(03-08-2019, 08:14 PM)B2hibry Wrote:

(03-08-2019, 07:59 PM)Bullseye Wrote: No.

Bin Laden got on America's [BLEEP] list in the Clinton administration.

He launched the 9-11 attacks 9 months into W's administration.

President Obama ordered the strike that killed Bin Laden two years into his term of office.

It's patently silly and spectacularly disingenuous to blame president Obama for the failures that happened more than a decade before he got into office, but apparently that isn't stopping you from doing so.

Big shock.

If he had an abundance of clear policy failures, there's no need to make stuff up or exaggerate.

No, these are specific failures under his watch I am speaking of. Nobody else. Stay on track.

Let's take what you say here at face value. 

It doesn't help your point, even to attribute all 15 failures to get him at Obama's feet.

His immediate predecessor in office had 7.5 years to get him.

If he didn't have as many failures to get him as Obama, then he didn't try as hard to get him.

If he had more failures trying to get him than Obama, then he wasn't as effective. 

At the end of the day, Bush had 7.5 years to get him and didn't. 

Fifteen failures or not, Obama got him in 2.

Quote:Let’s revisit how the revenge manhunt was so good for America. Did it change anything besides offering up a rediculous pay per view atmosphere in the war room? I’m fairly certain we still have his terror group staying strong. I’m also fairly certain that terror group has political influence in many parts of the world, especially Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. You know, where we still keep governmental relations going even though the 9/11 killers resided there and their country ideologies still place the US at shoe sole level.

Bush made the vow to get Bin laden Dead or alive.  Do you sugggest the war in Afghanistan was nothing but military masturbation?

---