Agent-XXXX said, "... There were 17+ reasons for taking out Saddam. Nobody said they were resonsible for 9/11. They did harbor terrorist..and they were a threat to the region. And your bogus number includes the war in Afghanistan." ------
1. Bush failed to provide solid and compelling evidence Saddam was the danger to national security that he claimed to both congress and the American people. Essentially, Bush cooked the intelligence data and told congress, "Trust me, take my word for it, and sign the enabling legislation."
The wording and sense of that legislation actually reads like a plea for peaceful diplomacy. Yet, before the ink on the document was dry, Bush began to use its final, military option to the exclusion of all others-- his UN performance, notwithstanding. Bush turned the intent of the authority (to apply increased peaceful pressure on Saddam, chiefly through multilateral diplomacy) on its head, and rushed to invasion.
David Kay, the chief Bush arms inspector to enter Iraq after invasion, was unable to find any evidence to support the Bush administration claim Saddam had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. Kay resigned in early 2004 after stating he doubted any stockpile ever would be found.
2. Contrary to the claim none said Saddam was responsible for 911, Cheney and his gang insisted to their bitter end that Saddam harbored al Qaeda, provided them training and facilities, and met abroad with an al Qaeda representative. No evidence was found to corroborate any of these Bush and Cheney claims.
To spin the Iraq allusion further, in a 2005 speech about Iraq, Bush commented, "No one asked for this war..." as though in reference to 911-- a conflict clearly imposed on the United States. But in fact, Iraq was not imposed on anybody. Iraq was Bush's War, a war driven by wealthy oil and gas backers who lusted about untapped oceans of crude in Iraq. Said Alan Greenspan in his memoir, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World", "Iraq was largely about oil..."
3. The figure of 4,486 Americans deaths in Iraq since March 19, 2003, is obtained from DOD, of which 3532 is combat fatalities. Surprisingly, the US military is terrible about tracking statistics on American wounded, and the estimate of actual wounded is as much as three times higher than the official figure.
Well, what do you expect from Robmee? He is the candidate for a utterly failed party that only represents 1% of the American people. And they are totally upfront about that. And seemingly proud of being completely corrupted by big corporate money.
It's such an irony that Mitt Romney is out there relentlessly attacking President Obama on everything under the sun that he can throw at him but when President Obama hits back even on his on accomplishments Mitt whines that he is polarizing Bin Laden's death. Just when I thought the Republicans couldn't sink any lower. How stupid do they think we Americans are> Nobody said anything when Rudy Juliana or whoever his name is was polarizing 911. Mitt better hope his other wives don't show up. You know Mormons believe in more than 1 wife. hmmm.......
Rumors are that a year ago Obama was dithering a decision to make a move on bin Laden but seemed to be seriously considering taking the safe way out by not acting on the intelligence. Then he abruptly changed his mind - - apparently after realizing that the audience witnessing his indecision was so diverse that he risked really bad press if he opted out. So his hand was forced - - now as luck would have it he is reaping the benefit of making a good decision. True or not - - who can say?
If the a Republican was in office and had done the same thing that the current President has done, they would be flaunting that fact all over the country... They would be saying... "look how much my administration is keeping America safe... We kill Bin laden!!! What has the other party done.. nothing!!!!" It would be one of the Republicans biggest talking points, had it been a Republican that had made the call... Unfortunately for the Republicans they can't rally around it so they need to try to say that even mentioning the fact that the President gave to go ahead for the seal team to take out Bin laden... should not be something that is talked about during the campaign.
I'm certain that 99% of people in this country are glad that Osama Bin Laden is no longer a threat to us. Good try, Republicans, to use your "spin" tactic to make it look like what happened to Bin Laden was a bad thing. Too bad it won't work! Huffington has done the President a favor by reminding us of the good deed the President and the military did.
Hey didn't this all start with waterboarding? Why doesn't he blame this on the Bush? It took a lot of years and hard work by the military and CIA to get the point of killing OBL. Obama pushes the button and says "wow look what I did". Lets face facts, we all know he can't run on his record, because he only has failed policies, so this is all he has.
Obama has the bully-pulpit and will use anything and everything at his disposal to get re-elected. No different than any previous president running for re-election. I agree with Ariana Huffington, a staunch liberal, who "slammed" the president for his use of this historical moment to gloat and gain favor among his constituency in a campaign ad. Using basketball jargon merely engages the president with that constituency.
Obama's logic: the SUCCESS of catching this "one person" disproves Mitt Romney's argument that the VALUE of cathing this person is less than the expenditure of resources required to catch him. He didn't even bother to address the CONTENT of Romney's argument. He simply insists that "because I succeeded, Romney's argument concerning the resources spent is invalidated." Isn't it great to have a president that values LOGIC? LOL...
We've been killing more al Qaeda leaders under Obama than under Bush. And remember what Cheney said about what would happen if Obama got elected - another example of the GOP complaining today about something that they didn't mind doing just a few years ago.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Agent-XXXX said, "... There were 17+ reasons for taking out Saddam. Nobody said they were resonsible for 9/11. They did harbor terrorist..and they were a threat to the region. And your bogus number includes the war in Afghanistan."
------
1. Bush failed to provide solid and compelling evidence Saddam was the danger to national security that he claimed to both congress and the American people. Essentially, Bush cooked the intelligence data and told congress, "Trust me, take my word for it, and sign the enabling legislation."
The wording and sense of that legislation actually reads like a plea for peaceful diplomacy. Yet, before the ink on the document was dry, Bush began to use its final, military option to the exclusion of all others-- his UN performance, notwithstanding. Bush turned the intent of the authority (to apply increased peaceful pressure on Saddam, chiefly through multilateral diplomacy) on its head, and rushed to invasion.
David Kay, the chief Bush arms inspector to enter Iraq after invasion, was unable to find any evidence to support the Bush administration claim Saddam had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. Kay resigned in early 2004 after stating he doubted any stockpile ever would be found.
2. Contrary to the claim none said Saddam was responsible for 911, Cheney and his gang insisted to their bitter end that Saddam harbored al Qaeda, provided them training and facilities, and met abroad with an al Qaeda representative. No evidence was found to corroborate any of these Bush and Cheney claims.
To spin the Iraq allusion further, in a 2005 speech about Iraq, Bush commented, "No one asked for this war..." as though in reference to 911-- a conflict clearly imposed on the United States. But in fact, Iraq was not imposed on anybody. Iraq was Bush's War, a war driven by wealthy oil and gas backers who lusted about untapped oceans of crude in Iraq. Said Alan Greenspan in his memoir, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World", "Iraq was largely about oil..."
3. The figure of 4,486 Americans deaths in Iraq since March 19, 2003, is obtained from DOD, of which 3532 is combat fatalities. Surprisingly, the US military is terrible about tracking statistics on American wounded, and the estimate of actual wounded is as much as three times higher than the official figure.
Like 29 times in his speech at the war criminal's 2004 Republicon Convention in NYC. Just one speech.
Nothing like the GOP being against politicizing an issue. Not to mention that we've been kicking terrorist butt a lot better than under Bush's rule.