum List

Back
Top