Who is voting for this guy? He could beat any Republican right now. Maybe a little less Fox News and Sarah Palin and all the other noise and bs. The voters are a lot smarter then the Republicans and thier puppets realize. Now let me dive back into my Fox hole. Duck and cover. :fury:

because he's got more money behind him and a good set of lawyers to shut people up.

maybe a little thing like "the minority vote"?
How about all those "undocumented immigrants" that they want to be allowed to vote?

Either that or the "Get out and (buy the) Vote! campaign!

I love it, Obama will because of coercion and illegal voting :gh:

While the Administration has done at times a poor job of managing the debate, the reality is he's really pretty pragmatic and not the radical promoted by the Right Wing. I think a lot of the middle gets this...

The GOP could certainly unseat him, assuming the economy starts to trend negative at the wrong time and a reasonable candidate emerges who doesn't make any big mistakes.

But even with economic growth tepid, the Dow is hovering under 13,000 and despite an incredibly challenging foreign policy environment the sky isn't falling. The incumbent has the upper hand here...

-spence

People are not That smart sorry. People are sheep That like to follow trends. Obama was the trendy choice with a lot of support from trendy popular people. Couple that with dynamic personality catchy slogans and an extremely unpopular lame duck you have a recipe for victory.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I love it, Obama will because of coercion and illegal voting :gh:

While the Administration has done at times a poor job of managing the debate, the reality is he's really pretty pragmatic and not the radical promoted by the Right Wing. I think a lot of the middle gets this...

The GOP could certainly unseat him, assuming the economy starts to trend negative at the wrong time and a reasonable candidate emerges who doesn't make any big mistakes.

But even with economic growth tepid, the Dow is hovering under 13,000 and despite an incredibly challenging foreign policy environment the sky isn't falling. The incumbent has the upper hand here...

-spence
...

"While the Administration has done at times a poor job of managing the debate"

That's priceless. So when Americans reject what he's proposing (like civilian trials for terrorists), it isn't that Obama's ideas are stupid, it's that we don't grasp the brilliance of his ideas. One can only disagree with him if one misunderstands him, is that about right?

Do you have any idea how arrogant that is?

"not the radical promoted by the Right Wing."

He has added more to the debt than all 43 preceding presidents combined. And he wants to cut NOTHING. That's not radical?

"The incumbent has the upper hand here..."

I agree, if the economy remains stable (though broken in my opinion) he probbaly gets re-elected. But the GOP takes the Senate with a few seats to spare...

Spence, how do you explain the results of the 2010 elections? Let's not forget the drubbing that the Dems took a couple months ago, and that election was a referendum on the way the Democrats are handling the economy, that's all it was,,,

I heard from this guy online he's a scum bag

:rotf2:

He might not win... The "After-birthers" are demanding to see his placenta...

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

THIS is WHY...just one of the many reasons...

Obama Administration punishes reporter for using multimedia : Bronstein at Large (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=87978)

It all will depend on the economy.

It all will depend on the economy.

Exactly. If things remain stable, he probably gets re-elected. If we double-dip into another recession (which i think we will, but not necessarily before November 2012), he very likely gets dumped.

He just lost the Amish vote.

Feds sting Amish farmer selling raw milk locally - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/28/feds-sting-amish-farmer-selling-raw-milk-locally/)

Obama will probably be re-elected for the same reason he was elected. the other side will not put up a good candidate.
Period.

Shhhh and PS, duke.....you do rememeber that the stupid, mumbling, election, oil corrupt, conspirator, election stealer GWB was .....dare I say.....re-elected?

The voters are a lot smarter then the Republicans and thier puppets realize.

Unfortunately, 8 years of Bush shows this isn't true. There are alot of people susceptible to the "poor overtaxed me, held down by the liberals" deception of the Karl Rove crowd.

Exactly. If things remain stable, he probably gets re-elected. If we double-dip into another recession (which i think we will, but not necessarily before November 2012), he very likely gets dumped.

only one thing has recovered since O has taken office - the stock market, thats it.

Housing sucks, jobs suck, deficit sucks. Stock market rebound benefits the "wall st fat cats" O made his enemies. ( I dont believe this but its true to the Dems war cry) All someone needs to do is make that case and they won.

Unfortunately, 8 years of Bush shows this isn't true. There are alot of people susceptible to the "poor overtaxed me, held down by the liberals" deception of the Karl Rove crowd.

:smash:

Zim, elections are decided by independents. Most independents are successful, educated and angry. O's numbers have dropped significantly among independents. Its not Fox news, rove or anything else liberals want to blame.

It will probably come down to a few Hanging Chads again....

:smash:

Zim, elections are decided by independents. Most independents are successful, educated and angry. O's numbers have dropped significantly among independents. Its not Fox news, rove or anything else liberals want to blame.

And then it REALLY heavily depends on who the Right brings out...

I can see some I's backing Romney, but not Palin/Trump/Huckabee

Jimmy,

Those independents re-elected Bush. I think, if anything, that supports my statement. The whole "if you don't elect Bush, you are in danger" scare tactic is exactly what I am talking about. Just because independents are "successful,educated..." doesn't mean they aren't susceptible to propaganda. I am also curious if you think tea party people are independents.

Jimmy,

Those independents re-elected Bush. I think, if anything, that supports my statement. The whole "if you don't elect Bush, you are in danger" scare tactic is exactly what I am talking about. Just because independents are "successful,educated..." doesn't mean they aren't susceptible to propaganda. I am also curious if you think tea party people are independents.

or.....they thought John Kerry was an elitist snob from a massivley liberal state. Again - the people picked the lesser of two evils

A portion of the tea party are independents. Google the news reports - there is a breakdown. I think its just over 10%.
The majority of the people I know, including many in this forum, some who are libs - agree with the tea party. I am independent, educated and I agree with everything the tea party seems to stand for. I'll give you a REAL world example - I just returned from visiting my in-laws in Northern CA. As we all know CA is bankrupt. Contra Costa county, just outside SF has a county sales tax of - 10.5% !!! Think of that Zimmy - for every dollar you make - 25-30% goes to the Feds, 5-10% goes to the state, and every dollar you spend - 10% goes to the county. Now add in property tax, all the taxes on phones, intranet, etc. How much of your hard earned dollar do you get to keep? 35 to 40 cents?????
Maybe you think its tea party non-sense. But its cold, hard facts. Now add in raising taxes and lowering deductions for people over 250K, think of what they get to keep is it 25 to 40 cents of every dollar? How inspired will these people be to work hard and innovate?
Can you tell me clearly what you do not agree with the tea party?

And then it REALLY heavily depends on who the Right brings out...

I can see some I's backing Romney, but not Palin/Trump/Huckabee

Romney is very susceptible to attacks from the other side. Whether he can withstand them the way O did during the last election would be the difference between him being elected or not. Skeletons in his closet aside, I think he might be the best choice right now for the Republicans. He's bright, has a good track record as a successful businessman and is almost as polished as Obama in front of the cameras.

you dont get much more independent than NH

(CNN) – President Obama is getting some ominous news out of New Hampshire Friday in a new poll that suggests he will lose the key presidential state by a sizable margin if former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee.

According to the new survey conducted by Dartmouth College, Romney beats the president in a head-to-head matchup by 8 points, 47 percent to 39 percent. Obama's poor showing against Romney is also the product of his weak approval rating in the Granite State, where only 36 percent of voters there give him positive marks. That compares to a 45 percent approval rating for Obama in New Hampshire in a similar poll one year ago.

Jimmy,

Those independents re-elected Bush. I think, if anything, that supports my statement. The whole "if you don't elect Bush, you are in danger" scare tactic is exactly what I am talking about. Just because independents are "successful,educated..." doesn't mean they aren't susceptible to propaganda. I am also curious if you think tea party people are independents.

Zimmy, are you seriously suggesting that only conservatives use scare tactics? Did you watch any of the 2008 presidential elecvtion, particularly after the economy collapsed? That was all the Dems did, was say "we can't afford 4 more years of this". Of cource, they never said exactly how the crash was the result of conservative ideology, they carefully stayed away from specifics...

Jimmy,

Those independents re-elected Bush. I think, if anything, that supports my statement. The whole "if you don't elect Bush, you are in danger" scare tactic is exactly what I am talking about. Just because independents are "successful,educated..." doesn't mean they aren't susceptible to propaganda. I am also curious if you think tea party people are independents.

Again, the liberal position that if you don't support liberal ideology, it MUST BE because you have been scared by right-wing propoganda. In other words, there can be no rational reason for believeing in conservative principles (low taxes, small govt, sanctity of life, strong national defense).

I've seen what happens everywhere liberal ideology has been implemented...western Europe, Scandanavia, here in CT, any business with labor unions...these are all bastions of liberal policies, and all are completely dysfunctional...

Tea partiers obviously lean to the right, but that doesn't mean they always vote Republican. Many Republican candidates are rejected by the Tea Party, look at what happened in the Deleware Senate race in 2010...

:smash:

Zim, elections are decided by independents. Most independents are successful, educated and angry. O's numbers have dropped significantly among independents. Its not Fox news, rove or anything else liberals want to blame.

Zimmy and Spence will say that independents are souring on Obama because they have been brainwashed, or because they have been irrationally scared, or, save the best for last, they are racist...

One could also speculate that they independents who got him elected have realized that Obama is not the centrist he presented himself to be (although I don't see how anyone could suggest that a man who supported infanticide is a centrist). And that nothing has changed in terms of how things get done. Obama marketed himself as the one who descended from the heavens to unite all of us, that only he could rise above partisan bickering and unite us all.

Well, we are more polarized than ever, myself included.

Zimmy and Spence and Paul S will say that independents are souring on Obama because they have been brainwashed, or because they have been irrationally scared, or, save the best for last, they are racist...



You have any proof I've ever insinuated anything close to that?

Can you tell me clearly what you do not agree with the tea party?

It is hard to figure out exactly what the tea party crowd would institute if they got power, so I will go down this simple list from the republic party/ tea party contract

1. Repeal the Affordable Care Act (Health Insurance Reform)
I think in the end it will be much better than the current system

2. Privatize Social Security or phase it out altogether
Privatizing social security is stupid.

3. End Medicare as it presently exists
The voucher thing is a joke. Ok, now that you are 65 go out and get your own insurance

4. Extend the Bush tax cuts

Not for over 500,000 imo. tax rate of the 1990's

5. Repeal Wall Street Reform
2000's all over again

6. Protect those responsible for the oil spill and future environmental catastrophes

Cap liabilities for those responsible for environmental disasters like the Gulf oil spill and let companies like BP decide which victims deserve compensation for the disaster and what the timeline for relief should be.
F' that
7. Abolish the Department of Education
could use cuts, but there are alot of things that are necessary that would get dumped on the states. So millionaires can pay less taxes? No thanks

8. Abolish the Department of Energy
are you kidding me?
End America's investments in a clean-energy future and disband the organization responsible for oversight of nuclear materials.

9. Abolish the Environmental Protection Agency

Pre 1970's environment was great wasn't it?

10. Repeal the 17th Amendment

This is genius :wall:

Enough reasons for you?

It is hard to figure out exactly what the tea party crowd would institute if they got power, so I will go down this simple list from the republic party/ tea party contract

1. Repeal the Affordable Care Act (Health Insurance Reform)
I think in the end it will be much better than the current system

2. Privatize Social Security or phase it out altogether
Privatizing social security is stupid.

3. End Medicare as it presently exists
The voucher thing is a joke. Ok, now that you are 65 go out and get your own insurance

4. Extend the Bush tax cuts

Not for over 500,000 imo. tax rate of the 1990's

5. Repeal Wall Street Reform
2000's all over again

6. Protect those responsible for the oil spill and future environmental catastrophes

Cap liabilities for those responsible for environmental disasters like the Gulf oil spill and let companies like BP decide which victims deserve compensation for the disaster and what the timeline for relief should be.
F' that
7. Abolish the Department of Education
could use cuts, but there are alot of things that are necessary that would get dumped on the states. So millionaires can pay less taxes? No thanks

8. Abolish the Department of Energy
are you kidding me?
End America's investments in a clean-energy future and disband the organization responsible for oversight of nuclear materials.

9. Abolish the Environmental Protection Agency

Pre 1970's environment was great wasn't it?

10. Repeal the 17th Amendment

This is genius :wall:

Enough reasons for you?

Zimmy -

"It is hard to figure out exactly what the tea party crowd would institute if they got power"

When you dismiss/demonize everyone who disagrees with you, instead of listening to them, then I can see where you wouldn't understand what they would do. Obviously you don't listen even for a second, because if you did, you wouldn't claim that the Tea Party wants to do away with social security altogether. YOu also claim privatization is stupid. Well, I support privatization, and i can tell you why...anyone with half a brain can invest that money on their own and generate a much better return than what social security generates. To me, that makes some sense. You call it "stupid", and you offer not a word to support it. You only call it "stupid" because Rachael Maddow told you to think it, but you can't explain why...

Paul S, you were unfairly cast in that lot, I apologoze, sir...

Jim, you are really an unusual character. The agenda isnt clear, but maybe that is because it isn't really a political party to begin with. Tell me what is the platform then? This stuff is supposed to be directly from the proposed tea party contract with republicans. You want me to write a dissertation about each item? I think if you were as smart as you think you are, you could figure out from my short comment why I think abolishing the epa is bad. Maybe pictures would help?

Paul S, you were unfairly cast in that lot, I apologoze, sir...

Thank you, I don't want to be associated with them. :grins:

This is genius :wall:

Enough reasons for you?

Yes, enough reasons to know why you are uninformed.

Jimmy, you want the epa ransacked? Department of Energy? End social security? Disagreeing with your gangs lame ideas does not make me uninformed.

Jimmy, you want the epa ransacked? Department of Energy? End social security? Disagreeing with your gangs lame ideas does not make me uninformed.

There not "my gangs" ideas, that is where you are misinformed. I could say Code Pink's ideas are shared by all liberals, but I know better than highlighting the extreme as representative of the movement.

Why dont you ask these questions instead -

Is the EPA and DOE effective for the BILLIONS we pump into into them? Is there a better way?

Is Social Security working or would an average person have more money if the money was invested in another fashion instead of being borrowed by the govt and potentially never paid back?

I rather do this that raise taxes. In order to run an effective business you try to lower expenses before raising fees. Is that so bad?

There not "my gangs" ideas, that is where you are misinformed. I could say Code Pink's ideas are shared by all liberals, but I know better than highlighting the extreme as representative of the movement.

Why dont you ask these questions instead -

Is the EPA and DOE effective for the BILLIONS we pump into into them? Is there a better way?

Is Social Security working or would an average person have more money if the money was invested in another fashion instead of being borrowed by the govt and potentially never paid back?

I rather do this that raise taxes. In order to run an effective business you try to lower expenses before raising fees. Is that so bad?

Nope, not so bad. I think we can make serious improvements in the efficiency of alot of program. The tea party seems to want to abolish programs they don't like because of ideology more than budget reasons I also believe if the one side will not budge on the tax issue for the top percent, then they aren't serious about reducing the deficit.

On the epa: Obama wanted to lower the epa budget by 3 million. Republicans by 3 billion. The tea party seems to want to disband it. Same with department of ed.

The department of energy budget is lower now than in 1984, when adjusted for inflation.

also Jimmy, those ideas that I referenced came from the tea party affiliates in Congress. I guess I was misinformed about your thoughts on the tea party.

Nope, not so bad. I think we can make serious improvements in the efficiency of alot of program. The tea party seems to want to abolish programs they don't like because of ideology more than budget reasons I also believe if the one side will not budge on the tax issue for the top percent, then they aren't serious about reducing the deficit.

On the epa: Obama wanted to lower the epa budget by 3 million. Republicans by 3 billion. The tea party seems to want to disband it. Same with department of ed.

The department of energy budget is lower now than in 1984, when adjusted for inflation.

"The tea party seems to want to abolish programs they don't like because of ideology more than budget reasons "

You can believe that, and you probably do believe that. But you would be absolutely 100% wrong. We want to eliminate superfluous, inefficient waste BEFORE we raise taxes on anybody.

"if the one side will not budge on the tax issue for the top percent, then they aren't serious about reducing the deficit. "

I'll budge on tax increases, AFTER (read: not before) every single cent of waste has been eliminated. If we eliminate all reasonable waste, and we still have a deficit, then let's talk about tax hikes.

Obama doesn't see the need to reduce spending by any significant amount. He only concedes to that out of political necessity, but his instinct is to increase spending. You have to really be out to lunch to see no danger in increasing the deficits at this point, don't you?

If the GOP wants to unseat him IMO two things have to happen, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump need to announce right now that they will not be running for the office, neither of them has a prayer.

:jump1:If the GOP wants to unseat him IMO two things have to happen, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump need to announce right now that they will not be running for the office, neither of them has a prayer.




Truth be know. Its a 3 ring circus and the joke is on us.

Jon M. Huntsman for President 2012

1. Repeal the Affordable Care Act (Health Insurance Reform)
I think in the end it will be much better than the current system

Most think it will be worse. It is also an unconstitutional mandate. But who cares about the Constitution anyway?

2. Privatize Social Security or phase it out altogether
Privatizing social security is stupid.

Another unconstitutional mandate that helps create the originally feared all powerful central government that will inevitably, as such governments will do because they can, overspend the national treasure and create unsustainable debts and bankrupt economic systems that must be taxed at higher and higher rates.

3. End Medicare as it presently exists
The voucher thing is a joke. Ok, now that you are 65 go out and get your own insurance

All forms of universal insurance, whether private or public, will fail to contain costs because universal insurance is a major contributor to higher cost compared to out of pocket payment due to the bigger pocket to pick, and the U.S. Government has the biggest pocket. #^&#^&#^&#^&er over which type of insurance and then grump over unaffordable premiums. At least with some variety and competition, there is a chance of finding something cheaper. Best take Raven's advice and take charge of your own health--stay healthy.

4. Extend the Bush tax cuts

Not for over 500,000 imo. tax rate of the 1990's

"imo" is the key phrase. It's all just opinion--250,000K, 500,000K, 1Mil, 90%, whatever, won't make a difference on budgets or debt. Money will be spent to get votes as always, and government will print and borrow money to lower value of dollar and help it to pay some debt with cheap money, and the economy will be depressed, and eventually (if it doesn't collapse) rebound and the process will continue.

5. Repeal Wall Street Reform
2000's all over again

Repeal, don't repeal, blah-blah, sing-song-sing-song, been reforms-repeals-reforms-new ways to beat the game or the old ways of bribing the politicians. Forgetaboutit.

6. Protect those responsible for the oil spill and future environmental catastrophes

Cap liabilities for those responsible for environmental disasters like the Gulf oil spill and let companies like BP decide which victims deserve compensation for the disaster and what the timeline for relief should be.
F' that

Ahh, what the H, just continue to play political games with "disasters" and "crises" as always--nothing new.

7. Abolish the Department of Education
could use cuts, but there are alot of things that are necessary that would get dumped on the states. So millionaires can pay less taxes? No thanks

Another unconstitutional encroachment on the states by the feds. The states pay 90 percent of education cost so another 10 percent "dumped" on them WHERE THE RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS could actually be less costly since there wouldn't be unfunded mandates to adhere to and the people would be more in control of costs, standards, and objectives, and less money would be siphoned out of the states to the national government in order to be partially returned for the benefit of Federal control over state educational responsiibility. And abolishing the dept. would return to the idea of the States as laboratories in the diverse experiments in uplifting their citizens.

8. Abolish the Department of Energy
are you kidding me?
End America's investments in a clean-energy future and disband the organization responsible for oversight of nuclear materials.

"America's investments" is a high-sounding phrase--almost sacred sounding. But it can just be the stultifying sound of the central planner telling us all how it should be done and how much "all Americans" must pay for that plan from on high. No various States deciding on energy policies that suit them (might be some great varieties of ideas)--but the States are too dumb for that--even though the super-intelligent central planners actually come from the States. Do we need an entire Department of Energy to oversee nuclear materials?

9. Abolish the Environmental Protection Agency

Pre 1970's environment was great wasn't it?

Again, another high sounding title that presumes States cannot "protect" their environments. And there must only be adherence to the One Way from on high--not experiments from diverse thinkers throughout the States. And, again, another unconstitutional agency, one of 300 or so administrative agencies that violate the "non-delegation" doctrine inherent in the constitutionally enumerated legislative powers of congress. Not only does the Constitution prohibit congress from delegating its legislative function to another agency, but these regulatory agencies are mini-governments in themsleves, having legislative, executive, and judiciary powers in the same hand, which Madison said was the very definition of tyranny.

10. Repeal the 17th Amendment

This is genius :wall:

Enough reasons for you?

Abolishing the 17th ammendment would revert election of senators back to the original constitutional method of appointing them by the State legislators who are chosen by the people of the State. The Senate is supposed to be a deliberative check on hasty decisions of congress and to prevent congress from squandering the national treasury, especially from spending it to buy votes. Now that senators must campaign, they too must spend money and get money to get elected. They are now beholden more to large donors than to the average citizen, and are major political benefactors to large corporations, thus being greatly responsible for those corporations paying little to no taxes. Not only are they now more beholden to big money than to the average citizen, they act more in concert with the national party and are more animals of that party than respondents to their respective States as they were when chosen by their state legislatures and were beholden solely to their States and citizens of those States. This repeal will help to restore power back to the States and away from the Centralized government in Washington D.C. It will help give the States more control of their own distinct problems and cures and devolve power back to the people. The momentum for the massive growth of the central government began in earnest in the beginning of the 20th century and the 17th ammendment was one of the reasons for that growth.

Because he's even a BETTER Con Artist

WHY???

Osama bin Laden Killed by US Strike - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/osama-bin-laden-killed/story?id=13505703)

Because now he's the guy who killed Bin Laden.

He's gonna milk the #^&#^&#^&#^& out of this. He's God now.

This country is now in a world of shat.

Only a fool would think that Obama killed him! Our forces and intelligence got him.....end of story.

And only a fool would discount what he's going to get out of this. Did you listen to him last night? I bet not. He SAID HE (EMPH ON HE) ordered Leon Panetta to make this his highest priority.

He is the commander in chief (though as much as I'd like to call him the jester in chief)

+1 for Snowbama. He did what Bush did not.


Only a fool would think that Obama killed him! Our forces and intelligence got him.....end of story.

Cept now the only problem is your going to have 300 of these pieces of #^&#^&#^&#^& coming out of the woodwork declaring Jihad on the US.

I'm placing odds that sometime in the next week to month you will see one muther huge terror attack. Probably here. Maybe somewhere else. It's going to happen now. He's now a Martyr........he died for the cause.

I heard him Scott....you do not listen more intently than anyone else!

Does not change the economy so he will not even smell re-election.

Well just sit on your hands for another year Lawrence. You'll see.

How do you like your crow...well done or raw :wave:

"This will get Obama re-elected"

68%Yes
32%No

Total Votes: 72,794

Does not change the economy so he will not even smell re-election.

The economy a year from now is why he may get re-elected. It is only going up from where it was when he came in.

Give the guy a break. He is getting it done. What the hell has the Republican Party done for anyone on this site. Really, I would like to know.

This will get Obama re-elected

66%Yes
34%No

Total Votes: 102,788

How do you like your crow...well done or raw :wave:

"This will get Obama re-elected"

68%Yes
32%No

Total Votes: 72,794

In a couple days....the Americans with the short memory will remember where fuel prices are, and the fact that they have no job and things will be back to normal!

Who's he gonna run against?

Larry :rotf2:

Who's he gonna run against?

Larry your crow is on the grill

Gallup.Com - Polling Matters by Frank Newport: History Suggests a Rally in Obama's Job Approval Rating as a Result of Bin Laden's Death (http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/2011/05/history-suggests-rally-in-obamas-job.html)

2 years away kiddies. The wheels on the bandwagon have broken from all you ignorant folks climbing back on board! Amazing how fickle the American public is and by that I mean stupid!:smash:

oh be still my heart :rotf2:

2 years away kiddies. The wheels on the bandwagon have broken from all you ignorant folks climbing back on board! Amazing how fickle the American public is and by that I mean stupid!:smash:

Give the guy a break. He is getting it done. What the hell has the Republican Party done for anyone on this site. Really, I would like to know.

Actually he "inherited" the situation that in the end killed OBL, from Bush. I believe Cheney and Rumsfeld played a role too.:uhuh:

Actually he "inherited" the situation that in the end killed OBL, from Bush. I believe Cheney and Rumsfeld played a role too.:uhuh:
Actually, he "inherited" a situation that lost focus on what the war on terror was suppose to be - bin Laden. Then, he took office and redirected focus on where the terrorist fight should be: making the capture/killing of bin Laden a priority and significantly increased drone strikes on locations harboring terrorists.

Actually, he "inherited" a situation that lost focus on what the war on terror was suppose to be - bin Laden. Then, he took office and redirected focus on where the terrorist fight should be: making the capture/killing of bin Laden a priority and significantly increased drone strikes on locations harboring terrorists.

I agree.

hahaha ....

Actually, he "inherited" a situation that lost focus on what the war on terror was suppose to be - bin Laden. Then, he took office and redirected focus on where the terrorist fight should be: making the capture/killing of bin Laden a priority and significantly increased drone strikes on locations harboring terrorists.

Do you drink all the kool aid Obama mixes or just the fruity stuff?

Do you drink all the kool aid Obama mixes or just the fruity stuff?
Did you forget that whole Iraq war thing and how it had nothing to do with Al Qaeda?

it's pretty well documented that Hussein, was providing funding for just about every terror organization in the region including Al Qaeda, providing money, safe harbor, training for a variety of bad characters and generally encouraging the slaughter and injury of as many innocent humans as possible, if you want to conclude that removing him and his regime had nothing to do with fighting terrorism, you are ignoring quite a bit...

wonder what the middle east would be like today if he were still around ?....anyone ever ponder that??????

it's pretty well documented that Hussein, was providing funding for just about every terror organization in the region including Al Qaeda, providing money, safe harbor, training for a variety of bad characters and generally encouraging the slaughter and injury of as many innocent humans as possible, if you want to conclude that removing him and his regime had nothing to do with fighting terrorism, you are ignoring quite a bit...
Is there now??


From the 9-11 Commission's Report:
Simply put, Saddam Husayn supported extremist groups that would respond to his orders and work against his enemy. This, unfortunately, does not make him the primary suspect or emince grise for al-Qaida's attacks on the United States.

In my judgment, Saddam assessed Usama bin Ladin and al-Qaida as a threat rather than a potential partner to be exploited to attack the United States. Bin Ladin wanted to attack Iraq after it occupied Kuwait in 1990 rather than have the Saudi government depend on foreign military forces. Several captured al-Qaida operatives have said Usama refused to consider working for or with Saddam



While some contacts between agents of Saddam's government and members of al-Qaeda have been alleged, the consensus of experts and analysts has held that those contacts never led to an "operational" relationship. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that there was only one actual encounter between representatives of the Baathist regime and representatives of al-Qaeda. This single meeting took place in the Sudan in 1995, and the Iraqi representative, who is in custody and has been cooperating with investigators, said that after the meeting he "received word from his IIS chain-of-command that he should not see bin Laden again."

Is there now??


From the 9-11 Commission's Report:

Quote:
Simply put, Saddam Husayn supported extremist groups that would respond to his orders and work against his enemy. This, unfortunately, does not make him the primary suspect or emince grise for al-Qaida's attacks on the United States.


if you are going to post phony stuff from the "9-11 Commission's Report", you could at least spell correctly :uhuh:

you sure thoses aren't Spence quotes?

btw...none of those quotes counter my point which you highlighted

is almost as polished as Obama in front of the cameras.

Your kidding right. Obama is as smooth as a hotcomb on nappy a** hair.

Actually he "inherited" the situation that in the end killed OBL, from Bush. I believe Cheney and Rumsfeld played a role too.:uhuh:

Parroting Rush Much!!! :grins:

Parroting Rush Much!!! :grins:

I wouldn't know where to find him on the dial .I listen to country.:lama: