Obama Whacks Another High Profile Al Qaeda Commander..

[Seahawks08]

Absolutely...the last 3.5 yrs again, have been Bush's fault.

The funny thing about that is that I could make a case they were. But that's a hypothetical and no longer relevant.

Last I checked, none of them were at the helm in 2009, 2010, 2011 or 2012.

Correct, and I would agree that from the death of bin laden up until now, the US troops should have been significantly decreased in Afghanistan. I was never arguing that Obama's policies were the right ones, but when the war in Iraq diverted troops there, those troops could have helped kill bin laden and get out of Afghanistan quicker. And as for your next post, I don't bitch about Republicans, only neocons who think the US should be an empire and tell everyone around the world it's our way or the highway.

Get a pen and take some notes...BIN LADEN HAS BEEN DEAD FOR OVER A YEAR...and since then we have taken FAR more casualties than any year under Bush.

Obama's been going after the enemy...and we're still getting casualties. In fact, of the 2002 US fatalities in Afghanistan, only 630 came on Bush's watch...the other 1,372 US soldiers killed were under Obama.

And Obama's been hitting civilians with regularity.

Yup, Obama is killing people of all kinds of people...apparently with your approval.

Correct, we should have been decreasing troops for a while now, but the military industrial complex needs its money. And it's not like Obama or any president wants to hit civilians. It's tough to swallow, but it's war. And I approve of killing Al-Qaeda members around the world. That's it. Would you even want him to do that?

[ASUG8]

Absolutely...the last 3.5 yrs again, have been Bush's fault.

The funny thing about that is that I could make a case they were. But that's a hypothetical and no longer relevant.

Do you hear yourself? Either Obama is CiC or he is not and has the ability with his trusted advisors to remedy anything set in motion by his predecessor. The freakin' blame game is OK for the first year, but when you're in the last year of your first term and still putting the blame on the prior administration it's ridiculous. Bush may have set this in motion with invading Iraq, but the escalation in Afghanistan is all Obama although, like the economy, he's never owned anything.

[kalm]

The funny thing about that is that I could make a case they were. But that's a hypothetical and no longer relevant.

Do you hear yourself? Either Obama is CiC or he is not and has the ability with his trusted advisors to remedy anything set in motion by his predecessor. The freakin' blame game is OK for the first year, but when you're in the last year of your first term and still putting the blame on the prior administration it's ridiculous. Bush may have set this in motion with invading Iraq, but the escalation in Afghanistan is all Obama although, like the economy, he's never owned anything.

And you can make a very strong case that this is pretty much true on most of the key issues. Financial reform? Transparency in government? Change?

This is why I think Romney now has a very good chance of winning. Not very much has really changed.

[ASUG8]

Do you hear yourself? Either Obama is CiC or he is not and has the ability with his trusted advisors to remedy anything set in motion by his predecessor. The freakin' blame game is OK for the first year, but when you're in the last year of your first term and still putting the blame on the prior administration it's ridiculous. Bush may have set this in motion with invading Iraq, but the escalation in Afghanistan is all Obama although, like the economy, he's never owned anything.

And you can make a very strong case that this is pretty much true on most of the key issues. Financial reform? Transparency in government? Change?

This is why I think Romney now has a very good chance of winning. Not very much has really changed.

You got that shit right! 6.93x

[Ibanez]

Do you hear yourself? Either Obama is CiC or he is not and has the ability with his trusted advisors to remedy anything set in motion by his predecessor. The freakin' blame game is OK for the first year, but when you're in the last year of your first term and still putting the blame on the prior administration it's ridiculous. Bush may have set this in motion with invading Iraq, but the escalation in Afghanistan is all Obama although, like the economy, he's never owned anything.

And you can make a very strong case that this is pretty much true on most of the key issues. Financial reform? Transparency in government? Change?

This is why I think Romney now has a very good chance of winning. Not very much has really changed.

yup. Mitt has a great chance.

[houndawg]

In Pakistan drone attack..

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-574 ... an-killed/



This Hussein Obama guy is tough on terror.

This cat Barack is a baaaad mutha..

Shuchomouf!

I'm jus talkin' 'bout Barack.....

[Seahawks08]

Do you hear yourself? Either Obama is CiC or he is not and has the ability with his trusted advisors to remedy anything set in motion by his predecessor. The freakin' blame game is OK for the first year, but when you're in the last year of your first term and still putting the blame on the prior administration it's ridiculous. Bush may have set this in motion with invading Iraq, but the escalation in Afghanistan is all Obama although, like the economy, he's never owned anything.

But that's a hypothetical and no longer relevant.

The argument I would pose could be the same for Clinton, Bush Sr., and even Reagan. But again, those are in the past and nothing we can do about them now. And I wouldn't even give him a year, it would be around 6 months. After that, everything becomes his. And to be honest, as for the economy, I feel we give way too much blame to a president for it. But that's another issue altogether.

[houndawg]

Just throwing this out there for arguments sake - regardless of the merits or lack of merits of the Iraq war or the right or wrong of deciding to go in there in the first place, one irrefutable consequence of that war was the degradation of the popularity of the Al-Queda movement in that part of the world. Heck, even Bin Laden said it himself, the actions taken by Al-Queda in Iraq, specifically the actions taken against Iraqi's and other Muslims, significantly eroded the public support Al-Queda had and put severe limitations on what Al-Queda could do and the ability of its leaders to move freely about the region as they had prior to the war. One of the many reasons why Bin Laden was holed up in that condo in Pakistan was that he had no where else to go, and the Iraq war played a big role in making that the case.

Like I said, it doesn't change the arguments over whether it was the right thing to do or not and if it was done for the right reasons, but it's an outcome nonetheless.

Saddam Hussein was no friend of al-qaeda, I can't see Osama taking refuge there other than as a hostage.

Good point about al Qaeda 's actions in Iraq though - we keep getting a drumbeat from the media that all middle easterners are fanatical fundamentalist Muslims and nothing could be further from the truth. That's why the drone strikes worry me - the collateral damage only serves to argue that we aren't really that much different than those we target.

[Chizzang]

Just throwing this out there for arguments sake - regardless of the merits or lack of merits of the Iraq war or the right or wrong of deciding to go in there in the first place, one irrefutable consequence of that war was the degradation of the popularity of the Al-Queda movement in that part of the world. Heck, even Bin Laden said it himself, the actions taken by Al-Queda in Iraq, specifically the actions taken against Iraqi's and other Muslims, significantly eroded the public support Al-Queda had and put severe limitations on what Al-Queda could do and the ability of its leaders to move freely about the region as they had prior to the war. One of the many reasons why Bin Laden was holed up in that condo in Pakistan was that he had no where else to go, and the Iraq war played a big role in making that the case.

Like I said, it doesn't change the arguments over whether it was the right thing to do or not and if it was done for the right reasons, but it's an outcome nonetheless.

Saddam Hussein was no friend of al-qaeda, I can't see Osama taking refuge there other than as a hostage.

Good point about al Qaeda 's actions in Iraq though - we keep getting a drumbeat from the media that all middle easterners are fanatical fundamentalist Muslims and nothing could be further from the truth. That's why the drone strikes worry me - the collateral damage only serves to argue that we aren't really that much different than those we target.

The only thing that differentiates Us from THEM is perspective
because our actions - both recently and historically - have been virtually indistinguishable