PDA

View Full Version : Bravo! Our Remaining Threat&Al Q. Leader, Killed!



Gayle in MD
09-30-2011, 08:03 AM
The Obama Administration has just killed the greatest remaining Terrorist Threat to the United States, American Born, al Qaeda Cleric, Anwar Al-Awlaki in in Central Yemen, by an American un-manned drone, which struck an al Qaeda convoy.

Chief WH Counterterrorism Advisor, John Brennan and other intelligence officials have called al Qaeda, and Anwar Al-Awlaki the chief remaining American threat, as Brennan told us back in June.

He was believed to be behind the Ft. Hood Shooting, and numerous other planned attacks.

It was al Qaeda, in Yemen that attempted to bring down the airliner over Detroit, and which put explosives on Carge Planes, bound for the United States.

As major a victory for the United States as killing bin Laden. This terrorist is known to continue to threaten us by organizing "foot soldiers" here in our country, to continue to attack us here.

BRAVO! Al Qaeda is considered basically smashed to pieces, at this point, and as President Obama, promised, this time, Mission REALLY Accomplished.

Additionally, unlike George Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq, supposedly to kill one man, while in fact, destroying their country with his "Shock And Awe" and killing thousands of innocent others, in the process, The government of Yemenni joined in and took part in this very successful effort to get this MAJOR terrorist, which they said was threating their own peace, and hence, they worked with us, to provide intelligence, in the interest of today's successful result!

G.

Gayle in MD
09-30-2011, 11:10 AM
Up-date,
Accolades are flooding in from many countries, to congratulate the President on his major success today.

Bravo Mr. President.

G.

Gayle in MD
09-30-2011, 11:16 AM
Update:

In quick reversal, Rep. King praises Obama
Published: Friday, September 30, 2011



By Freeman staff
and Associated Press

U.S. Rep. Peter King praised President Barack Obama for the killing of a top al-Qaida leader in Yemen, three days after an Ulster County Republican fund-raiser at which he blasted Obama’s leadership in the fight against terrorism.

King, a Long Island Republican who is the chairman of the powerful House Homeland Security Committee, said today that the killing of the American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen is a "tremendous tribute" to Obama and the U.S. intelligence community, the Associated Press reported.

In a statement, King said the killing of al-Awlaki is a great success in the fight against al-Qaida and its affiliates. King says that in recent years al-Awlaki has been more dangerous than Osama bin Laden.

U.S. counterterrorism officials said that Al-Awlaki was killed early Friday in a strike on his convoy in Yemen. Officials say the attack was carried out by a joint operation of the CIA and the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command.




Speaking at the Ulster County GOP’s annual dinner in Kingston on Tuesday, King had blasted the Obama administration as a weak, apologist government that isn’t standing up for American ideals.

“That is not the type of president we need. That is the type of president who is going to be removed from office in next year’s election in 2012,” said King.



“It’s time for the American people to send the clearest message possibly to everyone in Washington and everyone in the world that we want a president who stands for America, a president whose going to do whatever he has to do to protect the American people from ever, ever being attacked again." /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif


Full story:



http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2011/09/30/news/doc4e85d9cd08897999871989.txt

Gayle in MD
09-30-2011, 11:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> U.S. officials have said they believe al-Awlaki inspired the actions of Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan, who is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder in the attack at Fort Hood, Texas.


In New York, the Pakistani-American man who pleaded guilty to the May 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt said he was "inspired" by al-Awlaki after making contact over the Internet.


Al-Awlaki also is believed to have had a hand in mail bombs addressed to Chicago-area synagogues, packages intercepted in Dubai and Europe in October 2010.


Al-Awlaki's death "will especially impact the group's ability to recruit, inspire and raise funds as al-Awlaki's influence and ability to connect to a broad demographic of potential supporters was unprecedented," said terrorist analyst Ben Venzke of the private intelligence monitoring firm, the IntelCenter.


But Venzke said the terror group al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula will remain the most dangerous regional arm "both in its region and for the direct threat it poses to the U.S. following three recent failed attacks," with its leader Nasir al-Wahayshi still at large.


Al-Awlaki wrote an article in the latest issue of the terror group's magazine justifying attacking civilians in the West. It's titled "Targeting the Populations of Countries that Are at War with the Muslims."


Al-Awlaki served as imam at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Va., a Washington suburb, for about a year in 2001.


The mosque's outreach director, Imam Johari Abdul-Malik, has said that mosque members never saw al-Awlaki espousing radical ideology while he was there and that he believes Awlaki's views changed after he left the U.S.


« Previous Page12.

</div></div>

Gayle in MD
09-30-2011, 12:03 PM
I see that only the idiot Ron Paul, and this no good terrorist's father, are bashing the President for successfully killing off our most major threat, a proven terrorist, who is spending his time, translating bin Laden's words and policies, for the threats who walk among us here, and recruiting American radical Muslims who are Americans, to kill us.

So, is Ron Paul, the same guy who would let a young thirty year old man die, simply because he has no health insurance, actually a potential murderer AND a terrorist lover?



Additionally, as I stated way back when GW BUSH, decided we had to fight them over there, so we wouldn't have to fight them over here, pure idiocy, obviously, but what was the point in invading Iraq, OR Afghanistan, blowing up a bunch of innocent people on the other side of the world, making more enemies in the process, when we could have used Special Forces, Drones, Secret Agent specialists, and diplomacy, to accomplish far more, without launching an all out war, or invading any other country.

We obviously, have accomplished far more under President Obama's efforts, by doing just that, than under Bush's failed policies, as we see bombings going on right to this day, in Iraq'q CIVIL WAR.

We were already in Iraq, and Afghanistan, when President Obama took office, but I am very glad that he is using the kind of technologies we have available, to accomplish our mission, and avoiding going in with 'Shock and Awe', into Yemeni, Libya or Syria, with boots on the ground, every time we locate a possible threat.

As we now know, Saddam, was no iminent threat.

G.

ugotda7
09-30-2011, 01:08 PM
Yep, great job continuing Bush's policies - BRAVO!!!!!

LWW
09-30-2011, 01:48 PM
I love the smell of moonbat hypocrisy in the morning.

Soflasnapper
10-01-2011, 01:58 PM
C'mon, Gayle!

You are somewhat accurate in describing Ron Paul's criticism of this action. But it isn't accurate to say he said the young man in that hypothetical should die.

He clearly answered, 'no' to that question, whatever was shouted to the contrary by a member or two of the audience, and however incoherent his answer as to how that could be then avoided. He said 'no' [he shouldn't be allowed to die, which was the question], and it is wrong to misreport his position as you did.

I've stated my agreement with Ron Paul on this question in another thread already. US Presidents should not arrogate to themselves the power of judge, jury and executioner, without any due process, against American citizens, wherever they are in the world.

If this REALLY needs to be done, it should be done covertly, and denied as a general policy pronouncement. As in, 'whoopsy! gosh, accidentally got this guy,' or something. The way we denied that our smart weapons intentionally were targeted at the Chinese embassy in Kosovo or wherever that was. ('Sorry, just a mistake!')

To my way of thinking, Obama is only displaying his willingness to kill as a sop to a bloodthirsty electorate who demands such killing policies as a sign of toughness. A toughness that Democrats are generally thought too soft to exercise even when the country's security seems to require it.

This guy was not any kind of leader of AQ, if that org even really exists (as what it is claimed to be). He was a middling level propagandist, and most likely of all, an agent provocateur for our side. KO's substitute host had on a national security expert who explained what I said, minus the charge of his having been working for us, to be sure.

Qtec
10-01-2011, 02:27 PM
The US has become judge, jury and executioner- on one of its own citizens. That can/t be right.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional blogger with Salon.com, appeared on Democracy Now Friday morning to denounce the killing as a step beyond what President Bush had done. "If you are somebody that believes the President of the United States has the power to order your fellow citizens murdered, assassinated, killed without a shred of due process," Greenwald said, "then you are really declaring yourself to be as pure of an authoritarian as it gets. </div></div>

Q

Soflasnapper
10-01-2011, 04:14 PM
Quite right.

Leftists who adhere to the Constitution and the rule of law as the American way, join true rightist Constitutionalists in condemning this un-American and illegal act.

So you'll see a Ralph Nader, the ACLU, Kucinich, etc. joining the position of Ron Paul on this one.

And it is a measure of the right wing's failure to walk their talk that they support the action instead.

The ends do not justify the means, and by the slippery slope argument, and the proposition that the war on terror is active everywhere in the world, ANYBODY might run afoul of a targeted non-judicial killing policy or its collateral damage so-called.

cushioncrawler
10-01-2011, 04:28 PM
SOME WHITE THINGS ARE NICE.
http://i1035.photobucket.com/albums/a432/cushioncrawler/Garden/Dec15057.jpg

eg8r
10-01-2011, 11:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are somewhat accurate in describing Ron Paul's criticism of this action. But it isn't accurate to say he said the young man in that hypothetical should die.

He clearly answered, 'no' to that question,</div></div>Hate for anyone that does not agree with her is the only explanation. She will slander them to the end because she knows they will not read this board and go after her.

Now, what do you think about the order of assassination of a US citizen?

eg8r

eg8r
10-01-2011, 11:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The US has become judge, jury and executioner- on one of its own citizens. That can/t be right.
</div></div>I agree. While I know if they captured him and took him alive he would have died of old age walking through our court system but order an assassination of a US citizen does seem to cross the line.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
10-02-2011, 07:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">C'mon, Gayle!

You are somewhat accurate in describing Ron Paul's criticism of this action. But it isn't accurate to say he said the young man in that hypothetical should die.

He clearly answered, 'no' to that question, whatever was shouted to the contrary by a member or two of the audience, and however incoherent his answer as to how that could be then avoided. He said 'no' [he shouldn't be allowed to die, which was the question], and it is wrong to misreport his position as you did.

I've stated my agreement with Ron Paul on this question in another thread already. US Presidents should not arrogate to themselves the power of judge, jury and executioner, without any due process, against American citizens, wherever they are in the world.



<span style="color: #CC0000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>But IIRC, after 9/11, the Bill, or Act, was passed, which gave a huge margin to the President, (at that time the President was Bush) to use his judgement on these matters of protecting us from terrorist attacks. Was it called The War Powers Act?

I think there is plenty of moral justification for doing this.

This was the man who moved the al Qaeda operational network, from Afghanistan, to Yemen.

Our Intelligence Community considers Yemen the current home of the operational network of al Qaeda, and this man who was assassinated, is considered the current operational leader there.

Surely, you aren't suggesting that Yemen hasn't been of major concern to our national security, recently?</span> </span>
If this REALLY needs to be done, it should be done covertly, and denied as a general policy pronouncement. As in, 'whoopsy! gosh, accidentally got this guy,' or something. The way we denied that our smart weapons intentionally were targeted at the Chinese embassy in Kosovo or wherever that was. ('Sorry, just a mistake!')


<span style="color: #CC0000"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>I don't agree. I think it's always best when the president tells us the truth. </span> </span>

To my way of thinking, Obama is only displaying his willingness to kill as a sop to a bloodthirsty electorate who demands such killing policies as a sign of toughness. A toughness that Democrats are generally thought too soft to exercise even when the country's security seems to require it.

<span style="color: #CC0000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>WOW, I don't agree my friend. I think the man was a very real threat, and had virtually given up his citizenship, when he became an enemy of the State, and began to incite terrorist attacks, here on our shores, spreading the word of Jihad.</span> </span>

This guy was not any kind of leader of AQ, if that org even really exists (as what it is claimed to be). He was a middling level propagandist, and most likely of all, an agent provocateur for our side. KO's substitute host had on a national security expert who explained what I said, minus the charge of his having been working for us, to be sure. </div></div>


<span style="color: #CC0000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>He was walking right next to another who was killed, who is a bomb maker, when he was asassinated???? I think this is an important victory in the war against al Qaeda, and/or the radical Muslim call to Jihad. </span> </span>

<span style="color: #CC0000"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>My sense of Ron Paul's views on the subject, was that he was saying, the guy made his choices, let him take his own consequences. Translate it however you wish, but that was my interpretation of his reaction to the hypothetical.

If he did say, "No, by all means, he shouldn't die and society should pay whatever is necessary to keep him alive" then I apologize.</span></span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Chief WH Counterterrorism Advisor, John Brennan and other intelligence officials have called al Qaeda, and Anwar Al-Awlaki the chief remaining American threat, as Brennan told us back in June.

</div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000">So, are you saying that Brennen lied to us? If al Qaeda doesn't exsit, I've not read about it, nor have I read that when and if we destroy al Qaeda, all radical Muslims, will drop their Jihad.

I believe that when an American citizen leaves our country and makes a declaration that he has joined the Radical Muslim Jihad against Americans, and declares America his enemy, and then targets, and actively enlists American Muslim youth, to his Jihadist cause, he is committing treason.

According to what I have read, and heard, he has been linked to attempted attacks, and uses the internet to recruit domestic terrorists, here.

If we are going to justify pre-emptive war against another country, invade it, occupy it, bomb the hell out of it, kill innocent people in that country, on heresay, and then justify it all by saying the President (in this case it was Bush) has/had the right to take any measures necessary, to protect the country, break any former Treaties, International agreements, break Constitutional Laws as he sees fit, all to protect us from terrorist attacks here on our shores, then how is it un-Constitutional when the president kills a self declared treasonist, and enemy, who has joined the other side in our so called War On Terror?

I'm not a Constitutional Attorney, but I do not see where a citizen who declared himself as having joined the enemy, in a Jihad, (war) still maintains his Constitutional Rights, after physically leaving this country, to do so.

Americans are shot to death regularly, right here, when they are engaged, real time, in killing others, or in the act of trying to kill someone.

A policeman will never serve time for killing a citizen, who is shooting at him, just to give him his day in court.

When the Domestic Terrorist, nutjob was on that Tower, in Texas, shooting people, did we try to see to it that he had his day in court?

Are we still in a War On Terror?

While al Qaeda is said to be on the run, much degraded, I don't think anyone is saying that the stated Radical Muslim Jihadist War On America, has ended, or that there are no Jihadist "Soldiers" left, and no active measures going on to exxpand that ideology.

If we have to insure Constitutional rights, for a self-declared treasonist, who left this country to join a war against us, and is known to be active in recruiting young Muslim Americans living here, to the Jihaist cause of Domestic Terrorism, in our so called, War On Terror, when he is actively spreading the jihadist ideology on the internet, for recruitment, and engaging in spreading Jihadist plans with others, for the purpose of organizing or inspiring domestic attacks, then we're in big trouble.

Just my view....


Additionally, I respect President Obama, for telling it like it is (was) rather than feeding all of the world a boatload of Bull about how and why he did what he did.

As I stated many times during the Bush Administration, once we dilute laws, rights, and Constitutional limits, for one president, we should be aware that we may not like what we've agreed to let slide when future President's utilize those same policies.

I believe the president did the absolute right thing, and that legislation approved after 9/11, covers what he did quite well, and additionally, that most Americans will be glad that he killed this guy.

Now, had we impeached Bush and Cheney, I might see it differently.

G.</span>

Gayle in MD
10-03-2011, 11:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">C'mon, Gayle!

You are somewhat accurate in describing Ron Paul's criticism of this action. But it isn't accurate to say he said the young man in that hypothetical should die.

He clearly answered, 'no' to that question, whatever was shouted to the contrary by a member or two of the audience, and however incoherent his answer as to how that could be then avoided. He said 'no' [he shouldn't be allowed to die, which was the question], and it is wrong to misreport his position as you did.

I've stated my agreement with Ron Paul on this question in another thread already. US Presidents should not arrogate to themselves the power of judge, jury and executioner, without any due process, against American citizens, wherever they are in the world.

If this REALLY needs to be done, it should be done covertly, and denied as a general policy pronouncement. As in, 'whoopsy! gosh, accidentally got this guy,' or something. The way we denied that our smart weapons intentionally were targeted at the Chinese embassy in Kosovo or wherever that was. ('Sorry, just a mistake!')

To my way of thinking, Obama is only displaying his willingness to kill as a sop to a bloodthirsty electorate who demands such killing policies as a sign of toughness. A toughness that Democrats are generally thought too soft to exercise even when the country's security seems to require it.

This guy was not any kind of leader of AQ, if that org even really exists (as what it is claimed to be). He was a middling level propagandist, and most likely of all, an agent provocateur for our side. KO's substitute host had on a national security expert who explained what I said, minus the charge of his having been working for us, to be sure. </div></div>


Just as a follow up, Sofla, I think you'll agree, that Paul never said that he tought that we as a society, should save this young man's life, not provide him any assistance.

He said that the church should pay for him to live.

Of course, it isn't likely that a church would be there standing by, to offer up the money, for saving this man's life, and hence, I think my original take on the flavor of his comments, was quite correct, particularly given that he never made a sound to speak out against the "Let him die" yelloing that was going on at the timme.

After having looked into his exact actual words, I think my take on his overall policy, was quite correct, after all.


See for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4Am2bWQRNw

Additionally,If any doubts remain regarding this ssassinated man's involvement with al Qaeda, the role he had assumed in recruitment, operational planning, and the proof of serious concerns, of our terrorist experts, documented intelligence, and expectations of his threat, going forward, the real and current threat that he, and his al Q. peers in Yemen represent in terrorist attacks on Americans here in our country, please see the most recent Charlie Rose program, first half with Warren Buffet, and with another segment on this assassination of the former American, turned Al Qaeda leader, in Yemen, as this provides ample proof of everything I had written earlier.

the Chralie Rose program, usually makes their programs available within a week of airing them, sometimes sooner.

See also, my other post, regarding Buffet.

G.

eg8r
10-03-2011, 12:17 PM
Gayle - The best friend of any enemy of the US. She fights for the assassination of US citizens while giving terrorists the bye and refusing to torture.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-03-2011, 01:36 PM
I think you'll agree, that Paul never said that he t[h]ought that we as a society, should save this young man's life, not provide him any assistance.

He said that the church should pay for him to live.

No, I disagree. He (in effect, as I heard it) said a properly humanitarian society ought to provide for the payment of this care as it used to, prior to federal mandated involvement, on a voluntary charitable basis. It's just that he places the limit of societal involvement at private society, not national or federal government 'society.' With respect to how this used to be handled, it was at county levels, and pro bono charitable hospitals run as non-profits, often by religious institutes, etc.

I take his position to also be that having this funding support provided by a state government would also be the wrong idea, even though there is no Constitutional prohibition that applies to state government, which some may find does exist barring federal government involvement (on an enumerated powers analysis). I don't agree with his position, and especially if he would find state-level support wrong, but it isn't as you say, given that he clearly did say 'no.' (Did you catch it in the video replays?).

Really, the way this works today is that the hospital would have to provide free care and eat the cost, to pass on to others who pay, assuming they take federal monies for Medicare or Medicaid in other cases. (Formerly, hospitals were free to deny them care and send them to the few hospitals that provided charity care.) That is, even in the world today, under the fact situation hypothesized, the US federal government would NOT pay for that man's care (unless he'd already signed up for Medicaid).

As to the alleged voluminous evidence against the alleged American jihadi, was it still insufficient for charges to be filed? (None were.) Remember how Noreiga was the subject of a federal grand jury indictment in Miami prior to Bush's Just Cause operation?

Analogies to killing people who were actively shooting people from a tower are incorrect. Lethal force is justified to stop an imminent threat to the lives of people. What is said of this man was that he wrote and spoke to urge people to wage jihad against the US. From what I've read, that is not a crime, but would be protected political speech had he been in this country when he did it. Even if that is wrong, there was no imminent threat to the lives of persons.

Soflasnapper
10-03-2011, 01:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle - The best friend of any enemy of the US. She fights for the assassination of US citizens while giving terrorists the bye and refusing to torture.

eg8r </div></div>

That's a little silly in this case, as she has approved the non-judicial killing of somebody said to be a big terrorist. No bye given, and no plea for liberal-style law enforcement treatment, just WAR on the AQ, and death.

eg8r
10-03-2011, 01:47 PM
I guess I should have said, "She fights for the assassination of US citizens while giving non-US citizens the bye and refusing to torture."

LWW
10-03-2011, 02:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">C'mon, Gayle!

You are somewhat accurate in describing Ron Paul's criticism of this action. But it isn't accurate to say he said the young man in that hypothetical should die.

He clearly answered, 'no' to that question, whatever was shouted to the contrary by a member or two of the audience, and however incoherent his answer as to how that could be then avoided. He said 'no' [he shouldn't be allowed to die, which was the question], and it is wrong to misreport his position as you did.
</div></div>

BRAVO!

Gayle in MD
10-04-2011, 06:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think you'll agree, that Paul never said that he t[h]ought that we as a society, should save this young man's life,

<span style="color: #CC0000"> Yes, I do agree that when pressed for a yes or no answer, that he said no, but his follow up comments told me more about how he thinks, what he would support, and his solution is a joke!

IMO, he would let the guy die, before he would subscribe to any humanitarian intervention back by our government.

One would think that if the religious groups which he pointed to as the benefactors of life for this young man, could or would take care of all of the health care for all of those too poor, or without insurance, to save the hypothetical young man, from a philosophy of "Let him die", and/or, in emergency situations, then we wouldn't have seen 62% of those who went through foreclosure, and lost their homes, early on, having lost them due to health care costs, and being dumped by their insurance providers.

Religious hospitals and organizations, have not been the saviors of all of the ill, and in need, in my lifetime. Do they do some of it, yes, but far, far less, than what is needed.

I often agree with Ron Paul's views on foreign policy, but I find his Libertarian views to be seriously unrealistic, deeply flawed and operationally lacking, when it comes to his domestic views of the role of the Federal Government.

For exmaple, he thinks we should do away with FEMA, and while he rants about spending, if you check into the amount of earmark money he has secured for his own district, back home, over his time in office, you'll find they have gotten loads of Federal money for their problems, so I find that what he says, and what he does, are quite different...just as his quick reply, "No...(don't let him die) but IMO clearly, what he believes is that religious charity, could and would cover all such people in their hour of need, an absurd belief, which if there were any actual truth to it, then it would have been the case, all along, and we wouldn't have seen thousands upon thousands of sick people dying, over these last fifteen years, after being dropped and scammed by their health providers, or because they were too poor for any health insurance.

If Ron Paul had been president, during the Great Depression, we'd have been in an awful situation.

The Marshal Plan, the G.I. Bill, VA Loans, none of that could have hapened under the illogical, irrational policies of people like Ron Paul. Not to mention, we'd have lost far more in terms of natural resources, with an anti government nut, like him. Doesn't realize that rebuilding our beatiful beaches, for example, is a worthy expenditure, is there are rich people living along the shoreline. Crazy, given the taxes they pay to live there, and the loss we would all suffer, if we neglected such natural disasters.

Since I believe that we no longer have a true "Free Market" but a corrupt market, and a country of corporate greed. corruption and irresponsible pollution, and which is actually a hidden, shadow market, operated, behind the scenes, in a country [i]Of The One Percent, For The One Percent, By The One Percent As has been so beautifully documented in a recent Vanity Fair article, I find some of Mr. Paul's statements to be very true, but like most Libertarian solutions, they fall far short, in the realilties of life, and IMO, would not lead to an acceptable solution, on ,many levels, in the reality of day to day life, here in America, in the long run. </span>

He said that the church should pay for him to live.

No, I disagree. He (in effect, as I heard it) said a properly humanitarian society ought to provide for the payment of this care as it used to, prior to federal mandated involvement, on a voluntary charitable basis. It's just that he places the limit of societal involvement at private society, not national or federal government 'society.' With respect to how this used to be handled, it was at county levels, and pro bono charitable hospitals run as non-profits, often by religious institutes, etc.


<span style="color: #CC0000"> Yes, and again, his solution is stupid and unworkable, he spoke with a forked tongue....unworkable, for the vast majority of those who need help.

Without using the words, he is actually saying, "Let him die" since we all know, religious organizations couldn't possibly, and wouldn't anyway, take care of all of those in need. </span>
I take his position to also be that having this funding support provided by a state government would also be the wrong idea, even though there is no Constitutional prohibition that applies to state government, which some may find does exist barring federal government involvement (on an enumerated powers analysis). I don't agree with his position, and especially if he would find state-level support wrong, but it isn't as you say, given that he clearly did say 'no.' (Did you catch it in the video replays?).

<span style="color: #CC0000">Again, I caught what he said, 'no' but then heard what he really thought, as he went on, which, IMO, amounted to "Let him die" if we are going to be honest about his entire answer and preferred solution. </span>


Really, the way this works today is that the hospital would have to provide free care and eat the cost, to pass on to others who pay, assuming they take federal monies for Medicare or Medicaid in other cases. (Formerly, hospitals were free to deny them care and send them to the few hospitals that provided charity care.) That is, even in the world today, under the fact situation hypothesized, the US federal government would NOT pay for that man's care (unless he'd already signed up for Medicaid).

<span style="color: #CC0000">In yesterday's world, that may have worked somewhat, but not for everyone who might be in that comma, and in today's world, given the current costs involved in health care, it is an absurd idea, which is why I say, that after the resounding "No" Mr. Paul was speaking with a forked tongue, and to me, clearly his view, given his statement, was "let him die" since his solution is patently impossible.

Totally unacceptable, to me. But then I am convinced that what we need, and could get, without the irrationally unconscionable RW and Libertarian philosophies and obstruction, which would solve the problem, is a Public Option, which is the only way to create enough competition, to solve the horrendously high and unsustainable costs, of Health Care amnd the scamming by the health Insurance Industry. </span>

As to the alleged voluminous evidence against the alleged American jihadi, was it still insufficient for charges to be filed? (None were.) Remember how Noreiga was the subject of a federal grand jury indictment in Miami prior to Bush's Just Cause operation?

Analogies to killing people who were actively shooting people from a tower are incorrect. Lethal force is justified to stop an imminent threat to the lives of people.


<span style="color: #CC0000"> Yes, and according to my studies, this man was an imminent threat to the lives of Americans here in our country. How can he be a traitor, and have Constitutional rights? </span>
What is said of this man was that he wrote and spoke to urge people to wage jihad against the US. From what I've read, that is not a crime, but would be protected political speech had he been in this country when he did it.

<span style="color: #CC0000">That's just it, he wasn't in our country. He left our country, to join the enemy, and the Jihad.

He was a traitor, to our country, and his actions and involvements in operations, according to my studies, were far more advanced and infused, than you are saying.

I hope you can manage to watch the Chralie Rose Program, which includes ann interview with Warren Buffet, in the first segment, and then addresses the actual documentations, regarding this man whom we assassinated...If you do, I think you might just agree with me, that his operational involvement has been far more than you are saying.</span>
</div></div>

Even if that is wrong, there was no imminent threat to the lives of persons.



<span style="color: #CC0000"> My friend, this is one time when we will have to agree to disagree. This man had become more popular in his leadership of the jihad, than bin laden...he had taken bin Laden's place, as far as his operational status, and incitement of violent attacks, here in our country, was concerned.

IMO, he was a real and present danger to Americans, and we were absolutely correct, in killing him if we could.

When you leave the country, and join enemy forces in a war, you are a traitor to your country.

Given alQaeda's operative's M.O. is to hide, and do so among innocents, I say if we get the chance to kill a self-proclaimed Jihadist, a self proclaimed terrorist, and traitor, who is actively involved in planning, recruiting, providing informationa and suggestions to the hidden threats among us, inspiring them to take part in terrorist attacks here, which he absolutely was, then I say get the job done while you can, with the least amount of collateral damage to the innocent.

If only that had been our foreign policy going all the way back to 9/11, we wouldn't still be struggling to recover economically, from the failed results of Bush's invasions and occupations.

Ron Paul and I agree on that much.

Additionally, I have to say, that had Bush managed to kill bin Laden, KSM, or this man, I'd have had the exact same opinion, and would have given him praise for finally accomplishing the "Mission" or should I say, the only "Mission" that we should have had, at that time.

BUT, I am completely against the use of torture. I believe we are better than that, but that we shouldn't be stupid about killing our self-proclaimed enemies, who are living their lives for the purpose of giving their lives, if necessary, if they can kill Americans, here in our country, so get them when we can.

Surely, that can't be as wrong as pre-emptive war, sold to us on lies, and fixed intelligence.

G. </span>