US strike kills possible Bin Laden successor

[BroncoInferno]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43277881...asia?gt1=43001

[alkemical]

There's always a #2 isn't it....it's like it never ends....

[Rigs11]

notice how the repubs have gone silent on obama being soft on terror?

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Originally Posted by Rigs11

notice how the repubs have gone silent on obama being soft on terror?

That's because we took their ability to say that they're the law & order/anti-terrorism party away.

And it feels so good.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by TheElusiveKyleOrton

That's because we took their ability to say that they're the law & order/anti-terrorism party away.

And it feels so good.

Santorum criticized Obama's foreign policy the other day when he officially announced he was running for POTUS. But everyone knows he's bat****. I guess Paul would be the only other one, though his FP views, of course, are well outside those of the Republican establishment.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Originally Posted by Rigs11

notice how the repubs have gone silent on obama being soft on terror?

Not a republican, but with all due respect, there's a hell of a lot more to counter-terror than vaporizing douchebags from space. Yemen is currently an integral part of our counter-terrorism plan and we've dropped the ball there, just as we have with other strategic allies in the region.

Of course, you realize that, like Repubs, you can't have it both ways, right? You spent 8 years repudiating the US/Bush counter-terror execution and now seem perfectly fine in propping up this administration. It's a catch-22 for both sides because no one's willing to look in the mirror, be honest, or take the slightest shot at unity in this undertaking.

Oh, and then there's the rhetorical wank-offs who call each party a sponsor of their own brand of terror. Uneducated, incoherent, alarmist, and immature, to be sure. NEITHER party sponsors it, perpetrates it, or wants it so stop with the mindless drivel. Carry on.

[bronco militia]

Originally Posted by alkemical

There's always a #2 isn't it....it's like it never ends....

#2 stinks

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27

Of course, you realize that, like Repubs, you can't have it both ways, right? You spent 8 years repudiating the US/Bush counter-terror execution and now seem perfectly fine in propping up this administration.

Bull****. The liberal position was that standing armies (i.e. the Bush policy) was a poor strategy for fighting terrorism, and that leaning on intel to zero in on specific targets important to terrorist organizations was the way to go. That's precisely what we're seeing now with the killing of Osama and this douche. Nice try, though.

[Rigs11]

Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27

Not a republican, but with all due respect, there's a hell of a lot more to counter-terror than vaporizing douchebags from space. Yemen is currently an integral part of our counter-terrorism plan and we've dropped the ball there, just as we have with other strategic allies in the region.

Of course, you realize that, like Repubs, you can't have it both ways, right? You spent 8 years repudiating the US/Bush counter-terror execution and now seem perfectly fine in propping up this administration. It's a catch-22 for both sides because no one's willing to look in the mirror, be honest, or take the slightest shot at unity in this undertaking.

Oh, and then there's the rhetorical wank-offs who call each party a sponsor of their own brand of terror. Uneducated, incoherent, alarmist, and immature, to be sure. NEITHER party sponsors it, perpetrates it, or wants it so stop with the mindless drivel. Carry on.

Umm actually that is erroneous. I supported us going into afghanistan, but not iraq.you weem to think that because we opposed the war in iraq that we did not support the fight against terrorism. it's simply a talking point that the right has used but can use no longer.carry on.

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Bull****. The liberal position was that standing armies (i.e. the Bush policy) was a poor strategy for fighting terrorism, and that leaning on intel to zero in on specific targets important to terrorist organizations was the way to go. That's precisely what we're seeing now with the killing of Osama and this douche. Nice try, though.

Do you really believe there are liberal and conservative positions and if you are one or the other, you must go that way? This would be a sad world if that were the case.
BTW, Obama's position was to pull all the troops out. Also, you say your strategy is leaning on the intel? But didn't Bush lean on the intel from other countries in Iraq? And then, how many number twos did the Bush admin kill? Evert time they did, the libs were calling BS mocking the killing of another number two.
Your boat is full of holes my friend.