Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Obama waited until the mission had the best chance of success.
He was right.
Booyah!
Obama waited until the mission had the best chance of success.
He was right.
Booyah!
That's not completely true either. What he did was the build up a relationship with elements in the Pakistan ISI and military while rebuilding units that were completely devoted to taking out Bin Laden. This was a tricky and complicated set of operations that took a good amount of time to get to a point where it would have some level of achieving success. I am really quite surprised he gave the Bush administration any credit at all. But he did.
I sense fear from your lash out rant. Obama, "the manchild", would lose big in a one on one debate with ol' Newtie. No contest. He can't hide his gaffes, his hypocrisy on issues, his scandals on fast and furious, cronie capitalism on solyndra/sunpower/and his failed Keynesian approach to our economy. That alinsky/cloward-piven crap is running out of time.
I think michele should make a trip to target and stock on crybaby blankets and kleenix.
Is Newtie still in favor of Cap & Trade?
I'd be in favor of capping you, and trading you in for someone with a brain.
Liar.This is mind blowingly stupid. Do you remember 9/11? Do you grasp that Clarke and Clinton were right about bin Laden, and Bush and Condi were wrong?
No. Everyone wasn't wrong about bin Laden. Clarke was right. Bill Clinton was right. George Bush was wrong before 9/11. The people you're citing who attacked Clarke were wrong. They complained that Clarke kept coming in with his hair on fire---which means that he grasped the reality of the problem BEFORE 9/11. But in order to defend Bush, the right has been forced to attack Clarke for being overzealous...instead of having some degree of honesty and admitting that when Clarke's hair was on fire, Clarke was right.
Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden to the point that he was criticized for it.
snopes.com: Clinton Administration and Terrorists
As for Clinton passing on bin Laden, are you determined to bring up every right wing myth in existence in this thread?
FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?
Really? Doesn't that say something about you guys, then? You don't stand by your principles, you comprimise them because you want to win. Which is, of course, why you lost.
Yes, it says that we are not rigid ideologues.
As for 'why we lost', that's pretty funny. Look at the crop of candidates that the Pubs have this go round....please, don't compromise your principles. Nominate Newt, and let him go down in flames.
Clarkes story changed depending upon the audience. That was clearly proven.
Alright back to your rant.
Obama waited until the mission had the best chance of success.
He was right.
Booyah!
That's not completely true either. What he did was the build up a relationship with elements in the Pakistan ISI and military while rebuilding units that were completely devoted to taking out Bin Laden. This was a tricky and complicated set of operations that took a good amount of time to get to a point where it would have some level of achieving success. I am really quite surprised he gave the Bush administration any credit at all. But he did.
Then isn't that waiting until there was the best chance of success?
LOL Obama said pretty much the same thing hack. Not to mention both presidents still pursued. The biggest difference is Obama sat on it for months afraid to pull the trigger.
"Waiting" implies that there was an infrastructure already set up for the operation. As in, all the dots were connected and Obama just simply had to wait on the "right time". That was not the case.
Obama waited until the mission had the best chance of success.
He was right.
Booyah!
"Waiting" implies that there was an infrastructure already set up for the operation. As in, all the dots were connected and Obama just simply had to wait on the "right time". That was not the case.
OK, I see your point, but my point is that Obama wasn't sitting there afraid to trip the trigger. He showed prudence. He wasn't impulsive. Unlike a certain cowboy we all know.
Obama waited until the mission had the best chance of success.
He was right.
Booyah!
Thank you Leon
True, the Bushies thought that the CIA made a wonderful scape goat.
Perhaps during a visit to daddy's work in the 1970s, he wasn't treated with the deference he expected.True, the Bushies thought that the CIA made a wonderful scape goat.
They sure were. And it kinda makes you wonder if this wasn't a part of the whole father son rivalry.
No. Everyone wasn't wrong about bin Laden. Clarke was right. Bill Clinton was right. George Bush was wrong before 9/11. The people you're citing who attacked Clarke were wrong. They complained that Clarke kept coming in with his hair on fire---which means that he grasped the reality of the problem BEFORE 9/11. But in order to defend Bush, the right has been forced to attack Clarke for being overzealous...instead of having some degree of honesty and admitting that when Clarke's hair was on fire, Clarke was right.
Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden to the point that he was criticized for it.
As for Clinton passing on bin Laden, are you determined to bring up every right wing myth in existence in this thread?
Actually, the only person who supported the "Clarke was a prophet" BS is clarke. A guy who we already caught lying when he said Condi Rice didn't know what Al Qaeda was when she talked about it during several interviews in 1999 and 2000. Therefore, nothing he said was believable.
You have a problem with attacking the person with hyperbole rather than with facts. Thus, you feel you can dismiss Clarke by personally attacking him, dismiss Hill by claiming her students were bored, for example.
That's an illogical way to approach what we're talking about.
Clarke's story is backed up by the record. He asked for meetings on al Qaeda, repeatedly. We know that no meeting occurred, in spite of his asking for months, until shortly before 9/11. We know that the people who dismissed Clarke as having his "hair on fire" were wrong. We know that Clarke was right.
Clarke was right. Condi was wrong. Give the man credit.
So you're saying that you're not going to nominate Perry or Cain? As a prediction, I mean. Who's going to be the nominee?
It is not an impeachable offense.
The rest of it I don't disagree, except that Bush knew that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, yet exploited that 70%. So that's where the primary and almost exclusive blame belongs. He is CiC. No one else could have started that war, so any blame you want to ascribe to Democrats is peripheral at best.
So, Britain and France were not allies to help when they were actually invaded by another country, but Israel is an ally that we must help because Saddam had some sort of shadowy money connection to terrorist groups in Palestine and Lebanon, sending money to the families of suicide bombers to boost his PR?
Iraq never attacked Israel. He launched some scuds 12 years previously, which you are about to discount as old news, in your next paragraph:
Correct. A massive military response to some guys in caves was sure to fail, just as they wanted.
You can't have a huge War On Terror that enriches your corporate friends if you catch the bad guy within a few weeks, now can you?
Actually, the only person who supported the "Clarke was a prophet" BS is clarke. A guy who we already caught lying when he said Condi Rice didn't know what Al Qaeda was when she talked about it during several interviews in 1999 and 2000. Therefore, nothing he said was believable.
You have a problem with attacking the person with hyperbole rather than with facts. Thus, you feel you can dismiss Clarke by personally attacking him, dismiss Hill by claiming her students were bored, for example.
That's an illogical way to approach what we're talking about.
Clarke's story is backed up by the record. He asked for meetings on al Qaeda, repeatedly. We know that no meeting occurred, in spite of his asking for months, until shortly before 9/11. We know that the people who dismissed Clarke as having his "hair on fire" were wrong. We know that Clarke was right.
Clarke was right. Condi was wrong. Give the man credit.
For what, being another grasping, useless POS washington insider who couldn't earn a living in the private sector?
Funny Clark never went public with his "concerns" until after he was let go....
Funny Anita Dunghill never went public with her concerns until years after she left the man's employ.
You don't get credit for complaining about things that didn't happen when you could have done something at the time. SImple enough.
So you're saying that you're not going to nominate Perry or Cain? As a prediction, I mean. Who's going to be the nominee?
If I were to hazard a guess right now, I'd say Romney because he has the money, the organization and the system is loaded to where blue states vote before red states in the primary season. It shouldn't work that way, but it might. Unless the 75% of Republicans who don't want Romney get behind a single alternative.
The probelm with the GOP is that it has an establishment that just so wants to be liked by liberals, instead of crushing them into the mud... So they keep nominating these RINOs and keep losing.
It is not an impeachable offense.
The rest of it I don't disagree, except that Bush knew that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, yet exploited that 70%. So that's where the primary and almost exclusive blame belongs. He is CiC. No one else could have started that war, so any blame you want to ascribe to Democrats is peripheral at best.
So essentially, you are saying that he involved us in a war on false pretenses and lied to the American people and Congress and that wasn't an impeachable offense... Come on, guy, you are trying to have it both ways. If what you say is true, it's a lot worse than what Nixon did. Or Clinton.
Or everyone- and I mean - everyone, got it wrong. The whole world thought Saddam had WMD's and links to Al Qaeda. Clinton mentioned Iraq FOUR TIMES in his 1998 indictment of Bin Laden.
So, Britain and France were not allies to help when they were actually invaded by another country, but Israel is an ally that we must help because Saddam had some sort of shadowy money connection to terrorist groups in Palestine and Lebanon, sending money to the families of suicide bombers to boost his PR?
Again, my point, stupid. Show me where we had a treaty with France or England in 1938 that said we had to come to their aid. We have treaties with Israel.
Iraq never attacked Israel. He launched some scuds 12 years previously, which you are about to discount as old news, in your next paragraph:
He did attack Israel. And Saudi Arabia. And Kuwait. All of which were allies.
Correct. A massive military response to some guys in caves was sure to fail, just as they wanted.
You can't have a huge War On Terror that enriches your corporate friends if you catch the bad guy within a few weeks, now can you?
Right. And Clinton didn't do that, um... why again?
Side note....if you are too lazy to fix quotes, you probably shouldn't run with the big dogs...
There is evidence to back up Clarke's story. You cannot dispute evidence by attacking someone's personality. I keep going back to this point because you keep trying to fight facts with hyperbole.
Clarke did everything he could. You do realize the limits of an individual's power, don't you?
In other words, your party is going to ignore their principles, and nominate the guy with the best chance to win.
The problem with your thinking is that it's not borne out in reality. You say that Cain or Perry best represent the party. Surely you know that they would be crushed in the general. It's only the RINO that has even a chance.
There is evidence to back up Clarke's story. You cannot dispute evidence by attacking someone's personality. I keep going back to this point because you keep trying to fight facts with hyperbole.
Clarke did everything he could. You do realize the limits of an individual's power, don't you?
The guy didn't say jack diddly shit about it until AFTER he was passed over for the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security position he coveted. So essentially, he kept his mouth shut as long as he thought he was going to get something for it.
Just like Anita Dunghill kept her mouth shut as long as she needed letters of recommendation...
I think you have a funny notion of "integrity".
In other words, your party is going to ignore their principles, and nominate the guy with the best chance to win.
The problem with your thinking is that it's not borne out in reality. You say that Cain or Perry best represent the party. Surely you know that they would be crushed in the general. It's only the RINO that has even a chance.
I don't think Romney would be the best guy to win. I think nominating him would be a huge mistake.
I don't think Cain or Perry would be crushed in the general. I think by the time November 2012 rolls around, Obama is going to be as popular as a root canal.
I think Romney will get the nomination because the GOP historically nominates people who've run before, figuring they've been "vetted". It's a terrible strategy, and I don't agree with it.
