A President and a Charlatan....

[NYcarbineer]

Then, this: "And finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. "
Guess who?

b."Whether it’s a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in Texas, or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our history." Ibid.

5. "The thing that all three of those cases have in common is that the perps weren’t Muslims. Was the guy who flew a plane into a building in Texas really radicalized? In what ideology exactly?"

A classic PC out of context card trick.

Look what follows right AFTER the quote above, that PC cuts out:

Deranged or alienated individuals — often U.S. citizens or legal residents — can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. And that pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

very funny.

Now let's look at the entire paragraph:

And finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it's a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in Texas, or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our history. Deranged or alienated individuals — often U.S. citizens or legal residents — can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. And that pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

See how the point PC was trying to make is disintegrated by actually quoting what the President actually said?

Of course you do.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I answer you with trepidation....

....can't stand another bout of your weeping.......

Just put him on ignore and be done with it.

I don't put anyone on ignore....

....and that one serves as amusement.

Usually, one has to pay admission to view such antics.

Point taken! It's rare you get this kind of stuff for free.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If only I had a dime for every time a nutter proclaimed that a certain politician was "toast".

If only I had 20 bucks for every time you came to a debate without an argument. Or for every time you or any other liberal on USMB used the word "nutter."

$$$$$$$$

Now listen here......

I am the primary user of the term "nutter" around these parts. Please advise me of any unauthorized use.

I never argue, dummy. I present information on occasion......but mostly, I mock idiot nutters. Usually, they put me on ignore.........but can't stand it and change their mind.

Sound familiar?

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Rejoice! Here is a kindred spirit...

And some balloons...

who whined when the senate did not pass his gun bill?

Not me, sport. No motherfucker alive is taking my guns.

While I don't give a shit about abortion or religion no one posting here is to the right of me on debt and spending, son. The primary difference between me and the white trash of America is I'd rather be dead than associate with the halfwits that supported big government borrow-and-spend neocon scum like Junebug Bush and Reagan.

The people who elected Bush in 2004 elected Obama. They can eat shit and die as far as I am concerned.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Then, this: "And finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. "
Guess who?

b."Whether it’s a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in Texas, or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our history." Ibid.

5. "The thing that all three of those cases have in common is that the perps weren’t Muslims. Was the guy who flew a plane into a building in Texas really radicalized? In what ideology exactly?"

A classic PC out of context card trick.

Look what follows right AFTER the quote above, that PC cuts out:

Deranged or alienated individuals — often U.S. citizens or legal residents — can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. And that pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

very funny.

Now let's look at the entire paragraph:

And finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it's a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in Texas, or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our history. Deranged or alienated individuals — often U.S. citizens or legal residents — can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. And that pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

See how the point PC was trying to make is disintegrated by actually quoting what the President actually said?

Of course you do.

No, we don't. We don't see a change in meaning simply because you quoted the entire statement. You have no grasp of the delineated nuances of speech. Stop self flagellating, Carbine.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Then, this: "And finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. "
Guess who?

b."Whether it’s a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in Texas, or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our history." Ibid.

5. "The thing that all three of those cases have in common is that the perps weren’t Muslims. Was the guy who flew a plane into a building in Texas really radicalized? In what ideology exactly?"

A classic PC out of context card trick.

Look what follows right AFTER the quote above, that PC cuts out:

Deranged or alienated individuals — often U.S. citizens or legal residents — can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. And that pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

very funny.

Now let's look at the entire paragraph:

And finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it's a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in Texas, or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our history. Deranged or alienated individuals — often U.S. citizens or legal residents — can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. And that pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

See how the point PC was trying to make is disintegrated by actually quoting what the President actually said?

Of course you do.

Did you want to explain why "And finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it's a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in Texas, or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our history." was the in the cardinal position.....?


Because that is the point of the OP.



Seems everything must be spoon-fed to you in tiny amounts.

Now....why is that?

Lack of perspicacity, or lack of integrity?

You may not be able to choose just one....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A President and a Charlatan....

…and an OP who is a tedious partisan hack.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A President and a Charlatan....

…and an OP who is a tedious partisan hack.

Does that mean you don't like me?????

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then, this: "And finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. "
Guess who?

b."Whether it’s a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in Texas, or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our history." Ibid.

5. "The thing that all three of those cases have in common is that the perps weren’t Muslims. Was the guy who flew a plane into a building in Texas really radicalized? In what ideology exactly?"

A classic PC out of context card trick.

Look what follows right AFTER the quote above, that PC cuts out:

Deranged or alienated individuals — often U.S. citizens or legal residents — can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. And that pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

very funny.

Now let's look at the entire paragraph:

And finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it's a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in Texas, or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our history. Deranged or alienated individuals — often U.S. citizens or legal residents — can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. And that pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

See how the point PC was trying to make is disintegrated by actually quoting what the President actually said?

Of course you do.

Did you want to explain why "And finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it's a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in Texas, or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our history." was the in the cardinal position.....?


Because that is the point of the OP.



Seems everything must be spoon-fed to you in tiny amounts.

Now....why is that?

Lack of perspicacity, or lack of integrity?

You may not be able to choose just one....

You cut the paragraph in half, to take out the references to Islamic extremist terrorism, in order to falsely create the impression that the president was mischaracterizing domestic terrorism by a lie of omission.

He was not. The lie of omission was yours.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then, this: "And finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. "
Guess who?

b."Whether it’s a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in Texas, or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our history." Ibid.

5. "The thing that all three of those cases have in common is that the perps weren’t Muslims. Was the guy who flew a plane into a building in Texas really radicalized? In what ideology exactly?"

A classic PC out of context card trick.

Look what follows right AFTER the quote above, that PC cuts out:

Deranged or alienated individuals — often U.S. citizens or legal residents — can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. And that pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

very funny.

Now let's look at the entire paragraph:

And finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it's a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in Texas, or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our history. Deranged or alienated individuals — often U.S. citizens or legal residents — can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. And that pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

See how the point PC was trying to make is disintegrated by actually quoting what the President actually said?

Of course you do.

No, we don't. We don't see a change in meaning simply because you quoted the entire statement. You have no grasp of the delineated nuances of speech. Stop self flagellating, Carbine.

What was the point the OP was trying to make with the partial quote she used? Can you tell us that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. No...not the same. We had a President who said 'Public opinion wins wars.' He meant, of course, that an informed citizenry supports a war effort in a unified manner. And, he knew about winning wars. It was Dwight Eisenhower.



2. Now....the charlatan. The current President knows who has declared war on America, who attacks us at every opportunity...yet he forbids the unvarnished truth revealed to the public.

a. "President Obama jettisoned the use of the phrase “global war on terror,” preferring ‘overseas contingency operation.’ "
Obama?s War on Terror By Some Other Name - Hit & Run : Reason.com

b." The Obama administration has unofficially rebranded "war on terror" phrase that dominated public discourse throughout the Bush administration. The replacement phrase, carefully chosen, is "CVE" -- Countering Violent Extremism.... Countering Violent Extremism is noticeable for two words that aren't there: some variant of "jihad," which is the preferred predicate for counter-terrorism-fighting conservatives, and "war," which is because the administration has put de-radicalization alongside the Predator drones as a primary instrument of combat. No mention of Islam, of course. That's because the administration wants to try and decouple the notion of combating terrorism from the Muslim faith itself."
The New Term for the War on Terror - Marc Ambinder - The Atlantic





3. Bet you thought the most absurd of all was calling the assassination of unarmed American soldiers at Fort Hood 'workplace violence,' when the assassin had his business cards printed with "SoA" (Soldier of Allah), and killed while chanting the Arabic shout of "Allahu Akbar!" Ft. Hood killer's title was 'Soldier of Allah' - NYPOST.com

4. But it has gone further. Now this charlatan-in-chief has not only shielded non-radical Muslims.....which is what his apologists would claim the above was all about....but has shifted the blame from the real enemies....to....well, check this out:

a. First, he speaks of Islamofascists, alQaeda...." Today, the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on a path to defeat. Their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their own safety than plotting against us. Instead, what we’ve seen is the emergence of various al Qaeda affiliates. From Yemen to Iraq, from Somalia to North Africa, the threat today is more diffuse, with Al Qaeda’s affiliates in the Arabian Peninsula -- AQAP -- the most active in plotting against our homeland. And while none of AQAP’s efforts approach the scale of 9/11, they have continued to plot acts of terror, like the attempt to blow up an airplane on Christmas Day in 2009." President Obama Speaks on the U.S. Counterterrorism Strategy | The White House





So far, so good....he's speaking of the actual culprits. Then, this: "And finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. "
Guess who?

b."Whether it’s a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in Texas, or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our history." Ibid.

5. "The thing that all three of those cases have in common is that the perps weren’t Muslims. Was the guy who flew a plane into a building in Texas really radicalized? In what ideology exactly?"
Obama?s Confused Self-Contradictory War on Terror Speech | FrontPage Magazine





6. " The president's speech at the National Defense University was most unsatisfying for anyone hoping that at long last Obama would articulate what his purpose is in being commander-in-chief while terrorists continue their efforts to kill and maim Americans and our allies."
Shadow Government | FOREIGN POLICY


So.....what the heck is wrong with simply telling the truth???

Your post won't sit well with the conservatives here at USMB who have come out en masse against President Obama being too mean to the terrorists with his drone program.

lol

Carbine, had you bothered to read the entire thing, she wasn't praising Obama. She was exalting Eisenhower. Why did you take it upon yourself to twist her words? I'm one of those conservatives, and it sat pretty well with me.

Nice Freudian slip there buddy!

I never said she was praising him. She is attacking him for being soft on attributing Islamic extremist terrorism to Islamic extremist terrorism.

Where did Obama lie in his speech? Where did he even lie by implication? Where did he mislead? Where did he obfuscate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A classic PC out of context card trick.

Look what follows right AFTER the quote above, that PC cuts out:

Deranged or alienated individuals — often U.S. citizens or legal residents — can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. And that pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

very funny.

Now let's look at the entire paragraph:

And finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it's a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in Texas, or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our history. Deranged or alienated individuals — often U.S. citizens or legal residents — can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. And that pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

See how the point PC was trying to make is disintegrated by actually quoting what the President actually said?

Of course you do.

Did you want to explain why "And finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it's a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in Texas, or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our history." was the in the cardinal position.....?


Because that is the point of the OP.



Seems everything must be spoon-fed to you in tiny amounts.

Now....why is that?

Lack of perspicacity, or lack of integrity?

You may not be able to choose just one....

You cut the paragraph in half, to take out the references to Islamic extremist terrorism, in order to falsely create the impression that the president was mischaracterizing domestic terrorism by a lie of omission.

He was not. The lie of omission was yours.

Did you want to explain why "And finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it's a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in Texas, or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our history." was the in the cardinal position.....?


Because that is the point of the OP.

And....this, right from the OP, as well:
First, he speaks of Islamofascists, alQaeda...."




You can run, but you can't hide, NYLiar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your post won't sit well with the conservatives here at USMB who have come out en masse against President Obama being too mean to the terrorists with his drone program.

lol

Carbine, had you bothered to read the entire thing, she wasn't praising Obama. She was exalting Eisenhower. Why did you take it upon yourself to twist her words? I'm one of those conservatives, and it sat pretty well with me.

Nice Freudian slip there buddy!

I never said she was praising him. She is attacking him for being soft on attributing Islamic extremist terrorism to Islamic extremist terrorism.

Where did Obama lie in his speech? Where did he even lie by implication? Where did he mislead? Where did he obfuscate.

No, you moron.....I documented his attempt to obfuscate.

You should be familiar with obfuscation.....Oh, you better look it up first.

 

[NYcarbineer]

2. Now....the charlatan. The current President knows who has declared war on America, who attacks us at every opportunity...yet he forbids the unvarnished truth revealed to the public.

a. "President Obama jettisoned the use of the phrase “global war on terror,” preferring ‘overseas contingency operation.’ "
Obama?s War on Terror By Some Other Name - Hit & Run : Reason.com

The president used the word 'terrorism' 21 times in his speech. He used the word 'terrorist(s)' more than that. 'Terror' multiple times.

The rightwing myth about Obama refusing to call terrorism terrorism is more nutty than birtherism.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Carbine, had you bothered to read the entire thing, she wasn't praising Obama. She was exalting Eisenhower. Why did you take it upon yourself to twist her words? I'm one of those conservatives, and it sat pretty well with me.

Nice Freudian slip there buddy!

I never said she was praising him. She is attacking him for being soft on attributing Islamic extremist terrorism to Islamic extremist terrorism.

Where did Obama lie in his speech? Where did he even lie by implication? Where did he mislead? Where did he obfuscate.

No, you moron.....I documented his attempt to obfuscate.

You should be familiar with obfuscation.....Oh, you better look it up first.

No, you attempted to manufacture an obfuscation by cutting out the half of the paragraph that proves he didn't obfuscate. It's SOP for you. You need to stop it.

Now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did you want to explain why "And finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it's a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in Texas, or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our history." was the in the cardinal position.....?


Because that is the point of the OP.



Seems everything must be spoon-fed to you in tiny amounts.

Now....why is that?

Lack of perspicacity, or lack of integrity?

You may not be able to choose just one....

You cut the paragraph in half, to take out the references to Islamic extremist terrorism, in order to falsely create the impression that the president was mischaracterizing domestic terrorism by a lie of omission.

He was not. The lie of omission was yours.

Did you want to explain why "And finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it's a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in Texas, or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our history." was the in the cardinal position.....?


Because that is the point of the OP.

And....this, right from the OP, as well:
First, he speaks of Islamofascists, alQaeda...."




You can run, but you can't hide, NYLiar.

Since he said FINALLY, that would not be the cardinal position. He makes seven references Al Qaeda before he mentions the 3 events above.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A classic PC out of context card trick.

Look what follows right AFTER the quote above, that PC cuts out:

Deranged or alienated individuals — often U.S. citizens or legal residents — can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. And that pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

very funny.

Now let's look at the entire paragraph:

And finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it's a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in Texas, or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our history. Deranged or alienated individuals — often U.S. citizens or legal residents — can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. And that pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

See how the point PC was trying to make is disintegrated by actually quoting what the President actually said?

Of course you do.

No, we don't. We don't see a change in meaning simply because you quoted the entire statement. You have no grasp of the delineated nuances of speech. Stop self flagellating, Carbine.

What was the point the OP was trying to make with the partial quote she used? Can you tell us that?

You didn't get her point the first time, so it would be a waste of my time to try and explain it to you again. But you do notice how he used the phrase "radicalized individuals" instead of "terrorists". Not once in that paragraph or even in the part you added. did he refer to them as such.

You have run into a buzz saw.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You cut the paragraph in half, to take out the references to Islamic extremist terrorism, in order to falsely create the impression that the president was mischaracterizing domestic terrorism by a lie of omission.

He was not. The lie of omission was yours.

Did you want to explain why "And finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it's a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in Texas, or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our history." was the in the cardinal position.....?


Because that is the point of the OP.

And....this, right from the OP, as well:
First, he speaks of Islamofascists, alQaeda...."




You can run, but you can't hide, NYLiar.

Since he said FINALLY, that would not be the cardinal position. He makes seven references Al Qaeda before he mentions the 3 events above.

Yes, he did refer to Al Qaeda, but not once did he refer to them as terrorists. The omission is in plain sight, Carbine.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did you want to explain why "And finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it's a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in Texas, or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our history." was the in the cardinal position.....?


Because that is the point of the OP.

And....this, right from the OP, as well:
First, he speaks of Islamofascists, alQaeda...."




You can run, but you can't hide, NYLiar.

Since he said FINALLY, that would not be the cardinal position. He makes seven references Al Qaeda before he mentions the 3 events above.

Yes, he did refer to Al Qaeda, but not once did he refer to them as terrorists. The omission is in plain sight, Carbine.

1. "a group of terrorists came to kill as many civilians as they could." (referring to 9/11)

2. "Now, make no mistake, our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth."

3. "From our use of drones to the detention of terrorist suspects, the decisions that we are making now will define the type of nation — and world — that we leave to our children."

4. "Most, though not all, of the terrorism we faced is fueled by a common ideology — a belief by some extremists that Islam is in conflict with the United States and the West, and that violence against Western targets, including civilians, is justified in pursuit of a larger cause. Of course, this ideology is based on a lie, for the United States is not at war with Islam. And this ideology is rejected by the vast majority of Muslims, who are the most frequent victims of terrorist attacks."

5. "Much of our best counterterrorism cooperation results in the gathering and sharing of intelligence, the arrest and prosecution of terrorists. And that's how a Somali terrorist apprehended off the coast of Yemen is now in a prison in New York."

6. "But despite our strong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, sometimes this approach is foreclosed. Al Qaeda and its affiliates try to gain foothold in some of the most distant and unforgiving places on Earth."

7. "And it's also not possible for America to simply deploy a team of Special Forces to capture every terrorist."

8. "there are places where it would pose profound risks to our troops and local civilians — where a terrorist compound cannot be breached without triggering a firefight"

9. "over the last four years, my administration has worked vigorously to establish a framework that governs our use of force against terrorists"

10. "Beyond the Afghan theater, we only target al Qaeda and its associated forces. And even then, the use of drones is heavily constrained. America does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists"

11. "we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat."

12. "To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties — not just in our cities at home and our facilities abroad, but also in the very places like Sana'a and Kabul and Mogadishu where terrorists seek a foothold. Remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes. So doing nothing is not an option."

13. "But the high threshold that we've set for taking lethal action applies to all potential terrorist targets"

14. "Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue."

15. "As a matter of policy, the preference of the United States is to capture terrorist suspects"

16. "we are committed to prosecuting terrorists wherever we can."

17. "Where appropriate, we will bring terrorists to justice in our courts and our military justice system."

18. "We have prosecuted scores of terrorists in our courts."

Now do I need to highlight the word 'terrorist'?

lolol

 

[EriktheRed]

A President and a Charlatan....

Oh.




I thought you might be talking about the last guy in the Oval Office and his Veep.