Just because people disagree with things you say or post doesn't make them a liberal.

 

Lordy no, that would make me a liberal! :scared::scared:

 

Oh no, I feel some pangs of sympathy for humanity coming on. Excuse me while I go kick a puppy.

Name the bastion of 'liberals' on BGP. I'll get you started.

 

PP92, mcpapa, rockmom.

 

 

Who else is there? 3.....2.....1....... Go.....

Oh oh! You called rockmom the "L" word! Better take cover!

Name the bastion of 'liberals' on BGP. I'll get you started.

 

PP92, mcpapa, rockmom.

 

 

Who else is there? 3.....2.....1....... Go.....

 

I am offended again

I am offended again

Yeah, PP92! How in the world could you have forgotten ace??! :lol:

September 20, 2001, in a speech before a joint session of Congress, Bush changed the direction of American foreign policy. He made terrorism its focus.

"We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network," Bush said.

The speech is perhaps best remembered for this remark. "[W]e will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism," said Bush. "Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."

In early 2011, intelligence revealed that bin Laden was hiding in a compound in Pakistan, and apparently had been for more than five years. His mere presence in Pakistan indicates to me that they were harboring a known terrorist. Pakistan had been warned about providing a safe haven for bin Laden.

 

I didn't realize we had so many Democrats on here that agreed so much with Bush's policies on terrorism. Seem to recall that many Democrats were opposed to Bush's policies on terrorism.

 

 

The undeniable fact is that we violated Pakinstan's sovereign rights when we sent the SEALS into Pakistan. It was wrong even if the goal was noble. I'd be just as critical of Bush had he done it.

 

As you are certainly aware, Bush's speech, full of bluster and bravado, is not law. I guess since you could not fit President Obama's decision into Public Law 107-40 you have no choice but to try to fit it into a speech President Bush provided.

 

Again, I had no idea that so many Democrats thought so highly of President Bush. Guess this means you are fine with President Bush's decision to invade Iraq too, since President Bush believed (perhaps wrongly, perhaps not) that Iraq provided aid or safe harbor to terrorists. Right? I mean if your legal justification for President Obama's sending the SEALS into Pakistan is some words in President Bush's speech, you obviously have to agree with all other military actions that could also fit into that speech.

I am offended again

 

Yeah, PP92! How in the world could you have forgotten ace??! :lol:

 

 

I didn't forget ace. I know of ace and maybe two others. I just wanted to see if he knew who they even were. :lol:

 

I still don't think there are 10 of us 'liberals' on here.

Just because people disagree with things you say or post doesn't make them a liberal.

 

I know, I disagree with many republicans. But Liberals seem to take it personal, like a vendetta.

I have no problem with the President using this. Osama bin Laden deserved to be brought to justice & Obama was the one who green-lighted the attack that led to bin Laden's demise. I personally give him credit for that. In fact, I think he would be foolish not to use it.

 

What I did hear that I didn't like was that Obama allegedly has a campaign ad essentially saying that Mitt Romney would not have done the same thing. I haven't seen the ad, but just heard some rumblings about it. If it's true, I think that is in very poor taste & the President should be criticized. Has anyone else seen this, or can anyone verify/refute this?

 

Back when they were both running for president, Gov Romney was very critical of then Senator Obama for saying that he would do exactly what he did. If Gov Romney wants to say that any president would have done the same thing that's fine. But it is a direct contradiction to what he sais before.

"Mission Accomplished" -

 

Romney said in 2008 that he would not go into another country and get someone.[/QUOTE]

 

I wouldn't have either. If you want other countries to respect our sovereignity, you have to respect their's. Our relations with Pakistan have taken a big, big hit as a result of this matter. Last thing we need to do is lose an ally in that region. Killing OBL may turn out to be one of those "we won the battle, but it caused us to lose the war" type of things.

 

And please, please do not tell me that I'd have been fine with it if Bush, McCain, etc. had pulled the trigger. I would not have been fine with it.

 

That is a fair and legitimate position. It was Gov Romneys position before it wasn't his position.

Back when they were both running for president, Gov Romney was very critical of then Senator Obama for saying that he would do exactly what he did. If Gov Romney wants to say that any president would have done the same thing that's fine. But it is a direct contradiction to what he sais before.

 

Same as Obama as a Senator saying he wouldntvote for the debt ceiling to be raised under bush, Now he has raised it far above what it needs to be.

Same as Obama as a Senator saying he wouldntvote for the debt ceiling to be raised under bush, Now he has raised it far above what it needs to be.

 

Much different. The President has said that his vote was the wrong thing to do, even though he knew that his vote would make no difference. Gov Romney acts like it was his position all along. Big difference.

Much different. The President has said that his vote was the wrong thing to do, even though he knew that his vote would make no difference. Gov Romney acts like it was his position all along. Big difference.

 

There's zero difference. Aside from it involved President Obama, so you're willing to close your eyes to it.

To answer Leathernecks objection, you are right. You could make an argument that it was an act of war against Pakistan. If someone did it to the US, it would be an act of war against the US. As a matter of fact when the Iranians seized the US embasy in 1979 that is exactly what it was. It was done for much the same reason. We had protected the Shah. They hated him as much as we did bin Laden. It is all in your point of view. From our point of view, what Iran did was wrong, what we did was right. I go with our view, but that doesn't mean that I don't know that some disagree. In a perfect world we would have asked the Pakistanis to please arrest Bin Laden and make arrangements for us to pick him up. Guess what, the world isn't perfect. He was an enemy of the US. We had the shot and took it. If we had worked with Pakistan, as candidate Romney suggested in 2007 and 2008, Bin Laden would still be out there plotting against the US. It ain't pretty, but it's what is.

Same as Obama as a Senator saying he wouldntvote for the debt ceiling to be raised under bush, Now he has raised it far above what it needs to be.

 

And if that is indeed correct, and if I had a say in candidate Romney's campaign, I would use it.

 

I didn't realize we had so many Democrats on here that agreed so much with Bush's policies on terrorism. Seem to recall that many Democrats were opposed to Bush's policies on terrorism. The reason I cited Bush's policies on terrorism was that he was POTUS on 9/11.

 

 

The undeniable fact is that we violated Pakinstan's sovereign rights when we sent the SEALS into Pakistan. It was wrong even if the goal was noble. I'd be just as critical of Bush had he done it. So your way of thinking when a country knowingly harbors a terrorist & has been put on notice that the US is going to hunt him down by any means necessary not by just one President but two counting Obama that its okay to do so? Come on if our US intelligience knew where bin Laden was don't you think Pakistan knew he was there too? How could Pakistani intelligence services fail to find bin Laden in a fortified compound, just a few hours drive from Islamabad, obviously bin Laden did have a support system; the issue is, was that support system within the government and the state of Pakistan or within the society of Pakistan? I don't know the answer to that question but regardless bin Laden was in Pakistan. Now if I'd have to choose between Pakistan's sovereign rights being violated or killing the most wanted world terrorist without hesitation I'm for the latter. I don't know but I'll go out on a limb here & guess you had no family, friends or knew anyone killed in the 9/11 attacks personally speaking I did.

 

As you are certainly aware, Bush's speech, full of bluster and bravado, is not law. I guess since you could not fit President Obama's decision into Public Law 107-40 you have no choice but to try to fit it into a speech President Bush provided. So unless it is law it doesn't matter? Talk is cheap?

 

Again, I had no idea that so many Democrats thought so highly of President Bush. Guess this means you are fine with President Bush's decision to invade Iraq too, since President Bush believed (perhaps wrongly, perhaps not) that Iraq provided aid or safe harbor to terrorists. Right? I mean if your legal justification for President Obama's sending the SEALS into Pakistan is some words in President Bush's speech, you obviously have to agree with all other military actions that could also fit into that speech.

I thought the reason we invaded Iraq was weapons of mass destruction were thought to be there not that bin Laden was there? I respect the office of the presidency no matter who is in office. I might not agree with them all of the time but because I don't agree with them all the time doesn't mean I don't respect them. So its obvious to me Pakistan's sovereign rights were more important to you than killing bin Laden. Just how would you have done it differently?