Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I don't think most people have a problem with Obama playing up his decision to ok the raid my problem is Obama trying to claim or suggest Romney would not have done so with no evidence to support that just one sentence taken out of context from a 2007 quote.Okay, let's "assume" a President Romney would have given the same order to take out bin Laden in Pakistan. Okay, now let's look at reality: Obama was the President who actually gave the order, which allows him to take credit as President and use it to seek re-election. Bush politicized 9/11 to help him defeat John Kerry in 2004.
Aw, the poor little wingnut baby can't handle the truth without negging...
Am I lying ya bastard?
I will neg you every time I see you lying.... if ya dont like it, STOP FUCKING LYING..!
Which bush era policies?
Okay, give us the facts. Give us "credible" proof that Bush policies led to the bin Laden compound in Pakistan. Please, none of that false waterboarding bullshit that Panetta and McCain have denied...
BTW, how in the hell was Bush ever going to find bin Laden in Iraq? I repeat, Iraq?
Am I lying ya bastard?
I will neg you every time I see you lying.... if ya dont like it, STOP FUCKING LYING..!
Which bush era policies?
Not sure why I am responding to you, but here goes....
ENHANCED INTERROGATIONS
If Obama had his way years ago... they would have ended long before we had the evidence we needed. Hell...he and his fellow travelers put a stop to it, and now they just kill them rather than capture and interrogate them.
Ok.... now go ahead and refute my evidence.
When has obamaturd ever told the truth? Remember Kerry? He flip flopped harder than a live chicken on a grill. Clinton, kerry, and obamaturd all came from the same school of liars, the socialists. Idiots.Then on that premise, obamaturd is a two faced liar. Go figure.A person's statements are generally considered to be a reflection of their beliefs and intentions. If you can show me statements made by Romney that indicated he considered finding and then either killing or capturing bin Laden to be an important goal, that would count as evidence.
Is Romney lying now or then?
Lets all feel sorry for bad guys, boo hoo. They got what they deserved.Which bush era policies?
Not sure why I am responding to you, but here goes....
ENHANCED INTERROGATIONS
If Obama had his way years ago... they would have ended long before we had the evidence we needed. Hell...he and his fellow travelers put a stop to it, and now they just kill them rather than capture and interrogate them.
Ok.... now go ahead and refute my evidence.
OK.
I asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and he told me the following: The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmeds real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda.
In fact, the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced false and misleading information. He specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married and ceased his role as an al-Qaeda facilitator none of which was true. According to the staff of the Senate intelligence committee, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaitis real role in al-Qaeda and his true relationship to bin Laden was obtained through standard, noncoercive means.
I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners sometimes produces good intelligence but often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear true or false if he believes it will relieve his suffering. Often, information provided to stop the torture is deliberately misleading.
Bin Laden’s death and the debate over torture - The Washington Post
When has obamaturd ever told the truth? Remember Kerry? He flip flopped harder than a live chicken on a grill. Clinton, kerry, and obamaturd all came from the same school of liars, the socialists. Idiots.Then on that premise, obamaturd is a two faced liar. Go figure.
Is Romney lying now or then?
Lets all feel sorry for bad guys, boo hoo. They got what they deserved.
Not sure why I am responding to you, but here goes....
ENHANCED INTERROGATIONS
If Obama had his way years ago... they would have ended long before we had the evidence we needed. Hell...he and his fellow travelers put a stop to it, and now they just kill them rather than capture and interrogate them.
Ok.... now go ahead and refute my evidence.
OK.
I asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and he told me the following: The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmeds real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda.
In fact, the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced false and misleading information. He specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married and ceased his role as an al-Qaeda facilitator none of which was true. According to the staff of the Senate intelligence committee, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaitis real role in al-Qaeda and his true relationship to bin Laden was obtained through standard, noncoercive means.
I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners sometimes produces good intelligence but often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear true or false if he believes it will relieve his suffering. Often, information provided to stop the torture is deliberately misleading.
Bin Laden’s death and the debate over torture - The Washington Post
Aww fuck it!
We got him using lollipops and flowers!
Ive got the truth on my side... this is a waste of time.
Fucking idiots.
Aww fuck it!
We got him using lollipops and flowers!
Ive got the truth on my side... this is a waste of time.
Fucking idiots.
So, all of a sudden we're supposed to believe that it's the Democrats that are the pro-military chickenhawks and the Republicans are the peace loving hippies?
You lefties are psychotic.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Where's the evidence that a President Romney (or any conservative Republican president) would have 'made the call' to take Osama bin Laden out?
Seriously!
Does everyone remember how OBL got away in Tora Bora when Bush failed to authorize pursuit by US troops and instead 'farmed out' the pursuit to Afghanistan forces who were notoriously well-known for switching sides or supporting whichever side paid them? If not, certainly everyone remembers Bush clearly stating that he didn't spend much time thinking about bin Laden, right? Perhaps a couple of Bush quotes from March 13, 2002 will refresh everyones' memories.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02[/FONT]
- G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts
And do people remember all those terrorist alerts from when Bush was president...including the ones right around Christmas? OBL was one hell of a bogey man, wasn't he? As long as he was alive and free, that is.
And let's talk about 'politicizing' OBL, as Obama is supposedly doing now. Does everyone remember how Bush, and especially Cheney, promoted the idea that only THEY could keep America safe? How about the ads that were run against GA Democrat Senator Max Cleland in 2002 where likenesses of OBL and Saddam Hussein were run in the ads suggesting that Cleland was weak on protecting America?
And what about the well-documented statements of the 2008 GOP nominee, John McCain, and the presumptive 2012 GOP nominee, Mitt Romney where they both criticized Obama's statements about being willing to go after OBL in Pakistan, with or without Pakistan's cooperation? Both McCain and Romney took exception to Obama's statements. So, why should we believe that they would have acted differently when the time came to make the decision? Mitt Romney also stated that it wasn't a priority and that the cost was prohibitively high to go after just one man. Really? And let's not forget the potential political cost if the mission had failed.
Hey, anyone can SAY that they would have done what President Obama did one year ago when he ordered the Seals to attack the compound when there was no direct evidence that OBL was there. But look at what Bush said and did (or more specifically did not do). And look at the statements of the 2008 GOP nominee and the statements the 2012 GOP nominee made when bin Laden was still alive and on the loose to release videos and threats whenever he pleased.
So, again, I ask where the evidence is that John McCain and/or Mitt Romney (if elected and in office) would have gone after bin Laden? Frankly, the opposite seems more true to me. It seems to me that they thought bin Laden was more valuable as some kind of nebulous and shadowy threat who the GOP could use in terror alerts and campaign ads if they thought it would help get them elected (or re-elected like it helped get Bush re-elected in 2004).
And now? Osama bin Laden is gone, and the GOP can't use him to drum up fear anymore. Maybe that is the real reason the GOP is upset. That, and the fact that President Obama is the one who gave the order that took OBL out. Just like he said he would do!
So, maybe a couple of follow-up questions should be these: Are GOP presidential candidates men of their word when they make statements and ask everyone to take them at their word? Or will they just say anything? Considering the fact that even conservatives think that Mitt Romney isn't genuine in his current embrace of 'conservative principles,' why should anyone else believe their candidate if they don't even trust to say what he really thinks and believes? [/FONT][/FONT]
Obama would not have gotten Osama without Bush era policies so fuck off troll.
What policies? Disbanding the bin laden group at the CIA?
Aw, the poor little wingnut baby can't handle the truth without negging...
Am I lying ya bastard?
I will neg you every time I see you lying.... if ya dont like it, STOP FUCKING LYING..!
Which bush era policies?
You Obamabots clearly a) do not listen to or read the news daily...or b) do not understand the news you read or hear...or c) have selective memory when it comes to discussing past events that were described in the news, thus demanding proof of things that are common knowledge.Aw, the poor little wingnut baby can't handle the truth without negging...
Am I lying ya bastard?
I will neg you every time I see you lying.... if ya dont like it, STOP FUCKING LYING..!
Okay, give us the facts. Give us "credible" proof that Bush policies led to the bin Laden compound in Pakistan. Please, none of that false waterboarding bullshit that Panetta and McCain have denied...
BTW, how in the hell was Bush ever going to find bin Laden in Iraq? I repeat, Iraq?
Okay, let's "assume" a President Romney would have given the same order to take out bin Laden in Pakistan. Okay, now let's look at reality: Obama was the President who actually gave the order, which allows him to take credit as President and use it to seek re-election. Bush politicized 9/11 to help him defeat John Kerry in 2004.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Where's the evidence that a President Romney (or any conservative Republican president) would have 'made the call' to take Osama bin Laden out?
Seriously!
Does everyone remember how OBL got away in Tora Bora when Bush failed to authorize pursuit by US troops and instead 'farmed out' the pursuit to Afghanistan forces who were notoriously well-known for switching sides or supporting whichever side paid them? If not, certainly everyone remembers Bush clearly stating that he didn't spend much time thinking about bin Laden, right? Perhaps a couple of Bush quotes from March 13, 2002 will refresh everyones' memories.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02[/FONT]
- G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts
And do people remember all those terrorist alerts from when Bush was president...including the ones right around Christmas? OBL was one hell of a bogey man, wasn't he? As long as he was alive and free, that is.
And let's talk about 'politicizing' OBL, as Obama is supposedly doing now. Does everyone remember how Bush, and especially Cheney, promoted the idea that only THEY could keep America safe? How about the ads that were run against GA Democrat Senator Max Cleland in 2002 where likenesses of OBL and Saddam Hussein were run in the ads suggesting that Cleland was weak on protecting America?
And what about the well-documented statements of the 2008 GOP nominee, John McCain, and the presumptive 2012 GOP nominee, Mitt Romney where they both criticized Obama's statements about being willing to go after OBL in Pakistan, with or without Pakistan's cooperation? Both McCain and Romney took exception to Obama's statements. So, why should we believe that they would have acted differently when the time came to make the decision? Mitt Romney also stated that it wasn't a priority and that the cost was prohibitively high to go after just one man. Really? And let's not forget the potential political cost if the mission had failed.
Hey, anyone can SAY that they would have done what President Obama did one year ago when he ordered the Seals to attack the compound when there was no direct evidence that OBL was there. But look at what Bush said and did (or more specifically did not do). And look at the statements of the 2008 GOP nominee and the statements the 2012 GOP nominee made when bin Laden was still alive and on the loose to release videos and threats whenever he pleased.
So, again, I ask where the evidence is that John McCain and/or Mitt Romney (if elected and in office) would have gone after bin Laden? Frankly, the opposite seems more true to me. It seems to me that they thought bin Laden was more valuable as some kind of nebulous and shadowy threat who the GOP could use in terror alerts and campaign ads if they thought it would help get them elected (or re-elected like it helped get Bush re-elected in 2004).
And now? Osama bin Laden is gone, and the GOP can't use him to drum up fear anymore. Maybe that is the real reason the GOP is upset. That, and the fact that President Obama is the one who gave the order that took OBL out. Just like he said he would do!
So, maybe a couple of follow-up questions should be these: Are GOP presidential candidates men of their word when they make statements and ask everyone to take them at their word? Or will they just say anything? Considering the fact that even conservatives think that Mitt Romney isn't genuine in his current embrace of 'conservative principles,' why should anyone else believe their candidate if they don't even trust to say what he really thinks and believes? [/FONT][/FONT]
How the hell can there be evidence of what someone might have done?
You're a complete fucking idiot, you really are.
Romney said he wouldn't in 2007 and 2008. Was he lying then or now?
Obama would not have gotten Osama without Bush era policies so fuck off troll.
What policies? Disbanding the bin laden group at the CIA?
Which bush era policies?
Not sure why I am responding to you, but here goes....
ENHANCED INTERROGATIONS
If Obama had his way years ago... they would have ended long before we had the evidence we needed. Hell...he and his fellow travelers put a stop to it, and now they just kill them rather than capture and interrogate them.
Ok.... now go ahead and refute my evidence.
OK.
I asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and he told me the following: The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmeds real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda.
In fact, the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced false and misleading information. He specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married and ceased his role as an al-Qaeda facilitator none of which was true. According to the staff of the Senate intelligence committee, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaitis real role in al-Qaeda and his true relationship to bin Laden was obtained through standard, noncoercive means.
I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners sometimes produces good intelligence but often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear true or false if he believes it will relieve his suffering. Often, information provided to stop the torture is deliberately misleading.
Bin Laden’s death and the debate over torture - The Washington Post
