Someone tell Dick Cheney to STFU!

Did they mirandize him yet?

#2
was he arrested on U.S. soil?

This person is NOT A US CITIZEN!

So, you creeps trying to make him into one, are traitors to our citizenship ....

Who the hell was this guy??? Never heard of him. LOL

Did they mirandize him yet?

We don't "mirandize" or "marinate" people here, my dear. We just say "tag, you're it".

And what kind of a bullshit name is this? Mullah Barader?

Mulla "Brother"?

Who the hell was this guy??? Never heard of him. LOL.

He does have a recently added Wiki page which is somewot confusing.

Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar (born c. 1968)[1] also called Mullah Baradar Akhund, is an Afghan Taliban leader. The deputy of Mullah Mohammed Omar and member of the Quetta Shura, Baradar was largely seen as the de facto leader of the Taliban as of 2009.[2] Reported killed in an airstrike in Helmand Province on August 30, 2007,[3][4] he was captured by the ISI and CIA in Karachi, Pakistan in February 2010.[5] One Taliban commander confirmed his capture to the press, though claimed that Baradar had instead been captured in Helmand during Operation Moshtarak;[6] another flatly denied that he was in custody.[7]

Born in Weetmak, Deh Rahwod District, Orūzgān Province,[1] he is Durrani Pashtun of the Popolzai tribe,[8] and a former governor of Herat and Nimruz Province.[9][10] An unclassified US State Department document lists him as the former Deputy Chief of Army Staff and Commander of Central Army Corps, Kabul[11] while Interpol states that he was the Taliban's Deputy Minister of Defense.[1]

This guy's noggin is likely filled with tons of actionable intel an if handled right (ie. NOT tortured into insensibility) will no doubt prove to be a valuable asset.

Rendition, Rendition, Rendition. Given him a Pepsi, and a Big Mac is not going to get intel

NOT tortured into insensibility

If it sez "ISI captured him" then that means he'll be "mind-wiped".

ISI is known for using super truth serums to get info. They usually result in some permanent brain damage, but are otherwise very effective.

No "torture"... it is a rather pleasant experience I am told.

When I was in college I worked for a lab at Cornell Medical Center for $500 a week. They tested truth serums on me

Rendition, Rendition, Rendition. Given him a Pepsi, and a Big Mac is not going to get intel.

Do you know the difference between the renditions that Obama has authorised and the ones Bush did?

Here's a clue: Torture.

Here's another one...

We now know that not only did torture produce no good intel but it actually produced wrong intel which confused things unnecessarily.

It also produced tons more extremist folks who wanted to join the "Holy War" against the "Great Satan".

Fighting terror with terror only produces more terror.

Like putting out a fire with gasoline.

EPIC FAIL.

Kinda like yer posts.

Be Well.

Rendition, Rendition, Rendition. Given him a Pepsi, and a Big Mac is not going to get intel.

Do you know the difference between the renditions that Obama has authorised and the ones Bush did?

Here's a clue: Torture.

Here's another one...

We now know that not only did torture produce no good intel but it actually produced wrong intel which confused things unnecessarily.

It also produced tons more extremist folks who wanted to join the "Holy War" against the "Great Satan".

Fighting terror with terror only produces more terror.

Like putting out a fire with gasoline.

EPIC FAIL.

Sorry but the truth eludes you. I love koolaid drinkers like yourself. I am sure Egypt is not torturing prisoners because Obama says so. Obama is perceived as a pussy. People who volunteer to become suicide bombers were indoctrinated. They need to be killed and if torturing their brother enables us to kill them today as opposed to tomorrow I am all for it

I am sure Egypt is not torturing prisoners because Obama says so.

Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and the Iraqis all torture. The entire region is torture happy. Who sez they don't? Other than themselves, of course.

Obama is perceived as a pussy by weak minded, pants pissing faux patriot war-mongerers.

FTFY.

People who volunteer to become suicide bombers were indoctrinated.

Ya think?

They need to be killed and if torturing their brother enables us to kill them today as opposed to tomorrow I am all for it.

Couple things wrong with statement .

First, people who volunteer to become suicide bombers usually succeed and then there's little point to torturing their exploded remains.

Second, you FAIL to address Spud's contention that torture is counter-productive, as well as morally unjustifiable.

Proper interrogation techniques garner actionable intel.

Torture produces false confessions and whaargarbl.

The use of torture disenfranchises moderate voices and empowers extremists.

Experts agree.

Besides, ...If you have to become yer enemies in order to defeat yer enemies yer enemies have already won.

Be Well.

Spud, you are arguing with Jackass.

See here:

Spud, you are arguing with Jackass.

A Jackass or The Jackass.

One or the tother.

Be Well.

Second, you FAIL to address Spud's contention that torture is counter-productive, as well as morally unjustifiable.

Proper interrogation techniques garner actionable intel.

Torture produces false confessions and whaargarbl.

The use of torture disenfranchises moderate voices and empowers extremists.

Torture is very productive. There is no such thing as moderate voices in the Middle East. It is non-existant like conservative Democrats

A Jackass or The Jackass.

The Jackass.

The Jackass.

Nah, Bigpedo's other handle is timbicile,aka the Sicilian swish.

"Obama personally led the troops involved in the raid, giving them step-by-step instructions..."

-MSNBC and other U.S. State Controlled Media

This is the one thing President Obama is doing that I fully support. Hes proving to be a good CiC, either on purpose, or by being hands off and letting the people in the know do their thing and not meddling.

Either way, the more dead terrorists, the better.

He has plead NOT GUILTY and he wants a good lawyer...Taliban will pay for it....

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."_- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"_- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."_- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,_The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on _official White House site

5 months after 91101
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."_- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."_- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, _3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

good lawyers, i mean.

Bush ignored terror threat
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON The White House's former top anti-terrorism adviser says President Bush ignored warnings about al-Qaeda and ordered him to find a link between the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and Iraq.

Clarke said Sunday on CBS' 60 Minutes that soon after the attacks, Bush demanded to know whether Iraq was behind them. When Clarke told him intelligence found no link, "He came back at me and said: 'Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way."

After experts concluded again that Saddam Hussein played no role, Clarke said, his memo "got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. Do it again.' "

As early as Sept. 12, 2001, Clarke says, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld urged bombing Iraq despite repeated assurances from intelligence officials that the threat emanated from Afghanistan.

"Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq," Clarke said on Sunday's 60 Minutes. "I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.' "

I seem to remember the rightie wing dings saying Obama was crazy to consider pursuing terrorists into Pakistan. I'm sure they've forgotten by now, they always have such short memories.

I seem to remember the rightie wing dings saying Obama was crazy to consider pursuing terrorists into Pakistan. I'm sure they've forgotten by now, they always have such short memories.

#26 | Posted by danni at 2010-02-16 09:14 AM | Reply

No retard, as usual the pot has caused you to "mis-remember".
You and your ilk tried to imply that Obama came up with the idea of working inside Pakistan. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you fucking retards is that we were inside of Pakistan well before Obama even had such a thought or uttered such a phrase.

I feel as though I've explained this to you no less than 10 times. At this point I have to conclude that you smoke too much pot.

But as Media Matters for America has noted, The New York Times reported on July 18 that the Bush administration had "reluctantly endorsed" a cease-fire in Pakistan that "intelligence officials and White House aides" saw as one of "the main reasons for Al Qaeda's resurgence" in Pakistan. By contrast, Obama, who was highly critical of Bush in his speech, said: "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistani] President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will." Obama said of Bush: "He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq -- which didn't exist before our invasion -- and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan."

September 15, 2006, White House press conference, Bush had acknowledged that he had previously said that "the idea of sending special forces to Pakistan to hunt down bin Laden was a strategy that would not work," because "Pakistan is a sovereign nation":

Q.: Thank you, Mr. President. Earlier this week, you told a group of journalists that you thought the idea of sending special forces to Pakistan to hunt down bin Laden was a strategy that would not work.

BUSH: Yes.

Q.: Now, recently you've also --

BUSH: Because, first of all, Pakistan is a sovereign nation.

Q.: Well, recently you've also described bin Laden as a sort of modern day Hitler or Mussolini. And I'm wondering why, if you can explain why you think it's a bad idea to send more resources to hunt down bin Laden, wherever he is?

BUSH: We are, Richard. Thank you. Thanks for asking the question. They were asking me about somebody's report, well, special forces here -- Pakistan -- if he is in Pakistan, as this person thought he might be, who is asking the question -- Pakistan is a sovereign nation. In order for us to send thousands of troops into a sovereign nation, we've got to be invited by the government of Pakistan.

Secondly, the best way to find somebody who is hiding is to enhance your intelligence and to spend the resources necessary to do that; then when you find him, you bring him to justice.

Obama's approach is the "precise opposite" of Bush's policy:

Finally, on Pakistan, what Obama is proposing is the precise opposite of what Bush has done. It is clear that not only is General Musharraf incapable of controlling his tribal areas, but also that there are elements of the Pakistani military and intelligence services that are actively Salafist and support the jihadis, quite possibly including the Al Qaeda leadership. Bush has chosen to do nothing about this."

The mullah now said he is a friend of America.He just orders a Coke and a Happy Meal with a cheeseburger, apple dippers, and a dimebag. What?

woke,
You are a fucking retard. Your media matters link doesn't do a thing to dispell anything anyone said.

Not only that, it is public knowledge that both the Bush Admin and the Obama Admin avoid/ed mentioning that we operate inside Pakistan. It's not politically advantageous for the Pakis to admit we're operating inside of their shitbox.

Finding links is easy. So easy a retard like you can do it. The hard part for people as dumb as you is the ability to comprehend what the links say and don't say.

Long story short, you've been bitch slapped, again.

Well, tell us then chairboy....

How many top al queda or taleban leaders did bush capture or kill inside Pakistan?

Why does lilaWoke use the word "Obama" one time for every ten times he says "Bush"?

How many top al queda or taleban leaders did bush capture or kill inside Pakistan?

#31 | Posted by woke at 2010-02-16 09:46 AM | Reply

Tell me how fat your wife is.

I thought seeing as though you want to just change the subject when you're having your ass kicked I'd just change the subject while kicking your ass.

The Media Matters link you provided did not do one single thing to refute what I typed. I know you thought you had something there, but as usual, you didn't. How is it you're so frigging stupid? What did you think your link was refuting?

Here's a link from 2008, 6 1/2 years after 911, with your hero, bush admin still limiting US involvment in pakistan:

The administration largely has stayed out of the tribal areas, in part for fear that exposure of American-led operations there would embarrass the Musharraf government and further empower his critics, who say the Pakistani leader is too close to Washington.

Even now, according to officials, some in the State Department argue that American-led military operations on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan could result in a tremendous backlash. That would be particularly true, they said, if Americans were captured or killed in the territory.

CIA operatives and Special Operations forces have limited authority to conduct counterterrorism missions in Pakistan based on intelligence about the whereabouts of those two men or other members of the terrorist organization hiding in or near the tribal areas. The two men have eluded the Bush administration for more than six years.

The CIA has launched missiles from Predator aircraft in the tribal areas several times, with varying degrees of success. Intelligence officials said they believed an airstrike in January 2006 narrowly missed killing Zawahiri in Damadola, a Pakistani village. But that was apparently the last evidence American officials had about whereabouts of their chief targets.

New options for expanded covert operations include loosening the reins of the CIA to strike selected targets in Pakistan, in some cases using intelligence provided by Pakistani sources, officials said.

Most counterterrorism operations in Pakistan have to be conducted by the CIA. In Afghanistan, where military operations are under way, including with NATO forces, the military can take the lead. If the CIA were given broader authority, it could call for help from the military or deputize some Special Operations forces to act under authority of the agency.

The U.S. has about 50 soldiers in Pakistan. Any expanded operations using CIA operatives or Special Operations forces, such as Navy Seals, would be small and tailored to specific missions, military officials said.

When are you and your war vet denigrating buddies gonna learn that logic and facts trump namecalling and insults in the grown up world of debate boy?

Here's a link from 2008, 6 1/2 years after 911, with your hero, bush admin still limiting US involvment in pakistan...
#34 | Posted by woke

You are a strange bird. You realize you're proving my point to Danni, right?
You realize the point of my post #27(which is crystal clear to everyone but you) is that the Bush Admin was operating inside of Pakistan well before Obama even entertained such an idea. You get that, right?

Well obviously you don't, because you're fucking retarded.

If you addressed those links to Danni I'd understand, but for some odd reason you're addressing them to me.

Seriously, do you suffer from some form of dementia?

"No retard, as usual the pot has caused you to "mis-remember"."

Are you trying to pretend that McCain supporters did not criticize Obama for saying we should pursue terrorists into Pakistan???
You're full of crap if you are.
You are mighty free with the "retard" name calling without even gettting your facts straight.

Is there any period of history right wing tools don't try to rewrite?

Is there any period of history right wing tools don't try to rewrite?

#38 | Posted by danni at 2010-02-16 10:04 AM | Reply |

Wait, you recall you thinking it was Obama's idea to work inside of Pakistan, right?
You sycophants amuse me with your stupidity.

I believe the McCain supporters (I was not one) admonsihed Obama for publically stating what his intentions were. As you know, Americans are not the only people watching debates.
US Military personell working inside a soveriegn nation is likely to cause it's savage like residents to be upset. We both know that's why the Obama Admin is currently apt to avoid making a big deal about their strikes in Paki, and usually don't take credit for them.

The fact I have to explain this to you and that uber-retard woke is sickening.

"Seriously, do you suffer from some form of dementia?"

You are dealing with someone who actually thinks OJ was innocent, and was set up by Furman and Lang. Pretty much sums up his mindset.

"When are you and your war vet denigrating buddies gonna learn that logic and facts trump namecalling and insults in the grown up world of debate boy?"

This coming from someone who does the following the moment you disagree with him:

1) Accuses you of hating all vets and their gold star mothers
2) Insists you are neocon and fit all the negative stereotypes that come with it.
3) Otherwise foams at the mouth with illogical insults and outright delusion

You don't get be the hyper-aggressive crazy guy AND the classy "let's debate civilly" guy. And since you can't stop being the former, you shouldn't pretend to be the latter.

"As you know, Americans are not the only people watching debates."

As you know, we don't really ever know what the CIA is doing so talking about what they may have been doing in Pakistan at that time was irrelevant. I was speaking about those who are so quick to criticize Obama's perceived weakness on fighting terror while, in reality,he laid out a more aggressive position back during the campaign than the McCain supporters were even comfortable with. Now that that type of action is bringing results those same folks pretend they were for it all along. Fact is they weren't and, as usual, can't remember the day before yesterday.

Now that that type of action is bringing results those same folks pretend they were for it all along. Fact is they weren't and, as usual, can't remember the day before yesterday.

#42 | Posted by danni at 2010-02-16 10:33 AM | Reply

Who are these same phantom folks you are arguing with, Danniville?

The point is, and remains to be, that we were doing things inside of Pakistan way before Obama uttered a word about it. It was being done on the down-low because that was what our ally asked for, and continue to ask for.
Obama coming out and talking about it was a rookie mistake, one he appears to have learned from.

I sure hope they read him his rights and gave him a lawyer.

"The point is, and remains to be, that we were doing things inside of Pakistan way before Obama uttered a word about it."

But your point was irrelevant to mine. I always figured our CIA was in Pakistan and probably lots of other places we don't know about too. I was referring to people's partisan attacks on Obama and their lack of acknowledgement of his strong leadership now in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Fact is, we seem to be doing better in both countries now and the Obamahaters are unwilling to acknowledge that he, at the very least, is allowing the CIA to conduct their incursions against the Taliban.

Who are these same phantom folks you are arguing with, Danniville?

Maybe these folks?

You're proving Danni's point. The calls from the Right were vehement against Obama's policy re: Pakistan. He was derided as being naive and clueless. In fact, Palin got into a bit of a flap because she seemed to back Obama's plan contrary to McCain's - when she was McCain's VP.

"So we do cross-border, like from Afghanistan to Pakistan, you think?" Temple University graduate student Michael Rovito asked Palin at a Philadelphia restaurant on Aug. 27.

"If that's what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should," Palin said.

Then McCain had to "set" the record "straight:"

McCain fired back hard, arguing that newly elected Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari has had his "hands full" and suggesting that Obama's tough talk was nave.

Then Palin got back on board with:

The Alaska governor criticized Obama for advocating cross-border attacks into Pakistan without that nation's approval, disparaging him for suggesting that the U.S. should engage in "invading the sovereign territory of a troubled partner in the war against terrorism."

Culled from several stories, but this one link seems to cover them all fairly well:

#46 | Posted by YAV at 2010-02-16 10:56 AM | Reply

I have no idea what you're trying to convey. You say "Maybe these folks" and then don't name any folks that Danniville is arguing with.

That aside, are you honestly trying to make a point about Obama not being a rookie and making a mistake in regards to Pakistan's soveriegnty by pointing out a retard like Palin actually agreed with him?

You're a bright guy Yav, and I like you, but I think you're missing the boat on that last post.

McCain and Palin were named. I illustrated the switch of position even within the McCain/Palin camp. As to others, I was around during the election and heard it all. Now we see even Cheney giving props (of sorts) to Obama's Pakistan policy.

However, to be more specific, how many times has Obama been derided by the Right focused posters for just "launching drone attacks" at Pakistan? I've read that charge many times on here.

When the debate on what to do in Afghanistan was going on, Biden was ridiculed for his stance on drone attacks.

This isn't some great hidden mystery, which is why I find what I'm reading from you, 101 a bit odd.

Granted I may be coming at it from a very different perspective, and haven't gotten to what you're saying.

(plus I'm at work and on a conference call that's KILLING ME!!!)

So, let me get this straight, Obama gets a Taliban leader that GW couldn't get in 8 years.... that about sum it up?

I sure hope they read him his rights and gave him a lawyer.

#44 | Posted by Sniper

And then stuck his fucking head in a vise and started cranking.

However, to be more specific, how many times has Obama been derided by the Right focused posters for just "launching drone attacks" at Pakistan? I've read that charge many times on here.

When the debate on what to do in Afghanistan was going on, Biden was ridiculed for his stance on drone attacks.

#48 | Posted by YAV at 2010-02-16 11:08 AM

A couple of things...

I meant specifically who was Danni's post directed to? What phantom "righty" or "righties" was her post directed at? That's why I called her Danniville (that clown redneckville fights imaginary enemies on the retort all of the time)/

As for ragging Obama about drone attacks I believe (assume) it's simply turning around a familiar lefty attack on Bush. It's been said countless times here that Bush killed a bunch of number two's that will simply be replaced. Every drone strike and kill was met with ridicule.

I'm all for Obama's attacks inside of Pakistan, just like I was all for the ones Bush did. I just happen to believe announcing them (or your intention) in public was bad form and didn't help our allies inside the Paki government or military.

Long story short, I liked the idea, I liked the results, and I liked the fact he's willing to be aggressive. I don't like him stating as much.
Say what you will, but the link woke mistakenly provided shows Bush keeping his mouth shut when he could have taken some heat off himself by admitting we're active in Paki.

This is good news, but it reminds me a bit of how many times the Bush Administration trumpeted the capture of Al Qaeda's No. 2 man. Every time we caught that bastard he came back under another name.

"Where am I?"
"In the village"
"Who are you?"
"The new number two"
"Who is number one?"

As for ragging Obama about drone attacks I believe (assume) it's simply turning around a familiar lefty attack on Bush. It's been said countless times here that Bush killed a bunch of number two's that will simply be replaced. Every drone strike and kill was met with ridicule.

Perhpas capturing them and picking their brains for intel will be a more effective strategy than killing them?

So, let me get this straight, Obama gets a Taliban leader that GW couldn't get in 8 years.... that about sum it up?

#50 | Posted by Corky at 2010-02-16 11:12 AM | Reply

No, not quite.

The Paki's got him. I think it's safe to assume we had people present.
Oh, I hope the Paki's aren't the ones questioning him. You know they probably aren't as kind as our question askers...

Perhpas capturing them and picking their brains for intel will be a more effective strategy than killing them?

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2010-02-16 11:33 AM | Reply

Perhaps, but the practice is continuing under Obama's watch and doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon.
Besides, we should really straighten out some legalities before taking some high profile bad guys in to custody.

Besides, we should really straighten out some legalities before taking some high profile bad guys in to custody.

Well, if that's the case, let's just bring the troops home while we sort things out. No sense in having them capture or kill someone with all these legal uncertainties swirling in the air.

You guys actually believe all this ?

They take local farmers and call them terrorists.

Anything to keep a good money making war going

597th #2 man caught so far. But let's hope the militay keeps him away from enlisted gays, women, jews and dogs, so we don't offend his sensibilities.

The GOP

This person is NOT A US CITIZEN!

So, you creeps trying to make him into one, are traitors to our citizenship ....

#4 | Posted by tadowe

Yeah! I agree! I specifically remember our forefathers etching citizen into the fourth amendment and not giving any of those stinking British rights after ratification in 1789! ...oh wait. Crap.

You guys actually believe all this ?

They take local farmers and call them terrorists.

Anything to keep a good money making war going

#59 | Posted by richardrhine

Hell of a reach to take a farmer and label him Mullah Baradar.

Anything to keep a good money making war going

#59 | Posted by richardrhine

"You guys actually believe all this ?"

People who are naive suffer from a problem where they can't filter information and reach logical conclusions as to what is true or not. So they just believe what they are told.

People who just reject anything the government says suffer from the same limitation. Except instead of just believing everything, their one size fits all solution is to believe nothing.

Yeah! I agree! I specifically remember our forefathers etching citizen into the fourth amendment and not giving any of those stinking British rights after ratification in 1789! ...oh wait. Crap.

#61 | Posted by Sycophant

Who does the US constitution apply to? The entire world? If it applies to the entire world then we are the one world government.

A cheery bit of propaganda within the context of a doomed military offensive.

I'm all for Obama's attacks inside of Pakistan, just like I was all for the ones Bush did. I just happen to believe announcing them (or your intention) in public was bad form and didn't help our allies inside the Paki government or military.

Long story short, I liked the idea, I liked the results, and I liked the fact he's willing to be aggressive. I don't like him stating as much.

Exactly.

I was all for the strategy itself. I just thought it was beyond stupid to announce said strategy. Pakistan is a somewhat unstable country and, as an ally, they are tenuous. Announcing that we are going to do what we please regardless of their sovereignty is a HUGE bitch-slap when we need to allow them every opportunity to save face.

Anyone remember when we had intel that Zawahiri was going to be visiting a home in Pakistan and we obliterated said home with a Cruise Missile? Pakistan bitched and Bush said nothing. Bush did what he wanted/felt he needed BUT he allowed Pakistan to berate him for his decision thus allowing them to save some face. Saving face and the projection of power is HUGE in the Middle East.

As for this capture....it's a good one, as far as I can tell. While, the intel workings for this may have been in place before Obama took office; fact is he HAS taken ownership of Afghanistan and this has truly become his war. Politically, he is well within his right to claim victory on this; and MAN, does he need a victory right now! The timing couldn't have been better after Biden, an extreme outbreak of lameness and political partisanship, attempted to claim credit for success in Iraq - even the MSM scoffed at that one.

A cheery bit of propaganda within the context of a doomed military offensive.

#66 | Posted by confucius

You may be correct.

Our rules of engagement are beyond absurd.

We desperately need a leader who will go out on the stump and say:

"Afghanistan was the breeding ground for our mortal enemies. The so-called government at the time harbored and supported Al Queda and were a bunch of oppressive douchebags to their own people. Well, we have spent 8+ years over there operating with kid-gloves. No more! These assholes attempt to blend in with the citizenry. In cowardly fashion they employ human shields. They debase mosques by using them as military camps. They are the absolute scum of the earth. We have wasted far too much in terms of blood and treasure pussy-footing around trying to minimize 'collateral damage' and trying to be 'politically-correct'. Yet, the attacks and attempted attacks on our nation continue unabated - enough is enough. We are going to root you fuckers out. We are going to find you and we are going to employ a combination of drone attacks, B-52 carpet bombing and heavy troop attacks buttressed by air-support via Apache Helicopters and A-10 Warthog attack jets. Note to those whom are being employed as shields - if you take shrapnel it is tragic, but it is THEIR fault. THESE ASSHOLES put you in harm's way. Our country is no longer going to reward barbarism by treating these monsters less harshly than we would a legitimate, standing army of an oppposition-nation adhering to the rules of warfare. Don't be bullied by these thugs and certainly don't provide support. We are done being discriminate. We have done so for almost a decade and we have no end in sight. We are NOT going to tuck-tail and scamper away so our only other choice is to get nasty - the current course isn't working. We are dead serious. Take this warning and act accordingly."

THAT is what I would like to hear from the executive branch.

ummm the most recent attacks came from Yemen, but why let reality get in the way of a wet dream.

We are fighting a civil war, nothing more, nothing less.

was all for the strategy itself. I just thought it was beyond stupid to announce said strategy. Pakistan is a somewhat unstable country and, as an ally, they are tenuous. Announcing that we are going to do what we please regardless of their sovereignty is a HUGE bitch-slap when we need to allow them every opportunity to save face.

Anyone remember when we had intel that Zawahiri was going to be visiting a home in Pakistan and we obliterated said home with a Cruise Missile? Pakistan bitched and Bush said nothing. Bush did what he wanted/felt he needed BUT he allowed Pakistan to berate him for his decision thus allowing them to save some face. Saving face and the projection of power is HUGE in the Middle East.

As for this capture....it's a good one, as far as I can tell. While, the intel workings for this may have been in place before Obama took office; fact is he HAS taken ownership of Afghanistan and this has truly become his war. Politically, he is well within his right to claim victory on this; and MAN, does he need a victory right now! The timing couldn't have been better after Biden, an extreme outbreak of lameness and political partisanship, attempted to claim credit for success in Iraq - even the MSM scoffed at that one.

#67 | Posted by JeffJ

we are allowed to bomb anyone the president want whenever we want to and THEY are the terrorists, ok gotcha.

we are allowed to bomb anyone the president want whenever we want to and THEY are the terrorists, ok gotcha.

#70 | Posted by truthhurts

What???

America bombs Pakistan without a declaration of war, same with Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan and a few other places that I cant be bothered to look up for you.

we have killed many women and children in those bombing runs.

and yet you dont consider our actions terroristic?

do I need to start posting pictures of dead babies or children suffering from cancer because of depleted uranium?

and in 68 you advocate basically levelling swaths of afghanistan because of what? one set of afghans dont agree with another set of aghans? we love our corrupt allies more than the other guys?

The taliban did not attack us on 9/11 9 years later, well we are not fighting about 9/11 we are fighting an afghan civil war.

"Announcing that we are going to do what we please regardless of their sovereignty is a HUGE bitch-slap when we need to allow them every opportunity to save face."

If you were to recall the context that Obama made the statement about our troops pursuing terrorists into Pakistan, you would remember it was asked "if we had actionable intelligence would he allow troops to pursue them into Pakistan". If he would have said he would not allow them to pursue on actionable intelligence you would have been bashing him for that. In the anti-Obama world there is no right way to answer a question.

and yet you dont consider our actions terroristic?

So what do we do?

Capitulate?

Obama went on a massive apology tour. He went into Cairo and sung our past mistakes - he even went so far as to reward the Mullahs with the nationalistic title of "Islamic Republic of Iran". Regrettably, these fucks are irreconcilable. Apparently, no matter what we do, short of converting, will be met with violence. So, what do we do?

If you were to recall the context that Obama made the statement about our troops pursuing terrorists into Pakistan, you would remember it was asked "if we had actionable intelligence would he allow troops to pursue them into Pakistan". If he would have said he would not allow them to pursue on actionable intelligence you would have been bashing him for that. In the anti-Obama world there is no right way to answer a question.

That's pretty fair. Again, I don't disagree with his position; quite the contrary - I support it. I just think he shouldn't have stated it outright. This is one of those RARE occasions where I wish he would have acted like a politician and avoided the question.

If he would have said he would not allow them to pursue on actionable intelligence you would have been bashing him for that.

#74 | Posted by danni at 2010-02-16 02:04 PM | Reply

Some times being a leader is tough. Look at you fruitcakes crying over everything Bush did. We were in Paki under his watch, yet he played his cards close to his vest and let tools from the left claim he wasn't doing enough.

If Obama can't handle criticism he took the wrong job.

Anyone remember when we had intel that Zawahiri was going to be visiting a home in Pakistan and we obliterated said home with a Cruise Missile?

America has never fired a cruise missile in Pakistan, dude.

The ones on the drones are not "cruise missiles". LOL

Anyway, more info on BBC:

Guy was caught in Nooriabad.... hiding in an industrial area.

So what do we do?

Capitulate?

Redeploy the fuck out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hey we can continue to fight other people civil wars ad infinitum.

When we are done in Afghanistan look for us to move into Pakistan after Paki we can move onto Yemen, back to Somalia, by that time Iran will be ripe for our civil war cure, i am sure our annual "defense" budget will be around $2 trillion by then but who cares.

TH,

Our current rules of engagement are NOT working.

I vividly remember on a thread titled 'How would Gore have been different than Bush' where you stated that (paraphrased): "As pacifist as I am, I would have supported going into Afghanistan under Gore and I supported it under Bush."

OK.

We have been ther over 8 years and counting. At what point do we actually get tough and fight this battle to win?

You supported going over there - great.

Now, you appear to expect us to sustain heavy losses because you want our troops to fight with massive kid-gloves?

Please clarify.

America has never fired a cruise missile in Pakistan, dude.

My recollection was that it WAS a cruise missile and while it was close to the border, it detonated within Pakistani-proper.

When we are done in Afghanistan look for us to move into Pakistan

Oh really??? LOL

you underestimate the american people's capacity for trouble making

My recollection was that it WAS a cruise missile and while it was close to the border, it detonated within Pakistani-proper.

No, I am sure America has never fired cruise missiles into Pak.

The only times we had cruise missiles land in our territory was when Clinton fired a few into Afghanistan from the Arabian Sea.

Two fell inside Pakistan, undamaged.

Those were reverse-engineered to create our own Tomahawk clones.

Other than that, no cruise missiles have been used in the area. Not with drones doing the work..... and they are far too big for drones.

because jeff we are not fighting for 9/11 any more in Afghanistan

The mission has mutated into a civil war. We are fighting one set of afghanis that dont want the same politics as another set of afghanis. the taliban pose zero threat to the US, sorry but that is the truth.

you underestimate the american people's capacity for trouble making

They might WANT to.... but wanting something and being able to do it, are two very different things.

No, I am sure America has never fired cruise missiles into Pak.

#83 | Posted by Tosser at 2010-02-16 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag: still in denial

TH,

So, what happens when we leave?

Does the Taliban regain control?

If so, what do we do then?

you underestimate the american people's capacity for trouble making

They might WANT to.... but wanting something and being able to do it, are two very different things.

#85 | Posted by Tosser

Tosser it might not be imaginable NOW, but imagine this scenario.

Sarah palin is elected President in 2012.

September 12, 2013 another 911 occurs in America and osama bin forgotten claims responsibility and he is supposedly living in some hut in northwhatthefuckistan of Pakistan.

Some morons might be convinced that american boots on the ground is what it will take.

er more american boots

because jeff we are not fighting for 9/11 any more in Afghanistan

I distinctly remember your comment - even more vividly than your attenting an anti-war protest comment :-)

Seriously though, what has changed that has caused you to turn sour on an endeavor that you used to support? Can you actually claim victory for our country in Afghanistan?

TH,

So, what happens when we leave?

Does the Taliban regain control?

If so, what do we do then?

#87 | Posted by JeffJ

WHO GIVES A FUCK?

Lets just buy the taliban like we did with the Iraqi Sunnis.

Again we are not fighting a group of people that attacked us. We are fighting a group of morons who want to control a pile of shit.

Seriously though, what has changed that has caused you to turn sour on an endeavor that you used to support? Can you actually claim victory for our country in Afghanistan?

#89 | Posted by JeffJ at

well first of all I am not one who worries about winning and losing, that is rhethoric without real meaning.

Afghanistan changed for me in 2002 as I saw we were achieving nothing beyond blowing up piles of rocks. I started thinking what we were accomplishing. Hey I was all for blowing people up after 9/11 but as time went on, i began to think about who our enemies are and what they want to achieve. And bankrupting ourselves will make them quite happy.

Some morons might be convinced that american boots on the ground is what it will take.

er more american boots

There are no American boots on the ground in Pak and they never will be. Not as long as we control your supplies, food and water.

We have FBI and some American Marines working with our border guards and around 100 language and communication specialists, but they are not allowed to shoot up the place.

As for Osama being in Pakistan... even till this day... there has been no evidence whatsoever of him being here.

Of course, they are welcome to try and cross the border into Pak... I suspect they might try it right now..... but then you will see quite a bit of shit hitting the fan.

re #86 should have said still in denial about Americans bringing the War to Pakistan

still in denial

Go ahead and prove me wrong. LOL

umm didnt a couple of US soldiers die in an attack in pakistan last week?

Tosser... do you really think your country has some kind of special immunity?

Not so. Your press will never admit that we are there. But, bet me if you dare...we are there.

still in denial about Americans bringing the War to Pakistan

Oh, I'm not in denial about THAT.

All of our troubles with the taliban-types started after the American fighting in Afghanistan.

I have said so before, we are experiencing "spill-over" (that's the technical term). But it's got a lot better now.

umm didnt a couple of US soldiers die in an attack in pakistan last week?

#95 | Posted by truthhurts at 2010-02-16 02:36 PM | Reply

Uh, that was different. Because.
-Tosser

umm didnt a couple of US soldiers die in an attack in pakistan last week?

They were building a school.

They are part of a program to liaise with the Frontier Corps (not Pak army).

This program was started by Mushi before he left.

There are about 50 to 150 Marines in this role here. They are not fighting or "knocking down doors".

Islamabad Bob=Tosser

didnt say that, i said boots on the ground, and there were/are boots on the ground

Again we are not fighting a group of people that attacked us. We are fighting a group of morons who want to control a pile of shit.

#90 | Posted by truthhurts

Do you realize how close that 'pile of shit' came to blowing up an airplane with 200+ passengers PLUS whatever 'collateral damage' would have been incurred on the ground had the 'underwear bomber' been a bit more competent???

This isn't going away.

Fine - you may live in a 'rural area' that is a low-value attack. However, I LIVE in the 'burbs of Detroit. This is personal. If you can suggest a course of captitulation that would result in at least a dialogue toward 'treaty'....by all means. How has that worked out for you??

In the meantime, MY community is at MAJOR risk and your are telling me that I am at fault??!!??

Seriously - Fuck you!!!

We dodged a bullet and all you seem interested in is defending your ideology - your love of these monsters - ahead of those supposed 'innocents' that you supposedly love to support.

Coming on the heels of two other American incursions a commando raid on a suspected militant hideout on Sept. 3 left 20 people dead,

Yes, this raid was in 2008? (there was only one)

After that, we fired on approaching American choppers twice in 48 hours.

President Zardari, who was in US at the time, commented on CNN that we were firing "flares". LOL

No other incursions have occurred. Now everyone keeps to their area.

When you say "boots on the ground", it means a real live "hot pursuit" and military action against a hostile force.

I seriously doubt if they would be stupid enough to ever go through with that.

jeff jeff jeff

you do realize that that attack was planned and executed out of Yemen. yes you do know that. Well at least you do NOW. Not the taliban. See this is where small minds get us in trouble. The inability to differentiate the Taliban-a local afghanistan political/religous party from al queda, a religously oriented terrorist organization is why we are in this mess.

When you say "boots on the ground", it means a real live "hot pursuit" and military action against a hostile force.

#107 | Posted by Tosser at 2010-02-16 02:46 PM | Reply

No retard, it means boots on the ground. In other words, we have soldiers on your soil.

But I suppose it means something different in Savage Land?

now if you want to consider privatized armies, well we have blackwater er Xe operating in Pakistan.

Yes.... NOW you're talking.

There do seem to be some suspicious looking fellows, I am told... Xe... but then there are all sort of exaggerations about them.

We don't know how many there are but they have been hiring a lot of local talent for body-guard duties.

Diplomats are allowed to arrange for their own security and that is probably all they are.

No retard, it means boots on the ground.

No Cripple, "boots on the ground" is used in a fighting context.

Yes, there are plenty of Americans here, but all non-fighting.

But I suppose it means something different in Savage Land?

101-Chootiyay... if you had "boots on the ground" in Pakistan in a real fighting sorta way, you might have Osama arrested by now. LOL

So where is he? hahahahahahahaha

Jerk.

"The inability to differentiate the Taliban-a local afghanistan political/religous party from al queda, a religously oriented terrorist organization is why we are in this mess."

Except the Taliban that was formerly governing Afghanistan WAS complicite in the 9/11 attacks.

Al Queda had been attacking us from Afghanistan from years. The Taliban knew it. They encouraged it. They knew Al Queda was working on a big attack on the US. They continued to host/protect Al Queda anyway. After 9/11 they were given the option of turning Al Queda over and chose not to do so. Again- they were protecting what had essentially become their sister organization. Taliban and Al Queda were also fighting side by side in the same foxholes against the Northern Alliance. These groups were never that organized as far as membership is concerned in the first place and back in 2001, the line between Al Queda and the Taliban was as blurred as it had ever been. You're applying the situation in 2010 to 2001.

I don't think we should still be in Afghanistan nation building. That is just stupid. But to the extent that we were able to kill Taliban during our initial invasion we were killing people who were part of an organization that participated in attacks against us.

No Cripple, "boots on the ground" is used in a fighting context.

#111 | Posted by Tosser at 2010-02-16 02:55 PM | Reply

You're a dumbass. Having "boots on the ground" simply means there are soldiers present. It does not in any way mean they have to be fighting.

Let's just both agree you are wrong again and we can save you the embarrassment and time of serial posting your retarded musings.

Boots on the ground means soldiers present. It's really that simple.

You're a dumbass.

And you're a fake paratrooper.

It does not in any way mean they have to be fighting.

What are you doing then sending non-fighting Americans into Pakistan? LOL

Boots on the ground means soldiers present.

Since they don't do any shooting, can they still be called "soldiers"?

"Boots on the ground" is used in a fighting context, my crippled "paratrooper".

Repeating it doesn't make it true. I understand that where you're from you may actually believe it does, but in the civilized world, we know better. In fact, in the civilized world, people that think like that are called "children".

Boots on the Ground means there are soldiers present. That's it. Trying to explain a concept this simple to a 3rd world savage is pointless. I don't have a cave wall to draw you a picture. Nor can I discuss this over a dung cooked meal. You'll just have to live with the fact there are concepts your primitive brain will not be able to comprehend.

Of course, you could always prove your warped definition of Boots on the Ground by providing some evidence. We both know it isn't going to happen, so have fun serial posting, PigPen.

Boots on the Ground means there are soldiers present. That's it.

And our Cripple proves once more, he was never in the military. LOL

"Boots on the ground" is an all-purpose term used to describe ground forces actually fighting in a war or conflict at the time of speaking.

Google definitions.

Yes, Cripple.... you were saying??? LOL

Please spare me some definition from a PC online war-game.

If you use the "define" switch in Google, you can use Google as a dictionary.

Go for it, loser. See for yourself.

Try this on for size, PigPen...
boots on the groundn.pl. personnel deployed under military command. Subjects: English, United States, Military, Jargon

Try this on for size, PigPen...

Cripple, it sez "personnel deployed under military command".

What good is "command" when you are not allowed to shoot a weapon? LOL

Anyway, the Google definition is more detailed, accurate and modern.

Sorry Cripple.

We have been ther over 8 years and counting. At what point do we actually get tough and fight this battle to win?

Never. The USSR couldn't do it, we won't be able to to do it. And we'd need a draft to supply the prodigious numbers of "boots on the ground" required to even try.

There is no military solution. I mean, the military can play a role, but nation-building is the only way to fix this.

I suppose another way would be to cut Israel, Egypt, Saudi, and Pakistan loose, but we need the oil too much to let other interests take foothold in the region.

so we dont have boots on the ground in Haiti, or Germany or Japan?

Tosser... do you really think Special Forces are not operating in your country?

Coming to a country near you!

I don't and can't speak for the military but as I told you before if we stay on the path we are on America with be fighting the Taliban in your country if they are not already.

Don't act like your country is magically immune... it is not. Don't get me wrong though...I don't want us to be there but if you think somehow that your border is some kind of magical barrier to American Troops you are being foolish.

Don't act like your country is magically immune... it is not.

It is.

Or else you would've attacked across the border and taken territory by now.

your border is some kind of magical barrier to American Troops

Seems to be that way, doesn't it?

...I don't want us to be there but if you think somehow that your border is some kind of magical barrier to American Troops you are being foolish.

We learned by waterboarding illegal Mexican aliens (why do you think they are called 'wetbacks'?) and forcing them to tell us how they do it.

do you really think Special Forces are not operating in your country?

If you mean they are shooting up the neighborhood.... then no. LOL

But we do have American intel gathering officers since day-one.

Or else you would've attacked across the border and taken territory by now.

America does not take other countries territory...what an idiot thing to say...listening to Radio Moscow again? We don't want your stinkin country. We just want you to stop exporting asshole gansta wannabes.

If you mean they are shooting up the neighborhood.... then no. LOL

SF does not operate by "shooting up the neighborhood". They gather intel and if so instructed you are just "disappeared".

America does not take other countries territory

It does. Iraq. Afghanistan.

We just want you to stop exporting asshole gansta wannabes.

The only way for you to do that... in theory... is to occupy the tribal areas of Pak.

Do you have the balls to do that? LOL

Right now, you don't even have the balls to take on the taliban, full force. They still have 80% of Afghanistan under their control.

They gather intel and if so instructed you are just "disappeared".

I know it is your fantasy that I "disappear"... but it ain't happening.

All the American intel officers here, btw, have their reports seen over by the ISI.

They gather intel and if so instructed you are just "disappeared".

Well my dear... how come Haqqani hasn't "disappeared"?

He runs the network that has killed the most American troops in Afghanistan. And he lives in the tribal areas.

How about making him "disappear"? It's been 9 years now and still no "disappearing".

America does not take other countries territory

Alaska.... California... Texas....

How about making him "disappear"? It's been 9 years now and still no "disappearing".

#131 | Posted by Tosser

I am sure I don't know...but If ya'll would quit squawkin I bet it would make that a whole lot easier.

Remember John Wayne in the Alamo!

but If ya'll would quit squawkin I bet it would make that a whole lot easier.

You just don't have the capability to make people "disappear" is what I'm pointing out.

America does not take other countries territory

Alaska.... California... Texas....

#132 | Posted by Tosser

hmmm best (re)learn American History...Manifest Destiny did not cover anything outside of North America and that was then this is now...oh and btw we bought Alaska.

You just don't have the capability to make people "disappear" is what I'm pointing out.

#135 | Posted by Tosser

right

oh and btw we bought Alaska.

By taking advantage of a moron who later got himself and his family killed.

right

Yep.

Get Haqqani, if you are capable.

This Mullah Brother thing seems like bullshit to me. Guy seems to be a nobody.

I hope they don't take him to Cuba. That base is closed.

"Texas...."

#132 | Posted by Tosser

Flag: WRONG

WE apparently have no qualms killing Americans overseas why should we have any problem killing Taliban anywhere we find them (if we can find them).

A 1981 executive order signed by President Reagan explicitly bans assassination by the U.S. government. So it caused considerable controversy when, in 2002, President Bush articulated a policy, as part of what he called the "global war on terror," allowing the CIA to assassinate not just terrorists but Americans involved in terrorism. That controversy is repeating this week: Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told Congress that the government can target Americans it believes to be terrorists.

Actually the Republic of Texas agreed to be annexed, we bought Alaska from the Russians (see Seward's Folly) but I don't know how we got stuck with California. I think it was the spoils of the Mexican/American war.

Yep.

Get Haqqani, if you are capable.

ME? I am just a techy nerd... let me fly a drone and I'll launch a sidewinder at his ass...maybe...but I will leave that assassination shit to the grunts who enjoy that sort of thing... watch your news looks like something new on the Paki front all the time now...and don't kid yourself Tosser... we breed em like flies over here and the economy is the shits. The big dumb gorillas (grunts) all need jobs too and they are just itching to kill something. You should see how they are lining up to get into the Special Forces Training. America is slowly accepting the fact that we are actually at War. It is becoming the new normal.

A bit sad if you ask me but that is the World we seem to be right now.

Remember John Wayne in the Alamo!

I'll be having dinner a block from the Alamo this Saturday at 5:00

I'll be having dinner a block from the Alamo this Saturday at 5:00

#144 | Posted by goatman at 2010-02-16 04:37 PM | Reply

Do you need a ride home?
-AmericanVersionvan

According to an article in Time, FWIW, what the State Department and Obama are trying to do is to make it seem disadvantageous for the Taliban to continue to support or be allies with AQ. This is in an effort to defeat AQ, not to defeat the Taliban which has deep roots among the average people in Afghanistan.

The biggest problem I see is... Obama is doing exactly what Bush was doing but, he is so political and so self consumed that he has to announce everything so he can say "look at me, look at me"! Any real leader would take the heat and would not be so worried about proving to the American people what "he" has done. Obama, always has to draw the attention to himself. This is the one area Obama will not say I "inherited" this from the Bush. Obama, on the campaign said "he would send troops into Pakistan". That was and is not a smart move b/c of the backlash it will bring. The people of Pakistan as Tosser has demonstrated time and time again that they are not fond of Americans especially on their land. The best way is to conduct our operations and win regardless of who gets the credit. But, Obama is always concerned w/ who gets the credit.

Dalton-
re: Any real leader would take the heat and would not be so worried about proving to the American people what "he" has done. Obama, always has to draw the attention to himself.

Do I really need to post the video of Bush landing on a carrier in a jet in a flight suit to declare "mission accomplished", you insufferable retard?

Dalton-
re: Obama, on the campaign said "he would send troops into Pakistan".

When you place something in quotes and say someone said it, it states that they actually said it. Otherwise, it's a lie. Is that easy enough to follow?

Do I really need to post the video of Bush landing on a carrier in a jet in a flight suit to declare "mission accomplished", you insufferable retard?

Feel free, but what is the connection to Obama's antics, boy(d)?

What are Obama's antics over Baradar's capture? I've had news on most of the day, just watched nightly news, and haven't seen a comment from Obama yet except about nuclear power.

Dalton's building strawmen.

Do I really need to post the video of Bush landing on a carrier in a jet in a flight suit to declare "mission accomplished", you insufferable retard?

Feel free, but what is the connection to Obama's antics, boy(d)?

#150 | Posted by goatman at 2010-02-16 07:35 PM | Reply | Flag:still having that same old trouble with reading comprehension

still having that same old trouble with reading comprehension

Not at all, donnieboy, but thanks for the insight into the little fantasyland that consumes your mind. It's interesting.

"In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism Wednesday, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama called not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama hits the re-known Apollo Theatre for a campaign fundraiser. "I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said, "but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists"

?????????????

boyd, has one response... Bush bwach bhach bwhack....

Au and boyd are ?????????

It's rather easy to follow boyd! Obama said he would send troups in to Pakistan w/ or w/out permission you stupid hack!!!!!!! You and Au are the most pathetic little liars ever!!!!!!!!!!
Hack... Sqwauk Sqwauk.... Loooser!!!!!!!!

"
What are Obama's antics over Baradar's capture? I've had news on most of the day, just watched nightly news, and haven't seen a comment from Obama yet except about nuclear power.

Dalton's building strawmen."

If you don't think the O released this in his best interest you are the worst political hack of all time!!!!!

Boyd..."When you place something in quotes and say someone said it, it states that they actually said it. Otherwise, it's a lie. Is that easy enough to follow?" how do those quote fit you? No response? I guess you have gone to bed?

where are you badweek? Boyd? BetelG? anyone. Where are you? the silence is... well?

Not only that but, Biden toughted Irag as a success of the administration! The "o" is a looser of the upmost. Toughting the success of your most hated administration.

Jak Se Mao "Finger-sniffing little chickenshit"

That about sums up boyd and au?

Feel free, but what is the connection to Obama's antics, boy(d)?

#150 | Posted by goatman at 2010-02-16 07:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

I must have missed "Obama's antics". Can you clue me in?

Dalton-
You got the quote right once:

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Which seemed pretty sensible to me at the time, and still does.

As for your ongoing little hissy fit, placing words in quotes repeatedly does not an actual quote make.

DALTON

You reference Obama's 'antics' about catching Baradar when all there was on TV today was him announcing an $8 Billion loan to build a nuke plant. Nothing on Baradar.

You're welcome to point out what 'antics' you were talking about. Gonna be tough to do though since he's never even discussed it since Baradar was caught. Calling someone names won't make your statement any less preposterous.

I don't know if the news had reached you yet... Mushi is no longer President.

Yes, Obama did talk of sending fighting troops into Pakistan in hot pursuit if he got "actionable intel" of Osama's location.

That was a long time ago.

Still nothing.

Re: Yes, Obama did talk of sending fighting troops into Pakistan in hot pursuit if he got "actionable intel" of Osama's location.

You got that kinda almost right, but not quite.

It seems that Pakistan is helping us out now, with the capture of the #2 Taliban.

You must be as happy as Dalton and Goatman are, Tosser.

Still nothing.

#167 | Posted by Tosser at 2010-02-16 10:50 PM | Reply | Flag

Did you read the article at the top of the page, Tosser?

TOSSER

Keep an eye out for 6' 6" guy pushing a dialysis machine. Since they caught Baradar in your town and all, maybe Bin Laden's there too. Nice locale, on the water, etc. Thanks man! Multimillion dollar reward too. You could buy all the blonds you want!

I heard he was at a secret prison and instead of water boarding he was forced to listen to Obama's speeches.

KBM-
Well, in all fairness, he did have the opportunity to listen to Bush's speeches for eight years while he was roaming free.

JAK hasn't been on tonight. He must be engrossed in men's figure skating and unitard fashion. lol

It seems that Pakistan is helping us out now, with the capture of the #2 Taliban.

Correction.... the 1000th "number 2 taliban". LOL

We have always been helping out giving you these worms.

It's in Mushi's book... how America paid tens of millions of dollars in bounty to Pak Govt.

Most of the people in Cuba were caught by Pak and handed over to US under a "grandfathered" extradition treaty between British-India and the UK.

Since Pakistan and India are the successors of British-India, the treaty can still be invoked by the UK for when the US needs it (US and UK have a treaty too, which is how it works).

There is no direct extradition treaty between US and Pak.

Since they caught Baradar in your town and all, maybe Bin Laden's there too.

I would be very surprised if he was here since it is very easy to go from here to Saudi by catching a ride on a fishing trawler.

Yeah, Baradar is nobody. You and Republicans agree.

You may be right, TOSSER. Still, you see him, $10 million tax free reward for turning him in.

Top notch blonds rent for $2000 a night.

Enough to keep you busy for 5000 nights. 5 nights a week x 1000 weeks = almost 20 years if you take a couple weeks vacation from red hot sex a year.

Top notch blonds rent for $2000 a night.

Russian blondes go for $20 a night.

Money will last very long.

Well, you know what I"m sayin' .....

You could rent a jet to take you to Moscow and St. Petersberg on a whim.

Plus, it'd free up a dialysis machine for a worthy person.

Would you turn in bin Laden if you knew where he was, Tosser?

You could rent a jet to take you to Moscow and St. Petersberg on a whim.

Or it'll take just a phone call and taxi-fare from downtown. LOL

Would you turn in bin Laden if you knew where he was, Tosser?

If I was sure I am going to get the bounty... hell yeah!

But otherwise not?

But otherwise not?

If I don't get anything out of it, it's none of my business.

TOSSER

Get a blond over there like this one to lure Bin Laden in (of course you'd have to 'try the goods' just to be sure).:

If I don't get anything out of it, it's none of my business.

#184 | Posted by Tosser at 2010-02-17 12:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

Thanks. I was just curious.

Thanks. I was just curious.

I bet you were.

Get a blond over there like this one to lure Bin Laden in

O'binbin doesn't go for blondes.

Besides she's not a real blonde anyway... look at her dark eyebrows.

They did catch his son in Pakistan

Who is that guy?

Santa Sheikh was the mastermind of the 1995 bombing of the World Trade Center in NYC.

PS The eyebrows could be drawn on. Look closely though. Not dark. Shadows on the right one.

One word: Norway!

I meant the left eyebrow. Shadowed. the right one looks blond + eyebrow pencil.

Santa Sheikh was the mastermind of the 1995 bombing of the World Trade Center in NYC.

Ah yes...

One word: Norway!

Ok Ok... no harm in taking a test drive....

Meanwhile....

"When are you and your war vet denigrating buddies gonna learn that logic and facts trump namecalling and insults in the grown up world of debate boy?"

This coming from someone who does the following the moment you disagree with him:
1) Accuses you of hating all vets and their gold star mothers
2) Insists you are neocon and fit all the negative stereotypes that come with it.
3) Otherwise foams at the mouth with illogical insults and outright delusion
You don't get be the hyper-aggressive crazy guy AND the classy "let's debate civilly" guy. And since you can't stop being the former, you shouldn't pretend to be the latter.

#41 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2010-02-16 10:24 AM |

Nice character assassination.

As I have said repeatedly and which my posts bear out, I only bring up my war vet status when challenged by chickenhawk right wingers claiming some sanctity of expertize and patriotism about war related matters or if those chickenhawks denigrate other war vet's service records based on politics.

My parents always told me to be careful how I choose my friends as I will be associated with them.

btw.....this is the guy you seem to be defending with your ONE post on this thread:

re: Murtha's death:

I am glad that anti-american piece of shit is dead. My only regret is that God didn't pull off his limbs like he did to Max Clelnad.
#67 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE AT 2010-02-08 04:15 PM

re: triple amputee and decorated war veteran Max Cleland:

I'd use Cleland as a kickball.
#216 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE AT 2009-11-05 11:47 AM

Uhhhhg! Cleland's one arm is causing him to hook horribly to the right, and I can't seem to pick up the seven-ten split.
#346 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE AT 2009-11-05 02:53 PM

And btw Sully,

If you and your war vet denigrating buddies don't like having your noses rubbed in your chickenhawk status when you denigrate those who served, there is a solution for that: JOIN UP and volunteer to fight the invasions/occupations you champion from the safety of your home computers.

Boy joke, you sure showed him he was off the mark by hitting every one of the 3 points he made about you.

You are fucking retarded. Oh, and I loved how you ran away. Did your retard teacher explain what a fool you were making of yourself, or did you have a lucid moment?

How much would you pay to see Bob Dole arm wrestle Max Cleland?

People who are naive suffer from a problem where they can't filter information and reach logical conclusions as to what is true or not. So they just believe what they are told.
People who just reject anything the government says suffer from the same limitation. Except instead of just believing everything, their one size fits all solution is to believe nothing.
#64 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2010-02-16 01:08 PM

Oh, so sorry to have "denigrated" you by claiming # 41 was your only post....here's another one.....and just like the other one, it clearly makes no argument about the topic at hand, does not present facts or logically argues a point of view about the topic, but just attacks other posters .

Apparently, anyone who doesn't agree with your world view
(based on what?) is naive or must be attacked as less than. Apparently, you believe you are the only centrist and everyone else is stupid, eh?.

Tell us, where do YOU get your information?

Oh, wait, you haven't presented any.....

Ok, then.

Now, go back up thread and read how 101 claimed bush went after the taleban/al queda by operating inside Pakistan. Then, read the referenced facts and links that prove otherwise.
#22, 25, 28, 34

Again, when did bush ever send US troops into Pakistan after the terrorists who attacked us? How many top al queda/taleban did bush capture/kill INSIDE Pakistan? He was too worried about a "soveriegn nation", eh? (Not too worried about iraq being a sovereign nation tho, eh?)

Instead, he chose to leave about 10k US troops in Afghanistan and invade/occupy a country that did not attack the USA, thus allowing those who attacked us to form a resurgence AND thereby increased their recruitment.

No?

Oh, that's right, you don't bother with thread topics....and I'm sure you don't want to hear how bush screwed the pooch repeatedly for 8 years either.

Nevermind.

Wait joke, now you're claiming Bush didn't strike inside Pakistan?

BTW, not that it will slow down your Retard Express, but telling obvious lies doesn't help your reputation as an uninformed retard. Post #22 and #25 don't in any way, shape, or form address Pakistan, so how is it you're claiming they "prove otherwise", dumbfuck? In post #28, the first sentence in your link mentions a "cease fire" in Pakistan. How do you have a "cease fire" if they were never there as you claim? Again, you're a fucking stooge.

Now for the cherry on top...Your post #34 (the one you claim proves Bush was never going after Taliban/AQ in Paki) states (and these are your words) "Here's a link from 2008, 6 1/2 years after 911, with your hero, bush admin still limiting US involvment in pakistan:"

How does one limit something you claim never happened?

How fucking stupid are you, on a scale of 1 to 10?

Run away like you did yesterday you pussy.

Down goes woke. Down syndrome goes woke.

Now, go back up thread and read how 101 claimed bush went after the taleban/al queda by operating inside Pakistan. Then, read the referenced facts and links that prove otherwise.
#22, 25, 28, 34
#196 | Posted by woke at 2010-02-17 09:36 AM

woke,
here's your chance. Take any one of those 4 posts and tell me how just one of them does any such thing.

When you figure out that they don't do as you claim, and that 2 of them actually prove the opposite of what you're claiming, you can either run away like you usually do, or admit you're a fucking idiot, which you never do.

Either way we both know I just put you down for the count, old man.

Taliban Military Chief Captured in Raid

Change you can believe in, eh?

101

Let's get this clear sonny.

The posts I refuted you BS with speak for themselves.

If you cannot debunk them, or that bush never kept after those who attacked us, then you just attack the messenger, which is, has and will always be all you have left, since you have no facts, no referenced links to credible info and no logic.

You are uneducable.

And you denigrate those who have fought for our freedoms and rights, including you being able to denigrate them at will from the safety of your halfway house.

Enjoy your rights, but don't mistake smearing the messenger with actual argument.

Woke: Why is it your posts only rarely have the word "Obama", but almost always have "Bush". You ought to join the rest of the world in the 21st century, now in progress.

Just a friendly hint.

The posts I refuted you BS with speak for themselves.

#201 | Posted by woke at 2010-02-17 10:08 AM | Reply

Clearly they don't.
The first 2 don't even mention Pakistan. Not even once.
The next two actually convey that we were active in Pakistan.

You really are as dumb as you come across, aren't you?

Again, the posts are still there for all to read. There is no possible way you can believe what you're saying.

Goat,
Perhaps you can help woke out. Please show me anything in the 4 posts woke has referenced that in any way, shape, or form conveys that Bush did not go after aq/taliban in Pakistan.

He claims the info is in the 4 referenced posts, but I can't seem to loacte that info. In fact, 2 of them state the exact opposite of that.

Only a tard like woke will provide me 2 links bolstering what I said and pretend it does the opposite. That's a special kind of stupid right there.

#204 -- even playing devil's advocate, I can't see WTF woke is talking about. Maybe he needs a good defense team headed by moder8 to help him.

Maybe he needs a good defense team headed by moder8 to help him.

#205 | Posted by goatman

He'd be better off pleading quilty right now than getting involved with that shyster. Besides this involves lying, not letting letting your dog run without a leash.

stwoke,
Where did you go, douchebag? I'll lower the bar for you. Point out the word "Pakistan" in either your #22 or #25...
What? You can't? Then how does it refute my assertion that Bush had us in Pakistan prior to Obama even so much as muttering anything about going in there?

Clean yourself up you wrinkly old sack of skin.

"Boy joke, you sure showed him he was off the mark by hitting every one of the 3 points he made about you."

If I were going to write a parody response to what I said to Woke, it wouldn't have been as funny as what he wrote. First he goes into great detail to "prove" he's done none of the stuff I said he does (and that we all see him do routinely). Then he turns around and literally follows the childish schtick I outline to a tee. Its like he can't help himself/has no self awareness whatsoever.

My post wasn't a character assassination, Woke. It was the truth. And your response proved it.

"You are uneducable."

ROFLMAO.

Seriously, I don't even think this is a real guy anymore. Who is using "Woke" as an alt screen name?

First he goes into great detail to "prove" he's done none of the stuff I said he does (and that we all see him do routinely).

That point alone is what I find so incredible. Does woke actually believe himself and his own distortions? Does he really think other people do? If so, how can someone be so completely out of touch with reality? I fail to even come close to understanding what is going through his mind when he does this.

"If so, how can someone be so completely out of touch with reality? I fail to even come close to understanding what is going through his mind when he does this."

Even more laughable is his claim he speaks for Vets. Maybe he means Veterinarians.

Whoa,

Look at the LACK of arguments on thread topic from the cadre of right wingnut chickenhawks here on DR.

Again, Obama is actually going after those who attacked the USA, instead of invading/occupying countries that did not attack us.

Cannot refute that eh?

Look at the LACK of arguments

I think people just grow weary of spending their time challenging and pointing out your lies, lilaWoke. I know I do.

post #28 :

Actual transcript of bush from 2006 (5 years after 911) saying we cannot send troops into Pakistan because it is a "sovereign nation" and we must be invited.

post #34:

a credible news report from 2008, (7 years after 911 and bush's last year in office) stating that bush limits military intervention in Pakistan .... "for fear that exposure of American-led operations there would embarrass the Musharraf government"

Refute it or simply be reduced to your usual childlike posts.....

"Look at the LACK of arguments on thread topic from the cadre of right wingnut chickenhawks here on DR."

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Same 'ole bullshit from Woke.

Here's a clue: If everyone who thought you act like an ass were a neocon, Dick Fuckface Cheney would be president.

It's not an ideological thing, you're just almost always wrong and hypocritical.

"Again, Obama is actually going after those who attacked the USA, instead of invading/occupying countries that did not attack us.

Cannot refute that eh?"

He hasn't stopped the war in Iraq or even transferred many troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and Bush's futile nation building exercise in Afghanistan continues, which only detracts from fighting terrorists. Gitmo still open? You betcha. Obama has basically continued all of Bush's counterproductive policies where the "War on Terror" is concerned. I don't see how this can even reasonably be denied - which is why I know you will now deny it.

post #28 :

Actual transcript of bush from 2006 (5 years after 911) saying we cannot send troops into Pakistan because it is a "sovereign nation" and we must be invited.

post #34:

a credible news report from 2008, (7 years after 911 and bush's last year in office) stating that bush limits military intervention in Pakistan .... "for fear that exposure of American-led operations there would embarrass the Musharraf government"

Refute it or simply be reduced to your usual childlike posts.....

#214 | Posted by woke at 2010-02-17 01:04 PM | Reply

What about posts 22 and 25? Were you lying?

Now, for #28, notice these words, and comprehend them: "The New York Times reported on July 18 that the Bush administration had "reluctantly endorsed" a cease-fire in Pakistan..."
How does one have a cease fire if they were never actively engaged inside of Pakistan to begin with? Hell, I don't even need to explain to you that this "cease fire" was simply a gesture on Bush's part in order to facilitate a little face saving for the Paki Pols and Military leaders. I don't need to even bother explaining that because your contention is we were never in there in the first place. Unfortunately for you, the facts aren't on your side.

Not that I need to, but I'll move on to #34 (and your repost of this damning information in #214):

a credible news report from 2008, (7 years after 911 and bush's last year in office) stating that bush LIMITS military intervention in Pakistan .... "for fear that exposure of American-led operations there would embarrass the Musharraf government"

Notice the word "LIMITS" you stupid old bastard? That means we were there, and actively engaged. You claim we weren't. What the fuck don't you get you senile old bag?

I say we were there. 2 of your links make that perfectly clear, yet here you are saying the exact opposite. Are you drunk? Senile? Addicted to drugs? Retarded? Seriously, there is something seriously wrong with you.

Calling all Lefties:
Can one of you at least make a reasonable attempt to explain how stwoke can claim we were never in Pakistan during the Bush years when he himself has posted links proving it to be the case (ignore for a moment it's common knowlege that we've been over there for years)?

Calling all Lefties:
Can one of you at least make a reasonable attempt to explain how stwoke can claim...

I think even the lefties want to distance themselves from this clown. The only people I've ever seen come to his side are jackass (they deserve each other), bOoB ('nuff said there) and dullifidian (who in all fairness was probably in his "anyone but goatman" mode)

101 - That won't work. You could get Phil Donahue to tell Woke he's wrong and Woke will just call Phil Donahue a war-mongering chickenhawk who hates the vets who gave him the freedoms he takes for granted.

Has this crap really been going on for six months?

"Has this crap really been going on for six months?"

Be glad it is only been six months on this site. He had been poisoning other like sites for much longer. Although I would assume the only reason he came here is because he was laughed out of all the others.

He hasn't stopped the war in Iraq
#215 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2010-02-17 01:36 PM

He also didn't start it, or invade/occupy any other country that didnt' attack or harbor those who attacked us. Change you can believe in, eh?

Tell us how many US troops have been kia/wia since Obama was inaugurated?

Tell us how many US troops have been kia/wia since Obama was inaugurated?

#222 | Posted by woke at 2010-02-17 02:52 PM | Reply

Why don't you just stick to one losing topic at a time?

Now, explain the obvious disconnect between you and reality.

1. How does one have a cease fire if they were never actively engaged inside of Pakistan to begin with?

2. Notice the word "LIMITS" you stupid old bastard? That means we were there, and actively engaged. You claim we weren't. What the fuck don't you get you senile old bag?
I say we were there.
#216 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE AT 2010-02-17 01:55 PM

1. Easy one. By stopping lobbing predators from OUTSIDE Pakistan.

Remind us what right wings dupes had to say about Clinton merely lobbing predators and drones at the problem??

Tell us how many alqueda/taleban bush captured inside Pakistan while they resurged in Afghanistan/Pakistan and he DITHERED in iraqnam?

2.Uh, notice that the word limits included the CIA only using predators? Little to no military and no ground troops?

" New options for expanded covert operations include loosening the reins of the CIA to strike selected targets in Pakistan, in some cases using intelligence provided by Pakistani sources, officials said. Most counterterrorism operations in Pakistan have to be conducted by the CIA. "

Now, tell us, how'd those LIMITED cia ops work out for us?

Pretty funny how bush was "worried about Pakistan being a sovereign nation". A nation harboring those who did attack us, but he was never worried about invading occupying iraqnam, a sovereign nation that did not attack us.

Explain that.

All your insults and all your namecalling amount to zero, nada, zip, eh?

"He also didn't start it..."

That hasn't stopped he and Biden from claiming they are responsible for ending it and taking future credit for any of its successes.

Interesting that since these rw fellas cannot argue for themselves, they are now trying to get lefties to do it for them.

And, in lieu of actual facts and referenced links, they seem to think that several of them repeating misinformation and lies make their argument valid.

Sorry, that is no more valid than namecalling and insults boys.

Hilarious.

"He also didn't start it, or invade/occupy any other country that didnt' attack or harbor those who attacked us. Change you can believe in, eh?"

He didn't have to start with Iraq, it was started for him. He has the choice of exiting or staying there and trying to force a government on them - you know, Bush's plan. He's chosen to continue Bush's plan. The only way you can call sticking with Bush's plan "change" is if you don't know what that word means.

"Tell us how many US troops have been kia/wia since Obama was inaugurated?"

What does that tell us? The casualty rate in Afgahnistan is up and in Iraq it is down. Neither of those stats out of context tell us anything.

Bush was the worst CIC we've ever had. Being marginally better than the worst ever (while continuing most of the same failing strategies) doesn't make one good or even competent.

221

Can't wait for the adult film industry to spoof a porn about Michelle
#89 | POSTED BY CRISPEE_OC AT 2009-11-26 09:56 AM

Might I suggest you stick to porn crispee? You have made no valid arguments and presented zero facts or links to prove anything you've posted about the topic.

Or maybe you want to PROVE your lying assertion that I've been driven out of any other sites, since I still post on them too??

Bush was the worst CIC we've ever had. Being marginally better than the worst ever (while continuing most of the same failing strategies) doesn't make one good or even competent.
#227 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2010-02-17 03:08 PM

Ah, some common ground.

I agree bush was the WORST cic in history.

He allowed the 911 attacks to occur on his watch.
Invaded/occupied a country that didn't attack us, thereby increasing terrorists who want to do us harm, then outed our own cia ops when an agent's spouse spoke candidly about the lies he used to place our troops there.

Pretending that Obama, in a year, is "marginally" better than the worst cic ever, on a thread about him going after our enemies and having success, doesn't seem to "make you good or competent", to use your own yardstick, eh?

I think even the lefties want to distance themselves from this clown. The only people I've ever seen come to his side are jackass (they deserve each other), bOoB ('nuff said there) and dullifidian

#218 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2010-02-17 02:08 PM

Thanks for documenting those three, Bob, Jackass and Nullifan

Translation from right wing lingo:
Woke's posts make monkeys out of righties.
#214 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2009-12-24 02:29 PM

I just haven't ever read a post of Woke's that wasn't intelligent nor have I seen him go out of his way to attack but it seems I see him being attacked relentlessly.
#221 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2009-12-24 02:40 PM

Hey 2008.
Are you talking to Goat or about Goat there?
Woke is actually one of the better posters hereabouts.
You and Goat?
Not so much.
K?
Be Well.
#92 | POSTED BY DETHSPUD AT 2009-12-17 08:38 AM

Woke posts hold a lot of truth.
The GOPers here are lock stepping sycophants for the most part, btw.
#114 | POSTED BY TIMEX AT 2009-11-02 05:03 PM

a guy who generally agrees with your worldview
#83 | POSTED BY PRAGMATIST AT 2009-11-10 03:26 PM

HAHA i LOVE watching you idiots argue against this WOKE guy. He takes the time to do research, post links, and refute arguments, writing long posts and presenting structured discussions.
Then idiots respond with their 2 line idiot insult posts because its all they've got.
Its like watching a pack of terriers attack a bear. I love this shit.
#232 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2009-11-10 05:28 PM

Thank you again Woke
#38 | POSTED BY BILLYCHAN AT 2009-12-16 09:45 PM

Ya know, I don't NEED the approval of other posters nor seek it, because I post facts with links to credible references to support my pov......but that doesn't mean others don't approve of my posting here, though you continually attempt to pretend that isn't true, eh?

LOL Woke actually archives posts of folks who have high-fived him. How insecure can a person get?

101, you catching this shit? Funny as hell!

Look at that fool. He's even admitting we were operating/striking inside pakistan while denying we ever did it.

He is beyond fucking insane.

"Pretending that Obama, in a year, is "marginally" better than the worst cic ever, on a thread about him going after our enemies and having success, doesn't seem to "make you good or competent", to use your own yardstick, eh?"

It is all a matter of perspective, which you completely lack because you are beholden to a political party rather than thinking freely.

Is capturing a second in command a good thing? Sure. But Bush also claimed to catch Al Queda's #2 every week too. But I accept this report as true and I will say its a positive.

But now let's look at the big picture: What was Bush's biggest mistake?

As you said it was invading Iraq. What made this mistake much worse was also invading Iraq thinking that Iraqis would magically turn into Jr. Americans once Saddam was out of power. What is Obama doing in Iraq? Continuing Bush's delusional plans of making Iraqis want to be like us when they in fact can't stand us or each other once you start looking at them as ethnic groups.

What was Bush's biggest mistake in Afghanistan? You could say not putting enough troops there because he had more troops in Iraq. Obama has not significantly changed this. But I think Bush's biggest mistake was ignoring thousands of years of history in thinking he could force Afghanistan into becoming a unified nation - and once again that he could turn Afghanis into Jr. Americans. Obama is continuing this foolish plan too.

And American soldiers will die in Iraq and Afghanistan following Bush's idiotic nation building plans that in the long run won't benefit this country at all. Continuing these plans - which are proven failures to anyone who knows the least bit about human history - makes Obama the 2nd worst CIC we've ever had.

231

Just began doing that to prove you are a LIAR son.

Maybe (that's a big maybe) you will now stop posting BS like this, eh?

I think even the lefties want to distance themselves from this clown. The only people I've ever seen come to his side are jackass (they deserve each other), bOoB ('nuff said there) and dullifidian
#218 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2010-02-17 02:08 PM

Just began doing that to prove you are a LIAR son.

???

I"m a liar for expressing my thoughts? I said, "I think"

101 is right. You are beyond insane. And extemely insecure to boot. Unbelievable that you have archived the handful of folks who have said something positive about you. That displays a lack of self confidence like I've never seen.

What a loser

233

You are entitled to your opinion, I disagree.....For you to pretend I'm the one beholding to a partisan political party is funny....

Remember this:

After his daddy's scotus cronys stopped a state's rights legal recount and appointed him potus AND after he allowed the 911 attacks to occur on his watch, 90% of Americans rallied behind bush. And that approval stayed high until he invaded/occupied iraqnam based on lies AND didn't respond to the victims of a natural disaster for 5 days.

Tell us, what is the difference now?

Obama wasn't appointed potus. He won by 8 1/2 million votes. Do some research and tell us who won by more than that.

Obama didn't allow a 911 attack.

Obama didn't invade/occupy a country that didn't attack us. In fact, he's moved troops back from harm's way there and is moving them to countries that harbor those who DID attack us.

Obama's policies didn 't create a recession nearly the size of the great depression, repug policies did.

Yet, even on a thread about a success....capturing a person who DID attack the USA, there are ZERO posts of you or your buddies willing to say "good job".

Instead, here you all are, railing about Obama being "marginally better"......and that was the least partisan comment.....eh?

Now, consider that and tell me......WHO is showing the most obvious partisanship on this thread?

#236

and oh, yeah, if you got nuthin new to say, stfu...eh?

#62 | Posted by woke at 2009-11-03 04:00 PM |

Yet, even on a thread about a success....capturing a person who DID attack the USA, there are ZERO posts of you or your buddies willing to say "good job".

#236 | Posted by woke at 2010-02-17 03:56 PM | Reply

Do you ever tire of me kicking you in the head?

I'm all for Obama's attacks inside of Pakistan, just like I was all for the ones Bush did. I just happen to believe announcing them (or your intention) in public was bad form and didn't help our allies inside the Paki government or military.

Long story short, I liked the idea, I liked the results, and I liked the fact he's willing to be aggressive. I don't like him stating as much.
Say what you will, but the link woke mistakenly provided shows Bush keeping his mouth shut when he could have taken some heat off himself by admitting we're active in Paki.

#52 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2010-02-16 11:22 AM | Reply

How did that taste, bitch?
Oh, btw, how does it feel to know of the 4 post numbers you gave, not one of them refutes what I said, and 2 of them actually prove me right? You're a dumb bastard.

I said, "I think"

#235 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2010-02-17 03:48 PM

And, as usual, you thought wrong.

Just as you thought wrong in trying to pretend to be a patriot for buying only "American" cars, when in fact your Jeep was made in Canada.

Just as you thought wrong in saying you didn't believe anyone waited longer than 3 hours to vote due to repug election manipulation in 2004.

Just as you thought wrong in trying to say that you are a "war vet" when you saw zero action, was never fired upon and was never in a country the US occupied and was involved in an insurgency.

Just as you think wrong in denigrating the service records of war veterans because you disagree with their politics.

In fact, in 7 months of posting here, I have seen very little of anything you 'think right' about.....though I'm sure there must be something. ??

Perhaps if you spent more time reading credibly referenced info and posting some of it to back up what you "think" and less time posting childlike, schoolyard taunts, insults and namecalling, you might actually begin think "right" and be taken seriously.

Don't worry, I won't hold my breath waiting for that one.

And, as usual, you thought wrong.

WHich isn't the same as lying as you said I did, eh? Let's see if you are man enough to apologize. LOL

As for the rest of your post:

and oh, yeah, if you got nuthin new to say, stfu...eh?

#62 | Posted by woke at 2009-11-03 04:00 PM |

238

Oh, I addressed your BS sonnyboy.

Again, and for the last time:

Show us how many al queda/taleban bush captured/killed using US military working INSIDE Pakistan.

links to credible news sources please

240

I guess the irony of YOU reposting ONE post over and over and pretending it's an end all-be all response, when your BS is outed, escapes your "right thinking", eh?

LMFAO

I guess you are getting tired of your hypocrisy being pointed out and your are floundering, eh?

1. What was Bush's biggest mistake?
As you said it was invading Iraq.

2. What is Obama doing in Iraq? Continuing Bush's delusional plans of making Iraqis want to be like us when they in fact can't stand us or each other once you start looking at them as ethnic groups.

3. What was Bush's biggest mistake in Afghanistan? You could say not putting enough troops there because he had more troops in Iraq. Obama has not significantly changed this.

4.. But I think Bush's biggest mistake was ignoring thousands of years of history in thinking he could force Afghanistan into becoming a unified nation - and once again that he could turn Afghanis into Jr. Americans. Obama is continuing this foolish plan too.

5.. And American soldiers will die in Iraq and Afghanistan following Bush's idiotic nation building plans that in the long run won't benefit this country at all. Continuing these plans - which are proven failures to anyone who knows the least bit about human history - makes Obama the 2nd worst CIC we've ever had.

#233 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2010-02-17 03:41 PM

1. I didn't say iraqnam was his biggest mistake, but it was big and among MANY.

2. Assumes facts not in evidence. The facts are that Obama has pulled our troops out of harm's way there, and as he said during his campaign will pull all COMBAT troops out within 16 months. He is on track to do so. And though you want to downplay it, the few casualties there for US troops since Obama changed tacks is a huge PLUS.

3. bush kept about 10k US troops in Afghanistan after the initial invasion while placing 150k in iraqnam. To the contrary of your assertion, Obama has CHANGED that strategy and the facts back it up.

4. No conventional foreign occupying army has ever "defeated" a homegrown guerilla insurgency. Obama is attempting to change what bush did and then remove troops to a less than combat role there also......we will see, eh?

5. Only time will tell whether Obama, who inherited these occupations will be able to get our troops out. For people like yourself to fault and criticize him barely a year into his tenure, when it took 7 years to put us in this failure situation seems pretty partisan, imo.

As I said, despite being appointed then allowing the 911 attack, 90% of Americans rallied behind bush. The repugs who voted for him presumably already supported him, though they were NOT in a majority.

Tell me Sully, why is it that YOU and the other repugs here on DR have such a hard time supporting our own potus during a time of economic and foreign policy crisis that he did not create, but is attempting to fix?

Why?

The ONLY answer I can come up with is that you and the repugs place partisan politics ABOVE our country's welfare.

Am I wrong?

Then give me another reason why even after 911 and being appointed, MOST dems backed bush, but repugs won't do the same for Obama when he has not been appointed, nor screwed the pooch yet?

I'm willing to listen.

"For you to pretend I'm the one beholding to a partisan political party is funny...."

Why is that funny? I'm the only one of the two of us who will readily criticize members of any party.

Why is that funny? I'm the only one of the two of us who will readily criticize members of any party.

#245 | Posted by Sully

Yeah, you're bold. Your ass ever get sore from riding the fence all the time, Sully?

"Now, consider that and tell me......WHO is showing the most obvious partisanship on this thread?"

You. You say shit like this:

"Obama's policies didn 't create a recession nearly the size of the great depression, repug policies did."

Reality is that both major parties led us this way.
They are both total corporate whores and Obama is no different. His relationship with Monsanto alone is blatant proof of that. Plus, he bailed out all the failed bankers who caused the meltdown with no strings attached. He rewarded their failure the same way Bush did. For you to pretend he's any different just shows how willing you are to put your brain up your ass whenever it comes time to scrutinize a Democrat. The two parties are nearly identical. The one thing they work very hard are pretending is that they are different. They can't continue to fuck us while focusing our anger at the "other side" once we realize they both play the same game. You're a cheerleader, nothing more.

Plus, CIC is a military designation. I do think Bush is our worst president ever but when I was saying that Obama is only marginally better, I was talking about his strategy for conuducting the wars he campaigned so hard to inherit. He's conducting the wars right now and he's change Bush's plan hardly any. So how is he so much better than Bush?

"Yeah, you're bold. Your ass ever get sore from riding the fence all the time, Sully?"

I'm not on the fence. You only think I am because you're brain is trained to think the way the major parties want you to think: There are only two sides to every situation and they represent the two sides.

I have a very clear position: Both the Democrats and Republicans are corrupt organizations. Both are totally sold out to special interests. You can't rise to a position of power in either organization without being a criminal. It is not in any voter's interest to be a member of any political party and especially not these parties.

There is no uncertainty in my position at all. I'm sorry that your this doesn't compute according to your programming. Now sit, Ubu, sit. Good dog.

"you're brain is trained to think the way the major parties want you to think:"

I don't give a shit about the major parties. I'm just a realist. In a winner take all system, 3rd parties are a waste of time. If a party could get 10 percent of the vote and 10 percent of the seats in the national legislature, you might have something.

" Both the Democrats and Republicans are corrupt organizations. Both are totally sold out to special interests."

I don't disagree with that, but the fact remains there are significant differences, that actually impacts peoples' lives. Not all special interests are malignant.

"I'm just a realist. In a winner take all system, 3rd parties are a waste of time. If a party could get 10 percent of the vote and 10 percent of the seats in the national legislature, you might have something."

I consider voting for globalist corporate whores to be a waste of time. It would be very easy for a 3rd party to gain seats. People just need to vote their interest. But they won't do that until they see that smaller parties are gaining more votes. So I vote for the smaller parties and hope enough of the other voters do the same so that people who need to vote for someone who is likely to win will vote with us. It may never happen but I lose nothing by not voting for garbage anyway.

"I don't disagree with that, but the fact remains there are significant differences, that actually impacts peoples' lives. Not all special interests are malignant."

To be more precise, I believe that both parties are sold out to malignant special interests.

Or maybe you want to PROVE your lying assertion that I've been driven out of any other sites, since I still post on them too?
#228 | Posted by woke at 2010-02-17 03:12 PM

I believe that was proven when you were suspended from posting at another site. I also proved your lying ass about never denigrating troops, most recently accusing McChrystal of stabbing Obama in the back about Afghanistan, when he had nothing to do with the leak. Then there was your denigration HW Bush. You also spit on wounded vets coming home and calling them charity cases. You claim only those who have served in wartime are considered vets, which insults a few million more. Face it Woke you are a coward and a liar. Of course the best is thinking Furhman, Lange and Vanatter set up OJ and ignore the 1000 pieces of evidence collected. Yeah you have a hell of a track record.

Besides Dick and Bush, is anyone surprised he was found in Pakistan?

"Besides Dick and Bush, is anyone surprised he was found in Pakistan?"

I am wondering why the WH asked the NY Times to hold the story.

"I consider voting for globalist corporate whores to be a waste of time."
...
#250 | Posted by Sully

Yeah, well that kind of cliched rhetoric is interesting, if not particularly persuasive. Anyway, in the real world, people have to make choices, and usually those choices are between evils, rather than utopias.

"Obama's policies didn 't create a recession nearly the size of the great depression, repug policies did."
1. Reality is that both major parties led us this way.

2. They are both total corporate whores and Obama is no different. His relationship with Monsanto alone is blatant proof of that.

3. Plus, he bailed out all the failed bankers who caused the meltdown with no strings attached. He rewarded their failure the same way Bush did.

4. For you to pretend he's any different just shows how willing you are to put your brain up your ass whenever it comes time to scrutinize a Democrat. The two parties are nearly identical. The one thing they work very hard are pretending is that they are different. They can't continue to fuck us while focusing our anger at the "other side" once we realize they both play the same game.
You're a cheerleader, nothing more.

5. Plus, CIC is a military designation. I do think Bush is our worst president ever but when I was saying that Obama is only marginally better, I was talking about his strategy for conuducting the wars he campaigned so hard to inherit. He's conducting the wars right now and he's change Bush's plan hardly any. So how is he so much better than Bush?

#247 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2010-02-17 04:44 PM

1. The policies that have led to these failures, like deregulation, tax breaks for the richest 1%, invading/occupying countries for fun and profit.....no oversight of corporations or banking....those are repug policies primarily....though you are correct that dems have "gone along".

And: Of the last 4 decades, only Carter has been a dem potus with a dem congress exclusively until Obama's first year.

carter=4 yrs
reagan/bush1=12 yrs
clinton/contract on american congress=8 yrs.
bush/hallichainy-8 yrs.

That's 4 years of dem policies, and 36 of repug policies primarily.

Now Sully, anyway you stack it, even if you don't think Clinton was a DINO, which he was....(he supported nafta and welfare/bankruptcy reform for poor Americans, but not corporations).....ideas championed by repugs more than dems.....

....you can still understand that the dominating force in politics have been repug policies for all these years, can't you? If you cannot, then perhaps YOU might want to check that fence you are allegedly sitting on and see where it sits on the political spectrum..

2. Obama has been in office a year so imo your post assumes facts not in evidence.

3. Interesting that NO ONE talks about what would have happened had the bailouts NOT occurred. Wonder why? Go back and study the great depression...it's causes (repug policies) and what was done to ameliorate the effects on working Americans.)

4. That you are so judgmental of Obama, after only a year, seems to belie your non partisanship. And, your argument is deteriorating into namecalling and insults my friend, just as I was all set to congratulate you on being a somewhat civil poster who was willing to at least debate topics rather than merely post personal attacks.

5. I've already detailed exactly how Obama has indeed CHANGED course in iraqnam and in afghanistan. How is it you are unable to acknowledge that.....on a thread with a topic of Obama's success in capturing an enemy leader using US military INSIDE Pakistan?

" It would be very easy for a 3rd party to gain seats. People just need to vote their interest."

If it was easy it would have been done. And your view of what people's "interest" is, is problematic.

1. I believe that was proven when you were suspended from posting at another site.

2. I also proved your lying ass about never denigrating troops, most recently accusing McChrystal of stabbing Obama in the back about Afghanistan, when he had nothing to do with the leak.

3. Then there was your denigration HW Bush.

4. You also spit on wounded vets coming home and calling them charity cases.

5. You claim only those who have served in wartime are considered vets, which insults a few million more.

6. Face it Woke you are a coward and a liar.

7. Of course the best is thinking Furhman, Lange and Vanatter set up OJ and ignore the 1000 pieces of evidence collected.

Yeah you have a hell of a track record.

#251 | POSTED BY CRISPEE_OC AT 2010-02-17 05:40 PM
Ya got nuthin buddy.

1. I still post at that other site you cite.

2. Never criticized McChrystal's war record, only that he spoke of his recommendations to the press BEFORE Obama made his decision. I call that breaking the chain of command and so did several righties, in fact.

3. Never denigrated GHWBush's war service record.

4. What? Uh, did I spit on myself? What a bunch of BS. My comment on charity is WHY do our troops have to rely on it? Why isn't our govt doing what is needed to care for them after placing them in harm's way? Argue with that buddy.

5. No I don't. I said only those of us who have come under fire in war zones are war vets. Spin away son.

6. Namecalling and insults are not valid arguments. In fact, it proves you have no argument and are forced to spew personal attacks instead.

7. What a reach. I stated that Furhman perjuring himself and the other lead detective taking blood evidence to OJ's house enabled an acquittal. Guilt or innocence....never spoke on it.

"Yeah, well that kind of cliched rhetoric is interesting, if not particularly persuasive. Anyway, in the real world, people have to make choices, and usually those choices are between evils, rather than utopias."

Except I said nothing about Utopia or anything even close. I even acknowledge that it may never happen. But reality is that there is nothing stopping people from electing small party candidates. Really saying it can't happen is just a show of ignorant complacency. If Jesse Ventura could get elected governor of Minnesota then independents could win seats in Congress and the Senate.

There is nothing pragmatic about voting for people who you know will fuck you so playing that "I'm in the real world" line of BS means nothing to me here. Nothing I said is unrealistic.

"If it was easy it would have been done."

That's not true. Alot of people buy into the belief system that one party is good and the other is evil. They're wrong. But alot of people being wrong about something isn't new or rare. Just because it would be easy to vote for a small party doesn't mean anyone will. The are no barriers but people don't want to do it yet.

"And your view of what people's "interest" is, is problematic."

Considering that I wasn't very specific other than to say it is against our interests to vote for people who we know to be part of corrupt organizations (the premise of the parties being corrupt can be debated but I don't see how this statement can be problematic given how general it is), I can't imagine what you are referring to other than my typo. Congratulations, I left an S of a word. Point for you. The apostrophe on "peoples'" goes after the S, by the way. :)

2. Never criticized McChrystal's war record, only that he spoke of his recommendations to the press BEFORE Obama made his decision. I call that breaking the chain of command and so did several righties, in fact.
#257 | Posted by woke at 2010-02-17 06:22 PM

Which is it liar? You go from accusing him to "could" have been. Then you claim you didn't "intentionally" denigrate? Should I take the time and paste the other lies you have been caught in?

First, you and apparently no one else but Woodward and the leaker knows WHO leaked the report. It could have been McChrystal, no?

"Secondly, I haven't intentionally denigrated McChrystal's..."
#47 | Posted by woke at 2010-01-11 12:58 PM

Congratulations, I left an S of a word. Point for you. The apostrophe on "peoples'" goes after the S, by the way. :)

#258 | Posted by Sully

A little sensitive there, eh? I didn't point out a typo. I didn't even notice the typo.

I've already detailed exactly how Obama has indeed CHANGED course in iraqnam and in afghanistan. How is it you are unable to acknowledge that.....on a thread with a topic of Obama's success in capturing an enemy leader using US military INSIDE Pakistan?

The arrest of this taliban fellow is no different than the arrest of Khalid Shiekh Mohamed by Pak police and FBI.

That was when Bush was President.

People have been arrested in Pakistan before and will keep getting arrested if they pop up on the radar, no matter who is President.

Why some people feel compelled to give Obama credit for everything under the sun, I fail to see.

Btw, notice the difference.

KSM was al-Qaeda. He was handed over to US custody.

This guy is taliban. He is in Pak custody.

Americans will only take confirmed al-Qaeda with them. They are not as interested in taliban as they are in al-Qaeda.