Obama's Involvement In Bin Laden Takedown Was Simply A Nod

Liberals have a 2 second attention span, so the war on terror is just too long for them. Now, they're busy in re-election mode acting like terrorists have given up.

Liberals supported Bush going into Iraq, but then changed their mind.
Liberals supported the war in Afghanistan but then changed their mind.
Liberals supported the war in Vietnam but then changed their mind.

They are like dealing with a 2 year old kid that can't sit still for a second.

Could you provide some "credible" facts and context?
 
Hypocrisy about the war by the Left ?

Well our poor soldiers deaths in Afghanistan
are greater under Papa Obama than all of Bush for eight years

Yet the Left and the MSM do not seem to talk about it
Whatever happened to the hero of the Left
Cindy Sheehan

She is still out there, but nothing

Funny how that works
 
Last edited:
Hypocrisy about the war by the Left ?

Well our poor soldiers deaths in Afghanistan
are greater under Papa Obama than all of Bush for eight years

Yet the Left and the MSM do not seem to talk about it
Whatever happened to the hero of the Left
Cindy Sheehan

She is still out there, but nothing

Funny how that works

That's because Bush and Cheney took a detour into Iraq before getting bin Laden in Afghanistan...

dick-cheney-dithering.jpg


Remember Tora Bora.
 
Well the poster said the Obama Administration

"The war on terror is over," a senior official in the State Department official tells the National Journal

Does this mean we can rid of those stupid TSA people at the airport?

NOPE ALL travellers can expect to be molested.

It's what Tyrants do.

Really,

if they allowed people to pick who had to pat you down
the masses would submit more easily

the other day I say one TSA female that was really nice

TSA...Needs to be ABOLISHED.

Affront to Liberty.
 
Too funny


Sure

Remember Clinton passing up the chance to get Osama

Q: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?

A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.

FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?

Factcheck is pretty bias
Sort of like that Media Matter story you posted on the other
thread that left out some details


But probably is not a definitive not

Indeed, even your article states it Clinton said it himself
and later said he did not or misspoke

A man convicted of perjury
no problem with that one
Lets see what Media Matters says
:eusa_whistle:
 
If bin Laden had not committed any crimes against American citizens, Clinton had no legal authority to kill him.
 
If bin Laden had not committed any crimes against American citizens, Clinton had no legal authority to kill him.

Well, Clinton, convicted of perjury, said that in 2002 about that time in 1996

but by 1996 he was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center

so false- really, we all know Clinton's word is useless- he did that to himself


Look even MSNBC which tends to be
part of the FORWARD crap says Clinton missed opportunities
to get him


The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?
“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.

Global dragnet“We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden? “It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,” said Schroen.


But if you need to live the world of everything is Bush, Cheney, big oil etc
To each his own
 
Last edited:
Too funny


Sure

Remember Clinton passing up the chance to get Osama

Q: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?

A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.

FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?

Factcheck is pretty bias
Sort of like that Media Matter story you posted on the other
thread that left out some details


But probably is not a definitive not

Indeed, even your article states it Clinton said it himself
and later said he did not or misspoke

A man convicted of perjury
no problem with that one
Lets see what Media Matters says
:eusa_whistle:

Factcheck.org=GARBAGE.
 
Obama is like cellophane, you can see right through him. He did not get osama, the navy seals did. But isn't it typical of obama to try take the credit. He will now use this as a way to make himself look good for election time. Like the article said, obama merely gave a nod to go ahead. That is all he did. He did not find osama, and he did not kill osama, and nor does he get the credit. Its just laughable that obama tryings using this as a campaign issue to make himself look good, when he doesn't even get the credit. Even if osama had been found during the bush administration and killed, the seals would have still gotten the credit not bush. And bush would have given the credit to them, unlike obama.

Check out the Constitution.

The President of the United States is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. He sets the policy for the military..not the other way around.

So by that measure he should shoulder the blame for every misstep by the military.

Why isn't he taking the blame for their actions in Columbia? You know, the Secret Service debacle in Cartagena? All of the offenders fall under UCMJ?

Answer: He believes in double-standards.

Obama would have dumped this mission like a bad habit if it had gone wrong.

Did he order those in columbia to do what they did??

Do you have a real point or are you just a moron?
 
If bin Laden had not committed any crimes against American citizens, Clinton had no legal authority to kill him.

Well, Clinton, convicted of perjury, said that in 2002 about that time in 1996

but by 1996 he was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center

so false- really, we all know Clinton's word is useless- he did that to himself


Look even MSNBC which tends to be
part of the FORWARD crap says Clinton missed opportunities
to get him


The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?
“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.

Global dragnet“We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden? “It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,” said Schroen.


But if you need to live the world of everything is Bush, Cheney, big oil etc
To each his own

You lost the argument the moment you falsely tried to claim that clinton was convicted of perjury.

the legal definition of perjury is that the lie under oath must be pertinent to the case being tried and clinton's lie about his relationship with monica had no bearing on whether he sexually harassed paula jones or not. Which is why he plead out to obstruction and making false statements under oath and not perjury.

I do find it hilarious that in a time when republicans are refusing to give obama credit for making the decision to send troops after bin laden that there are those who are trying to blame clinton for not deciding to send troops in.

Thanks for the dishonesty and the hypocrisy.
 
If bin Laden had not committed any crimes against American citizens, Clinton had no legal authority to kill him.

Well, Clinton, convicted of perjury, said that in 2002 about that time in 1996

but by 1996 he was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center

so false- really, we all know Clinton's word is useless- he did that to himself


Look even MSNBC which tends to be
part of the FORWARD crap says Clinton missed opportunities
to get him


The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?
“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.

Global dragnet“We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden? “It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,” said Schroen.


But if you need to live the world of everything is Bush, Cheney, big oil etc
To each his own

You lost the argument the moment you falsely tried to claim that clinton was convicted of perjury.

the legal definition of perjury is that the lie under oath must be pertinent to the case being tried and clinton's lie about his relationship with monica had no bearing on whether he sexually harassed paula jones or not. Which is why he plead out to obstruction and making false statements under oath and not perjury.

I do find it hilarious that in a time when republicans are refusing to give obama credit for making the decision to send troops after bin laden that there are those who are trying to blame clinton for not deciding to send troops in.

Thanks for the dishonesty and the hypocrisy.

Wingnuts are sooo special...
 
Then....why did you even bring it up as a complaint against Obama? That makes no sense at all.

Did the guy who SENT them there visit? Ok, CHENEY did, what about Bush II?

He visited them just about every Thanksgiving.......he visited them when the shoe-throwing incident happened. I don't think it's much of a consideration. I just know Bush didn't go around bragging about how he took down Saddam or any body else he took down. He didn't open internet sites like www.gutsycall.com. to beg for cash.

Wanna talk about the "mission accomplished" photo op?

Happened about re-election time.

Yeah...............that was spiking the football prematurely.
 

Forum List

Back
Top