No wonder Obama couldnt catch this terrorist despite having known about him for months! He’s too busy converting our national defenses into part of the global warming fraud.

Tano …. as a rule I’m use to dealing with tangibles, so please understand my unfamiliarity when dealing with a clairvoyant like yourself.

Like this exerpt taken from ABC’s “60 Minutes” earlier last year:

“Meanwhile, across the border in Afghanistan, the hawks’ plan for a generations-long occupation there is hitting some snags too. President Karzai has lost patience with Western leaders who talk about caring but don’t seem to care enough to stop causing civilian casualties. He’s indicated that he’d like to see a timetable for withdrawal and in return the Obama administration has indicated it would like to see him gone, replaced by someone more malleable and (hopefully) less corrupt in the wrong ways. Karzai said Sunday that he believed rumors about his alleged drug-lord brother were being circulated by the US to drive Karzai himself from office and he’s doing some outreach to the Russians instead.”

In closing I’d like to invite you to take a stroll down memory lane:

Iraq “represents a virulent threat in a class by itself … As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. … The real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our own terms.”,,,, Al Gore/Feb12,2002

Who amongst us can forget this performance by the country’s consummate politician from Campaign 1992:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h6gehCPvpk&feature=related

The only somewhat related point the guy makes is that there were two strikes against al-Q in Yemen last month.

Read the few sentences BEFORE that one. Read it again. Read it again. Read it again….

Clinton administration Iraq support of terrorists

Hillary’s statements about Al Quiada in Iraq

More documentation of terrorists in Iraq.

Yawn, now answer me this Tano. Why does Barack Obama hate free people?

Actually, Tano, you lie — because you and your Barack Obama declared that al-Qaeda and the Taliban were NOT our enemies and that they were “moderates” with whom we could work.

Bush never stopped fighting the Taliban or al-Qaeda. You and your Barack Obama, on the other hand, screamed, cried, whined, stamped your feet, and did everything in your power to cut off funds, stop troops from being deployed, hamstring them when they were, and insist that the Taliban were “freedom fighters” who were being “persecuted”.

And now that your pandering has been proven to be full of crap, you’re trying to reverse yourself — but, in classic style, trying to blame and attack Bush for the fact that you endorsed, supported, and did everything in your power to aid and abet al-Qaeda and the Taliban for eight years because doing so was anti-Bush.

You denied al-Qaeda and the Taliban were enemies. It’s right up there with links. You are a liar, Tano, just like your Barack Obama.

The problem is that you insist on considering the Iraq expedition as the same war as the war on al-Q. Handy little trick if you can make it sound credible, because then you can argue that there was a very big, ongoing committment. But sorry, that just doesn’t hold water. As we sent massive amounts of money, and the bulk of our available forces to the fight in Iraq, the fight against al-Q was put on a subsistence diet. Just enough to keep things from a complete collapse.

That is why – it is the only reason why – that the Taliban has survived, and to some limited, but real measure, thrived. Its why Yemen has reverted back to being a very dangerous place -probably worse than it was a few years ago.

Its odd how people on the right, who lambasted Obama for actually taking some time to THINK about sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan (after already having sent several tens of thousands more in the spring) had no problem for YEARS, watching the situation there deteriorate while we maintained a relatively small force there.

There was never any al-Q in Iraq to begin with. Once we got bogged down there, then al-Q gladly rounded up recruits to pile on us – all the while continuing their rebuilding in many other places.

One of the most important moves Obama has made has been to get rid of that absolutely insane notion of a “war on terrorism”. He has redefined the war as one against real enemies, not concepts or strategies. This idiotic construction of Bush’s has obviously prevented clear thinking by people like you, who think that because you can conceptually put all American military actions of the past decade under one word-umbrella, that you therefore can claim that we have been effectively fighting the real terrorists.

Its a complete scam and you have been suckered. We backburnered the fight against the real enemy – al-Q and the Taliban. That is why it has taken twice as long to defeat them as it took us to defeat Nazi Germany and Japan combined. And that is if we were to win today – we still have a long way to go.

Just imagine what we could have accomplished against al-Q and all radical jihadists if we had never committed any resources, money or troops or intel, to the sideshow in Iraq.

Funny how you decline to answer the information that shows the global warming sham, or why President Obama hates free people, but still try to argue that the process was ‘back burnered’ there.

It’s as crazy as blaming Bush for ignoring the 2003 NIE saying that Iran wasn’t building nukes.

The same man who was president when the Taliban rebuilt itself, and reestablished effective control over a fair sized chunk of southern Afghanistan – and the same man who was president during these long 8+ years during which the leadership of al-Q has survived and managed to rebuild a lot of the organization that had been degraded early on.

As I said – fecklessly backburnered so that now, all these years later, al-Q is still a real threat. I did not say that the fight was completely abandoned nor that there were no small victories at all.

???
Sorry Livewire, but could you explain this one to us? I read the linked article, and nowhere does it say anything contradicting my claim that the bush administration basically ignored Yemen for years after the initial success there. The only somewhat related point the guy makes is that there were two strikes against al-Q in Yemen last month.

Last time I checked, “last month” was deeply embedded within the Obama administration, no?

In December 2006, the Israeli Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in the case. While the court stopped short of an outright ban on Israel’s assassinations program, it ruled that international law constrains the targeting of terror suspects. Currently, in order to justify a strike, Israel must have reliable information that the suspect is actively engaged in hostilities (such as planning a terrorist attack) and must rule out an arrest as being too risky. The court also requires that there be an independent investigation after each strike.

We play by the same rules. When our predator drones blow up somebody’s lunch, we immediately treat the incident the same way cops go through a shooting review every time they use their weapon outside of the target range.

However, the pantie-bomber and other folks of his ilk get to do their “jobs” without concern for “international law.” It seems “fair” that assassinating someone who is operating outside of international law would be a no-fault action.

In the distant past we did send specially trained personnel into rat holes to leave the body of someone nasty who never woke up. But then we got all “polite” in our CIA and special forces. Now, a Marine sniper sits motionless for hours and only shoots the guy carrying the heavy weapon, because the other two “innocents” in the party are just local guides. Perhaps if a few “innocents” got shot, the local guide service would dry up.

Or perhaps, losing a commercial plane full of people now and then is the price we have to pay for our high level of “morality.” Therefore, it is the highest level of morality to treat the would-be terrorist to all the protections of international law, but sacrifice a plane full of innocent civilians as the cost of being saintly.

Epitaph: Here lies Bob Smith who died suddenly protecting a principle he hadn’t considered.

I did not feel safe while stateside. The TSA are a joke –and an annoyance at best. These folks ought to be working sanitation at the airports, not security.

I thought a long time ago we needed to adopt the El Al strategy and put 2-3 sky marshals on every flight –do lots of reporting on their training and ability to shoot out the brain stem of a terrorist at 50 yds. Give ‘em a reality TV show and let the world and our enemies learn how serious Americans are about insuring the citizens’ safety while in air transit.

Americans haven’t. Americans didn’t. We elected a man intent on disassembling the tough game-face that Cheney-Bush chiseled over 8 yrs… and the Christmas ’09 jihadist bomber is proof that we’re going backwards in the War On Terror. Cowboy diplomacy wasn’t all that bad –and it beat the Big-Hugs-Heal/Apology Tour mentality we’ve got in the Front Office now.

I’m glad to be back home –it’s going to be a while before I travel abroad or domestically by air again.

No, I think the nation is enormously less safe.

And Tardo, I have never thought that I personally was going to be the victim of terrorism. Not even right after 9/11. Theres 300,000,000 people in America, and only a tiny fraction of those were killed in terrorist attacks.

Nor do most Americans think they will personally be victims of terror attacks.

But thats the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Even when we dont think we will be personally victimized, we take defending everyone deadly seriously — because that is governments most important job.

Democrats dont think they will be affected so they dont see defending others as very important at all — indeed, they would much rather just arrest someone AFTER the fact. Because Democrats see all that defense crap as a distraction from the real purpose of power — which is to destroy the Constitution and turn America into a European socialist welfare state.

So… You agree that moving terrorists out of Gitmo is a bad idea? Glad to see you oppose the Obama policy.

Plus we’ve let a non-american terrorist lawyer up. To paraphrase NRO, he should be taken and waterboarded until his lungs qualify for Federal Wetlands money.

We’re going to get people killed, because this administration won’t roll the hard six.

The war against al-Q was backburnered by Bush after Tora Bora.

Really? Remind me again who was president when KSM and the USS Cole bombers were captured? Who was president when al-Zarqawi was killed? How about Muhammad Khalil Ibrahim? And where were those last two killed?

Not to mention while liberals were undermining our president, threatening to defund our soldiers in country, calling them stupid and terrorists as well as ignorant hayseed hicks, manufacturing a non-existent “civil war”, endangering the lives of our soldiers while playing political games, we were fighting and defeating al-Qaeda all over the globe including Indonesia and the Phillipines.

So you can take your “Bush ignored terrorism” lie and cram it right back in your team-killing twat from whenst it came.