Who really cares?

[mudwhistle]

[

Jeb purged them because of race? Prove it.

Richard Clarke and the CIA didn't tell Bush that al Qaeda would fly planes into skyscrapers.

If Bush were to say that Gore won he'd be lying. Gore lost because he didn't win enough electoral votes. How don't care how many ballot boxes he had to stuff, he still lost.

Gore got the most votes nationally. That's really the only thing that counts.

Everything else is legalistic bullshit to put a man the people didn't want into the White House.

Two Recessions, Two Wars, 5 Trillion in new debt, 5000 dead in Iraq, a major city destroyed...

That's the Bush "Legacy". The worst president in history.

271-266. Half of Gore's votes came from 3 states. CA, NY, and NJ. Because he couldn't steal FL Gore lost.

 

[mudwhistle]

President's do not "pass" any legislation. Presidents sign legislation that has passed both Houses of Congress into law. If you will note, 1/2 of Congress is in GOP hands...

You're parsing words.

If Obama sponsored anything that passed it would be considered something he passed.

No. It would be something he would have signed into law. No parsing. Simple facts.

So can we stop saying Obama got Bin Laden now?

Because he didn't get him. The SEALS got him.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That is a coconuts to aspartame comparison, there

That is a HUGE stretch, I am surprised you didn't get a stomach cramp from it. Oh, wait, you did...

You are saying that a ruling, from June 28, 2012, four and one half-months before the election, a ruling that did not shift the polling margins even one iota (and I can prove it), somehow swung the election for Obama?

Obama was up an average of +4 over Romney in Ohio in the first three weeks of June.

Two weeks after the ruling, Obama was still up by +4 over Romney. NO change.

Ditto for the national numbers.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Had the court ruled the other way, it would have severely damaged Obama going into the election. Instead of losing any momentum, he maintained it. Your point?

Because that did not happen, there is no way in the world for you to prove that. That is merely conjecture on your part, not fact. I, on the other hand, can compare polling from before and after and then offer facts. Perhaps, had the ruling gone the other way, the polling may also not have budged one iota. Did you ever consider this possibility?

Hope your stomach is better.

Actually, what your statistical nature doesn't cover for is emotion. Given that our electorate votes emotionally, a ruling one way or another would have brought on a flood of emotion either way. Polls are not necessary predictors of voter tendency That ruling translated to a boon for Obama in the popular vote. The court upholding Obamacare gave them more ammunition to use against the Republicans for the rest of the campaign season. I watched it with my own eyes, Stat. I don't take to kindly to being called a liar.

 

[Statistikhengst]

1) And? At least he didn't lie about it. He knew what they were, terrorist attacks, just like Benghazi.
2) They didn't. The majority were Tea Party groups. That is a commonly accepted fact you can't seem to grasp.
3) Yawn, you suck, grammar nazi
4) Then why did the Obama Administration seal the records? Why hasn't anyone been punished?
5) And this is how you justify it? It's what we call corruption, Plasmaball. Nobody should be doing it, on any level.
6) Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi, Hosni Mubarak. Iraq is back in the hands of Al Qaeda, Libya is run by militias loyal to Al-Qaeda, Egypt was run by the Muslim Brotherhood. Need I go on?
7) What kind of bullshit response is that?
8) Then why all the food stamps, wiseguy? Why hasn't he passed any jobs legislation? Hmm?
9) Ohh? So, you can make life a living hell for others just so you can "save the environment"? Yeah sure:

Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket - YouTube

I gave you long answers, because your short answers are lies and talking points.

President's do not "pass" any legislation. Presidents sign legislation that has passed both Houses of Congress into law. If you will note, 1/2 of Congress is in GOP hands...

He doesn't need to "pass" anything. All he needs to do is issue an executive order. Congress is irrelevant. If you'll note, he hasn't even introduced anything.

ahem:

List of United States federal executive orders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

291 executive orders under Bush, Jr, over 8 years, from 01/29/2001 to 01/16/2009:

List of United States federal executive orders 13198?13488 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

291 / 8 = 36.4 executive orders per year.


List of United States federal executive orders 13489?Present - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


164 Executive orders from Obama, over FIVE years, from 01/21/2009 to 12/23/2013.

164 / 5 = 32.8 executive orders per year.


So, you were saying....

 

[JoeB131]

[

Jeb purged them because of race? Prove it.

Richard Clarke and the CIA didn't tell Bush that al Qaeda would fly planes into skyscrapers.

If Bush were to say that Gore won he'd be lying. Gore lost because he didn't win enough electoral votes. How don't care how many ballot boxes he had to stuff, he still lost.

Gore got the most votes nationally. That's really the only thing that counts.

Everything else is legalistic bullshit to put a man the people didn't want into the White House.

Two Recessions, Two Wars, 5 Trillion in new debt, 5000 dead in Iraq, a major city destroyed...

That's the Bush "Legacy". The worst president in history.

271-266. Half of Gore's votes came from 3 states. CA, NY, and NJ. Because he couldn't steal FL Gore lost.

]

What does that have to do with anything I said?

More AMERICANS voted for Al Gore.

AMERICANS. Not ELECTORS. AMERICANS.

AMERICANS wanted Al Gore to be President.

Everything else is legal trickery, and we've paid a hefty price for it.

 

[mudwhistle]

Who cares about how 4 embassy employees in Benghazi who were killed by rebels that the Obama administration armed.

Who cares about the IRS targeting every rightwing talk show host or PAC that donates to conservatives.

Who cares that the DoJ is shaking down banks, insurance companies, and big businesses for cash through lawsuits.

Who cares that guns the Obama Administration gave to drug cartels are still turning up at crime scenes along the border.

Who cares that the Administration refuses to enforce our laws or enforces them selectively.

Who cares that our government has brought down several dictators in the Middle East and allowed Islamic radicals to take over in their place.

Who cares that not only is the Administration allowing Iran, our mortal enemy, to continue building nukes, but they're also scaring everyone else in the region into wanting them for their own defense, seeing as how they can't count on us to protect them anymore.

Obama likes the fact that more are not working than in the last 30 years. For every job created last month 5 people dropped out of the workforce and cannot be counted as part of the ever growing terminally unemployed. Obama sees this as progress, a strong economy, strengthening the Middle-Class. He claims that unemployment is good for the economy. His primary concern isn't that more aren't working but that they aren't all making the same income. He says that his website isn't indicative of the mess his administration has become. The fact that not only can't he be trusted to keep his promises but even when he does do what he says he'll do it always turns into a hassle to everyone involved.

Who cares that with every new rule or regulation the costs of running a business goes up astronomically and the costs to the consumer goes up as well. Who cares that the EPA is intentionally driving the costs of energy through the roof.

Who cares.

The worst thing you could do is hold up traffic in NYC. This is the worst thing you can ever do. This is just the tip of the iceberg folks. More will come out about this, they promise us. This is one seriously huge scandal of all scandals. Somebody cause a traffic jam on the GWB and people died, or at least probably died. This can't happen in America. But when it comes to national security and the stagnant economy. Who cares.

1. One year after 9/11 and investigation took place into what went wrong. The 9/11 commission took several months to end and recommended several things take place. This generated the Department of Homeland Security and a vast array of new security protocols. Like them or hate them there was a finality to it.

Benghazi? Almost immediately there was an "investigation". Almost all classified documents submitted to Issa were leaked to the press. This led to the discovery that the CIA was maintaining an outpost in the consulate, that they may have been keeping prisoners and led to the resignation of Daniel Petraeus. Additionally, the committee under Issa refuses to review any evidence that contradicts his conclusions. This investigation has continued for more than a year, has not reached any conclusions or made any recommendations. In other words, it's an open ended witch hunt.

2. The IRS employees involved in this "scandal" were Bush appointees. Couple that with regulations and laws adopted during the Nixon administration which prohibit interaction between the President and the IRS as well the fact that "Citizen's United" opened up a new avenue for funneling of money into political campaigns and you have multiple reasons why these procedures were adopted. One of the things that came out in the investigation is the fact that PACs who engage in politics are breaking the law. The law and IRS regulations do not comport. Has Issa done anything about that? Nope. Another open ended witch hunt.

3. Banks and Financial institutions were re-capitalized on the tax payers dime after pulling one of the biggest fiascoes in history. They came very close to collapsing the economy of the entire world. For anyone to complain about new regulations is disgusting.

4. Iran is "our mortal enemy" why? Because we (The US) manufactured a coup in their country and undid a Democratic election? Because we subjected them to the misery of a brutal shah and a deadly secret police? Because we backed a bloodthirsty dictator, Saddam Hussien, and gave him Chemical Weapons to wage war on Iran? After all these things, what country would NOT seek nukes to defend itself?

5. The Obama administration NEVER gave guns to Drug Cartels. That was the Bush administration during operations WIDE RECEIVER.

Reality isn't the strong point of you folks.

Nor with you.

The transfer of those arms took place after Bush left office. So it doesn't matter if Bush started a program when Obama took it to a different level after he left.

Iran is our enemy. I fought them in Somalia and we've been attacked by them for decades. Most of the training that insurgents received in Iraq was by Iranian special forces. The most sophisticated IEDs that have been killing most of our troops in Iraq were manufactured in Iran.

A full investigation of Benghazi still hasn't been conducted. Instead the WhiteHouse is stonewalling Congress. They've asked for documents and cooperation and got neither. Not one eye-witness has been allowed to testify.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Actually, what your statistical nature doesn't cover for is emotion. Given that our electorate votes emotionally, a ruling one way or another would have brought on a flood of emotion either way. Polls are not necessary predictors of voter tendency That ruling translated to a boon for Obama in the popular vote. The court upholding Obamacare gave them more ammunition to use against the Republicans for the rest of the campaign season. I watched it with my own eyes, Stat. I don't take to kindly to being called a liar.

Again, maybe you should stop lying, then.

The main reason why ObamaCare wasn't a winning issue for the GOP is that they nominated the guy who invented it. They defeated their own argument.

All SCOTUS did was say, "We aren't going to usurp the authority of the other two branches of government".

Can you really point to anyone who would have voted for Romney had ObamaCare been struck down?

 

[Statistikhengst]

You're parsing words.

If Obama sponsored anything that passed it would be considered something he passed.

No. It would be something he would have signed into law. No parsing. Simple facts.

So can we stop saying Obama got Bin Laden now?

Because he didn't get him. The SEALS got him.

You are correct. The SEALS got him.

But the President gave the order for them to do it. He is, whether you like it or not, the CIC.

Nice try, though.

 

[Redfish]

No. It would be something he would have signed into law. No parsing. Simple facts.

So can we stop saying Obama got Bin Laden now?

Because he didn't get him. The SEALS got him.

You are correct. The SEALS got him.

But the President gave the order for them to do it. He is, whether you like it or not, the CIC.

Nice try, though.

Obama reluctantly authorized the hit, then went to play cards. Bush era intel found OBL, waterboarding of 3 muslim pieces of shit helped save american lives.

Now, thanks to obama, the intel gathering is gone and we can no longer get information from terrorists to prevent more american deaths.

 

[mudwhistle]

No. It would be something he would have signed into law. No parsing. Simple facts.

So can we stop saying Obama got Bin Laden now?

Because he didn't get him. The SEALS got him.

You are correct. The SEALS got him.

But the President gave the order for them to do it. He is, whether you like it or not, the CIC.

Nice try, though.

The President gave the order but he didn't personally get him.

Congress can't put anything into law without the POTUS signature, so nice try.

 

[JoeB131]

So can we stop saying Obama got Bin Laden now?

Because he didn't get him. The SEALS got him.

You are correct. The SEALS got him.

But the President gave the order for them to do it. He is, whether you like it or not, the CIC.

Nice try, though.

Obama reluctantly authorized the hit, then went to play cards. Bush era intel found OBL, waterboarding of 3 muslim pieces of shit helped save american lives.

Now, thanks to obama, the intel gathering is gone and we can no longer get information from terrorists to prevent more american deaths.

Nice attempt to spin history but not really.

Torture did not lead us to Osama bin Laden | Clare Algar | Comment is free | theguardian.com

While AP carries this information from former intelligence officials: "[Khalid Sheikh] Mohammed did not reveal the names while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He identified them many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic."

Second, intelligence-gathering is never a simple case of A to B. The information leading to Bin Laden will have been drawn together from a myriad of sources – among those that have been pointed to so far are phone taps and, according to the White House, "Pakistani co-operation". A former CIA operative quoted by the BBC goes still further: "Intelligence agencies like the CIA and the US military will simply put out disinformation to protect the real sources, which could have been anything from intercepts to the Pakistani government itself."

 

[Sallow]

Who cares about how 4 embassy employees in Benghazi who were killed by rebels that the Obama administration armed.

Who cares about the IRS targeting every rightwing talk show host or PAC that donates to conservatives.

Who cares that the DoJ is shaking down banks, insurance companies, and big businesses for cash through lawsuits.

Who cares that guns the Obama Administration gave to drug cartels are still turning up at crime scenes along the border.

Who cares that the Administration refuses to enforce our laws or enforces them selectively.

Who cares that our government has brought down several dictators in the Middle East and allowed Islamic radicals to take over in their place.

Who cares that not only is the Administration allowing Iran, our mortal enemy, to continue building nukes, but they're also scaring everyone else in the region into wanting them for their own defense, seeing as how they can't count on us to protect them anymore.

Obama likes the fact that more are not working than in the last 30 years. For every job created last month 5 people dropped out of the workforce and cannot be counted as part of the ever growing terminally unemployed. Obama sees this as progress, a strong economy, strengthening the Middle-Class. He claims that unemployment is good for the economy. His primary concern isn't that more aren't working but that they aren't all making the same income. He says that his website isn't indicative of the mess his administration has become. The fact that not only can't he be trusted to keep his promises but even when he does do what he says he'll do it always turns into a hassle to everyone involved.

Who cares that with every new rule or regulation the costs of running a business goes up astronomically and the costs to the consumer goes up as well. Who cares that the EPA is intentionally driving the costs of energy through the roof.

Who cares.

The worst thing you could do is hold up traffic in NYC. This is the worst thing you can ever do. This is just the tip of the iceberg folks. More will come out about this, they promise us. This is one seriously huge scandal of all scandals. Somebody cause a traffic jam on the GWB and people died, or at least probably died. This can't happen in America. But when it comes to national security and the stagnant economy. Who cares.

1. One year after 9/11 and investigation took place into what went wrong. The 9/11 commission took several months to end and recommended several things take place. This generated the Department of Homeland Security and a vast array of new security protocols. Like them or hate them there was a finality to it.

Benghazi? Almost immediately there was an "investigation". Almost all classified documents submitted to Issa were leaked to the press. This led to the discovery that the CIA was maintaining an outpost in the consulate, that they may have been keeping prisoners and led to the resignation of Daniel Petraeus. Additionally, the committee under Issa refuses to review any evidence that contradicts his conclusions. This investigation has continued for more than a year, has not reached any conclusions or made any recommendations. In other words, it's an open ended witch hunt.

2. The IRS employees involved in this "scandal" were Bush appointees. Couple that with regulations and laws adopted during the Nixon administration which prohibit interaction between the President and the IRS as well the fact that "Citizen's United" opened up a new avenue for funneling of money into political campaigns and you have multiple reasons why these procedures were adopted. One of the things that came out in the investigation is the fact that PACs who engage in politics are breaking the law. The law and IRS regulations do not comport. Has Issa done anything about that? Nope. Another open ended witch hunt.

3. Banks and Financial institutions were re-capitalized on the tax payers dime after pulling one of the biggest fiascoes in history. They came very close to collapsing the economy of the entire world. For anyone to complain about new regulations is disgusting.

4. Iran is "our mortal enemy" why? Because we (The US) manufactured a coup in their country and undid a Democratic election? Because we subjected them to the misery of a brutal shah and a deadly secret police? Because we backed a bloodthirsty dictator, Saddam Hussien, and gave him Chemical Weapons to wage war on Iran? After all these things, what country would NOT seek nukes to defend itself?

5. The Obama administration NEVER gave guns to Drug Cartels. That was the Bush administration during operations WIDE RECEIVER.

Reality isn't the strong point of you folks.

Nor with you.

The transfer of those arms took place after Bush left office. So it doesn't matter if Bush started a program when Obama took it to a different level after he left.

Iran is our enemy. I fought them in Somalia and we've been attacked by them for decades. Most of the training that insurgents received in Iraq was by Iranian special forces. The most sophisticated IEDs that have been killing most of our troops in Iraq were manufactured in Iran.

A full investigation of Benghazi still hasn't been conducted. Instead the WhiteHouse is stonewalling Congress. They've asked for documents and cooperation and got neither. Not one eye-witness has been allowed to testify.

There were no transfer of arms. What there were, were "private" sales to straw buyers. These sales are still going on by the way, unmonitored. You are lying.

And you are lying about Iran "attacking" Somalia. We've never been attacked by Iran.

The Whitehouse didn't "stonewall" in the slightest. Issa pulled a "Snowden" with all the documentation given to him. Like I said, WE NOW KNOW THAT THE BENGHAZI CONSULATE WAS A CIA OUTPOST. That's thanks to Issa.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Had the court ruled the other way, it would have severely damaged Obama going into the election. Instead of losing any momentum, he maintained it. Your point?

Because that did not happen, there is no way in the world for you to prove that. That is merely conjecture on your part, not fact. I, on the other hand, can compare polling from before and after and then offer facts. Perhaps, had the ruling gone the other way, the polling may also not have budged one iota. Did you ever consider this possibility?

Hope your stomach is better.

Actually, what your statistical nature doesn't cover for is emotion. Given that our electorate votes emotionally, a ruling one way or another would have brought on a flood of emotion either way. Polls are not necessary predictors of voter tendency That ruling translated to a boon for Obama in the popular vote. The court upholding Obamacare gave them more ammunition to use against the Republicans for the rest of the campaign season. I watched it with my own eyes, Stat. I don't take to kindly to being called a liar.

Well, first, I did not call you a liar. I asked if you ever considered another possibility (above, bolded in red). So, you can stop the umbrage thing right then and there. That tactic won't play with me.

Furthermore, my statistical nature doesn't need to cover emotion. In fact, pure stats are really supposed to be free of emotion. I told you that was you were saying was pure conjecture, and I was right: it is pure conjecture to claim an outcome for something that never happened. That is the WHOLE MEANING of the word conjecture: to create is what-when-if scenario.

But again, your statement is lacking something. I repeat, the polling directly before and after the decision was pretty much identical. No major changes. But you just wrote that:

That ruling translated to a boon for Obama in the popular vote.

Hardly. If anything, Obama's margin suffered a good deal from his poor performance in the first debate -and those poll numbers post-Debate 1 showed EXACTLY THAT happening. He went from an average of +6 over Romney nationally to a dead-heat, but alot of that average was due to criminally bogus number from Gallup, which then later admitted it's wrongdoing and paid a steep fine for having broke the law. That is all public record.


Look, the Court ruled the way it ruled. This is the very reason why we have a Supreme Court - to make rulings on difficult cases. This is how our founding fathers decided to tackle this issue.

I like you a lot, I enjoy reading your input and I cherish your right to your opinion. And believe me, were I to ever call you a liar, you would know it. But this time, it is definitely not so.

 

[Sallow]

So can we stop saying Obama got Bin Laden now?

Because he didn't get him. The SEALS got him.

You are correct. The SEALS got him.

But the President gave the order for them to do it. He is, whether you like it or not, the CIC.

Nice try, though.

The President gave the order but he didn't personally get him.

Congress can't put anything into law without the POTUS signature, so nice try.

Bin Laden gave the order for 9/11 but he didn't personally do it.

He's dead because of that.

And if Al Qaeda could make Obama dead for the order he gave..they would.

 

[Statistikhengst]

So can we stop saying Obama got Bin Laden now?

Because he didn't get him. The SEALS got him.

You are correct. The SEALS got him.

But the President gave the order for them to do it. He is, whether you like it or not, the CIC.

Nice try, though.

The President gave the order but he didn't personally get him.

Congress can't put anything into law without the POTUS signature, so nice try.

You sure do like to dance the semantics dance, no don't you.... may I recommend a polish polka instead for a while?

 

[Redfish]

You are correct. The SEALS got him.

But the President gave the order for them to do it. He is, whether you like it or not, the CIC.

Nice try, though.

Obama reluctantly authorized the hit, then went to play cards. Bush era intel found OBL, waterboarding of 3 muslim pieces of shit helped save american lives.

Now, thanks to obama, the intel gathering is gone and we can no longer get information from terrorists to prevent more american deaths.

Nice attempt to spin history but not really.

Torture did not lead us to Osama bin Laden | Clare Algar | Comment is free | theguardian.com

While AP carries this information from former intelligence officials: "[Khalid Sheikh] Mohammed did not reveal the names while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He identified them many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic."

Second, intelligence-gathering is never a simple case of A to B. The information leading to Bin Laden will have been drawn together from a myriad of sources – among those that have been pointed to so far are phone taps and, according to the White House, "Pakistani co-operation". A former CIA operative quoted by the BBC goes still further: "Intelligence agencies like the CIA and the US military will simply put out disinformation to protect the real sources, which could have been anything from intercepts to the Pakistani government itself."

an opinion piece by a left wing blogger is "history". Ok, sure.

 

[Redfish]

You are correct. The SEALS got him.

But the President gave the order for them to do it. He is, whether you like it or not, the CIC.

Nice try, though.

The President gave the order but he didn't personally get him.

Congress can't put anything into law without the POTUS signature, so nice try.

Bin Laden gave the order for 9/11 but he didn't personally do it.

He's dead because of that.

And if Al Qaeda could make Obama dead for the order he gave..they would.

All true. But, Bin Laden is personally responsible for the deaths of over 3000 innocent americans and obama is personally responsible for the death of Bin Laden. OK?

Do you also agree that Kennedy and Johnson are responsible for 58,000 ameican deaths in Viet Nam?

Can't have it both ways, shallow.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The President gave the order but he didn't personally get him.

Congress can't put anything into law without the POTUS signature, so nice try.

Bin Laden gave the order for 9/11 but he didn't personally do it.

He's dead because of that.

And if Al Qaeda could make Obama dead for the order he gave..they would.

All true. But, Bin Laden is personally responsible for the deaths of over 3000 innocent americans and obama is personally responsible for the death of Bin Laden. OK?

Do you also agree that Kennedy and Johnson are responsible for 58,000 ameican deaths in Viet Nam?

Can't have it both ways, shallow.

Ok, first define: "ameican"


thank you.

 

[Sallow]

The President gave the order but he didn't personally get him.

Congress can't put anything into law without the POTUS signature, so nice try.

Bin Laden gave the order for 9/11 but he didn't personally do it.

He's dead because of that.

And if Al Qaeda could make Obama dead for the order he gave..they would.

All true. But, Bin Laden is personally responsible for the deaths of over 3000 innocent americans and obama is personally responsible for the death of Bin Laden. OK?

Do you also agree that Kennedy and Johnson are responsible for 58,000 ameican deaths in Viet Nam?

Can't have it both ways, shallow.

You conveniently left out Nixon and Eisenhower.

But then again RedFace..that's your style.

 

[Sallow]

Obama reluctantly authorized the hit, then went to play cards. Bush era intel found OBL, waterboarding of 3 muslim pieces of shit helped save american lives.

Now, thanks to obama, the intel gathering is gone and we can no longer get information from terrorists to prevent more american deaths.

Nice attempt to spin history but not really.

Torture did not lead us to Osama bin Laden | Clare Algar | Comment is free | theguardian.com

While AP carries this information from former intelligence officials: "[Khalid Sheikh] Mohammed did not reveal the names while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He identified them many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic."

Second, intelligence-gathering is never a simple case of A to B. The information leading to Bin Laden will have been drawn together from a myriad of sources – among those that have been pointed to so far are phone taps and, according to the White House, "Pakistani co-operation". A former CIA operative quoted by the BBC goes still further: "Intelligence agencies like the CIA and the US military will simply put out disinformation to protect the real sources, which could have been anything from intercepts to the Pakistani government itself."

an opinion piece by a left wing blogger is "history". Ok, sure.

Obama was very generous in giving Bush any credit at all for the death of Bin Laden.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o]Bush: Truly not concerned about bin Laden (short version) - YouTube[/ame]