Obama has nearly decimated al Qaeda: Why doesn't he brag about it?

So you actually think they haven't used years and years of intell to locate these people? Obama gets the credit started by Bush if it's good, but if it's bad it's all Buoooosh'es fault otherwise.
Yeah.....Republicans have always made good use....



handjob.gif
full-auto-albums-drama-queen-picture3999-obama2.jpg

Hurry while supplies last. Order now and get the Obama quarter. Beautifully hand crafted stickers for each side.
 
Bush killed a shit ton of Al Qaeda as well during his 2 terms. Several Key Top Leaders. Something tells me back then, You rightly credited the People doing the shooting, and not the President.

Ninja Obama my ass, all he does is give the green light, the real ninja's are US Special Forces, and guess what. They wont be voting Democrat.

Bush killed a "shit ton" of newly minted Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq. And I am using the term "newly minted" because they didn't exist prior to the invasion. He also was responsible for the deaths of over 100K people that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Yep blame bush. Bush did the ground work and handed barry soetoro the gun. But it doesn't matter;he can't run from the green energy debacle/scam.
Ah, yes.....let's sing the praises of.....


handjob.gif


 
Bush killed a "shit ton" of newly minted Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq. And I am using the term "newly minted" because they didn't exist prior to the invasion. He also was responsible for the deaths of over 100K people that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Yep blame bush. Bush did the ground work and handed barry soetoro the gun. But it doesn't matter;he can't run from the green energy debacle/scam.

would Bush have gone into Pakistan? I doubt it. McCain certainly wouldn't have. and what the hell does the green energy scam have to do with killing al Qaeda operatives/
It's a great distraction from....

 
Starting from scratch means having intel gathering teams on the fucking ground and establishing a repoir with the natives and clintool realign the military and did away with that process.

Clintool miss Bin laden because he telegragh the move when he had the chance.

Yep you just hate bush no matter how it's explained in your revisionist history.

There's no "revisionist" history going on. The republicans impeached Clinton. They refused to give him special ops teams to go in and hunt Bin Laden. They left him with bombs and missiles. That's the record.

And Bush came into office with the PNAC agenda of attacking Iraq and diminishing Sino/Soviet power. There's plenty of evidence to support that..including Bush's appointments his cabinet.

And yes..Obama had to start from scratch. They were very kind to Bush in giving them "credit"..but really none was deserved.

"Republicans" refused to give Clinton special ops teams to go in and hunt Bin Laden?

:lol:

That's 100% false. You're just making shit up now. Clinton considered terrorism a law enforcement matter not a military threat. His policy resulted in the Gorelick wall.
 
It would be unseemlym and frankly, rather stupid, too, for this or any other POTUS to BRAG about the deaths of Al Qaeda leadership.

How 'bout inviting every terrorist to his War?


golfanyone.jpg



bush.jpg


"Well....it's too-late, now......"​
 
Not even going to check on this..

But so what.

Almost every republican voted against Clinton's anti-terrorist efforts including one to beef up security at airports.

Clinton saw the problem and no one took it seriously. Especially Republicans.

We see how effective Clintools efforts were...he missed OBL and Bush had to deal with it and you keep blaming Bush ....some logic

And if the war was for oil ...so what.

Again, Clinton wanted special ops hunting teams and he got missiles. Missiles are great for some things but nothing replaces on the ground human intel and hunter/killer teams.

The Bushies also had a long relationship with the Bin Ladens. From starting companies to funding a war against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

It was a patently stupid relationship at that. And cost tax payers billions.

You're correct, nothing replaces on the ground human intel. Here's Clinton's record:

2rmva5s.gif
 
Last edited:
It wouldn't serve Obama well to brag about the killing of his brothers.
 
Bush got the mastermind of the 9/11 attack. Bush also got the finacial support of the attack.
Ya' got a small issue with timelines, right?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqAMkDstPiU]Osama bin Laden is dead, Obama Speech at White House - YouTube[/ame]​
 
Bush got the mastermind of the 9/11 attack. Bush also got the finacial support of the attack.
Ya' got a small issue with timelines, right?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqAMkDstPiU]Osama bin Laden is dead, Obama Speech at White House - YouTube[/ame]​

Ya' got a small issue with timelines, right?

Maybe, but Penatta set the president straight. Obama wanted to wait more then the few months that HAD ALREADY PASSED.

Valerie was pissed!
 
It is clear that the intelligence community must do more with limited resources. As I promised during the campaign, we will save a total of $7 billion over the years 1993-1997 from the previous administration's request for national and tactical intelligence programs.

The Director of Central Intelligence is reviewing ways to consolidate the operation of costly collection systems and to streamline the management of the intelligence community. In addition, under the auspices of the National Security Council, we are engaged in an effort to redefine both our national security priorities and the appropriate role for the intelligence community in meeting new threats and challenges.

That was President Bill Clinton's opinion. Those "costly collection systems" he wanted to consolidate? That's HUMINT. He wanted a new spy satellite to replace ears on the ground.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1993_cr/s930421-budget.htm
 
By Michael Tomasky

Obama’s Missing Bravado

Obama has nearly decimated al Qaeda. Why doesn’t he brag about it? Michael Tomasky on liberals’ squeamishness at thumping their chests—and the endless victory lap that Bush would have taken.

The immediate political question raised by the successful drone attack that took out Anwar al-Awlaki is simple. How much credit will Barack Obama get for this? He ordered renewed drone attacks in Yemen earlier this year, and now, we see clear results. But I doubt Obama will derive much political benefit, for one obvious reason and one reason that is less obvious but that reflects something more enduring in our political culture.

When that SEAL team nailed Osama bin Laden, Obama got about a five-point bounce out of it, but it washed away as quickly as a wave on a beach. The conventional wisdom said, well, it’s the economy. People are more concerned about the unemployment rate. It also happened as the debt-ceiling crisis was starting to build, and Washington was more obsessed with it. So the conventional wisdom wasn’t necessarily wrong.

But it also wasn’t the whole story. The fuller explanation reflects differences in the emotional and psychological make-up of liberals and conservatives. Conservatives are far more eager to thump their chests about these things. Liberals, from Obama to Hillary Clinton to the liberal foreign-policy gurus at the think tanks to your average person, find it a little unseemly.

More: Obama’s Missing Bravado

Obama is a quiet warrior...

It's because he wasn't earned his bragging rights yet... The economy is still a mess.

Oh, he earned it. It takes time to fix the Bush holocaust.

Exactly. It also goes back to the administrations correct decision not to do endzone dances. They just make sure the job gets done. In Red State parlance, "git 'r done" ;)
 
I guess "bragging" about Bin Laden wasn't enough for the little children.
 
Here's the thing that's rather amusing about Obama and his war on terrorism.

He's made it a political point that the detainees in Guantanamo have rights and should be tried in civilian courts and not as enemy combatants...but then he triples the use of Predator drones to kill those same terrorists without benefit of trial at all.

Don't get me wrong...I have zero problem with killing terrorist leaders with drone strikes...I just find it ironic that the same Administration that wanted to accord "captured" terrorists the right to civilian trials in US courts doesn't have a problem with blowing other terrorists to smithereens from long distance without benefit of due process.

I'd love to sit in on policy debates among this Administration. The flip flops they make trying to live up to their progressive "ideals" while having to deal with the realities of the world they live in, are amusing to observe.
 
As usual dumbfuck liberals talk out both ends in support of Obamination.

Many of the CIA and military programs that are bearing fruit now started under Bush, it just took time to find the assholes around the world to kill them.

The UBL courier that led the CIA to UBL's compound was being followed since 2003 but he made a mistake using a monitored cell phone in 2008 which led to them tracking him down near UBL's compound.

The CIA and military doing things to terrorists in GITMO and other "nice places" around the world led to the information on the courier and from there. Intel gathering takes time, it doesn't happen overnight because typically captured terrorists aren't willing to give up their friends.

Oh, the liberals that called for Bush being thrown in jail over wiretaps don't seem to care Obaminationa is doing the same wiretaps....
hahahahahahahahahahaha


BOOOOOOOOOOSH
 
Obama's base consists of a hypocritical bunch of cowards who don't mind killing US citizens and anyone else with a bomb while they pretend to be peace loving negotiators. It's a tough fence to be on and they would rather not brag about it.
 
Jamie Gorelick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Conflict of Interest

A 1995 Department of Justice memorandum states that the procedures her memorandum put in place for the investigation of the first WTC bombing "go beyond what is legally required...[to] prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation." The wall intentionally exceeded the requirements of FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) for the purposes of criminal investigations, as well as the then-existing federal case law. These rules were, shortly after their creation, expanded to regulate such communications in future counter-terrorism investigations.[14]

Ms. Gorelick eventually recused herself from reviewing her own role in the regulation of information about terrorist activities.[citation needed] Attorney General Ashcroft was incensed before the 9/11 commission to learn that the commission had not investigated or been told of Gorelick's memo or her role regarding the "wall". This assertion was disputed by former senator Slade Gorton (R-WA), a member of the 9/11 Commission, who said, "nothing Jamie Gorelick wrote had the slightest impact on the Department of Defense or its willingness or ability to share intelligence information with other intelligence agencies." Gorton also asserted that "the wall" was a long-standing policy that had resulted from the Church committee in the 1970s, and that the policy only prohibits transfer of certain information from prosecutors to the intelligence services and never prohibited information flowing in the opposite direction.[13]
 
Last edited:
Obama's base consists of a hypocritical bunch of cowards who don't mind killing US citizens and anyone else with a bomb while they pretend to be peace loving negotiators. It's a tough fence to be on and they would rather not brag about it.

You got that RIGHT.
:clap2:
 

Forum List

Back
Top