Bernie will endorse Hillary according to this....

[AZ Jim]

Great, late maybe but great none the less....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-will-endorse-hillary-clinton_us_57759cbde4b09b4c43bfcd16?section=

[Peter1469]

Why did he toss his integrity into the trash heap? A principled American would never endorse a person who put US national security at risk either through incompetence or design.

[Green Arrow]

This was always in the plans. Still going to have a fight in Philly though.

[Peter1469]

Bern it down.

[hanger4]

After the OIG report and now FBI report if Bernie enforces HC I lose my respect for him.

Sorry GA.

[AZ Jim]

This was always in the plans. Still going to have a fight in Philly though.I am not sure how that will go but I do expect some demonstration.

[AZ Jim]

After the OIG report and now FBI report if Bernie enforces HC I lose my respect for him.

Sorry GA.Who cares??

[del]

After the OIG report and now FBI report if Bernie enforces HC I lose my respect for him.

Sorry GA.

bernie will have a tough time getting over this, for sure.

[Peter1469]

Who cares??

Only people with honor care.

[domer76]

After the OIG report and now FBI report if Bernie enforces HC I lose my respect for him.

Sorry GA.

I'm sure he gives a flying shit.

[Green Arrow]

After the OIG report and now FBI report if Bernie enforces HC I lose my respect for him.

Sorry GA.

That is well within your right. It's a strategic move designed to keep his ideas and his movement in the news. He knows his endorsement is meaningless, it's not to side with Hillary or get a cabinet position or anything.

I wouldn't have done it, but I know and understand the motive behind it.

[Green Arrow]

Who cares??

I do. Hangar is one of the select few people on this forum I respect and I value his opinion, regardless of whether I agree with it.

[zelmo1234]

Bernie Supporter are pissed at the Bern, He promised to take it to the convention and now is selling out.

While I disagree with most of Bernie's policies, his supports seem to have some conviction and I don't think Hillary can count on more than half of them. And I don't think she can win with that.

Her corruption is so in your face, that she has about all of the support that she is going to get. I see her coming in at about 44 to 46% It is just going to be how much vote goes to the 3rd party.

[JDubya]

Why did he toss his integrity into the trash heap? A principled American would never endorse a person who put US national security at risk either through incompetence or design.

I bet you voted for Bush.

Deny it all you want, but we know you did.

And yet you talk about integrity and principles.

Puh-lease.

[JDubya]

That is well within your right. It's a strategic move designed to keep his ideas and his movement in the news. He knows his endorsement is meaningless, it's not to side with Hillary or get a cabinet position or anything.

I wouldn't have done it, but I know and understand the motive behind it.

:facepalm: Groan.

Someone better get on the horn to Bernie and let him know you wouldn't have done it, but you're giving him a pass.

Just so he can sleep at night. :biglaugh:

[JDubya]

Only people with honor care.

Which excludes you then, right?

Right.

[Subdermal]

Why did he toss his integrity into the trash heap? A principled American would never endorse a person who put US national security at risk either through incompetence or design.

I think you answered your own question in your post.

[Subdermal]

Who cares??

Certainly those with integrity.

[TrueBlue]

If Bernie was not so interested in going back to Vermont to continue serving as Senator he might be a good Secretary of Education for Hillary Clinton!

[TrueBlue]

Certainly those with integrity.
I don't see how you can find more integrity with Hillary Clinton given that after multiple Benghazi hearings and now the e-mail hearings she has emerged unscathed each time! Now THAT'S having integrity when even the best who are out to get her cannot prove that she is guilty of anything! http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/good2.gif

[Subdermal]

I don't see how you can find more integrity with Hillary Clinton given that after multiple Benghazi hearings and now the e-mail hearings she has emerged unscathed each time! Now THAT'S having integrity when even the best who are out to get her cannot prove that she is guilty of anything! http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/good2.gif


You're certainly correct. You're not going to find integrity with Hillary Clinton.

[Peter1469]

I bet you voted for Bush.

Deny it all you want, but we know you did.

And yet you talk about integrity and principles.

Puh-lease.

I voted for Bush in 2000. I was a rabid NECON at that time. I left the GOP in 2006 because they were spending like drunken Democrats. Bush, even though he was bad, was much better than Algore would have been. That guy is a kook.

[Peter1469]

Which excludes you then, right?

Right.

You excel at the simple tasks, I bet.

[domer76]

I voted for Bush in 2000. I was a rabid NECON at that time. I left the GOP in 2006 because they were spending like drunken Democrats. Bush, even though he was bad, was much better than Algore would have been. That guy is a kook.

"would have"

lol

[Peter1469]

"would have"

lol

We all understand that you are intellectually incapable to handling what ifs, and would haves.

lol

Dim is the left side of the bell curve.

[domer76]

We all understand that you are intellectually incapable to handling what ifs, and would haves.

lol

Dim is the left side of the bell curve.

You really struggle with this don't you? The bottom line is you don't have a fucking clue about what Al Gore "would have been". Suppositional bullshit on your part. What we DO know is what a miserable goddam failure Bush was.

Now do you understand the difference between "would have" and reality? I've gone over this multiple times with many of you, but you fail to grasp the concept.

[Peter1469]

You really struggle with this don't you? The bottom line is you don't have a fucking clue about what Al Gore "would have been". Suppositional bullshit on your part. What we DO know is what a miserable goddam failure Bush was.

Now do you understand the difference between "would have" and reality? I've gone over this multiple times with many of you, but you fail to grasp the concept.

lol

We understand you don't have the intellectual ability to handle what ifs and would haves.

Sub 90 IQs have that in common with you. Why is that?

[JDubya]

I voted for Bush in 2000. I was a rabid NECON at that time. I left the GOP in 2006 because they were spending like drunken Democrats. Bush, even though he was bad, was much better than Algore would have been. That guy is a kook.

So you think that being asleep at the wheel on 9/11 then starting an unnecessary $1 trillion (and counting) war makes Bush better than what you choose to imagine Gore would have been?

And you call Gore a kook????

lol

[JDubya]

I voted for Bush in 2000. I was a rabid NECON at that time.

And now.... what?

You think you're not one anymore?

(pssssssst........ got some news for ya......)

[Green Arrow]

Bernie Supporter are pissed at the Bern, He promised to take it to the convention and now is selling out.

While I disagree with most of Bernie's policies, his supports seem to have some conviction and I don't think Hillary can count on more than half of them. And I don't think she can win with that.

Her corruption is so in your face, that she has about all of the support that she is going to get. I see her coming in at about 44 to 46% It is just going to be how much vote goes to the 3rd party.

He didn't sell out. There will still be a fight at the convention.

[Green Arrow]

You really struggle with this don't you? The bottom line is you don't have a fucking clue about what Al Gore "would have been". Suppositional bullshit on your part. What we DO know is what a miserable goddam failure Bush was.

Now do you understand the difference between "would have" and reality? I've gone over this multiple times with many of you, but you fail to grasp the concept.

Wait, you've claimed Hillary will be better than Trump. How do you know?

[Peter1469]

So you think that being asleep at the wheel on 9/11 then starting an unnecessary $1 trillion (and counting) war makes Bush better than what you choose to imagine Gore would have been?

And you call Gore a kook????

lol

Gore would have done nothing different prior to 9-11 so far as terrorism goes. He would likely have been focusing on CO2 and that great evil.

Gore would not have occupied Iraq. I grant you that. But the man is a kook. He almost got arrested over his carbon trading scam.

[Peter1469]

And now.... what?

You think you're not one anymore?

(pssssssst........ got some news for ya......)




Ask Ransom.

Of course you could pay attention to what I say about foreign policy and international relations. OTOH please don't go screw up my threads on those topics.

[JDubya]

Ask @Ransom (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=724).

Of course you could pay attention to what I say about foreign policy and international relations. OTOH please don't go screw up my threads on those topics.

Yes, you do pontificate a lot of crap about that stuff too.

The thing is though, you're one of those people who likes to swagger around and pretend like you've got some superior level of insight and knowledge on "serious subject matter", over and above the common riff-raff but in reality, you're just regurgitating whatever crap you've gleaned from your favorite approved, sanitized for your protection, right-wing propaganda sources.

BFD.

Not impressed.

[JDubya]

Wait, you've claimed Hillary will be better than Trump. How do you know?

Anybody with an average or better level of basic intelligence can see that as clear as day.

[domer76]

lol

We understand you don't have the intellectual ability to handle what ifs and would haves.

Sub 90 IQs have that in common with you. Why is that?

Tell me. "Would have" Gore fucked up the Afghan war so badly? "Would have" Gore gotten us into an optional Iraq situation? "Would" he have fucked up a Katrina response so badly?

You have no idea. Your "would have" is nothing more than your imagination. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[JDubya]

Tell me. "Would have" Gore fucked up the Afghan war so badly? "Would have" Gore gotten us into an optional Iraq situation? "Would" he have fucked up a Katrina response so badly?

You have no idea. Your "would have" is nothing more than your imagination. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Given the willingness of the former (Clinton) administration (of which Al Gore was a member) to pay heed to the warnings of people like Richard Clarke (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke), (a man who the Bush administration for some reason, didn't seem to feel deserved to be taken seriously when he warned them of an impending major terrorist attack), I have serious doubts that 9/11 would have even happened had Al Gore been President.

[Peter1469]

Yes, you do pontificate a lot of crap about that stuff too.

The thing is though, you're one of those people who likes to swagger around and pretend like you've got some superior level of insight and knowledge on "serious subject matter", over and above the common riff-raff but in reality, you're just regurgitating whatever crap you've gleaned from your favorite approved, sanitized for your protection, right-wing propaganda sources.

BFD.

Not impressed.

You are entitled to your opinion.

If you can express yourself like an adult feel free to join the foreign policy threads. If not stay away.

[Peter1469]

Tell me. "Would have" Gore fucked up the Afghan war so badly? "Would have" Gore gotten us into an optional Iraq situation? "Would" he have fucked up a Katrina response so badly?

You have no idea. Your "would have" is nothing more than your imagination. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Gore likely would have acted similar in Afghanistan. He may have avoided Iraq all together. Katrina was not a federal fuck up. That was a local fuck up.

Your last sentence is you emoting.

[Peter1469]

Given the willingness of the former (Clinton) administration (of which Al Gore was a member) to pay heed to the warnings of people like Richard Clarke (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke), (a man who the Bush administration for some reason, didn't seem to feel deserved to be taken seriously when he warned them of an impending major terrorist attack), I have serious doubts that 9/11 would have even happened had Al Gore been President.

Would Gore have ended the wall between law enforcement and intelligence? AG Reno pushed hard to keep it in place. That was the failure point for 9-11.

[JDubya]

Would Gore have ended the wall between law enforcement and intelligence? AG Reno pushed hard to keep it in place. That was the failure point for 9-11.

Wrong.

From previously linked source:

************************************

In his memoir, "Against All Enemies", (Richard) Clarke wrote that Condoleezza Rice made a decision that the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism should be downgraded. By demoting the office, the Administration sent a signal through the national security bureaucracy about the salience they assigned to terrorism. No longer would Clarke's memos go to the President; instead they had to pass through a chain of command of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hadley), who bounced every one of them back.

"Within a week of the inauguration, I wrote to Rice and Hadley asking 'urgently' for a Principals, or Cabinet-level, meeting to review the imminent Al-Qaeda threat. Rice told me that the Principals Committee, which had been the first venue for terrorism policy discussions in the Clinton administration, would not address the issue until it had been 'framed' by the Deputies."



At the first Deputies Committee meeting on Terrorism held in April 2001, Clarke strongly suggested that the U.S. put pressure on both the Taliban (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban) and Al-Qaeda by arming the Northern Alliance (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Alliance) and other groups in Afghanistan (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan). Simultaneously, that they target bin Laden and his leadership by reinitiating flights of the MQ-1 Predators (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-1_Predator). To which Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz) responded,

"Well, I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden."

Clarke replied that he was talking about bin Laden and his network because it posed "an immediate and serious threat to the United States."

According to Clarke, Wolfowitz turned to him and said,

"You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don't exist."

Clarke wrote in Against All Enemies that in the summer of 2001, the intelligence community was convinced of an imminent attack by al Qaeda, but could not get the attention of the highest levels of the Bush administration, most famously writing that Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency) George Tenet (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tenet) was running around with his "hair on fire".

At a July 5, 2001, White House gathering of the FAA, the Coast Guard, the FBI, Secret Service and INS, Clarke stated that "something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon."

************************************

That ^ was the failure point for 9/11.

[Peter1469]

Our intelligence assets had some of the 9-11 terrorists but couldn't pass the info along to the FBI because of the wall between law enforcement and intelligence.

Had that info been passed the attack likely would have been stopped.





Wrong.

From previously linked source:

************************************

In his memoir, "Against All Enemies", Clarke wrote that Condoleezza Rice made a decision that the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism should be downgraded. By demoting the office, the Administration sent a signal through the national security bureaucracy about the salience they assigned to terrorism. No longer would Clarke's memos go to the President; instead they had to pass through a chain of command of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hadley), who bounced every one of them back.

"Within a week of the inauguration, I wrote to Rice and Hadley asking 'urgently' for a Principals, or Cabinet-level, meeting to review the imminent Al-Qaeda threat. Rice told me that the Principals Committee, which had been the first venue for terrorism policy discussions in the Clinton administration, would not address the issue until it had been 'framed' by the Deputies."



At the first Deputies Committee meeting on Terrorism held in April 2001, Clarke strongly suggested that the U.S. put pressure on both the Taliban (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban) and Al-Qaeda by arming the Northern Alliance (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Alliance) and other groups in Afghanistan (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan). Simultaneously, that they target bin Laden and his leadership by reinitiating flights of the MQ-1 Predators (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-1_Predator). To which Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz) responded,

"Well, I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden."

Clarke replied that he was talking about bin Laden and his network because it posed "an immediate and serious threat to the United States."

According to Clarke, Wolfowitz turned to him and said,

"You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don't exist."

Clarke wrote in Against All Enemies that in the summer of 2001, the intelligence community was convinced of an imminent attack by al Qaeda, but could not get the attention of the highest levels of the Bush administration, most famously writing that Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency) George Tenet (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tenet) was running around with his "hair on fire".

At a July 5, 2001, White House gathering of the FAA, the Coast Guard, the FBI, Secret Service and INS, Clarke stated that "something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon."

************************************

That ^ was the failure point for 9/11.

[JDubya]

Our intelligence assets had some of the 9-11 terrorists but couldn't pass the info along to the FBI because of the wall between law enforcement and intelligence.

Had that info been passed the attack likely would have been stopped.

That might have played a small role, but it was not the major role.

The Bush Administration was clearly not interested or worried about acts of terrorism occurring on US soil.

[MisterVeritis]

Given the willingness of the former (Clinton) administration (of which Al Gore was a member) to pay heed to the warnings of people like Richard Clarke (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke), (a man who the Bush administration for some reason, didn't seem to feel deserved to be taken seriously when he warned them of an impending major terrorist attack), I have serious doubts that 9/11 would have even happened had Al Gore been President.
The Islamofascist successful attacks should have been prevented by DIRNSA. Hayden did not do all that the law allowed. NSA and the FBI did not play well together. The president had almost nothing to do with the failure. The same would have been true had algore been president.

[Peter1469]

That might have played a small role, but it was not the major role.

The Bush Administration was clearly not interested or worried about acts of terrorism occurring on US soil.

Partisan hatred blinds. Just like the wall between law enforcement and intelligence. Had the IC been able to give their info to the FBI they would have likely rolled up several of the 9-11 attackers disrupting the plot. All without the Bush administration becoming involved.

[MisterVeritis]

Would Gore have ended the wall between law enforcement and intelligence? AG Reno pushed hard to keep it in place. That was the failure point for 9-11.
It was a little more complicated. Hayden did not do everything the law allowed. He had all the power he needed. He did not use it.
There should be a huge wall between intelligence and law enforcement.

[MisterVeritis]

Wrong.

From previously linked source:

************************************

In his memoir, "Against All Enemies", (Richard) Clarke wrote that Condoleezza Rice made a decision that the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism should be downgraded. By demoting the office, the Administration sent a signal through the national security bureaucracy about the salience they assigned to terrorism. No longer would Clarke's memos go to the President; instead they had to pass through a chain of command of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hadley), who bounced every one of them back.

"Within a week of the inauguration, I wrote to Rice and Hadley asking 'urgently' for a Principals, or Cabinet-level, meeting to review the imminent Al-Qaeda threat. Rice told me that the Principals Committee, which had been the first venue for terrorism policy discussions in the Clinton administration, would not address the issue until it had been 'framed' by the Deputies."



At the first Deputies Committee meeting on Terrorism held in April 2001, Clarke strongly suggested that the U.S. put pressure on both the Taliban (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban) and Al-Qaeda by arming the Northern Alliance (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Alliance) and other groups in Afghanistan (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan). Simultaneously, that they target bin Laden and his leadership by reinitiating flights of the MQ-1 Predators (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-1_Predator). To which Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz) responded,

"Well, I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden."

Clarke replied that he was talking about bin Laden and his network because it posed "an immediate and serious threat to the United States."

According to Clarke, Wolfowitz turned to him and said,

"You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don't exist."

Clarke wrote in Against All Enemies that in the summer of 2001, the intelligence community was convinced of an imminent attack by al Qaeda, but could not get the attention of the highest levels of the Bush administration, most famously writing that Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency) George Tenet (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tenet) was running around with his "hair on fire".

At a July 5, 2001, White House gathering of the FAA, the Coast Guard, the FBI, Secret Service and INS, Clarke stated that "something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon."

************************************

That ^ was the failure point for 9/11.

Clark was defending his job. He played no real role in the failure. NSA failed to provide the FBI with the results of intercepts. The director of the NSA (DIRNSA) created an environment where subordinates did not share the information. He had the authority to do so but failed to do it. That is the source of the enemy's success and our failure.

[MisterVeritis]

Partisan hatred blinds. Just like the wall between law enforcement and intelligence. Had the IC been able to give their info to the FBI they would have likely rolled up several of the 9-11 attackers disrupting the plot. All without the Bush administration becoming involved.
The NSA had all the authority they needed to pass the intercept results to the FBI.

There should be a huge wall between intelligence gathering and law enforcement. FBI agents who are on a counter-terrorism task force should be firewalled from agents performing law enforcement.

[JDubya]

Partisan hatred blinds. Just like the wall between law enforcement and intelligence. Had the IC been able to give their info to the FBI they would have likely rolled up several of the 9-11 attackers disrupting the plot. All without the Bush administration becoming involved.

Yes, I know you are blinded by partisan hatred.

Bush was President. If there was a communication problem between intelligence and law enforcement, then his appointees should have apprised him of the situation and the danger it was creating, and Bush should have directed them to rectify the situation no matter what it took.

Condoleeza Rice was the National Security Advisor. It was her job to keep the country safe. She could have bridged any communication gaps between the two camps, but it is obvious that she and the rest of the admin weren't even thinking about the possibility of a major terrorist attack on the US.

Asleep at the wheel.

[Peter1469]

The NSA had all the authority they needed to pass the intercept results to the FBI.

There should be a huge wall between intelligence gathering and law enforcement. FBI agents who are on a counter-terrorism task force should be firewalled from agents performing law enforcement.

The DIA also had relevant information. I agree with the wall between law enforcement and intel.

But as I said we need to understand the difference between warfighting and law enforcement. The DIA identified enemy combatants inside the US. The army should have used its assets to engage and eliminate them. Law enforcement can come along after the fact and write a report.

[Peter1469]

Yes, I know you are blinded by partisan hatred.

Bush was President. If there was a communication problem between intelligence and law enforcement, then his appointees should have apprised him of the situation and the danger it was creating, and Bush should have directed them to rectify the situation no matter what it took.

Condoleeza Rice was the National Security Advisor. It was her job to keep the country safe. She could have bridged any communication gaps between the two camps, but it is obvious that she and the rest of the admin weren't even thinking about the possibility of a major terrorist attack on the US.

Asleep at the wheel.

Wake up drone.

[MisterVeritis]

The DIA also had relevant information. I agree with the wall between law enforcement and intel.

But as I said we need to understand the difference between warfighting and law enforcement. The DIA identified enemy combatants inside the US. The army should have used its assets to engage and eliminate them. Law enforcement can come along after the fact and write a report.
I am unaware that the Defense Intelligence Agency had the intercepts. The law was pretty clear that Hayden could listen to both sides of the conversations between the command center in Yemen and Hamzi and or Mihdhar in the US. The NSA had been intercepting their messages and failed to tell the FBI that Bin Laden's Yemen command center was communicating with at least two Islamofascists inside the US.

The Army is too blunt an instrument to pick up two terrorists. The FBI was the right tool for that job.

[Peter1469]

I am unaware that the Defense Intelligence Agency had the intercepts. The law was pretty clear that Hayden could listen to both sides of the conversations between the command center in Yemen and Hamzi and or Mihdhar in the US. The NSA had been intercepting their messages and failed to tell the FBI that Bin Laden's Yemen command center was communicating with at least two Islamofascists inside the US.

The Army is too blunt an instrument to pick up two terrorists. The FBI was the right tool for that job.

I would keep the FBI outside of combat.

[MisterVeritis]

I would keep the FBI outside of combat.
Arresting two lightly armed terrorists is not combat. At that point, I think one had a Leatherman equivalent with a shorter than 4-inch blade.

[Peter1469]

Arresting two lightly armed terrorists is not combat. At that point, I think one had a Leatherman equivalent with a shorter than 4-inch blade.


They were enemy combatants. I would have taken them down with an SoF unit and shipped any survivors to GITMO. Then called the police to write a report.

[MisterVeritis]

They were enemy combatants. I would have taken them down with an SoF unit and shipped any survivors to GITMO. Then called the police to write a report.
In my opinion, killing them would have been incredibly short sighted. Waterboarding those two could have rolled up the entire US organization.

[Peter1469]

In my opinion, killing them would have been incredibly short sighted. Waterboarding those two could have rolled up the entire US organization.


OK. I said engage in a generic sense. All that I mean it is a military operation, not a law enforcement function.

[JDubya]

Wake up drone.

Take your own advice, drone.

The so-called "wall" you keep referring to was an imaginary one that was rooted in the culture of the two agencies and could have been easily breached by one phone call from some higher up authority within the administration.

It was the responsibility of the President and his advisors to be on constant lookout for threats against this country, to understand and work around any divisions between the agencies whose job it is to protect us and to make sure that they were communicating.

He failed and 9/11 was the result.

Now, the same Republicans who failed us back then and have sat silently about it ever since, are laser focused on Hillary Clinton's email server.

Had 9/11 happened under a Democrat President, we'd have still not heard the end of it. The right and it's bucket toters like the ones on AM radio and Fox News etc, etc, would still be howling about it to this day.

And I guarantee you there would be no imaginary "wall" getting the blame in place of the President.

[MisterVeritis]

Take your own advice, drone.

The so-called "wall" you keep referring to was an imaginary one that was rooted in the culture of the two agencies and could have been easily breached by one phone call from some higher up authority within the administration.

It was the responsibility of the President and his advisors to be on constant lookout for threats against this country, to understand and workaround any divisions between the agencies whose job it is to protect us and to make sure that they were communicating.

He failed and 9/11 was the result.

Now, the same Republicans who failed us back then and have sat silently about it ever since, are laser focused on Hillary Clinton's email server.

Had 9/11 happened under a Democrat President, we'd have still not heard the end of it. The right and it's buckettoters like the ones on AM radio and Fox News etc, etc, would still be howling about it to this day.

And I guarantee you there would be no imaginary "wall" getting the blame in place of the President.
It is as if you are impervious to correction...

[Peter1469]

It is as if you are impervious to correction...

Remember to not expect people to act / think better than they are able. He is a happy happy joy joy sort of fella (https://www.google.com/search?q=joy+happy+picture&client=opera&hs=9P0&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdvPmrkefNAhVJ8j4KHf63AtsQ_AUICCgB&biw=1536&bih=727#imgrc=Z62XrSq7NBTvrM%3A).

http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae272/DougCurtis/Happy-Happy-Joy-Joy-ren-and-stimpy-30567735-593-289_zps19480065.jpg

[Ransom]

I voted for Bush in 2000. I was a rabid NECON at that time. I left the GOP in 2006 because they were spending like drunken Democrats. Bush, even though he was bad, was much better than Algore would have been. That guy is a kook.

Peter, you've just lost your way, you've not 'left.'

Not smart enough to defend your geopolitical positions. Not informed enough, utterly lost in definitions and terms, the wordplay supposition and guesswork inevitably follow. today.....quacking about isolationist ponds....making material up, random.....and wrong.

I'm here to explain to you, you've no reason to shrink, Pete. We were attacked on 9-11, those terrorists in this country since 1996, their leader here for decades.....the policies implemented, the reasons given for al-Qaeda's hate and focus....the reason they declared war on the US...was for policies you call realism. Not understanding that is your fault Pete...and you compound it by denying your Neocon DNA.

Most disappointing.

[Peter1469]

Peter, you've just lost your way, you've not 'left.'

Not smart enough to defend your geopolitical positions. Not informed enough, utterly lost in definitions and terms, the wordplay supposition and guesswork inevitably follow. today.....quacking about isolationist ponds....making material up, random.....and wrong.

I'm here to explain to you, you've no reason to shrink, Pete. We were attacked on 9-11, those terrorists in this country since 1996, their leader here for decades.....the policies implemented, the reasons given for al-Qaeda's hate and focus....the reason they declared war on the US...was for policies you call realism. Not understanding that is your fault Pete...and you compound it by denying your Neocon DNA.

Most disappointing.

You Neocons screwed up with occupations and Jeffersonian Democracy lessons for tribesmen.

[Tahuyaman]

Bernie will endorse Hillary according to this....

I called this months ago, so this is no surprise to me at all.

I called one other thing too. These people supporting Sanders will go to Mrs Clinton in big numbers. Especially after she jumps on the "free stuff" bandwagon as she is doing now. Even most of these people who claim that they will go to the Green Party or Libertarian will fall in with the Democrat party line.

The party platform is meaningless and Hillary Clinton knows this. She will gladly insert all of Sanders' important issues into the platform, then ignore it.

[Tahuyaman]

This was always in the plans. Still going to have a fight in Philly though.

Nope, it's over for the Sanders people. He's going to come out and tell you guys that you must do the right thing and jump on the Clinton bandwagon. At least 80% of you guys will do so with no argument. Of the remaining 20%, half will jump on, but publicly claim they didn't.