Obama on 60 minutes today

[SafetyBlitz]

[QUOTE=Warfish;4024533]It's the hypocricy (as usual) that hets to me, not the fact Bin Laden was killed (which I fully support).

For 8 years, those of a left-leaning bent (including many posters here) made the argument that the "War on Terror" was a purely Law Enforcement issue, that terrorists deserved the same rights as any other criminal, and that it was Bush's facist millitarism than changed a Law issue into a War issue.

Now that their man is in office, making the calls, outright assassination is perfectly acceptable, rights smights. Gitmo, so what! Wiretapping, so what! Patriot Act, so what! Rendition, so what! Waterboarding, so what!

I can live with almost any position someone might take, we can always debate a position, pro, con, and find room for agreement, or just agree to disagee.

But this forum has become so horribly hypocritical, it's impossible to have a rational debate anymore with anyone who's been here pre-Obama. Because the positions each "side" takes has now shifted 100%. The "signing Statements" issue was a perfect example, and exposes why it's so hard here now. Then: 20,000 word manifesto on the evil of the Tyrant Bush for using Signing Staements. Now: "Non story" when Obama uses them. Then: Wagaing War in Iraq is Evil. Now: Waging War in Libya is Hummanitarianism!

Whats the point of debate really, when positions shift like grains of sand on a beach? Far easier to TLDR: If a Lefty did it, it's ok/bad, if a righty did it, it's ok/bad, all based on the lefty/righty of the poster. No need to read much beyond that.

[/QUOTE]

I understand this. I was surely one of those people, although I haven't thought about since Bin Laden was killed - I've just been happy that we finally got him.

But your point is well taken - those of us who did call for trials and a law enforcement approach are certainly hypocritical to be celebrating this as a political victory for Obama.

But you'd have to agree that this is an emotional issue. A lot of people are just happy we found him, regardless of the specifics of how we doled out justice.

Although I will add this... we (the American people) know for sure Bin Laden was a mass murderer - he takes credit for his work.

We do not know, in the same matter of fact way, about those being detained in Guantanamo.

[Warfish]

[QUOTE=bitonti;4024627]you use this word every day... yet i wonder if you know what it means [/quote]

It's so sad Bit, you have no defense for what you've become, you've sunk to playing Definition Nazi. Nice.

If you prefer, how about "flip-flopping, political opportunist, party shilling no--actual-morals, propaganda spammer"?

That better Bit? Certainly is accurate these days.

At the end of the day, every political post you make can be neatly boiled down to "(D)". Sure, you can change your mind, and you did, on dozens of issues.....the day Obama took office. Funny how that works, eh?

[PlumberKhan]

[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;4024655]The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting.

As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said.

In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Bush, in 2003, said "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001."

Beyond the Sept. 11 attacks, administration officials have also suggested that there had been cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda that went beyond contacts. Bush last year called Hussein "an ally of al Qaeda." Just this Monday, Cheney said Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda."

In January, Cheney said the "best source" of information on the subject was an article in the Weekly Standard, which reported: "Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda -- perhaps even for Mohamed Atta -- according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum."

Bush, in a February 2003 radio address, said: "Iraq has sent bombmaking and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad."[/QUOTE]

Awaiting "YOU REPUBLICANS ARE HYPOCRITES" post....


:zzz:




:zzz::zzz:









































:zzz:

[Winstonbiggs]

[QUOTE=Warfish;4024533]It's the hypocricy (as usual) that hets to me, not the fact Bin Laden was killed (which I fully support).

For 8 years, those of a left-leaning bent (including many posters here) made the argument that the "War on Terror" was a purely Law Enforcement issue, that terrorists deserved the same rights as any other criminal, and that it was Bush's facist millitarism than changed a Law issue into a War issue.

Now that their man is in office, making the calls, outright assassination is perfectly acceptable, rights smights. Gitmo, so what! Wiretapping, so what! Patriot Act, so what! Rendition, so what! Waterboarding, so what!

I can live with almost any position someone might take, we can always debate a position, pro, con, and find room for agreement, or just agree to disagee.

But this forum has become so horribly hypocritical, it's impossible to have a rational debate anymore with anyone who's been here pre-Obama. Because the positions each "side" takes has now shifted 100%. The "signing Statements" issue was a perfect example, and exposes why it's so hard here now. Then: 20,000 word manifesto on the evil of the Tyrant Bush for using Signing Staements. Now: "Non story" when Obama uses them. Then: Wagaing War in Iraq is Evil. Now: Waging War in Libya is Hummanitarianism!

Whats the point of debate really, when positions shift like grains of sand on a beach? Far easier to TLDR: If a Lefty did it, it's ok/bad, if a righty did it, it's ok/bad, all based on the lefty/righty of the poster. No need to read much beyond that.


Agreed.[/QUOTE]

Both sides are totally hypocritical.

Obama's position was alway he would go after Ben Laden if there was actionable intel. This was his position in debate in the primaries as was his expansion of the war in AG.

Clearly he didn't close GITMO, still supports torture, and has back tracked on civilian trials for detainee's. Libya we went in on a humanitarian basis as part of a multilateral UN sanctioned mission, haven't been successful and are clearly trying to assisinate Gadaffi against International law.

At the end of the day it's not about hypocrisy, it's about results. Bush didn't get them and as of now Obama has.

[Revi$_I$l@nd]

[QUOTE=Warfish;4024533]Whats the point of debate really, when positions shift like grains of sand on a beach? Far easier to TLDR: If a Lefty did it, it's ok/bad, if a righty did it, it's ok/bad, all based on the lefty/righty of the poster. No need to read much beyond that.[/QUOTE]

Meh. You'd be hard pressed to find a Righty here that didn't agree with going into Libya. The only disagreement is with the hypocrisy itself.

You brought up signing statements. It's the perfect example and that thread tanked fast because of it.

Our guy can do it, your guy can't. I only agree with it when my guy is doing it.

I didn't defend Bush for using them. I just simply looked the other way. But at least he never ran on a platform to never using one :rolleyes:

[piney]

[QUOTE=Warfish;4024533]It's the hypocricy (as usual) that hets to me, not the fact Bin Laden was killed (which I fully support).

For 8 years, those of a left-leaning bent (including many posters here) made the argument that the "War on Terror" was a purely Law Enforcement issue, that terrorists deserved the same rights as any other criminal, and that it was Bush's facist millitarism than changed a Law issue into a War issue.

Now that their man is in office, making the calls, outright assassination is perfectly acceptable, rights smights. Gitmo, so what! Wiretapping, so what! Patriot Act, so what! Rendition, so what! Waterboarding, so what!

I can live with almost any position someone might take, we can always debate a position, pro, con, and find room for agreement, or just agree to disagee.

But this forum has become so horribly hypocritical, it's impossible to have a rational debate anymore with anyone who's been here pre-Obama. Because the positions each "side" takes has now shifted 100%. The "signing Statements" issue was a perfect example, and exposes why it's so hard here now. Then: 20,000 word manifesto on the evil of the Tyrant Bush for using Signing Staements. Now: "Non story" when Obama uses them. Then: Wagaing War in Iraq is Evil. Now: Waging War in Libya is Hummanitarianism!

Whats the point of debate really, when positions shift like grains of sand on a beach? Far easier to TLDR: If a Lefty did it, it's ok/bad, if a righty did it, it's ok/bad, all based on the lefty/righty of the poster. No need to read much beyond that.


Agreed.[/QUOTE]


I can't speak for everyone else, but I don't see a connection between killing Bin Laden and wanting Gitmo sorted out. I don't see a hypocritical connection between thinking we could try and convict terrorists here and supporting the Bin Laden raid.

I don't know; my view on the trials was really just to sort this whole thing out, but of course many people want to paint it as being terrorist sympathizers who want to give rights to mass murderers because no one wants to talk like adults anymore.

I only decided that I did not want to hold the trials here once I found out what the estimated price tag could be.

I am all for a military tribunal, as I said, I am just interested in sorting everything out.

I like the idea that we, as a nation, could use our principal of law and show the world that we can catch, try, convict, and execute these guys and still uphold our ideals.

Most people I know who felt this way simply were dismissed as weak, not wanting to kill anyone, and giving rights to terrorists. As if those were the main goals.

Sending a murder/death/kill squad in to get a man who claimed credit for 9/11...I don't feel hypocritical about that.

Your crowd animated image gives me the willies.

[JetPotato]

[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;4024655]Haha. Talk about historical revisionism.










[url]

[Tyler Durden]

[QUOTE=JetPotato;4024756]Nice spin piece. Not one of those quotes directly attributes the American assault in Iraq to 9/11. Glad you feel you're able to take license with context as much as your buddies at MSNBC do.

The thought that I am or ever was a Bush supporter, much more even remotely in the ballpark as your blind homerism of Obama is just about the most laughable statement ever made here.[/QUOTE]

Spin piece, you mean this post I'm responding to? Those are direct quotes from the horses mouth.

[B][SIZE="3"]"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said [/SIZE][/B]

:P

Spin away spin mister. No matter what you say you can't change history. The connection was made and was part of the selling of the war to the American people. Oh and it worked.

[Revi$_I$l@nd]

[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;4024758]Spin piece, you mean this post I'm responding to? Those are direct quotes from the horses mouth.

[B][SIZE="3"]"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said [/SIZE][/B]

:P

Spin away spin mister. No matter what you say you can't change history. The connection was made and was part of the selling of the war to the American people. Oh and it worked.[/QUOTE]

You are spinning. Nowhere does it say that the invasion had to do with Al Qaeda - 9/11 ties... Right?

[shakin318]

[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;4024758]
[B][SIZE="3"]"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said [/SIZE][/B]
[/QUOTE]

Where in that quote do you see the term "9/11?"

[Tyler Durden]

I see you guys want to play dumb. You can pretend this never happened all you want, doesn't change a thing. Anyone who says there was not an attempt to connect Iraq to 9/11 and al Qaeda is a bold faced liar. You can't change history. You can't go back and erase everything that was said.

[QUOTE]In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Bush, in 2003, said "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001."[/QUOTE]

[PlumberKhan]

Gee, Tyler. None of those quotes said anything about 9/11.


[QUOTE]In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."[/QUOTE]

[url]

[JetsFan2012]

[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;4024440]Aren't you smart. They are though the only ones responsible for 9/11, and the reason we invaded 2 countries. And I hate to repeat this, since I'm sure you have heard it a millions, one of those countries had nothing to do with 9/11 and were not a threat to this country.[/QUOTE]

Look, all I'm saying is that 9/11 was ten years ago, and the leadership and structural dynamic of "al qaeda" has drastically changed since then. It's not the same group that orchestrated those attacks.

But, really, if you're so [I]impressed[/I] that Obama chooses to use one term over another, and you see this as a real functional shift in leadership and anti-terror measures, more power to you.

[Tyler Durden]

[QUOTE=pauliec;4024792]Look, all I'm saying is that 9/11 was ten years ago, and the leadership and structural dynamic of "al qaeda" has drastically changed since then. It's not the same group that orchestrated those attacks. [/quote]

Correct, but its still under the umbrella of al Qaeda. This president has authorized military operations against al Qaeda in other regions, specifically Yemen and Somalia.

[QUOTE=pauliec;4024792], really, if you're so [I]impressed[/I] that Obama chooses to use one term over another, and you see this as a real functional shift in leadership and anti-terror measures, more power to you.[/QUOTE]

I said I appreciated the fact, don't make it out to be anything more than that.

[shakin318]

[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;4024774]You can't change history. You can't go back and erase everything that was said.[/QUOTE]

This is hilarious coming from someone who goes back and edits his posts left and right :rolleyes:

[Tyler Durden]

[QUOTE=shakin318;4024820]This is hilarious coming from someone who goes back and edits his posts left and right :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

in other words you have no response

[Tyler Durden]

[QUOTE=shakin318;4024820]This is hilarious coming from someone who goes back and edits his posts left and right :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

Oh and another thing, yesterday you had the gall to say there are no Irish war heroes. Are you really that ignorant?

[shakin318]

[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;4024832]Oh and another thing, yesterday you had the gall to say there are no Irish war heroes. Are you really that ignorant?[/QUOTE]

I'm paraphrasing, but I believe I said "If I came from a country that had no war heroes, I would probably idolize a community organizer." Never mentioned the Irish or Ireland once.

[long island leprechaun]

[QUOTE=Warfish;4024696]It's so sad Bit, you have no defense for what you've become, you've sunk to playing Definition Nazi. Nice.

If you prefer, how about "flip-flopping, political opportunist, party shilling no--actual-morals, propaganda spammer"?

That better Bit? Certainly is accurate these days.

At the end of the day, every political post you make can be neatly boiled down to "(D)". Sure, you can change your mind, and you did, on dozens of issues.....the day Obama took office. Funny how that works, eh?[/QUOTE]

You know, it's getting kinda tiresome with the Warfish scorecard of "hypocrisy." One of the things that actually will seriously contribute the ruination of the politics forum is stuff like this. Warfish seems to style himself the local Diogenes with his lantern, looking for "one honest man," while everyone else is a hypocritical sophist. If the thread above isn't a personal attack, I don't know what is.... seems way over the top.

[Tyler Durden]

[QUOTE=shakin318;4024847]I'm paraphrasing, but I believe I said "If I came from a country that had no war heroes, I would probably idolize a community organizer." Never mentioned the Irish or Ireland once.[/QUOTE]

You love to play stupid don't you...