Is Obama Really this Bad?

[Hitman21ST]

So the head coach and owner deserve no credit for a superbowl? The CEO and executive team of every major company deserve no credit for boosts in revenue? You're understanding of how a chain of command works is ignorant and incorrect.

He did a hell of a lot more than answer a phone and say yes. If it makes you feel better to think that the military does everything and the civilians just run around taking credit have at it... it's entirely you're right to be entirely wrong.

Do the Head Coach and owner get action figures made when they win the Super Bowl? Is there a Joe Gibbs Starting Lineup figure that I missed? I guess my view of the chain of command got screwed up when I was in the Marines. :whoknows:

What more did he do? Did he train the SEALs? Did he fly the helos that dropped them off or picked them up? Did he pull the trigger? No. He was informed that the SEALs had reached their objective and approved the killing of Bin Laden. That's all he did. He doesn't need to get an action figure for it. The reasoning behind the "action" figure is what's frustrating people, not the actual "action" figure. Why in the world would he get one? Did Truman get an action figure when Hitler died?

One of the toughest military/foreign policy decisions? Not even close. Bin Laden was a mass murderer, who had called for more attacks on the U.S. He was the enemy in an unconventional war. If Obama gets the credit for killing Bin Laden, give Bush credit for Hussein and starting the Iraq/Afghanistan campaigns. Making the decision to go to war is a tough one, not killing an enemy.

[mardi gras skin]

Agreed.

mardi gras skins, you did your homework here and I applaud you for that.

I often hear on this message board that a large chunk of Republicans still think President Obama was born in Kenya. This is offered as proof that Republicans are stupid. But I wonder what percentage of Democrats believe Bush presented falsified intelligence to Democrats in Congress to vote for the Iraq war? I bet more Democrats believe that conspiracy theory than there are Republicans who believe in the birther conspiracy.

Predicto is a very smart guy and, for some reason, he believes in the "Bush Lied, People Died" conspiracy. Clearly, smart people can buy into a lie.

[Baculus]

Do the Head Coach and owner get action figures made when they win the Super Bowl? Is there a Joe Gibbs Starting Lineup figure that I missed? I guess my view of the chain of command got screwed up when I was in the Marines. :whoknows:

What more did he do? Did he train the SEALs? Did he fly the helos that dropped them off or picked them up? Did he pull the trigger? No. He was informed that the SEALs had reached their objective and approved the killing of Bin Laden. That's all he did. He doesn't need to get an action figure for it. The reasoning behind the "action" figure is what's frustrating people, not the actual "action" figure. Why in the world would he get one? Did Truman get an action figure when Hitler died?

Dude -- you found (or read about, or heard about it on the radio) an action figure on some obscure CT doll maker's site, and this is why you are freaking out? BTW, here is the website for "Hero Maker," a company, the ones making the Obama dolls, who obviously wanted to make a profit off the opportunity:

http://www.herobuilders.com/herobuilders-sealteam6.htm

And judging from the remarks on the page for this doll, I assume Drudge Report or something had an article about it, hence all the anti-Obama remarks on the doll's page: "Your doll of glorious leader as a Navy Seal makes me heart sick"; "What a insult to the Navy Seals bring out this Obama piece of trash"; and "This is the saddest excuse for a doll AND A PRESIDENT."

One of the toughest military/foreign policy decisions?

Oh no. Here comes the spin.

Not even close.

In light of the context of this recent event, do you know how absurd this sounds?

Bin Laden was a mass murderer, who had called for more attacks on the U.S. He was the enemy in an unconventional war. If Obama gets the credit for killing Bin Laden, give Bush credit for Hussein and starting the Iraq/Afghanistan campaigns.

It cannot be underscored how much was on the line, nationally, and personally for Pres. Obama, as the man who gave the final order for this to happen, when the SEALs went into Pakistan

Can you imagine if the attack on the bin Laden compound had failed, especially if a firefight had resulted in heavy U.S. losses, or if a clash had happened with local Pakistani security forces? The GOP, and all of the president's detractors, would be howling at the Moon. Look at what happened with Carter and the failed attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages? Three decades later, and he is still considered a failure partially because of that.

Obama, as CiC, ordered a covert operations into the heart of an allied nation, one that is both volatile and a supposedly close partner in an international War on Terror. The risk was tremendous, regionally, internationally, and domestically, as far as Obama's political career is concerned.

As it is, there are some folks who are quite critical (and perhaps rightly so) for Obama's decision to cross into Pakistani territory, without that nation's authorization, to conduct an operation which resulted in bin Laden's death. So, either way, miss the mark, capture or kill bin Laden, do nothing and be ridiculed as another "Clinton" for missing the chance, this is the sort of operation that can make or break a presidency. The problem, at least for his opponents, is that Obama's efforts succeeded, and now they don't know what to do with themselves, except to fall back upon attacking Pres. Obama in any manner possible. That's why all of the right-wing and Republican claptrap is the most disingenuous political opportunism since the last time the GOP were disingenuously politically opportunistic.

And I suspect much of America can see right-through all the barking. BTW, it really is utterly strange to see a backlash from the people, those supposedly tough and tumble conservatives, who supposedly wanted bin Laden dead. They sound more upset that Obama was able to accomplish the task more than anything else.

Making the decision to go to war is a tough one, not killing an enemy.

Actually, that is the problem -- at least for the Iraq war, the decision to go into that region wasn't debated in a serious enough manner. And counter to your argument, Obama didn't have to invade Pakistan to accomplish the objective . . . war should be a tough decision, but for some people, it's the easy thing to do.

---------- Post added May-15th-2011 at 09:22 AM ----------

I often hear on this message board that a large chunk of Republicans still think President Obama was born in Kenya. This is offered as proof that Republicans are stupid. But I wonder what percentage of Democrats believe Bush presented falsified intelligence to Democrats in Congress to vote for the Iraq war? I bet more Democrats believe that conspiracy theory than there are Republicans who believe in the birther conspiracy.

Predicto is a very smart guy and, for some reason, he believes in the "Bush Lied, People Died" conspiracy. Clearly, smart people can buy into a lie.

I sincerely doubt if Bush himself knew there were problems with pre-Iraqi war intelligence, but there were certainly issues with how the entire affair took place, from decisions made within the White House to statements made to Congress and the United Nations. Which, BTW, are the reasons why I have been harsh on the Bush administration at times: the run-up to the war and the ensuring conduct of the occupation was fraught with problems.

It doesn't take conspiracy theory to repeat what is now publicly accepted knowledge. :-)

That being said, Bush had allies and the support of both Republicans and Democrats, so blame cannot be laid solely on his shoulders.

[mardi gras skin]

I sincerely doubt if Bush himself knew there were problems with pre-Iraqi war intelligence, but there were certainly issues with how the entire affair took place, from decisions made within the White House to statements made to Congress and the United Nations. Which, BTW, are the reasons why I have been harsh on the Bush administration at times: the run-up, and the ensuring conduct of the occupation, to the war was fraught with problems.

It doesn't take conspiracy theory to repeat what is now publicly accepted knowledge. :-)

There are plenty of reasons to be frustrated with Bush's handling of the war. For instance, I think Bush botched the war terribly with the whole Rumsfield fiasco. That was handled terribly.

But I'm addressing the conspiracy theory that Predicto promoted above. Namely, Bush and Bush officials intentionally withheld key intelligence information in order to get Congress to vote for war in Iraq. And earlier in this thread, mjah stated that Bush was "stupid" for believing that Iraq had WMD when, clearly, intelligence reports supported those conclusions at the time.

The lies and misinformation directed toward Bush regarding Iraq are relentless and I don't understand the need for it. There's plenty to bag on President Bush about without promoting absurd conspiracy theories just as there are plenty of reasons to be frustrated with President Obama without the birther conspiracies.

---------- Post added May-15th-2011 at 06:25 AM ----------

That being said, Bush had allies and the support of both Republicans and Democrats, so blame cannot be laid solely on his shoulders.

Most notably, President Obama's Secretary of State. Its hard for Obama supporters to go to hard after Bush when such a key member of Obama's administration was in lock step with Bush.

[Burgold]

There are plenty of reasons to be frustrated with Bush's handling of the war. For instance, I think Bush botched the war terribly with the whole Rumsfield fiasco. That was handled terribly.

But I'm addressing the conspiracy theory that Predicto promoted above. Namely, Bush and Bush officials intentionally withheld key intelligence information in order to get Congress to vote for war in Iraq.

Well, we do know, for example, that Bush's vetters took out info about the yellowcake because that info has been disproven and Bush put it back in. So, while there may be exaggeration about how much Bush and his people exaggerated or lied or manipulated the facts, they undoubtedly did so in some circumstances.

[Corcaigh]

Two things stand out for me show a desperate desire to believe and to ignore anything to the contrary. The first was the fiasco with the yellow cake. The second was the claim that the large numbers of aluminum tubes that Saddam was acquiring for rockets were actually for centrifuges for enriching uranium. When experts from the nation's nuclear labs were asked they all said that the tubes were not for centrifuges. The tubes were had the wrong dimensions. They said the CIA analyst opinion was wrong. The State Department said the CIA were wrong on this AND the International Atomic Energy Agency said the CIA were wrong on this. And yet the lie it was repeated by the administration over and over. At the time I told a work colleague that I hoped that their other evidence of WMD programs was better than this, because this was bull****.

[mardi gras skin]

Well, we do know, for example, that Bush's vetters took out info about the yellowcake because that info has been disproven and Bush put it back in. So, while there may be exaggeration about how much Bush and his people exaggerated or lied or manipulated the facts, they undoubtedly did so in some circumstances.

Burgold, it is a lie, an absurd conspiracy theory, to say that intelligence information was withheld from Congress leading to their voting in support of the Iraq war. Further, it is false to suggest that there was substantial disagreement in the intelligence community about Iraq's WMD arsenal. Both before and during the Bush administration, the intelligence community assessed that Saddam had Biological and Chemical weapons with a high degree of confidence.

Attempts from Democrats to obscure those fact are scandalous and underhanded and you should do everything you can do distance yourself from people perpetuating those myths.

[Burgold]

Burgold, it is a lie, an absurd conspiracy theory, to say that intelligence information was withheld from Congress leading to their voting in support of the Iraq war. Further, it is false to suggest that there was substantial disagreement in the intelligence community about Iraq's WMD arsenal. Both before and during the Bush administration, the intelligence community assessed that Saddam had Biological and Chemical weapons with a high degree of confidence.

Attempts from Democrats to obscure those fact are scandalous and underhanded and you should do everything you can do distance yourself from people perpetuating those myths.

I personally believe that the Bush Administration believed that Sadam had WMD. Heck, I believed it and part of me still does or at least that they had it or had the capacity to make it pretty quickly if they desired it. Now, having said that, they didn't lie on that score, but we do have substantial evidence in the speeches given to the people (which is different than what was given to Congress) there was a manipulation of facts, cherry picking, and outright deceit. If you are suggesting that some believe the Dems in Congress are innocent and got falsified intelligence... I don't really buy that. I suspect that they got the best intelligence available (to make Bush's case), but that the intelligence was good even if they knew a number of the providers weren't or were very, very sketchy and had axes to grind. The Dems and Congress are to blame for their own lack of due dilligence and questioning. I think they, like Bush himself, were horribly scared of being wrong and didn't want to risk another 9/11. So, they jumped at shadows, didn't question deeply, and saw data in the darkest manner possible.

Edit: However, I don't think " it is a lie, an absurd conspiracy theory, to say that intelligence information was withheld from Congress leading to their voting in support of the Iraq war." After all, we have learned that not all Congressmen have the clearance to see all Intelligence. So, it stands to reason that some intelligence must have been withheld though not necessarily for nefarious reasons... then again [cue dramatic music] who knows.

[mardi gras skin]

If you are suggesting that some believe the Dems in Congress are innocent and got falsified intelligence... I don't really buy that.

I'm not just suggesting it. Predicto stated clearly in this thread that Congress was fed false information from the Bush administration. Many who voted to go to war with Iraq are now trying to say that they only voted for the war because Bush withheld information. Howard Dean said the same in the factcheck link I provided above. This lie has been offered up by Democrat politicians and swallowed down by Democrat faithful like Predicto. Its a conspiracy theory generated by Democrats.

And honestly, I think "Bush lied, people died" is much more vile than "Obama isn't an American." Hateful lies directed toward Obama are ignorant and possibly racist. Hateful lies directed toward Bush imply that he is a mass murderer.

---------- Post added May-15th-2011 at 07:29 AM ----------

Edit: However, I don't think " it is a lie, an absurd conspiracy theory, to say that intelligence information was withheld from Congress leading to their voting in support of the Iraq war." After all, we have learned that not all Congressmen have the clearance to see all Intelligence. So, it stands to reason that some intelligence must have been withheld though not necessarily for nefarious reasons... then again [cue dramatic music] who knows.

Did you read the factcheck article I posted above? Do you have information that proves the factcheck article is wrong?

That was the intelligence available to Congress when the House passed the Iraq resolution Oct. 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133. The Senate passed it in the wee hours of Oct. 11, by a vote of 77-23. A total of 81 Democrats in the House and 29 Democrats in the Senate supported the resolution, including some who now are saying Bush misled them.

A point worth noting is that few in Congress actually studied the intelligence before voting. The Washington Post reported: "The lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But . . . no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary."

[LD0506]

Neither Bush or Obama was ever as bad as their political enemies tried to paint them, but those voices are always well-financed and loud enough to preclude any rational assessment taking place. While it would be of much more interest and worth to be able to just judge them on the facts without all the hype and rhetoric, that never happens.

Part of this situation is that the intel community is constantly pulled two opposing and mutually exclusive directions. On the one hand, people always want perfect intel, clear vision and facts unsullied by bias, while at the same time those in power will press to confirm their suspicions and minimize evidence to the contrary. Intel gets caught in the middle, and their lives and careers depend on satisfying those above them, so they always shade things, there is never any definitive answer since a definitively wrong answer gets you posted to Paraguay listening in on their postmaster's cell phone. So there is always a best case, worst case, middleground assembly of reports or hints or rumors that can be woven into whatever is needed at the time. They are like astrologers, they give answers but there will always be enough nebulous wiggle room that they can say "Well see, we DID mention that possibility back on page 548, so we didn't really miss anything".

"Does Saddam have WMD? Well we can't say for sure.......Does he have the capability? Oh hell yeah, we can make that case all day long, what you do with it afterwards is out of our hands. But you didn't hear it from us"..............:secret:

[Burgold]

I'm not just suggesting it. Predicto stated clearly in this thread that Congress was fed false information from the Bush administration. Many who voted to go to war with Iraq are now trying to say that they only voted for the war because Bush withheld information. Howard Dean said the same in the factcheck link I provided above. This lie has been offered up by Democrat politicians and swallowed down by Democrat faithful like Predicto. Its a conspiracy theory generated by Democrats.

And honestly, I think "Bush lied, people died" is much more vile than "Obama isn't an American." Hateful lies directed toward Obama are ignorant and possibly racist. Hateful lies directed toward Bush imply that he is a mass murderer.

I'd have to think hard about it. I know Bush lied to "us." I suspect that he used information that he knew was sketchy at best in making his case. I'm pretty certain that he cherry picked and used the most damning evidence. I doubt he actually falsified intelligence reports, but I wouldn't be surprised if he used information that there was very little confidence in or, as in the case of the yellow cake, used intelligence that was already disproven.

I'm wary of saying Bush lied to Congress if for no other reason than I don't want to let them off the hook. They blew it. They failed to do their job. (One could argue in the same way that they failed to do their job in doing their due dilligence before voting on health reform) I really don't have any difficulty in believing that Bush stacked the deck as hard as he could to get the outcome he preferred, but that is part of his job when he's making his case.

[mardi gras skin]

Neither Bush or Obama was ever as bad as their political enemies tried to paint them, but those voices are always well-financed and loud enough to preclude any rational assessment taking place. While it would be of much more interest and worth to be able to just judge them on the facts without all the hype and rhetoric, that never happens.

Exactly. President Obama took bold action based on the best intelligence information he had. Good for him. I respect that. President Bush, HIllary Clinton and the majority of Senators and Congressmen took bold action based on the best intelligence information we had. Good for them. I respect that.

The venom in this thread directed to Wrong Direction from people who have been at least as baised in their critique of Bush is hypocritical.

---------- Post added May-15th-2011 at 08:10 AM ----------

I know Bush lied to "us." I suspect that he used information that he knew was sketchy at best in making his case.

Are you as sure that President Clinton, Hillary, Albright, and a host of other Democrats lied? They were SURE Saddam had WMD and they stated that fact before Bush ever took office.

[Burgold]

What I'm saying is that we have received evidence that Bush used discredited information. Once he knowingly does that, once he puts back in... not once, but twice, intelligence that his CIA vetters removed then we can comfortably say that he is lying to us. That doesn't mean that his whole case was a lie or that everything he said was a lie, but it does demonstrate that he did and was willing to lie.

I think that Bush absolutely thought that he'd be vindicated and that he as Clinton before him and many Democrats and intelligence officers also believed that Sadam had WMDs. I also believe that his philosophy was that the means justifies the end and he was willing to cut corners to get there and did so without hesitation.

[DRSmith]

I think Iraq was seen as a chance to expand the empire and put a base in an area those in power though would give the US more influence in the area.

[Burgold]

I think Iraq was seen as a chance to expand the empire and put a base in an area those in power though would give the US more influence in the area.

No, I don't think so. I don't think the purpose of Iraq was largely imperialistic. I think there were many reasons and that different people held different reasons. There were some who wanted to go for humanitarian reasons (Sadams treatment of the Kurds was intolerable), there were some who wanted to go because Sadam had tried to assinate Bush's father, there are some who wanted to go because of WMD, others wanted to go because they were sure Sadam was either linked to or funded terrorists, and there were some who were driven by fear and hate.

Bush was not evil, nor was he a bad man, I think he was wrong, but that his motives were noble. I think he believed that Sadam had these weapons, funded terrorists, and would either directly or indirectly use them. After all, he used them on his own people. More, I think the spectre of 9/11 haunted him and he was determined never to let that happen here again and to do all he could to prevent that.

[PeterMP]

I posted this in the thread about Condy Rice but I think it more directly applies to Predicto's post here:

http://www.factcheck.org/iraq_what_did_congress_know_and_when.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_%28informant%29

Who is directly in charge of the CIA?

"The Bush administration laid blame on the CIA, criticizing its officials for "failing to investigate" doubts about Curveball, which emerged after an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. In May 2004, over a year after the invasion of Iraq, the CIA concluded formally that Curveball's information was fabricated. Furthermore, on June 26, 2006, The Washington Post reported that "the CIA acknowledged that Curveball was a con artist who drove a taxi in Iraq and spun his engineering knowledge into a fantastic but plausible tale about secret bioweapons factories on wheels."[16]

On April 8, 2005, CIA Director Porter Goss ordered an internal review of the CIA in order to determine why doubts about Curveball's reliability were not forwarded to policy makers. Former CIA Director George Tenet and his former deputy, John E. McLaughlin, announced that they were not aware of doubts about Curveball's veracity before the war. However, Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA's European division, told the Los Angeles Times that "everyone in the chain of command knew exactly what was happening.""

I also thought this was interesting from your link:

"Vice President Cheney, for example, said this on NBC's Meet the Press barely a month before Congress voted to authorize force:

Cheney, Sept. 8, 2002

: But we do know,

with absolute certainty

, that he (Saddam) is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon.

As we've seen, that was wrong. Department of Energy and State Department intelligence analysts did not agree with the Vice President's claim, which turned out to be false. Cheney may have felt "absolute certainty" in his own mind, but that certainty wasn't true of the entire intelligence community, as his use of the word "we" implied.

Similarly, the President himself said this in a speech to the nation, just three days before the House vote to authorize force:

Bush, Oct. 7, 2002:

We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases

. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.

Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

That statement is open to challenge on two grounds. For one thing, as we've seen, the intelligence community was reporting to Bush and Congress that they thought it unlikely that Saddam would give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists – and only "if sufficiently desperate" and as a "last chance to exact revenge" for the very attack that Bush was then advocating.

Furthermore, the claim that Iraq had trained al Qaeda in the use of poison gas turned out to be false, and some in the intelligence community were expressing doubts about it at the time Bush spoke. It was based on statements by a senior trainer for al Qaeda who had been captured in Afghanistan. The detainee, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, took back his story in 2004 and the CIA withdrew all claims based on it. But even at the time Bush spoke, Pentagon intelligence analysts said it was likely al-Libi was lying."

Doesn't the VP and President not telling the truth put artificial pressure on Congress?

We know that Bush and Cheney were capable of lying about the state of intelligence because from your own link, they did so to the public. We know at BEST the CIA, which falls under the executive branch, ignored reasons to doubt Curveball's "evidence".

Anyway no matter what way you slice Congress and the US public were given bad information.

[DRSmith]

No, I don't think so. I don't think the purpose of Iraq was largely imperialistic. I think there were many reasons and that different people held different reasons. There were some who wanted to go for humanitarian reasons (Sadams treatment of the Kurds was intolerable), there were some who wanted to go because Sadam had tried to assinate Bush's father, there are some who wanted to go because of WMD, others wanted to go because they were sure Sadam was either linked to or funded terrorists, and there were some who were driven by fear and hate.

Bush was not evil, nor was he a bad man, I think he was wrong, but that his motives were noble. I think he believed that Sadam had these weapons, funded terrorists, and would either directly or indirectly use them. After all, he used them on his own people. More, I think the spectre of 9/11 haunted him and he was determined never to let that happen here again and to do all he could to prevent that.

If you see Iran as one of you main enemies and you have bases on either side of them, Iraq and Afghanistan you may see yourself in a position to moderate any threat you feel they pose. And coupled with the fact they were already considering a base or bases in India I see as possible

[Prosperity]

The sure money among people in the know under the Clinton Administration, the Bush Administration, the Democrats in Congress and the Republicans in congress was the Saddam had WMD's. Spin that every which way you want and congratulate yourself for you're craftiness but the truth is very obvious.

How sure do you have to be to argue for sanctions and inspections?

How sure do you have to be to argue for invasion?

Certitude is not the same thing in every circumstance because when the stakes are highest you have to be almost absolutely sure. Furthermore, using the quotes of politicians doesn't help the matter (I mean we are talking about "intelligence" after all), if Nancy Pelosi would have done the same thing, then we can reserve some hypothetical scorn for her in that hypothetical world.

Also remember, that a country having WMD's is by no means a good enough reason to invade because the ties between OBL/9-11 and Iraq were insignificant, and those two things + liberation will make it all easy aspect where the main lines of BS fed to us.

[Rudechain]

Do the Head Coach and owner get action figures made when they win the Super Bowl? Is there a Joe Gibbs Starting Lineup figure that I missed? I guess my view of the chain of command got screwed up when I was in the Marines. :whoknows:

What more did he do? Did he train the SEALs? Did he fly the helos that dropped them off or picked them up? Did he pull the trigger? No. He was informed that the SEALs had reached their objective and approved the killing of Bin Laden. That's all he did. He doesn't need to get an action figure for it. The reasoning behind the "action" figure is what's frustrating people, not the actual "action" figure. Why in the world would he get one? Did Truman get an action figure when Hitler died?

One of the toughest military/foreign policy decisions? Not even close. Bin Laden was a mass murderer, who had called for more attacks on the U.S. He was the enemy in an unconventional war. If Obama gets the credit for killing Bin Laden, give Bush credit for Hussein and starting the Iraq/Afghanistan campaigns. Making the decision to go to war is a tough one, not killing an enemy.

Did you complain about this one?

http://www.amazon.com/Elite-Force-Aviator-George-President/dp/B0002J9G1S

[Hitman21ST]

Did you complain about this one?

http://www.amazon.com/Elite-Force-Aviator-George-President/dp/B0002J9G1S

Considering Bush actually was a pilot, not at all.

[Rudechain]

You do know he never saw combat, never fired a shot, never dropped a bomb and never trained a member of the armed forces that invaded Iraq.

He served time in the Air National Guard. Where he trained on F-102s and T-33's. There's also that problem of coming up short on the number of training drills as well as the failure to take a physical leading to removal of flight duty in Aug 1972. ( graduated from flight school in Nov 1969 ) By my calculations that's around 34 months of training to fly.

Surely you can see that complaining over an action figure is a bit petty?

[KevinthePRF]

Seriously, good for him for ordering the raid that killed Bin Laden. At least he got that part right. It seems like everything he's done since then has been an utter disaster. Do his people not discuss things before they go public? Let's see:

1. They refused to graciously give credit to members of the previous administration in his speech.

2. They said Osama was using a woman as a human shield, now they say he wasn't.

3. They said Osama died in a firefight, now that's debatable as there are no signs of weapons.

4. They said they'd release pictures, now they won't, and they have to tell 9-11 families no.

5. They said they watched the whole thing live, now there was a 25 minute lapse in video.

6. They said intelligence was gathered from Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, and agreed that term was a euphamism for Waterboarding, now they refuse to talk about how the information was gathered.

7. They turn their back on the pilot's sister as she's asking him to please support the agents who interrogated detainees.

Oh, and the unemployment numbers just jumped again, the debt is exploding, the dollar is collapsing and our economy is in a state of stagflation.

I seriously don't understand how an Administration can bungle the aftermath of one of the most important days in the last 10 years so badly. I think they should have put Seal Team 6 in charge of media relations too.

[Edit: I forgot to mention that the house of the attack is now a shrine and the sea where he was buried has been renamed by followers the martyr's sea. So much for the idea that we don't want to create a place of worship for the man. He has two!]

......and now a short break from our sponsers, Fox News will be right back!

[twa]

How sure do you have to be to argue for sanctions and inspections?

How sure do you have to be to argue for invasion?

We were already beyond sanctions and inspections,moving to no fly zones and military strikes.....as well as formally endorsing regime change

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bfb_1189250061

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bfd_1188913424

Certitude after 9/11 was not willing to give the benefit of doubt to enemies(which Saddam clearly was),in much the same manner Obama could not risk giving Pakistan the benefit of doubt on Bin Laden's presence

[Bang]

I think Iraq was seen as a chance to expand the empire and put a base in an area those in power though would give the US more influence in the area.

And I think Iraq was to neutralize the largest unfriendly fighting force from the overall potential battlefield.

The war has no borders.. we're fighting an idea, not a state or a group that stays put.

So by going to war in the entire region, we must account for the largest potential military opposition, and Hussein's was it.

And there's also something to standing in the middle of the street and calling them out, which we also did by being there, and AQ and other terrorist operatives flooded into the country and were destoyed. (Interesting how we just could never seem to choke off thoe entry points from Syria, eh? Come one , come all. we invite you to die where you stand for your lunatic belief.)

Our bullets didn't create new terrorists as everyone feared. (and those that it did have also been destroyed.) Our presence did not inflame the entire region as was feared (and desired by our enemies.)

The current revolts for democracy across the entire region bear that out.

I think a lot of things could have been done differently, but the fact is if these revolts take hold (and as we are seeing, brutal crackdowns and massacres do not seem to be enough to stop the desire for freedom), than we've won totally and completely. We have not taken over. We have not annexed, we have not subjugated or set up puppets. We have enabled the spark of freedom to take hold, and it's growing. And as it grows, so shrink the radicals. They are isolated now among their own people, the people they supposedly have been causing all this terror for,, and the people see them now for what they are, and they are everything they were told to fear about us. Their havens are shrinking.

They are subjugators. They are oppressors. They are against the freedom and the people of of the middle east.

Hearts and minds are on our side now. Big time. Again this week, killing more muslims in Pakistan as a retaliation against us. This is how they've lost.

The war isn't over.. Pakistan may get ugly, but we're clearly winning, as we will win if they continue to push the issue in Pakistan.

The idea of radicalism is on the run.

We should now draw down the Afghanistan forces before Pakistan cuts them off and causes a much bigger problem that no amount of diplomacy will solve.

~Bang

[twist]

I have a better title for this thread.

Is the GOP really this petty and unapologetically political?

Yes, the answer is yes.

They criticized Obama for ordering the wrong kind of mustard and for giving an address to school children telling them to work hard and get good grades.

Of course they will criticize him for killing the terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden.