The presidential debate - debate

Just heard Trump on the Greta show, oh my God this guy still thinks he could be president if Romney was not there. A guy with his 3rd (or 4th) bankruptcy going on? President?
Oh My God How Far Have Republicans Gone?

if you give bho credit for killing Bin Laden, then you must give him credit for Chris Stevens

“Of course, the raid is now being used in a political wrestling match for the White House. The mission was never about that for the twenty-four men who climbed on board the helicopters that night. Politics are for the Washington, D.C., policy makers who safely watched the action on a video monitor from thousands of miles away” [emphasis emphasized] (298, Owens).

Owen, Mark. No Easy Day: The Firsthand Account of the Mission That Killed Osama Bin Laden : The Autobiography of a Navy SEAL. Dutton: New York, 2012. Pp. xvi, 316. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

This from a guy trying to sell a book about his own exploits. Exploits he had signed on not to write about I might add.

The problem with Romney talking about the economy is it's not a winning point for him now. He's fucked that up two ways. First, by not having any policies that differ from the Bush administration, he's left himself open to the counter attack from Obama that all he wants to do is "double down on stupid." Second, he picked Paul Ryan, who has adopted the least palatable, most radical economic plan in history (and one that has no chance at all of even balancing the budge like it says). Frankly, I have no idea what Romney can do at this point.

All Obama has to do is not fuck up. Just take nice even swings and hit a single. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

+1

Picking Ryan was a horrible choice.

The problem is not really Romney, it is the Tea Nut base of the GOP. Romney knows he can not do what he promised those wacko's but he has backed himself in a corner. The GOP will have a hard time winning national elections with their current mentality and denographs. That is why they need to restrict voting. Why else would that not let folks vote in FL. on Sunday before election day if not to suppress voters? That is all they have left, Jim Crow. The Tea Party has led them to Jim Crow and people like LovingKayla are to ignorant in the ways of politics to even realize it.

You missed the point of Mark Owens' comments, Little Timmy. Odumbo wasn't in Bagram during the raid. Odumbo wasn't in Jalalabad during the raid. Odumbo didn't get on a helicopter and "fly to the X" in Abbottabad, Little Timmy.

"Washington, D.C., policy makers [including Odumbo] . . . watched the action [safely] on a video monitor from thousands of miles away” (298, Owens).

Owen, Mark. No Easy Day: The Firsthand Account of the Mission That Killed Osama Bin Laden : The Autobiography of a Navy SEAL. Dutton: New York, 2012. Pp. xvi, 316. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Wow, and here I thought every president was riding in at the front of the attack, just like Teddy Roosevelt in San Juan, or Captain Kirk every week.

Yes, just like Truman piloted Enola Gay, Bush-2 was in the lead tank driving across the Iraqi desert, JFK manned a checkpoint along the Berlin wall, and Ike was carrying a rifle in the Korean DMZ.

The pointy end of the spear has always feels the generals and politicians are just watchers. Been that way since prehistoric times I would guess.

Let me ask two very simple questions:
(1) Does Mark Owens really think Obama should have been at his shoulder in Pakistan?
(2) Are you dumb enough to think he should have been?

Not at all Little Timmy. Everybody on that mission knows who really pulled the trigger, and they know it wasn’t Odumbo despite his “I this” and “I that” speech afterwards.

It was under Bush 43 – not Odumbo – that U.S. and coalition forces secured Bagram and Jalalabad as the operational bases in Afghanistan from which the raid was launched.

It was under Bush 43 – not Odumbo – that Mohammed al-Qahtani was captured at Tora Bora in December 2001 and sent to Guantanamo where he was interrogated throughout 2002-2003. It was under Bush 43 – not Odumbo – that al-Qahtani gave up Ahmed al-Kuwaiti as an important bin Laden courier.

It was under Bush 43 – not Odumbo – that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in 2003. It was under Bush 43 – not Odumbo – while under interrogation, that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed also betrayed and confirmed Ahmed al-Kuwaiti was an important bin Laden courier.

Subsequently, in 2004 under Bush 43 – not Odumbo, another bin Laden courier, Hassan Ghul, was captured, and he, under Bush 43 – not Odumbo, also betrayed and further confirmed Ahmed al-Kuwaiti was an important bin Laden courier.

Furthermore, the CIA operative assigned to find Ahmed al-Kuwaiti in 2007 was instrumental in tracing al-Kuwaiti to Abbottabad. Similarly, every-single one of the twenty-four operatives that made that raid were on-board and trained before Odumbo was even sworn into office in January 2009.

Meanwhile -- while twenty-four operatives flew to the X --

"Washington, D.C., policy makers [including Odumbo] . . . watched the action [safely] on a video monitor from thousands of miles away” (298, Owens).

Owen, Mark. No Easy Day: The Firsthand Account of the Mission That Killed Osama Bin Laden : The Autobiography of a Navy SEAL. Dutton: New York, 2012. Pp. xvi, 316. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So where is your criticism that Bush "watched the action [safely] on a video monitor from thousands of miles away", or do you think Bush was in the field?

He shouldn't have been in the field, he should have been in DC just as he was. Just as Obama was.

But since you bash Obama for not being in Pakistan, but praise Bush for the work he did from DC, you, sir, are being extremely hypocritical. Again.

This from a guy trying to sell a book about his own exploits. Exploits he had signed on not to write about I might add. Originally Posted by WTF

What don't you understand? This is free enterprise at it's best! Who cares about non-disclosure agreements and protecting classified info? Who cares about endangering the next SEAL mission that has to go in someplace hostile? What is that compaired to a good book deal?

This from a guy trying to sell a book about his own exploits. Exploits he had signed on not to write about I might add. Originally Posted by WTF

He stated he was following the example set by your Great Obominable One -- who is also charged with protecting state secrets -- and that he wanted to set the record straight without the distortions presented in the MSM.

I don't think that America should have a super rich president that has absolutely no idea of how average people live. Originally Posted by waverunner234

Dead ass.

Yes, Ryan was a horrible choice, but he was pandering to the conservative base, which will be his downfall.

I can't wait to see this debate tonight!

Let me ask two very simple questions:
(1) Does Mark Owens really think Obama should have been at his shoulder in Pakistan?
(2) Are you dumb enough to think he should have been? Originally Posted by Old-T

Here's an answer to your two simpleton questions: Mark Owens never suggested Odumbo should have been in Pakistan. No, not at all. What Mark Owens did communicate was his -- and others' -- disdain for Odumbo's bombastic and pretentious "I this" and "I that" speech afterwards. Mark Owens also emphasized the fact that Odumbo was thousands of miles away and safe when OBL met his end, to make sure everyone understands: Odumbo did not pull the trigger!. Owens also communicated his disdain for the White House "leaks" pertaining to the mission that broke fast and furious in the wake of the mission.

Now that Mark Owens' position has been explained to you, Old-T, you should see how ignorant your second question is.

So where is your criticism that Bush "watched the action [safely] on a video monitor from thousands of miles away", or do you think Bush was in the field?

He shouldn't have been in the field, he should have been in DC just as he was. Just as Obama was.

But since you bash Obama for not being in Pakistan, but praise Bush for the work he did from DC, you, sir, are being extremely hypocritical. Again. Originally Posted by Old-T

No hypocrisy, Old-T. It's all about the pronouns. Bush generously employed "they" and used "we" often. Odumbo, on the other hand, narcissistically over-employs the pronoun "I".

What don't you understand? This is free enterprise at it's best! Who cares about non-disclosure agreements and protecting classified info? Who cares about endangering the next SEAL mission that has to go in someplace hostile? What is that compaired to a good book deal? Originally Posted by Old-T

There was nothing in Mark Owens book that hadn't already been leaked out of the White House, Old-T. One of the things that galled Owens was that the public knew -- in less than 24 hrs -- that it was SEAL Team 6 that conducted the raid; that was supposed to remain a secret. Owens was also galled when the MSM reported Odumbo would meet with SEAL Team 6 at Ft Campbell. That too was supposed to be a secret, but it wasn't. And the list of "White House leaks" goes on. Read the book.

Here's an answer to your two simpleton questions: Mark Owens never suggested Odumbo should have been in Pakistan. No, not at all. What Mark Owens did communicate was his -- and others' -- disdain for Odumbo's bombastic and pretentious "I this" and "I that" speech afterwards.
Absolutely no different from any other leader in any other organization. They deserve credit for what the organization does, and blaime for when it fails. Quarterbacks. Baseball managers. Coroprate CEOs. Presidents.

The same people who want to give Bush credit for Sadam don't want to give credit for Bin Laden (and to be honest, the reverse is true).

It's always nice to see the flip-flops. The guy at the top does deserve credit in this case. Sorry if it offends Owens' ego.

Mark Owens also emphasized the fact that Odumbo was thousands of miles away and safe when OBL met his end, to make sure everyone understands: Odumbo did not pull the trigger!.
Gee, I never realized that. Just like all the examples I posted earlier--those guys were not pulling the trigger either, so to criticize it in this case but accept it in the others is indeed hypocritical--just as I said.

Owens also communicated his disdain for the White House "leaks" pertaining to the mission that broke fast and furious in the wake of the mission.
Agree with this part, but Owens is still guilty. Because one person did wrong is not lisense for him to do the same. And I know you would not let Obama off the hook just because the Bush-2 administration made stupid leaks of classified. As did Carter. And Regan. And Clinton. And every other administration.

Obama was wrong. Owens was wrong too--and should have been in a position to know far better that he was potentially putting his fellow SEALs in danger. Odd how the moment he retired it was not as big a concern to him.


Now that Mark Owens' position has been explained to you, Old-T, you should see how ignorant your second question is. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Nope. Now that you reitterated the Owens was wrong, I still want to know why you don't equally condemn Bush-2's bravado photo ops in Iraq? If you don't like Obama taking credit, why do you like Bush taking credit? He didn't pull the trigge either.

By the way, before you jump to the wrong conclusion, I have nothing against Bush's actions--I see it exactly in the same light as Obama's and see nothing wrong with either. You are the one who thinks one is right and the other wrong based upon the party they belong to.

Dead ass.

Yes, Ryan was a horrible choice, but he was pandering to the conservative base, which will be his downfall.

I can't wait to see this debate tonight! Originally Posted by markroxny

Obama will win that's for sure

Obama will win that's for sure Originally Posted by waverunner234

Predicting the way the US populous will vote is a very dangerous undertaking. Too much will happen in the next few weeks.

I think both sides are whistling past the graveyard with their pontifications.