U.S. military raid in Somalia frees American, Dane

[daveman]

I deny that YOU support the troops, which speaks to the credibility of anything you say about me or anyone else. How's that for an answer?

Well, it doesn't answer my question: "Who are these "CON$" of which you constantly babble?"

Retard.

Meanwhile, as a 20 year Air Force veteran, your claim that I don't support the troops is laughable, stupid, and driven solely by your childish, petulant leftist butthurt caused by my refusal to worship your little tin god.

Got it, retard?

As a 20 year Navy veteran, you have claimed that I don't support the troops. Your claim is laughable, stupid, and driven solely by your childish, petulant rightist drivel.

You don't support WHITE troops.

Racist bastard.

 

[The Gadfly]

It's telling that you can't even congratulate the Seal team in your post, and instead you resort to your typical pettiness.

You didn't congratulate the SEAL Team in your mad rush to kiss Obama's ass.

I chose to make my view known in one of the other threads: http://www.usmessageboard.com/afric...-hostages-held-since-october.html#post4715346

Now, if the Seals had failed in their rescue attempt, whose ass would CON$ blame, the Seals' or Obama's? Three guesses and the first two don't count!

Who would have died if the mission went bad, the SEALs, or Obama? How about putting the relative risks in perspective? But then, you're a political hack, not a warrior, so you wouldn't understand. My bad.

 

[Synthaholic]

I deny that YOU support the troops, which speaks to the credibility of anything you say about me or anyone else. How's that for an answer?

Well, it doesn't answer my question: "Who are these "CON$" of which you constantly babble?"

Retard.

Meanwhile, as a 20 year Air Force veteran, your claim that I don't support the troops is laughable, stupid, and driven solely by your childish, petulant leftist butthurt caused by my refusal to worship your little tin god.

Got it, retard?

As a 20 year Navy veteran, you have claimed that I don't support the troops. Your claim is laughable, stupid, and driven solely by your childish, petulant rightist drivel.

That's gonna leave a mark!

 

[cloudy]

Oh yeah, gotta watch out for that Muslim extremist there in the White House, he'll have his people come to you in the dead of night and slit the bad guy's throats. Democrats are soft on military strength and terrorism, I believe that old repug book needs to be rewritten.

 

[daveman]

Well, it doesn't answer my question: "Who are these "CON$" of which you constantly babble?"

Retard.

Meanwhile, as a 20 year Air Force veteran, your claim that I don't support the troops is laughable, stupid, and driven solely by your childish, petulant leftist butthurt caused by my refusal to worship your little tin god.

Got it, retard?

As a 20 year Navy veteran, you have claimed that I don't support the troops. Your claim is laughable, stupid, and driven solely by your childish, petulant rightist drivel.

That's gonna leave a mark!

No, it's not. But your support for a self-avowed racist is noted.

Salt thanks you for your blind devotion, but he still hates you because you're white.

 

[Synthaholic]

As a 20 year Navy veteran, you have claimed that I don't support the troops. Your claim is laughable, stupid, and driven solely by your childish, petulant rightist drivel.

That's gonna leave a mark!

No, it's not. But your support for a self-avowed racist is noted.

I support a 20 year Navy veteran, and thank him for serving.

It's telling that you only support military who agree with you politically.

 

[Harry Dresden]

It's telling that you can't even congratulate the Seal team in your post, and instead you resort to your typical pettiness.

You didn't congratulate the SEAL Team in your mad rush to kiss Obama's ass.

I chose to make my view known in one of the other threads: http://www.usmessageboard.com/afric...-hostages-held-since-october.html#post4715346

Now, if the Seals had failed in their rescue attempt, whose ass would CON$ blame, the Seals' or Obama's? Three guesses and the first two don't count!

sorry Ed.....the guy in the center seat always gets the blame......he is in charge....and a good leader takes the heat for his people.....thats the way it is....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Now, if the Seals had failed in their rescue attempt, whose ass would CON$ blame, the Seals' or Obama's? Three guesses and the first two don't count!

Who are these "CON$" of which you constantly babble?

Well, that dodge is probably as close as a dishonest CON$ervative will ever come to admitting that if the mission had failed they would blame Obama rather than the Seals.

so you would blame the SEALS Ed?......why dont you go with them on one of their missions and see how easy they have it......and yea Ed....who are those Cons you always mention?.....i work with 3 kids right now who have all been to Iraq and Afghanistan and have seen more blood and guts than anyone should be allowed to see......and 2 of them are pretty dam Conservative......so when it comes to the military Ed stick your ******* bullshit politics up your ass.....now go ahead and tell me what the **** Rush would say.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

As it turns out, this is just another despicable decision by this ego driven ass.

The hostages were in no particular danger. obama wanted the raid on the same day as the state of the union campaign speech to make him look good.

this had been in the works for a while now .....the girl was ill and getting worse.....so stick your political bullshit up your ass.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Well, that dodge is probably as close as a dishonest CON$ervative will ever come to admitting that if the mission had failed they would blame Obama rather than the Seals.

Not for nothin but if the mission failed Obama would take the blame, the SEALS don't choose their own missions. Its the burden of command.

Yes, he would take the blame, because he would never blame the troops. He's a class act.

BUT: it seems like 'if the mission failed, Obama takes the blame, not the Seals, but if the mission succeeds, the Seals takes the credit, not Obama.'

has anyone here said this?......besides you?....

 

[Harry Dresden]

As it turns out, this is just another despicable decision by this ego driven ass.

The hostages were in no particular danger. obama wanted the raid on the same day as the state of the union campaign speech to make him look good.

Not true. The American was ill and needed medicine.

I don't care if she was as healthy as a race horse, Obama made the right choice to dispatch our SEALS to retrieve these hostages. Trying to say that the hostages were in no immediate danger in Somalia and that Obama made a foolish decision to try and get them out is just so out there I don't even know what to say.

and for this type of shit my hats off to Obama.....he is using the guys the previous Dipshit should have used......

 

[Harry Dresden]

In your typical dishonesty, you change the order of your replies and leave out the inportant parts. That's why I re-posted EVERYTHING unedited and in order.

Well, at least you finally admit what you first called an answer is really a question.

You mean the question you have consistently failed to answer?

And I notice you have not denied my claim that you support our troops based solely on who the President is.

I deny that YOU support the troops, which speaks to the credibility of anything you say about me or anyone else. How's that for an answer?

for insinuating that you would blame the SEALS if they failed does not speak to highly of you Ed.....Dave has got plenty of posts in here praising our troops.....wheres yours?....

 

[Synthaholic]

Not for nothin but if the mission failed Obama would take the blame, the SEALS don't choose their own missions. Its the burden of command.

Yes, he would take the blame, because he would never blame the troops. He's a class act.

BUT: it seems like 'if the mission failed, Obama takes the blame, not the Seals, but if the mission succeeds, the Seals takes the credit, not Obama.'

has anyone here said this?......besides you?....

I think you just did, Harry:

sorry Ed.....the guy in the center seat always gets the blame......he is in charge....and a good leader takes the heat for his people.....thats the way it is....

Who do you give the credit to? If you say the Seals, you confirm my post.

 

[Synthaholic]

Not true. The American was ill and needed medicine.

I don't care if she was as healthy as a race horse, Obama made the right choice to dispatch our SEALS to retrieve these hostages. Trying to say that the hostages were in no immediate danger in Somalia and that Obama made a foolish decision to try and get them out is just so out there I don't even know what to say.

and for this type of shit my hats off to Obama.....he is using the guys the previous Dipshit should have used......

.....at Tora Bora.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Yes, he would take the blame, because he would never blame the troops. He's a class act.

BUT: it seems like 'if the mission failed, Obama takes the blame, not the Seals, but if the mission succeeds, the Seals takes the credit, not Obama.'

has anyone here said this?......besides you?....

I think you just did, Harry:

sorry Ed.....the guy in the center seat always gets the blame......he is in charge....and a good leader takes the heat for his people.....thats the way it is....

Who do you give the credit to? If you say the Seals, you confirm my post.

i believe i made a post earlier saying my hats off to Obama for using these guys instead of a bunch of National Guardsmen .......i have never said anywhere that Obama is a softie on Terrorist.....i did not care for Reagan.....but i applauded some of his out of Country dealings.....as i do with this guy.....both Reagan and Obama suck domestically as far as i am concerned......but outside the Country.....different story......and i give the SEALS all my respect even if they failed....and if they did fail as long as Obama did not send them into harms way without good solid intel,like i hear happened when Clinton sent those guys into Somalia,then i feel at least the guy is trying to **** Terrorist everywhere over.....and i am all for that.....Bush had these guys worried after the initial Afghan thing,and he could have pursued and done some great damage to these people,but we all know what that asshole did.....Obama is no doubt hated by these guys more than Bush was,i am sure of that,because he is getting results by using the right people for this type of stuff.....

 

[Synthaholic]

has anyone here said this?......besides you?....

I think you just did, Harry:

sorry Ed.....the guy in the center seat always gets the blame......he is in charge....and a good leader takes the heat for his people.....thats the way it is....

Who do you give the credit to? If you say the Seals, you confirm my post.

i believe i made a post earlier saying my hats off to Obama for using these guys instead of a bunch of National Guardsmen .......i have never said anywhere that Obama is a softie on Terrorist.....i did not care for Reagan.....but i applauded some of his out of Country dealings.....as i do with this guy.....both Reagan and Obama suck domestically as far as i am concerned......but outside the Country.....different story......and i give the SEALS all my respect even if they failed....and if they did fail as long as Obama did not send them into harms way without good solid intel,like i hear happened when Clinton sent those guys into Somalia,then i feel at least the guy is trying to **** Terrorist everywhere over.....and i am all for that.....Bush had these guys worried after the initial Afghan thing,and he could have pursued and done some great damage to these people,but we all know what that asshole did.....Obama is no doubt hated by these guys more than Bush was,i am sure of that,because he is getting results by using the right people for this type of stuff.....

I pretty much agree with this post, but I would ask: how would Clinton know what the quality of the intel was? He has a CIA director who tells him what the intel is. I think that all presidents defer to their CIA head in these matters. If they tell him it's good, why would he disagree, and what would he be able to base it on?

I just don't like this game of saying that if the mission succeeds, praise the troops; if the mission fails, blame the POTUS - whoever it is.

I have absolutely no qualms about blaming the military for the fuckup when they tried to rescue the Iranian hostages. But everyone blamed Carter instead.

 

[daveman]

That's gonna leave a mark!

No, it's not. But your support for a self-avowed racist is noted.

I support a 20 year Navy veteran, and thank him for serving.

It's telling that you only support military who agree with you politically.

And that's where you're wrong once again. I've thanked Salt for his service.

But I don't recall you ever thanking me for mine.

Oh, and Salt thanks you for your blind devotion, but he still hates you because you're white.

 

[edthecynic]

You mean the question you have consistently failed to answer?

And I notice you have not denied my claim that you support our troops based solely on who the President is.

I deny that YOU support the troops, which speaks to the credibility of anything you say about me or anyone else. How's that for an answer?

for insinuating that you would blame the SEALS if they failed does not speak to highly of you Ed.....Dave has got plenty of posts in here praising our troops.....wheres yours?....

I did no such thing you worthless hack! All I did was point out that the CON$ who refuse to give Obama any credit whatsoever for the successes of the Seals would be the first to blame him if something went wrong. But you knew that all along.

And as far as DaveBaby is concerned, talk is cheap!

 

[edthecynic]

I think you just did, Harry:
Who do you give the credit to? If you say the Seals, you confirm my post.

i believe i made a post earlier saying my hats off to Obama for using these guys instead of a bunch of National Guardsmen .......i have never said anywhere that Obama is a softie on Terrorist.....i did not care for Reagan.....but i applauded some of his out of Country dealings.....as i do with this guy.....both Reagan and Obama suck domestically as far as i am concerned......but outside the Country.....different story......and i give the SEALS all my respect even if they failed....and if they did fail as long as Obama did not send them into harms way without good solid intel,like i hear happened when Clinton sent those guys into Somalia,then i feel at least the guy is trying to **** Terrorist everywhere over.....and i am all for that.....Bush had these guys worried after the initial Afghan thing,and he could have pursued and done some great damage to these people,but we all know what that asshole did.....Obama is no doubt hated by these guys more than Bush was,i am sure of that,because he is getting results by using the right people for this type of stuff.....

I pretty much agree with this post, but I would ask: how would Clinton know what the quality of the intel was? He has a CIA director who tells him what the intel is. I think that all presidents defer to their CIA head in these matters. If they tell him it's good, why would he disagree, and what would he be able to base it on?

I just don't like this game of saying that if the mission succeeds, praise the troops; if the mission fails, blame the POTUS - whoever it is.

I have absolutely no qualms about blaming the military for the fuckup when they tried to rescue the Iranian hostages. But everyone blamed Carter instead.

"We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs"
-George Tenet, 2/07/2001

 

[Synthaholic]

i believe i made a post earlier saying my hats off to Obama for using these guys instead of a bunch of National Guardsmen .......i have never said anywhere that Obama is a softie on Terrorist.....i did not care for Reagan.....but i applauded some of his out of Country dealings.....as i do with this guy.....both Reagan and Obama suck domestically as far as i am concerned......but outside the Country.....different story......and i give the SEALS all my respect even if they failed....and if they did fail as long as Obama did not send them into harms way without good solid intel,like i hear happened when Clinton sent those guys into Somalia,then i feel at least the guy is trying to **** Terrorist everywhere over.....and i am all for that.....Bush had these guys worried after the initial Afghan thing,and he could have pursued and done some great damage to these people,but we all know what that asshole did.....Obama is no doubt hated by these guys more than Bush was,i am sure of that,because he is getting results by using the right people for this type of stuff.....

I pretty much agree with this post, but I would ask: how would Clinton know what the quality of the intel was? He has a CIA director who tells him what the intel is. I think that all presidents defer to their CIA head in these matters. If they tell him it's good, why would he disagree, and what would he be able to base it on?

I just don't like this game of saying that if the mission succeeds, praise the troops; if the mission fails, blame the POTUS - whoever it is.

I have absolutely no qualms about blaming the military for the fuckup when they tried to rescue the Iranian hostages. But everyone blamed Carter instead.

"We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs"
-George Tenet, 2/07/2001

Yeah, but he was also "Slam Dunk" Tenet.