22 Responses to “Navy seal accuses Obama of endnagering US National security by rushing to announce and take credit for Osama’s killing”

1. Bob J
   November 7th, 2011 @ 8:49 am

   Wow, nice spin. Read much?

2. Luella
   November 7th, 2011 @ 8:57 am

   There seems to be some doubt about whether this guy was really part of the mission. And the Daily Caller is hardly a reputable news source. They are highly partisan (on our side, but still…) and they don’t fact check.

3. GreatGrey
   November 7th, 2011 @ 1:09 pm

   He’s trying to sell his book.

4. 2discern
   November 7th, 2011 @ 1:48 pm

   Seals need to gather on 11-11-11 in support of the restoration of our Republic. A thorough mission needs completion on the impostor-in-chief. The record will say we have an enemy not only in the gates but operating the gates. All with GOP complicity.

5. Chantal
   November 7th, 2011 @ 2:26 pm

   Osama bin-Laden died sometime in December 2001 of natural causes..

   If we had smarter individuals, the media wouldn’t be able to feed them all this BS.. 😉

6. William
   November 7th, 2011 @ 2:29 pm

   Billy Bob,

   Excellent Point!

   Read much????

7. William
   November 7th, 2011 @ 2:48 pm

   For the blind, ignorant and willing fools;

   It is not a matter of “IF”, it is only a matter of “When”.

   Of that, there is no doubt….

8. William
   November 7th, 2011 @ 3:26 pm

   2discern
   November 7th, 2011 @ 1:48 pm

   …..”The record will say we have an enemy not only in the gates but operating the gates. ”

   ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

   You have quite the insight and appreciated. As history has proven its past, full circle is ever out of the question. To shine light on your statement, it was once said:

   “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”

   Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106 -43 BC.

9. William
   November 7th, 2011 @ 4:07 pm

   Chantal
   November 7th, 2011 @ 2:26 pm

   ….”Osama bin-Laden died sometime in December 2001 of natural causes..”

   ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

   Well stick me with a pin and a poke me in the ribs. I gather it would be absolutely redundant to ask for fossiliferous proof of your theory. Is there anyway to move this theory into the hypothesis stages?

10. Bob Sr.
    November 7th, 2011 @ 4:53 pm

    This is my opinion of the bin Laden raid:

    According to the account of the raid in the book by a Navy Seal, during the raid this happened::

    Al-Qaeda leader’s wife screamed: ‘No, no, don’t do this… it’s not him!’

    I agree with the wife, it was not bin Laden. The death of bin Laden IMO happened years ago…if not we would have seen new videos of him…not just audio that “might” be bin Laden.

    Nothing happens by accident in politics. Obama was in a bind with the imminent release of Jerome Corsi’s new book, “Where’s the Birth Certificate” and he was also under pressure by Donald Trump to release a BC, (and he eventually released a very poor counterfeit). As Barry’s ratings drop accelerated it was decided it was time for the regime to “kill” bin Laden.

    In the quick action described by the Seals there was no way to positively identify bin Laden. The man with the beard and the blown-off face was IMO one of bin Laden’s sons who was said to be at the compound, but has not been seen since the raid.

    If there were any pictures of the dead bin Laden with his face essentially gone shown to members of Congress or anyone else, they were of bin Laden’s son.

    How accurate is the “quick” DNA test said to have been done, what were the results, how can they be affected by it being his son which the test were ran on…and how many people did the test results go through for interpretation before they were announced? Are we getting the truth on any of this?

    Getting rid of the evidence took place at breathtaking speed and was said to be complete even before the announcement of the “death” of bin Laden was made. About that announcement, it was no coincidence that the media interrupted Trump’s TV show; “The Apprentice” half-way through its last and most important episode…the timing was a deliberate poke at Trump, either by Barry himself or his enablers.

    This raid smacked of lies and deception by the masters of such things who surround Barry the usurper.

    In no way does this discredit the bravery of the Seals who took part in this. They had no way in the very short time this raid took to complete to positively identify the dead man with a beard and a blown-off face, but when the “wife” said this;

    “ Al-Qaeda leader’s wife screamed: ‘No, no, don’t do this… it’s not him!”, I believe she was telling the truth.

    In my opinion the Seals were used by a regime which will do anything to solidify and maintain their power

    I might be wrong, but my record of not lying and/or making-up stories and trying to pass them off as true is a whole lot better than Barry’s and his regime.

11. Bob J
    November 7th, 2011 @ 6:30 pm

    William,

    You; with your excellent vocabulary, and total lack of meaning, have no clue. I bet your words sound beautiful in your head. Too bad they are silly on the page.

    Billy Bob? Really. Are you 10?

12. john
    November 8th, 2011 @ 4:10 am

    “Fossiliferous proof”? Proof that has fossils? What the hell are you trying to say, William? Despite Bob’s compliment, an “excellent vocabulary” implies that one understands the words one uses. This does not apply in William’s case – he just uses big words in a vain attempt to feign erudition.

13. john
    November 8th, 2011 @ 4:11 am

    It’s good to see that Chantal is as crazy as ever.

14. No Sharia in America
    November 8th, 2011 @ 1:52 pm

    It’s been documented that Madeleine Albright, former secretary of state, acknowledged that OBL died many years ago; google it, William the clown!

15. Crossman
    November 8th, 2011 @ 2:32 pm

    What a weak argument.

    To say that President Obama even considered what TV show was on when he was killing the free world’s Public Enemy #1 is patently preposterous.

16. Patty
    November 8th, 2011 @ 3:48 pm

    Can some one please translate from Williamese to plain English?

17. William
    November 9th, 2011 @ 11:42 am

    Sure,

    Which part Patty or John?

18. William
    November 9th, 2011 @ 11:48 am

    John,

    P.S. “Fossiliferous proof”, e.g. “Set in Stone” of past historical facts.

19. john
    November 12th, 2011 @ 2:30 am

    William – “e.g.” means “for example”; you’re looking for “i.e.”, which means “that is”.
    “Fossiliferous” does not mean “set in stone”. If you meant “set in stone”, or “concrete”, why not just say that instead of trying to look smarter (or at least more erudite) than you really are by using words you don’t really understand? Read “The Elements of Style” or Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language”.

20. William
    November 12th, 2011 @ 11:55 am

    John,

    Thank-you, for such advice. Honestly.

21. William
    November 12th, 2011 @ 12:23 pm

    John,

    I’ll make a deal with you. I will purchase (at books-a-million) today, 11/12/11, Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language”, read and complete it over the next several nights as well as learn from its content.

    In return, you promise to read and review the Federalist Papers and comprehend them to your best ability. In addition, with future personal posts and any criticism made by you – to anyone – you “Cite” your sources of information (legal or otherwise) pertaining to your writings and insults with any and all assertions you deem deviant of any American Citizen questioning on this blog, court of law, or otherwise general questions related to Obama.

    Deal?

22. john
    November 16th, 2011 @ 6:55 am

    Thanks, William, but I read the Federalist Papers in high school, then again in college, then again in law school. I’ve also got the entire Constitution committed to memory, along with the Gettysburg Address – no kidding.

    Before you take on Orwell, you might want to start with a middle school grammar text. The word “cite”, for example, should not be capitalized or in quotation marks. An assertion cannot be “deviant of” anything; it might be a “deviation from” something, however. These are not insults, William, these are criticisms. Your writing is rife with bad grammar, poor sentence mechanics, and meaningless or misused vocabulary. You speak authoritively as if you are a member of the legal community, but you’re not.

Leave a Reply