10 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by KunsooDo you really want the truth? Obama killed Bin Laden, but not how you think.
That's what 15 percent of Ohio Republicans say they believe. 47 percent of the Republicans say they aren't sure.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/09/ohio-republicans-poll-romney-bin-laden
Basically Bin Laden was working for the CIA. I know, I konw, tin foil hats, but it's true. Unfortunately due to cutbacks his job was cut and he and his family starved to death as a result. 😛
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 201706
10 Sep 12
Originally posted by whodeyWell, then. How did Romney accomplish that?
Do you really want the truth? Obama killed Bin Laden, but not how you think.
Basically Bin Laden was working for the CIA. I know, I konw, tin foil hats, but it's true. Unfortunately due to cutbacks his job was cut and he and his family starved to death as a result. 😛
10 Sep 12
The military killed Bin Laden.
It was a successful mission that took many years to accoplish as well as methods Obama said he would not use. I wonder why Obama likes to give GW the credit for our economy but doesn't give GW the credit of the Bin Laden kill.
I suppose that goes for all leftists.
10 Sep 12
5 edits
Originally posted by EladarObama didn't need Congressional approval to order the raid.
The military killed Bin Laden.
It was a successful mission that took many years to accoplish as well as methods Obama said he would not use. I wonder why Obama likes to give GW the credit for our economy but doesn't give GW the credit of the Bin Laden kill.
I suppose that goes for all leftists.
By the way, GW redirected national security resources from Islamist terrorism to ballistic missile defense. He wasn't big on targetting his friends in the bin Laden family. That's why after 9/11 his chief of counterterrorism (Richard Clarke) hooked them up with a special secret flight out of the country.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/richard-clarke-capturing-bin-laden-not-one-of-their-priorities-for-clinton-bush/
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 201706
10 Sep 12
Originally posted by EladarBecause in order to get Bin Laden, Leon Panetta had to make some very significant changes in policy. There were some very good articles about it at the time, but Bush even hinted publicly that getting Bin Laden wasn't the major priority for him when he said he didn't think much about him.
The military killed Bin Laden.
It was a successful mission that took many years to accoplish as well as methods Obama said he would not use. I wonder why Obama likes to give GW the credit for our economy but doesn't give GW the credit of the Bin Laden kill.
I suppose that goes for all leftists.
Bush sank the economy because he didn't crack down on finance industry fraud, while all the rating companies gave glowing reports of companies touting what turned out to be bad assets. It was a cumulative effect of deregulation, but it's very clear that laws were broken on a mass scale and Bush turned a blind eye to it.
Originally posted by KunsooAs has Obama. From Eliot Spitzer:
Because in order to get Bin Laden, Leon Panetta had to make some very significant changes in policy. There were some very good articles about it at the time, but Bush even hinted publicly that getting Bin Laden wasn't the major priority for him when he said he didn't think much about him.
Bush sank the economy because he didn't crack down on finance in ...[text shortened]... but it's very clear that laws were broken on a mass scale and Bush turned a blind eye to it.
How do we make sense of this? Goldman Sachs emails call their own investments “junk” and “crap,” and Goldman Sachs salespeople refer to clients as “muppets” and “elephants.” Yet the Justice Department says there is not enough evidence to bring a case on behalf of Goldman Sachs investors who lost vast sums of money.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that that's out of the way, I can say what we are all thinking: Really? Are you kidding me? Wall Street continues to get away scot-free? The Justice Department prosecutes Roger Clemens for perjury—spends countless resources, hours, and energy worrying about steroids in baseball—yet seems incapable of making cases against the big Wall Street firms that engineered the greatest lies, frauds, and scams in our economic history. I am as outraged, disappointed, and furious as you are. Have they no backbone, shame, or sense of what justice is all about? It does nothing for my already waning faith in this Justice Department.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/spitzer/2012/08/10/goldman_sachs_prosecution_fails_why_can_t_the_justice_department_fight_wall_steet_.html
EDIT: And some righteous outrage from Matt Taibbi from Rolling Stone:
Last year I spent a lot of time and energy jabbering and gesticulating in public about what seemed to me the most obviously prosecutable offenses detailed in the report – the seemingly blatant perjury before congress of Lloyd Blankfein and other Goldman executives, and the almost comically long list of frauds committed by the company in its desperate effort to unload its crappy “cats and dogs” mortgage-backed inventory.
In the notorious Hudson transaction, for instance, Goldman claimed, in writing, that it was fully "aligned" with the interests of its client, Morgan Stanley, because it owned a $6 million slice of the deal. What Goldman left out is that it had a $2 billion short position against the same deal.
If that isn’t fraud, Mr. Holder, just what exactly is fraud?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/ag-eric-holder-has-no-balls-20120815
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 201706
10 Sep 12
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree that Obama, surrounding himself with hacks like Goolesby and Geitner, has been a big disappointment in this regard.
As has Obama. From Eliot Spitzer:
How do we make sense of this? Goldman Sachs emails call their own investments “junk” and “crap,” and Goldman Sachs salespeople refer to clients as “muppets” and “elephants.” Yet the Justice Department says there is not enough evidence to bring a case on behalf of Goldman Sachs investors who lost vast sums of money.
...[text shortened]... ?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/ag-eric-holder-has-no-balls-20120815
- Joined
- 06 Aug 07
- Moves
- 8299
10 Sep 12
Originally posted by KunsooAgree - Obama's and the FED's QE policies have cost America's eldery a fortune. They also hurt folks who like to save and are not enamored with the current stock market. Basically, Obama and FED policies help Wall Street and bankers and hurt the majority of the rest of the country - it is my biggest complaint against his term.
I agree that Obama, surrounding himself with hacks like Goolesby and Geitner, has been a big disappointment in this regard.
11 Sep 12
Originally posted by KunsooWhy do you guys always have to misrepresent and exaggerate? The question involved the words "deserved credit". Obviously neither man actually did the deed. I have no idea what Romney's stated policies were, but we do know that Obama opposed much of the intelligence gathering that led to Bin Laden's killing.
That's what 15 percent of Ohio Republicans say they believe. 47 percent of the Republicans say they aren't sure.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/09/ohio-republicans-poll-romney-bin-laden
We do know for a fact that Bill Clinton rejected an opportunity to take him alive before the 9/11/01 attack.
12 Sep 12
Originally posted by normbenign"Why do you guys always have to misrepresent and exaggerate?" 🙂
Why do you guys always have to misrepresent and exaggerate? The question involved the words "deserved credit". Obviously neither man actually did the deed. I have no idea what Romney's stated policies were, but we do know that Obama opposed much of the intelligence gathering that led to Bin Laden's killing.
We do know for a fact that Bill Clinton rejected an opportunity to take him alive before the 9/11/01 attack.
"We do know for a fact that Bill Clinton rejected an opportunity to take him alive before the 9/11/01 attack"
I knew he could have 'cruised' his ass and did not, when could Clinton have taken him alive?
12 Sep 12
Originally posted by normbenignSo tell us Norm, in what conceivable way would Romney deserve more (or ANY) credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden than Obama?
Why do you guys always have to misrepresent and exaggerate? The question involved the words "deserved credit". Obviously neither man actually did the deed. I have no idea what Romney's stated policies were, but we do know that Obama opposed much of the intelligence gathering that led to Bin Laden's killing.
We do know for a fact that Bill Clinton rejected an opportunity to take him alive before the 9/11/01 attack.
No matter what his stated or un-stated policies, Romney had nothing to do with the operation. Obama did make the choice to execute the operation.
12 Sep 12
Originally posted by PsychoPawnMaybe it was the specter of having to take on Romney in 2012 that caused Obama to okay the operation.
So tell us Norm, in what conceivable way would Romney deserve more (or ANY) credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden than Obama?
No matter what his stated or un-stated policies, Romney had nothing to do with the operation. Obama did make the choice to execute the operation.
😉