Obama on the tonight show Leno gave him softball questions

Cindy Sheehan has now said the George Bush's "main goal" as she puts it is to "kill as many US servicemen as possible"! Not only is that beyond ridiculous, if that were true then I would agree with her, he is doing a terrible job in the fact that it took him 2 years and many billions of dollars and all he could kill was 1800 soldiers! Give me a break Cindy!

George Bush hasn't killed any US soldiers, this is an all volunteer army, it was your "freedom fighter" friends who killed our soldiers.

-Bobby Shred

http://www.bobbyshred.com/cindysheehan.html


Obama has not killed anyone either.

Just because one is a "volunteer" is that justification for creating an illegal war to send them off to be killed in? Is that justification for sending them to was illprepared, or lacking equipment? Remember the outrage over "Blackhawk Down"?
 
Werbung:
So, if you buy a gun, and give it to a friend who then kills another, you are guilty. That is your POV, or is it just another attempt to defend the undefensible actions of Bush something you would accuse the left of doing towards Obama.

BTW, just how does that excuse Bush from sending troops to Iraq poorly equipped? How does that justify our troops fighting there, and dying there, for more then 4 years without the proper equipment when the MRAP's were available? Some even opposed sending MRAP's to Iraq because of the cost:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1019/p03s03-usmi.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23188032/...armored-trucks-blamed-us-deaths/#.UggBZG0nRnA

Congress has provided more than $22 billion for 15,000 MRAPs the Defense Department plans to acquire, mostly for the Army. Depending on the size of the vehicle and how it is equipped, the trucks can cost between $450,000 and $1 million.

As of May 2007, roughly 120 MRAPs were being used by troops from all the military services, Pentagon records show. Now, more than 2,150 are in the hands of personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Marines have 900 of those.

You, and others, want to blame Obama, and the Democrats, for everything wrong with the country, yet want to deny (save for a few insincere words) the role of the Republicans in that destruction. If the security of Stevens in Benghazi is worthy of all the hearings, and press, being given it, why is not the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers due to the lack of security?

ieds were a recent development as you probably know and so were nit anticipated as can be seen in the heavy pricetag quoted in yoyr csm article. in short, their need was unknown.

once it became so the democrat controlled congress wouldnt fund them.

and lest any of this be seen as meaningfull, when has any armed force ever been deployed completely equiped ?
 
ieds were a recent development as you probably know and so were nit anticipated as can be seen in the heavy pricetag quoted in yoyr csm article. in short, their need was unknown.

once it became so the democrat controlled congress wouldnt fund them.

and lest any of this be seen as meaningfull, when has any armed force ever been deployed completely equiped ?

Democrats did not have control of the House, or the Senate, from 2003 to 2007. In fact, it was not until after the Democrats took control that the MRAP's were finally built with any form of frequency. However, Halliburton had MRAP's in Iraq, and the US had MRAP's in Africa.

Remember what I said about Rumsfield? Remember his comment to the soldier who asked why they didn't have armored vehicles?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2005-06-27/html/CREC-2005-06-27-pt1-PgH5219-2.htm

When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited Iraq last year to
tour the Abu Ghraib Prison camp, military officials did not rely on a
government-issued Humvee to transport him safely on the ground,'' not
even an armored Humvee, that is my own little addition. ``Instead, they
turned to Halliburton, the oil services contractor, which lent the
Pentagon a rolling fortress of steel called the Rhino Runner.'
'
Now, no wonder Secretary Rumsfeld goes to Iraq and says everything is
going great. He is rolling around in an armored fortress of steel
provided by his former employer. Well, I am sorry, the former employer
of Vice President Cheney, Halliburton, riding around in something
called a Rhino Runner, which is supposed to be able to withstand a
thousand-pound bomb.
Now, our troops are out there, some of them in unarmored Humvees that
cannot resist any bomb, bullets, or shrapnel; some of them are in
armored Humvees which can resist between 4- and 8-pound bombs, but then
there are other options out there.



As to your comment about being "completely equipped", following our entrance into WW2 virtually all manufacturing turned to building ships, tanks, etc., for the troops. Here we have a President who, once the problems were discovered, turned his back on the troops, as well as the Republican Congress, and more died in a worthless, and unConstitutional, "war".
 
so you agree that no armed force entered any conflict completely equipped.

There is a difference between not being "completely equipped", and being poorly equipped. When one talks of body armor that cannot stop a bullet, or has no plates inside the vest, how can you even think that is "not completely equipped"? And IED's are nothing new. Then add to that the factor, as was spoken of in one of the articles I posted, that they knew in 1993 that the HumVee was inadequate. That was why Rumsfield was riding around in the Halliburton MRAP, not HumVee.

Anyway, about the IED's:

http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2012/02/improvised-explosive-devices-singer
 
So you agree Obama has indeed murdered American citizens without due process then, right?

But, that's not what you said earlier is it?

Obama has not killed anyone either.

Strange how your wacko liberal mind works isn't it!

Now you are taking the side of a terrorist that helped kill Americans

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was not a terrorist. He was an American citizen that was not on any terrorist list and not accused of any crimes.

While the killing of the son was evidently a mistake, are you going to use it to justify the killing of Americans?

There is absolutely no evidence suggestion this was a mistake and it is you who is denying/justifying the killing of Americans without due process by your precious messiah!
 
So you agree Obama has indeed murdered American citizens without due process then, right?

But, that's not what you said earlier is it?



Strange how your wacko liberal mind works isn't it!



Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was not a terrorist. He was an American citizen that was not on any terrorist list and not accused of any crimes.



There is absolutely no evidence suggestion this was a mistake and it is you who is denying/justifying the killing of Americans without due process by your precious messiah!


It is interesting how one such as yourself, with your limited mental abilities, always, and it is ALWAYS, resorts to the same tired old whining comments such as referring to Obama as one's "messiah". Obviously you are a Limbaugh drone lacking in any form of honest, or even civil, debate. Now, for a little bit of truth to dispel your obvious misinformation.

The reference to the terrorist I mentioned was the father, Anwar al-Awaki. Would you deny he was a terrorist? And it was he that the "kill order" was directed at. Two weeks later, in a separate drone attack on al Queda members, the son was killed. The attack was by the CIA, and they had no information that the son was there, so yes, there is evidence it was accidental.

Using YOUR "logic" the killing of Tillman by "friendly fire" would be the equivalent of Bush killing an American citizen.
 
Werbung:
An illegal war .... that Congress legally and unanimously supported .... unlike Libya .....

Ignorant wacko liberals ...... Go Figure!!!!

Tell Cindy Sheehan HI for me .... would you ....


Unfortunately for you, and your limited knowledge of most anything which is why you have to resort to personal attacks, and basically lies, I never said I supported the attacks in Libya. If I stay here long enough to even respond to your obvious *********, you will find out I am a Constitutionalist, and believe that the last legal, and Constitutional, war we fought was WW2. Doesn't matter if Congress supported it, or not. Congress supported "insider trading" for its members. Didn't make it legal, or Constitutional. In fact, there are numerous evidences of unConstitutional acts by Presidents, Congress, and SCOTUS, since the founding of the country.

You are reminding me of another Texas Tea Party fool I met in another forum. He is retired Navy, according to him anyway, I call SeaMonkey. Is that you CC?
 
Back
Top