"Freedom Watch" calls the President a criminal for killing Bin Laden

[Vast LWC]

Pakistan had already declared war on us, by harboring, aiding and abetting Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. It was George Bush who said that any country doing so was an enemy of the United States.

You know it, I know it and Pakistan knows it.

In fact, Pakistan is damn lucky Obama did what he did. If it had been another president, we probably would have teamed up with India and "bombed them back into the stone age", ala Dick Cheney.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So have a variety of international law professors around the world. So?

I really could care less how he died. He deserved death and got it. A trial would have been a farce. **** anyone that whines about it.

I agree. I support the President 100% on this. We did the right thing, absolutely. But... was it legal under international law? Probably not.

Was it the right thing? Maybe but then I don't know anymore. The reason we went after him was not mention on his FBI wanted poster. I don't think al Qaeda viewed him as high value as our government thought he was. If al Qaeda thought he was of any value wouldn’t they have had more guards surrounding him?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Pakistan had already declared war on us, by harboring, aiding and abetting Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. .

What a steaming pile of shit, even from an Obamabot scrambling to cover for Dear Leader.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Pakistan had already declared war on us, by harboring, aiding and abetting Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. It was George Bush who said that any country doing so was an enemy of the United States.

You know it, I know it and Pakistan knows it.

In fact, Pakistan is damn lucky Obama did what he did. If it had been another president, we probably would have teamed up with India and "bombed them back into the stone age", ala Dick Cheney.

So we go marching into another counrty like we did Iraq an Afhganistan? Liberals are hypocrites As I said if Bush were still presidenmt liberals would be marching on D.C. RIGHT NOW. They bashed Bush and give Obamush a pass.

 

[Vast LWC]

So we go marching into another counrty like we did Iraq an Afhganistan? Liberals are hypocrites As I said if Bush were still presidenmt liberals would be marching on D.C. RIGHT NOW. They bashed Bush and give Obamush a pass.

Yeah, ok, here's the thing reb.

No matter what Obama does, you're going to criticize him for it.

Let's just take the Bin Laden thing for instance. What would the right's reaction be to these all too plausible alternate scenarios?

1. Obama goes in, but warns Pakistan first. Pakistan tips off Osama, who escapes.

2. Obama goes in, captures Osama, and takes him to be tried. While the trial is going on, terrorists stage an attack at the location of the trial.

3. Obama tells Pakistan that we know Osama's theres, and they must turn him over to us or there will be military consequences. Pakistan moves in a few days later, and finds the place cleared out.

In every single one of these scenarios, the right would have a whole line-up of criticisms ready to go, and you people would be repeating them, here.

Either Obama would be "too weak", or "too cautious", or "too arrogant".

There is absolutely nothing that Obama can do that you and the rest of the right-wing won't have a ready-made playbook of criticisms for.

When Bush went into Afghanistan, he had a 90% approval rating, and just before 9/11, it had been quite low. That means that the left, however wrong-headed they often are, lined up behind the president for the right reasons.

I'm not saying that they didn't go overboard in their criticism later, because they most certainly did, but at least when they did, they actually believed that what he had done was wrong. The left, whether right or wrong, truly believed that invading Iraq was wrong.

You people don't even have that excuse.

You think what he did was right, and you're STILL criticizing him for it.

That's just really sick.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So we go marching into another counrty like we did Iraq an Afhganistan? Liberals are hypocrites As I said if Bush were still presidenmt liberals would be marching on D.C. RIGHT NOW. They bashed Bush and give Obamush a pass.

Yeah, ok, here's the thing reb.

No matter what Obama does, you're going to criticize him for it.

Let's just take the Bin Laden thing for instance. What would the right's reaction be to these all too plausible alternate scenarios?

1. Obama goes in, but warns Pakistan first. Pakistan tips off Osama, who escapes.

2. Obama goes in, captures Osama, and takes him to be tried. While the trial is going on, terrorists stage an attack at the location of the trial.

3. Obama tells Pakistan that we know Osama's theres, and they must turn him over to us or there will be military consequences. Pakistan moves in a few days later, and finds the place cleared out.

In every single one of these scenarios, the right would have a whole line-up of criticisms ready to go, and you people would be repeating them, here.

Either Obama would be "too weak", or "too cautious", or "too arrogant".

There is absolutely nothing that Obama can do that you and the rest of the right-wing won't have a ready-made playbook of criticisms for.

When Bush went into Afghanistan, he had a 90% approval rating, and just before 9/11, it had been quite low. That means that the left, however wrong-headed they often are, lined up behind the president for the right reasons.

I'm not saying that they didn't go overboard, because they most certainly did, but at least when they did, they actually believed that what he had done was wrong. The left, whether right or wrong, truly believed that invading Iraq was wrong.

You people don't even have that excuse.

You think what he did was right, and you're STILL criticizing him for it.

That's just really sick.

No if he stays witin the guidelines and constraints of the Constitution I will support him. We are a country governed by the rule of law not the rule of man.

 

[Vast LWC]

No if he stays witin the guidelines and constraints of the Constitution I will support him. We are a country governed by the rule of law not the rule of man.

What does the Constitution have to do with any of this?

Was this rescinded at some point?

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]


107th CONGRESS




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.

Or do you all think that Bush was the only president this applied to?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No if he stays witin the guidelines and constraints of the Constitution I will support him. We are a country governed by the rule of law not the rule of man.

What does the Constitution have to do with any of this?

Was this rescinded at some point?

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]


107th CONGRESS




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.

Or do you all think that Bush was the only president this applied to?

Bush over stepped his authority Just as obamush did with libya and Bin Laden

 

[HUGGY]

I figured it would be right wing ass wipes like neo-con teabagging repigs that would call it murder . they are the ones that love bin laden .

What do you Goose Steppers call shooting & killing an unarmed man? Please enlighten us.

It's no surprise that the CON$ are calling the military Seals coldblooded murders. CON$ only pretend to support the military for political purposes.

Do you think Dwight Eisenhower or Barry Goldwater would apologize for giving the order to shoot Bin Ladin in the face?

 

[Vast LWC]

Was it the right thing? Maybe but then I don't know anymore. The reason we went after him was not mention on his FBI wanted poster. I don't think al Qaeda viewed him as high value as our government thought he was. If al Qaeda thought he was of any value wouldn’t they have had more guards surrounding him?

Seriously? "You don't know anymore"?

Wow, if that is actually the case, then you are one seriously screwed-up partisan whack job.

After invading two countries, getting thousands of our soldiers killed or maimed, and getting a million people killed or maimed in the Middle East, now you DON'T KNOW if KILLING OSAMA ******* BIN LADEN was the right thing to do?

Why, because Glenn ******* Beck and Judge Napolitano told you so????

Wow, just, wow.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Was it the right thing? Maybe but then I don't know anymore. The reason we went after him was not mention on his FBI wanted poster. I don't think al Qaeda viewed him as high value as our government thought he was. If al Qaeda thought he was of any value wouldn’t they have had more guards surrounding him?

Seriously? "You don't know anymore"?

Wow, if that is actually the case, then you are one seriously screwed-up partisan whack job.

After invading two countries, getting thousands of our soldiers killed or maimed, and getting a million people killed or maimed in the Middle East, now you DON'T KNOW if KILLING OSAMA ******* BIN LADEN was the right thing to do?

Why, because Glenn ******* Beck and Judge Napolitano told you so????

Wow, just, wow.

How am I partisan when I quesation why a Republican did something when I see the reason we went to war wasn't the cause of the war.

Why, because Glenn ******* Beck and Judge Napolitano told you so????

No one suggested that I look at Bin Ladens FBI wanted poster. I did it on my own.

 

[Vast LWC]

Bush over stepped his authority Just as obamush did with libya and Bin Laden

That was a congressional joint resolution, so, no, he did not step over his authority.

He simply used the authority given to him by congress.

The fact that he used that authority stupidly is besides the point.

 

[Vast LWC]

How am I partisan when I quesation why a Republican did something when I see the reason we went to war wasn't the cause of the war.

Why, because Glenn ******* Beck and Judge Napolitano told you so????

No one suggested that I look at Bin Ladens FBI wanted poster. I did it on my own.

It's partisan because you and every other Republican lined up behind the idea 110%... right up to the point that Obama stood a chance at gaining politically from it.

It was at that point that you suddenly changed your mind.

Considering the subject, that's about as partisan as you can get.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bush over stepped his authority Just as obamush did with libya and Bin Laden

That was a congressional joint resolution, so, no, he did not step over his authority.

He simply used the authority given to him by congress.

The fact that he used that authority stupidly is besides the point.

Actually no declaration of war was issued by Congress they gave Bush broad discretion to wage war on Terrorism. Even though Congress authorized this it's still not within the boundaries of Constitutional limits of Presidential powers.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How am I partisan when I quesation why a Republican did something when I see the reason we went to war wasn't the cause of the war.

Why, because Glenn ******* Beck and Judge Napolitano told you so????

No one suggested that I look at Bin Ladens FBI wanted poster. I did it on my own.

It's partisan because you and every other Republican lined up behind the idea 110%... right up to the point that Obama stood a chance at gaining politically from it.

It was at that point that you suddenly changed your mind.

Considering the subject, that's about as partisan as you can get.

Horseshit most everybody was lined up behind the actions after 9/11 we did as the government told us to do.

 

[signelect]

We have a war going on and Osama is the leader and now he is a casualty of the way, couldn't have to a nicer guy and I don't care who did it. Blowing up Innocent people to prove your ideology is just plant wrong.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We have a war going on and Osama is the leader and now he is a casualty of the way, couldn't have to a nicer guy and I don't care who did it. Blowing up Innocent people to prove your ideology is just plant wrong.

The ones who flew the planes are dead, the one who mastermind the attack plan is caught the one that financed to attack is deadmost anyone that had any connection with the attack was kille or captured while Bush was president. nothing was linked to Bin Laden. We were given the battle cry and we followed.

 

[HUGGY]

We have a war going on and Osama is the leader and now he is a casualty of the way, couldn't have to a nicer guy and I don't care who did it. Blowing up Innocent people to prove your ideology is just plant wrong.

The ones who flew the planes are dead, the one who mastermind the attack plan is caught the one that financed to attack is deadmost anyone that had any connection with the attack was kille or captured while Bush was president. nothing was linked to Bin Laden. We were given the battle cry and we followed.

PigReb...I've gotta hand it to you. You make me laugh. Thanks... a good chuckle is always appreciated!

As for the link to Osams Bin Ladin you need to watch the video he made where he discusses how he was involved in the engineering aspects of 9/11 and actually helped pick out which floors the hijackers were supposed to crash into.

Who links Bin Ladin to 9/11??..HE DOES!!! Christ! You are a very funny guy!!

 

[Vast LWC]

Bush over stepped his authority Just as obamush did with libya and Bin Laden

That was a congressional joint resolution, so, no, he did not step over his authority.

He simply used the authority given to him by congress.

The fact that he used that authority stupidly is besides the point.

Actually no declaration of war was issued by Congress they gave Bush broad discretion to wage war on Terrorism. Even though Congress authorized this it's still not within the boundaries of Constitutional limits of Presidential powers.

I disagree.

 

[Vast LWC]

Horseshit most everybody was lined up behind the actions after 9/11 we did as the government told us to do.

And how does that disprove my point?