LDS Liberal,Some things to think about to temper your rampant
partisanship...1. Osama BinLaden isn't in Syria. Syria
hasn't attacked the USA. Syria has no WMDs (other than chemical and
bio-weapons which Hussein also had AND used on his people). So are you going to
be as hard on Obama IF he attacks Syria as you were on Bush/Cheney?You criticized Bush for "unilateral" action, and yet... Bush had an
International Coalition each time he took military action (Obama said he's
willing to go it alone) Hint, that's the definition of
"UNI-lateral". Bush got approval from Congress BEFORE any military
action (Obama said he doesn't intend to make his case to Congress). Bush
had 17 authorizations from the UN BEFORE taking action in Iraq (Obama
doesn't even intend to present his case to the UN).Same thing
storhy other counties that never attacked the US that Obama has militarily
attacked which we weren't at war with when he took office.. (Pakistan,
Libya, Sudan, etc). You seem blind to those today, but you were all over Bush.
Bush doesn't look so bad today (when compared with Obama).
@LDS Liberal:"I like Obama and his handling of being
Commander-in-Chief better than Bush/Cheney."Bush/Cheney were
after Hussein* in Iraq, not Osama. Keep that in mind.LDS Liberal,
you should convert to conservatism to improve your analytical capacities.*(Very popular name among Muslims.)
LDS Liberal,I hope you realize that there have already been more US Troop
deaths during the Obama Administration than there were in the full 2 terms Bush
served. Look it up.You have such a one-track mind, and such a hate
for Bush/Cheney that it seems to blind you to anything that goes on during the
LDS LiberalYeah, Obama got Osama. Killed him.Notice any
difference in the world?I don't.
To "LDS Liberal" Bin Laden wasn't in Iraq.How about
this one.Bush took out 2 governments who were oppressing their
people. In the case of Sadam, he was killing them. In both countries Bush was
fighting against Al Qaeda, a terrorist organization with the explicit goal of
taking down Western civilization.Obama has now helped Al Qaeda in
Libya, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, both are terrorist organizations.
He is proposing going into Syria and helping Al Qaeda again.How is
supporting terrorist organizations better than attacking them?
Bush = 100,000 dead Iraqis, 5,000 dead Americans, 75,000 wounded, $Trillions -
No Osama Bin LadenObama = 1 helicopter, No U.S. causalities, and
Osama Bin Laden is dead, period.I like Obama and his handling of
being Commander-in-Chief better than Bush/Cheney.
To "Happy Valley Heretic" How do you know that Panetta wasn't lying
to McCain. In a May 3, 2011 interview on the Today show Panetta said that it
was waterbording that lead the US to Bin Laden. Panetta again reasserted his
claim that waterbording helped get needed information on an interview on Meet
the Press on February 3, 2013.Representative Peter King (House
Homeland Security Committee) said "The road to bin Laden began with
waterboarding..."So, who is right? Which politician do you
believe, and which day was Panetta telling the truth?
The solution for Obama is simple... he can't aid either side in Syria. Not
Assad and not the Al Qaeda rebels. So, Obama, just admit the mistake in
threatening Assad, put his missiles away, and proceed back into the Oval office.
REdshirt said: Obama was only able to get Bin Laden because of waterboarding,
"Senator John McCain, citing CIA Director Leon Panetta, said
that the assertion that waterboarding produced information that found Osama Bin
Laden is false; all the useful leads were "obtained through standard,
noncoercive means."The CIA later provided the Washington Post a
letter from CIA Director Panetta to Senator McCain that confirms that enhanced
interrogation techniques did not help and may have hindered the search for Bin
Laden by producing false information during interrogations. In the letter,
Panetta wrote Senator McCain that we first learned about the
facilitator/courier's nom de guerre from a detainee not in CIA custody in
2002. It is also important to note that some detainees who were subjected to
enhanced interrogation techniques attempted to provide false or misleading
information about the facilitator/courier. These attempts to falsify the
facilitator/courier's role were alerting. In the end, no detainee in CIA
custody revealed the facilitator/courier's full true name or specific
whereabouts. This information was discovered through other intelligence
means.Sorry Redshirt but your radio has misled you yet again.
If the US does decide to go into Syria, the cannot go in to help the rebels.
Nor can they go in to help the Syrian government. Both sides are evil. If the
US goes in, the only just thing to do will be to fight both the Syrian
government and the rebels.To "Happy Valley Heretic" Obama
was only able to get Bin Laden because of waterboarding, which he promised to
end.You also forget that Obama has a history of backing the wrong
people. He backed the Al Qaeda supported rebels in Libya, the Muslim
Brotherhood in Egypt, and domestically he has consistantly backed the wrong
@MountanmanAnd by the way... there's 9% support nationwide... most
liberals oppose this intervention too.
@MountanmanExcept in this situation there's an active slaughter,
active use of WMDs, we're looking at a Libya type attack, not a full scale
ground invasion. Oh and you really can't put the flip label (flip-flop
involves going back and forth, one change in position isn't a flip-flop) on
Democrats when all you Republicans are suddenly averse to something that is less
extreme than you previously supported."Do you Democrats realize
that its Al Qaeda fighting against the Syrian government that you want to help
and protect? "The Al-Qaida affiliated Al-Nusra front is a
portion of the rebel forces, not the entirety or majority of it.
HA!!! Does Barack have what it takes? What do you think? The man has a spine
made of cream cheese. Enough said.
Mountanman said:"It must be very confusing to be a Democrat. Only a
few years ago when Saddam Hussein gassed his own people (Kurds) and President
Bush stopped him, Democrats were hyperventilating about "Bush's unjust
war". and missing WMDs. "Talk about confused. A few years?
It was 1988, How did President Bush Stop an event that took place 12 years
before he even claimed WMD were in Iraq (which he thought were their because
Reagan/Bush sold them to Sadamm).Saying it was Al Qaeda doesn't make
it so, anymore than when the Cheney Admin. claimed Al Qaeda was in Iraq before
bush started that war.He's got what it takes!He got Osama
when Bush stopped looking for him in favor of his Iraq private bid contracts.
Yes, I think so. But he also knows he must be cautious. This is a quagmire which
is very easy to get drawn too far into.
does BO have what it takes?no
It must be very confusing to be a Democrat. Only a few years ago when Saddam
Hussein gassed his own people (Kurds) and President Bush stopped him, Democrats
were hyperventilating about "Bush's unjust war". and missing WMDs.
And now we have Democrats hyperventilating again only this time about yet
another dictator gassing his own people again and now we must stop him on moral
grounds? Do you Democrats realize that its Al Qaeda fighting against the Syrian
government that you want to help and protect? Do you remember 9/11 and do you
remember Benghazi? Do you know it was Al Qaeda who did those and many other
attacks on America? You Democrats are so very confused!
Agreed.I still think Assad did not use chemical weapons.What
would he gain from it, other than the wrath of the world?On the
other hand, What would the rebels gain?The support of the United
States and it's military AGAINST Assad?BTW - What ever happened
to Saddam Hussein's WMDs?Imagine Syrian rebels using chemical
WMDs - produced by the United States, sold to Iraq, and smuggled into Damascus
before the U.S. invasion? The perfect black-mail.