Thank you president bush and military for taking out Usama

towermonkey wrote: We shouldn't have even been there Outdoor.

Why did ALL but 1 democrap vote to go int then?

Because they were LIED TO with cooked intelligence. DUH!

How soon, we all forget the left's & the Prez.’s words!
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
Obama Doctrine: ideology has overridden facts and reality
Q: How will future historians describe your foreign policy doctrine?
A: The Obama Doctrine is not going to be as doctrinaire as the Bush Doctrine because the world is complicated. Bush’s ideology has overridden facts and reality. That means that if there are children in the Middle East who cannot read, that is a potential long-term danger to us. If China is polluting, then eventually that is going to reach our shores. We have to work with them cooperatively to solve their problems as well as ours.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate Dec 13, 2007

No Obama Doctrine; just democracy, security, liberty
Obama’s failure to condemn all military action has led to criticism from some on the left. One critic noted: “He accepts the Bush Doctrine. He accepts the doctrine of preemptive strikes.”
The key part of the Bush Doctrine is the focus on unilateral action and the use of force to spread democracy around the world. And the worst part of the Bush administration is not the Bush Doctrine but Bush’s implementation of it.
As Obama famously declared in 2002, he did not oppose all wars, but he did oppose a “dumb war.” Isolationism must not be the reaction to a dumb president and a dumb war.
There is no Obama Doctrine because Obama is not a doctrinaire kind of leader who operates according to fixed policies. Instead, Obama believes in a set of principle (democracy, security, liberty) for the world and tries to come up with practical measures for incrementally increasing US security and global freedom. He rejects isolationism and he tries to steer clear of unilateralism.
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.117-118 Oct 30, 2007

No “strategic ambiguity” on foreign policy issues
Q: [to Clinton]: You said Sen. Obama’s views on meeting with foreign dictators are “naive and irresponsible.”
CLINTON: A president should not telegraph to our adversaries that you’re willing to meet with them without preconditions.
OBAMA: Strong countries and strong presidents meet and talk with our adversaries. We shouldn’t be afraid to do so. We’ve tried the other way. It didn’t work.
Q: [to Dodd]: You’ve called Sen. Obama’s views “confusing & confused, dangerous & irresponsible.”
DODD: I disagreed with Obama on a hypothetical solution that raised serious issues within Pakistan. I thought it was irresponsible to engage in that kind of a suggestion. That’s dangerous.
OBAMA: We should describe for the American people in presidential debates & in the presidency, what our foreign policy is and what we’re going to do. We shouldn’t have strategic ambiguity with the American people when it comes to describing how we’re going to deal with our most serious national security issues.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on “This Week” Aug 19, 2007

My critics engineered our biggest foreign policy disaster
Q: [to Dodd]: You said that Sen. Obama’s “assertions about foreign and military affairs have been confusing and confused.” You added, “He should not be making unwise categorical statements about military options.” What in your opinion has been confusing?
DODD: Words mean things. When you raise issues about Pakistan, understand that while General Musharraf is no Thomas Jefferson, but he may be the only thing that stands between us and having an Islamic fundamentalist state in that country.
OBAMA: I find it amusing that those who helped to authorize & engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me for making sure that we are on the right battlefield and not the wrong battlefield in the war against terrorism. Sen. Dodd obviously didn’t read my speech. Because what I said was that we have to refocus, get out of Iraq, make certain that we are helping Pakistan deal with the problem of al Qaeda in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 8, 2007

$1.8B per year for mega-embassy in Iraq; same in Afghanistan
The immense city-within-a-city "embassy" in Baghdad not only remains, but its cost is also to rise under Obama to $1.8 billion a year, from an estimated $1.5 billion in Bush's last year. The Obama administration is also constructing mega-embassies in Pakistan and Afghanistan that are completely without precedent. Throughout the Gulf region, billions are spent to develop "critical base & port facilities," along with military training & arms shipments expanding the US global system of militarization.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p. 63 Jun 1, 2010

Don’t allow our politics to be driven by fear of terrorism
A statement most Democrats will make only in progressive precincts, the one he couldn’t quite get out when asked what he would do if American cities were attacked: “The threat that we face now is nowhere near as dire as it was in the Cold War. We shouldn’t allow our politics to be driven by the fear of terrorism.”
Source: The Contenders, by Laura Flanders, p. 82 Nov 11, 2007

We are no safer now than we were after 9/11
Q: What do you think we’re not prepared for?
A: I don’t believe that we are safer now than we were after 9/11 because we have made a series of terrible decisions in our foreign policy. We went into Iraq, a war that we should have never authorized and should not have been waged. It has fanned the flames of anti-American sentiment. It has, more importantly, allowed us to neglect the situation in Afghanistan. We know right now that al Qaeda is hiding in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 8, 2007

Close Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus
Why don’t we close Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus, because that’s how we lead, not with the might of our military, but the power of our ideals and the power of our values. It’s time to show the world we’re not a country that ships prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far off countries. We’re not a country that runs prisons which locks people away without ever telling them why they’re there or what they’re charged with. We’re not a country which preaches compassion to others while we allow bodies to float down the streets of major American cities. That’s not who we are.
We’re America. We’re a nation that liberated a continent from a mad man, that lifted ourselves from the depths of depression, that won civil rights and women’s rights and voting rights for all our people. We’re the beacon that has led generations of weary travelers to find opportunity and liberty and hope on our doorstep. That’s who we are.
Source: Take Back America 2007 Conference Jun 19, 2007 (MY COMMENT: I understand that we got some of the info on where bin lurden was from Gitmo WATER. PS I will NEVER spell that slimeballs name correctly, it doesn't deserve it.)

Going after Al Qaeda in Pakistan is not Bush-style invasion
Q: You stand by your statement that you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after al Qaeda, whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Isn’t that essentially the Bush doctrine? We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis?
A: No, that is not the same thing, because here we have a situation where Al Qaida, a sworn enemy of the United States, that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that. And this is not speculation. This is not a situation where we anticipate a possible threat in the future. And my job as commander in chief will be to make sure that we strike anybody who would do America harm when we have actionable intelligence do to that.
Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate Jan 6, 2006

But, Obama got the intelligence and acted on it.... Bin Laden is dead

Bush got the intelligence and didn't.... The WTC went down. Then Bush had 7 years to find Bin Laden and didn't. He started two wars, killed over 6,000 US service men, spent over $1.25 TRILLON, and didn't. Shredded the Constitution, tapped our phones without warrants, got National Security Letters to spy on what people were reading at the libraries....and didn't.


Who was more successful?

In the end it came down to intel about a courier, and an operation in Pakistan... NOT Afghanistan...NOT Iraq...

Who was more successful?

It's almost sweet...the way you try to defend the Idiot Son, and his incompetence.

Tell me LJ, how did we get the intel to find out who the courier was?
How long did it take to compile enough info from start to finish...did it begin under Bush or did all this info come once Obama was elected?

CriticalBill wrote: Tell me LJ, how did we get the intel to find out who the courier was?
How long did it take to compile enough info from start to finish...did it begin under Bush or did all this info come once Obama was elected?

My thought exactly!!!

But Waterboarding and other Enhanced Interrogation Techniques are OKAY if they are approved by The Messiah and they result in Obama looking like he did something right for a change.

TPP wrote:

towermonkey wrote: We shouldn't have even been there Outdoor.

Why did ALL but 1 democrap vote to go int then?

There were a few people screaming that there were no WMD, but they got the traitor treatment. Now there is only one person who looks like a traitor - Bush. He led us into an illegal war based on cooked intelligence. Why do you defend this guy so vigorously? He wasn't a conservative, he was an oligarch. He's the grandson of someone who equipped Hitler's war machine. Anything for the almighty dollar - and that doesn't mean for you and me, just his close circle of friends.

towermonkey wrote:

TPP wrote:

towermonkey wrote: We shouldn't have even been there Outdoor.

Why did ALL but 1 democrap vote to go int then?

There were a few people screaming that there were no WMD, but they got the traitor treatment. Now there is only one person who looks like a traitor - Bush. He led us into an illegal war based on cooked intelligence. Why do you defend this guy so vigorously? He wasn't a conservative, he was an oligarch. He's the grandson of someone who equipped Hitler's war machine. Anything for the almighty dollar - and that doesn't mean for you and me, just his close circle of friends.

This man single handedly destroyed everything the Republican party used to stand for. "deficits don't matter"!? The Patriot act? Turning our military into a for-profit enterprise? Circumventing Habeus Corpus? Treating our enviroment as public enemy? No, I won't defend him, nor do I consider him nor any of his ilk conservatives.

CriticalBill wrote: Tell me LJ, how did we get the intel to find out who the courier was?
How long did it take to compile enough info from start to finish...did it begin under Bush or did all this info come once Obama was elected?

CriticalBill, the intel just landed on the doorsteps of the CIA - just like it always does. LOL

It took almost 6 years before we could even squeeze the intel out of someone....without an active war the courier would be roaming Afghanistan or Pakistan today. Because there was a war and active US military and CIA operatives...we were able to capture the courier...hopefully, we waterboarded him a few times and it spit up the information.

Interesting, the leftist messyiah followers can't explain why after two years in office did Obama continue with Afghanistan if he knew Osama was in Pakistan. They can't explain why 7 out 10 Democrats in 2009 thought the Afghanistan war was wrong. They all are Monday morning quarterbacks. Clinton for eight years avoided any military action against the radical Muslim...he preferred to bomb them. Bush decided to take them head on...and eventually would suffer from the criticism from morons like Looney Jerk. Now, all of sudden, the morons support the war.