Yeah, say that the 85% of US troops in Iraq who were deluded into thinking they were there "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks."
How many Axis soldiers were killed in WWII by our military effort? Were any of those named Hitler, Mussollini or Hirohito? Alternatively were they captured by Allied forces? What else is there to say? Is your side not calling this a failed initiative because OBL is not dead or captured by our hand? The "proof" you require is in the result. Or was WWII a failed initiatve because we didn't kill those leaders?
It doesn't say they were deluded. That's your spin. It says that's what they believed for unspecified reasons.
lol. even for your people this is a stretch. i wonder where hayes is to call you out on your logic. probably studying for the lsats or something.
George Bush set the initiative in this case by claiming OBL was wanted dead or alive. He's not captive and he's not dead. That means it's a failed initiative. Where did you develop this technique of running around in circles to obscure the issue? My gosh. Please don't follow this up with a chain letter from a fake, anonymous source formerly stationed in Afghanistan. Thanks.
IIRC, that was an off-the-cuff remark. I doubt that it set military policy. I'm sure that they were set to capture or kill bin Laden; they just didn't throw maximum resources at it. So what? It's war not revenge.
Logic? It says nothing about causation. It just says that's what they believe. Never mind that most of them were probably already in the military pre-9/11....
What line? There is no such line in the article, is there? If I missed it in scanning, please highlight it here...
giddy, what does that mean? There is no comparison between the two. Hitler was surrounded by what was, for some years, the most powerful army on the planet. He didn't have the most powerful fleet, but we couldn't sail to Berlin, or one of his other headquarters, and shell him. The ability to bomb where we thought he was took time to develop, and he would stay in shelters. The man killed himself before he could be captured, tried, and executed, which certainly would have occurred. The Allies literally fought their way, from the east and the west, to where he was. They didn't get distracted. They moved against him when they were able to fight that powerful army I mentioned. They didn't declare war on Brazil. They remained focused on their objective. The entire country was mobilized. They didn't pass tax cuts during the conflict. Many of us have fathers who fought in WWII. I find the comparison a bit scandalous, to tell you the truth. Keep D&D Civil.
Rice didn't say what they did exactly, did she? This is becoming the typical response from Bush administration: "we did a lot, but we cannot tell you due to security reason" or "we made big progress in Iraq, the world and you cannot see it but that is your problem" or "iraq war is part of war on terror, although Iraq was not linked to terrorism but we don't admit it" or "mission accomplished three years ago". They are all liers. Do they really think people believe the **** that comes out of their mouths?
It's war and justice. Why wouldn't they throw maximum resources at it? They had the political capital, the money from Congress, the will of the people, and the authority to do it. All things Clinton never had by the way. What the hell else did they need?
the guy is nutty, i'd say let it go...half the time he's obsessed with trying to figure out what race I am so he can apply his stereotypes.
You must be kidding to think that members of the military are not influenced by their leaders, and therefore the politicians that provide the rationale to begin with. The military does not exactly encourage independent thought - and for good reason, albeit not without the obvious potential for abuse. Where's Master Baiter to back me up?
Wow. So irritated at me for calling you out for this (I recommend pg9) that you would stoop to lie? Your self-righteous posturing since then is bad enough - but to imply I'm stereotyping? Giddyup knows me better than you, moron. Goodbye NewYorker.
That can barely be called a response. She mentioned no specifics of what they did pre-9/11 and she is on record as having said that she didn't think it was wise to respond to the attack by Bin Laden on the USS Cole. In another thread Sam has shown what her priorities were pre-9/11, and fighting terrorism and Bin Laden wasn't on the radar. She is lying.
Hey let's get back on topic here... I can't be the only one in America that doesn't trust Clinton on this round of finger wagging... Last time he wagged that bony finger... Yep. Okay, Bill. At least you tried though. As much as the "scandal" was leaked to the media in his term, you'd think something like the quest for OBL would've been leaked too...
What's untrustful about his statements? 1. Clinton did in fact launch military action against OBL. 2 cruise missles. 2. The Repubs called Clinton's attack "wag the dog" 3. Bush demoted the most knowledgable guy on the subject. 4. Bush launched full scale war against him and never caught him. These are all FACTS. What is distrustful about this? The ONLY part that seems to be in question, IIRC, at this stage is if the CIA and FBI would not certifity that OBL should be a target. Everything else is public knowledge or has been demonstrated true.
