Originally Posted by Keedy

From what I understand, Osama bin Laden was in our sights more then once but when asked for orders to reel him in during the Clinton years...they were denied. Apparently higher-ups don't want to stain their legacy. Maybe Clinton was too busy in the Oval office to take the call?

Keedy

That was the same during the first Gulf War.. we had Saddam Hussein in visual contact many times, but were never given the ok to take him out. I can understand why sometimes back then. As much as he was disliked by us, and others, it would not of been wise to just execute him on the spot. Many of security and intell briefs I sat in and heard the same thing over and over.

Originally Posted by GMONEY

That was the same during the first Gulf War.. we had Saddam Hussein in visual contact many times, but were never given the ok to take him out. I can understand why sometimes back then. As much as he was disliked by us, and others, it would not of been wise to just execute him on the spot. Many of security and intell briefs I sat in and heard the same thing over and over.
We dont just need Warriors like Patton in the field, Need them in congress also. Need someone to stand up and tell everyone what the Rock is COOKIN.

Well, I think the government thinks that assassinating Hussein and killing Bin Laden are a little like apples and oranges as one is a leader of a country and one is a leader of terrorists. To that, I guess I would have to agree,also. That goes with the same theory that we could have taken-out Castro many times.Apparently both of then were so paranoid that they had many doubles who looked and dressed exactly like them.
I do agree that we need more Hawks in congress instead of these professional politicians. I also firmly believe in term limits and very limited retirement benefits for these clowns, err, elected representatives of the people.

Originally Posted by Keedy

Well, I think the government thinks that assassinating Hussein and killing Bin Laden are a little like apples and oranges as one is a leader of a country and one is a leader of terrorists. To that, I guess I would have to agree,also. That goes with the same theory that we could have taken-out Castro many times.Apparently both of then were so paranoid that they had many doubles who looked and dressed exactly like them.
I do agree that we need more Hawks in congress instead of these professional politicians. I also firmly believe in term limits and very limited retirement benefits for these clowns, err, elected representatives of the people.

There have always been term limits. It's called "vote for the other person." We as an electorate have been too lazy or apathetic to use the power we have. I can't remember who it was, but one congressperson was quoted that s/he would "fight with all my power for term limits, even it it takes me 20 years to get them enacted."

No Congress is ever going to put limits of any kind on itself. After all, when was the last time they denied themselves a pay raise?

Originally Posted by SteveZ

There have always been term limits. It's called "vote for the other person." We as an electorate have been too lazy or apathetic to use the power we have. I can't remember who it was, but one congressperson was quoted that s/he would "fight with all my power for term limits, even it it takes me 20 years to get them enacted."

No Congress is ever going to put limits of any kind on itself. After all, when was the last time they denied themselves a pay raise?

Incumbents have a huge advantage over their opponents.$$$$$$$

Keedy

Originally Posted by Keedy

Incumbents have a huge advantage over their opponents.$$$$$$$

Keedy

Well, if that many people or organizations or corporations are willing to give any candidate a boatload of $$$$ to get elected, that just means the candidate is indebted big-time and has a lot of post-election debts to pay.

Too bad more people just watch an incumbent's television advertisements and never bother reviewing the voting record. There's a <15% approval rating for a reason.....

Originally Posted by SteveZ

Well, if that many people or organizations or corporations are willing to give any candidate a boatload of $$$$ to get elected, that just means the candidate is indebted big-time and has a lot of post-election debts to pay.

Too bad more people just watch an incumbent's television advertisements and never bother reviewing the voting record. There's a <15% approval rating for a reason.....

Yep, that's funny how that works...1st they have low approval ratings and then they dig into their war chest and buy a bunch of commercials and advertising to tell the voters why they should vote for them again and then their poll numbers go up and previous "ratings" are forgotten?

Only in Congress!!! That should of been Don King's saying...............