Rude Rick 0 Posted April 14, 2006 Did it ever occur to you that the current generals use the retired generals to speak in public for them (since they're not allowed to comment?). This is EXACTLY what's going on. It's hard to assess how much of the current military leadership wants Rumsfeld out, but it's not a small minority. It's significant. Which is just...completely unsurprising since the guy is incompetent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted April 14, 2006 Did it ever occur to you that the current generals use the retired generals to speak in public for them (since they're not allowed to comment?). This is EXACTLY what's going on. It's hard to assess how much of the current military leadership wants Rumsfeld out, but it's not a small minority. It's significant. Which is just...completely unsurprising since the guy is incompetent. He's incompetent huh? Why? To say that the number of Generals with no basis of evidence is ridiculous. These people don't like there boss and say he "micro managed" them or that he would be mad at them if they didn't come to meetings prepared. Sounds to me like you have a guy who demands his employees be prepared and is involved with their work and the decision making process. We don't know the stance these generals are even standing on. All they say is he needs to step down. Gave no details. Was there a plan that he rejected of there's that would have been succesful, was there a plan that he modified that caused additional casualties, was there a plan that he excecuted that caused more civilian casuaulties that he should had been warned about, what is his major problem? Did he hurt their feelings by not allowing them to get their opinion across when they were unprepared for meetings? The fact is, we have no idea because nobody as gave us the particulars. If you have 5 out of 100's or Thousands of people that do not like there boss because of the above stated reasons does not make a case that this is significant. How do you know these Generals aren't making these statements to get their name in the paper in order to either gain politically or find a new job? How do you know that these generals aren't old school and just completely disagree with a civilian having the final say in operations? We don't know the specifics and you can't jump to your conclusion unless you have the facts. If you have some facts that support your outlandish assumption, please, provide them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gocolts 300 Posted April 14, 2006 He's incompetent huh? Why? If you have some facts that support your outlandish assumption, please, provide them. Rummy for President!! Liberalism is a mental disorder.How else do you explain this insane thread?A half dozen out of thousands disagree with and think Rummy should resign? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rude Rick 0 Posted April 15, 2006 Rumsfeld is the most incompetent man the Pentagon has ever seen. Can him......now. Now! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gocolts 300 Posted April 15, 2006 When in our history have this many retired generals spoken out about their boss? Thought so. When in our history has the media attacked an administration with so much vitriol and arrogance?? Think Helen Thomas and David Gregory :Americahaters: Thought so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Badmojo1006 0 Posted April 15, 2006 Rummy for President!! Liberalism is a mental disorder.How else do you explain this insane thread?A half dozen out of thousands disagree with and think Rummy should resign? fartfish! Glad to see you again! Yeah Fartfish! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted April 15, 2006 fartfish! Glad to see you again! Yeah Fartfish! finally some sane guys on this bored Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squidfinger 0 Posted April 15, 2006 He's incompetent huh? Why? ... If you have some facts that support your outlandish assumption, please, provide them. How about this: the troops in Iraq STILL don't have the armor they need. Mothers are running fund-raising campaigns to raise the money. And this is years after the problem was identified...and I'm not even going into the whole invading without enough troops or a plan part, which is just gross misjudgment. Keep in mind, I wasn't completely opposed to the war when it started. I gave the administration a chance, trusted them that there were WMDs, believed they'd have a workable plan for rebuilding Iraq, and thought they'd make adjustments as necessary. They've failed miserably on all fronts. THAT is known as incompetence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rude Rick 0 Posted April 15, 2006 How about this: the troops in Iraq STILL don't have the armor they need. Mothers are running fund-raising campaigns to raise the money. And this is years after the problem was identified...and I'm not even going into the whole invading without enough troops or a plan part, which is just gross misjudgment. Keep in mind, I wasn't completely opposed to the war when it started. I gave the administration a chance, trusted them that there were WMDs, believed they'd have a workable plan for rebuilding Iraq, and thought they'd make adjustments as necessary. They've failed miserably on all fronts. THAT is known as incompetence. Amen to that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gocolts 300 Posted April 15, 2006 fartfish! Glad to see you again! Yeah Fartfish! I'm not fastfish.Sorry to dissapoint you. How about this: the troops in Iraq STILL don't have the armor they need. Mothers are running fund-raising campaigns to raise the money. And this is years after the problem was identified...and I'm not even going into the whole invading without enough troops or a plan part, which is just gross misjudgment. Keep in mind, I wasn't completely opposed to the war when it started. I gave the administration a chance, trusted them that there were WMDs, believed they'd have a workable plan for rebuilding Iraq, and thought they'd make adjustments as necessary. They've failed miserably on all fronts. THAT is known as incompetence. Ever read a history book??? didn't think so. We never have EVERYTHING we need when we go to war.Some times,we figure out there are things we need.Sometimes,we can't just make everything we need with a snap of the finger.It takes time to make and send and equip......... One example for the liberals.In WWII ,we needed a lot of boats.Very specific type of boats.They were called "Higgins boats".Figure the rest out on your own. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted April 15, 2006 How about this: the troops in Iraq STILL don't have the armor they need. Mothers are running fund-raising campaigns to raise the money. And this is years after the problem was identified...and I'm not even going into the whole invading without enough troops or a plan part, which is just gross misjudgment. Keep in mind, I wasn't completely opposed to the war when it started. I gave the administration a chance, trusted them that there were WMDs, believed they'd have a workable plan for rebuilding Iraq, and thought they'd make adjustments as necessary. They've failed miserably on all fronts. THAT is known as incompetence. Have you paid attention to the news? The troops don't want the armor that you are saying they need. They say it weighs them down since they are already carrying 55lbs of gear and supplies. Maybe you should ask a soldier about that and those mothers should talk to their kids about whether they want to wear it or not. They had a plan, they just didn't expect the insurgency that we have dealt with. It turns out Iran and Syria have more crazy maniac radical Islamics then we predicted. That's fine we need to fight these guys and there turning up in Iraq to fight against us. The plan is just as much the military's fault as it is Rumsfeld's. They sit in a board room and plan these things together, similar as I would suggest things to my boss and he can go one way or the other. You still havent' explained whether Rumsfeld canceled an operation that would have solved our problems or initiated a single operation that killed too many civilians, etc.. They have failed in your mind because it wasn't as easy as you imagined. Each time you fight on new terrain you learn things. We learned from WWI, we learned from WWII, we learned from the Korean War, we learned from Vietnam, we learned from Gulf I, we learned from Afghanistan, and we learned from operation Iraqi Freedom. We are constantly adapting to change of scenery for each different war and pick up strategies and tactics. I would say your an impatient person and listen too much to Left Wing bomb throwers. WMD's or not (which is extremely debatable considering Saddam's own generals thought he had WMD's and we have sattellite photos of trucks going into Syria during the night a week before the war), Saddam still violated the stipulations of the cease fire agreement that he signed at the conclusion of the first Gulf War. War is not easy and this war is different than any others. We have never fought an enemy that flies planes into buildings, blows themselves up in Mosques, etc... This war takes time and if we ignore it and leave we will be setting us our self up for disaster (see Clinton Administration for examples). I'm not fastfish.Sorry to dissapoint you. Ever read a history book??? didn't think so. We never have EVERYTHING we need when we go to war.Some times,we figure out there are things we need.Sometimes,we can't just make everything we need with a snap of the finger.It takes time to make and send and equip......... One example for the liberals.In WWII ,we needed a lot of boats.Very specific type of boats.They were called "Higgins boats".Figure the rest out on your own. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Uh-huh 0 Posted April 15, 2006 Did you seriously just link up an article written by John Murtha? I am not reading that garbage. Suit yourself. Murtha has about a million times more credibility than you do. Or Bush or Rumsfeld, for that matter. But of course, being the right-wing shill you appear to be, you'll never realize that. Have you paid attention to the news? The troops don't want the armor that you are saying they need. They say it weighs them down since they are already carrying 55lbs of gear and supplies. Maybe you should ask a soldier about that and those mothers should talk to their kids about whether they want to wear it or not. They had a plan, they just didn't expect the insurgency that we have dealt with. It turns out Iran and Syria have more crazy maniac radical Islamics then we predicted. That's fine we need to fight these guys and there turning up in Iraq to fight against us. The plan is just as much the military's fault as it is Rumsfeld's. They sit in a board room and plan these things together, similar as I would suggest things to my boss and he can go one way or the other. You still havent' explained whether Rumsfeld canceled an operation that would have solved our problems or initiated a single operation that killed too many civilians, etc.. They have failed in your mind because it wasn't as easy as you imagined. Each time you fight on new terrain you learn things. We learned from WWI, we learned from WWII, we learned from the Korean War, we learned from Vietnam, we learned from Gulf I, we learned from Afghanistan, and we learned from operation Iraqi Freedom. We are constantly adapting to change of scenery for each different war and pick up strategies and tactics. I would say your an impatient person and listen too much to Left Wing bomb throwers. WMD's or not (which is extremely debatable considering Saddam's own generals thought he had WMD's and we have sattellite photos of trucks going into Syria during the night a week before the war), Saddam still violated the stipulations of the cease fire agreement that he signed at the conclusion of the first Gulf War. War is not easy and this war is different than any others. We have never fought an enemy that flies planes into buildings, blows themselves up in Mosques, etc... This war takes time and if we ignore it and leave we will be setting us our self up for disaster (see Clinton Administration for examples). Please. You're embarassing yourself: "War is not easy and this war...". Jeebus. You come across as McClellan-lite. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rude Rick 0 Posted April 15, 2006 This is the worst administration in history. How can you defend it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted April 17, 2006 Were these Gens among the spectacularly wrong bunch predicting tens of thousand of dead American soldiers in the initial invasion? Or was that just the mainstream media making it up? I can't remember. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Uh-huh 0 Posted April 17, 2006 Were these Gens among the spectacularly wrong bunch predicting tens of thousand of dead American soldiers in the initial invasion? Or was that just the mainstream media making it up? I can't remember. 2,329 dead Americans aren't enough for you? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted April 17, 2006 2,329 dead Americans aren't enough for you? Each one is a tragedy. But I'll take that after 4+ years of fighting when many were predicting tens of thousands dead in the initial invasion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted April 17, 2006 2,329 dead Americans aren't enough for you? Each one is a hero and died for a purpose. We do not know the exact implications, but IMO they each saved many more American lives. The diverted attention of Al Qaeda and the rest of the extremists in addition to busting them up and taking down their leadership structure is what is needed. There is no way that we can go on living life pretending that this is not a threat that needs to be dealt with one way or the other. Suit yourself. Murtha has about a million times more credibility than you do. Or Bush or Rumsfeld, for that matter. Your leaving out the fact that Bush, Rumsfeld, and I all do not care about seeking an advantage politically. This is the motivation behind Murtha's statements. I appreciate the service that Murtha provided, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with any of his political views or endorse him as an excellent source for what is going on with the War on Terror. Once he produces a plan for taking out Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, and Hezbollah I'll listen, but if just wants to provide criticisms based off political non-sense then I am going to look the other way. But of course, being the right-wing shill you appear to be, you'll never realize that. Please. You're embarassing yourself: "War is not easy and this war...". Jeebus. You come across as McClellan-lite.. Wow you really put me in my place with this thoughtful insight. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paulinstl 296 Posted April 17, 2006 Each one is a tragedy. But I'll take that after 4+ years of fighting when many were predicting tens of thousands dead in the initial invasion. And how many of these have died after your boy claimed "Mission Accomplished!"? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted April 17, 2006 And how many of these have died after your boy claimed "Mission Accomplished!"? Grasp at straws much? The banner was congratulation the crew of the ship it was on for completing their mission. Weak, very weak. Where are all the guys who predicted tens of thousands of deaths during the initial invasion? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted April 17, 2006 And how many of these have died after your boy claimed "Mission Accomplished!"? This has nothing to do with the fact that each live lost in Iraq is saving multiple American lives. Nice try though. Besides have the number of casualties are decreasing each month and Iraq is becoming more stable. Of course the news isn't going to tell you that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paulinstl 296 Posted April 17, 2006 Grasp at straws much? The banner was congratulation the crew of the ship it was on for completing their mission. Weak, very weak. Where are all the guys who predicted tens of thousands of deaths during the initial invasion? Rewrite history much? Do you really nelive that speech was anything but a "victory" speech? Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. At that time 138 American troops had been killed. For months, the Bush administration denied that it was responsible for the banner, blaming the aircraft carrier crew itself. Since then, White House officials have acknowledged it was their idea. "We put it up. We made the sign," Fleischer said. "But I think it accurately summed up where we were at the time, mission accomplished... the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein. How many times can you be wrong and still come here spewing falsehoods? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mighty_thor 115 Posted April 17, 2006 Where are all the guys who predicted tens of thousands of deaths during the initial invasion? Link to any of the Iraq war retired Generals predicting tens of thousands of deaths? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted April 17, 2006 "We put it up. We made the sign," Fleischer said. "But I think it accurately summed up where we were at the time, mission accomplished... the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein. Seems like the mission was accomplished. Bush congratulated the crew on their mission, and Saddam was gone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paulinstl 296 Posted April 17, 2006 Seems like the mission was accomplished. Bush congratulated the crew on their mission, and Saddam was gone. You really ought to quit. How many times do I have to prove you wrong? Are you stupid or a liar? Or both? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted April 17, 2006 How many times do I have to prove you wrong? Once would be nice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted April 17, 2006 Rewrite history much? Do you really nelive that speech was anything but a "victory" speech? At that time 138 American troops had been killed. For months, the Bush administration denied that it was responsible for the banner, blaming the aircraft carrier crew itself. Since then, White House officials have acknowledged it was their idea. "We put it up. We made the sign," Fleischer said. "But I think it accurately summed up where we were at the time, mission accomplished... the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein. How many times can you be wrong and still come here spewing falsehoods? The Regime was taken down, which was what Clinton's objective (see Dems Frontrunner thread), as well as Bush's because this was obvious what our intelligence community was concluding needed to be done. I've already stated, we didn't realize that the Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Muslim Brotherhood were going to come directly to Iraq to fight. I would say I would rather have them turning up in a place where we have troops on the ground rather than sneaking up and retalliating on our homeland. They do not want us in the area, that in itself should give you an idea of how big of deal it is. All 3 organizations have come together to focus on breaking the will of the American people. Which has been very easy when you are dealing with a bunch of people with out the fortitude to continue to fight when the outcome is not what we expected. Personally, my parents raised me not to be a quitter, but I can't say the same for all the American People who want to just hightail out of there to give the terrorists what they want. I am only using the terms colonization loosely in this case because we are not going to colonize each country due to the influence that we have had. But the benefits can be the same as we assist Iraqi's in re-building there country and government. Each time a more developed country has colonized another country in the history of the world it has lead to greater things in the future for that country as they start to adapt and evolve their economic and cultural environment using the influence the other countries had. We are doing the same thing in Iraq without the risk of colonization because we just want to help them put the pieces back together, which has been progressing despite what you hear on the news. The terrorists and leadership in countries like Iran and Syria (in addition to many Americans) do not want to see this be successful as it would provide an example that Islam and Capitalism/Democracy can co-exist if you do not interpret the Koran literally or use the Koran to a political advantage to hold your people down. The success in Iraq will lead to a more understanding and adaptable Islamic world. If you have another solution of how you would like to win the Islamic people over and open their minds from the Ethnocentric handcuffs that have been holding them back, please let it be known. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paulinstl 296 Posted April 17, 2006 Once would be nice. From Recliner Pilot: The banner was congratulation the crew of the ship it was on for completing their mission. Weak, very weak. "We put it up. We made the sign," Fleischer said. "But I think it accurately summed up where we were at the time, mission accomplished... the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein. And that is really "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted April 17, 2006 From Recliner Pilot:And that is really "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED". At the time that was the mission, a regime change was needed. Your Boy Billy Clinton said the same thing in addition to countless others. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paulinstl 296 Posted April 17, 2006 At the time that was the mission, a regime change was needed. Your Boy Billy Clinton said the same thing in addition to countless others. Yeah, I understand that, but you're missing the point. RP claimed that the banner was nothing more than a of saying thanks to the crew of the carrier. I proved to hiom that he was wrong, that the White House had that banner installed to show the message that victory had been accheived. Since that point almost 3000 soldiers have died in Iraq. You claim that;'s saving lives in the future, that's your opinion. My opinion is that war in Iraq was unwarranted and may well wind up costing many more lives in the future. One thing anyone should be able to agree on is that the way this war has been waged has been gull of mistakes and miscalculations that have cost many American lives. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted April 17, 2006 Yeah, I understand that, but you're missing the point. RP claimed that the banner was nothing more than a of saying thanks to the crew of the carrier. I proved to hiom that he was wrong, that the White House had that banner installed to show the message that victory had been accheived. Since that point almost 3000 soldiers have died in Iraq. You claim that;'s saving lives in the future, that's your opinion. My opinion is that war in Iraq was unwarranted and may well wind up costing many more lives in the future. One thing anyone should be able to agree on is that the way this war has been waged has been gull of mistakes and miscalculations that have cost many American lives. I have said this repeatedly. Yes there were some mistakes made, but everyone makes mistakes. Clinton's intelligence was telling him the same thing that the Bush's was. That this needed to happen. I could care less about a freaking banner. You can take that up with RP. The war was warranted based off the 17 violations. The sanctions obviously weren't working since all the backdoor oil deals were being placed!! So you think that by sitting in Afghanistan that would have solved the problem that we have? That we would have some how found Bin Laden (as if he's the only person we need to worry about)? Then everything would be hunky doory? By influencing Iraq to develop into a Western friendly country we are creating an opportunity for many Muslims to free themselves from the ethnocentric hancuffs that their leaders have been using on them to keep them in line. This will help spread peace in the future. Not to mention the strategic advantage that places us right in the middle of the next two worst countries. I think the problem is that people just don't want to believe there is a problem. They have no understanding of the culture that is corrupted by leaders who use the Koran to their advantage to brain wash their people. They have no idea how to fight this war and that lack of understanding and ignorance leads them to say, let's just bring our troops home and pretend the world is a Utopia. How many 9-11's will it take for them to be convinced that this is an ongoiong war that we will be fighting till probably the end of each of our lives? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paulinstl 296 Posted April 17, 2006 Yes I believe that if we had spent the resources we have in Iraq on the fight against AQ, we not only would have found Bin Laden, but we very well have eliminated AQ altogether. 40 Billion bucks and 120,000 troops would have caused major damage to AQ for sure. Hindsight has shown Iraq to have not been any threat to us or even any neighboring country. The UN sanctions were working with the no-fly zones enforcement, the Iraqi military was a non-entity, as proven by our miraculous military offensive. I believed going to war in Iraq was a huge misjudgement 3 years ago, and I feel like I've proven right by our inability to deal with an insurgence that quite possibly may never had legs if we had killed off AQ when we had them on the run in the first place. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted April 17, 2006 Yes I believe that if we had spent the resources we have in Iraq on the fight against AQ, we not only would have found Bin Laden, but we very well have eliminated AQ altogether. 40 Billion bucks and 120,000 troops would have caused major damage to AQ for sure. Hindsight has shown Iraq to have not been any threat to us or even any neighboring country. The UN sanctions were working with the no-fly zones enforcement, the Iraqi military was a non-entity, as proven by our miraculous military offensive. I believed going to war in Iraq was a huge misjudgement 3 years ago, and I feel like I've proven right by our inability to deal with an insurgence that quite possibly may never had legs if we had killed off AQ when we had them on the run in the first place. How are you going to find Al Qaeda? Were you just going to ignor Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood? Do you think that the troops or anyone else tracking down Al Qaeda would have been received any differently by the extremists in other nations in the Middle East? It's easy to say, you are going to track down Al Qaeda, but to actually be able to do it is another thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanXIII 8 Posted April 17, 2006 It's amazing that there are still people who defend this war and our leadership given all the facts. Fortunately they are an ever-shrinking minority. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted April 17, 2006 It's amazing that there are still people who defend this war and our leadership given all the facts. Fortunately they are an ever-shrinking minority. With your dynamic thoughtful insight, I think may have just joined the masses w/o the balls to stay the course. We should just roll over and tell Al Qaeda and the other terrorist organizations they won. In fact since they have beat us now in 2 of 3 battles we should just get rid of our entire defense budget and spend it on socializing health care. We are going to need a lot of health care once the terrorists are able to focus on attacking us. Of course it won't really matter because they have no bones about blowing up hospitals. Maybe ignorance will keep us safe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanXIII 8 Posted April 17, 2006 With your dynamic thoughtful insight, I think may have just joined the masses w/o the balls to stay the course. We should just roll over and tell Al Qaeda and the other terrorist organizations they won. In fact since they have beat us now in 2 of 3 battles we should just get rid of our entire defense budget and spend it on socializing health care. We are going to need a lot of health care once the terrorists are able to focus on attacking us. Of course it won't really matter because they have no bones about blowing up hospitals. Maybe ignorance will keep us safe. The fact that you keep equating Iraq with Al Qaeda assures me that ignorance is keeping you safe. /the kool aid is strong with this one Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted April 17, 2006 The fact that you keep equating Iraq with Al Qaeda assures me that ignorance is keeping you safe. /the kool aid is strong with this one Who do you think we are fighting there now? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanXIII 8 Posted April 17, 2006 Who do you think we are fighting there now? Talk about dynamic and thoughtful! "We didn't go to war with Iraq to stop Al Qaeda." Reread as many times as necessary for comprehension to set in. Have an adult help with the big words if necessary. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted April 17, 2006 Talk about dynamic and thoughtful! "We didn't go to war with Iraq to stop Al Qaeda." Reread as many times as necessary for comprehension to set in. Have an adult help with the big words if necessary. Do you not understand that we are now assisting the Iraqi's in defending their country from terrorist groups including Al Qaeda? If we leave Iraq in a position where they are not able to completely defend themselves then we are in effect losing to Al Qaeda and will basically give them another country to set up shop. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paulinstl 296 Posted April 17, 2006 Were you just going to ignor Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood? Care to show me examples of either of those groups attacking the United States? You kill off AQ by cutting off it's head first. Bin Laden is still active for chrissakes. Do you really think if we had used our resources to track him down instead of getting into that clusterfock in Iraq, he'd still be alive? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snuff 10 Posted April 17, 2006 Care to show me examples of either of those groups attacking the United States? You kill off AQ by cutting off it's head first. Bin Laden is still active for chrissakes. Do you really think if we had used our resources to track him down instead of getting into that clusterfock in Iraq, he'd still be alive? I agree with you as far as that goes, but who is to say we would have killed OBL by now? That is one of the roughest places to fight, let alone find one individual who has the support of many of the tribes/leaders there, as well as in neighboring Pakistan. Ask Russia how easy it was to fight there. Clinton had a chance to kill Osama, why is that not being brought up? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites