Eric Holder: Obama’s deranged Idiot cousin.

Via FOX News, H/T to Musings of a Vast Right-Winger

Usama bin Laden (I don’t know why but it irritates me when they spell it Usama.  Usama/Osama who cares?  Spelling it with a “U” seems to be the “friendlier” thing to do or something) will never be captured alive, Attorney General Eric Holder told lawmakers on Tuesday. "The possibility of capturing him alive is infinitesimal," Holder said. "He will be killed by us, or he will be killed by his own people so that he is not captured by us. We know that. ... The possibility simply does not exist."

[SNIP] Republicans … suggested he intends to treat terrorism suspects as "common criminals." Holder said such suggestions tend to "get my blood boiling," calling them "anything but the truth."

He said the "apt" comparison is to mass murderers like Charles Manson, …Trying to  explain the analogy, Holder said mass murderers like Manson still reserve the right to go before a jury and have the charges against them proved beyond a reasonable doubt. "In some ways I think they're comparable people, in some ways," Holder said.

Rep. John Culberson, R-Tex., called that response "incredible." "This is where the disconnect between this administration in your mindset is so completely opposite that of where the vast majority of the American people are," Culberson said. "This is war, and in a time of war we as a nation have never given Constitutional rights to foreign nationals, enemy soldiers, certainly captured overseas."

[snip] As for the Charles Manson analogy, Holder said he was simply trying to think of a mass murderer. [Snip] "The comparison is between people who have committed the most heinous acts and have been charged in [civilian] courts."

  Still, Culberson found the Charles Manson analogy ill-advised. "By granting Usama bin Laden the right to appear in a U.S. courtroom, you are clothing Usama bin Laden with the protections of the U.S. Constitution," he said.

[Snip] Holder may be the first U.S. official to say unequivocally that bin Laden will never be captured alive, but he is not the first to raise such a possibility. In October 2001, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said bin Laden may never be captured, adding that capturing or killing the Al Qaeda leader would be "very difficult." "It's a big world," he told USA Today. "There are lots of countries. He's got a lot of money, he's got a lot of people who support him and I just don't know whether we'll be successful. Clearly, it would be highly desirable to find him."

The biggest reason he will not be taken alive they left unsaid.  We are not really looking for him and he will die of old age, someday. For heaven’s sake it's been 9 years and you're telling me that if the United States really, really, wanted this guy we would not have found him?

Holder is effin delusional, just like the pResident, and it speaks to Obama's mindset as well. This obvious moonbat would have probably tried to prosecute the Japanese for Pearl Harbor- AT LEAST they attacked a Military Base, not Civilians in offices.  Charlie Manson, an apt comparison?  Manson was responsible for 8 murders, not thousands, and not acts of war. Bin Laden orchestrated the attacks on The WTC, The Pentagon, and just where do you think the other plane was going? (hint) 

  No, an apt comparison between Osama and someone else would be Hitler, or one of the top people of the SS, rounding up and killing people for being Jewish.  No wonder they don’t see the Hamas or Hezbollah as big deals, they are just firing rockets into civilian homes, that is kinda like what Billy Ayers did isn’t it?

I used to believe Osama was dead, now I am open to the possibility that he is still alive, but we are not looking for him.  And to quote Rumsfield...that pisses me off as well, We HAD HIM (here is another better account) and he let turf warfare and political considerations get in the way.

If I had my way we would capture his skinny ass, take him to ground zero and give him to a pack of wild starving hogs....

or better yet just simply shoot him where we find him so dickheads like Holder can't sing effin Kum Ba Ya with him.

-KOOK

Eric Holder: Obama’s deranged Idiot cousin.

Via FOX News, H/T to Musings of a Vast Right-Winger

Usama bin Laden (I don’t know why but it irritates me when they spell it Usama.  Usama/Osama who cares?  Spelling it with a “U” seems to be the “friendlier” thing to do or something) will never be captured alive, Attorney General Eric Holder told lawmakers on Tuesday. "The possibility of capturing him alive is infinitesimal," Holder said. "He will be killed by us, or he will be killed by his own people so that he is not captured by us. We know that. ... The possibility simply does not exist."

[SNIP] Republicans … suggested he intends to treat terrorism suspects as "common criminals." Holder said such suggestions tend to "get my blood boiling," calling them "anything but the truth."

He said the "apt" comparison is to mass murderers like Charles Manson, …Trying to  explain the analogy, Holder said mass murderers like Manson still reserve the right to go before a jury and have the charges against them proved beyond a reasonable doubt. "In some ways I think they're comparable people, in some ways," Holder said.

Rep. John Culberson, R-Tex., called that response "incredible." "This is where the disconnect between this administration in your mindset is so completely opposite that of where the vast majority of the American people are," Culberson said. "This is war, and in a time of war we as a nation have never given Constitutional rights to foreign nationals, enemy soldiers, certainly captured overseas."

[snip] As for the Charles Manson analogy, Holder said he was simply trying to think of a mass murderer. [Snip] "The comparison is between people who have committed the most heinous acts and have been charged in [civilian] courts."

  Still, Culberson found the Charles Manson analogy ill-advised. "By granting Usama bin Laden the right to appear in a U.S. courtroom, you are clothing Usama bin Laden with the protections of the U.S. Constitution," he said.

[Snip] Holder may be the first U.S. official to say unequivocally that bin Laden will never be captured alive, but he is not the first to raise such a possibility. In October 2001, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said bin Laden may never be captured, adding that capturing or killing the Al Qaeda leader would be "very difficult." "It's a big world," he told USA Today. "There are lots of countries. He's got a lot of money, he's got a lot of people who support him and I just don't know whether we'll be successful. Clearly, it would be highly desirable to find him."

The biggest reason he will not be taken alive they left unsaid.  We are not really looking for him and he will die of old age, someday. For heaven’s sake it's been 9 years and you're telling me that if the United States really, really, wanted this guy we would not have found him?

Holder is effin delusional, just like the pResident, and it speaks to Obama's mindset as well. This obvious moonbat would have probably tried to prosecute the Japanese for Pearl Harbor- AT LEAST they attacked a Military Base, not Civilians in offices.  Charlie Manson, an apt comparison?  Manson was responsible for 8 murders, not thousands, and not acts of war. Bin Laden orchestrated the attacks on The WTC, The Pentagon, and just where do you think the other plane was going? (hint) 

  No, an apt comparison between Osama and someone else would be Hitler, or one of the top people of the SS, rounding up and killing people for being Jewish.  No wonder they don’t see the Hamas or Hezbollah as big deals, they are just firing rockets into civilian homes, that is kinda like what Billy Ayers did isn’t it?

I used to believe Osama was dead, now I am open to the possibility that he is still alive, but we are not looking for him.  And to quote Rumsfield...that pisses me off as well, We HAD HIM (here is another better account) and he let turf warfare and political considerations get in the way.

If I had my way we would capture his skinny ass, take him to ground zero and give him to a pack of wild starving hogs....

or better yet just simply shoot him where we find him so dickheads like Holder can't sing effin Kum Ba Ya with him.

-KOOK

Beware: Hell hath frozen over

This was a comment AD33 made to an earlier post and I thought it should be a post of its own. This is all in reference to pResident "Chairman Zero" Obamarx telegraphing his war exit strategy to our enemies. If FDR and Churhill had told the Germans the day date and time of D-day do you think it would have been successful? No. Obamarx has guaranteed our failure in Afghanistan because he has told our enemies that if they can just hold put we will leave. He might as well have bowed to them and the only reason he hasn't us because he hasn't been in the same room as any of Al Queda's leadership.

To quote Chris Mathews ( a first for this blog), "If I were Al qaeda and the Taliban, I'd circle the withdrawal date as the day to start their "surge." You know that when Chris "what's wrong with calling al Qaeda" Mathews gets it, then it must not even be to the level of common sense. So easy a caveman could figure it out. (now the cavemen won't be so offended by geico commercials as being compared to Mathews is far worse.)



-Kook
via iPhone

Beware: Hell hath frozen over

This was a comment AD33 made to an earlier post and I thought it should be a post of its own. This is all in reference to pResident "Chairman Zero" Obamarx telegraphing his war exit strategy to our enemies. If FDR and Churhill had told the Germans the day date and time of D-day do you think it would have been successful? No. Obamarx has guaranteed our failure in Afghanistan because he has told our enemies that if they can just hold put we will leave. He might as well have bowed to them and the only reason he hasn't us because he hasn't been in the same room as any of Al Queda's leadership.

To quote Chris Mathews ( a first for this blog), "If I were Al qaeda and the Taliban, I'd circle the withdrawal date as the day to start their "surge." You know that when Chris "what's wrong with calling al Qaeda" Mathews gets it, then it must not even be to the level of common sense. So easy a caveman could figure it out. (now the cavemen won't be so offended by geico commercials as being compared to Mathews is far worse.)



-Kook
via iPhone

Beware: Hell hath frozen over

This was a comment AD33 made to an earlier post and I thought it should be a post of its own. This is all in reference to pResident "Chairman Zero" Obamarx telegraphing his war exit strategy to our enemies. If FDR and Churhill had told the Germans the day date and time of D-day do you think it would have been successful? No. Obamarx has guaranteed our failure in Afghanistan because he has told our enemies that if they can just hold put we will leave. He might as well have bowed to them and the only reason he hasn't us because he hasn't been in the same room as any of Al Queda's leadership.

To quote Chris Mathews ( a first for this blog), "If I were Al qaeda and the Taliban, I'd circle the withdrawal date as the day to start their "surge." You know that when Chris "what's wrong with calling al Qaeda" Mathews gets it, then it must not even be to the level of common sense. So easy a caveman could figure it out. (now the cavemen won't be so offended by geico commercials as being compared to Mathews is far worse.)



-Kook
via iPhone

Should we do the "surge"?

Last night, Alan Colmes the liberal corpse at Fox News made the argument that we should bring our troops home from Afganistan. I have to admit, I agree with Colmes but for very different reasons. We know we have a pResident that cares more for his pack of cigarettes than he does for our troops. We know that since Obama took office, he has hancuffed our troops with rules of engagement that our soldiers in Vietnam would have deserted over. We know we are fighting an enemy that is as vicious as any in history. We know our pResident has no desire to achieve anything resembling a victory regarding any foreign policy issue. We know the only reason that Obama is doing this surge is because he needs to do something to appease mainstream America because the majority of Americans excluding the extreme left now disapprove of Obama's handling of his job from the economy, to foreign policy to health care. Given the fact that this troop surge adds up to nothing more than throwing 30,000 more troops into the gauntlet of a no win scenario being run by a no win boss, isn't the better choice to bring our troops home from Afganistan now and not lose anymore American lives in a war the regime wants to lose?

I am all for going all out to try to win in Afganistan but I heard nothing about winning in Obama's speech last night. I did hear more apologies for America's wrongs, more blame on the previous administration and much more subserviance to NATO, the UN and any other foreign power. Such attitudes are not winning attitudes, but the same attitudes that led to the quagmayer in Vietnam.

So you tell me, am I wrong to want to put our troops first?

Should we do the "surge"?

Last night, Alan Colmes the liberal corpse at Fox News made the argument that we should bring our troops home from Afganistan. I have to admit, I agree with Colmes but for very different reasons. We know we have a pResident that cares more for his pack of cigarettes than he does for our troops. We know that since Obama took office, he has hancuffed our troops with rules of engagement that our soldiers in Vietnam would have deserted over. We know we are fighting an enemy that is as vicious as any in history. We know our pResident has no desire to achieve anything resembling a victory regarding any foreign policy issue. We know the only reason that Obama is doing this surge is because he needs to do something to appease mainstream America because the majority of Americans excluding the extreme left now disapprove of Obama's handling of his job from the economy, to foreign policy to health care. Given the fact that this troop surge adds up to nothing more than throwing 30,000 more troops into the gauntlet of a no win scenario being run by a no win boss, isn't the better choice to bring our troops home from Afganistan now and not lose anymore American lives in a war the regime wants to lose?

I am all for going all out to try to win in Afganistan but I heard nothing about winning in Obama's speech last night. I did hear more apologies for America's wrongs, more blame on the previous administration and much more subserviance to NATO, the UN and any other foreign power. Such attitudes are not winning attitudes, but the same attitudes that led to the quagmayer in Vietnam.

So you tell me, am I wrong to want to put our troops first?

Should we do the "surge"?

Last night, Alan Colmes the liberal corpse at Fox News made the argument that we should bring our troops home from Afganistan. I have to admit, I agree with Colmes but for very different reasons. We know we have a pResident that cares more for his pack of cigarettes than he does for our troops. We know that since Obama took office, he has hancuffed our troops with rules of engagement that our soldiers in Vietnam would have deserted over. We know we are fighting an enemy that is as vicious as any in history. We know our pResident has no desire to achieve anything resembling a victory regarding any foreign policy issue. We know the only reason that Obama is doing this surge is because he needs to do something to appease mainstream America because the majority of Americans excluding the extreme left now disapprove of Obama's handling of his job from the economy, to foreign policy to health care. Given the fact that this troop surge adds up to nothing more than throwing 30,000 more troops into the gauntlet of a no win scenario being run by a no win boss, isn't the better choice to bring our troops home from Afganistan now and not lose anymore American lives in a war the regime wants to lose?

I am all for going all out to try to win in Afganistan but I heard nothing about winning in Obama's speech last night. I did hear more apologies for America's wrongs, more blame on the previous administration and much more subserviance to NATO, the UN and any other foreign power. Such attitudes are not winning attitudes, but the same attitudes that led to the quagmayer in Vietnam.

So you tell me, am I wrong to want to put our troops first?