CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 148,628
- 71,932
- 2,330
Prior to the conquering of Iraq..there were no Al Qaeda or any general threat to the United States.
You mean besides that whole 9/11 thingy, right?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Prior to the conquering of Iraq..there were no Al Qaeda or any general threat to the United States.
Prior to the conquering of Iraq..there were no Al Qaeda or any general threat to the United States.
You mean besides that whole 9/11 thingy, right?
]
Yes he did.
And he was probably right. All the Surge did was let us save face.
The end result is that the Iranian backed Shi'ites now run Iraq. Probably the best we can hope for, because the alternative was Al Qaeda running the place, but not a good result for America.
Yes he did.
And he was probably right. All the Surge did was let us save face.
The end result is that the Iranian backed Shi'ites now run Iraq. Probably the best we can hope for, because the alternative was Al Qaeda running the place, but not a good result for America.
He would have been right..had that been all they did. But Bush dumped billions of US tax dollars to create the "Sons of Iraq"..or to bribe the newly minted terrorists and sectarian fighters into the fold. Of course if they didn't disband the Iraqi military in the first place..and make the Baathists illegal..this never would have ever been needed.
Yeah, you could make that argument.
But leaving the Baathists around would have been like leaving the Nazis around after WWII...
Not really sending the right message.
Ba'athists are actually Islamic Nazis. They are gone from Iraq, hopefully they'll be gone in Syria soon.
I think the thing is, we keep sticking our hands in the hornets nest and wondering why we get stung. And sometimes we raise a hornet up, and it's the one that stings us in the eye. Bin Laden and Saddam were both guys the CIA told presidents we could work with--- until they turned on us.
Prior to the conquering of Iraq..there were no Al Qaeda or any general threat to the United States.
You mean besides that whole 9/11 thingy, right?
Prior to the conquering of Iraq..there were no Al Qaeda or any general threat to the United States.
You mean besides that whole 9/11 thingy, right?
]
I think he meant within or from Iraq itself...
To be fair to Bush, the first guy to raise the whole spectre of a Saddam/Bin laden alliance was Bill Clinton, who mentioned Iraq four times in the 1998 indictment of Bin Laden after the Embassy bombings.
This was to raise Bin Laden's street cred, not Saddam. Everyone already thought Saddam was evil. Even Democrats.
There you have it... That's Romney on bin Laden saying in 2007 that, "It's not worth moving heaven and earth, spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." Yes boys and girls, It's all about 'money' to Mr 1%.
Romney: 'Even Jimmy Carter' would have ordered bin Laden attack - CNN.com
Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama on Monday appeared to call out Mitt Romney over what he said about going after Osama bin Laden on the campaign trail four years ago, as opposed to on the eve of the first anniversary of the raid that killed the terrorist leader.
Asked about Romney's comments earlier in the day that the decision to go after bin Laden was a clear one and that "even Jimmy Carter would" have made the call, Obama referred to a difference between what Romney said during his 2008 presidential campaign and on the eve of the first anniversary of the attack.
"I assume that people meant what they said when they said it," Obama said during a joint appearance with Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda. "That's been at least my practice. I said that I'd go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him, and I did. If there are others who said one thing and now suggest they'd do something else, I'd go ahead and let them explain."
That is only part of the quote of what Romney said.
It distorts what he said, when just part of it is quoted.
This is the full quote;
"In a very diverse group, Hamas, Hezbollah, al Queda,Muslim Brotherhood and of course different names throughout the world.
It's not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.It is worth fashioning and executing an effective strategy to defeat global, violent Jihad".
I don't know about healthcare but he'll certainly run on the economy.There you have it... That's Romney on bin Laden saying in 2007 that, "It's not worth moving heaven and earth, spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." Yes boys and girls, It's all about 'money' to Mr 1%.
Romney: 'Even Jimmy Carter' would have ordered bin Laden attack - CNN.com
How does Barry get that Mitt Romney wouldn't have gone ahead and taken out Bin Laden given the same opportunity? Sorry folks but Romney is right...I don't see ANY President not making that call...including Jimmy Carter.
It's rather sad...and telling...that Barack Obama is SO desperate for something good to point at after almost four years in office that he's using the death of Osama Bin Laden as proof that he's a great President.
But then again...should anyone be surprised by this? He sure can't run on ObamaCare or his handling of the economy. A majority of Americans don't like the former and think he's clueless about the latter.
It's hard to take obama assuming the mantle of greatness over Bin Ladin when obama eventually banned the interrogation techniques that led to his end. If Romney had said that he would spend billions of dollars and moving heaven and earth to get Bin Ladin, democrats would be screaming about starving children and birth control robbed to pay to get one old man who was hiding out. If democrats had their way, if it was up to obama, we never would have gotten Bin Ladin. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would never have been made uncomfortable, he would never have been waterboarded he would never have given up the information. What would have happened MAYBE is that obama would have paid for information and gotten bupkis.
Getting Bin Ladin is an exercise in vanity. Romney was right. Bin Ladin wasn't magic, he will be replaced by other terror leaders.
That's quite true in the early stages. Saddam was able to win bin Laden over by providing $25,000 checks for "martyrs" of 9/11 and for al Qaeda engaged in Afghanistan's whipping. By the time al Qaeda was whipped by American Troops in Afghan country, bin Laden accepted the 10 Jumbo Jets Saddam sent to "rescue" al Qaeda's wounded and escapees, and his opening of a couple of his palaces for their continuing terrorism training and activities to poison the world for America. Saddam became bin Laden's right arm, even more so than his acknowledged generals.You mean besides that whole 9/11 thingy, right?
]
I think he meant within or from Iraq itself...
To be fair to Bush, the first guy to raise the whole spectre of a Saddam/Bin laden alliance was Bill Clinton, who mentioned Iraq four times in the 1998 indictment of Bin Laden after the Embassy bombings.
This was to raise Bin Laden's street cred, not Saddam. Everyone already thought Saddam was evil. Even Democrats.
In any case..it was a stupid assertion. The two absolutely hated each other. Bin Laden referred to Saddam Hussien as an infidel, hated his "secular" government and the fact he was attacking other muslim states. He was enraged that the Saudis asked for US help as opposed to him and his holy band of craptacular "warriors".
What fantasy world do you live in?That's quite true in the early stages. Saddam was able to win bin Laden over by providing $25,000 checks for "martyrs" of 9/11 and for al Qaeda engaged in Afghanistan's whipping. By the time al Qaeda was whipped by American Troops in Afghan country, bin Laden accepted the 10 Jumbo Jets Saddam sent to "rescue" al Qaeda's wounded and escapees, and his opening of a couple of his palaces for their continuing terrorism training and activities to poison the world for America. Saddam became bin Laden's right arm, even more so than his acknowledged generals.
YTes invading a country that had nothing to do with Al-queda/terrorism was totally necessary. It is amazing how damn stupid righjt-wingers are.The Iraq war was 100% necessary to prevent regrouping of these forces Saddam brought into his country with the hope of being named leader of the Middle East someday. Bin Laden just fled for his life.
So we had to invade a country that had nothign to do with al qaeda in order to get a lid on al qaeda... yes you do sound like a retardWe had to go to Iraq, and there was no way we could put a lid on al Qaeda but to do just that.
Yes and unicorns and magic is real.It's hard to take obama assuming the mantle of greatness over Bin Ladin when obama eventually banned the interrogation techniques that led to his end.
I see so according toy ou democrats attacking romney for saying he would not kill bin laden means democrats secretly wanted bin laden to live.If Romney had said that he would spend billions of dollars and moving heaven and earth to get Bin Ladin, democrats would be screaming about starving children and birth control robbed to pay to get one old man who was hiding out.
Bin Laden is dead due to Obama's polciies polcieis that the GOP opposedIf democrats had their way, if it was up to obama, we never would have gotten Bin Ladin.
Considering that Sheikh gave us no information pertaning to the whereabouts of Bin laden your statement just proves that you are a clueless dumbassKhalid Sheikh Mohammed would never have been made uncomfortable, he would never have been waterboarded he would never have given up the information.
Well consideirng under Obama more Al-queda leaders have been killed in 1 year then all 6 of Bushes years we can cocnldue that Bin ladens replacement will not last longGetting Bin Ladin is an exercise in vanity. Romney was right. Bin Ladin wasn't magic, he will be replaced by other terror leaders.
I realize that unemployment is down, industrial production is rising, the stock has doubled, retail sales are up and gas prices are falling. You would have to be blind to not see that the economy is improving. The president not only should but must make an issue of the recovering economy.I don't know about healthcare but he'll certainly run on the economy.How does Barry get that Mitt Romney wouldn't have gone ahead and taken out Bin Laden given the same opportunity? Sorry folks but Romney is right...I don't see ANY President not making that call...including Jimmy Carter.
It's rather sad...and telling...that Barack Obama is SO desperate for something good to point at after almost four years in office that he's using the death of Osama Bin Laden as proof that he's a great President.
But then again...should anyone be surprised by this? He sure can't run on ObamaCare or his handling of the economy. A majority of Americans don't like the former and think he's clueless about the latter.
Now THAT is amusing, Flopper! You do realize that 13 million people are still unemployed and a huge number more are "underemployed" meaning they are working part time even though they wish to be working full time? And Barry's plan to fix this problem is...drumroll please..."the Buffett Rule"!!! Don't you think it's time to admit that this Administration has no economic plan going forward? All they've given us over the past two years is a request for a watered down version of the stimulus plan that didn't work the first time around and a request for higher taxes on the wealthy that they know will never be passed and even if it were passed would pay for about one day of our nation's spending. What is Barack Obama's PLAN to fix our economy? What's his PLAN to stimulate job growth? The truth is he doesn't have one and hasn't since Larry Summers and Christina Romer both skedaddled on him. So why would the American electorate vote someone who's run out of ideas to fix our problems back into office?