I don't think any scientist in the world would suggest there isn't a variety of factors, and I think the vast majority of scientists would say there's probably a hundred factors that cause the climate to change.
And so why have we decided that this one particular factor, carbon dioxide, is in fact that tip of the tail that wags the entire dog.
vs...
Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality
He's an animal lover!
ReplyDeleteSantorum claimed that Obama resisted going after bin Laden but was pressured by the military to approve the mission planned by Bush.
ReplyDeleteGuess he forgot that getting bin Laden was a campaign promise by Obama. And that Bush said he didn't really give a s**t.
Parklife,
ReplyDeleteI don't understand what the point of this post is supposed to be, or your first comment above.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteI'd give Santorum the benefit of the doubt over Obama any day. Obama promises whatever he thinks will get him votes, and fulfills them on the same basis.
Obama promises whatever he thinks will get him votes, and fulfills them on the same basis.
ReplyDeleteUn-precedented in the history of the United States!
Not the point, Jim. What he said during the campaign does not diminish the claim of Santorum. Only contrary testimony by whatever military officials he has in mind will do that.
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, here is what Bush actually said regarding bin Laden. Hardly "I don't give a s**t".
What he said during the campaign does not diminish the claim of Santorum.
ReplyDeleteYeah, sure, because as some idiot on one of the blogs I read said, "Bush found him and held him for Obama to pull the trigger."
"I truly am not that concerned about him." Pretty damn close to "I don't give a s**t.
I'm pretty sure everybody wanted OBL. I'm guessing that Bush wanted him but it wasnt until Obama was in office did we find him. I would like to think that Obama paused to consider what going after OBL would mean. But, I really doubt that it could be characterized as the military pushing him into it.
ReplyDelete"I'd give Santorum the benefit of the doubt over Obama any day."
Thats a problem. Do some research. If you trust a politian and the promises they make, you are more gullible that I thought.
+Side note.. the point was that Santorum compares things he doesnt like to dogs.
Oh.. and...
ReplyDelete"I truly am not that concerned about him."
=
"I don't give a s**t.
"Bush found him and held him for Obama to pull the trigger."
ReplyDeleteJim,
Cant believe anybody would say that. Even the most ardent conservative doesn't believe this.
Parklife: That is a direct quote from Marshall's blog.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if he believes it or not, but he's not the only one saying it.
Of course I believe it. But like you always do, Jim, you take the words to purposely imply something not intended. Like Danny T would say, if you have a problem understanding, seek clarification. But, it should have been fairly clear to an honest person taking in the entire context, that my meaning was that the Bush policies which Obama opposed led directly to finding bin Laden. From there, Obama's choices were easy. It was just a simple way of stating the reality of the situation. What is far more difficult to believe is that anyone would think Barry was doing the heavy lifting on this job. And by "heavy lifting" Jim, I don't mean that he was moving furniture, so relax.
ReplyDeleteParklife,
ReplyDeleteRegarding this
"
"I truly am not that concerned about him."
=
"I don't give a s**t."
I'll explain to you, and for Jim once again, why this isn't equal.
It would help if you looked at the video provided above so that you'll know what Bush actually said. once you've done that, you should be able to understand then, that he was expressing the point that the concern was on the larger war on terror, not on any one individual. We know, especially now that so many leaders have been captured or killed by both Bush and now Obama, that terror goes on. With the so obvious, what would have been the point of Bush doing nothing BUT seeking out bin Laden? So, his not being truly concerned was not to say that he didn't give a shit about him. Had they found him then, Bush would never have let the guy get away and that's a fact. Only Bush haters jump to the worst possible conclusion and automatically assume the worst about every little thing he says or does. We who oppose lefty leaders, like Obama, do so for things he ACTUALLY does so that we don't have to make up crap like Jim does.
"Thats a problem. Do some research. If you trust a politian and the promises they make, you are more gullible that I thought."
ReplyDeleteMy research thus far has turned up nothing that is of great concern. I don't expect perfection from any candidate and I've never supported any who projected themselves as such, like Obama does to this day. My time is extremely limited so I'm not up for searching out that which I don't believe exists in the first place. If you have something damning about Santorum regarding promises he's made in the past, provide a link and I'd regard it as a great favor or show you why you're mistaken. One of us will end up better off for the effort.
As to this:
"the point was that Santorum compares things he doesnt like to dogs."
...what an incredible stretch. See my comment to Jim above regarding making up crap. This really does qualify.
Had they found him then, Bush would never have let the guy get away and that's a fact.
ReplyDeleteApparently you are not familiar with Tora Bora, huh? Bush DID let him get away "and that's a fact".
We looked at the video and we've seen it many times. The wider war on terrorism is not the point. It is clear that Obama is waging AT LEAST as effective a war on terrorists as Bush did.
The point is that you claimed Bush found OBL and held him for Obama to pull the trigger. That's just ludicrous.
Furthermore, if Bush found him and held him, why didn't he just kill or capture him before leaving office? Welcome gift for the new guy?
And if Obama knew where OBL was, why wouldn't he immediately fulfill the campaign promise he had made to kill or capture him?
Or are you suggesting that it took the SEALs two years to create and execute the plan?
Only Bush haters jump to the worst possible conclusion and automatically assume the worst about every little thing he says or does.
This is a joke, right?
Jim,
ReplyDeletePlease. You're engaging in the same behavior that has a label Parklife would give me grief for using, regardless of its accuracy.
I don't recall that they ever had an exact location for Osama in Tora Bora. Perhaps you could link to that bit of intel. Would you have approved of nuking the entire region of Tora Bora on intel that suggested he was in there somewhere?
If you ever really pay attention to conservatives, you'd know that we do give Obama props for carrying on Bush's policies and their further implementation. He falls short in significant ways, but he has kept some aspects of Bush's policies in place.
The point is that what I "claimed" is that the policies Bush set in place (or were set in place under his watch as CIC) were what led to finding Osama. As you quoted me, you did so without the context. Hell, even had you put the "In other words," in front of what I said, as it was originally written, it would rightly give the impression that it was said to summarize a more lengthy statement regarding what happened. Quoting it as you did is akin to lying. You've been doing that a lot lately, Jim.
So your next question is stupid in light of the above. He didn't literally find him, but his policies are what led to his capture. If this isn't true, what changes specifically did Obama make that was the difference?
"And if Obama knew where OBL was, why wouldn't he immediately fulfill the campaign promise he had made to kill or capture him?"
Because he has shown himself to be more beholden to the image he wants to beheld by the public than he is in doing what is right, if he even knows what that is in the first place.
"Or are you suggesting that it took the SEALs two years to create and execute the plan?"
Actually, it was the result of quite a bit of advance work that may have comprised longer than that. The plan requires knowledge of his whereabouts, does it not? The SEALS were not the only group involved in executing this war, were they? Stop playing games. You're being totally dishonest.
And no, that wasn't a joke. It is based on what you guys actually do as regards analyzing Bush. You have never given him any of the benefits of doubt that you heap upon Obama without thought. So typical.
There are many sources available about OBL in Tora Bora and how and perhaps why he escaped. There is even a Senate report on it. But the effort was not a commando raid; it would have been a larger scale military operation. The reasons for his escape are varied and it would be unfair to blame Bush for the failure. Just as it would be unfair to blame Clinton for not killing OBL earlier without considering the entire context of the circumstances. Tora Bora was in late 2001 and the war(s) were just getting started.
ReplyDeleteWhile it appears to be true that a lead to the identity of an al-Qaeda courier was learned from "enhanced methods", that doesn't prove that torture was the only way the information could be gained. That's immaterial. The lead was only one small part of the entire story.
Nobody suggests that Obama gathered or performed the intelligence. Nobody suggests he planned the mission. Nobody suggests he carried out the mission. But he did make the killing and capturing of bin Laden a high priority of his presidency and informed the military upon assuming office that it was his high priority and that he wanted it done. The information that connected the courier to the compound in Abbottabad was not gained until 2009, during Obama's term. From then much more intelligence, planning and execution was needed to complete the mission. None of that was done through torture. In the end, because of where bin Laden was, the President had to make a call that was risky militarily, diplomatically and politically. He made that call.
you'd know that we do give Obama props for carrying on Bush's policies and their further implementation.
Never have seen any evidence of that.
Here's your entire paragraph for context:
This was accomplished by utilizing strategies already put in place under the Bush administration. It's how we found bin Laden. Killing him was the easy part. In other words, Bush found him and held him for Obama to pull the trigger. Even then he had to think about it.
He had to think about it because it there were many complexities, not the least of where were the safety of the SEALs and the likely success of the mission.
Strategies is a poor choice of words if you are referring to torture. That would be a technique. What actual "strategy" of Bush would you credit for success of the mission?
Because he has shown himself to be more beholden to the image he wants to beheld by the public than he is in doing what is right
That's plainly nonsense. He said he would go after bin Laden. The image he would want to have "beheld" is carrying out a promise and being strong in the war on terrorists. So your answer is stupid.
Actually, it was the result of quite a bit of advance work that may have comprised longer than that. The plan requires knowledge of his whereabouts
But wait, Bush had already found bin Laden and was holding him for Obama to pull the trigger. So which is it?
What IS a joke is that you would whine about "Bush haters" while demonstrating on any post anent Obama being totally consumed by Obama derangement syndrome.
More on the bin Laden killing is here.
ReplyDelete"Never have seen any evidence of that."
ReplyDeleteThat seems to be the theme here. Marsha has difficulty backing up his ramblings. About the only support I've seen him give for anything has come from opinion pieces or the American Thinker. I mean really.. its insane.. yes.. In-freaking-sane to think that Bush held OBL for Obama. Marsha and the right-wing-nut-jobs just want to cozy up in their little caves and pretend.
"I truly am not that concerned about him."
=
"I don't give a s**t.
Sorry.. Marsha.. you lose yet again. I've seen the video.. Heck.. we have all seen the video. And worse.. you take yourself far to seriously.
The thing you forget is that not only is that we all lived through this. And.. it wasnt even that long ago. Do you not realize this?
Since I am sitting this round of scoring out...
Jim 3
Marsha 0
Ma.. one day you will score a point. Im sure of it.