YES Network.com

MLB NBA
MLB NBA
 
Network Forums Sport of Politics WHAT 'GUTSY CALL'?: CIA MEMO REVEALS ADMIRAL...
Jump Menu:
Post Reply
Page 3 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
WHAT 'GUTSY CALL'?: CIA MEMO REVEALS ADMIRAL CONTROLLED BIN LADEN MISSION
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 9:17AM #21
prof. quiz
Posts: 3,371

Apr 30, 2012 -- 9:14PM, HeatMiser wrote:


I guess it's possible the Pakistani government didn't know about the raid in advance, but I'd probably bet the other way.



 


From what I read the Pakistani government is so riddled with terrorist sympathizers and corruption we couldn't take the chance of showing our hand.

2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 12:03PM #22
MAX
Posts: 10,962

May 1, 2012 -- 6:52AM, JoeGNJ wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 7:28PM, ArtVandelay wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 6:25PM, prof. quiz wrote:


Apr 27, 2012 -- 1:33PM, ArtVandelay wrote:


haha!  only dopey libs think that having Osama in your sights and deciding to pull the trigger or not was a tough decision...  but I'm sure it was for Obama though...  I can see the great leader asking the tough questions as the real heros waited for his orders....




I agree with jorge, art. It was Obama's decision and a tough one since bin azzhole was hiding in Pakistan. That took balls covertly entering a sovereign nation. Since Pakistan has so many religious fundamentalists in the government we couldn't let them know we were coming.


So I do give Obama credit for this just like I give credit to Shrub for invading a sovereign nation for their oil.





you start the reply sounding half intelligent and then end it sounding like a dope...  war for oil, yup, we got so much oil from that war that we'll be paying $5 a gallon soon... 




+1...I get a chuckle out of the war for oil gig. Libs are well....no need for me to go further.





Let's call it like it is shall we. There was no oil for war in Afghanistan. Our troops went there because we were attacked on 9/11. But oil does play a part on why our troops are still there and also why the Afghan govt will continue to get aid even after our troops come home. There is a strategic oil route that goes through Afghanistan. There also should be know doubt that oil played a big part in the Iraqi war.

2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 12:14PM #23
Cleese
Posts: 4,280

May 1, 2012 -- 6:52AM, JoeGNJ wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 7:28PM, ArtVandelay wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 6:25PM, prof. quiz wrote:


Apr 27, 2012 -- 1:33PM, ArtVandelay wrote:


haha!  only dopey libs think that having Osama in your sights and deciding to pull the trigger or not was a tough decision...  but I'm sure it was for Obama though...  I can see the great leader asking the tough questions as the real heros waited for his orders....




I agree with jorge, art. It was Obama's decision and a tough one since bin azzhole was hiding in Pakistan. That took balls covertly entering a sovereign nation. Since Pakistan has so many religious fundamentalists in the government we couldn't let them know we were coming.


So I do give Obama credit for this just like I give credit to Shrub for invading a sovereign nation for their oil.





you start the reply sounding half intelligent and then end it sounding like a dope...  war for oil, yup, we got so much oil from that war that we'll be paying $5 a gallon soon... 




+1...I get a chuckle out of the war for oil gig. Libs are well....no need for me to go further.





We couldda got oil. Not front Afganistan but from Libya. Plenty of oil but because Obama wants his green energy plan to run rampant he let Libya off scott free. What ever happened to that green energy plan, didnt part of it go bankrupt after being giving $500+ billion from Obama...

New York Yankees
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 12:14PM #24
MAX
Posts: 10,962

Apr 30, 2012 -- 8:02PM, craner7 wrote:


YES WE ALREADY GAVE HIM CREDIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOW MUCH MORE DOES HE WANT??? AND DOES HE HAVE TO MAKE IT POLITCS AND GO AROUND LIKE A FREKKING CHILD AND SAY " I DID IT BUT HE WOULDN'T "!!! HE SAID GO AFTER ALL THE HARD WORK OF OTHERS WAS DONE AND THE RAT WAS THERE FOR THE TAKING....THANK YOU ALREADY FOR THE ONLY GOOD THING YOU'VE DONE IN 3 YRS!! MY GOD!!!



THE MAN HAS ZERO CLASS.....FREEKING ZERO.





The rat was there for the taking but not everyone had the will to go get him. President Obama had the will. Romeny didn't.


In 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama:



“There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans,” he said. “They are plotting to strike again. . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”



Here’s that prtion of the speech:(transcript via The White House)



But I think nothing speaks  more powerfully to the differences between President Obama and Governor  Romney than one of the defining moments in the past four years, the  hunt for Osama bin Laden.  In 2008, while campaigning  for the nomination, Governor Romney was asked what he would do about  bin Laden.  Let me tell you exactly what he said, and I quote.  He said,  “there would be very insignificant increase in safety,” then he went to  say, “if Bin Laden was brought to justice.”   He then went on — that’s a quote.  He then went on to say, “it’s not  worth moving heaven and Earth, spending billions of dollars just to  catch one person.”


Here’s how candidate Obama  answered that question.  He said, “if I have Osama bin Laden in our  sights, I will take him out.  I will kill bin Laden.  We will crush al  Qaeda.  This has to be our biggest national security  priority.”


I was a little bit more direct.  I said, we’d follow the S.O.B. to the gates of Hell if we had to.


 






2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 12:21PM #25
Boardroomjimmy aka Mr. Meebo
Posts: 3,670



HeatMiser



HeatMiser



Posts: 1,988




What's your point?


2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 12:31PM #26
MAX
Posts: 10,962

May 1, 2012 -- 12:14PM, Cleese wrote:


May 1, 2012 -- 6:52AM, JoeGNJ wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 7:28PM, ArtVandelay wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 6:25PM, prof. quiz wrote:


Apr 27, 2012 -- 1:33PM, ArtVandelay wrote:


haha!  only dopey libs think that having Osama in your sights and deciding to pull the trigger or not was a tough decision...  but I'm sure it was for Obama though...  I can see the great leader asking the tough questions as the real heros waited for his orders....




I agree with jorge, art. It was Obama's decision and a tough one since bin azzhole was hiding in Pakistan. That took balls covertly entering a sovereign nation. Since Pakistan has so many religious fundamentalists in the government we couldn't let them know we were coming.


So I do give Obama credit for this just like I give credit to Shrub for invading a sovereign nation for their oil.





you start the reply sounding half intelligent and then end it sounding like a dope...  war for oil, yup, we got so much oil from that war that we'll be paying $5 a gallon soon... 




+1...I get a chuckle out of the war for oil gig. Libs are well....no need for me to go further.





We couldda got oil. Plenty of it but because Obama wants his green energy plan to run rampant he let Libya off scott free. What ever happened to that green energy plan, didnt part of it go bankrupt after being giving $500+ billion from Obama...





Sorry but you couldn't be more incorrect. The oil from Libya flows. If anyone let a country off the hook it was President Bush's administration, when they said the Iraqi oil revenue would pay for the war.


3/27/03 testimony before a Senate Appropriations Hearing a. Rumsfeld:



I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense...[Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it.


b. Wolfowitz:



We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.




 

2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 12:40PM #27
HeatMiser
Posts: 2,847

May 1, 2012 -- 9:17AM, prof. quiz wrote:


From what I read the Pakistani government is so riddled with terrorist sympathizers and corruption we couldn't take the chance of showing our hand.




I read that too. I still think they knew. It's just a thought, based on nothing but gut feeling.


Remember what Yogi said: "98% of what you read is 80% BS."

2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 1:35PM #28
JoeGNJ
Posts: 11,728

May 1, 2012 -- 12:14PM, Cleese wrote:


May 1, 2012 -- 6:52AM, JoeGNJ wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 7:28PM, ArtVandelay wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 6:25PM, prof. quiz wrote:


Apr 27, 2012 -- 1:33PM, ArtVandelay wrote:


haha!  only dopey libs think that having Osama in your sights and deciding to pull the trigger or not was a tough decision...  but I'm sure it was for Obama though...  I can see the great leader asking the tough questions as the real heros waited for his orders....




I agree with jorge, art. It was Obama's decision and a tough one since bin azzhole was hiding in Pakistan. That took balls covertly entering a sovereign nation. Since Pakistan has so many religious fundamentalists in the government we couldn't let them know we were coming.


So I do give Obama credit for this just like I give credit to Shrub for invading a sovereign nation for their oil.





you start the reply sounding half intelligent and then end it sounding like a dope...  war for oil, yup, we got so much oil from that war that we'll be paying $5 a gallon soon... 




+1...I get a chuckle out of the war for oil gig. Libs are well....no need for me to go further.





We couldda got oil. Not front Afganistan but from Libya. Plenty of oil but because Obama wants his green energy plan to run rampant he let Libya off scott free. What ever happened to that green energy plan, didnt part of it go bankrupt after being giving $500+ billion from Obama...




A point often forgtotten Cleese and a VERY VERY good one! Kudo's me boy! Wink

JoeGNJ
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 5:03PM #29
ArtVandelay
Posts: 14,996

May 1, 2012 -- 9:13AM, prof. quiz wrote:


Joe, Art, Shrubs war for oil is so blatantly obvious. He didn't roll into Iraq for humanitarian reasons. We all know there were no WMD's. No al Qaeda link. No Yellowcake. No nuthin', not even the oil.




libs put the 'duh' in dummies...


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998


"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999


"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002


"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003






2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 5:24PM #30
prof. quiz
Posts: 3,371

May 1, 2012 -- 5:03PM, ArtVandelay wrote:


libs put the 'duh' in dummies...




Yes, in the 70's and 80's Hussein had biological weapons and uranium but he was neutered by us in the 90's after the Gulf War.


This opaque ploy about WMD's was bs. Why do you think Powell quit after his first term. Blix found nothing yet Shrub kept the lie alive by using 911 as an excuse to convince an angry Congress to start an unpaid for war.


I guess if you sleep better at night believing these fairy tales about WMD's go ahead.


 

Page 3 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Jump Menu:
 
Network Forums Sport of Politics WHAT 'GUTSY CALL'?: CIA MEMO REVEALS ADMIRAL...
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

Yankees Forum