Monday, May 2, 2011

At least one president can kill a terrorist leader.


Not this fucking guy.

9 comments:

  1. I find it ironic that Obama supporters are making these kinds of statements, particularly since Obama campaigned against all of the very same Bush-era policies and tactics that resulted in the death of Bin Laden, the capture and killing of many Al Quaeda operatives, and disrupting Al Quaeda operations around the world. President Bush said repeatedly that we would eventually get Bin Laden, and that it may take years. But, his resolve to get him was continuous throughout his terms. During his term, we stayed in Afghanistan and fought, and brought about REAL social, economic, and security change there, as evidenced by their elections, women going to schools and taking off their burkhas, voting, and by dealing serious blows to the Taliban and Al Quaeda there.

    During the Bush years, I remember liberals saying things like, "we're torturing these poor people down in Guantanamo, people whom we have no proof had anything to do with 9/11. Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, temperature techniques, loud music, and positional discomfort techniques are torture, and torturing people is wrong. It's against the Geneva Convention. These people haven't been charged formally with anything, and they don't have proper legal counsel. Coerced interrogation techniques like waterboarding are wrong, they're torture, and they go against what we as Americans stand for." Then, Senator Obama started running for President, and on the campaign trail, he spoke out against Guantanamo, our interrogation techniques there (and elsewhere), and repeatedly made statements that he would not kill Bin Laden if given the chance, he would only capture him. He said repeatedly that he would close Guantanamo, and when he was elected, his FIRST executive action was to sign an order to close the facility. Then, Eric Holder of Obama's administration started the failed effort to bring Kalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York for trial, just blocks from ground zero. The backlash from Americans was overwhelming. And to this day, the terrorists we have in captivity remain at Gitmo, they will NOT be tried in US federal courts, they WILL receive military tribunals and will be treated as enemy combatants, just like we have been doing since the Bush years. Interesting reversal, Mr. Holder.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is well known now that waterboarding was only done to three prisoners including KSM, and it was not done at Guantanamo. It is also well known that the enhanced interrogation techniques we employed during the Bush years led us to Bin Laden's courier, and eventually to killing Bin Laden himself. Waterboarding and interrogating KSM yielded a treasure trove of actionable intelligence that we have exploited to capture, kill, and disrupt Al Quaeda operations, including killing Bin Laden himself.

    It's also well known that trying to be "fair" to terrorists by trying them in civil court here in the US is a very bad idea. Our very legal system that protects the rights of American citizens would only serve to give terrorists a quick pass right out of jail, and back into freedom. We hire them a slip and fall lawyer who gets them off on a technicality, and our judicial system and the rules of civil procedure would force the prosecution to have to expose all the intelligence we have gathered and make it public record. We might as well just broadcast our secrets and terrorist killing plans on Al Jazeera for the whole terrorist world to see.

    Trying foreign enemy combatants is NOTHING like trying an American who knocks over a convenience store. The Geneva Convention has NOTHING to do with enemy combatants in THIS war on terror. The Geneva Convention does NOT say that it's okay for Seal Team 6 to go in on Obama's orders and put two in Osama's cranium. And yet, the very President who wanted to appeal to his liberal base as a Senator, who tried to close Gitmo, who tried to bring KSM to New York, who said waterboarding and similar techniques yield NO evidence of results in gaining intelligence, campaigned 180 degrees opposite of what he just did as our President. And thanks to the policies of the Bush Administration, the intelligence we got years ago has now led to the killing of Bin Laden (and a subsequent jump in Obama's dismal pole numbers). Things are quite different when you're actually IN the Oval Office, and not on the campaign trail, huh Mr. President?

    And to show you that President Bush is a man of integrity, is humble, is not boastful or brash, we see that he declined an invitation to appear at Ground Zero for President Obama's speech. He did not want the spotlight on him, he does not want to boast about getting Bin Laden, and does not want to detract from the lives lost on that site. Classy guy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Perhaps bin Laden could have been dead years ago if Bush actually was a classy guy. Unfortunately, instead of following through and really searching for that guy, he took us to Iraq instead. It's all about priorities, and we all know where his priorities were.

    p.s. Perhaps you should be waterboarded and then you can tell the rest of us how useful it is...I'd like to know someone's personal insight.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Easy there birther slow down champ. Maybe you should sit the next round out.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, first of all, I'm not a "birther". Secondly, I suppose you all were perfectly happy when we didn't know for sure whether Saddam really had WMDs, when we didn't know for sure whether Saddam was developing nuclear capability or not, when Saddam was mass-murdering and committing REAL torture on his people (not the bullshit liberals wanted to call "torture" at Abu Ghraib, but real blood and guts butchering), when Saddam was jerking the UN inspectors around after 13 resolutions over ten years about his WMD and biological/chemical weapon program, and when Iraq was a perfect breeding ground for Al Quaeda. The guy liberals wanted to vote for in 2004, John Kerry, said, "If you don't think Saddam Hussein has WMDs, then you should not vote for me", and along with most Democrat Senators and Congressmen, voted overwhelmingly to approve our invasion of Iraq to oust Saddam. So, to say Bush had his priorities wrong, when the action in Iraq was approved by our elected officials on both sides of the aisle is disengenuous and a double-standard.

    As for waterboarding, I have no doubt that it's effective. It got us Bin Laden, didn't it? And that's what you're crowing so proudly about here.

    It's fun for liberals to show a photoshopped picture of Bush talking into a phone turned around wrong and to imply that he's some shit-kicking idiot, but to deny his efforts in fighting the war on terror and preventing a number of attacks since 9/11 that COULD have happened with his policies, and then attributing it all to Obama is just short-sighted and immature. Give the man credit where credit is due.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The only credit he deserves is exactly the kind this picture depicts

    ReplyDelete
  7. So, he deserves no credit for any of the policies that Obama (your guy) is now using, the policies that have kept this nation safe, the polices that got Bin Laden, the policies that freed the Iraqi and Afghan people from murderous tyrranical dictatorships? Hmm. I thought liberals were more "pro people" than that...I guess you don't give a shit about anything except making Bush out to be a fool.

    Bush went into Iraq and Afghanistan with FULL congressional approval and you want to lambast him. Obama bombs Libya to this day with no congressional approval, and he sends in a covert strike team to take out Bin Laden who was obviously no tactical match for our Seal Team 6 who put 2 in his noggin, and he gets a full pass from you.

    If Bush were in office right now and did those things, you'd all be calling him a gun-slinging, trigger-happy cowboy who invades soverign nations without just cause...wait, that's what you've all been saying about him all along.

    The hypocrisy and double-standards of the left simply astound me. It's fucking amazing!

    ReplyDelete
  8. We don't call ourselves "liberals," dude. This is your label and your terminology. We're not "pro people" and if you'd stop focusing on politics and really take a look around this site, you'd get that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, I have to refer to you as something without being outright insulting. I'm trying to stay civil, here. But, yeah, this site is definitely anti-people, anti-America, and anti-Bush. And, anti-productive.

    ReplyDelete