Cinga Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 The thing I find most interesting about this is that anyone needs a book to realize Barack Obama has the leadership skills of a stapler. Good thing I use a pneumatic stapler... They work very well, always willing to shoot the load I fill it up with. Admittedly, sometimes the head valve can get clogged up, but is easily cleaned and re lubed with intimment attention... Switch it to Bump fire for quicker operation or sequential for the slower, safer way to do it.... whew... back to PBO... no... not even a stapler.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 How do you know he was wrong and the earlier missions wouldn't have failed ? Heck the actual one had serious problems when one of the choppers landed on top of a wall and had to be left behind. If this is the best the righty tighties can do with their "explosive claims" theyre in a lot of trouble At least bill tried. Unlike Cheney and the other d bags in the w admin who gave instructions to deep 6 any intelligence that didn't show Iraq as the primary threat. Like condi spiking the memo detailing all Qaeda's plans for a major attack on American soil; which sadly was 9/11. Yeah she's great lets put her in Augusta. Why don't you ever link to the schit that you type? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Why don't you ever link to the schit that you type? circular reasoning???? just a guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Why don't you ever link to the schit that you type? abovetopsecret.com whatreallyhappend.com prisonplanet.com henrymakow.com You'll find his sources there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) abovetopsecret.com, whatreallyhappend.com, prisonplanet.com, www.henrymakow.com You'll find his sources there. Cant say Im really familiar with any of them. Can you please provide links to posts where Ive cited those sources? While we wait on that, here's research from George Washington University which covers Clinton's attempt to get Bin Laden, Bush's failure to do so, and Condi's reluctance to hear anything from Richard Clarke on Al Qaeda ... ALL BEFORE 9/11. A lot of the stuff is taken from Fox and NY Post, Australian war monger's Rupert Murdoch lacky "news" outlets in US, so you'll probably feel a lot more comfortable with the source: http://www.gwu.edu/~...BB147/index.htm Some excerpts for all you lazy asses who can't do your own research: Former President Bill Clinton on Fox News, September 22, 2006: CLINTON: And I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn't do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn't do enough said I did too much same people. Testimony of Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism coordinator: TIMOTHY ROEMER, Commission Member: OK. With my 15 minutes, let's move into the Bush administration. On January 25th, we've seen a memo that you've written to Dr. Rice urgently asking for a principals' review of Al Qaida. You include helping the Northern Alliance, covert aid, significant new '02 budget authority to help fight Al Qaida and a response to the USS Cole. You attach to this document both the Delenda Plan of 1998 and a strategy paper from December 2000. Do you get a response to this urgent request for a principals meeting on these? And how does this affect your time frame for dealing with these important issues? CLARKE: I did get a response, and the response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-Cabinet level committee, and not to the principals and that, therefore, it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals' meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting. ROEMER: So does this slow the process down to go to the deputies rather than to the principals or a small group as you had previously done? CLARKE: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies committee didn't meet urgently in January or February. Then when the deputies committee did meet, it took the issue of Al Qaida as part of a cluster of policy issues, including nuclear proliferation in South Asia, democratization in Pakistan, how to treat the various problems, including narcotics and other problems in Afghanistan, and launched on a series of deputies meetings extending over several months to address Al Qaida in the context of all of those inter-related issues. That process probably ended, I think in July of 2001. So we were ready for a principals meeting in July. But the principals calendar was full and then they went on vacation, many of them in August, so we couldn't meet in August, and therefore the principals met in September. … ROEMER: You then wrote a memo on September 4th to Dr. Rice expressing some of these frustrations several months later, if you say the time frame is May or June when you decided to resign. A memo comes out that we have seen on September the 4th. You are blunt in blasting DOD for not willingly using the force and the power. You blast the CIA for blocking Predator. You urge policy-makers to imagine a day after hundreds of Americans lay dead at home or abroad after a terrorist attack and ask themselves what else they could have done. You write this on September the 4th, seven days before September 11th. Edited August 22, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 22, 2012 Author Share Posted August 22, 2012 JtSP, well thank you for that little synopsis. What it really has to do with this new bit of information, I'm unclear on, other than highlighting even further that presidential delay and handwringing lets terrorists slip through the cracks. From your earlier post, I guess you want the world to think Obama just has this innate sense of military readiness and capability and knew that going in and popping OBL in January, February, or March 2011 was going to be compromised by West Asian heat or a dog hearing the unusual noise from the retrofitted tails. Seriously? The president doesn't plan operational details, s/he gives the order to prepare to do X and then execute. Tell the SEALs to go in January and they'll assess weather, Pakistan military capability/response at that date, and literally a thousand other things and prepare for that specific timeframe and go in January. tell them February, they'll do it for February. To think that this president, who never served, has a deep understanding of military planning and tactics and this is why he refused for months to give the order, is absurd. If you're so galled by inactivity and hand-sitting on the part of Bush 43, and trumpet Clinton's choice to launch missiles while he had actionable intel, then why are you praising Obama in this case? OBL had a reputation for moving --- it's how he narrowly missed the Clinton strike, it was his M.O. for some time after 9/11 according to the intel we had from couriers and his driver who was in GITMO. We knew this, we had OBL under surveillance for what, 6 months, and yet we got typical Obama dithering. It did end up working because our military is the best in the world. They adapt to whatever challenge they're ordered. Obama's thing was a fear of replaying the role of Jimmy Carter to a T. And I hate to break this to you about your guy, but to be a successful president, when you have such a high-value target in your sights, you can't delay and hem and haw to the point where a cabinet member has to smack you upside the head to get you to nut up and take the shot. Time isn't on your side on these things. (Time is also not on your side for the economy to be saying, 'This is just one month's numbers. They need to be looked at in a broader view' and to keep saying this for 32 straight months.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts