• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Romney: "Very Disappointing" For Obama to Politicize Bin Laden

Um, Clinton wasn't in office Aug 6, 2001. :rofl

I think the point is that OBL set in motion 9-11 several years before it happened. guess who was in office then
 
I think the point is that OBL set in motion 9-11 several years before it happened. guess who was in office then

Thank You Turtle.... yes and of course the first attack on the WTC, that Clinton failed on but carpet bombed Iraw for "No Fy Zone" violations..

If it wasnt for GWB the USA would be as vulnerable as it was under Clinton when we were attacked many times but he did NOTHING...
 
I think the point is that OBL set in motion 9-11 several years before it happened. guess who was in office then

OK, so Clinton was not that great at pursuing terrorists. I think we can agree on that. But Bush's legacy will be that 911 happened on HIS watch, and Bush then abandoned the good war in Afghanistan, which I fully supported, to invade Iraq, which had absolutely NO connection to 911. And, as a result, Obama gets credit almost 10 years later for something Bush should have finished during his first term.
 
OK, so Clinton was not that great at pursuing terrorists. I think we can agree on that. But Bush's legacy will be that 911 happened on HIS watch, and Bush then abandoned the good war in Afghanistan, which I fully supported, to invade Iraq, which had absolutely NO connection to 911. And, as a result, Obama gets credit almost 10 years later for something Bush should have finished during his first term.

1) that idiot Gorelick (what a great name for one of Clinton's most incompetent toadies) did everything she could to create a wall between FBI, CIA, NSA, etc

2) What exactly do you know about what went on in Afghanistan from 2002 to present
 
OK, so Clinton was not that great at pursuing terrorists. I think we can agree on that. But Bush's legacy will be that 911 happened on HIS watch, and Bush then abandoned the good war in Afghanistan, which I fully supported, to invade Iraq, which had absolutely NO connection to 911. And, as a result, Obama gets credit almost 10 years later for something Bush should have finished during his first term.

most adults know that OBL is not the whole issue and its nice to get him.. but GWB really "got him" as he was neutralized and marginlized and it was GWBs policys that got him.. certainly not Brack Husseins Obamas votes against it that got OBL...

Only a Lib could think otherwise
 
1) that idiot Gorelick (what a great name for one of Clinton's most incompetent toadies) did everything she could to create a wall between FBI, CIA, NSA, etc

2) What exactly do you know about what went on in Afghanistan from 2002 to present

I know that not enough boots were on the ground there, when they needed to be, because Bush had them in Iraq. We could have been out of Afghanistan in a couple of years had all those troops in Iraq been in Afghanistan instead.
 
I know that not enough boots were on the ground there, when they needed to be, because Bush had them in Iraq. We could have been out of Afghanistan in a couple of years had all those troops in Iraq been in Afghanistan instead.

Just how do you know that?
 
I know that not enough boots were on the ground there, when they needed to be, because Bush had them in Iraq. We could have been out of Afghanistan in a couple of years had all those troops in Iraq been in Afghanistan instead.

You may want to change your lean to : Liberal

how do you know that? all our generals said otherwise.. and he wasnt in Iraq. we went into Iraq over "oil for food" and Saddams funding of terror and WMD violations and not allowing for inspections, all which were the cornerstone of oil for food..

I sense Im wasting time...
 
OK, so Clinton was not that great at pursuing terrorists. I think we can agree on that. But Bush's legacy will be that 911 happened on HIS watch, and Bush then abandoned the good war in Afghanistan, which I fully supported, to invade Iraq, which had absolutely NO connection to 911. And, as a result, Obama gets credit almost 10 years later for something Bush should have finished during his first term.

Sorry, but Bush didn't abandon Afghanistan.

9/11/2001 was not Bush's fault; it was the suicidal terrorists fault. ...Perhaps there was a failure in imagination by the government that a group of people would do what they did that day, but Bush reacted correctly when he directed the military to kick ass soon after we were attacked. He did the right thing. I am glad Gore wasn't President when it happened. He would have thought fighting back would hurt the environment or something. And why didn't Clinton do anything about the U.S.S. Cole being attacked?
 
Last edited:
Romney: "Very Disappointing" For Obama To Politicize Bin Laden Death | RealClearPolitics

I'm kinda with Romney on this one--at least that it shouldn't be a matter of pretending that Romney WOULDN'T have done it. To me, that's just silly. Romney had the exact right response: "Any thinking person would have done the same thing."

On the other hand, Bush got re-elected (or elected) solely on the fact that a SECOND major terrorist attack didn't happen on his watch. That "achievement" was the entire basis for his election campaign.

Obama is at least tied to having played a crucial role in getting something important accomplished, as opposed to Bush's claim to fame which was not screwing up again (which he just managed to do in other ways).

In any event, its got to be as fair as Republicans somehow claiming not having ANOTHER 9-11 as their "achievement."

I still don't know how ANYONE bought that...

No romney wouldnt have done it. In fact he criticized obama in 07 for saying that he would go into pakistan to catch bin laden.

Romney targets Obama over Pakistan - The Boston Globe
 
I guess when someone supports an assclown like Obama who has a pathetic record, you are relegated to bashing Romney based on your own speculation that is can never be subjected to any proof

So romney's own words aren't proof. Your blind support of romney is pathetic. That dumbass wouldnt have gone into pakistan to catch the guy that murdered more than 3000 americans. No one in good conscious can vote for a person like that.
 
Last edited:
No romney wouldnt have done it. In fact he criticized obama in 07 for saying that he would go into pakistan to catch bin laden.

Romney targets Obama over Pakistan - The Boston Globe

Libs are clueless when it comes to terrorism and foreign policy.

People (especially liberals) were confused as to who the enemy was after the 9/11 attacks. Bush realized what others didn't, the Saudis and Pakistanis were our friends.

Bush knew who our true friends were, and he knew who needed to be attacked.
 
I guess when someone supports an assclown like Obama who has a pathetic record, you are relegated to bashing Romney based on your own speculation that is can never be subjected to any proof

Romney care? you do remember calling romney a rino and a lib right turtle ?
 
So romney's own words aren't proof. Your blind support of romney is pathetic. That dumbass wouldnt have gone into pakistan to catch the guy that murdered more than 3000 americans. No one in good conscious can vote for a person like that.


Dumbass? YOU are calling a man like Romney a dumbass? You have no clue what he would have done if a Navy SW Officer said they had Obama located.
 
Libs are clueless when it comes to terrorism and foreign policy.

People (especially liberals) were confused as to who the enemy was after the 9/11 attacks. Bush realized what others didn't, the Saudis and Pakistanis were our friends.

Bush knew who our true friends were, and he knew who needed to be attacked.

Yes the pakistanis are our friends. They took billions of dollars from us to attack allies like india and hid the worlds biggest terrorists. Only in bizzaro world would pakistanis be our friends. I dont know what conservatives like about terrorists so much.
 
Romney care? you do remember calling romney a rino and a lib right turtle ?

On the most important issue facing the nation Romney is the best choice-economy

on gun issues he was bad as a governor but I doubt he will appoint anti gun fanatics like Quotamayor to the USSC

Cave In Kasich in ohio voted for Clinton's gun ban but then claimed it was a mistake. so far he has signed into law rules helping us with CCW permits
 
Romney care? you do remember calling romney a rino and a lib right turtle ?

Irrelevent...He is our candidate..and compared to the marxist socialist kenyan that is Soros's sock puppet Romney is fine, We are comfortable he is smart and wise and will be a far better President that Barack Hussein Obama
 
Yes the pakistanis are our friends. They took billions of dollars from us to attack allies like india and hid the worlds biggest terrorists. Only in bizzaro world would pakistanis be our friends. I dont know what conservatives like about terrorists so much.

an interesting comment coming from a guy who worships the president who pisses all over our best ally in that area
 
Irrelevent...He is our candidate..and compared to the marxist socialist kenyan that is Soros's sock puppet Romney is fine, We are comfortable he is smart and wise and will be a far better President that Barack Hussein Obama

That pretty well says it all
 
So romney's own words aren't proof. Your blind support of romney is pathetic. That dumbass wouldnt have gone into pakistan to catch the guy that murdered more than 3000 americans. No one in good conscious can vote for a person like that.

i have a question,why did pretty much all the republicans choose to avoidpakistan?

simple answer,because what obama did was a violation of international law and an open declaration of was against pakistan.in fact pakistan would have been fully within their rights to accept it as a declaration of war,as we did launch an assault on a sovereign nation without their permission.


no single man in their right mind would have done it the way obama had done it,what if pakistan had retaliated against us soldiers in afghanistan?what if india had joined in the fight,what if iran had joined in cashing in on the chaos.all of that was a very distinct possibility.luckily pakistan has only been angry with us.

so it seems you are mad that romney chose to obey international law.
 
Yes the pakistanis are our friends. They took billions of dollars from us to attack allies like india and hid the worlds biggest terrorists. Only in bizzaro world would pakistanis be our friends. I dont know what conservatives like about terrorists so much.


I dont know...why dont you ask Obama why he is sending the Muslim Brotherhood millions of our dollars..
 
an interesting comment coming from a guy who worships the president who pisses all over our best ally in that area

I dont worship obama. I think he has been a disappointment but i will give him credit where it is due. Killing bin laden and ending the great bush recession.
 
an interesting comment coming from a guy who worships the president who pisses all over our best ally in that area

With allies like that who needs enemies?


General Kayani, the most powerful man in a country that has only a simulacrum of civilian leadership, had been busy in the tense days that followed the bin Laden raid: he had to assure his American funders (U.S. taxpayers provide more than $2 billion in annual subsidies to the Pakistani military) that the army had no prior knowledge of bin Laden’s hideout, located less than a mile from Pakistan’s preeminent military academy; and at the same time he had to subdue the uproar within his ranks over what was seen as a flagrant violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty by an arrogant Barack Obama. But he was also anxious about the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, and he found time to express this worry to General Kidwai.

ABOUT THIS STORY: This article, the product of dozens of interviews over the course of six months, is a joint project of The Atlantic and National Journal. A version of this story focusing on nuclear security appears in the November 5, 2011, issue of National Journal.
Much of the world, of course, is anxious about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, and for good reason: Pakistan is an unstable and violent country located at the epicenter of global jihadism, and it has been the foremost supplier of nuclear technology to such rogue states as Iran and North Korea. It is perfectly sensible to believe that Pakistan might not be the safest place on Earth to warehouse 100 or more nuclear weapons. These weapons are stored on bases and in facilities spread across the country (possibly including one within several miles of Abbottabad, a city that, in addition to having hosted Osama bin Laden, is home to many partisans of the jihadist group Harakat-ul-Mujahideen). Western leaders have stated that a paramount goal of their counterterrorism efforts is to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of jihadists.

“The single biggest threat to U.S. security, both short-term, medium-term, and long-term, would be the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon,” President Obama said last year at an international nuclear-security meeting in Washington. Al-Qaeda, Obama said, is “trying to secure a nuclear weapon—a weapon of mass destruction that they have no compunction at using.”

Pakistan would be an obvious place for a jihadist organization to seek a nuclear weapon or fissile material: it is the only Muslim-majority state, out of the 50 or so in the world, to have successfully developed nuclear weapons; its central government is of limited competence and has serious trouble projecting its authority into many corners of its territory (on occasion it has difficulty maintaining order even in the country’s largest city, Karachi); Pakistan’s military and security services are infiltrated by an unknown number of jihadist sympathizers; and many jihadist organizations are headquartered there already.
The Ally From Hell - Magazine - The Atlantic
 
Back
Top Bottom