Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Editorials & Other Articles

Bill USA

(6,436 posts) Wed Aug 15, 2012, 06:23 PM Aug 2012

Group claiming to be made up of ex-OPSEC personnel attacks Obama for claiming to have killed OBL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021138964

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Group claiming to be made up of ex-OPSEC personnel attacks Obama for claiming to have killed OBL (Original Post) Bill USA Aug 2012 OP

It *was* Obama so he has a right to claim it. KansDem Aug 2012 #1

nice to see this topic posted yet again for the umpteenth time lol nt msongs Aug 2012 #2

you mean re OPSEC Education Fund Inc ad? Bill USA Aug 2012 #3

KansDem

(28,498 posts)

1. It *was* Obama so he has a right to claim it.

Reply to Bill USA (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 06:28 PM

Aug 2012

Unlike his predecessor GW who was incompetent and merely a puppet.

msongs

(67,433 posts)

2. nice to see this topic posted yet again for the umpteenth time lol nt

Reply to Bill USA (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 06:37 PM

Aug 2012

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)

3. you mean re OPSEC Education Fund Inc ad?

Reply to msongs (Reply #2)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:23 PM

Aug 2012

Just wondering, if you are talking about the OPSEC ad, how many of previous posts on OPSEC Education Fund Inc's ad, included the observation re who said 'add another helicopter'? or did you read the post in question?

Propaganda, disinformation, not that big a deal though, nothin to be concerned about, or to lose your 'cool' about (LOL).

Quiz: why would mentioning who said to add another helicopter, be pertinent with reference to the OPSEC Education Fund ad?

Reply to this discussion