Obama on the tonight show Leno gave him softball questions

So you agree Obama has indeed murdered American citizens without due process then, right?

But, that's not what you said earlier is it?

Strange how your wacko liberal mind works isn't it!

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was not a terrorist. He was an American citizen that was not on any terrorist list and not accused of any crimes.

There is absolutely no evidence suggestion this was a mistake and it is you who is denying/justifying the killing of Americans without due process by your precious messiah!

He was guilty of standing next to the target...guess what its war, innocents die...Funny how the right became a party of pussy's the second dem is in the white house.

Oddly did not care one bit about the hundred thousand civilians killed in your Iraq war. But all of the sudden, a top terrorist kid is killed you shit a Brick...of course when Regan kills Hanna Gaddafi rather then The Gaddafi they wanted...you guys cheer and go masterbate to your reagan pics.

Of course it would be to much for you to be smart enough to know that the target may not have him...But you pretend it was because it fits your narrow mind.
Unfortunately for you, and your limited knowledge of most anything which is why you have to resort to personal attacks, and basically lies, I never said I supported the attacks in Libya. If I stay here long enough to even respond to your obvious *********, you will find out I am a Constitutionalist, and believe that the last legal, and Constitutional, war we fought was WW2. Doesn't matter if Congress supported it, or not. Congress supported "insider trading" for its members. Didn't make it legal, or Constitutional. In fact, there are numerous evidences of unConstitutional acts by Presidents, Congress, and SCOTUS, since the founding of the country.

You are reminding me of another Texas Tea Party fool I met in another forum. He is retired Navy, according to him anyway, I call SeaMonkey. Is that you CC?

Why was the Iraq War unconstitutional -- and why is it irrelevant if Congress authorizes it or not? Especially in the context of Article 1 Section 8 expressly spelling out that Congress has the power to declare war?
Don't know how old you are, however, I am surprised you do not remember the families begging for better armor, sending their children body armor bought with their own money, the military preventing the troops from getting privately bought body armor, soldiers scrounging in junk yards for iron to re-enforce the armor on the HumVees, body armor issued missing armor plates, etc.

If you do a little searching you can find articles from Fox, etc., on the situation. We invaded in 2003, and still in 2007, and 2010, they had inadequate equipment. Now people are upset about Benghazi, and we still don't know why Stevens was there at the compound, yet nothing will ever be done about the thousands of troops killed, and maimed, by the lack of protection in Iraq/Afghanistan.


Those complaints, and others, were aired Wednesday when Rumsfeld held a “town hall”-style meeting with about 2,300 soldiers at Camp Buehring in northern Kuwait, a transit camp for troops heading into Iraq.

Wilson asked Rumsfeld, “Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?” Shouts of approval and applause arose from other soldiers who had assembled in an aircraft hangar to see Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.

“We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north,” Wilson, 31, of Nashville, Tenn., concluded after asking again.

“You go to war with the Army you have,” Rumsfeld replied, “not the Army you might want or wish to have.


He added: “Does everything happen instantaneously as the brain in the enemy sees things and makes changes? No, it doesn’t happen instantaneously.” But the Army has adjusted “pretty rapidly” to the evolving tactics of the insurgents, he said, including the need to have more armor on vehicles like the Humvee.
MSNBC.com reported earlier this year that the Army was aware that Humvees were under-protected as far back as 1993 but was still officially advising soldiers as recently as March to put sandbags on the floorboards to deaden the impact of mine explosions.
Rumsfeld promised that steps were also being taken to deal with explosive devices, a leading cause of death in Iraq, where more than 1,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed in action.


Both the sergeant and his wife are serving in Iraq, and both have seen action. But, like thousands of U.S. soldiers, his wife was not given the vital ceramic plates for her Kevlar Interceptor vest to protect her from bullet wounds. Instead, he said, she had to scavenge to find plates left behind by Iraqi soldiers — plates of inferior quality that do not properly fit her vest.

The Pentagon confirms that at least 40,000 of the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq don’t have basic Kevlar Interceptor vests or the ceramic plates needed for full protection.


A better body armor that was shelved last year is now making its way to soldiers in Iraq — but not Afghanistan.
All-Army Activities message 347, dated Nov. 17, outlined the limited fielding of the X Small Arms Protective Inserts, or XSAPI, as well as X Side Ballistic Inserts, or XSBI. Distribution will begin Dec. 15.

Soldiers deploying to Iraq in support of Operation New Dawn will receive XSAPI plates, which will then remain in theater. This will continue until U.S.-based stocks are emptied. Distribution of XSBI plates will follow a similar procedure, but will not begin until February or March.
But soldiers headed to Afghanistan will continue to deploy with Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts, or ESAPI, as well as Enhanced Side Ballistic Inserts, or ESBI.

I think we can certainly agree that the Humvees were not armored to where they should have been when the war started. In my view this, and the delay in getting extra and better armor over there, was for a number of reasons.

1) The Army (and civilian leadership) did not expect to fight an insurgency in Iraq -- and further, the military had been choosing weapon programs in the years leading up to Iraq on the premise that we would not be bogged down fighting a counter-insurgency. Under this mentality -- why spend the money on extra armor, because it wouldn't be needed. Remember Rumsfeld coming to office making a huge push for a "lighter", "faster" military.

2) The civilian (and possibly military) leadership after the insurgency began was slow to accept that this was a serious issue.

3) Once it was impossible to ignore, it was still a logistical and procurement nightmare. Given that the military was not equipping itself for a counterinsurgency for years beforehand anyway, it took added time to get production lines up and running at optimal speed. There is a ton of evidence of armor companies sitting basically bankrupt in the lead up to this simply because the Army was focused on other things. It takes time to get these supply lines back up and going.

4) Even as these items became available, there was still infighting among the military on where it would be sent first. For example the Marines were in a large fight with the Army trying to get the equipment that they needed before the Army, whereas both branches were in dire need.

Ultimately, it amounts to a failure on the part of the civilian and military leadership for not anticipating this type of scenario, and a slowness to accept that it was a larger problem than they were going to admit. Certainly this cost American lives -- but in a bureaucracy as large as the American military, it is not realistic to expect this problem would be solved overnight -- or even quickly frankly. That does not excuse however the slowness to accept the reality on the ground, and needless cost lives.
There is a difference between not being "completely equipped", and being poorly equipped.

and to think those poor schmucks in WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam and every other war got cloth clothes and helmets that couldnt stop any gunfire. no army has gone to war other than poorly equiped. the chosen alternative was (at least in the past 100 yrs or so) was to own the high ground (the sky) to minimize the need. the reason knights in armor rode on draft horses was because that armor is too heavy and cumbersome to uae on foot. those really poor shmucks before all those others had nothing at all. relatively speaking, troops this century are the best equiped fighting force in the history of the world.