Oh no! Our commander in chief's strategies have now killed the #1 and the #2 al-Quaeda leaders. Don't you just hate when that happens??
Funny how we here zero, zippo, nada anymore about the "war on terror" while our POTUS quietly goes about his businesses taking out the leaders.
I know many of you will not only not give credit where it is due and will pooh pooh this news.
You go right ahead.
It's two more al-Quaeda leaders than Romney's bagged -- or will ever bag.
U.S. drone strike in Pakistan kills al-Qaeda's No. 2
A U.S. drone strike has killed al-Qaeda's second in command, a U.S. official says.
The death of Abu Yahya al-Libi is a significant blow to the terror network, which has lost a string of top leaders at the hands of the American drone program.
Read more at:
Perhaps this is the action that should have taken place after 9/11 instead of illegally invading Iraq, a sovereign nation, followed by a protracted fools errand in Afghanistan. But hey a few drones and missiles would not have propped up America's arms manufacturers and the right wing puppet masters.
I am not sure why you say Obama's actions with the drones are you getting any attention, that's all I've been listening to for five days now on every station including today's hit on the number two.
If he is at the helm of these drone calls as someone suggesting, Obama deserves all the credit. I have no problem if these using the drones to blow these turds off the face of the planet.
My only suggestion would be that we should try and capture one or two of these guys so that we could gather more up to date actionable intelligence. Otherwise bombs away!!!
Just a quick note, not that this is an issue for me but in the past many criticized Bush for his bombings and collateral damage. I personally don't care about the collateral damage when these people are harboring the terrorists. But my point is when one of these drones strikes goes awry I would expect the same criticism that you gave Bush to be laid at the feet of Obama. Enough said
My question was whether people (some people) will accord President Obama any "credit" for taking down the #2 al-Quaeda leader as he took down the #1 al-Quaeda leader. It was not long ago that that accomplishment was both questioned and minimized here on the forums.
Comparing Bush and Obama and their use of drone strikes is inapt.
Obama did not declare the "war on terror" by invading the wrong country for trumped up reasons. Obama has done everything he can to reduce collateral damage, including civilian and US military personnel by replacing troops in country with targeted drones.
To engender the same criticism as Bush, he would need 5,000 drones to go awry and AND have to change his motive for the bombings to include looking for WMDs.
So in other words, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that.
Well I cannot answer how many will give him credit and how many will not.
Could you show me where we invaded the wrong country for trumped up reasons? Did we invade a country that was defying the UN and the world with all its sanctions, had weapons of mass destruction, and did Bush and all those who read the exact same intelligence reports, then the answer is yes. Did we find out the intelligence was not 100% accurate at a later date, yes we did and Bush said so.
Bush also read "The Pet Goat" upside down on the morning of 9/11.
I'm not seeing this direct parallel between Obama and drones and Bush and "shock and awe" or "mission accomplished" (when it clearly was not).
Was Iraq an imminent threat to the United States?
Did Iraq have anything whatsoever to do with 9/11?
Did they actually find WMDs? ANY WMDs?
Did Bush's personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein predate 9/11?
Is it conceivable that Bushco manfactured 9/11 as a plausible excuse to invade Iraq and take out Saddam?
(Freudian typo -- I typed Iran. They're next on the GOP agenda, for sure).
Here's another way of looking at it.
Knowing what we know now, should the US have invaded Iraq?
Monday morning quarterbacking is always easy, living the moment is much different. I understand that firsthand. As a firefighter our job was constantly critiqued, why did you do this, why did you do that. It is always easy to look back and say yeah I could've done that then it is we are under the pressure of the moment.
. I agree with you, I do not see a direct parallel either, and those who were trying to make one truly do not understand that these were separate incidents requiring separate trains of thought.
You ask interesting questions that many ask and many argue over. I'm sure we will not see I die either but for the sake of the good civil discussion I will answer your questions
Was Iraq an imminent threat? It's easy to say today that they were not, just like it is easy to say today that Russia was never a threat during the Cold War, but at the time we did not know that. Russia was beating the propaganda drum pretty loudly, it was not known until the collapse just how full of that they were. Iraq sort of falls under that category. We know that Hussein had WMDs, we seen the results from several wars and the atrocities he has done to his own people. The question was did he have more? During the time when the UN sanctions and inspections were going on Hussein at first was bragging about what he had. Of course during the inspections he changed his tune. The inspectors themselves admitted to being given the runaround, as if Hussein was trying to hide something. With all the sanctions, with all the threats that were going on for years, a move by the US Or the international community was needed. In my opinion it was going to happen sooner or later. Perhaps if it was the later things would've been different
Did Iraq have anything whatsoever to do with 9/11? Again it depends on the intelligence and who you want to believe. There is intelligence that says they were not involved, there's others that shows meetings between Al Qaeda and top ranking Iraqi officials. I guess the answer to this is 50-50 and will never know the truth.
Did they find any WMDs? the answer most obviously was no, however the inspectors have a list of everything unaccounted for. A year and a half ago four missiles were fired into Israel, each one landed in the desert and cause no damage. The serial numbers were checked since nobody took responsibility for the rocket fire and they were trying to find out who did it. Oddly enough the serial numbers to these four rockets were on the list of the missing WMDs. I wrote an article about this when it happened and wondered at the time if that was going to lead to Bush being vindicated.
Did Bush have a personal vendetta? While I really don't know I think it's safe to assume that he did.
Is it conceivable that Bush go manufactured 9/11? Not possible in 1 million years. I find it most interesting that the truthers belief that Bush was this mastermind to pull off 9/11, yet in the next breath say Bush was the biggest bumbling idiot of all time. I'm sorry to say it could take a whole lot more than a bumbling idiot to mastermind the events like 9/11. I wrote an article from the point of view of let's just agree with the truthers and how could it be possible. I I know after several truthers who read it then change their mind. I mean realistically in order for Bush to of masterminded 9/11 he would need to have started to years prior to being elected president, rig an election so much so that he would have to plan for it to come down to Florida in order to win. Then when you think of everything else it would take you realize he's clearly not plausible.
Is Iran next, I think it depends on what Israel does.
And to add to your last question about knowing what we know now, I say yes but I also say it should have been done much differently and we should not have been there nowhere near as long as we were.
They are talking absolute nonsense.
Osama bin Laden was not killed last year. He died from kidney failure, due to Marfan syndrome, 10 years ago.
This is corroborated by Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik, a State Department official in three different administrations. The Pentagon doesn't even have records of Osama's "death"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj0pM5Fo … re=related
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/ … ens-death/
We are always being lied to.
Didn't know he knew how to operate a drone, let alone gather the intelligence to find the dude.
Take one down, one takes it's place. Take that one down, one takes it's place.
Trying to exterminate an entire organization without truly knowing how large that organization actually is, weak at best.
Stupidity in motion isn't going to solve anything.
I think he knows exactly what he's doing.
That's why the R's are on the crazy train. Can't have people stop and think. Gotta keep the crazy in their face.
Crazy, racism, religionism, sexism, anything, throw it out there.
Anything but sit still and think.
Gee did' he have the right to invade a sovereign Nation of Pakistan after he claimed that the war on terror is over??Is that now invading a country. Would we like it if Mexico sent an unmanned plane over our country and sent a couple of missiles into say Texas to kill some person who is an alleged terrorist. But yet O Bomba can?
Perhaps you would like to share with us your sentiments on invading
Iraq and Afghanistan.
Just curious if those are the same or different in your mind since they were perpetrated by a different president.
In other words, have you always felt this indignant, or is it stricly an Obama thang?
Very fair comment on terrorism in sovereign countries.
Is the sovereignty your issue or the killing?
Did he verify with boots on the ground that it was actually whom he thinks he had killed? I am just turning it around at what I read about what lmc has said about Bush and how much praise you all put on Obomba. How do you actually know that it is who you hit? DNA from a bomb. That would be new. You cant fight a war with randomly dropping bombs and making claims.
If the military actually got him then it is good. But they will just replace him. My feelings are get out of there.
Just like OBomba is going to blockade Iran huh,do you know how many times blocking a country has been tried it does not work? The only people that are really hurt are Women and Children.
When W was told America was under attack, he couldn't have known how many planes were hijacked. There could have been 4, 40, or 400! But W didn't want to scare the children. He could have given three orders & remained in his seat.
Order # 1; Scramble ALL fighters. # 2; Ground ALL commercial & private aircraft. # 3; If any aircraft refuses to land? Force them too!
I know all this was done, but it could have been done much more quickly.
But how CIA doesn't know about plans hijack? We all know that CIA is #1 agency in the world than how it possible?
Bush told the FBI to back off investigations into bin Laden before 9-11. There are even theories that no commercial planes were hijacked and that missiles were flown into the twin towers. Many people described it as military planes.
You can watch this:
It goes even further back than that!!
I don't have a link, but I remeber reading that Oliver North said that whenever they got close to Bin Laden, they were always told to back off.
"Is it conceivable that Bush go manufactured 9/11? Not possible in 1 million years."
yet you said you believe unequivocally that Obama was not born here...what kind of master plan must that have been, to put his birth in the Hawaii papers 51 years ago?
You believe what you want to believe and dismiss the rest--as do we all. It's that simple.
There is the big difference between you and me.
I find it so funny how you constantly spin 24/7, I am no longer going to call you LMC but I am going to call you the washing machine.
Here is another chance for you to collect on a challenge. Show me where I have said that Obama being born in Hawaii part of a master plan. Same hundred dollar bounty good enough or perhaps should raise it to $1000, it really doesn't matter because I never said it so you won't be able to find one.
I said that I believe unequivocally that Obama was not born in Hawaii, but unlike you I don't think it was any part of a master plan. There was no way at that time anyone did that action so that he could become president. It was strictly done so that Obama could have the rights and privileges of an American citizen, his mom wanted nothing more and nothing less. Their was no grand scheme were master plan it was just a simple beginning. No one can tell me if they were in that position and that was their child that they would not have done the same. Making more of it than what it was is ridiculous. No one talks about the fact that happens with many children with an American parent born overseas. All that parent wants is to establish citizenship for their kid. So washing machine, is put this issue to bed once more since you keep forgetting that I say that. Obama is the president and his birth certificate is a complete nonissue. can we remember that this time?
I don't believe what I want, I believe in the fact and yes dismiss the crap. Maybe that's how you live your life by dismissing everything and if that's the case that explains a lot.
If I believed in what I want, Obama never would be president and the first place, and not because of his birth certificate, but because he had no experience in anything. It was painfully obvious he could not be present in his actions have only proven it
I think Obama has surprised a lot of people. He's much more of a hawk than most presumed he would be. Funny, in 2008, many voters thought he'd be weak with our enemies but strong on the economy.
Don't you think it is wrong to just kill people without a fair trial? If you are on a terrorist list, you can just be killed on the spot without any guilt.
Terrorist kill people without anybody knowing all the time. These people live in a shadow world. It is hard enough to find them much less bring them to trial. I would of hayed to see Osama Brought to trail. that would of been a terrible problem. It would of probably renewed the assaults on American soil
So what terrorists do the American government should do? Under the constitution, every citizen has a right to a trial. Can you imagine how many non terrorists get killed in these indiscriminate killings? Should the US government be brought to justice for all those killed in Pakistan by the US drones?
Anyway, did you know that you could be killed/jailed if someone accused of being tied to Al Qaeda? No proof needed. If you are accused, you're guilty.
"Top Legal Expert: “President Obama … Says That He Can Kill [Any American Citizen Without Any Charge and] On His Own Discretion. He Can Jail You Indefinitely On His Own Discretion”
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/ … etion.html
Turley said yesterday on C-Span (starting at 15:50):
President Obama has just stated a policy that he can have any American citizen killed without any charge, without any review, except his own. If he’s satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says that he can kill you anywhere in the world including in the United States.
Two of his aides just … reaffirmed they believe that American citizens can be killed on the order of the President anywhere including the United States."
On what grounds would you be considered a terrorist?
And according to a law school professor, pursuant to the Military Commissions Act:
Anyone who … speaks out against the government’s policies could be declared an “unlawful enemy combatant” and imprisoned indefinitely. That includes American citizens.
According to Department of Defense training manuals, protest is considered “low-level terrorism”.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/ … orism.html
So now America has a problem. You could be on their terrorist list for all you know.
Most Americans wanted Osama bin Laden go to trial. Truth is, if he had, the US would run the risk of the truth coming out and that they are behind 9-11.
So many of you have all this to say about the President. Saying he's Muslim and the list goes on. How about Romney? A religion based on rocks, or perhaps lets discuss his avoiding the draft for 5 years?
Does Obama deserve any credit?
Yes, he does, but not for getting Al Qaeda (a CIA operation). Did it ever stop being a CIA op?
The problem with the last 2 presidents is that they have,
* Repeatedly shredded the Constitution and Bill of Rights
* Skyrocketed the national debt (Obama more than Bush), from insane $5T to nightmarish $15.3Trillion!
* Shown the world what terrorists we've become -- the new "Evil Empire!"
Don't let ego fool you. Just because it's your own country, don't think that everything it does is right. Don't let the blood fever of false patriotism cloud your vision.
Hitler would be envious at how smoothly the shift from liberty to tyranny was performed. What he did was very similar, but at a slightly faster and more dangerous pace.
How did we slide so far in a little over one decade? It seems 9/11 was the start of it all.
Should we be perfectly certain about 9/11 before continuing any further along this path of madness and tyranny?
Wake up Call:
The simple facts show that 9/11 was an inside job. I cover only the tip of the iceberg of evidence in my most recent hub, but here's a teaser: tiny iron spheres in every sample of 9/11 dust in NYC. What does it mean? It means that the fires from the airplane crashes weren't the only things active that day. Those fires were not hot enough to melt steel, much less atomize it.
The implication is even more profound! Al Qaeda did not have months of unfettered access to all 3 of the WTC towers which collapsed on 9/11. But the CIA did. Heck, they had offices in WTC7. And the Bush family had 2 positions on the security company's board of directors. Curious!
If not Al Qaeda, then who?
Then we went to war because of 9/11, WMDs and Al Qaeda camps in Iraq. All 3 of these turn out to have been false. The war on terror was false. The attack of Afghanistan was false. The shredding of the Constitution was based upon falsehoods.
I supported Obama 100% last time around. Not this time. He doesn't deserve our support after his betrayals -- extending the unPatriot Act, NDAA with its indefinite detention clauses for American citizens (without due process), Obama's "kill list," murder by Executive Order, outlawing protests within so many yards, and on and on. Sieg heil!
And Romney? What a joke. He's flip-flopped so many times, I don't know what he stands for.
If we can believe him, he will greatly increase our military. But as it stands now, America's forces are larger than the next 10 countries combined!!! And he wants to increase the size even more? Lunacy!
If I had my druthers, I'd pick a real president for a change. Not a Wall Street (Goldman-Sachs) president (both Obama and Romney). I'd pick a president who would honor the Oath of Office and actually protect the Constitution of the United States for a change.
Enough of this bickering -- us versus them, republicrats versus demopublicans, scientists versus believers, climate changers versus disbelievers, etc. United we stand; divided we fall. And the Rockefellers and their gang are not waiting around idly.
by Stacie L 6 years ago
"It is sad and disappointing to watch Pres. Obama trample on the successes of the middle-class by taking credit for auto's recovery. Obama acts as if he built and designed the cars today that are outselling their foreign competitors. Republicans and in fact most Americans recognize that credit...
by mortimerjackson 6 years ago
Despite what Obama's press secretary might tell you, the only reason that America is leaving Iraq is because of a declaration signed by George Bush saying that America will leave by 2011. Obama insisted upon staying in Iraq, but the Iraqi government has refused to grant US troops immunity for their...
by AnnCee 8 years ago
Obama misread his mandate.]/b] Obama's 2008 victory was a personal one, says Bill Galston, an adviser to President Clinton. It wasn't a vote for a more expansive view of the role and reach of government. The stimulus, on it's own, wasn't the problem. It was the thousands of easy-to-caricature pages...
by My Esoteric 4 years ago
One of President Bush's arguments for invading Iraq was the strong Hussain-al Qaeda connection. The anti-Iraq invasion group said there was only very skimpy evidence of that and much stronger evidence that such an arrangement couldn't exist;. After several extensive post-war...
by Sooner28 5 years ago
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/0 … 99310.htmlOn the front page of the Huffington Post, the caption reads: George W. Obama. I find this to be refreshing, and I am glad the left is beginning to see Obama is just as bad as Bush on civil liberties. Now that the illusion based...
by ahorseback 7 years ago
President Obama has essentially followed the policies of President Bush in the middle east , in the wars and in economic policy , Still no regulation of the energy companies , wall street or the banking institutions . And still , according to all indications no federal energy policy . Congress ,...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|