I don't see it as emotional at all. I see it as factual that they are not doing as they say. Nothing more nothing less. You can't spin the fact that they down played an opportunity where they said they would take every opportunity, but clearly didn't/don't. Sending 5% of what a tactical leader said could get the job done is not a tactical error. It's pure ignorance. Of course it gave aid and comfort. It proved Bush and company will not do as they say; use all the force we have available in it's entirety, and allowed OBL to escape. Plain and simple.
Bingo! The tactical leader in charge made the right decision. The leaders ignored it. PERIOD This is one that can't be explained away. Any attempt to do so is just static.
That's a weak argument in it's entirety. So much so, that it reinforces my belief that it's purely emotional on your part. One, you have the word of a single source. There are two sides to every story. Two, Delta Force is the most highly trained military unit in the world. Had they not been sent, or anyone for that matter, you might have a point. Actually, we can't establish anything was down played. Sending Delta Force isn't something that is considered "down playing." Berntsen goes on to acknowledge: So he's not even sure. Those are not the words of choice someone uses when absolutely sure an enemy is in location. You only have one side of a story here. I suppose that's all that is required when going after Bush, but it calls into question the "emotional" argument I pointed out. Delta Force are not just "warm bodies" to soak up incoming fire. We're talking about the most highly trained unit in the world. I don't think I've ever seen anyone attempt to use the rational argument that sending in Delta Force to fight an enemy is considered "aid and comfort." That alone tells me your argument isn't rationale and that blind hatred for Bush is driving your opinions. If sending Delta Force after bin laden is your idea of treason, I'd hate to see what you think of Clinton for letting him go three times is. You must be ready to lynch him over a tree in Alabama, no doubt!
Yeah, it's ashame that a news source in our own country who repeatedly commits treason can make "anonymous" claims, proven wrong, and that correcting the facts is considered bad. Nothing like good ol' "emotional" critical thinking. It's like if someone said "there are drugs in my neighborhood." And a reporter comes along and prints a story that says you "have drugs in your car daily." You know it's not true, so you set out to set the record straight. For something you would do yourself, as would just about anyone, you hold Bush in contempt for doing the same. Think about your emotional reasoning with this argument. In essence, what you are saying is, you are disappointed the facts are being set straight. Further more, like the "sheeple" you always talk about, you clearly accept "anonymous" sources because it has a message you want to hear. In other words, only the message matters. Facts be damned. Now that's blind hatred
funny cnn holds all there old news stories? http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/ holy shit a republican had a problem with wire tapping?
LOL, you can have Hatch! http://wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59305,00.html This is the nut that wanted to tax the internet.
You have a keen knack for posting 100's of words of pure emotion in the guise of facts GTech. But at least there are those of us here that can see right through it. How is the President saying he's not interested in OBL anymore not treasonous? That certainly gives great comfort to OBL, our enemy. I can't wait to see the spin on that one.
You mean like this aid and comfort? Not important.. not a priority... he just doesn't care... right out of the president's treasonous, constitution-breaking, freedom-hating mouth. Not concerned about finding the guy who you blame 9/11 on... and who you continue to use as a fear tactic for your illegal constitution breaking programs.
Don't make your blind hatred about me. Ray Charles could see it, if he were still with us. All based on "emotional feelings," facts be damned So you admit your original reason was as silly as you made it out to be, and now are looking for something new? Blind hatred, working at it's finest! There's nothing to spin. Bush is known to not be so eloquent with words and mixing things up. So the one time he has a brain fart, you decide to believe a quote taken out of context when there are hundreds to contradict such. It's blind hatred at it's finest and you just help me expose it, yet again
Well, Bush was talking to guys like you who are trying to tell the world that once the known terrorists are captured, terror in general would be over.
But, yo. Bin laden didn't do anything remember? Bush and Cheney did 9/11. Our government also did the 93 attacks blamed on Bin Laden, right? I don't see what your issue is; if you think Bin Laden is not guilty of the crimes he is blamed for; It continues to amaze me that you castigate someone for doing nothing - when (in your mind) there is nothing to be done. Either change your story on 9/11 and accept reality or realize that you have no credibility on any discussion regarding al qaeda, bin laden, terrorism and related issues. Pick one. You look like a hypocritical buffoon every time you make one of these remarks.
Latest step on the NIE Report--Partial Declassification of the report! Well I suspect this only further confuses the issue. Step 1. The NIE is tasked to analyse the issues Step 2. They produce a long complex report step 3. someone leaks certain parts of the report to the NY Times and Wash Post The parts leaked are damming to the Bush Administration step 4. anti Bush side attacks the administration step 5. Bush administration defends self and attacks the attackers step 6 Bush administration declassifies a portion of the report step 7. Bush administration uses these declassified portions of the report to defend its positions The full report is not available to Congress on a secretive basis or the general public. We are all arguing about partial information on analysis provided by our intelligence agencies. More to be revealed!
Intelligence that stopped being gathered back in February; which is why it refers to that Iraqi guy who was killed earlier this year in the present sense
That only further complicates it.....although I know, Lorien, that you and I agree that Bush was way wrong.