Obama knew the timeline of the attack and pushed out his bogus Birth certificate a week before Bin Laden killing.

It is bogus as a 2$bill. -- The media and the left saying nothing to see here but truth was pouring out and so it was time for Obama to change the narrative.

Yea Obama does this too...

His best was when he put out a bogus birth certificate and was caught and then had to have Bin Laden 1 week later to wipe the story off the page.

He got one single thing right....when he started by saying "here is an unbelievable story".

Now let's look into the actual (not imagined like this one) relationships between the Republican party, Bushes, and the Bin Ladens. Also don't neglect the real, direct relationships between Trump and the Russian mob/Putin.

Way to over tag, Bob, so it can't be properly be tagged lies, debunked, and or fail.
I regret that I have but one downvote to give for my country.

I suspect this is an insurance scam. His story changes as he tells it. Things like "the guy I bought this from is dead" then "it was my brother ". The packing is horrifically poor too. Who the Hell uses those flimsy plastic bins to ship stuff? Just silly. Even corrugated cardboard is tougher.

*dead for missing http://www.jokeroo.com/bin/player.swf?rl5_a85a

Obama has Bin Laden killed, and Maher attributes it to the white woman...

Your video, Dad laughing at talking robot bins., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You shoiuld have read the Wikipedia article:

"Muhammad bin Nayef bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (Arabic: محمد بن نايف بن عبد العزيز آل سعود‎‎; born 30 August 1959) is the Crown Prince, First Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Interior of Saudi Arabia."

/sigh

He has the right to be offended. He does not have the right to be insulated from offense by forcing everyone around him to remove themselves from his vicinity (which is what you are suggesting).

eg. Hey, I'm offended by you, mebbe you should go write your posts down on a piece of paper and chuck it in the bin instead of posting here. You know, to protect my delicate sensibilities?

Bitch please... \X D

When you veer into talking about changing the Geneva Conventions I think your argument loses logic. Without getting into whether military action is actually justified in the first place, maybe it's worth admitting that there are some thing the US military simply can't do and therefore shouldn't try to?

To suggest that the US should forego international norms to achieve its goals feels like it's channeling the neo-conservative myth of the US as this omnipotent superpower that it never was, and certainly isn't now. What evidence is there that acting like the terrorists (which once you give up international norms you will eventually get to) would actually help achieve its objectives in the first place?

The Bush administration basically took that approach with torture (the "well they did it to us!" approach). When the news of secret rendition, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo broke (as it inevitably would), we know that almost certainly recruited a whole bunch of new terrorists. Meanwhile torture confessions led to a whole bunch of wild goose hunts.

Civilian resistance has been around since the dawn of armies invading foreign lands. International norms geared around state v. state warfare don't really address them, not because they didn't envisage them but because occupying and pacifying foreigners was never a good idea in the first place. Drone strikes, surgical strikes on the likes of Bin Laden should be a rare exception but once you start 'normalizing' them, and giving occupying soldiers wider latitude with civilians that's when you start getting into serious trouble.