 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Military - Naval Forum » US drone strikes may break international law: UN... |
|
Page 9 of 10 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Matt Wiser... |
 Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 7:24 am, William Black <william.bl... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]John Mianowski wrote:
On Oct 31, 9:29 am, Arved Sandstrom <dces... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
...
Personally I think it was a mistake that Bush did not declare war on the
Taliban; rather it became just another part of this featureless "War on
Terrorism", which is nothing of the sort since no war has been legally
declared. Being evasive and mealymouthed about what you're trying to do,
and labelling people as terrorists, which is also what Bush decided to
do, is precisely why we now have all this confusion. If we'd called it a
war in the first place we wouldn't now be arguing over exactly when
"terrorist" acts become acts of war.
That was exactly my thinking after the initial shock of 9/11 abated.
At a time when the US really needed a good (if not great) president,
GWB was a mediocre one at best. I had never had high hopes for him in
the 1st place, & even I was disappointed.
The problem here is that formal declarations of war are something the UN
was set up to stop.
I believe there are formal procedures the US would have to get through
if they wanted a proper war.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
And when someone attacks you, and a nation-state is providing safe
haven to those responsible, a declaration of war isn't necessary.
Article 51 of the UN Charter (self-defense) applies. Besides,
declarations of war have gone the way of the dodo. The Taliban were
given a chance to hand over Bin Laden and his deputies, as well as
shut down the training camps. They refused. And the bombs started to
fall on 7 Oct 01..... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Wiser... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 4:13 am, William Black <william.bl... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]Andrew Swallow wrote:
William Black wrote:
Matt Wiser wrote:
On Oct 30, 10:59 am, William Black <william.bl... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk
wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:
And the only 'training' they got here was flight training. All the
rest of it was done in camps in Afghanistan.
What other training did they need?
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
The plan was hatched in an AQ camp in Afghanistan by both KSM and
Ayman al-Zwahari. All the planning took place in the camp (see the
9-11 Commission report) The fact that the Taliban gave AQ safe harbor
is reason enough to go after them. Accessories to war crimes at best,
and accomplices at most.
A 'war crime' requires a military structure and a nation state.
The word is 'crime'.
It was a police matter.
Al Qaeda has a military structure.
Rubbish, it's a group of rich individuals who financed terror attacks.
Afghanistan is a nation state.
True.
A government is responsible for its mercenaries as well as it regulars.
If that is the case then the US government is responsible for
Blackwater's excesses and I expect to see warrants issued soon.
9/11 was the third+ time Al Qaeda had launched a major attack on the
USA from Afghanistan. There comes a time when the denial-ability is
no longer plausible.
Criminals do crimes.
So what?
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
9-11 wasn't a crime. It was an act of war. And that favor was returned
on the Taliban and AQ beginning 7 Oct 01. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Andrew Swallow... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Matt Wiser wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 7:27 pm, Andrew Swallow <am.swal... at (no spam) btopenworld.com> wrote:
William Black wrote:
Matt Wiser wrote:
On Oct 30, 10:59 am, William Black <william.bl... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk
wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:
And the only 'training' they got here was flight training. All the
rest of it was done in camps in Afghanistan.
What other training did they need?
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
The plan was hatched in an AQ camp in Afghanistan by both KSM and
Ayman al-Zwahari. All the planning took place in the camp (see the
9-11 Commission report) The fact that the Taliban gave AQ safe harbor
is reason enough to go after them. Accessories to war crimes at best,
and accomplices at most.
A 'war crime' requires a military structure and a nation state.
The word is 'crime'.
It was a police matter.
Al Qaeda has a military structure.
Afghanistan is a nation state.
A government is responsible for its mercenaries as well as it regulars.
9/11 was the third+ time Al Qaeda had launched a major attack on the
USA from Afghanistan. There comes a time when the denial-ability is
no longer plausible.
Andrew Swallow- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And when the Taliban gave sanctuary to Al-Qaeda, that made them
accessories at the very least. And at most, co-conspirators. The
Taliban were given a chance to hand over UBL and his associates to the
U.S. two weeks before military ops began on 7 Oct 01. They refused.
And no, it's not a police matter; that very attitude that the Clintoon
administration had, that terrorism was a purely law-enforcement issue
[/quote]
It was sort of a police matter. The appropriate 'police force' was
the Taliban. When the Taliban made it clear that they were on the
side of the bad guys they had to be removed. Forced removal of an
entire police force and justice system is the job of the military.
Andrew Swallow
[quote]is something the 9-11 Commission took issue with. You can't be
reactive in Counter-terrorism, you have to be proactive. Which means
finding the bastards and either capturing them (for interrogation) or
liquidating them if that's not possible. Captured or dead terrorists
don't plot, don't conspire, and don't attack. Period.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Andrew Swallow... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Fred J. McCall wrote:
[quote]"Ray O'Hara" <raymond-ohara at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
:
:if Cheney and Bush go to Europe you probably will see warrants issued.
:
You Lefty Loons never manage to step outside your own wet dreams, do
you?
It ain't gonna happen, Ray. Give it up. And we won't even mention
the small detail that any country that issues a warrant for one of
those two is pretty much obligated to do the same for Obama and most
of Congress.
Ex-president Bush should consider himself under country arrest. This[/quote]
is similar to house arrest only with more land. The same for Cheney.
Obama did not start either of the wars and has not been caught
committing any war crimes, yet. He also still has diplomatic
immunity, so currently only the International Criminal Court and
UN Security Council can order Obama's arrest.
As for Congress they are not in the direct military command structure.
Andrew Swallow |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Andrew Swallow... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ray O'Hara wrote:
{snip}
[quote]
The American Communist Party had many good Americans who were idealists, but
they were dupes to Stalin.
Stalin was never a true commie anyway.
That is what I used to think until I read the Communist Manifesto.[/quote]
Ignore the long fairytale propaganda at the top (most people
do not get any further). The action sections mentions what they
plan to do on gaining power and who the warring classes are.
The classes are not the aristocracy Vs the peasants/workers that
everybody assumes (that was the previous wars) but the proletariat
Vs the bourgeoisie.
The Communist Party claimed to be part of the proletariat but actually
consisted of people like lawyers, civil servants, political activists
and journalists - making it bourgeoisie. A trainee priest like
Stalin was definitely bourgeoisie and therefore a real communist.
Andrew Swallow |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Fred J. McCall... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Andrew Swallow <am.swallow at (no spam) btopenworld.com> wrote:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-ohara at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :if Cheney and Bush go to Europe you probably will see warrants issued.
:> :
:>
:> You Lefty Loons never manage to step outside your own wet dreams, do
:> you?
:>
:> It ain't gonna happen, Ray. Give it up. And we won't even mention
:> the small detail that any country that issues a warrant for one of
:> those two is pretty much obligated to do the same for Obama and most
:> of Congress.
:>
:
:Ex-president Bush should consider himself under country arrest. This
:is similar to house arrest only with more land. The same for Cheney.
:
Insanity seems to be spreading.
:
:Obama did not start either of the wars and has not been caught
:committing any war crimes, yet.
:
He hasn't appreciably changed any policies, so anything they're guilty
of he is guilty of.
:
:He also still has diplomatic
:immunity, so currently only the International Criminal Court and
:UN Security Council can order Obama's arrest.
:
:As for Congress they are not in the direct military command structure.
:
Neither were some of the folks tried at Nuremberg.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Andrew Swallow... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Fred J. McCall wrote:
[quote]Andrew Swallow <am.swallow at (no spam) btopenworld.com> wrote:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-ohara at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
:
:> :
:> :if Cheney and Bush go to Europe you probably will see warrants issued.
:> :
:
:> You Lefty Loons never manage to step outside your own wet dreams, do
:> you?
:
:> It ain't gonna happen, Ray. Give it up. And we won't even mention
:> the small detail that any country that issues a warrant for one of
:> those two is pretty much obligated to do the same for Obama and most
:> of Congress.
:
:
:Ex-president Bush should consider himself under country arrest. This
:is similar to house arrest only with more land. The same for Cheney.
:
Insanity seems to be spreading.
[/quote]
No we have just met the same Bush haters.
[quote]
:
:Obama did not start either of the wars and has not been caught
:committing any war crimes, yet.
:
He hasn't appreciably changed any policies, so anything they're guilty
of he is guilty of.
:
:He also still has diplomatic
:immunity, so currently only the International Criminal Court and
:UN Security Council can order Obama's arrest.
:
:As for Congress they are not in the direct military command structure.
:
Neither were some of the folks tried at Nuremberg.
Business bosses have direct command of their business.[/quote]
Government ministers can authorise civil servants to commit crimes
against humanity.
Andrew Swallow |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| William Black... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Matt Wiser wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 7:24 am, William Black <william.bl... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
John Mianowski wrote:
On Oct 31, 9:29 am, Arved Sandstrom <dces... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
...
Personally I think it was a mistake that Bush did not declare war on the
Taliban; rather it became just another part of this featureless "War on
Terrorism", which is nothing of the sort since no war has been legally
declared. Being evasive and mealymouthed about what you're trying to do,
and labelling people as terrorists, which is also what Bush decided to
do, is precisely why we now have all this confusion. If we'd called it a
war in the first place we wouldn't now be arguing over exactly when
"terrorist" acts become acts of war.
That was exactly my thinking after the initial shock of 9/11 abated.
At a time when the US really needed a good (if not great) president,
GWB was a mediocre one at best. I had never had high hopes for him in
the 1st place, & even I was disappointed.
The problem here is that formal declarations of war are something the UN
was set up to stop.
I believe there are formal procedures the US would have to get through
if they wanted a proper war.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And when someone attacks you, and a nation-state is providing safe
haven to those responsible, a declaration of war isn't necessary.
Article 51 of the UN Charter (self-defense) applies.
[/quote]
I'll remember that the next time we catch the US sending guns to
Northern Ireland...
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| William Black... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Matt Wiser wrote:
[quote]
9-11 wasn't a crime. It was an act of war. And that favor was returned
on the Taliban and AQ beginning 7 Oct 01.
[/quote]
Utter and absolute rubbish.
It was a criminal act perpetrated by thugs.
That at least one individual has been brought to trial over that act
proves this.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Fred J. McCall... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
William Black <william.black at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:Matt Wiser wrote:
:> On Oct 31, 7:24 am, William Black <william.bl... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:>> John Mianowski wrote:
:>>> On Oct 31, 9:29 am, Arved Sandstrom <dces... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
:>>> ...
:>>>> Personally I think it was a mistake that Bush did not declare war on the
:>>>> Taliban; rather it became just another part of this featureless "War on
:>>>> Terrorism", which is nothing of the sort since no war has been legally
:>>>> declared. Being evasive and mealymouthed about what you're trying to do,
:>>>> and labelling people as terrorists, which is also what Bush decided to
:>>>> do, is precisely why we now have all this confusion. If we'd called it a
:>>>> war in the first place we wouldn't now be arguing over exactly when
:>>>> "terrorist" acts become acts of war.
:>>> That was exactly my thinking after the initial shock of 9/11 abated.
:>>> At a time when the US really needed a good (if not great) president,
:>>> GWB was a mediocre one at best. I had never had high hopes for him in
:>>> the 1st place, & even I was disappointed.
:>> The problem here is that formal declarations of war are something the UN
:>> was set up to stop.
:>>
:>> I believe there are formal procedures the US would have to get through
:>> if they wanted a proper war.
:>>
:>> --
:>> William Black
:>>
:>> "Any number under six"
:>>
:>> The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
:>> Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
:>> single handed with a quarterstaff.- Hide quoted text -
:>>
:>> - Show quoted text -
:>
:> And when someone attacks you, and a nation-state is providing safe
:> haven to those responsible, a declaration of war isn't necessary.
:> Article 51 of the UN Charter (self-defense) applies.
:>
:
:I'll remember that the next time we catch the US sending guns to
:Northern Ireland...
:
You do that.
Hint: The US has never sent guns to Northern Ireland. Some
individuals presumably have knowingly funded such things in violation
of US law and if you could prove it they'd be in jail right now.
Like these folks, for example:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/ira-gunsmuggler-jailed-by-us-court-697888.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/945705.stm
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Fred J. McCall... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
William Black <william.black at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:Matt Wiser wrote:
:>
:> 9-11 wasn't a crime. It was an act of war. And that favor was returned
:> on the Taliban and AQ beginning 7 Oct 01.
:
:Utter and absolute rubbish.
:
:It was a criminal act perpetrated by thugs.
:
:That at least one individual has been brought to trial over that act
:proves this.
:
No, it doesn't.
Lots of people not brought to trial but held because they were
adjudged to be combatants must prove it's a war, then...
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jack Linthicum... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 10:13 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net>
wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 11:05 am, John Mianowski <jo... at (no spam) boreal.org> wrote:
On Oct 31, 9:29 am, Arved Sandstrom <dces... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
...
Personally I think it was a mistake that Bush did not declare war on the
Taliban; rather it became just another part of this featureless "War on
Terrorism", which is nothing of the sort since no war has been legally
declared. Being evasive and mealymouthed about what you're trying to do,
and labelling people as terrorists, which is also what Bush decided to
do, is precisely why we now have all this confusion. If we'd called it a
war in the first place we wouldn't now be arguing over exactly when
"terrorist" acts become acts of war.
That was exactly my thinking after the initial shock of 9/11 abated.
At a time when the US really needed a good (if not great) president,
GWB was a mediocre one at best. I had never had high hopes for him in
the 1st place, & even I was disappointed.
JM
I keep harping on the fact, belief, whatever, that theJawbreaker
people could have gotten bin Ladin in December 2001 with a small
amount of effort from Washington. Perhaps not Presidential, maybe only
CIA but they thought they had him and no one blocked his exit from
Tora Bora.
[/quote]
Just saw a video on Rachel Mddow's show, George W. Bush on December
14, 2001 saying he would get Osama dead or alive. Jawbreaker requested
800 American troops on December 7. The request was never answered. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Wiser... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 6:28 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 10:13 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:
On Oct 31, 11:05 am, John Mianowski <jo... at (no spam) boreal.org> wrote:
On Oct 31, 9:29 am, Arved Sandstrom <dces... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
...
Personally I think it was a mistake that Bush did not declare war on the
Taliban; rather it became just another part of this featureless "War on
Terrorism", which is nothing of the sort since no war has been legally
declared. Being evasive and mealymouthed about what you're trying to do,
and labelling people as terrorists, which is also what Bush decided to
do, is precisely why we now have all this confusion. If we'd called it a
war in the first place we wouldn't now be arguing over exactly when
"terrorist" acts become acts of war.
That was exactly my thinking after the initial shock of 9/11 abated.
At a time when the US really needed a good (if not great) president,
GWB was a mediocre one at best. I had never had high hopes for him in
the 1st place, & even I was disappointed.
JM
I keep harping on the fact, belief, whatever, that theJawbreaker
people could have gotten bin Ladin in December 2001 with a small
amount of effort from Washington. Perhaps not Presidential, maybe only
CIA but they thought they had him and no one blocked his exit from
Tora Bora.
Just saw a video on Rachel Mddow's show, George W. Bush on December
14, 2001 saying he would get Osama dead or alive. Jawbreaker requested
800 American troops on December 7. The request was never answered.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
And Rachel Maddow doesn't have an agenda? Right.....considering she's
a protege of Keith Olbermann (who should've stuck to being a
sportscaster, IMHO). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jack Linthicum... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 1:22 pm, Matt Wiser <mattwiser... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 6:28 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:13 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:
On Oct 31, 11:05 am, John Mianowski <jo... at (no spam) boreal.org> wrote:
On Oct 31, 9:29 am, Arved Sandstrom <dces... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
...
Personally I think it was a mistake that Bush did not declare war on the
Taliban; rather it became just another part of this featureless "War on
Terrorism", which is nothing of the sort since no war has been legally
declared. Being evasive and mealymouthed about what you're trying to do,
and labelling people as terrorists, which is also what Bush decided to
do, is precisely why we now have all this confusion. If we'd called it a
war in the first place we wouldn't now be arguing over exactly when
"terrorist" acts become acts of war.
That was exactly my thinking after the initial shock of 9/11 abated..
At a time when the US really needed a good (if not great) president,
GWB was a mediocre one at best. I had never had high hopes for him in
the 1st place, & even I was disappointed.
JM
I keep harping on the fact, belief, whatever, that theJawbreaker
people could have gotten bin Ladin in December 2001 with a small
amount of effort from Washington. Perhaps not Presidential, maybe only
CIA but they thought they had him and no one blocked his exit from
Tora Bora.
Just saw a video on Rachel Mddow's show, George W. Bush on December
14, 2001 saying he would get Osama dead or alive. Jawbreaker requested
800 American troops on December 7. The request was never answered.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And Rachel Maddow doesn't have an agenda? Right.....considering she's
a protege of Keith Olbermann (who should've stuck to being a
sportscaster, IMHO).
[/quote]
She aired the video, I drew the parallel between the dates Gary
Berntsen asked for the extra men and the date of Bush's statement to
the world. The reason we are in Afghanistan seems to be in question,
the fact that Osama bin Ladin is apparently holed up in Pakistan 8
years after Bush's speech seems relevant. If you can't handle it, go
lock on to Fox, they would never air that Bush video.
Olbermann signed a four-year contract a year ago raising his pay from
$4m to $7.5 a year. Somewhat better than the $650,000 he made at
MSNBC in 1997. He does football on NBC's Sunday night show before the
NFL game. I think he has accomplished something few others have, an
independence from politically correct management. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Wiser... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 10:34 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net>
wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 1:22 pm, Matt Wiser <mattwiser... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 6:28 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:13 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:
On Oct 31, 11:05 am, John Mianowski <jo... at (no spam) boreal.org> wrote:
On Oct 31, 9:29 am, Arved Sandstrom <dces... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
...
Personally I think it was a mistake that Bush did not declare war on the
Taliban; rather it became just another part of this featureless "War on
Terrorism", which is nothing of the sort since no war has been legally
declared. Being evasive and mealymouthed about what you're trying to do,
and labelling people as terrorists, which is also what Bush decided to
do, is precisely why we now have all this confusion. If we'd called it a
war in the first place we wouldn't now be arguing over exactly when
"terrorist" acts become acts of war.
That was exactly my thinking after the initial shock of 9/11 abated.
At a time when the US really needed a good (if not great) president,
GWB was a mediocre one at best. I had never had high hopes for him in
the 1st place, & even I was disappointed.
JM
I keep harping on the fact, belief, whatever, that theJawbreaker
people could have gotten bin Ladin in December 2001 with a small
amount of effort from Washington. Perhaps not Presidential, maybe only
CIA but they thought they had him and no one blocked his exit from
Tora Bora.
Just saw a video on Rachel Mddow's show, George W. Bush on December
14, 2001 saying he would get Osama dead or alive. Jawbreaker requested
800 American troops on December 7. The request was never answered.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And Rachel Maddow doesn't have an agenda? Right.....considering she's
a protege of Keith Olbermann (who should've stuck to being a
sportscaster, IMHO).
She aired the video, I drew the parallel between the dates Gary
Berntsen asked for the extra men and the date of Bush's statement to
the world. The reason we are in Afghanistan seems to be in question,
the fact that Osama bin Ladin is apparently holed up in Pakistan 8
years after Bush's speech seems relevant. If you can't handle it, go
lock on to Fox, they would never air that Bush video.
Olbermann signed a four-year contract a year ago raising his pay from
$4m to $7.5 a year. Somewhat better than the $650,000 he made at
MSNBC in 1997. He does football on NBC's Sunday night show before the
NFL game. I think he has accomplished something few others have, an
independence from politically correct management.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
He should've stuck to being a sportscaster, because when it comes to
sports, he does do a pretty decent job. It's his political stuff I
can't stomach. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 5:54 am
|
|