obama naive when it comes to war on terror

[Yurt]

On his campaign plane, Obama told reporters that Osama bin Laden is still at large in part because President Bush's strategy toward fighting terror has not succeeded.

At issue were comments Obama made in an interview with ABC News Monday in which he spoke approvingly of the successful prosecution and imprisonment of those responsible for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Obama was asked how he could be sure the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies are not crucial to protecting U.S. citizens.

Obama said the government can crack down on terrorists "within the constraints of our Constitution." He mentioned the indefinite detention of Guantanamo Bay detainees, contrasting their treatment with the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

"And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo," Obama said. "What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center — we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

"And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, 'Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims. ...

"We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws," Obama said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080617/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_obama

um, obama, the situation with 9/11 and the first WTC is different, not only tactictly, but in the deaths of those who first hand carried out the attacks. those who pulled the strings are not in prison?? wasn't some dude caught in pakistan, AQ's 2nd or 3rd in command, you know, the hairy dude in teh white shirt... how does obama know that those in gitmo now are not directly/indirectly responsible? is he passing judgement? does he know if OBL is alive or dead? could it be that the response to the first attack caused AQ to think we are weak and thus they pulled off a greater attack?

seems the friend of terrorist would you have believe that we can just arrest those we catch here in this country and ignore those camps oversees that were putting out thousands of terrorists...

[Psychoblues]

As usual, you posted without thinking, yuk. The pundits have an opinion, and your's sucks as is a general fact in your case.

[bullypulpit]

On his campaign plane, Obama told reporters that Osama bin Laden is still at large in part because President Bush's strategy toward fighting terror has not succeeded.

At issue were comments Obama made in an interview with ABC News Monday in which he spoke approvingly of the successful prosecution and imprisonment of those responsible for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Obama was asked how he could be sure the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies are not crucial to protecting U.S. citizens.

Obama said the government can crack down on terrorists "within the constraints of our Constitution." He mentioned the indefinite detention of Guantanamo Bay detainees, contrasting their treatment with the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

"And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo," Obama said. "What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center — we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

"And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, 'Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims. ...

"We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws," Obama said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080617/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_obama

um, obama, the situation with 9/11 and the first WTC is different, not only tactictly, but in the deaths of those who first hand carried out the attacks. those who pulled the strings are not in prison?? wasn't some dude caught in pakistan, AQ's 2nd or 3rd in command, you know, the hairy dude in teh white shirt... how does obama know that those in gitmo now are not directly/indirectly responsible? is he passing judgement? does he know if OBL is alive or dead? could it be that the response to the first attack caused AQ to think we are weak and thus they pulled off a greater attack?

seems the friend of terrorist would you have believe that we can just arrest those we catch here in this country and ignore those camps oversees that were putting out thousands of terrorists...

What...? Because he believes we can pursue terrorists and prevent further attacks within the four corners of the Constitution? The perpetrators of the firsts WTC bombing were captured, tried and convicted, all due to the efforts of law enforcement agencies and the application of due process. That you and the rest of the Bush administration apologists seem to think it can't be done shows just how little faith you place in the Constitution and the rule of law.

Obama is correct in that the Bush administration policies over the last nearly seven years have failed to yield the person of Osama bin Laden and his inner circle. Had our forces not been pulled off to invade a nation which posed no immediate threat to the US or its allies, it would be a moot point by now. Bush went from ,

<blockquote>"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI</blockquote>

to,

<blockquote>"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."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 </blockquote>

How can he not be concerned about capturing the man who financed and helped plan the the 9/11 attacks? Haw can you and your fellow travelers continue to defend the indefensible?

As for the GITMO detainees, how do we know they are guilty of the charges against them absent a trial? And I'm not referring to the kangaroo courts...er...military commissions proposed by the Bush administration. If they are to be military commissions, then they need to apply military law under the UCMJ. That would satisfy the need for security AND due process.

[Kathianne]

Not quite true:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-iraq-wtc_x.htm


U.S.: Iraq sheltered suspect in '93 WTC attack
By John Diamond, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — U.S. authorities in Iraq say they have new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, according to U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials.

...

[No1tovote4]

What...? Because he believes we can pursue terrorists and prevent further attacks within the four corners of the Constitution? The perpetrators of the firsts WTC bombing were captured, tried and convicted, all due to the efforts of law enforcement agencies and the application of due process. That you and the rest of the Bush administration apologists seem to think it can't be done shows just how little faith you place in the Constitution and the rule of law.


Yet the planners and the trainers were free to upgrade and increase the efficacy of their attack. That is a "failed policy of the past", attempting to return to the failed policy of just arresting and jailing those who perpetrate an attack only gives those who planned it a way to improve their attacks. Something entirely new needs to be tried, not returning to an even more past failure.



Obama is correct in that the Bush administration policies over the last nearly seven years have failed to yield the person of Osama bin Laden and his inner circle. Had our forces not been pulled off to invade a nation which posed no immediate threat to the US or its allies, it would be a moot point by now. Bush went from ,


As were the failed Clinton policy which didn't go after those who planned and trained those who brought terrorism to our shores. Something new must come, rather than a return to the "failed policy of the past" that allowed terrorism to take root in Afghanistan, that gave them the time and base to plan from.

While a change is necessary, planning on returning to the failures of an even further past again is patently foolish.


<blockquote>"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI</blockquote>

to,

<blockquote>"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."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02


"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 </blockquote>

How can he not be concerned about capturing the man who financed and helped plan the the 9/11 attacks? Haw can you and your fellow travelers continue to defend the indefensible?


This is Bush doing what the Left says he doesn't. Changing strategy after learning from the past. I don't defend him, I just point out that no matter what he does you will not be satisfied, nor does anybody expect you to be.



As for the GITMO detainees, how do we know they are guilty of the charges against them absent a trial? And I'm not referring to the kangaroo courts...er...military commissions proposed by the Bush administration. If they are to be military commissions, then they need to apply military law under the UCMJ. That would satisfy the need for security AND due process.
I agree with this. Working within the framework of the constitution is important, but returning to an already proven failure of solely law enforcement and reaction is equally foolish to continuing any currently failing policies.

[Yurt]

so then you support obama going back to the failed clinton policies? the very policies that allowed 9/11 to occur...i am not blamely solely clinton policy, however, you cannot argue his policy had any positive affect...as if his impotent missiles into afganistan to get bin laden did anything except show bin laden that we don't have the spine to do anything except lob little arrows from afar...

say what you will about how bush has fought this war, but one thing is clear, AQ does not have the foundation it once had, does not have the bases it once had, does not have the same power it once had, AQ has been greatly diminished, while they still pose a threat, they do not have comfortable bases to operate their war on the west and christianity

[namvet]

What...? Because he believes we can pursue terrorists and prevent further attacks within the four corners of the Constitution? The perpetrators of the firsts WTC bombing were captured, tried and convicted, all due to the efforts of law enforcement agencies and the application of due process. That you and the rest of the Bush administration apologists seem to think it can't be done shows just how little faith you place in the Constitution and the rule of law.

Obama is correct in that the Bush administration policies over the last nearly seven years have failed to yield the person of Osama bin Laden and his inner circle. Had our forces not been pulled off to invade a nation which posed no immediate threat to the US or its allies, it would be a moot point by now. Bush went from ,

<blockquote>"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI</blockquote>

to,

<blockquote>"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."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 </blockquote>

How can he not be concerned about capturing the man who financed and helped plan the the 9/11 attacks? Haw can you and your fellow travelers continue to defend the indefensible?

As for the GITMO detainees, how do we know they are guilty of the charges against them absent a trial? And I'm not referring to the kangaroo courts...er...military commissions proposed by the Bush administration. If they are to be military commissions, then they need to apply military law under the UCMJ. That would satisfy the need for security AND due process.

:link::link:

[JohnDoe]

Not quite true:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-iraq-wtc_x.htm

Kathianne, this article is from 2003.... didn't the 911 Commission Report DEBUNK this....?

jd

[bullypulpit]

:link::link:

Whaddaya want a link to? Chimpy McPresident's quotes are a matter of public record. Find 'em yerself ya lazy ass.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne, this article is from 2003.... didn't the 911 Commission Report DEBUNK this....?

jd

I don't think so Care:

http://www.aina.org/news/20080617183155.htm

[namvet]

Whaddaya want a link to? Chimpy McPresident's quotes are a matter of public record. Find 'em yerself ya lazy ass.

ah you posted. no links???? your a lying LAZY ass !!!!!!

[Gaffer]

There was an attack on a prison in afghan last week in which 400 prisoners were released by the attackers. Those prisoners are now part of the forces moving against Kandahar. That is the reason for Gitmo. No one is going to be broke out of that place.

90% of the dem leaders are lawyers. They think like lawyers. It's the reason things in this country are so screwed up. They worship the god of law. They want laws for everything. They want the economy controlled by law, they want the military controlled by law, they want foreign policy dictated by law. And they want themselves exempt from the law.

We are a nation of laws, but those laws are encroaching on our freedoms and security of this country.

[bullypulpit]

There was an attack on a prison in afghan last week in which 400 prisoners were released by the attackers. Those prisoners are now part of the forces moving against Kandahar. That is the reason for Gitmo. No one is going to be broke out of that place.

90% of the dem leaders are lawyers. They think like lawyers. It's the reason things in this country are so screwed up. They worship the god of law. They want laws for everything. They want the economy controlled by law, they want the military controlled by law, they want foreign policy dictated by law. And they want themselves exempt from the law.

We are a nation of laws, but those laws are encroaching on our freedoms and security of this country.

Nice try. The prison break in Afghanistan is a direct result of the Bush administration's failure to finish the job in Afghanistan. Had personnel and resources remained in Afghanistan to hunt down and capture or kill the last vestiges of Taliban and Al Qaeda forces, the REAL enemies, this would be a moot point. Instead, Chimpy McPresident decided to work off his chubby for Sadam and invade a country that posed no credible threat to the US or its allies.

The net result was the escape of Taliban and Al Qaeda elements, allowing them to regroup and rebuild to the point that Al Qaeda has rebuilt itself at, or better than, pre-9/11 levels.

GITMO was established as a legal 'black hole', not for securing America or combating terrorism around the globe, but rather, for the expansion of presidential power for its own sake. And that is the only reason the detention facilities at GITMO remain open. Having claimed the authority to brand enemy combatants and detain them indefinitely and without charge, the Bush administration can't back down from that position without giving up a measure of the power they claim for the executive branch. Also, having crossed that line it's a simple matter for the Administration to claim that the right to an attorney, the right to see evidence against you, the right to a trial by an impartial judge are no more than impediments to national security as they define it.

The problem with that is that over time, the line between 'US' and "THEM' becomes blurred. And as history has shown us, repeatedly, eventually resulting in the arrest and detention of any...even citizens...who have the temerity to voice their dissent and opposition to government policy as enemies of the state. We aren't at that point yet and, hopefully we never will be. If the next administration, Democratic or Republican, allows this extra-legal system to stand, however, we will be set upon that path, perhaps irretrievably.

[bullypulpit]

ah you posted. no links???? your a lying LAZY ass !!!!!!

You wanna debate the issues or are you just gonna be a quibble-dick? My money is on the latter. :finger3:

[Gaffer]

Nice try. The prison break in Afghanistan is a direct result of the Bush administration's failure to finish the job in Afghanistan. Had personnel and resources remained in Afghanistan to hunt down and capture or kill the last vestiges of Taliban and Al Qaeda forces, the REAL enemies, this would be a moot point. Instead, Chimpy McPresident decided to work off his chubby for Sadam and invade a country that posed no credible threat to the US or its allies.

The net result was the escape of Taliban and Al Qaeda elements, allowing them to regroup and rebuild to the point that Al Qaeda has rebuilt itself at, or better than, pre-9/11 levels.

GITMO was established as a legal 'black hole', not for securing America or combating terrorism around the globe, but rather, for the expansion of presidential power for its own sake. And that is the only reason the detention facilities at GITMO remain open. Having claimed the authority to brand enemy combatants and detain them indefinitely and without charge, the Bush administration can't back down from that position without giving up a measure of the power they claim for the executive branch. Also, having crossed that line it's a simple matter for the Administration to claim that the right to an attorney, the right to see evidence against you, the right to a trial by an impartial judge are no more than impediments to national security as they define it.

The problem with that is that over time, the line between 'US' and "THEM' becomes blurred. And as history has shown us, repeatedly, eventually resulting in the arrest and detention of any...even citizens...who have the temerity to voice their dissent and opposition to government policy as enemies of the state. We aren't at that point yet and, hopefully we never will be. If the next administration, Democratic or Republican, allows this extra-legal system to stand, however, we will be set upon that path, perhaps irretrievably.

1. The prison break was a direct result of an assault on the prison designed to free the inmates there. It worked. The prison was not secured by US troops but by afghans. Bush had nothing to do with it. Tora Bora occurred before we went into iraq. You need to get your time lines straight. No troops were pulled out of afghan to go to iraq. That's another falsification. Afghan was the business of the 82nd Airborne and 10th Mountain Div. With help from various special forces. Iraq was the business of the 3rd ID, 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force and the 101st.

2. The taliban and aq were not allowed to escape, they succeeded in escaping because there were insufficient troops in that area to contain them. They went into pakistan where we were not allowed to go (you know, it's a sovereign country) the paks allowed the taliban to rebuild, not us.

GITMO was establish as a secure place to hold prisoners taken in the war. The prison referred to above is a prime example of why it was chosen. The prisoners there are not just average mo's picked up on the streets of afghan. They are all hardcore killers. And, iraqi prisoners were not sent to GITMO. The ones there were captured either in combat in afghan or picked up by other countries and turned over to us as aq members.

There are no Americans being held in GITMO. Terrorist caught in the US are arrested and tried right here. The issues about GITMO are purely liberal and media hyperbole. An attempt to make something out of nothing and endanger the country.

[bullypulpit]

1. The prison break was a direct result of an assault on the prison designed to free the inmates there. It worked. The prison was not secured by US troops but by afghans. Bush had nothing to do with it. Tora Bora occurred before we went into iraq. You need to get your time lines straight. No troops were pulled out of afghan to go to iraq. That's another falsification. Afghan was the business of the 82nd Airborne and 10th Mountain Div. With help from various special forces. Iraq was the business of the 3rd ID, 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force and the 101st.

2. The taliban and aq were not allowed to escape, they succeeded in escaping because there were insufficient troops in that area to contain them. They went into pakistan where we were not allowed to go (you know, it's a sovereign country) the paks allowed the taliban to rebuild, not us.

GITMO was establish as a secure place to hold prisoners taken in the war. The prison referred to above is a prime example of why it was chosen. The prisoners there are not just average mo's picked up on the streets of afghan. They are all hardcore killers. And, iraqi prisoners were not sent to GITMO. The ones there were captured either in combat in afghan or picked up by other countries and turned over to us as aq members.

There are no Americans being held in GITMO. Terrorist caught in the US are arrested and tried right here. The issues about GITMO are purely liberal and media hyperbole. An attempt to make something out of nothing and endanger the country.

1. < a href=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38773.html>America's prison for terrorists often held the wrong men</a>

2. <a href=http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/06/15/Report_Most_Gitmo_detainees_misidentified/UPI-42941213556267/>Report: Most Gitmo detainees misidentified</a>

3. <a href=http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/former_gitmo_prosecutor_pentag.php>Former Gitmo Prosecutor: Pentagon Official Said "We Can't Have Acquittals"</a>

You need to check your facts before you post your BS. Failing to do so make you look like a bigger idiot than you already do.

[Psychoblues]

Just what did you expect, bp?



1. < a href=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38773.html>America's prison for terrorists often held the wrong men</a>

2. <a href=http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/06/15/Report_Most_Gitmo_detainees_misidentified/UPI-42941213556267/>Report: Most Gitmo detainees misidentified</a>

3. <a href=http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/former_gitmo_prosecutor_pentag.php>Former Gitmo Prosecutor: Pentagon Official Said "We Can't Have Acquittals"</a>

You need to check your facts before you post your BS. Failing to do so make you look like a bigger idiot than you already do.

There are no bigger idiots than bald faced ones!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gaffer]

1. < a href=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38773.html>America's prison for terrorists often held the wrong men</a>

2. <a href=http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/06/15/Report_Most_Gitmo_detainees_misidentified/UPI-42941213556267/>Report: Most Gitmo detainees misidentified</a>

3. <a href=http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/former_gitmo_prosecutor_pentag.php>Former Gitmo Prosecutor: Pentagon Official Said "We Can't Have Acquittals"</a>

You need to check your facts before you post your BS. Failing to do so make you look like a bigger idiot than you already do.

I have my facts straight. You need to stop lying and trying to bullshit people. And I'm not interested in reading your lefty sites.

[Psychoblues]

Soooooo, you just accept what your reichty sites have to offer for the truth and that's it, guffer?



I have my facts straight. You need to stop lying and trying to bullshit people. And I'm not interested in reading your lefty sites.

Even I have supported different points of view, guffer, because I was looking for some truth. The fact that you deny truth as it stares you in the face is not surprising, however, to me.

Perhaps your lack of interest belies your shallow understanding?

[namvet]

On his campaign plane, Obama told reporters that Osama bin Laden is still at large in part because President Bush's strategy toward fighting terror has not succeeded.

At issue were comments Obama made in an interview with ABC News Monday in which he spoke approvingly of the successful prosecution and imprisonment of those responsible for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Obama was asked how he could be sure the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies are not crucial to protecting U.S. citizens.

Obama said the government can crack down on terrorists "within the constraints of our Constitution." He mentioned the indefinite detention of Guantanamo Bay detainees, contrasting their treatment with the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

"And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo," Obama said. "What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center — we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

"And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, 'Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims. ...

"We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws," Obama said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080617/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_obama

um, obama, the situation with 9/11 and the first WTC is different, not only tactictly, but in the deaths of those who first hand carried out the attacks. those who pulled the strings are not in prison?? wasn't some dude caught in pakistan, AQ's 2nd or 3rd in command, you know, the hairy dude in teh white shirt... how does obama know that those in gitmo now are not directly/indirectly responsible? is he passing judgement? does he know if OBL is alive or dead? could it be that the response to the first attack caused AQ to think we are weak and thus they pulled off a greater attack?

seems the friend of terrorist would you have believe that we can just arrest those we catch here in this country and ignore those camps oversees that were putting out thousands of terrorists...

he just announced if alive, Bin Laden will get a fair trial. right here in the USA.

[Yurt]

he just announced if alive, Bin Laden will get a fair trial. right here in the USA.

obama would probably sit down and philosophy with osama and talk about the weather

[retiredman]

he just announced if alive, Bin Laden will get a fair trial. right here in the USA.

again namvet...

what do you think that Bush would do with OBL if he were captured alive? Do you not think he would be put on trial for his crimes against our country?

and why do you think the venue would have any impact on the reactions of his followers? Do you think that they would not try to retaliate against us no matter where we held the trial?

[Yurt]

at least bush wouldn't sing kum buy ya and hug the man like obama would

[retiredman]

at least bush wouldn't sing kum buy ya and hug the man like obama would

profoundly immature. did your uncle leave his computer running while he ran after an ambulance?

[Yurt]

profoundly immature. did your uncle leave his computer running while he ran after an ambulance?

not supposed to talk about family and nice insulting preacher

[Psychoblues]

Oh shit, yuk?!?!?!?!?!?! You pulling out the family card?



not supposed to talk about family and nice insulting preacher

You're weaker than I ever considered that you were!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Yurt]

Oh shit, yuk?!?!?!?!?!?! You pulling out the family card?




You're weaker than I ever considered that you were!!!!!!!!!!!!!

english your second language...

[Psychoblues]

American English is what I was brought up with, yuk.



english your second language...

Wuzza matta wit you, cowgirl? Have you no education or scruples?

[namvet]

Osama's foreign policy will be run by foreigners. standby for heavy rolls

[Psychoblues]

Are you fearmongering or just admitting your own cowardice, nva?




Osama's foreign policy will be run by foreigners. standby for heavy rolls

The administration already prepared us for the worst!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[retiredman]

Osama's foreign policy will be run by foreigners. standby for heavy rolls


a baseless statement. fearmongering at its finest.

Does Obama currently have any foreigners amongst his foreign policy advisors?

[Psychoblues]

He didn't say a word about Obama, mfm. He was talking about Osama. Common confusion is the treat of the day, don't you know?



a baseless statement. fearmongering at its finest.

Does Obama currently have any foreigners amongst his foreign policy advisors?

Next, the weaklings will talk about Hussein!!!!!!!!!!! Saddam Hussein is quite dead!!!!!!!!!!!

[Yurt]

a baseless statement. fearmongering at its finest.

Does Obama currently have any foreigners amongst his foreign policy advisors?

that does not, by itself, negate namvet's post.

[retiredman]

that does not, by itself, negate namvet's post.


his post is an baseless opinion.

I could just as easily say that McCain's foreign policy will be run by illiterate toothless bigoted rednecks.

It would be equally baseless, n'est ce pas?

[Psychoblues]

Namvets post was negated on it's premise. Are you all that freakin' dumb?

[Yurt]

his post is an baseless opinion.

I could just as easily say that McCain's foreign policy will be run by illiterate toothless bigoted rednecks.

It would be equally baseless, n'est ce pas?

:poke:

in your mind, that does not, alone, make it so...what do you not understand about that?

[retiredman]

:poke:

in your mind, that does not, alone, make it so...what do you not understand about that?so you agree that McCain's foreign policy will be run by toothless bigoted rednecks? fine.

[Yurt]

so you agree that McCain's foreign policy will be run by toothless bigoted rednecks? fine.

an ASSumption coupled with a question...

[retiredman]

an ASSumption coupled with a question...

that illustrates that namvet's post was an equally baseless assumption...but one that you would defend, because it conforms to your previously determined opinion.

why am I not surprised?

If I were to say that the Red Sox WILL win the world series in 2009, isn't that simply a baseless opinion until after it is decided in 2009?

Hell...why just settle for "Obama's foreign policy will be run by foreigners", why not go for the full monty and just claim that Obama's foreign policy will be run by space aliens? That's even scarier!

[Yurt]

that illustrates that namvet's post was an equally baseless assumption...but one that you would defend, because it conforms to your previously determined opinion.

why am I not surprised?

If I were to say that the Red Sox WILL win the world series in 2009, isn't that simply a baseless opinion until after it is decided in 2009?

Hell...why just settle for "Obama's foreign policy will be run by foreigners", why not go for the full monty and just claim that Obama's foreign policy will be run by space aliens? That's even scarier!

so you're saying it was not an assumption? or are you? so ambiguous, your father taught you well....

the rest of your post is nonsense...

[Psychoblues]

Don't expect any comprehensible answer to that, mfm.



again namvet...

what do you think that Bush would do with OBL if he were captured alive? Do you not think he would be put on trial for his crimes against our country?

and why do you think the venue would have any impact on the reactions of his followers? Do you think that they would not try to retaliate against us no matter where we held the trial?

These chickenshits, like their pRresident, would rather die, preferably in their sleep, than to intelligently acknowledge even an elementary understanding of such a concept as a fair day in court.

[retiredman]

so you're saying it was not an assumption? or are you? so ambiguous, your father taught you well....

the rest of your post is nonsense...

I am saying, as I said at first, that namvet's statement was a baseless opinion.

but one you obviously would cling to, given your clear enmity for all things Obama.

and do us both a big favor and keep my father out of it.

[Psychoblues]

See what I mean? Some can condemn family if only in jest and get banned and some can condemn family in all seriousness and the jesters get banned. No justice!!!!!!!!

[red states rule]

a baseless statement. fearmongering at its finest.

Does Obama currently have any foreigners amongst his foreign policy advisors?

He does have racists and terrorists in his inner circle - and he calls them friends

[red states rule]

Don't expect any comprehensible answer to that, mfm.




These chickenshits, like their pRresident, would rather die, preferably in their sleep, than to intelligently acknowledge even an elementary understanding of such a concept as a fair day in court.

Idiots like Obama would have our troops picking up shell casings on the battlefirld for the trial, and making sure ACLU lawyers listen in as the troops reaf the terrorists their "rights"

[red states rule]

Obama wants to disarm America, and take away the troops weapons

This guy is the terrorists dream candidate


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7o84PE871BE&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7o84PE871BE&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[namvet]

Obama wants to disarm America, and take away the troops weapons

This guy is the terrorists dream candidate


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7o84PE871BE&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7o84PE871BE&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

take away the troops??? they may very well wind up running away from him.

[red states rule]

take away the troops??? they may very well wind up running away from him.

Our men and women in uniform have a hard enough job, without this asshole being their CIC

He will do very quickly, what the terrorists could not do in 6 years

Take away the military superiority of the US

[namvet]

Our men and women in uniform have a hard enough job, without this asshole being their CIC

He will do very quickly, what the terrorists could not do in 6 years

Take away the military superiority of the US

if I was in this volunteer military im lookin' for the back door. I mean color my ass gone !!!!!!

[Kathianne]

if I was in this volunteer military im lookin' for the back door. I mean color my ass gone !!!!!!

Seems there were more than a few that did the same after Clinton became CIC and started cutting across the board.

[red states rule]

Seems there were more than a few that did the same after Clinton became CIC and started cutting across the board.

Clinton used a knife to cut the military

Obama will use a chain saw

[namvet]

you may be surpised at the number of vets who went over the hill during LBJ's vietnam. putting a liberal democrat in charge of war is like giving a monkey a stick a dynamite and a blow torch.

[retiredman]

you may be surpised at the number of vets who went over the hill during LBJ's vietnam

and they all came back when Nixon was elected?
:laugh2:

[red states rule]

Obama the appeaser


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/REBkdAbVu0o&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/REBkdAbVu0o&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>