HAPPY Cinco de Mayo!

Another day… another Flip-Flop out of the Teapubicans:

*yawn*

RUMSFELD: I’m told there was some confusion today on some programs…suggesting that I indicated that no one who was waterboarded at Guantanamo provided any information on this. That’s just not true. What I said was no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo by the U.S. military…Three people were waterboarded by the CIA…and then later brought to Guantanamo. In fact, as you point out, the information that came from those individuals was critically important.“

When only two days earlier this is what he said:

Dick Cheney said today that "it wouldn't be surprising" the intel came from Bush's torture program. However, there is currently no evidence to suggest that the detainees that provided the information that led to bin Laden were subject to torture. And Bush Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who presumably has some knowledge about what went on at Gitmo, today threw some cold water on this theory:

"The United States Department of Defense did not do waterboarding for interrogation purposes to anyone. It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding."

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/02/rumsfeld-bin-laden-gitmo/

Is there any doubt that the right was caught with their pants down on this…?

Shake it up baby - TWIST and SHOUT! lol

IR:

This is one of your best posts. Thank you and lets us never forget and remain forever vigilant.

God Bless America and God Bless "Our President"

Below is part of an article on Politico.com. In it AG Eric Holder and WH Press Secretary Jay Carney both argue that killing OBL was “fully consistent with the laws of war." and “There is simply no question this operation was lawful,” Carney said “Bin Laden was the head of al-Qaada, the organization that conducted the attacks of September 11, 2001.”

Hmmmmmmm Didn’t Holder and the WH argue that KSM and company was a common criminal and should be tried in civilian courts, instead of in military tribunals as unlawful enemy combatants?? Seems to me that, if OBL’s killing was “lawful” and “fully consistent with the laws of war." because he was the “enemy commander” behind the 9/11 attacks, then his top Colonel, KSM, who planned and executed the 9/11 attacks, would fall into the same category and be properly tried in a military tribunal.

You know, I’d almost prefer that they just be hypocrites, but, I fear they are simply incompetent morons.

From Politico:

Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that the U.S. military mission that killed Osama bin Laden "was justified as an act of national self-defense" and that Navy SEALs would have had good grounds to shoot bin Laden even if he sought to surrender. The White House later Wednesday called the operation "fully consistent with the laws of war."

"It’s lawful to target an enemy commander in the field. We did so for instance with regard to [Japanese Admiral Isoroku] Yamamoto in World War II. He was shot down in an airplane. [Bin Laden] was by my estimation and the estimation of the Justice Department a lawful military target and the operation was conducted in a way that was consistent with our law, with our values," Holder said during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

“There is simply no question this operation was lawful,” Carney said “Bin Laden was the head of al-Qaada, the organization that conducted the attacks of September 11, 2001. And al-Qaida and bin Laden himself had continued to plot attacks against the United States. We acted in the nation's self-defense. The operation was conducted in a way designed to minimize and avoid altogether, if possible, civilian casualties. And if I might add, that was done at great risk to Americans. Furthermore, consistent with the laws of war, bin Laden's surrender would have been accepted, if feasible."

Hmmmmmmm Didn’t Holder and the WH argue that KSM and company was a common criminal and should be tried in civilian courts, instead of in military tribunals as unlawful enemy combatants?? Seems to me that, if OBL’s killing was “lawful” and “fully consistent with the laws of war." because he was the “enemy commander” behind the 9/11 attacks, then his top Colonel, KSM, who planned and executed the 9/11 attacks, would fall into the same category and be properly tried in a military tribunal.

"Big Fish" vs. "Little Fish"

Fesity:

They are floundering. The people do no longer are buying their rhetoric. They want results like the result that our President delivered, not just idle rhetoric with no deeds to back them up. They want JOBS, a Stable Economy, Education Reform and a serious workable Deficit Reduction Plan. The GOP/TP talks a good game but to date they are just not delivering any product.

Sounds like another plan that did not work very well.

Great post IR, and one of my favorite hymns!

Good MOrning All

IR Beautifully said and beautifully written. Much food for thought. No matter the outcome from that gutsy decision, our President did the right thing. Now the families and the survivors of that wretched day, can hopefully feel a little closure, although no matter the circumstances, those of us who have lost near and dear, never stop missing them.

Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that the U.S. military mission that killed Osama bin Laden "was justified as an act of national self-defense" and that Navy SEALs would have had good grounds to shoot bin Laden even if he sought to surrender.

Again, I have no problem with the result, I would even be happy to know he was alive when he was thrown into the ocean but AG Holder had better shut up.

There are military people who post here. Can I ask them what would happen if they admitted to killing an enemy combatant who was trying to surrender?

The Stupid War for Dummies

FR posted an article yesterday about who the next Al-Qaeda leader would be yesterday. Kinda a funny story when you consider:

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was the "Emir of Al-Qaeda in the country of the Two Rivers." Even had $25 million bounty on his head - same as OBL. Good choice, but wait ....... we killed him in Iraq.

OK. How about the guy that replaced him, Abu Ayyub al-Masri. He was an up and comer with a big responsibility. oh wait ...... we killed him in Iraq.

OK. How about big guy, Abu Omar al-Baghadfi ...... wait a minute ..... we killed in Iraq too. Abu Suleiman ..... yea ....... killed in Iraq also.

Ahh ...... nevermind ..... doesn't matter. There would have been no need to replace OBL anyway. Seems we captured an Al-Qaeda lieutenant named Hassan Ghul. Hassan won an expense paid CIA aquatic vacation to a "black site." He evidently had such a marvelous time with his new friends, the love and warmth that they showered on him (probably thru a rag on his face) ..... that he broke out singing like he was in a Rogers and Hammerstein play.

Hassan sang a song about Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti the courier guy. Seems he was the courier for Faraj al-Libi. (Was his nick name - Scooter? I don't know, but probably) Anyway, Scooter al-Libi was the replacemet for the big K-Man, KSM. Turns out we got al-Libi and after "visiting" with him a while, he thru away his faith in Allah too and said al-Kuwaiti was the the courier to OBL too. Imagine that. Oh yea, turns out later that his real name was Sheikh Abu Ahmed.

Oh well, I think, you think you know the story ..... well the part about this being the big, the key clue leading to Osama's big demise, but there is more....... Where was Hassan captured ...... Iraq.

So all of the big up-comers, OBL wanna-be al-Qaeda leaders - killed in Iraq, the capture of the key guy to bringing Osama down - captured in Iraq .... not to mention all the al-Qaeda fighters - killed in Iraq ...... and libs say Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror, with al-Qaeda and OBL. Yea, right!

Pretty funny ...... if it weren't for Bush and the war Obama called stupid, the CIA "black sites" with "enhanced interogations" ..... Obama would not have been able to achieve his greatest and most popular accomplishment.

As Paul Harvey would have said .......

Now you guys know ........ the rest of the story.

Looks like tomorrows jobs report could be pretty dismal. As I posted yesterday, the ADP jobs data was below economist’s expectations and the ISM report showed an unexpected decline in its services sector index. Today, we get a report showing new US jobless claims “soaring”. As I said yesterday, Barry better enjoy his day in the sun today, because he may have some uncomfortable explaining to do on the economy and jobs tomorrow.

Weekly Claims Soar as Job Market Recovery Turns Sour

Reuters

| 05 May 2011 | 08:35 AM ET

New U.S. claims for unemployment aid unexpectedly rose last week to touch their highest level in eight months, pushed up by factors ranging from spring break layoffs to the introduction of an emergency benefits program, a government report showed on Thursday.

There was more bad news for the economy as well: A separate report showed nonfarm productivity slowing sharply in the first quarter, though not as badly as economists had feared.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits rose 43,000 to a seasonally adjusted 474,000, the highest since mid-August, the Labor Department said.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims dropping to 410,000. The prior weeks figure was revised up to 431,000 from the previously reported 429,000.

First Read: Politico’s Roger Simon writes that because of the death of bin Laden “the Republican field has been fried like an egg.” He adds that Obama has created an image of “a competent, cool, skilled, experienced, capable leader of this country.” Plus he “rescued the economy, saved the auto industry, . . .

My – what a super-hero Simon has made Obama out to be. I guess Mr. Simon has a different view on how the economy has been rescued. Most people would say that 9% unemployment, trillion dollar deficits, $14 trillion in debt, the continuing devaluation of the dollar, inflation, and soon to be $5+/gal gas prices wasn’t exactly the “rescue” America was looking for.

"Big Fish" vs. "Little Fish"

_________________________________________

Are you REALLY that clueless??

"Big Fish" vs. "Little Fish"

_________________________________________

Are you REALLY that clueless??

Are you?

Wonderful, IR. Brought tears to my eyes.

.

@ Judge Joe ~ Please give it a rest, Joe. Your partisan slip is really showing.

This operation was carried out under the aegis of Bush's Defense Secretary, and I suspect General Petraeus, as incoming Defense Secretary, knew something about it, too. Your criticisms go to them, and to the Navy Seals, as well as to the President. Think about that. Moreover, I fail to see how you can be arguing that George W. Bush would have done things differently, nor, I think, would you be making the same argument you are making now if Bush had done the same thing that President Obama did. (Keep in mind, by the way, that he didn't.) Diehard liberal that I am, I have to agree that bin Laden, who admitted his guilt and gloated over it, deserved exactly what he got, even though I might argue that he deserved to get it a lot sooner. But how that relates to KSM or others is not relevant. And even though I am in general a pacifist, I am glad it was handled as cleanly as it was. We should all be thankful that no more American lives will be sacrificed and no more treasure spilled on this particular task.

Instead of beating this into a pulp, which will neither bring OBL back nor give him a "fair" trial -- I assume you mean along the lines of the farce of a trial that Saddam Hussein got-- let's pull together for a change and talk about what happens next.

Because, as some have rightly said, this is just one battle and the fight against terrorism goes on.

Quite frankly Alan in this particular case I wouldn't even have a clue as to why it is a Question in the first place. Justice has been done no matter the circumstances and disposition of the participants.

It’s time to move on now. UBL is dead. The obscene photo op today hopefully will put this behind us. This one victory in the plethora of battles does not make this president “strong on terrorism.” In fact it displayed his inability to plan properly. If he actually knew about this operation for months before the event, why hadn’t there already be in place a decision as to whether the pictures should be released? Yes, it is a small detail in the minds of some Americans, but I was once told and found to be true “if you don’t take care of the little details, the big ones will never fall into place.”

Was it a gutsy decision to take out UBL? Yes it was because if he didn’t make the decision, BHO risked being lumped in with Clinton and President Bush of “missing an opportunity” and if he did, he risked a failure like Carter. You can yack all you want about how it only took two years compared to seven years – if you want to make that uneducated and naïve comparison – but the truth is nothing was in place to handle an attack of this magnitude on our soil when President Bush took office. The entire military, CIA, etc. had been weakened under Clinton. Bob Kerry (D) said in the commission’s report “We weren’t ready.” If it wasn’t for several areas put in place by the Bush administration and security team, none of this would have been possible – from enhanced interrogation to the Patriot Act (which was maligned by BHO while campaigning and promised to repeal but kept in place once in office).

It is time to get busy and start discussing the issues on most American’s minds – the economy. In all polls, jobs/unemployment/economy is at the top of the list. The big question that should be on every one’s minds is Barack Hussein Obama the correct democrat to lead his party again. The answer is a resounding NO!!!!! He will be the most ineffective lame duck president in history.

BHO will and does not have the ability to get anything done with a divided Congress (anyone who thinks the democrats will retake control of the House are not realistic -- in fact the Senate will probably fall). He has divided this country more than any other president in history. He has alienated his base, progressive democrat socialists and most republicans. The democrats need to find a better candidate to run against the anointed one. A democrat that can move center right and extend an “honest” hand across the aisle to work with all political facets is what is needed. BHO is the “great divider” not a uniter. The latest bounce in the polls (which could have been predicted by a third grader) is only a “dead cat” bounce. It won’t last.

You can sit there and complain about the Party of No and give stupid little nicknames to key republicans and yes even take personal attacks on people who have different opinions, but that will change nothing. Are you too blind to see that? All your hateful rhetoric does is to drive a wedge further into destroying this country. You remind me of the trashy idiots that come on to The Springer Show waiting for the bell to ring to begin fighting.

BHO was going to squash all the old political ways and bring a new vision of government to the American people, be transparent, keep campaign promises, etc. and all he has done was to disappoint, disappoint and disappoint. His few accomplishments during his term do not even come close to the areas where he has failed in leadership and honesty. Democrats refused to listen to the vast majority of the American public when it came to obamacare and paid the price in the 2010 election. At least the Republicans are listening to the public when it comes to Medicare and are willing to open discussions and move to a compromise in the Ryan bill. That is the way it is supposed to work.

BHO was going to go after Wall Street and be for Main Street. What a joke. The new Fortune 500 list just came out and these corporations had profits climb by 81 percent while jobs continued to decline. What a dog and pony show it was when they went after corporate bonuses. Fannie Mae made #5 on the list. Is it all bad? No. Many millions of Americans who have pensions, IRAs and other retirement investments count on corporations being profitable.

Now we learn that the debt ceiling can be moved by using accounting tricks. Mark Zuckerman said it best in addressing BHO’s failed leadership when it comes to the deficit – “The U.S. is a Ponzi scheme.” Democrats wise up and get someone qualified to run against this disaster.

Quite frankly Alan in this particular case I wouldn't even have a clue as to why it is a Question in the first place. Justice has been done no matter the circumstances and disposition of the participants.

I couldn't agree more but certain members of the administration seem to want rain on their own parade.I suspect AG Holder is an idealist who now is caught trying to justify the actions that happen in the real world. It was always clear-cut for him on the outside. Now he's in the real world decisions can be dirty but necessary. As I said before he should just keep quiet.

Hurray, Hurry, it's the 5th of May, Tacos and Beer, Cinco de Mayo is our favorite day.

They are floundering

One thing is for sure - in order to be a card carrying member of the bagger & birther club, you MUST be a serial liar!

IR, what a wonderful message. Thanks, thanks, so much for that.

As the nation set aside its many differences after 9/11, so again today should we all. Regrettably, that is unlikely. The faux "debate" in South Carolina tonight is almost certain to demonstrate the fact.

Incidentally, it's noteworthy to correct the story:

a sitting president hasn’t lost re-election since 1896 after taking the reins from the opposite party four years earlier

They did mention Jimmy Carter. But forgot George H.W. Bush, and Gerald Ford. It might be that the phrasing of the sentence was unclear in its qualifications.

Those guys in the Blair House Project (what a clever appellation for that!) might want to take a very close look at the alternative budget proposal put forward by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. According to the May 9 edition of The Nation, p. 3, "It protects the social safety net, promotes a progressive tax policy, reintroduces a public option for health care and makes significant cuts to the Pentagon by bringing our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan."

The article continues, "It makes millionaires, billionaires and corporations pay their fair share while protecting the poor and the middle class. Plus, it actually generates a budget surplus by 20121, according to CPC co-chair Representative Raul Grijalva."

This is a serious proposal. Although immediate withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan appears to be a non-starter, at least addressing that topic moves the discussion further toward an earlier and more significant drawdown than is presently planned.

This proposal counters the hair-on-fire mythology of the Ryan budget and the Tea Party faction that both use a presumed immediate "crisis" with the debt and deficit to justify "slashonomics" that wouldn't get to a budget surplus for another 60 years and immediately adds nearly $6 trillion to the deficit. And their zany ideas are really to destroy the government, wreck the economic recovery, abandon the poor and elderly, and let industrial polluters run wild.

The President will have his moment of grace and dignity this morning. the Republican fringe element will not, tonight. And the budget discussions should focus on strengthening our nation, rather than dissolving it.

AM: My ONLY point is that they make one argument in one case (KSM-common criminal) and the opposite argument in virtually the exact same situation (OBL-enemy war commander). They were BOTH at the top level of the 9/11 attacks. Did I miss something here?? Please tell me.

My statement stands: You know, I’d almost prefer that they just be hypocrites, but, I fear they are simply incompetent morons.

Gotta go out now, I'll check back later for your comments.

Navy Disabled: The people do no longer are buying their [the Republican] rhetoric. They want results like the result that our President delivered, not just idle rhetoric with no deeds to back them up. They want JOBS, a Stable Economy, Education Reform and a serious workable Deficit Reduction Plan. The GOP/TP talks a good game but to date they are just not delivering any product.

Rhetoric? No, the GOP isn't putting out rhetoric, that's what Obama and the Democrats are putting out. The GOP in fact have put out a detailed plan on how to begin putting the federal government's economic house in order, how to reform the entitlements, and how stop the massive spending of the government.

Obama and the Democrats? They just create more committees, more commissions, oh, and demagouge the GOP plans, all without coming up with one of their own.

Describe the Democrats plan ND. You can't. There is none.

About that helicopter that was left behind. Turns out that the hard landing was evidently on one of those 12' walls with the tail boom landing on the outside the compound. Thus the thermite grenades did not hide what it was - a new stealth special operations helicopter complete with infared suppression and armored tail rotor. (OBL is alleged to have perfected shooting down Black Hawks - 4 in Somalia).

Would the SEAL teams have been able to evade the Pakistani air defense systems? Were we even capable of this raid a few years ago?

For the clueless, this wasn't developed in 2 years, which means ....... Bush is due another thank you.

Deal with it.

Alan I would just gently remind you that AG Holder's response was to a question from someone of the Llegislative Branch not from the Executive Branch. So I will go back to my original thought and that is I have no clue as to the motivation as to why the question was raised in the first place.

Hey, Ben (numbers) -your drivel this morning is, of course, contrary to the facts. President Obama has indeed worked hard to bridge partisan gaps, his wise and far-shighted approach to issues has produced a superb record, and now the bums from the Tea Party are finding out that their shrill screeching can no longer hide the truth that they are really a tiny minority in the legislature as well as the country.

And oh, by the way, how's that one-man "investigation" of the conspiracy of liberal posters going? Your junk was simply a typical rhetorical ploy to cast derision and scorn by lying about the writers you fear.

About that helicopter that was left behind. Turns out that the hard landing was evidently on one of those 12' walls with tail boom landing on the outside the compound. Thus the thermite grenades did not hide what it was - a new stealth special operations copter complete with infared suppression and armored tail rotor.

It's still theory and speculation...just like the F-117 during the Gulf War.

For the clueless, this wasn't developed in 2 years, which means ....... Bush is due another thank you.

...and you know that it was entirely the work of President Bush because...?

Boy, it must just piss you off to know end to no at this moment that President Obama did what President Bush was either incapable or uninterested in doing...getting bin Laden!

And oh, by the way, how's that one-man "investigation" of the conspiracy of liberal posters going? Your junk was simply a typical rhetorical ploy to cast derision and scorn by lying about the writers you fear.

LOL JohnA!

I too, noticed 'Paranoid' Ben was back!

Can't wait to hear the results of his 'investigation' ;o)))

I'm no fan of Nancy, that's for darn sure. But I tip my cap to her for showing some real class the other day -- more class than all the leftist loonies around here combined:

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the former Democratic House Speaker and a passionate critic of Mr. Bush, said she called the former president on Tuesday.

"He is a very friendly person, as you know, and he thanked me for my call," Ms. Pelosi told reporters. "And I think he appreciated it. But I wanted him to know the appreciation that many of us have in a bipartisan way. We have all recognized in our public comments that his role was important in having this success."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/bush-aides-walk-delicate-line-on-bin-laden/

@John -- If he has worked hard to bridge, then he has been a miserable failure. Another one to chalk up on the list.

Smiffy - see my post #1.20.

More BS and blather from you, AGAIN. There are TWO serious Democratic proposals available now. The President's is a moderate center-right approach, the CPC's is closer to an updated New Deal approach.

And has been published here at length before, the Ryan plan is all BS and blather, too. It isn't a budget - it's an excuse to QUIT governing the nation with all the programs and departments it eliminates. It adds trillions in coming years to the deficit and doesn't approach ending deficits for another 60 years. it is a lie, wrapped in an enigma, screened by a conundrum.

Hey, that pretty well describes the crap you post here, too, come to think of it.

I keep waiting for the Republicans to come up with legislation that will benefit the country as a whole. But, instead, they just keep coming up with the same old tricks in different packages, such as attacking women rights.

The American people are getting tired of these Republicans, such as the town halls on the Ryan budget plan and it just doesn’t look like they get it.

So, last week it was the racist birther Trump, and the President put him back in his place on Saturday night.

Now, this week it looks like the Republicans, (the party of Fake Outrage) is going after the President and the bin Laden’s death photos issue.

They the (Fake Outrage) party just needs to remember that President Obama is and will continue to what is best for the people of the United States, and they the Republicans, (the party of Fake Outrage) had better get on board and do their Damm job.

@ John & Feisty -- apparently the my server ( I am not technically savvy so this is just a guess) does not update this site at quickly as some in other parts of the country. I began this morning at 8:55 and refreshed every 30 seconds. FR came up at 8:36 on my server and the first comments appeared at 9:11 so I concede it is all in the up and up.

IR:

This, indeed is one of your best posts...ever. Thank you for writing it.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

They are floundering. The people do no longer are buying their rhetoric. They want results like the result that our President delivered, not just idle rhetoric with no deeds to back them up. They want JOBS, a Stable Economy, Education Reform and a serious workable Deficit Reduction Plan. The GOP/TP talks a good game but to date they are just not delivering any product.

Interesting comments Navy. People do want jobs, a stable economy and a serious workable Decicit Plan. Unfornately, for the previous 2.5+ years, all we received was a healthcare bill that may be unconstitutional and scraped over one item, the commerce clause. We have been waiting for the Obama administration, which also controlled the House and Senate, to prepare legislation that would incentivise companies to hire people. But with the White House bail-outs and the House and Senate Spending Programs we did see a rapid increase in deficit spending that isn't stopping today. Now before you begin Navy, yes, Bush did increase the deficit wtih his two wars. Yep, those Progressives were first before the war before they were against it. And by controlling the House and Senate, didn't they also approve the spending?

The GOP/TP talks a good game but to date they are just not delivering any product.

Unlike the Progressive Party who failed to deliver a budget, the GOP has delivered a product, one that libbies dislike. Hey Navy, it is a beginning......where is the Progressive plan? All I hear and read is rhetoric from the Progressive/Democratic Party followers.

Sounds like another plan that did not work very well.

And how do we know Navy? By your opinion?

I began this morning at 8:55 and refreshed every 30 seconds. FR came up at 8:36 on my server and the first comments appeared at 9:11 so

WOW! Wasn't it you, who only yesterday told US to get a life! lol

Today the 5th of May 2011 is Happy Cinco de Mayo day everyone

The hopeless drones at FOX NOISE are at it again. Their superior anti- hate President Obama machine (including their steeple audience) just don’t get it (him). President Obama works/ed tirelessly, with compassion on many issues facing this country while all the time planning to get Osama bin Laden; which he did. Suddenly, the right wing nutjobs at FOX NOISE and some in the Republican Party want to credit George Bush for it.

Hopelessly, at Fox Noise along with the steeple they are also poised to create more havoc in the country and the world. I understand the debate on releasing the picture of a dead bin Laden. Personally, I think to release the picture is comparable to pis*ing on someone’s grave; in addition to angering the jihadist planning revenge on our military, America, and her allies. Now the debate goes to something else.

They are attempting aggressively to poison the water for President Obama it’s all torture-a-go-go over at the FOX Nation. They want to bungle a national debate about torture.

The GOP/T-Baggers really want to share the credit President Barack Obama has for the killing of bin Laden with George Bush so badly that they want to equate the deadly terror attacks in Africa and elsewhere to George Bush.

Opposing views..

http://blackwaterdog.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/100.jpg?w=590&h=373

Matthew Alexander, a former senior military interrogator in Iraq. "The laying of the groundwork, if you will, of these [Bush-era] techniques, I believe wholeheartedly, slowed us down on the road towards Osama bin Laden and numerous other members of al-Qaeda," Alexander says. "I’m convinced we would have found him a lot earlier had we not resorted to torture and abuse." [includes rush transcript]

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/4/former_military_interrogator_matthew_alexander_despite

Rumsfeld Flip-Flops In Harsh Interrogation Of Detainees

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5OatNXQBHk&feature=player_embedded#at=48

Before I forget, I need to mention some in the right wing world think that the Osama Bin Laden take-down mission was a fake; and his body is not in the sea, and that Bin Laden is ACTUALLY still alive - or was dead a long time ago and the body is frozen. It would be complicit in furthering Fox Madness whenever someone believes a word they say.

Bin laden is dead due to intelligence gathering not torture as well as our brave well trained Navy Seals

[snip]
Bush had his chances at bin Laden at Tora Bora. Mullah Omar the Afghan leader offered Bush bin Laden. He discusses turning bin Laden over, but the US wants to be handed bin Laden and the Taliban want to turn him over to some third country.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=mullah_omar

Reviving torture would be good talking points to raise for them since it would be a good diversion for not answering the mandate the GOP/T-Baggers tout/ed about their gains in government; particularly jobs.

Coverage of Boehner’s Speech: “This Coming Election is About One Issue: Jobs”

http://www.johnboehner.com/?p=1549

By the way, when are the jobs coming from Speaker Boehner? It's been 120 days without jobs or job creation legislation from House. Thus far, the GOP/T-baggers have created nada, zilch, zero job or jobs bill.

Republicans
. http://whenarethejobs.com/

The President said Bin Laden will never walk this earth again!!!

Bin laden is dead due to intelligence gathering, not torture, as well as our brave well trained Navy Seals.

See, the fact is… Bush: truly was not concerned about bin Laden (short version)
Bush said” I don’t spend much time on him”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o

As for Fox's crazy Judge Napolitano wondering if the U.S. Military’s killing of bin Laden was an illegal murder. DOJ Eric Holder took care of him since it was Constitutional.

http://obamadiary.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/bin-laden-2011-5-2-3-0-0.jpg?w=800&h=533

But, at least Ben admits he is wrong, which is more than the righties usually do. A little more credibility than most.

Independent Redneck Va.

What a beautiful post, thank you for your positive thoughts.

But, at least Ben admits he is wrong, which is more than the righties usually do. A little more credibility than most

Good point NDD!

Earns him a vote! ;o)

FR: Ground Zero vs. Greenville… The power of the presidency vs. the Gang of Five debating in South Carolina

Forgeboutit Greenville

Safecracker - man, you ought to read some of the posts here before you offer your neck on the chopping block. But, THANK YOU for this tasty opportunity to call the headsman in:

Unlike the Progressive Party who failed to deliver a budget, the GOP has delivered a product, one that libbies dislike. Hey Navy, it is a beginning......where is the Progressive plan? All I hear and read is rhetoric from the Progressive/Democratic Party followers.

From my post #1.20, above (they are now rolling down the collar of your shirt and the headsman is testing the edge of the blade):

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Those guys in the Blair House Project (what a clever appellation for that!) might want to take a very close look at the alternative budget proposal put forward by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. According to the May 9 edition of The Nation, p. 3, "It protects the social safety net, promotes a progressive tax policy, reintroduces a public option for health care and makes significant cuts to the Pentagon by bringing our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan."

The article continues, "It makes millionaires, billionaires and corporations pay their fair share while protecting the poor and the middle class. Plus, it actually generates a budget surplus by 20121, according to CPC co-chair Representative Raul Grijalva."

This is a serious proposal. Although immediate withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan appears to be a non-starter, at least addressing that topic moves the discussion further toward an earlier and more significant drawdown than is presently planned.

This proposal counters the hair-on-fire mythology of the Ryan budget and the Tea Party faction that both use a presumed immediate "crisis" with the debt and deficit to justify "slashonomics" that wouldn't get to a budget surplus for another 60 years and immediately adds nearly $6 trillion to the deficit. And their zany ideas are really to destroy the government, wreck the economic recovery, abandon the poor and elderly, and let industrial polluters run wild.

--------------------------------------------------

And, from my post #1.30 (can you hear the wind whistling as the shining arc of sharpened steel swiftly descends?):

=---------------------------------------------

More BS and blather from you, AGAIN. There are TWO serious Democratic proposals available now. The President's is a moderate center-right approach, the CPC's is closer to an updated New Deal approach.

And has been published here at length before, the Ryan plan is all BS and blather, too. It isn't a budget - it's an excuse to QUIT governing the nation with all the programs and departments it eliminates. It adds trillions in coming years to the deficit and doesn't approach ending deficits for another 60 years. it is a lie, wrapped in an enigma, screened by a conundrum.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

CHOP!!!!!!!!!!!

All is darkness.

Duh Void,

1. Duh.

2. Void of common sense?

And what bugs me a little is not the fact that we had to leave it behind, but that Obama should have been on the phone, doing everything he could to get it back - to prevent it from being given to the Chinese, or Russians instead of writing his "I am the greatest" victory speech, planning trips to New York, doing 60 Minutes and milk, milk, milk, milking the PR and photo-ops.

A SEAL team in the future may have a lot more difficulty, lives may be needlessly lost - ask Clinton what happens when one those things are shot down and Delta operator's mutilated bodies are drug through the streets.

Good Morning, IR

GREAT!

Bush Reportedly Declined Invite Because He's Peeved He Hasn't Gotten Enough Credit For Bin Laden Killing

This morning, however, the New York Daily News quoted sources saying that Bush won't be at Ground Zero today because he feels Obama hasn't given the Bush administration enough credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden:

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/05/bush-bin-laden-death/

LOL BUSH had SEVERAL chances

But, the fact is… Bush: truly was not concerned about bin Laden (short version)

BUSH SAID”I DON’T SPEND MUCH TIME ON bin LADEN”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o

Beverly, I saw that story about President Bush.

You have to remember that Bush could do no wrong when he was President with the press, until it was too late. He has become accustomed to getting all kinds of credit, for no reason.

He deserves zero. That Iraq War gave bin Laden 10 years of life he should never have had. Yet thousands died in Iraq. Because of September 11th.

Bush must believe the press is still ga ga over him. It's not. And he had better get used to it. He's got Fox and Limbaugh and a few righties on MSNBC. Who find whatever opportunity they can to hold Bush up. I don't know about CNN. I never watch them.

To repeat. Thousands and thousands of civilians died in Iraq. While bin Laden lived.

All because of Bush.

This link is for bob, Bill, JoannaSmith, safecracker, Joe in Albany, and other conservative posters.

http://www.bookwormroom.com/2011/05/04/the-obama-administrations-cloud-of-confusion-explained/

I would not encourage any liberals to click it- your heads will explode.

One can only draw one of two conclusions from this:

They are more incredibly incompetent than even we feared, or

This is a deliberate attempt to create another "birther" movement which can be exploited.

I know which one I believe. I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.

Ben:

If he actually knew about this operation for months before the event, why hadn’t there already be in place a decision as to whether the pictures should be released?

Gee, I don't know. Maybe he was waiting to see what the photos looked like.

Besides, if this is the best example you can come up with as to the alleged incompetence with which this was handled, then you really need to go back to the drawing board. If I were the President, I guess I'd take that criticism any day over the criticism of having been the incompetent previous administration that let OBL go at Tora Bora and for the remainder of its FIVE YEARS in office did nothing to connect all the dots and dashes that people like you are now arguing WERE ALREADY THERE.

If the clues were already there, Ben -- and this is for you, too, bobby -- then why did it take so long? You've got two choices, Ben, and they're both bad:

First, you have the choice that Bush didn't WANT to get Osama bin Laden because then the fun and wargames would have been over. That's my personal choice, but I suspect you won't agree.

Very well, then. Your second choice is that Bush was even more incompetent than you claim Obama is.

In either case, show me a republican candidate out there who's more clearly competent as a military leader than Obama.

@ no joe ~ Thanks for the link. It sounded a lot like the average George W. Bush press conference to me.

My head's still intact, by the way. You see -- all those nit-picky details, and one thing still remains true --

Osama bin Laden is dead, and no Americans were wounded.

Something George W. Bush couldn't accomplish, either with clarity of detail or without it.

So what's your point?

@Anna -- I don't believe the decision was made on the gruesomeness of the photos. Just look at the bloody mess his couriers are laying dead in. It was based on what photos of a dead UBL (if killing the leader of Al Qaeda wouldn't be used as a recruiting tool) would do to inflame the rest of the world. That decision should have already been made. The other question I have is if this had been going on for months and the kill was close, why would you change your national security team "before" the event if you knew about it?

I don't buy into your pre-chosen choices for me. They show just how naive you are as to the magnitude of what had happened and where the U.S was at that time. It took so long because the U.S.'s capabilities were weakened severely under Clinton. The 9-11 commission report -- and you can quote Bob Kerry (D) -- said we weren't ready. I don't believe there is a timetable book on how long it should take to kill a terrorist. Clinton made a mistake by not taking UBL when he had a chance and so did President Bush. If UBL was at Tora Bora, then the mountains and caves should have been leveled, but we chose a PC approach. Wrong.

Mickey Mouse to answer your last question.

IR, beautifully said.

President Obama never called the Afghanistan war dumb, that was what he said about the lead up to the Iraq war before he was even elected a US Senator. The Iraq war was a dumb war, one that took the military from fighting Bush's War on Terror to fighting to topple a dictator and then fighting to keep that country from dissolving into collapse and all out Sunni, Shiite war and costing us nearly $1 trillion. For that reason, former President Bush deserves only small credit for Sunday's death of Osama bin Laden. Perhaps he deserves a bit more but not when one evaluates the impact of his decisions beginning in early to mid 2002. Bush fell for OBL's trap to bankrupt this country, to destroy its economy and its wealth; the near collapse of our economy is rooted in some part to two long, unfunded and unfinished wars so it is difficult for me to give Bush much credit beyond his increased emphasis on human intelligence rather than satellite photos.

Ben:

Mickey Mouse to answer your last question.

Oh, go ahead, and indulge the stupid little liberal.

Condescending much? Wrong target. Try again.

Donald Trump, you think? Or maybe Michele Bachmann? Tim Pawlenty? Newt Gingrich? Sarah Palin? Mitt Romney? No? Then who?

That's what I thought.

By the way, you do realize that your argument is completely contradicted by bobby's argument is that Bush accomplished ALL the goals and got home again before lunch. An argument that is, of course, also undercut by all the facts. And you still don't explain why, if we had all the seeds of information available during Bush's administration -- a fact which is surely in dispute -- Bush didn't follow those up and act before he left office.

Because why on earth would Bush, the only truly patriotic president that, according to you republicans, we've had in the past 18 years or so, leave that last vital task to that foreigner Muslim guy, Barack Obama, who Bush should have known -- as you apparently do -- would be incompetent to finish it.

Or, wait.

I thank both of them, President Bush for his policies and President Obama for enforcing them.

Ben and Bob

You guys are absolute geniuses.

I seldom read long post but I am sure glad I had the time today. But Ben they will not listen and Bob they do not have the capacity to understand.

Have a great day

Great comments Anna Molly. Don't you just love it when Conservative talking points collide?

Happens all the time, too, because theres no substance to them, just empty shells meant to sell something that's on the Conservative shelf.

@Anna -- I am glad you recognize who you are. It is refreshing to encounter someone so honest. And you need to give me an opportunity to answer before you say I thought so. You have to realize what seeds are. They are the beginning some are slow growing and some are fast growing. Just in the last several months -- apparently -- the the right branch/stem was discovered and it blossomed. It was a long and hard decision for BHO to make. He, in fact, could have acted sooner according to reports. Why would you want a president to jump and make a decision this important?

I don't fall into the category of BHO not being a legally born citizen of the U.S. and I believe every president is a patriot -- so another pre-chosen option of yours that I don't buy into.

As to my joke. That's all it was but to answer your question being a military commander is only one aspect of being president. Trump, Palin, Bachmann, Gingrich are not the answers. Everyone is wasting their time discussing them. Colin Powell would be a better military commander as would Petraeus and McChrystal. Anyone with one ounce of military experience would be better than BHO. Maybe BHO learned something in office. Maybe he realized not repealing the Patriot Act and not closing Gitmo wasn't a bad idea. But he had to learn just like any other president who did not have military experience prior to sitting in that seat.

So if I understand the GOP/TP followers, a mission that last less than 40 minutes, takes out the enemy, captures about a dozen computers and hundreds of thumb drives and thousands of pages of documents, that by the way have already proved helpful in the ID of some people of interest AND does not cost a single American Life is incompetent??

Ok, then what do you call an administration that claims to have had all the intelligence before President Obama and (if the really did have it) then do nothing with it?? What happened to relentlessness to bring OBL to justice??

What do you call an administration that has the enemy wounded and trapped but does nothing about it. The commanders called for support and the administration denied it, hence allowing OBL to escape. What the he!! do you call that?? Did they deliberately want him to escape??

What do you call an administration that closes down the operations to track OBL?? Does not sound like they were in any hurry to capture him, or even keep looking.

You guys are totally without shame. Just when I think you will not stoop lower you just dig a deeper hole. The last administration is the very definition of incompetence when it came to Afghan NOT President Obama.

It is over and History will record that the administration of President Obama did in 2+ years what the previous administration could not do in 7. One President kept his promise to the American People, the other did not and started another war based on lies to boot.

Great post IR. Wow, No Joe, you are even more deluded today than on most days. I read your list, looks like a tongue in cheek op/ed from a junior high news paper. I know you believe it because that is your comprehension level.

With all the lefty liberal whining about how GWB didn't get bin Laden, it seems they have also conveniently forgotten that Slick Willy Clinton had several opportunities that he turned down. Imagine how different the world would be today if Clinton had acted when he had the chance:

US missed three chances to seize Bin Laden
The Sunday Times of London 01/06/2002

PRESIDENT Bill Clinton turned down at least three offers involving foreign governments to help to seize Osama Bin Laden after he was identified as a terrorist who was threatening America, according to sources in Washington and the Middle East.

Clinton himself, according to one Washington source, has described the refusal to accept the first of the offers as "the biggest mistake" of his presidency.

The main reasons were legal: there was no evidence that could be brought against Bin Laden in an American court. But former senior intelligence sources accuse the administration of a lack of commitment to the fight against terrorism.

When Sudanese officials claimed late last year that Washington had spurned Bin Laden's secret extradition from Khartoum in 1996, former White House officials said they had no recollection of the offer. Senior sources in the former administration now confirm that it was true.

An Insight investigation has revealed that far from being an isolated incident this was the first in a series of missed opportunities right up to Clinton's last year in office. One of these involved a Gulf state; another would have relied on the assistance of Saudi Arabia.

In early 1996 America was putting strong pressure on Sudan's Islamic government to expel Bin Laden, who had been living there since 1991. Sources now reveal that Khartoum sent a former intelligence officer with Central Intelligence Agency connections to Washington with an offer to hand over Bin Laden — just as it had put another terrorist, Carlos the Jackal, into French hands in 1994.

At the time the State Department was describing Bin Laden as "the greatest single financier of terrorist projects in the world" and was accusing Sudan of harbouring terrorists. The extradition offer was turned down, however. A former senior White House source said: "There simply was not the evidence to prosecute Osama Bin Laden. He could not be indicted, so it would serve no purpose for him to have been brought into US custody."

A former figure in American counterterrorist intelligence claims, however, that there was "clear and convincing" proof of Bin Laden's conspiracy against America. In May, 1996, American diplomats were informed in a Sudanese government fax that Bin Laden was about to be expelled — giving Washington another chance to seize him. The decision not to do so went to the very top of the White House, according to former administration sources.

They say that the clear focus of American policy was to discourage the state sponsorship of terrorism. So persuading Khartoum to expel Bin Laden was in itself counted as a clear victory. The administration was "delighted".

Bin Laden took off from Khartoum on May 18 in a chartered C-130 plane with 150 of his followers, including his wives. He was bound for Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan. On the way the plane refuelled in the Gulf state of Qatar, which has friendly relations with Washington, but he was allowed to proceed unhindered.

Barely a month later, on June 25, a 5,000lb truck bomb ripped apart the front of Khobar Towers, a US military housing complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The explosion killed 19 American servicemen. Bin Laden was immediately suspected.

Clinton is reported to have admitted how things went wrong in Sudan at a private dinner at a Manhattan restaurant shortly after September 11 last year. According to a witness, Clinton told a dinner companion that the decision to let Bin Laden go was probably "the biggest mistake of my presidency".

Clinton could not be reached for comment yesterday, but a former senior White House official acknowledged that the Sudan episode had been a "screw-up".

A second offer to get Bin Laden came unofficially from Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American millionaire who was a donor to Clinton's election campaign in 1996. On July 6, 2000, he visited John Podesta, then the president's chief of staff, to say that intelligence officers from a Gulf state were offering to help to extract Bin Laden.

Details of the meeting are confirmed in an exchange of e-mails between the White House and Ijaz, which have been seen by The Sunday Times. According to Ijaz, the offer involved setting up an Islamic relief fund to aid Afghanistan in return for the Taliban handing over Bin Laden to the Gulf state. America could then extract Bin Laden from there.

The Sunday Times has established that after a fierce internal row about the sincerity of the offer, the White House responded by sending Richard Clarke, Clinton's most senior counterterrorism adviser, to meet the rulers of the United Arab Emirates. They denied there was any such offer. Ijaz, however, maintained that the White House had thereby destroyed the deal, which was to have been arranged only through unofficial channels. Ijaz said that weeks later on a return trip to the Gulf he was taken on a late-night ride into the desert by his contact who told him that Clarke's front-door approach had upset a delicate internal balance and blown the deal. "Your government has missed a major opportunity," he recalls being told.

Senior former government sources said that Ijaz's offer had been treated in good faith but, with the denial of the UAE government, there was nothing to suggest it had credibility.

A third more mysterious offer to help came from the intelligence services of Saudi Arabia, then led by Prince Turki al-Faisal, according to Washington sources. Details of the offer are still unclear although, by one account, Turki offered to help to place a tracking device in the luggage of Bin Laden's mother, who was seeking to make a trip to Afghanistan to see her son. The CIA did not take up the offer.

Richard Shelby, the leading Republican on the Senate intelligence committee, said he was aware of a Saudi offer to help although, under rules protecting classified information, he was unable to discuss the details of any offer. Commenting generally, he said: "I don't believe that the fight against terrorism was the number one goal of the Clinton administration."

It is interesting to read the opinions falling over each other to explain what happened on Sunday in Pakistan. And to synthesize, dissect and analyze.

The right has already stated their intention to make Obama look bad. In everything. So we can start there.

After months of chiding the left for blaming things on Bush or relating current events to Bush, the right now seeks to do exactly that. If Bush deserves credit for any of the bin Laden intelligence, then he also deserves credit for the economic mess. And unemployment and the housing crisis.

All of this picking apart of the events of last Sunday only diminish the heroic act that it was. We are perhaps too used to the precision of television drama to realize that real war and real conflict is messy. It is brutal and bloody. Mistakes are made, loose ends remain. We need to let it go at that.

Three Presidents have tried to find and eliminate bin Laden. Obama did it.

Ben-636050,
so why didn't Bush capture bin Laden? He couldn't or wouldn't? You are implying that it was thanks to Bush that Obama was able to capture OBL but I am not sure why Bush would not do it himself in the 7+ years that he was "looking" for him?

fielden,

Three Presidents have tried to find and eliminate bin Laden. Obama did it.

and that is exactly the point

Joe in Albany,
Since you are pointing fingers why not include Reagan who created bin Laden and why not include Bush2 who ignored every warning about bin Laden? Bush was told that bin Laden was planning attack on us; he was told that OBL was going to use planes to attack us; he was told that there were pilots being trained in flight only (no take off or landing). Let's also not forget that Bush failed at getting bin Laden as well.
So since you blame Clinton (who did not get bin Laden) why not blame all presidents who failed? And after you blame those who did not get him, why not give credit to the one who did?

Unless your agenda is to simply take attention away from the failed Republican presidents only...

Judge Joe:

PRESIDENT Bill Clinton turned down at least three offers involving foreign governments to help to seize Osama Bin Laden after he was identified as a terrorist who was threatening America, according to sources in Washington and the Middle East.

As far as I know, Joe, no one has tried to give Bill Clinton any credit for getting bin Laden, so your whole post is totally irrelevant right now. Except that I will make the point that during this same period, republicans were constantly accusing Clinton of "wagging the dog," so to speak, every time anything military came up, including both Al Qaeda and the war in Bosnia. So they're not exactly blameless there, either.

How did that war in Bosnia turn out, by the way? Much better than either Iraq or Afghanistan, if I recall it correctly.

And run by a democratic general, too, as I recall ... Wesley what's his name ... oh yeah, Clark.

@ Ben ~

My apologies about the "Mickey Mouse" comment. A well-placed comma would have prevented me from mistaking your "answer" for snark.

As for Powell and McChrystal, I'd agree as to their military knowledge, and disagree as to their fitness to be Commander in Chief. Powell, as much as I like him otherwise, is clearly partly at fault for the debacle in Iraq. He should have taken the sword, rather than make that speech at the U.N., just as Admiral William Fallon took the sword to deflect Bush from his intention to invade Iran. Fallon, among others, such as Mike Mullen, actually MIGHT be qualified. McChrystal, rather than being fit, has shown that he would do everything and anything he could to cover up incompetency (i.e., Pat Tillman) and that he has no respect for anyone's opinion but his own (a la General MacArthur). He has absolutely no diplomatic skills, and certainly no legislative experience.

I'm not a fan of Petraeus for reasons I've stated out here before, but for this purpose, it would be wrong, wrong, wrong, for a current Secretary of Defense to be thinking about running for President. But, given what I think of Petraeus otherwise, it also wouldn't surprise me a bit.

TO ALL YOU RIGHT-WINGNUTS: President Bush DIDN'T GET OBL. President Obama GOT OBL. End of story. Live with it. Who gives a crap what plane they used or whether the pictures are too gory, or not gory enough and the nutcase that uses the cutting off the head of a poster analogy ought to be removed permanently from this blog. Who really gives a crap that he's buried at sea. There are smarter strategic minds in the military and the administration who make these decisions than yours or mine. Who gives a crap. We got him, God Bless America!! End of that chapter of the story.

Just got back in. Thank each and every one of you for wading through my Southernisms today and your Kind words. I appreciate it more than you could ever know.

And what bugs me a little is not the fact that we had to leave it behind, but that Obama should have been on the phone, doing everything he could to get it back - to prevent it from being given to the Chinese, or Russians instead of writing his "I am the greatest" victory speech, planning trips to New York, doing 60 Minutes and milk, milk, milk, milking the PR and photo-ops.

A SEAL team in the future may have a lot more difficulty, lives may be needlessly lost - ask Clinton what happens when one those things are shot down and Delta operator's mutilated bodies are drug through the streets.

Rather than criticize an make stuff up. Did you know that the helicopter was destroyed? There is nothing that they can use. If it was important, I am sure they would have picked it up, just like they did obl, but no, there have to be SOMETHING to criticize, even if it was flawless endeavor.

I suppose you know for a fact that he was not on the phone, right?

IR, thanks for an awesome read, as usual.

To those folks who are criticizing the Seals for not taking OBL alive, I'm not sure how they would respond in a similar situation: a darkened room with a known killer. No assurance OBL didn't have a gun, tucked away on his person somewhere, right? Lots of confusion, major time restraints. What the military would call an extremely "fluid" situation. A lot of Monday morning QBs, here. Not sure anyone on this thread would have been able to act as cooly and quickly as these Seals. You may not approve, but I defy anyone to name a more successful operation of this kind with as few casualties (zero). Just an outstanding, amazing job!

To IR, your opening post was appropriate and enjoyed - thanks.

To Feisty, the right-wing have not been caught with their pants down (again), since this time there was no sordid sex scandal. Perhaps a better description is the right-wing has been caught soiling themselves.

I have no interest in the petty nit picky volleys with conservatives, because I am so TIRED of the constant rewriting of history in their attempt to vindicate failed Republican policies--from neocon foreign policy to legislating morality to voodoo economics to GWB, who did not and will not go down in history as the greatest president in the USA. Thou dost protest too much, conservatives.

I kinda feel for your demoralized state--as is glaringly obvious by the first GOP/TP presidential debate (yawn) that no one cares about. The Teabagger swift-boating of health care reform and immersion in conspiracy theories won the House in 2010. But this victory was immediately destroyed by radical right-wingers who thought they had a mandate to bust unions, add religious riders to the budget, or replace Medicare with vouchers. Republicans blew it--who knew they would do this so big and so fast.

It is conservatives and the GOP/TP who are inept. So run along now, and get a clean pair.

Ben-636050

It’s time to move on now. UBL is dead. The obscene photo op today hopefully will put this behind us.

Lost a nephew in 911..his widow and 2 sons were in that photo op today.

Ben managed to insult him and his family today.

Ben is so busy hating our President, and Democrats in general, he hasn't time to think of anyone else or their feelings.

Ben seems to think his thoughts are superior to those of anyone else.

Poor Ben....

Can the right look any more desperate to discredit Obama. It's unbelievable. Heck Bob is even trying to give Bush credit for the stealth helicopter. Really Bob, did Bush build that thing in Crawford. Ah, I get it now, that's why he was on vacation so much, he was building stealth helicopters. Thanks for clearing that up.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

They are floundering

"One thing is for sure - in order to be a card carrying member of the bagger & birther club, you MUST be a serial liar!"

I read somewhere in order for them to get into vote, they have to bring their Long Form Birth Certificate :) :) :) :)

Get real.

These photos are the new long form birth certificate, and will be used exactly the same way.

Some time next year, when his numbers look bad, he will publish them, hoping they will boost his re election chances. Bank on it.

With 474,000 new claims for unemployment today, I doubt that becoming "a noun, a verb, I killed bin Laden" is going to get him re elected.

Will not stop him from trying it, though.

Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much. Helen Keller

Per DailyKos/NY Times:

There are many arguments against torture. It is immoral and illegal and counterproductive. The Bush administration’s abuses — and ends justify the means arguments — did huge damage to this country’s standing and gave its enemies succor and comfort. If that isn’t enough, there is also the pragmatic argument that most experienced interrogators think that the same information, or better, can be obtained through legal and humane means.

No matter what Mr. Yoo and friends may claim, the real lesson of the Bin Laden operation is that it demonstrated what can be done with focused intelligence work and persistence.

____________________________________________________

I have been literally numbed by the coverage this week on MSNBC evening programs (“I’m not able to watch daytime coverage). We have seen one guest after another for the entire week – intelligent, experienced, thoughtful, professional guests – talking about their experiences – whether it be in the military, the CIA, the upper echelons of government positions or as journalists – talking painstakingly about the War on Terror, sharing their experiences openly with us all, giving us their professional opinions on catching bin Laden and their insights as to how this was accomplished. How it affected them all as they recalled the past ten years.

We have seen families of those who lost members of their family either on September 11^th or in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The reporting itself done by all the hosts has been nothing short of outstanding. We saw this week a return to real journalism on cable. No exploitation. No yelling and screaming. What we saw was thoughtful experienced mature Americans giving us a solid record into the last ten years.

No spin. Just solid solid reporting. It was in a way helpful for me, who while not personally involved in the War on Terror, lived with it every single day, all the while wondering, wondering, wondering – will we ever find him? As we are beginning to see now, those who were involved in the War on Terror for years and years – found him - through diligence, tenacity, determination. Yet so many of them had to pay a price. A big price. Either with their lives or their wounds, some physically – some emotionally.

We saw an author last night on Ed Schultz’s program – Glenn Carle, who wrote a book called The Interrogator – I looked up the book this morning – Here is one review:

John H. Hedley, former Chairman of CIA’s Publications Review Board
“Glenn Carle shares his personal experience and soul-searching reflection on rendition, detention, and interrogation in the Global War on Terrorism. It is a cathartic effort that recounts an intensely emotional journey. Carle weighs what he sees as the corrosive effect of this experience on him, his Agency, and his country. Ultimately the detainee interrogated may not have suffered most; perhaps it was the interrogator himself.”

________________________________________________

There’s a reason why this books are written. To educate us. To not simply go by the damn propaganda and opinions on tv and radio from people who have no idea what they’re talking about.

It’s been quite a week on MSNBC. Thank you all.

______________________________________________

There are moments when Glenn Becks and the right need to put politics away. Today is one of those days. Today isn’t about Democrats or Republicans or Presidents Bush or Obama. It’s about the victims and their families. It’s about those who went into the buildings to save people. It’s about those who fought and continue to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s about journalists like Michael Ware and Richard Engel who were the journalistic faces of these wars. And it’s about all those silent heroes who spent ten years covertly trying to find this mass murderer.

It’s a day of remembrance. For all.

Perhaps now we can hopefully soon seeing a drawdown in Afghanistan. A big drawdown.

Get real.

These photos are the new long form birth certificate, and will be used exactly the same way.

Some time next year, when his numbers look bad, he will publish them, hoping they will boost his re election chances. Bank on it.

Oopsie...don't look now but your conspiracy theory is showing!

With 474,000 new claims for unemployment today,

Thanks for the reminder NJNB!

Speaking of J O B S - where are they?

Wasn't it the Teapublicans #1 PRIORITY if ELECTED?

Surely you remember?

They were going to come in and wave their magic wand and right ALL the wrongs in this country!

Can you name ONE jobs bill that's been introduced so far?

What's that? You can't - WHY of COURSE not this is what the baggers & birthers are FOCUSED ON:

In a 251 to 175 vote this evening, 16 anti-choice Democrats joined every House Republican present in passing H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act. A chief weapon in the House GOP’s “comprehensive assault” on women this bill proposes some of the most radical and draconian restrictions on women’s rights. They include:

– Redefinition Of Rape: The bill sponsor Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) faced serious backlash after he tried to narrow the definition rape to “forcible rape.” By narrowing the rape and incest exception in the Hyde Amendment, Smith sought to prevent the following situations from consideration: Women who say no but do not physically fight off the perpetrator, women who are drugged or verbally threatened and raped, and minors impregnated by adults.

Smith promised to remove the language and while it is not technically in the bill, Mother Jones reports that House Republicans used “a sly legislative maneuver” to insert a “backdoor reintroduction” of redefinition language. Essentially, if the bill is challenged in court, judges will look at the congressional committee report to determine intent. The committee report for H.R. 3 says the bill will “not allow the Federal Government to subsidize abortions in cases of statutory rape” — thus excluding statutory rape-related abortions from Medicaid coverage.

– Tax Increase On Women And Small Businesses: H.R. 3 prevents women from using “itemized medical deductions, certain tax-advantaged health care accounts or tax credits included in last year’s health care law to pay for abortions or for health insurance plans that cover abortion.” In doing so, the bill forces women and small businesses that provide health insurance that covers abortion to pay more in taxesthan they would otherwise. Both economic conservative Grover Norquist and the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce noted that the bill is basically a tax increase.

– Rape Audits: Because H.R. 3 bans using tax credits or deductions to pay for abortions or insurance, a woman who used such a benefit would have to prove, if audited, that her abortion “fell under the rape/incest/life-of-the-mother exception, or that the health insurance she had purchased did not cover abortions.” Essentially, the bill turns Internal Revenue Service agents into “abortion cops” who would force women to give “contemporaneous written documentation” that it was “incest, or rape, or [her] life was in danger” that compelled an abortion.

– Bans D.C.-Funded Abortions: The most recent spending resolution contained a ban on abortions in the District of Columbia by redefining the D.C. local government as the federal government. Thus, health clinics in D.C. are banned from using public funds from D.C. taxpayers to provide abortion services. H.R. 3 “would enshrine the District ban into federal law.” According to the Office of Management and Budget office, such a restriction violates “home rule.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/04/house-gop-hr3/

Someone needs to get real, unfortunately it's NOT Navy!

Pat:

One of your best. For one the journey is over and he has met Justice. This is a time for closure, in part, but we also must remain strong and of purpose. The world now knows we have one hell of a sting and if you want to mess with us you will get bit and there is no antidote and no place to hide.

Well said Feisty.

NJNB......put a sock in it, your posts are irrelevent, same ol' tune, same ol' song.

Thanks for expanding our knowledge of the Conservative attack on reproductive rights, Feisty. It's so clear that the Republican Party is dishonest in their intent, and deceptive in their aims as represented to the American voter before the last election.

These photos are the new long form birth certificate, and will be used exactly the same way.

Yup...to show how radically unhinged the Conservative Movement has become. To demonstrate that they have earned all the respect and due consideration of Flat Earthers.

no-joe-ho-nj===Seems like just a short time ago you and some other right wing people were telling us the drop in unemployment was the result of all the Republicans/Tea party people elected last November. Now you are insinuating that the new unemployment numbers out today are President Obama's fault, you can't have it both ways. But as usual you just spin or flat out lie about everything.

No Joe:

With 474,000 new claims for unemployment today, I doubt that becoming "a noun, a verb, I killed bin Laden" is going to get him re elected.

Don't make me laugh. As compared with what republican?

If you're referencing George H.W. Bush not being saved by the first Iraq War, just remember that he was running in a recession created by 12 consecutive years of failed republican policies, including the deficits caused by that big S&L bailout that Reagan created and then left for him to clean up; he was running against a constitutional scandal -- Iran-Contra -- that he was hip-deep in himself, to the extent that he had to pardon Casper Weinberger to save his own behind; he was running against his own pledge not to raise taxes; AND he was running against the master politician of the 20th Century and beyond.

in this case, we have a sitting President who did not create the current financial crisis, but is doing his darndest to solve it against almost insurmountable radical obstructionism; that same President who, with his long-form birth certificate tied behind his back, managed to finish the job that George W. Bush abandoned, like Bush abandoned almost everything else after the 2006 elections, like Reagan before him, leaving the mess for his successor to clean up.

Now tell me that thing about the noun and verb again. Because I need a good laugh.

Seems like every month Obama comes out of his bunker to tell us the economy has "turned the corner", "is improving", and his policies "are working". Obama has been spinning this nonsense for nearly three years now, and the economy still is floundering. So now the weekly unemployment numbers have spiked, inflation is taking off, and the dollar soon won't buy you a peso. So which is it Libs? You can't have it both ways.

AM: in this case, we have a sitting President who did not create the current financial crisis, but is doing his darndest to solve it against almost insurmountable obstructionism

What AM is saying is that if something good happens, Obama will take full credit for it. If something bad happens, it's Bush's fault. And this is also the true definition of an Obama kool-aide drinker, one that wants it both ways.

NJNB......put a sock in it, your posts are irrelevent, same ol' tune, same ol' song

As Nash reminded her yesterday, there's still a crows foot sticking out of her mouth & she needs to swallow harder! lol

CLASSIC!

Seattle Sue:

They keep trying do they not. They are very selective on what parts of history they will accept and try to re-write the rest.

The GOP/TP is in trouble and they know it. They are still the party of "Obstructionism" and this is causing, to a large part, the uncertainty that exists today. They deny it but it is there as big as day and that is their agenda and has been from day 1.

They campaigned on JOBS, Economy, Education etc and yet have done nothing on any of it. Their plans actually cut hundreds of thousands of jobs and stalls the economy and trashes education. This is what the economy is reacting to.

Feisty:

Looks like we are on the same page again. Thank you for the details. The same old same old. No new ideas and the ones they have suck and are proved failures.

The GOP/TP has provided not one iota of leadership in the House. None. This is what the economy and job market is responding to in addition to bad weather again etc.

The people want results. They want Jobs, a good economy, more not less education all things that the GOP/TP is deliberately avoiding. Why, because that would help America an we cannot have that because Our President would get the credit. It is all about politics and he hell with the people.

Looks like we are on the same page again

And that's ALWAYS a GOOD thing Navy!

Slowly but surely people are waking up to the fact they were hoodwinked and as demonstrated in WI - THEY ARE p!ssed!

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Speaking of J O B S - where are they? Can you name ONE jobs bill that's been introduced so far?

Let's see Feisty, in the first 2.5+ years of the Obama administration, when the Prez. stated her wouldn't rest until everyone had a job, where was his program to create jobs for Americans? Other than protecting the auto workers union, where are his jobs?

Can you tell me how many jobs were saved, started or just abused due to his stimulus programs? How much of our tax money did he spend to save or start jobs? Would you agree the cost is dramatically higher than the number of jobs created? If I did look at the numbers correctly, some of his wins in the job market exceeded the average salary of $1.5M annual per job! Bad management or corruption in this program?

It is so easy to critize Feisty, now tell me how to accomplish what you critize others on?

safecracker-1205811

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Speaking of J O B S - where are they? Can you name ONE jobs bill that's been introduced so far?

Can you tell me how many jobs were saved, started or just abused due to his stimulus programs? How much of our tax money did he spend to save or start jobs? Would you agree the cost is dramatically higher than the number of jobs created?

Oh Boy another nut in the rightwing waiting to be cracked.

Does this get to the crux of your problem?

http://blackwaterdog.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/gallup.jpg?w=590&h=445

A new site from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is tracking how long it’s been since the Republicans assumed control of the House of Representatives without proposing a single jobs-related bill. It’s all about “when” the GOP promises of jobs creation will finally come to fruition.

That'd be 120 days and nary one job or jobs bill. Correct me if I'm wrong.

http://WhenAreTheJobs.com/

Have you forgotten JOBS, Jobs, Jobs was The Weeper mandate.

Check his website out if you you don't believe me.

JoAnna:

What AM is saying is that if something good happens, Obama will take full credit for it. If something bad happens, it's Bush's fault. And this is also the true definition of an Obama kool-aide drinker, one that wants it both ways.

Okay, its finally time to ante-up, JoAnna. Because you Republicans no longer like sniper fire, apparently.

So ....

EXACTLY what did Barack Obama do BEFORE HE TOOK OFFICE AS PRESIDENT in January 2009 to cause Bush's artificially created housing bubble to burst or the need for the bank bailout at the end of 2008 or the collapse of the stock market at the end of 2007 or the sharp increase in unemployment throughout 2008 as the recession caused by Bush's economic disasters began to take hold?

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2009/jan/wk2/art02.htm

In December [2008], the number of unemployed persons increased by 632,000 to 11.1 million and the unemployment rate rose to 7.2 percent. Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons has grown by 3.6 million, and the unemployment rate has risen by 2.3 percentage points.

This oughta be good. And I'll be waiting. A long time, I suspect.

AM: This oughta be good. And I'll be waiting. A long time, I suspect.

AM, you are quintessential kool-aide drinker – always looking for excuses, never providing solutions.

Obama’s first ham-handed attempt at improving the economy was with his so called “Stimulus” plan. So called, in that it was nearly a trillion dollars in payouts to the states so they could continue to pay their state government employees. A payoff to the unions essentially. This is why states like Wisconsin have these billion dollar deficits today, dear old Uncle Barack ran out of money to give them. 4+ million new jobs where promised with this stimulus AM. Where are they? This stimulus scheme by Obama has nothing to do with George Bush AM. This is all Obama.

Next, with ObamaCare, the Democrats promised 400,000 new jobs “almost immediately” after its passage. 4 million new jobs over time. Where are those jobs AM? Again, your villain, George Bush, was nowhere to be seen when the Democrats hatched this little scheme of theirs. Again, where are these jobs?

Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/02/25/pelosi_health_reform_will_create_400000_jobs_almost_immediately.html

Now, Obama’s Treasury team, which of course is led by Tim Geithner, is “suggesting” a raise in the Debt Ceiling by $2 trillion dollars. That’s right, the Treasury wants a nearly 15% rise in Debt Ceiling, and you know they’ll spend it if they get it. Mr. Geithner says that amount will permit the Executive branch to spend money through the 2012 election, after which the country will have a $16.2 trillion dollar debt to deal with. That would include $6 trillion of additional debt for the four years Obama will have been president. In contrast, President Bush added about $5.3 trillion in debt to the county during his 8 years as president. Obama will exceed that amount by about $750 billion dollars, but over just 4 years.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/04/us-usa-budget-limit-idUSTRE7434UG20110504

Where is this money going AM? How many jobs will be promised by Obama for spending this amount of money? Again, we’re 2+ years post-Bush, and Obama is spending money at an alarming rate. I’m certain none of this will open your eyes to Obama, kool-aide drinkers like you will continue to blame Bush just because you’re not smart enough to think for yourself.

9% unemployment, trillion dollar deficts, inflation, $4+/gal gas. Exactly what problem has Obama solved again?

Gingerbread, et al:

NJNB......put a sock in it, your posts are irrelevent, same ol' tune, same ol' song.

For someone you all claim to ignore and find irrelevant (Check your spelling, maybe you are one of the reported 47% of Detroiters who are illiterately electing democrats?) NJNB sure seems to hit a nerve and get you all hot and bothered.

AM: This oughta be good. And I'll be waiting. A long time, I suspect.

Oh, and 29 minutes to respond. I hope that's fast enough for you. We all know you start forgetting what you wrote if it's more than 30 minutes.

Where are the jobs?

Almost three years, Obama where are the jobs?

Almost 6 months, republicans, where are the jobs?

NoJoe: These photos are the new long form birth certificate, and will be used exactly the same way.

We can certainly thank the right for this.

Doubting Thomas has nothing on the right. They refuse to believe the facts. Even when substantiated by the highest authorities in the land. From both parties. They drag out the inquest, distracting from the other issues at hand. They concentrate on the trivial.

We know the right has already stated their intention to make Obama fail, so we are not surprised.

My – what a super-hero Simon has made Obama out to be. I guess Mr. Simon has a different view on how the economy has been rescued. Most people would say that 9% unemployment, trillion dollar deficits, $14 trillion in debt, the continuing devaluation of the dollar, inflation, and soon to be $5+/gal gas prices wasn’t exactly the “rescue” America was looking for

9% unemployment, trillion dollar deficts, inflation, $4+/gal gas. Exactly what problem has Obama solved again?

Now, Obama’s Treasury team, which of course is led by Tim Geithner, is “suggesting” a raise in the Debt Ceiling by $2 trillion dollars. That’s right, the Treasury wants a nearly 15% rise in Debt Ceiling, and you know they’ll spend it if they get it. Mr. Geithner says that amount will permit the Executive branch to spend money through the 2012 election, after which the country will have a $16.2 trillion dollar debt to deal with. That would include $6 trillion of additional debt for the four years Obama will have been president. In contrast, President Bush added about $5.3 trillion in debt to the county during his 8 years as president. Obama will exceed that amount by about $750 billion dollars, but over just 4 years.

So many conflicting statements in one day.

Bush spent $5.3 trillion + the cost of the two wars+the cost of the tax cuts. Just to name 2.

The GOP raised the debt ceiling 7 times without questions. Bush fell right in OBL little plan by spending us into almost bankruptcy with two unfunded wars. The Iraq war was an opening for al qaeda to move right in. Bush spent so much in lives and treasure claiming he is fighting the war on terror. Yet Obama spent most of the money at home and he is UN- American. It's okay for Bush to raise the debt ceiling to waste money abroad and give tax cuts, which in turn create job losses. He accomplished all this in 8 years. I think you guys forgot to give Obama the magic wand.

I remember you giving credit to the GOP for creating jobs even before they were sworn in. But now that all they are concentrating on is attacking women in every way possible, even to the point of redefining rape. Once again you are busy attacking the President on jobs, while the GOP attack women, after they promised jobs and did the typical hold up to make sure their rich friends get their tax cuts.

Js1, you ought to just come out and say you hate our President Obama and no matter what he does you will always attack him. When he does something right that you can't attack, you will just make something up. You are so (cough) American.

Js1

Obama’s first ham-handed attempt at improving the economy was with his so called “Stimulus” plan. So called, in that it was nearly a trillion dollars in payouts to the states so they could continue to pay their state government employees.

He did prevent layoffs and created jobs. I know you need spoon feeding but you know where to find the information.

Just for reference, why don't you ask Jan Brewer what she did with hers? Why don't you ask Rick Perry what he did with his $6 billion? As a matter of fact why don't you ask all the Governors, who ridiculed the President and then took credit for what the stimulus did. So many of them wanted this President to fail, they spent the money on things other than programs that would create jobs.

President Obama gave the stimulus money to the Governors to create jobs. He did not spend it himself. I know he is very UN American for actually trying to spend money in the USA rather than abroad. I know he spent a lot trying to save the economy, but it is just a pittance compared to the amount American lives lost and damaged in Iraq, the unnecessary war.

Like I was saying Fletch - stealth & steady!

Nice work my friend! ;o)

JoAnna - doesn't want to hear any stinking facts - it's counterproductive to the RNC talking points she received every morning!

Don't look now Navy - but is seems you're the NEW object of Booby's obsession!

Lots of LUCK! ;o)

PS: Didn't even bother to read it - he's been busted so many times for his BS the last couple of weeks, he's giving the NJ nut job some stiff competition as to which one is The BIGGEST Fibber!

You know, I rarely read, much less respond to bobby drivel, but what he says is a clear rewriting of history, and is remarkable for the absence of one fact that the "teabaggers" like to erase from our history.

It was during Bush's Presidency that 3000+ citizens died. Add to it, Bush ignored the warnings! Spare me this idiocy of how "Bush protected America." The evidence is otherwise.

I watched a special comment by Keith Olbermann this morning, he reminds us of this simple fact.

The hunt for Bin Laden began with a Democratic President and ended with a Democratic President.

Bush, who did not find Bin Laden, even though he went all cowboy on us and reminded us of the wanted posters in the old West, apparently lost interest, saying he just wasn't that worried about Bin Laden any more, the man responsible for the deaths of thousands of our fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, in short Americans.

Let's see if those of you who hate this President so irrationally can show some grace today. How many of you can simply say "Thank you Mr. President, and well done?"

Eye Witness Bob. He saw the show go down.

You really are out in yaya land.

Bush had OBL wounded and trapped in Bora Tora and his administration did nothing. Even OBL knew that if the US attacked then his days were over, that is when he wrote his last will as reported this week. Failed opportunity - strike 1

If we are to believe that the major of the intelligence was gathered during the Bush Administration, no matter how, then why did he not act on it. Instead he tells the country that OBL is no longer important - strike 2

He then invades Iraq with a bunch of lies and takes what little resources that were in Afghan and redeploys them to Irag. Basically closing the door on Afghan and leaving those few left to fend for themselves - strike 3

In 2005 his administration shuts down the CIA department charged with tracking OBL - sorry no more strikes game, next batter.

President Obama comes in hits the game winning home run and takes out OBL in a little over 2 years.

Look, President Obama gave Bush credit for what he did do, but the GOP/TP wants the lion's share that just is not deserved. The Navy Seals and the current intelligence department get that. And yes, President Obama was their leader, not Bush.

With all the BS you keep posting the bottom line is that the Bush Administration was ineffective in taking out OBL. President Obama was not as is evident this week. That is it in a nutshell. President Obama got the job done, President Bush walked away from it and went to Iraq.

You keep spinning there little boy, but History is going to show that Bush fumbled his opportunities and President Obama capitalized on his.

Obama in 2012.

bob plus numbers===You seem to have forgotten that about 4500 American Armed Forces were killed and thousands wounded during a war made by choice of Bush. And I assume you have no feeling what so ever for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people that were killed. And there is the little matter of all that money that was wasted. My theory as to why Bush will not attend ground zero is that he is staying home still trying to wash all that blood from his hands. Bob when you next talk to Boss Hog, tell him I said Hi. A. Moonbat

Salt Grass:

It is just a little boy throwing his usual temper tantrum.

And Clinton had him his cross hairs before 9/11 and DID NOTHING!!!!!! How many lives would have been saved then? I guess we'll never know.

Yep, Seattle Sue: the "teabagger" effort to rewrite history is amazing both in its duplicity and ignorance!

Say, Ben, how is your effort to demand changes on this board working out for you? See, I still believe, and think I have been proven correct that it is simply that the "prominent posters" have a different belief system then you do. The right wing never can handle their inability to order what people think.

I found one thing in Bob's post that stands out...

Troop Deployments in Afghanistan By Year / Congressional Research Service

2002 /5,200; 2003/10,400; 2004/15,200; 2005/19,100; 2006/20,400; 2007/23,700; 2008/30,100

I checked out the report and these numbers are accurate. So even when the Iraq War was occurring, the troop levels in Afghanistan continued to grow. I did not know this. One of the big criticisms of the Iraq War was that President Bush took his eye off the ball and redeployed resources from Afghanistan to Iraq. These numbers would seem to refute that. I ask this in all sincerity... Do those numbers not refute the redeployment assertion?

@newday -- Look at an earlier post.

bob:

Bush accomplished his goal, no American lost their life to a terror attack after the actions he took beginning in October, 2001 in Afghanistan.

So, from this I'll assume two things:

First, since Bush accomplished all the goals and did all the work, we should have gotten out of both Iraq and Afghanistan at the beginning of 2009 -- Mission Accomplished.

And second, the more than 4,000 American lives that were lost in Iraq during Bush's administration, chasing the wrong bogeyman, not to mention more than 1,000 lives lost in Afghanistan, didn't count. Because by your calculation, apparently that had nothing to do with terrorists.

I'm sure their families will be happy to know their deaths didn't count. And you will be volunteering to deliver that news, I'm sure.

Grimey:

I ask this in all sincerity... Do those numbers not refute the redeployment assertion?

You just opened up a big kettle of worms that I'm fairly sure that bobby didn't want you to open up.

First of all, we made the deal to withdraw our forces in Iraq only after Barack Obama, during the 2007 part of the campaign, suggested a timetable for withdrawal of 16 months. Up to that point, Bush had strongly resisted such a timetable. By making the deal, he locked the next President down and disingenuously gave himself the credit for solving the problem.

Second, beginning in about 2006, Afghanistan began to re-escalate. During the campaign Barack Obama had been calling for more focus on Afghanistan. In the spring of 2008, Condi Rice and Robert Gates, feeling the pressure, went to Europe and asked our NATO allies for more assistance in Afghanistan. They flatly refused to help. Given the circumstances, Bush had no choice but to send more troops to Afghanistan. That's the reason for the increase during that period.

Ben:

Your ties to reality are quite poor. During the Bush administration at Tora Bora OBL was in our cross-hairs. But Bush couldn't find the trigger.

Ben63: Good for you! I am quite unaccustomed to a rightie admitting to error. It does give you credibility, and I wish more of your associates would try it. Perhaps we CAN have some reasonable discussions, I am always hopeful when you begin with honesty. But, just to reassure you, I know the people who seemed suspect to you, and they are indeed people that live all over the country. When you read more of what they write, you will discover that they have very different styles.

There are more to resources than just troop numbers.

Of course they do, Frank. However, do NOT expect the liberals to admit the truth- they are too tied to their talking points to allow pesky things like facts to deter them.

Need proof? Look at their insistence that Obama's stimulus trillion stimulated anything but the deficit.

@Ron -- Both missed opportunities. Read the 9/11 Commission report and you will see that Clinton did not pull the trigger. There is no doubt of that. I was never in favor of the way the war was waged by President Bush. If UBL was at Tora Bora, we should have leveled the Himalayan Mountains like he leveled the twin towers. It was a huge mistake not to do otherwise. There is no PC war with these radical scum animal terrorists. There is a passage in James that says (paraphrase) if we try to be friends with the world, we will be an enemy of God. I believe it is appropriate to today's events.

@newday -- thank you.

Under President Bush the White House didn't follow the advice of the intelligent community. Instead they the White House under President Bush created the intelligence as they saw fit for the intelligent community.

Remember, President Bush had 7 years and 130 Day to get bin Laden.

Granted, intelligence was used from the Bush era, But President Obama directed the CIA to come up with a Plan.

So, President Obama's plan took 2 years and 102 days of him being in office until we got bin Laden. In that time intelligence factors do change.

So, the bottom line, is history books will show that bin Laden was bought to justice under President Obama.

Our President Obama is now known as being a great leader in National Security, of the United States.

Old Navy,

Sorry I have had interuptions.

See you in the morning.

Newday..

As we are waiting for you Navy and the rest of the libbies to admit your LIE (mistake) about the level of troops in Afganistan.

Can you now be a big man/woman and admit you were wrong. We already saw how Navy Explain his lie. How about you?

@Job1 -- and that, $4.00+ for a gallon of gas, nearly 10% unemployment; skyrocketing food prices; a death spiraling dollar; a massive deficit and uncontrolled spending will get him nothing but an asterisk.

Gosh Ben,

That sounds a lot like President Bush's record when he left office. Granted his unemployment numbers were lower. But, at one point under Bush, the gas prices were higher. However, under Bush we were headed for a great Depression.

"@Job1 -- and that, $4.00+ for a gallon of gas, nearly 10% unemployment; skyrocketing food prices; a death spiraling dollar; a massive deficit and uncontrolled spending will get him nothing but an asteris"

OK RWNJ Read the following excerpts from: Resources were diverted from Afghan to Iraq. You must note that resouces include things other than just troop numbers. Again you guys like to only look at a number that you think proves your point. Do any of you remember the nightly newscasts were the commanders in Afghan were complaing they needed equipment, and other stuff. Troops would come into Afghan then go to Iraq.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=afghanwar_tmln&afghanwar_tmln_us_invasion__occupation=afghanwar_tmln_us_redirection_of_forces_to_iraq

Most of Task Force 5’s members are called home from Afghanistan to prepare for operations in Iraq. In early 2002, there were roughly 150 Task Force 5 commandos in Afghanistan. After the massive transfer, Task Force 5’s numbers dip to as low as 30 men. Task Force 5 is a top-secret elite group that includes CIA paramilitary units and military “special mission units,” or SMUs. One of the SMUs is the former Delta Force. The name of the other unit, which specializes in human and technical intelligence operations, is not known. The Washington Post will later note, “These elite forces, along with the battlefield intelligence technology of Predator and Global Hawk drone aircraft, were the scarcest tools of the hunt for jihadists along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.” According to Flynt Leverett, a career CIA analyst assigned to the State Deparmtent, “There is a direct consequence for us having taken these guys out prematurely. There were people on the staff level raising questions about what that meant for getting al-Qaeda, for creating an Afghan security and intelligence service [to help combat jihadists]. Those questions didn’t get above staff level, because clearly there had been a strategic decision taken.” [Washington Post, 10/22/2004] In 2003, Task Force 5 will be disbanded and then merged into the new Task Force 121, which is to operate in both Iraq and Afghanistan. [New York Times, 11/7/2003]

The Atlantic Monthly will later report, “By the beginning of 2002, US and Northern Alliance forces had beaten the Taliban but lost bin Laden. At that point the United States faced a consequential choice: to bear down even harder in Afghanistan, or to shift the emphasis in the global war on terror somewhere else.… Implicitly at the beginning of 2002, and as a matter of formal policy by the end, it placed all other considerations second to regime change in Iraq.” [Atlantic Monthly, 10/2004] In February, 2002, Gen. Tommy Franks allegedly tells Sen. Bob Graham (D), “Senator, we have stopped fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan. We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq” (see February 19, 2002). [Council on Foreign Relations, 3/26/2004] This shift from Afghanistan to Iraq involves a change of focus and attention (see Early 2002). Additionally, while the total number of US troops (less than 10,000) in Afghanistan does not go down, there is a considerable shift of specialized personnel and equipment many months before the war in Iraq will begin:
On February 15, 2002, President Bush directs the CIA to conduct operations in Iraq (see Early 2002). In mid-March, the CIA tells the White House that it is cutting back operations in Afghanistan (see Spring 2002).
Most of Task Force 5, a top-secret elite CIA and military special forces group, is called home from Afghanistan to prepare for operations in Iraq (see Early 2002).
In March 2002, Fifth Group Special Forces, an elite group whose members speak Arabic, Pashtun, and Dari, that is apparently different from Task Force 5, is sent from Afghanistan to Iraq (see March 2002).
The US Air Force’s only two specially-equipped spy planes that had successfully intercepted the radio transmissions and cell phone calls of al-Qaeda’s leaders are pulled from Afghanistan to conduct surveillance over Iraq. NSA satellites are “boreholed,” (or redirected) from Afghanistan to Iraq as well (see May 2002).
Almost all Predator drones are withdrawn from Afghanistan and apparently moved to the Persian Gulf region for missions over Iraq (see April 2002).
More personnel will shift to Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003 (see Late 2002-Early 2003). In 2007, retired US Gen. James L. Jones, a former NATO supreme commander, will say that Iraq caused the US to “take its eye off the ball” in Afghanistan. [New York Times, 8/12/2007]

This is only a small piece of the History. Read the whole thing and we wonder why the previous admninstration faild in Afghan. I told you that RESOURCES were moved from Afghan to Iraq and you morons only single out troop numbers. There is much more to resources than just boots on the ground.

Nice, USNAVY, nice. It seems that you have the goods that show that the mission was 'diverted', notwithstanding what Joe in Albany and Bob 18 have posted today.

I find it fascinating that both of these posters would spend so much time trying to give credit where credit is NOT due. I guess they are having a hard time facing the fact that President Bush FAILED because he made the WRONG decision(s), costing the United States over $1 TRILLION in treasure, 4000+ servicemembers killed, and hundreds of thousands maimed or injured.

But President Bush DID get a nice parting gift - Saddam Hussein's pistol, which he proudly displays in his library. and YOU, America, paid for it.

Was the price for that damn pistol worth it?

I guess hindsight is 20-20, but it is glaringly obvious - to those that want to see the facts - that President Obama's approach worked better. It is also glaring obvious of the result.

Chaulk up ANOTHER victory for the President. Without even trying, this President is making the Republicans/Tea Party and their 'issues' look pretty petty and stupid.

Great work USN, the facts tell the story.

@ Bobby, I saw that rant by Judge Napolitano and if you agree with him you are just plain drowning in conspiracy and anti-american hate speach.

line, if "Cowboy" Bush had ordered a military operation, "invading a foreign country" to kill an unarmed Muslim, "to be judge, jury and executioner", violating his "civil rights" to "murder him" you lib's Depends would have exploded followed quickly by a secondary explosion of our heads.

Bin Laden gave up his rights to trial when he gloated about the mass murder of several thousand innocent AMERICANS. If you ask me a quick,easy double-tap death is more humanity than he deserved. I am PROUD of our President for his decision to go in and have OBL ended face-to-face. I do not care if he did not hold a gun, but his brain was the weapon he used to kill Americans. While he was breathing he was a weapon, and also releasing the death photos will provide more weapons for those who deified him.

It still was a good weekend - Trump got "spanked" in public and Bin Laden got "double tapped' by the Seals.

line, if "Cowboy" Bush had ordered a military operation, "invading a foreign country" to kill an unarmed Muslim, "to be judge, jury and executioner", violating his "civil rights" to "murder him" you lib's Depends would have exploded followed quickly by a secondary explosion of our heads.

Didn't Bush do this , lets see, just by changing and adding a few words.....

Cowboy" Bush ordered a military operation, "invading a foreign country" to kill unarmed Muslims/Iraqis, "to be judge, jury and executioner", violating their "civil rights" to "murder these innocent people" and while in the process killed thousands of Americans and injuring even more. No one Depends exploded or was followed quickly by a secondary explosion of heads.(Except for the Iraqis and our service men, not to mention our deficit).

The difference. One used a scalpel and 4 or 5 people died. The other went in like a bull in a china shop and hundreds of thousands innocent died.

Triple XXX

Seriously?

You bring the *popcorn* this time! ;o)

Nice post short and sweet.

It does not.

The link between limiting lawsuits on doctors and reduce federal spending is insurance. A doctor's greatest insurance coverage is malpractice insurance. Because of this insurance, a doctor charges an astronomical amount of money to not only see her patients, but charge accordingly for every service performed. The doctors are paid by health insurance companies, while paying out their malpractice insurance, and some of the health insurance companies are medicare. Medicare is government funded health insurance for senior citizens. Therefore, the more money a doctor pays into malpractice insurance, the more she charges for her service on patients.

The argument goes that it would lower malpractice insurance rates, thereby lowering what physicians have to charge, which in turn would save the government money paid to Medicare/Medicaid physicians. (The trouble with that argument being that the legislation never seeks to put a cap only on lawsuits against Medicare/Medicaid providers.)

But I digress. There is little real evidence that caps actually lower malpractice insurance rates, or do anything to affect what physicians charge patients. In essence, this could open the door -- especially for non-Medicare/Medicaid providers -- to keep the difference. Moreover, this posited decrease in Medicare/Medicaid costs, in all probability, would just be paid out again in increased Medicaid costs to individuals whose lawsuit proceeds were not sufficient to cover their ongoing needs.

So, the argument is circular, and Navy is right. It does not.

I have two physicians who canceled their malpractice insurance because it was so high. One jumped from $125k annually to $350k. They had us signed a document stating that we know they don't have insurance but we are still willing to see them.

I respect those physicians who do this. My point is, they put their personal assets on the line and therefore are more careful than others.

The are two of the best Drs. For those people who lost their jobs and insurance, they still saw these patients and did everything possible to make sure they received the best care at minimum cost.

I said all that to say this. Limiting lawsuits on doctors does nothing for or against federal spending. The GOP is once again blowing smoke. They will blame their mama if they thought they would get away with it. The new one is "banning abortions will reduce federal spending". There they go after mama.

We got tort reform done here in Texas under Dubya's watch as Gov. We were promised it would lower our insurance rates as well, but the only benefactors of it were the doctors. In fact, 2 years ago (I wasn't able to find follow up reports on this), there were 2 impending lawsuits in Texas for malpractice. In both cases (both victims were female), the doctors had left a sponge inside the patient after surgery. One woman didn't find out what the problem was until 9 years after the fact, and for the other woman it was almost 11 years. They both had been to several doctors to try to determine the problem, and nothing anybody did fixed the recurring pain they experienced. Both never new what was up until x-rays were actually taken, and the sponges found. The problem lies in the statute of limitations in the law, saying that you had to file your lawsuit within 2 years of the act of malpractice. Last I had heard, they were appealing the verdict of the suit. I do not know how it turned out for either woman, but needless to say, the only beneficiaries of tort reform will be the doctors. Now doctors love to come to Texas, since they can only be sued for $250,000 instead of millions. So here in Texas, your life is worth about $250,000. Pretty sad, but true.

Nash:

Excellent post. I hope you are saving them as all your posts are worth keeping.

What is most important is that America finally sent the message loud and clear that we have trying to send since the day the Twin Towers fell:

We are not afraid. We are not deterred. We are STILL the UNITED States of America

And there lies the heart of the matter doesn’t it

Thank you for getting to it so eloquently because in my life I find the simple truths the best ones and the ones that endure the test of time

Once again that’s just fine like frog hair split that there is

Outstanding! Thanks, Nash!

Thanks for the kind words . . . much appreciated.

to Colorado Crenshaw -

George H.W. Bush did in fact lose his re-election bid to Bill Clintoon. The minute Clintoon walked through the White House doors, this country started the slide to hell. That was 8 years of pure hell and misery for this country. It didn't get much better under George W. Bush. The only way it will ever get better is if the Repukes in the Senate & House stop blocking everything President Obama tries to do. Since 99% of the Repukes in the Senate & House are white supremacists hell-bent on making sure President Obama fails for no reason other than his black skin, this country will descend further into hell. If Mitch KKK McConnell, Rick KKK Santorum, Sarah KKK Palin, Mitt KKK Romney, Ron KKK Paul, John KKK McCain, or Donald KKK Trump should somehow win - or most likely steal - the 2012 presidential election, there will be no more freedoms for the citizens. They will certainly hire someone like Sandy Burglar to break into the Archives and literally destroy the Consitution.

FR specified a sitting president who took power from the opposing party...HW Bush took over from a president of the same party. Small point but significant as the latter circumstance tends to be a "third term" of the previous president in the eyes of much of the electorate, if not in fact.

Harold-3431296

George H.W. Bush did in fact lose his re-election bid to Bill Clintoon. The minute Clintoon walked through the White House doors, this country started the slide to hell. That was 8 years of pure hell and misery for this country. It didn't get much better under George W. Bush.

Ah, yes. Those Clinton years were terrible what with all that peace and prosperity and "out-of-control" budget surpluses. Bush saved us from that hellish situation.

Houston ROTFLMFAO, too funny, you get the slapdown of the day award

yes he did until they couldn`t find the overseas votes

in Florida, talk about lying in the family

There was one other qualification - having taken over the white house from the opposing party at the previous election. Georget Bush's presidency was kinda like the third term of the Reagan Presidency. Carter, on the other hand had beaten Ford taken power from the Republicans, only to lose it 4 years laters. A similar situation exists with Ford. His presidency was the completion of Nixon's second presidency so although he never completed even a full term, he also did wrestle control from the opposing party.

There are 2 Republicans, you forgot John Kyl, or do you consider him a RINO? The Progressive Caucus has put up a budget bill. Please take the time to read it, before crying about the Dems not having any plan.

The Republican Party, in 2011, is made up of two constituent groups. At one end are wealthy greedy people. At the other end are gullible or ignorant people. What binds these two disparate groups together is shared bigotry - to anyone that isn't exactly like themselves. These people are the least tolerant and least respectable elements of our society. They're a disgrace to our nation and make me ashamed to be an American.

Given the intellectual capacity of the current GOP hopefuls, I would be grateful that they are referred to as the "Gang of Five." I would be inclined to refer to them as the "Gang of greedy ignorant bigots" myself.

Grimey in a way I have some respect for President Bush's decision in this case maybe as giving credit where credit is due. If you consider as I do and has been announced by President Obama that this is a trip to bring some closure for the folks up there then President Bush is aware that this is a proper function of the Office that he no longer holds. Seems to me that he is simply acknowledging his faith in President Obama to speak on his behalf as the citizen that he is now. Maybe a stretch in this day and age but I always try to acentuate the positive rather than the negative

IR...after our Capitals' performance against Tampa, I'm looking for any positive I can get!!!! ;-)

Ain't it the truth Grimey sad to say

I think that Bush should be there. If we quit with all of this partisan BS, our country will come together like it never has before. I am no fan of GW's, but he should be there to celebrate with our country and our current POTUS...that is the right thing to do. I don't think that Bush should get more than his fair share of credit, especially since he gave up looking for OBL, but 9/11 happened on his watch and he should be there to show our country that it doesn't matter if you are blue or red, we got this guy and we must push aside the differences even if it is only for one afternoon.

Two US Senators were fooled by fake photos of Bin Laden. The average person wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the real photos and a fake anyway, so releasing the photos won't accomplish much in convincing people that Bin Laden is dead who don't want to be convinced.

Maybe what Obama needs to do is get the Coroner of Munchkinland to proclaim that Bin Laden is not just merely dead, he's really most sincerely dead. That'll work!

Houston you are on a roll today. Thanks I needed a few laughs.

I wonder if First Read buys into the right wing conspiracy theory that the president timed the announcement of Bin Laden's death to interrupt Donald Trump's TV show. That's just the kind of mean evil thing Obama would do if he actually were the mean evil cartoon character that the far right constantly portrays him as being.

I am glad that I am not the only one who notices this Amy . . . its kind of like the way they always say stuff like "Obama did this so he can seem to be above the fray" . . . lol . . . everything is a sinister plot with these jaded folk.

Sad.

Don't you guys know that from his birth until now, has been one long sinister plot? Just ask anyone on the right.

@Houston -- Read this report from msnbc.com on the 9-11 commission report. Clinton failed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ns/nightly_news/t/osama-bin-laden-missed-opportunities/

Ben-636050

Clinton failed.

So did Bush. At least Clinton tried. Bush tried, too, but not very hard, since he was more interested in starting an unnecessary war in Iraq. Clinton is the one who actually began to "lay the groundwork" that ultimately led to Bin Laden.

Clinton laid the groundwork that ultimately led to 9-11.

Harold-3431296

Clinton laid the groundwork that ultimately led to 9-11.

Please explain how Bill Clinton managed to convince George W. Bush to ignore the memo warning that "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the United States." I don't think Clinton was there on Bush's ranch vacationing with Bush at the time.

Let's face it George aWol Bush wouldn't have even become a mayor of Lubbock, Texas or other small town except he was a son of a president. His fortunate situation cost the U.S. dearly. His brain was damaged by cocaine use and he was a lazy slackard. He set the record for most vacation time for a president ever. This despite 9/11 being relatively early in his 8 years. His record time off, 2 trillion dollar mistake invading Iraq while letting Bin Laden off will be his everlasting legacy. That and hopefully the Hague can help him finally meet up with Bin Laden. Think about it, George aWol Bush is responsible for far more innocent people's death than Bin Laden ever dreamed about.

There you go again, making stuff up. Only fox was allowed to record the debate. Everyone else was regulated to taking pictures before the debate. I suppose fox is not 'hatefully biased' when they refuse to air some of the President speeches.

Once again you have proven that for you, lying is easier than breathing.