Pres Obama Visited Ground Zero Today [Pic]

Submitted by: orange_panty 6 years ago in

He invited Bush, Bush declined. I think Bush did the right thing--gracious. Or was it? Stubborn?
There are 102 comments:
Male 437
"And if you truly believe that, then you are indeed your namesake."

Ladies and gentlemen, yet another clever user has pointed out that my name classifies me as retarded! I think I`m like 5 for 5 on predicting the liberal response.

"Most people realize arguing with bush supporters is useless"

Of course, you just "realize" that you are right and people that disagree with you are wrong, in lieu of intelligent debate on the subject.

"That being said, if you want to debate the bush presidency, try a political forum not IAB."

You`ve hit every point in the standard liberal argument now! 1) insult your opponent; 2) tell your opponent that they are wrong, so there is no point in debating further; and finally 3) tell your opponent they should go argue with someone else and stop wasting your precious time.
0
Reply
Male 14
@retardedbear

There is a reason you are immediately insulted by people when you say bush was an excellent president. And if you truly believe that, then you are indeed your namesake. Most people realize arguing with bush supporters is useless as they feel they are entitled to their own facts regardless of reality. That being said, if you want to debate the bush presidency, try a political forum not IAB.
0
Reply
Male 437
"I`m too unintelligent to get it and I obviously just take cheap shots."

I didn`t say you were unintelligent. I said liberals were apparently incapable of carrying on intelligent debate without falling back on ad hominem arguments, not that they are incapable of intelligent debate. I present as evidence the responses to my comments that George W. Bush was a great president (in two separate threads). Both times I was greeted with harsh words, being called a retard (not as clever as some think) and an idiot by multiple people. Only one person attempted to defend their position with reasoned debate, and he described himself as a libertarian.

Having said that, my comment was broad and unnecessary.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]@davymid: A "4-letter word" is an expression, m-kay? It means a curse or a word that is forbidden to say. drat is a 4-letter word, so is jerk. So is I am a racist! even though those words don`t have FOUR letters, m-kay? [/quote]
Didn`t know that. Maybe it`s a cultural thing. I`ve never heard the expression "4-letter word" meaning something that is forbidden, genuinely. I always took "4-letter word" to mean just that, a word of four letters.

[quote]It`s funny, I totally understood this. Liberals, however, see past all humor in order to seek out ways to insult their opponents. They are apparently incapable of carrying on intelligent debate without frequently falling back on ad hominem arguments.[/quote]
No, wait, RETARDEDBEAR has me nailed, I`m too unintelligent to get it and I obviously just take cheap shots. Being a typical Liberal and all that.

Man, how in the F*CK did we ever become this polarized as a society?
0
Reply
Male 437
"A `4-letter word` is an expression, m-kay?"

It`s funny, I totally understood this. Liberals, however, see past all humor in order to seek out ways to insult their opponents. They are apparently incapable of carrying on intelligent debate without frequently falling back on ad hominem arguments.
0
Reply
Male 40,304
HEY! c*cks*cker gets corrected to "jerk"!
I thought it would be "roostersucker" lolz!
0
Reply
Male 40,304
@davymid: A "4-letter word" is an expression, m-kay? It means a curse or a word that is forbidden to say. drat is a 4-letter word, so is jerk. So is I am a racist! even though those words don`t have FOUR letters, m-kay?
Thus "China is a 4 letter word" means that it is forbidden to speak of China in this context.
Crackr is 100% correct, idk if you fail to understand or are just trolling. I am certain that @Musuko42 is a "fail".

Actually @cavymid, it was Marilyn Monroe who acted stupid, on purpose, in public. It was actually in her contract! Sad eh?

vv "in a clown car" LOLZ! Nice one @patticakes!
0
Reply
Female 465
The fact is, Obama also invited Clinton, who declined. Everyone knew this was a victory lap for O` (in a clown car).
0
Reply
Male 437
"RETARDEDBEAR, if you think George W. Bush was the greatest President of our time... Well, I think your username says it all. You may be, in fact, retarded."

Funny you would say that. I was just making the point in another thread that liberals believe that anyone who doesn`t think George Bush is an idiot, is in fact and idiot themselves.

Perhaps you would like to enlighten me as to what made him such a terrible president, instead of calling me names? I can certainly tell you why I think he was a great president, however I couldn`t possibly list all of the reasons with just 1000 characters.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Apparently, sarcastic irony is LOST on IABers![/quote]
Yep, you got me there. Obviously Crackrjak`s wit and intelligence is so much more than ours that we lib-tards couldn`t possibly comprehend his subliinal genius. He DELIBERATELY made a f*ck-up, saying China is a 4-letter word, just so he could laugh at us in retrospect for being too retarded to get the joke. Bush did a similar thing, he just ACTED like a moron every time he went on camera, when in fact he was incredibly intelligent. The joke`s on us! Man, do I feel silly now. That cheeky Bush guy sure fooled the rest of the world into thinking he was an imbecile.

[quote]You refuse to see reality through your blind hatred of the greatest president of our time.[/quote]
RETARDEDBEAR, if you think George W. Bush was the greatest President of our time... Well, I think your username says it all. You may be, in fact, retarded.
0
Reply
Male 437
"The chances of Iran taking advantage of the situation were much higher than the chances some idiot western leader would actually believe he presented some type of threat."

The funniest part about you Bush haters is that you always act like George W. Bush was dictator of the US. He didn`t just say, "I have spoken, so let it be done." He asked for and received approval from Congress. That included 111 democrats. You refuse to see reality through your blind hatred of the greatest president of our time.
0
Reply
Male 40,304
[quote]Also, last I checked, "China" is not a four letter word. It`s at least five.[/quote]
Apparently, sarcastic irony is LOST on IABers!

thx for the e-mail update @davymid, and HEY! Canada was busy! We had ALL our soldiers in Afghanistan! Literally, I kid you not. We supported Gulf War I with gusto! About 1/3 of our airforce and 1/5 of our navy. (30 planes and 3 ships, again, I kid you not).

How quickly @madest FORGETS that the articles of cease-fire required Iraq to provide unfettered weapons inspections. When Saddam threatened the lives of UN weapons inspectors, forcing them to flee the country, THAT alone was justification for Gulf War II.
Blix told the UN he couldn`t find any active weapons program, this is true. What you`re omitting is that he pointed out that inspectors were prevented from visiting the prime weapons sites, and in the time they were gone there was ample time to move any weapons programs.
0
Reply
Male 73
@McGovern1981

Another reason was because his military would have been no match for his primary enemy: Iran. The only way Iraq had survived the last war with Iran was because Saddam was good buddies with Ronald Reagan and the gang. Without US aid, Iran could have rolled through Iraq within days. Unless, of course, Iraq secretly had WMDs...

Saddam was caught between a rock and a hard place. He couldn`t say he didn`t have the weapons and let the UN go snooping around because Iran might have attacked. The chances of Iran taking advantage of the situation were much higher than the chances some idiot western leader would actually believe he presented some type of threat.

Guess nobody told him about Texas...
0
Reply
Male 25,417
At least hes doing the right thing
0
Reply
Male 562
Hey, I know that place. Thats where the largest game of Jenga was played. Too soon my ass. God bless America.
0
Reply
Male 173
@McGovern1981
Afaik Saddam was under pressure from several sides. On one side he couldn`t claim to have WoMD because that would give the allied forces an excuse to invade Iraq. On the other hand his own "friends" governing Iraq were a bunch of backstabbing maniacs (he chose them himself). To keep them in line he had to make it probable that he still had the weapons or else they might gang up and put him out of power. That`s part of the reason for all the games he played with UN etc.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Saddam said he didn`t have weapons. Hans Blix said he couldn`t find any weapons but that didn`t matter to Bush. He was hell bent on one-upping his daddy. Nothing anyone told Bush would have changed the outcome of that frivolous war.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
Hans Blix was kicked out and let back in multiple time during that and not allowed to inspect certain places. If Sadam wasn`t hiding anything why did he do that? It was really fishy at the time and Sadam was playing games.
0
Reply
Male 437
"How quick did you forget that Hans Blix, the head of the IAEA was inspecting Iraq and told the Bush administration repeatedly they could not find any weapons."

Blix was not head of the IAEA at the time, he came out of retirement to head the UN inspection commission in Iraq. It was actually Blix who admonished Saddam for playing games with inspectors.

He did tell the US that he could not find WMDs, however the US decided to go off of intelligence from an Iraqi defector (Curveball). His claims turned out to be false, obviously, and in hindsight we clearly shouldn`t have acted on it. Having said that, George W. Bush said that his biggest regret was following poor intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
McGovern, We`re not quick to forget anything. How quick did you forget that Hans Blix, the head of the IAEA was inspecting Iraq and told the Bush administration repeatedly they could not find any weapons. Bush`s response was to get on national TV and inform all his mindless puppets that Hans Blix did not know what he was doing.
Bush should be forced to go back on TV and apologize to Mr. Blix.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
How quick people are to forget the games Sadam played with UN weapons inspectors before we declared war on them. That and in 2006 coalition forces recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contained degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Isn`t that what he wasn`t suppossed to have? In fact isn`t that what he used on his own people?
0
Reply
Male 437
"It`s like me saying `Why is it OK to pick on the fat ginger kid from grade 4 and not the dislexic kid from grade 6`, and you saying `Seriously dude. Have you even SEEN his brother?`"

That is a pretty good analogy, actually. I`m sure you realize that we were fighting the Chinese during the Korean War. It was 300,000 Manchurians that pushed the US all the way from the northern border back to the 38th parallel.

"The only reason America ever went to war with Iraq was the fact that Iraq is sitting on the second largest Crude Oil supply per square mile of any country in the world. "

That might make sense, except we didn`t take any of the oil fields. We gave them right back to the Iraqis, after fixin` em up for them. The ones making money off the war are contractors.
0
Reply
Male 143
Aburn. No, I said, "More Americans have died in Afghanistan in the two years since Obama took over than in the enitre 8 years before when GWB was president", when I summed up my arguement.

I followed it up with the post, "Yes, really. Of the 1570 killed, 816 were killed in 2009 and 2010. That alone is over half. So far in 2011, there are 124 US military fatalities, which brings the total to 940", which speaks only of Afghanistan.

I do not see anywhere that I said, "casualty records".

Nice that you ignore the meat of the post though and instead take something out of context, make a strawman arguement, and then argue with that.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@davidildo: No, you said casualty records. You were not talking specifically about the afghan war. Don`t try to turn things around. Also, you asked "where are the protesters?" We have a democrat president. Liberals aren`t gonna protest him, and Conservatives don`t protest, they have rallies.
0
Reply
Male 143
@topgun966. Wow. Thanks for the information. I thought that was only an on-line rumor that we had something called WW2. I played Call of Duty, but thought that was all make believe. 10s of thousands of people sure is a lot to have died in WW2.

This all still missses the point. My original point is that there are still people dying in Afghanistan and at a higher pace than before. Jobs are down, housing prices are still falling, taxes are up, deficit spending is up, and terrorists are still active and organized.

Yes, this is a great thing that Osama has been killed, but lets not get into a whole "Mission Accomplished" mentality over it. There is still a lot of work to be done.
0
Reply
Male 42
@davidildo123 umm... WWII was one big war. tens of millions where killed not including the genocide. In the civil war there where close to 800,000 Americans killed. I served in Iraq 3 times and I can say we do not have that many deaths.
0
Reply
Male 143
>>>>>>Last I knew, the US war-casualty record was 418,500 in around 4 years. You might have heard of WWII. Not to demean any sacrifices here, but I think that to claim "record breaking casualties" is more than an exaggeration or a hyperbole, it`s straight up stupidity.<<<<<<

You call me stupid, but you do not realize that I am speaking of the Afghan war, and not all wars ever fought? LOLZ! Try to stay on topic, focus.

It is an escalating war both in troops and casualties, where are the protesters?
0
Reply
Male 143
>>>Southern US
847 Posts Thursday, May 05, 2011 2:35:14 PM
Davidildo123,
But I would also like to point out that a large reason why we were able to kill Bin Laden now and not the 8 years that Bush was in office is because bush only sent 11,000 troops, while Obama sent 94,000.
<<<<<

I just pointed out that there are more Americans than ever dying in Afghanistan. That is a fact. I did not go into the reasons why, that is not the point. The war protesters are all buy silent about the build up and doubling/trippling of deaths in Afghanistan.

BTW: your facts are wrong that Bush only sent 11,000 troops, but I do not expect much from you in the way of accuracy or logic.

The reason we were able to kill Bin Laden was based on a couple of guys who were subjected to harsh interrogation techniques and gave up the couriers name. Then intelligence started searching for him. He was found in Pakistan, not by troops in Afhanistan,
0
Reply
Male 173
Since 2001 around 400.000 US citizens have been killed by traffic accidents involving cars. That`s about 40.000 people every year.

The cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq was are (until now) 1.2 trillion dollars (not including contributions by other nations).

I wonder how many roads could have been made safer using 1,200,000,000,000 dollars.

The US has around 6,430,366 kilometers of highway. Spending half the 1.2 trillion on the highway system would give around 93,000 dollars for every kilometer to extend, repair and enhance the safety.

How many people would have been saved? This year? The next ten years? More than 2,752? Thats around 5% of who dies every year in traffic.

http://costofwar.com/en/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway

Male 12,138
vv Damn, Musuko beat me to it.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]davy: You know why we don`t invade North Korea, One four letter word, China.[/quote]
Sorry, not being facetious, but I don`t get it. I`ve heard you say that before, but what do you mean? We don`t invade the crazy North Korean bastard because of China? If Iraq had a "China" big brother, would the invasion have been unwise? Sorry dude, but I need some more information here... It`s like me saying "Why is it OK to pick on the fat ginger kid from grade 4 and not the dislexic kid from grade 6", and you saying "Seriously dude. Have you even SEEN his brother?". Like I said, I don`t get it. I`m sure I`ll be informed soon enough.

Also, last I checked, "China" is not a four letter word. It`s at least five.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak

"One four letter word, China."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Back to school for you! Actually, back to preschool.

Or watch some Barney the Dinosaur. He`ll teach you to count.
0
Reply
Male 988
ITT:
Debates that finished long ago.
YAY. Sounds FUN.


MANKIND; KILLING FOR 5000+ YEARS AND STILL GOING STRONG!!! Lets get some more 1000 character posts!
0
Reply
Male 2,586
Stats
People who died:
4770 (Afghanistan), 2444 (Iraq)
2976 on 9/11

...

"More people died in terrorist attacks last year than in any other year in history, according to a report by the United States Government. The report - the latest edition of the annual State Department reports - says 3,547 people were killed in 2001 world-wide - the overwhelming majority of them in the attacks in the US on 11 September."
Terrorist attack deaths

...

So for me, this whole thing was a waste. Put money into prevention rather than wars and you`ll save lives. Stats speak for themselves.

And yet heart disease kills 600 000 a year??? - someone has their priorities messed up
0
Reply
Male 8
The only reason America ever went to war with Iraq was the fact that Iraq is sitting on the second largest Crude Oil supply per square mile of any country in the world. Oil is power of course.
Us Brits had the same idea, we went to war so we could get a little lick of black gold and so we could look good infront of America.
Of course the WMD`s they obviously had there and the fact that Saddam Hussein was obviously the worst guy in the world was the perfect cover up.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
davy: You know why we don`t invade North Korea, One four letter word, China. Maybe one day, if China finally democratizes (not likely), North Korea would collapse from within.

I`ve connected the dots from Saddam to Al-Qaeda before for you, either you didn`t read my past links or just don`t believe them. It is well known that Saddam supported Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Saddam called for terror strikes on the USA saying, "...imagine what 50 planes in cities all over America could do...", After 9/11.

He was definitely a threat that needed to be taken out and was.
0
Reply
Male 521
@fivezones

Agreed. First the sniping the three pirates who took hostages awhile back (on a rocking ship in the middle of the night no less- and it is DARK at night in the middle of the ocean) and now this. SEALS have some major badass cred going right now.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]wow davy... apparently the people who dies on 9/11 don`t count as casualties. [/quote]
Sorry, I`m obviously mildly retarded. Please connect the dots for me on what the Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks on American civilians who died on 9/11 had to do with Saddam Hussein and/or Iraq.

Look, I can get behind the de-seating of a bastard dictator. What I can`t get behind is the lies we were fed to support that war. And support it we did. If we`re in the business of deseating dictators, I`m all for that in principal. Let`s invade Zimbabwe, North Korea and Darfur, and put them right (heck, ESPECIALLY North Korea. We KNOW they have WMDs, they`ve been waving them around like a heavy dick). And let`s have the truth about why we are going in to those places, and the reasons for doing so.

I`m sorry, but to me, there was absolutely zero justification for attacking Iraq specifically. If we had found stockpiles of WMDs there, I assure you, I`d be sat here eating my words.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
davymid: We went to Iraq to remove Saddam from power and find WMDs, if they were there.

Everyone believed he had them, Saddam defied the UN and dared America to try and stop him saying, "It is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of a hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything..." and "The United States must get a taste of its own poison..."

That is a madman, One willing to use WMDs and if had had them there is little doubt he would`ve used them, because he had done it before.

And i suggest you read this Davy - Saddam`s bomb maker
0
Reply
Male 437
"I hear ya. But has it occurred to you that there wouldn`t have been ANY casualities to count if we* hadn`t gone to war in the first place?"

Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, utilizing chemical weapons. The CIA told us he still had these weapons. Armed with only that information, would it be responsible to leave them alone and see what happens? Keep in mind that Obama just invaded Libya based on what Qaddafi "might" have done to the citizens of Benghazi had we not attacked.
0
Reply
Male 437
"It is not luck if I start, fund, encourage, give resources to, refocus, a group of people to find something, that they do so."

This is a completely invalid argument, because SEAL Team 6 did not "find" anything. Their mission was to execute Osama. Intelligence acquired over an 8 year period (by the CIA) led to his compound, and has nothing to do with the SEALs.
0
Reply
Male 570
wow davy... apparently the people who dies on 9/11 don`t count as casualties.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]It would take a LOT more than 1000 charecters to explain WHY GWB won that war. But he did! Trust me. I`ll hilight the obvious:
Coalition Casualties: have reached ZERO (at least for one month)
Civilian Casualties: at an all time low....[/quote]
I hear ya. But has it occurred to you that there wouldn`t have been ANY casualities to count if we* hadn`t gone to war in the first place? And don`t bother with that "bait-and-switch" crap about Saddam being a bastard, that`s not why we went in there. We went in there to find his WMDs. Which didn`t exist.

*(yes we, I`m British, we went to war with the US in Iraq, unlike Canada)

p.s. hit me up at davymid@hotmail.com in the meantime.
0
Reply
Male 40,304
[quote]ok first off no he didnt - dragosal[/quote]
Links or STFU.
You think I don`t understand history? You base this on what? PSI powers? Keep drinking the kool-aid buddy, the bitter taste (of cyanide) goes away after a while.
0
Reply
Male 237
well screw politics. lets restart this with holy drat obama is tall!
0
Reply
Male 3,631
I would like to have seen them together, especially under the auspices of such a momentous observation.
0
Reply
Male 1,629
"Bush concentrtated on winning one war, then the other, rather than losing both. And he DID win in Iraq!"
ok first off no he didnt. but why did the wars even occur? think you know? i doubt you do. check up on your history and keep asking why. and you will eventually lose your bushlust
0
Reply
Male 40,304
@davymid: your e-mail in your profile isn`t working.
It would take a LOT more than 1000 charecters to explain WHY GWB won that war. But he did! Trust me.
I`ll hilight the obvious:
Coalition Casualties: have reached ZERO (at least for one month)
Civilian Casualties: at an all time low
Terrorists: mostly dead, generally hated inside Iraq.

Sounds like a "win" to me!

Consider Sun Tzu`s "Art Of War" (which EVERY general since it was written has)
Meet the enemy on the ground of your choosing.
0
Reply
Male 40,304
[quote]Well somebody spank me! - Handys003[/quote]
Mwaaahahaha! *gets out his oversized ping-pong paddle*
(srsy: @mildcorma has on many occasions displayed a LOT of intelligence & integrity. And NO I`m not saying he agrees with me all the time, cheezus! Even when I don`t agree I respect his opinion.)
0
Reply
Male 1,744
oh god, here we go with another "My politiks are better than your politiks!!!" thread
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Bush concentrtated on winning one war, then the other, rather than losing both. And he DID win in Iraq![/quote]
Wait, Bush won in Iraq? He found those pesky WMDs? After all, that was the justification for invading Iraq against international will, right? Damn, I must have missed the memo on that one.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Baal: You`re full of it as usual, "SEAL Team 6 was dissolved in 1987. The operators of SEAL Team Six established the United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group, also known as DEVGRU. While DEVGRU is administratively supported by Naval Special Warfare Command, they are operationally under the command of the Joint Special Operations Command." - From wikipedia

They are currently known as the "United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group", but are still sometimes referred to as Seal Team 6 even though that is not their correct team name.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
You mean there is actually someone from Europe on IAB backing the allied invasion of Iraq? Well somebody spank me! I never thought I`d see this day.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
Bush should have gone sad to say.
0
Reply
Male 38
Back to the original question: I hate Bush, but I`m giving him the benefit of the doubt on this one and say he didn`t want to make a to-do about something in which he wasn`t involved. He`ll be there in September.
0
Reply
Male 496
Also we didn`t invade Iraq because of a terrorist threat. We invaded Iraq to stop one of the most dangerous dictators in the world from potentially using weapons of mass destruction. Which, by the way, he had used on his own people before in the form of nerve gas on the town where he was born. As it turns out the intelligence was wrong, but if you are leading a country and get some intel from a supposed reliable source that all the other allied nations have received as well that says one of the most dangerous dictators in the world has WMDs, then the wrong thing to do would have been to do nothing.
0
Reply
Male 496
EDIT: Sorry, that opening sentence should say "There haven`t been 100,000 civillian deaths in Iraq [quote]caused by allied forces[/quote]"
0
Reply
Male 496
@obhwfgirl

There haven`t been 100,000 civillian deaths in Iraq. That number is almost as ridiculous and inflammatory as the 1 million i`ve seen floating around. Neither of them are accurate figures, and I feel sorry that when you hear this mentioned in the internet that you don`t go and do the research yourself to clarify.

Here is the website that broke down the documented non-combatant casualties since the war began. Out of 100,000 total deaths (which is every single civilian death in total, caused by whatever) 12% are attributed to the coalition. This means coalition forces have caused the death of 12,000 iraqis, most of these were accidents because the Taliban are sly and do things like hide bomb factories in schools.

It`s not 100,000 deaths from our forces, which is what you appear to be sugges
0
Reply
Female 582
Sorry for the double post, but if we`re talking about casualties on the wars in the Middle East, why aren`t we talking about the number of civilian casualties? 9/11 was tragic, but Iraq has suffered 100,000 deaths from the irresponsible "the ends justify the means" leadership of this country. Hussein may have been an oppressive dictator, but intelligence shows us now that he was not involved. If what Baalthazaq said was true, Bush is, at best, still responsible for this mess (as the nation`s leader) and, at worst, a traitor.
0
Reply
Male 535
@obhwfgirl about @Baalthazaq => not likely as Seal Team 6 (or 5 or 14 or 12 or whichever) is completely black ops...

if the team were "disbanded" it would have likely been simply to cover it up even further. These types of operatives are not exactly on the books.
0
Reply
Female 582
@Baalthazaq

Do you have a source for that? I am very curious to read it because it would only reaffirm how despicable a president Bush actually was.
0
Reply
Male 1,442
Two pages and nobody screaming fake? Happy times!

I don`t really care whatever reason Bush had for not going, it was only a bit of a show to raise spirits and give praise for efforts. If it means Obama also gets some bonus vote points then so what? Every President has done that with all the baby kissing and school visiting. There is nothing wrong with it, so don`t get your panties in a knot.
0
Reply
Male 92
1. If the mission had hit the ditch, we would have never heard about it.
2. Obama didn`t come to ground zero the last TWO years for 9/11, he sent Biden. Will he be back for the 10 year anniversary? He won`t have a Ramadan dinner to host this year so maybe he`ll be able to squeeze it in.
3. ALL the former presidents should be there this year, politicking aside, to show their support for this great nation they once oversaw.
0
Reply
Male 512
Obama has become the Kennedy assassination. The stories, the conspiracy theories... all wrapped up into a single man. Can the average Joe really make sense of government these days? Propaganda, lazy journalism, real journalism, the average person with a job and a life surfing the internet for facts; can we truly trust a necessary entity? Or is the government so convoluted that we have to vote republicans into office until the whole system collapses under the worst case scenario? It seems like Democrats are just slowing the decay... or maybe, I`m just watching too much news. Are people that don`t watch much news correct in their apathy? Are we becoming paranoid schizophrenics convinced of absurd assessments?
0
Reply
Male 4,546
"Surely you can all see that it`t a major stroke of luck and pure chance that Osama was captured during Obama`s watch."

The team involved in capturing his was disbanded in 2006.
It was restarted by Obama, refunded, and made the top priority.

It is not luck if I start, fund, encourage, give resources to, refocus, a group of people to find something, that they do so.

It is especially not the case if other presidents do the opposite.
0
Reply
Male 2,441
Smart on both parts
0
Reply
Male 39
I think it was a political decision on both of their parts. Bush shows up, he could be seen by neutrals as almost endorsing Obama for the next election. They both knew that, and I think Obama knew that Bush would decline.
0
Reply
Male 1,243
Surely you can all see that it`t a major stroke of luck and pure chance that Osama was captured during Obama`s watch. It would have likely happened at some point regardless of who the president was.
0
Reply
Male 437
Obama wanted to gloat in front of Bush that he got UBL. Not outright, mind you, but Obama is obviously trying to squeeze as many political points out of this as he can.
0
Reply
Female 688
I thought it was very respectful of Former President Bush to decline the invitation. After all, Former President Bush, had his time, and he knew that it was time to turn it over. In addition, it was very respectful of President Obama to invite Former President Bush.

I believe that it was a joint effort in finding Osama Bin Laden. If it hadn`t been for the Bush Administration starting the search, the Obama Administration would have never found Osama Bin Ladin.
0
Reply
Male 2,796
"How could it be interpreted to be bad to go to ground zero on this occasion? Typical republican bull$hit."

And if Bush would have went, he would have been accused by some that he was trying to steal the spotlight. Am I the only person who sees the fallacy in all these opinions you idiots have?

I mean, if the mission went sour then everyone would blame Obama... that`s a fact. But, when it went nearly flawless, Obama doesn`t get the credit he deserves.

If Bush went, he would be labeled as full of himself or whatever. But, since he didn`t he is somehow stubborn for it.

Most of you are just plain full of it on both sides of the scale.
0
Reply
Male 40,304
vv @RobSwindol, Bush concentrtated on winning one war, then the other, rather than losing both. And he DID win in Iraq! And Obama DID take the right road in Afghanistan, with General Betray-us (remember him, lefties?) in charge.

So it was nice that Obama offered Bush a chance to come along, Bush WAS gracious in not showing. Note that this is the FIRST visit to Ground Zero since taking office, eh? All those vacations, all those fundraisers, no time for GZ...
0
Reply
Male 2,796
I think Bush did exactly what I would have done. He is no longer President. He got the ball rolling, but it`s Obama`s time now and Obama`s victory. I think it was a humble gesture to decline the invitation... not a selfish or stubborn one.
0
Reply
Male 2,085
The U.S. did not find OBL because there are more troops over there now. He was found and shot because the U.S. never gave up the fight. Bush was under tremendous pressure from the press and traitorous democrats to give up the fight, but he persevered. That socialist turd Obama based part of his campaign on giving up. Thankfully he reneged on many of his promises. If Bush would have given in to the pressure to pull out of what was called an un-winnable war, more than likely, we would not be having this conversation today.
0
Reply
Male 495
I don`t think Bush was making a political message here, I think a bunch of people just wished he was.
0
Reply
Male 2,528
Davidildo123, I will ask you to flip the logic switch in you brain to the "on" position for the next few minutes.

The reason that more troops have died in Afghanistan during Obama`s watch than during Bush`s time in office is because Bush sent around 11,000 troops. Obama now has 94,000 troops there. There are now more troops in Afghanistan that there are in Iraq, so of course the death toll is going to be much greater.

But I would also like to point out that a large reason why we were able to kill Bin Laden now and not the 8 years that Bush was in office is because bush only sent 11,000 troops, while Obama sent 94,000.

In the end, those troops who died under Bush`s term basically died in vain since Bush never actually put enough troops there to be at all effective.
0
Reply
Male 118
How could it be interpreted to be bad to go to ground zero on this occasion? Typical republican bull$hit.
0
Reply
Male 2,528
"Not to demean any sacrifices here, but I think that to claim "record breaking casualties" is more than an exaggeration or a hyperbole, it`s straight up stupidity."

Personally, I think records have been broken. For a was that has been going on for nearly a decade, the US troop death toll is a shockingly low number. Possibly even record low for a war.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
@davidildo123

You`re a dumbass.

Auburn was saying "really" at your so-called "record numbers of Americans being killed."

Last I knew, the US war-casualty record was 418,500 in around 4 years. You might have heard of WWII.

Not to demean any sacrifices here, but I think that to claim "record breaking casualties" is more than an exaggeration or a hyperbole, it`s straight up stupidity.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
If you had a job for 8 years- the craziest, most stressful job you EVER HAD- would you really want to go to an event that reminded you of your worst day at work ever?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Hey david: We also surged the number of troops. More troops, more deaths.

It`s about over though. Obama cannot justify staying much longer, as we have achieved our goal.
0
Reply
Male 143
Auburnjunky:
Yes, really. Of the 1570 killed, 816 were killed in 2009 and 2010. That alone is over half. So far in 2011, there are 124 US military fatalities, which brings the total to 940.

If you need help with math, 1570/2= 785. 785 < 816. If you have trouble with the symbols, that means that the 816 killed in 2010 and 11 is greater than half the total. Really.
0
Reply
Male 559
It was gracious that Obama invited both Clinton and Bush to attend. It was gracious that both declined.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"The war in afghanistan has record numbers of Americans being killed"

Really?

What`s the number of American soldiers dead in Afghanistan now, 1,482? That`s in 10 YEARS! Sound`s pretty good to me, as far as war goes.

Oh and they have 38,000 fatalities on their side, just to give some perspective.
0
Reply
Male 143
Kinda pointless to visit the site in the first place, isn`t it? The war in afghanistan has record numbers of Americans being killed, the economy is in the toilet, and the war on terror is still on.

More Americans have died in Afghanistan in the two years since Obama took over than in the enitre 8 years before when GWB was president.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Gerry1of1

Lol that`s where you`re wrong they`ve just been shopped so well that they`re actually there maaaaan!
0
Reply
Male 1,021
save the drama for your mama
0
Reply
Male 39,556

[quote]"Freedom tower looks shopped" [/quote]

@ Turf_Moor - you`re right. There is no Freedom Tower. It`s a conspiracty to make us think they built one.

In fact, the whole 9/11 thing is a conspiracy. The buildings are still there, they never fell down.

Go put your foil cap back on, you`re brains leaking out.

0
Reply
Male 2,422
I think he should of but it was ok he declined. It was Obama`s moment. Good of Obama to extend the invitation though.
0
Reply
Male 39,556

Obama - gracious for not hogging the spotlight {for once}
Bush - depends on why he couldn`t make it. Maybe Pokemon was on TV or something.

Am I the only one who thought this whole visit was stupid?
Biden also laid a wreath at the Pentagon. Come on people, the 10th anniversary is coming up so you know there`s a big shin-dig for that, did we need to have this ceremony as well?

This was drama.... save it for your momma.

0
Reply
Female 4,039
He invited Bill Clinton, who also declined. So there.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
I know Fancy. Bush even flat out said that he wanted Obama to have the credit because he is the president.

Can`t satisfy anyone.
0
Reply
Male 1,646
what a pissy little b-itch, too busy playing golf to show respect for our fallen.
0
Reply
Male 270
Freedom tower looks shopped
0
Reply
Male 107
I think Bush is just pissed that black Obama killed Osama when he, and his dad couldn`t do the job in their entire presidency. Someone`s jealous.
0
Reply
Female 2,120
When is the projected finish date for the towers?
0
Reply
Male 490
Meh, personally I think this was just a way for obama to get a sort of `victory lap` in on it all. =/
0
Reply
Male 20,827
I sorta think it was gracious that Bush didn`t accept the offer. Obama supporters would claim that Bush was trying to take credit.

That said, lots of people are saying Bush is being a baby for not showing.

A case of damed if you do, damned if you don`t.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Bush said he wanted Obama to take all the credit.
0
Reply
Male 25,417
closure maybe
0
Reply
Male 6,694
He is just going to ride this out as long as he can.
0
Reply
Female 596
Link: Pres Obama Visited Ground Zero Today [Pic] [Rate Link] - He invited Bush, Bush declined. I think Bush did the right thing--gracious. Or was it? Stubborn?
0
Reply