Pride, purpose, patriotism....

Does anybody else wonder why Osama bin Ladin is able to hide in a hole in the hills and hold the world at bay?

Compared to george Bush, who has the most sophisticated military machine in the history of Creation?

Could it be because of commitment and a willingness to sacrifice?

bin Laden is said to keep his own immediate desires within due bounds and concentrate his energies toward the passionate pursuit of higher goals.

He is said to deny himself even the pleasure of a cold drink of water, considering it an unnecessary luxury. He chooses instead to keep it at room temperature.

Bush, on the other hand, in time of his so-called "war", chooses to cut taxes on his rich friends and keep the people in the dark as much as possible.

The only people sacrificing for bush's "war" are the young men and women he sends halfway around the world to fight and occupy someone else's land.

And our grandchildren, who will be handed the bill after bush and his gang are gone.

So when are democrats going to stop it like they promised in 06?

Well, I guess he's holding the world at bay if he doesn't mind shitting behind a rock pile.

I think if anyone has even the slightest idea of the terrian that OBL is hiding in, they would understand why it's so difficult to get him.

shermangeneral wrote:Does anybody else wonder why Osama bin Ladin is able to hide in a hole in the hills and hold the world at bay?

Compared to george Bush, who has the most sophisticated military machine in the history of Creation?

Could it be because of commitment and a willingness to sacrifice?

HA, and there are crooks, thieves, robbers and murders in West Virginia who are walking the streets foot loose and fancy free.

And you got the nerve to be badmouthing someone for failure to root out and capture someone hiding in a hole in some hill 10,000+ miles from here.

You betcha, ..... it's about "a willingness" to do their job.

.

Well it sounds like you bush apologists are perfectly satisfied with bush's lack of action in bringing this murdering thug to justice for 7 years now.

But I am not.

My position would be no different if Bush was a Democrat.

But I suspect yours would.

shermangeneral wrote:Well it sounds like you bush apologists are perfectly satisfied with bush's lack of action in bringing this murdering thug to justice for 7 years now.

But I am not.

My position would be no different if Bush was a Democrat.

But I suspect yours would.

I really don't get you at all. You seem to think Republicans aren't anxious to bring OBL to justice, but you're wrong.

Where I part company with many of my fellow Republicans is the use of OBL, Al-Qaeda, Islamic extremists as excuses for invading other nations, killing and displacing human beings, toppling governments, and further destabalizing an already volitile region. That's what I find inexcusible.

OBL has the money and the network to remain hidden for the rest of his life, if he is willing to live like the animal he is. I don't think it is fair to blame Bush, his administration, or the Republicans for his ability to evade capture. I do believe Bush, his administration, and the US Congress should be condemned for the death, destruction, and chaos they are perpetrating on millions of innocent civilians.

My point is, your outrage is misplaced and there is plenty of blame to go around, imho.

Well Steph dont you believe the effort/treasure/blood/sacrifice spent so far on military adventurism in Iraq would have been better spent going after binLaden?

Even us so-called wussywusses would not object to that, so if they wanna play war at least go after the ones who attacked us.

Better spent? What a question. We didn't need to invade Iraq, it's that simple. You want to lay all the blame at the feet of GWB and the GOP. Trouble is, the Democrats voted to invade Iraq and they continue to fund the war.

Now that the Democrats control Congress, they are equally to blame. They could refuse to fund the war. They are actually worse than the Republicans, imho. They were elected on the promise they would end the war and they refuse to.

You seem blinded by politics Steph.

No one is stopping any effort to go after OBL.

And most Dems are against the Iraq occupation.

shermangeneral wrote:You seem blinded by politics Steph.

No one is stopping any effort to go after OBL.

And most Dems are against the Iraq occupation.

I'm not the one blinded by politics, you are. Why can't you just admit the fact that the Democrats lied to the American people when they promised to get us out of Iraq? It is what they were elected to do.

BTW.......if the Democrats in Congress were truly interested in bringing OBL to justice, instead of providing the funds to continue with the occupation of Iraq and other aggression in the region, they would pass Ron Paul's Marque & Reprisal Act.

Well can you tell us something about it in a nutshell?

Meantime I will try to look it up.

But my point is we will not be able to just ignore bin Laden.

He needs to be dealt with, sooner the better imo.

I suppose it's too late for Bush, but he will still be there when the next Pres. takes office.

And I hope he/she motivates and mobilizes the nation toward that goal.

p.s. I like what I am finding so far on RP's act you mentioned above, which he introduced in early October of 01. Less than a month after the attacks. Thanks for the heads up on that.

:exerpt:

"(a) The President of the United States is authorized and requested to commission, under officially issued letters of marque and reprisal, so many of privately armed and equipped persons and entities as, in his judgment, the service may require, with suitable instructions to the leaders thereof, to employ all means reasonably necessary to seize outside the geographic boundaries of the United States and its territories the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and of any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions and depredations perpetrated upon the United States of America on September 11, 2001, and for any planned future air piratical aggressions and depredations or other acts of war upon the United States of America and her people.

(b) The President of the United States is authorized to place a money bounty, drawn in his discretion from the $40,000,000,000 appropriated on September 14, 2001, in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorists Attacks on the United States or from private sources, for the capture, alive or dead, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, under the authority of any letter of marque or reprisal issued under this Act...."

I believe if that course had been followed withdispatch and dedication the problem could well have been solved in relatively short order.

Certainly before now.

You read Paul’s legislation Sherm. Now read the Constitution. Congress is the only body authorized to issue letters of Marquee and Reprisal. Even if the President could issue them, the letters would be issued to an outfit like Blackwater.

Do you know support the United States Government hiring mercenaries to do it's job?

shermangeneral wrote:I believe if that course had been followed withdispatch and dedication the problem could well have been solved in relatively short order.

Certainly before now.

We'd be in much better shape than we are now, that's for sure. We wouldn't be embroiled in another bloody war. We wouldn't have squandered the good will of so much of the global community. Millions of Iraqi's wouldn't be dead, injured and/or displaced. Thousands of US military personal would still be alive, tens of thousand wouldn't be gravely injured.

Congress had a choice, Ron Paul provided them with a choice. He reintroduced that legislation this past July with the Democrats in controll of Congress, but they still refuse to alter the current course of action. Perhaps now you see why I say they share equal blame.