General Discussion

Bonobo

(29,257 posts) Thu Jan 12, 2012, 01:16 AM Jan 2012

"Osama bin Laden will never walk on this earth again" is the rhetoric we want to represent us? [View all]

That was a phrase just used by President Obama and trumpeted by a DU'er here in another thread as a shining example of why we should be excited for the upcoming election.

Hooray for the fact that the Democrats never have to suffer the political liability of being attacked for being weak on national security.

But come on now, can't you even admit one little teenie bit that we had to sell a part of our souls for that?

Do you not see that we have swallowed, adopted and owned the very notions of what defines ourselves as being "strong on security" directly from the Republicans.

Can you not see how this represents a loss of identity, a failure of moral courage even as it is a "political home run"?

Yes, OBL was bad. Quadaffi was bad. Alkawi and all the other minor "Al Quaeda operatives bad, bad bad.

But who ARE we now? What is the long term price if we had to become them to "take away their issues"?

112 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"Osama bin Laden will never walk on this earth again" is the rhetoric we want to represent us? [View all] Bonobo Jan 2012 OP

why do you get offended by such things ? it's about winning the election JI7 Jan 2012 #1

"It's about winning the election" Bonobo Jan 2012 #2

of course there is a lot we can lose like Roe v Wade,all the accomplishments JI7 Jan 2012 #4

It has been said in many ways by many people... Bonobo Jan 2012 #9

Not at this time. Please try back in 2016. FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #6

we are murderers and assassins and bullies and thieves SixthSense Jan 2012 #3

Still upset we couldn't bring a violent criminal to trial? nt Confusious Jan 2012 #5

Supposedly he was the leader of a terrorist network. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #59

What makes you think he could Confusious Jan 2012 #109

Yes. It's the reason the United States of America was created. rug Jan 2012 #7

I care about winning, not what makes me feel good inside bluestateguy Jan 2012 #8

The 2 principal war criminals won't have to come to trial and I'm very happy they are out of the way phleshdef Jan 2012 #10

Good analogy. (nt) pinto Jan 2012 #15

Here's a good article... Drunken Irishman Jan 2012 #19

Er. I was quoting Harry Truman on the deaths of Hitler and Mussolini. phleshdef Jan 2012 #20

Yes, I know... Drunken Irishman Jan 2012 #38

This message was self-deleted by its author JackRiddler Jan 2012 #28

Why don't you read my entire post next time instead of just the title? phleshdef Jan 2012 #32

This message was self-deleted by its author JackRiddler Jan 2012 #33

I said Truman's statement was an example of a Democrat using the same kind of rhetoric. phleshdef Jan 2012 #35

As you prefer. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #40

Civilized societies do trials, summary executions is what savages do. Zalatix Jan 2012 #62

I thought you were talking about Bush and Cheney at first. sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #97

I'm sorry, we have not "become them." downwardly_mobile Jan 2012 #11

Did Libya ever invade a nation on the other side of the world... JackRiddler Jan 2012 #30

No, but... Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #42

The case against Libya for the Lockerbie bombing is dubious. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #48

Poor old Gaddafi. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #50

Who cares what the truth is, right? JackRiddler Jan 2012 #51

The truth is, Libya bombed Pan Am 103 the hell out of the sky. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #52

The Scottish review board does not share your certainty. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #56

The circuit board is impeached by one person. Other evidence shows that Libya had possession Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #60

False. The circuit board is impeached by at least two persons. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #69

Edwin Bollier? The guy who also claimed Gaddafi offered him $200M to get Megrahi free? Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #72

My "narrative" is not "USA-bad-Libya-good." JackRiddler Jan 2012 #75

The fuck it ain't. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #76

Scotland is in the UK. Scotland is why it's called the UK. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #78

So your rationale for invading Libya is PanAm/Lockerbie? DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #81

Is that what I said? I don't think I said that. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #86

Watch this trick: DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #92

No worries. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #102

That's all you got out of that excellent summary of sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #99

#94. New facts have come to light. n/t Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #103

poor old bolo. proven wrong and resorting to strawmen.. frylock Jan 2012 #106

Really? I've been proven wrong? I'm not noticing a lot of responses to my #94. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #107

JackRiddler I used to think Megrahi did bomb the plane, but your logic and facts are solid. Zalatix Jan 2012 #64

American scales of justice whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #93

Poor old Gaddafi. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #98

Bravo and thank you. Needs to be an OP. inna Jan 2012 #49

Thank you inna. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #54

" Libya was framed for the Lockerbie bombing is MSM sourced" Gross overstatement Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #61

See Post #48. Please show the factual errors in that post. Zalatix Jan 2012 #65

One piece of evidence is said to be faked by one person. That's true. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #67

Who in the world releases someone who kills 300 people for "Compassion" reasons? Really? Zalatix Jan 2012 #68

Overwhelming evidence. None of it has any kind of rational dispute. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #71

And despite all this overwhelming evidence, a re-trial was planned for him. How do you explain that? Zalatix Jan 2012 #82

Because the defense wasn't told about the CIA offer to Gauci. A technicality. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #84

Gotcha. So re-trials are routine for cases settled with overwhelming evidence Zalatix Jan 2012 #85

Yes. Take for example the incredibly guilty Ted Stevens... Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #87

Apples & Oranges. Ted Stevens was accused of political corruption, not terrorism/mass murder. Zalatix Jan 2012 #90

Check out #94 for a response. But also Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #96

This is a good point (the release) but even more important... JackRiddler Jan 2012 #80

Don't you know? He had OVERWHELMING evidence against him. Yet a re-trial was approved. Zalatix Jan 2012 #83

You know, when you put it in ALLCAPS like that, it feels more overwhelming! JackRiddler Jan 2012 #88

Here's another good point - the actual summary of referral from the Scottish review board Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #94

I agree on all counts. SammyWinstonJack Jan 2012 #63

US or international politics of it all aside, bin Laden's demise was bluntly necessary, imo. pinto Jan 2012 #12

Bluntly necessary? To shoot rather than capture the best source of intelligence? JackRiddler Jan 2012 #55

I can't help but wonder RZM Jan 2012 #89

This is not a contradiction. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #95

'If they believed what they said' is a really big 'if' RZM Jan 2012 #101

I understand your rationale politically. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #110

But I'm talking about orders here RZM Jan 2012 #111

Nope. He's dead and rotting of his own choice. I have no qualms about it NYC Liberal Jan 2012 #13

If osama truly was the criminal mastermind behind deaths of thousands and thousands of innocents Muskypundit Jan 2012 #14

I'm not happy about that kind of rhetoric. RevStPatrick Jan 2012 #16

That what sells. Want to get elected? That's what you talk about? joshcryer Jan 2012 #17

This rhetoric has been representing Democrats since 9/11 frazzled Jan 2012 #18

Personally, I'm glad that particular shithead is dead. If that makes me a bad man, I'm a bad man. Warren DeMontague Jan 2012 #21

I didn't mean to confront THAT issue again. I am trying to get people to see... Bonobo Jan 2012 #23

This is the first I've heard of this particular statement by the President Warren DeMontague Jan 2012 #25

I understand what you're saying, NashvilleLefty Jan 2012 #22

"if you use the time to seriously consider why you got your cheek slapped" Bonobo Jan 2012 #24

I can live with it. aikoaiko Jan 2012 #26

I considered the capture or killing of Bin Laden as a worthy goal of our government. MilesColtrane Jan 2012 #27

... Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #29

"we can't "become them" etc. greyl Jan 2012 #36

It deserves to be in the Top Ten of rhetoric. nt greyl Jan 2012 #31

Better: ProSense Jan 2012 #34

People like you are LiberalAndProud Jan 2012 #37

well that and all those dead women and kids killed by drones & our military nt msongs Jan 2012 #39

Right up there with Americans screaming, USA! USA!, teeth clenched and veins truth2power Jan 2012 #41

9/11 changed everything.. DCBob Jan 2012 #43

killing that bastard wasn't about defining Democrats bigtree Jan 2012 #44

Sure. It's an awesome talking point. jefferson_dem Jan 2012 #45

Don't like that phrase, but winning the war against terrorism sounds pretty good... JCMach1 Jan 2012 #46

It is the truth quaker bill Jan 2012 #47

Removing the advantage (R)s have in security Motown_Johnny Jan 2012 #53

Just run Gingrich as a (D)--if we are EXACTLY like them, they won't be able to criticize us! Romulox Jan 2012 #57

They wouldn't be able to criticize ?!?!? Motown_Johnny Jan 2012 #100

Not if Gingrich (D) is the nominee, as I suggested earlier. How could they criticize ANYTHING, Romulox Jan 2012 #104

Gingrich as a (D) is right up there with Sanders as an (R) Motown_Johnny Jan 2012 #105

Yep! He was directly responsible for ordering the deaths of thousands of people Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #58

He should be dead Welcome_hubby Oct 2012 #112

First off, their is no such thing as a soul, but to go ahead and continue your thought process... snooper2 Jan 2012 #66

Yes. JoePhilly Jan 2012 #70

Yes. It shuts the other side up quite well. nt msanthrope Jan 2012 #73

Sure, I have no problem with it. He was a piece of shit who killed a lot of innocent people. WI_DEM Jan 2012 #74

Please to trim your ideals gratuitous Jan 2012 #77

I'm not thrilled by that type of rhetoric. It does appeal to some. Solly Mack Jan 2012 #79

No, Raffi Ella Jan 2012 #91

Fine by me. WilliamPitt Jan 2012 #108