Nancy Pelosi yesterday and in 2006 on the capture/death of Osama bin Laden. -- typical Leftist hypocrisy.

Nancy Pelosi, press conference, September 7, 2006:

[E]ven if [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done ... is done. And even to capture him now I don't think makes us any safer.

Nancy Pelosi, yesterday:

The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. ... I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment. ... [T]he death of Osama bin Laden is historic....


7 comments:

  1. Yes, lets talk about hypocrisy.

    McCain during the 2008 campaign called Obama's plan to get Bin Laden in Pakistan "the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate."

    Obama said in 2008, "if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out. Now, I think that's the right strategy; I think that's the right policy."

    OBAMA DELIVERED.

    Bush Failed -Bush couldn't get Bin Laden so he proceeded to spend 3 trillion dollars and kill 100,000 people in Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You think Obama knows how to wage war?!! Like I said, the Navy Seals who killed Osama were trained under Bush policies; the ordinances used for this assault began with the waterboarding of KSM and the specific ordinances used were actually developed since 2007.

    What is stupid wrong, here, William, is to make this a partisan "Yeh Obama" event. The credit belongs to both presidencies and the American people. Let's not forget that it is folks like you that would have abandoned both Iraq and Afghanistan years ago - or are you a pro-war type??

    But, of course, I know the answer to this question. Your argument, "Bush . . . killed 100,000 people in Iraq," comes from the uber Left. We , in fact, killed upwards of 60,000 al Qaeda terrorist while losing only 4,000 troops. It was al Qaeda who killed those 100,000 to which you refer. Actually, many more than 100,000 were al Qaeda and Taliban's victims.

    You could tout "Bush failed" if, in fact, Osama was pursued and killed by American forces after Bush had called off any and all covert activity with regard to Osama's capture. He did no such thing. The action against Osama was a continuous process.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I appreciate the debate between the two of you. Most interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  4. More debunking of Smithson's lies:

    ABC NEWS:

    "Mohammed did not discuss al-Kuwaiti while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He acknowledged knowing him many months later under standard interrogation, they said"

    NEWSMAX:

    Rumsfeld: There was no waterboarding of courier source

    Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells Newsmax the information that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden was obtained through “normal interrogation approaches” and says the notion that terrorist suspects were waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay is a “myth.”

    ReplyDelete
  5. That is partially true William, but you are leaving out that the fear of being waterboarded was still there and played a factor in the interrogation. Waterboarding hadn't been stopped at that point. And terrorists who were caught knew of the technique and feared it. You don't have to use it on every person for it to be effective. But now there is nothing for them to fear, except being shot while unarmed and defenseless, but I guess that's better than the humiliation that some went through at Gitmo right? Funny how the morality changes when it's the other side that scores a victory. I thank God for Gitmo, thank God for waterboarding, and I thank God for Obama's guts to give a kill order on this piece of garbage!

    ReplyDelete
  6. And William if we are gonna talk about hypocrisy, then I have to ask you honestly, when was the last time you agreed with Rumsfeld in the past?

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Anon

    You comment makes no sense. You say the fear of being waterboarded was present so even if these people disclosed information without being tortured, the act played an important role in their dissemination of information. Since they didn't disclose information during waterboarding, what makes you think afterward would have been any different?

    @ Smithson

    60,000 terrorists? Really? Where is the proof?

    ReplyDelete