The Goat Pen

Agreed.

They didn't fully appreciate Salieri in his lifetime, either.

'tick,

Let me be more clear. There is no evidence that we ever decreased the intensity or focus of our efforts to kill or capture OBL. Your video certainly doesn't prove anything. Feel free to post real evidence that proves your silly contention. Until then, you are (as usual) full of shit.

eventually get behind their second (or 3rd, or 4th etc) choice as well..


Anything will be an upgrade from a disastrous Jimmy III.

Anybody with a brain cell knows who the real disaster was.

for you others, that would be the prez who passed down two wars and a historic recession

bluetick wrote:Anybody with a brain cell knows who the real disaster was.

for you others, that would be the prez who passed down wo wars and a historic recession

Two wars that were the right call, considering the intel we had at the time. Two wars that Obama continued -- even though he promised he wouldn't. And a recession that wasn't historic until Obama made it much, much worse -- by essentially doing a lot of the same bad things that Bush did, but on a much larger scale.

Bush may have been a less-than-average POTUS. Obama has set new standards for awful.

This is what people with more than a single brain cell understand.

By 2006, the trail for bin Laden had gone "stone cold" and Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes said Bush told him that hunting bin Laden was "not a top priority use of American resources." The U.S. was struggling with the deteriorating situation in Iraq.

That year, it was revealed that the administration had shuttered the CIA's Bin Laden unit in late 2005. As the New York Times reported at the time, the move reflected a shift in resources to Iraq:

In recent years, the war in Iraq has stretched the resources of the intelligence agencies and the Pentagon, generating
new priorities for American officials. For instance, much of the military's counterterrorism units, like the Army's Delta
Force, had been redirected from the hunt for Mr. bin Laden to the search for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed
last month in Iraq.

But Bush's biggest misstep in the bin Laden hunt occured years before, in the early days of the war in Afghanistan. As a 2009 Senate Foreign Relations Committee report found, the Bush administration blew a critical opportunity to capture bin Laden in 2001. Bin Laden was wounded and on the run, but top Bush national security officials rejected repeated pleas for reinforcements from commanders and intelligence officials fighting the terrorist leader in the caves of Tora Bora, despite the availability of resources:

Fewer than 100 American commandos were on the scene with their Afghan allies and calls for reinforcements to launch an
assault were rejected. Requests were also turned down for troops to block the mountain paths leading to sanctuary a
few miles away in Pakistan. The vast array of American military power, from sniper teams to the most mobile divisions
of the Marine Corps and the Army, was kept on the sidelines. Instead the U.S. Command chose to rely on airstrikes and
untrained Afghan militias.

knows who the real disaster was.


If Obammer had done anything other than push the base/leftist (domestic)agenda his first two years (w/control of both houses), you might have a leg to stand on, but as usual, you make yerself look ignerter and ignerter.

You make a good case that the Iraq War was the right call based on the intelligence that was at hand. Considering the braintrust in the WH...mixed with tall tales from Chalabi and Curveball...on top of polls that revealed that most conservatives thought Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attack.

Really, 'tick? Quoting an opinion piece written by a left-wing political hack from thinkprogress.org about a report written by a bunch of dem Senate staff members? That's your evidence?

I'd expect a prospective Romney voter to be a bit more discriminating than that.

Wait a sec.

I notice you didn't say fellow Romney voter..

No, I don't know who I'm going to vote for right now.

But it won't be Obammer.

Hack,

Hello. How are you?

Why won't anybody give it up for the Mitt-man?

It's almost like the pnnery in in a state of denial. You KNOW the Cain candidacy is not real...and poor Rick Perry has sabatoged himself at every turn. Unless somebody else jumps in at the 11th hour, it's a guaranteed dead-nut lock of a foregone conclusion.

obama vs obama-lite

Tick,

Hello. How are you?

I think Hack has tin foil covering his windows.

Rat,


Hello. How are you?

Great AA. How about you? The family?

bluetick wrote:Why won't anybody give it up for the Mitt-man?

It's almost like the pnnery in in a state of denial. You KNOW the Cain candidacy is not real...and poor Rick Perry has sabatoged himself at every turn. Unless somebody else jumps in at the 11th hour, it's a guaranteed dead-nut lock of a foregone conclusion.

obama vs obama-lite

The polls consistently put Romney voters at around 25% of the R electorate. That number has remained consistent throughout the campaign thus far. The other 75% of R voters have been all over the ballpark, pinballing from Trump to Bachmann to Perry, and most recently, to Cain. It is obvious that the latter 75% is the "Anybody but Romney" contingent. I am one of them.

All I (and probably the latter 75%) ask is that the R nominee be convincingly conservative. That's a ridiculously low standard for an R nominee, but I will stand by it anyway. Romney utterly fails to achieve that ridiculously low standard.

in the past, the R Party has nominated mushy Establishment moderates like McCain, Dole and Bush Sr. And those mushy Establishment moderates get their asses kicked in elections. That's precisely why Dem's and other liberals LOVE Romney.

It's sickening to think that under our current system, candidates like Romney, Obama, Bush, Gore, Kerry & McCain are the best we can do.