When I first heard about the assault on the compound in Pakistan that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden, I was happy and proud as an American. And willing to give Obama credit where credit was due.
It seemed like a gutsy move – which the mainstream media narrative quickly seized upon: the political consequences for Obama would have been quite negative if the mission had failed. It would have reminded everyone yet again that Obama is a reincarnation of Jimmy Carter. And the whole “Desert One” fiasco would have surely been remembered.
But take just a second and look at it from the opposite perspective; you know, the one that the mainstream media has never once considered for even a nanosecond. What would have happened had Barack Obama decided NOT to try to take out bin Laden? What would have happened – more to the point – when the American people were informed that Barack Obama had known for certain where Osama bin Laden was, and refused to try to get him?
Wouldn’t that have had even MORE DISASTEROUS consequences???
And, the thing is, it is a near certainty that that information would have gotten out. There would have been sufficient disgust in both the CIA and in the Pentagon that somebody would have made sure that the news got out that Barack Obama – who had PROMISED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE that he would go into Pakistan to get bin Laden – had cowardly refused to keep yet another promise.
Imagine for just a second the abundant campaign ads: slow-moving video of Osama bin Laden, followed by footage of the twin towars collapsing, followed by Barack Obama giving his word to get bin Laden, followed by the evidence that Obama knew for at least half a year where bin Laden was hiding, and refused to even try to get him.
It would have been just as “bold” for Obama to decide that an operation to get bin Laden was too risky, and jeopardized critical U.S.-Pakistani relations to too high a degree.
Barack Obama was forced into a position where he had to rely on the U.S. military to save his political hide. And the U.S. military came through for him.
And how does Obama repay that military? By literally gutting their budget, that’s how:
President Obama has targeted the Department of Defense to absorb more than 80 percent of the cuts he has proposed in next year’s budget for discretionary programs.
Does Obama deserve credit for that? Really? Is he out right now campaigning as the guy who just gutted the military he commands, or is he out campaigning as the commander-in-chief of a glorious military?
People should hear that RIGHT NOW Barack Obama is taking an axe and gutting the Navy SEALs, and the Nightstalkers who brought them in and out of that compound, and the Screaming Eagles he visited yesterday, and the entire rest of the military.
People should know that Barack Obama demonized the primary means of interrogation that got us Osama bin Laden. And there is no question that waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation” methods led us to the breakthroughs we needed to get bin Laden:
Ex-CIA Counterterror Chief: ‘Enhanced Interrogation’ Led U.S. to bin Laden
By Massimo Calabresi Wednesday, May 4, 2011A former head of counterterrorism at the CIA, who was investigated last year by the Justice Department for the destruction of videos showing senior al-Qaeda officials being interrogated, says the harsh questioning of terrorism suspects produced the information that eventually led to Osama bin Laden’s death.
Jose Rodriguez ran the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center from 2002 to 2005, the period when top al-Qaeda leaders Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and Abu Faraj al-Libbi were taken into custody and subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques” (EITs) at secret prisons overseas. KSM was subjected to waterboarding, sleep deprivation and other techniques. Al-Libbi was not waterboarded, but other EITs were used on him.
“Information provided by KSM and Abu Faraj al-Libbi about bin Laden’s courier was the lead information that eventually led to the location of [bin Laden’s] compound and the operation that led to his death,” Rodriguez tells TIME in his first public interview. Rodriguez was cleared of charges in the video-destruction investigation last year.
Even career Democrat and Obama appointee for Director of Central Intelligence Leon Panetta has openly acknowledged that waterboarding was an instrumental part of this intelligence effort:
Asked by NBC-TV’s Brian Williams about the information obtained from detainees that led to the bin Laden takedown, Panetta replied: ‘We had multiple series of sources that provided information with regards to this situation. … Clearly some of it came from detainees [and] they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of those detainees.”
When Williams asked whether “waterboarding” was one of those techniques, Panetta replied: “That’s correct.”
We have the following from the CIA analysts and the CIA director at the time, describing how essential the enhanced interrogations were to the knowledge that the CIA learned:
CATHERINE HERRIDGE, FOX NEWS NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): March 2003, Rawalpindi, Pakistan, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured and according to U.S. officials, the self-described architect of 9/11 was immediately taken into the CIA enhanced interrogation program and waterboarded. It was three to four months later, according to U.S. officials, that KSM was asked about the courier who was known only by an Al Qaeda alias. He downplayed the courier’s importance. The top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee says the implications of the CIA’s early leads are clear. […]
A former senior intelligence official says the waterboarding of KSM, quote, “took his spirited defiance into a zone of cooperation,” adding that the harsh interrogation tactic critics described as torture was not used to elicit information but rather to alter the detainee’s mindset. Philip Mudd is a former CIA analyst.
PHILIP MUDD, FORMER CIA ANALYST: Having seen this stuff on the inside, that’s not a debate. That is a done deal. The information we got was invaluable. So debate the cultural side and the political side, but please don’t debate the intelligence side.
HERRIDGE: In a radio interview with FOX, former CIA Director Michael Hayden said there is no question the CIA program including waterboarding laid the foundation for bin Laden’s capture.
MICHAEL HAYDEN, FMR CIA DIRECTOR ON FOX NEWS RADIO (via telephone): That database was kind of like the home depot of intelligence analysis. You know, it was incredibly detailed stuff.
HERRIDGE: As for its role in identifying this compound in Pakistan —
HAYDEN: It would be very difficult for me to conceive of an operation like the one that took place on Sunday that did not include in its preparation information that came out of the CIA detention program.
HERRIDGE: 2004 and 2005 are described as turning points. Both Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi, a gatekeeper for Osama bin Laden, were both in the CIA secret prisons. U.S. officials say for a second time, KSM downplayed the courier significance and al-Libi denied knowing him. The men’s adamant denials appeared to be an effort to protect the courier and U.S. officials say it, quote, “sent up red flags for the CIA” because other detainees consistently claims the courier maintained bin Laden’s trust.
And if you don’t believe EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE KEY PEOPLE INVOLVED, just accept that Bush and HIS gutsy decision to approve waterboarding led us to the knowledge that Osama bin Laden (UBL) was using couriers, the pseudo-names of those couriers that led to intelligence ultiamtely finding their actual names, and even the very city where Osama bin Laden was hiding:
Which is to say that the entire Obama presidency was spent mining information from waterboarding that Obama personally demonized and from a program that Obama shut down.
And we now know that Osama bin Laden was in this compound that we learned about from waterboarding for at least five years.
Every single major fact that we learned we learned from waterboarding and from enhanced interrogation techniques. And the rest of it was simply a matter of confirming what we knew from waterboarding and from enhanced interrogation techniques.
People should KNOW that Barack Obama demands that the United States of America should be nearly blind.
People should also know that on his second day in office Barack Obama shut down and terminated the CIA intelligence program that actually developed the information that got bin Laden. They should know that America no longer has that capability, and that thanks to Barack Obama we could never even begin to do that again – likely for years to come, given the difficulty of developing such intensive programs.
And people should know that RIGHT NOW Barack Obama is continuing to try to criminally prosecute the incredible men and women who gave us the intelligence breakthroughs that got Osama bin Laden:
In normal times, the officials who uncovered the intelligence that led us to Osama bin Laden would get a medal. In the Obama administration, they have been given subpoenas.
On his second day in office, President Barack Obama shut down the CIA’s high-value interrogation program. His Justice Department then reopened criminal investigations into the conduct of CIA interrogators — inquiries that had been closed years before by career prosecutors who concluded that there were no crimes to prosecute. In a speech at the National Archives in May 2009, Mr. Obama accused the men and women of the CIA of “torture,” declaring that their work “did not advance our war and counterterrorism efforts — they undermined them.”
Now, it turns out that those CIA interrogators played a critical role in the killing of Osama bin Laden, which the president has rightly called “the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al-Qaida.”
Even NOW Obama is refusing to do anything to stop the prosecution of the men and women who gave us bin Laden, even as he flies around taking credit for getting bin Laden. Should we be giving Obama credit for that???
This nation should be grateful to George W. Bush, and for his courage and foresight to develop the programs and to create the capabilities that ultimately won us this victory against Osama bin Laden. It was the courage of George Bush that resulted in waterboarding – which Bush and his key advisors KNEW would be used by vile cowards like Barack Obama to demonize them. But they knew it had to be done, and they did it.
In the same way, Bush created the Guantanamo Bay (“Gitmo”) detention facility. Bush expanded the rendition program that had been used by Bill Clinton. Bush created the Patriot Act. Bush approved of domestic surveillance. Bush set up the military tribunals that had been used by Democrats like FDR in previous time of war. Bush established the indefinite detentions of the most hardened terrorists.
Barack Obama personally demonized and vilified all of these things. But he is using them to this day because they had to be done.
I would argue that the hero of this is George Bush; and that Barack Obama is a self-aggrandizing coward who was forced to use virtually all of the programs that he self-righteously demagogued for political advantage in a way that is frankly treasonous.
Right now we have a treasure trove of intelligence that is likewise nearly entirely the result of the work of George W. Bush. But be advised: if we don’t shut down al Qaeda now, we probably never will due to the massive failures of the man who sits in the Oval Office as we speak.
“In terms of Mr. bin Laden himself, we’ll get him running. We’ll smoke him out of his cave and we’ll get him eventually.” — George W. Bush, October 11, 2001
It was always just a matter of time. And the time came during the misrule of a hypocritical fool.
Tags: Abbottabad, al Qaeda, analyst, bin Laden, bold, CIA, Counterterrorism Center, couriers, credit, DCI, defense budget, Department of Defense, Director of Central Intelligence, enhanced interrogation, five years, George Bush, gutsy, Jose Rodriquez, Leon Panetta, location, Michael Hayden, Nightstalkers, Osama bin Laden, Pakistan, Pentagon, Philip Mudd, program, promised, relations, Screaming Eagles, SEALs, shut down, terminated, UBL, waterboarding
Start Thinking Right 
May 20, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Alternative:Should PresObama have passed-up UBL for fear that partisans and GW fetishers like you would call him hypocritical?I’m grateful that UBL is gone,regardless of who gets credit.Another ? : If this is PresBush’s doing,why couldn’t HE get UBL,but instead the weak,timid,cowardly,anti-American,anti-Israeli,pro-terrorist,community-organizing,street thug Kenyan Muslm?What does that make the real,true,deserving,legitimate,red-blooded AMERICAN president GW : weaker,more timid,more cowardly? GO BARACKSTER !
May 20, 2011 at 8:34 pm
I’m guessing you didn’t bother to read my article, as your questions are frankly idiotic based on the information that I provided.
Bush – and the programs and policies he put in place (including waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation methods and rendition) – resulted in the primary breakthroughs. From that point on, it was just a matter of time as we developed the leads Bush’s policies provided us with.
My hostility to Obama getting the credit is that he opposed the policies and procedures that were absolutely vital to our getting to first base. People who undermine the things that bring success do not deserve credit.
Then there’s the fact that Obama is getting all kinds of credit for his incredible courage in making the decision to get Obama. I thought that too, at first. But no thanks to the mainstream media, it occurred to me to ask myself, “What would have happened when it got out that Obama COULD have taken out bin Laden and REFUSED TO DO SO???? His political career would have been over. I mean, the guy might even have been impeached for refusing to protect the American people.
I’ve got to truly laugh at your description of Bush as “weaker, more timid, more cowardly.” You people couldn’t be more loathsome hypocrites if you worked at it.
For eight years you demonized Bush as a warmonger and a bloodthirsty murderer. And of course a reckless cowboy. And now your argument is that Bush was too weak and timid and cowardly??? It is a wonder your heads don’t explode from containing all the massive contradictions.
May 21, 2011 at 4:25 am
I bothered enough to know that you initiated “coward” to describe the man who set this as an agenda in 2008? By that standard,what does that make the man who decided instead to go after SaddamHussein?Not a coward or a bloodthirsty warmonger,but a political opportunist.I don’t believe BHO went for UBL for fear of the political fallout if he didn’t.Hypocrisy? If we agonize over that,all our heads will explode! Bottom line: GW was against nation-building in 2000 and ended-up getting Saddam; O-man,maybe despite his opposition to EIT,got the right man.Both may be hypocritical; one did the right thing.
May 21, 2011 at 7:04 pm
Excuse me? YOU’RE the one who just got through calling George Bush a coward.
This is what I said regarding Obama in my article (my EXACT words):
So, unlike YOU, I didn’t call Obama a coward. I pointed out that if he HADN’T got Osama bin Laden when he knew where he was, he would have rightly been ACCUSED of being a coward for refusing to do what he himself had personally sworn to do (kill bin Laden).
Now, if you are such an imbecile that you can’t understand that Obama would have been excoriated had he refused to do what he had sworn to the American people he would do, we’re done. Because I refuse to waste time arguing with a moron. And notice that I use as my source the Daily Kos which points out that Obama PROMISED to get bin Laden. You seriously think he could have reneged on that, do you???
I’m also not going to waste my time arguing with an ideological true believer who says everything Bush did was “cowardly” and “political,” but that nothing Obama does can be either. You simply become a waste of time.
I can’t disagree with you about Bush and nation building. I’M against nation building. I think we should pursue our military/national security objective and then LEAVE.
I think back to the United Nations REFUSING to do anything to help us. I think back to France, China and Russia again and again blocking every attempt to hold Saddam Hussein responsible. We should have taken care of business, left Iraq and Afghanistan a smoldering ruin, and then said to the “international community,” “If you want to nation build, go to town. YOU forced us to do this by blocking everything we tried to do peacefully; we did what we had to do; we’re done.”
I have a three part series I wrote a long tme ago explaining how the international community helped Saddam at every turn and FORCED us to invade Iraq.
https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/iraq-war-justified-lessons-from-saddams-history-part-1/
https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/iraq-war-justified-what-the-chronology-reveals-part-2/
https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/iraq-war-justified-paralysis-corruption-at-un-made-truth-impossible-part-iii/
We cannot possibly win the kind of “nation building” wars we’re trying to fight. We are exhausting ourselves and sacrificing our troops and our treasure stupidly. And what we need to do is have a doctrine that we WILL attack any nation that threatens us or harbors terrorists. We will bomb you into the stone age, we will go in and kill or capture (and then execute after military tribunal) any terrorist or leader who harbors terrorists. And we will leave with the warning that if terrorists return, then so will we to bomb the little pieces into even littler pieces.
And Obama is hardly pursuing that strategy.
Remember this, also. Obama hasn’t got us out of ANYTHING. We’re STILL in Afghanistan – with Obama having MASSIVELY expanded our war there along with the cost and the US casualties there – and to the extent that we’re leaving Iraq, we are leaving on the timetable that GEORGE BUSH provided. And further, we are now in THREE WARS. And unlike Bush, Obama REFUSED to get Congress’ approval and is now engaged in a flagrently unconstitutional fiasco in Libya.
May 22, 2011 at 11:46 am
Summary: It’s the irony that PresObama,not Presidents Clinton or Bush,got it done. If you want to give Bush credit,it begs the ?: Why didn’t HE finish the job? You said “It was always a matter of time” I agree. The “time” was when someone came along who wanted to do it.Bubba said “I was obsessed with BinLaden” ; GW said he’s no longer a priority.Barackster wanted to do it ! The contrast is remarkable! You said that Obama had to do it because if he didn’t he’d be excoriated.Stll,it begs the?: Why Obama & not his 2 predecessors?Obama has been focused on this for the extent of his presidency, and it paid off;Bill & Bush combined spent less time on UBL.Confession: Yes,I like Obama.He’s an enlightened caring man.But I never expected him to follow thru on this,which is why I’m so pleasantly surprised.And while I’m dissapointed that he hasn’t drawn down in Afghanistan,he remains consistent in his foreign policy: he always supported that war,ended combat ops in Iraq,and while Lybia is befuddling,no boots on the ground & 4200 lives to go before I call it a fiasco.You said that leaving Iraq is on GW’s timetable.Your obsession seems to be that Obama can only be the beneficiary of Bush.Obama may agree with you: twice,last Aug31 & May1,he complimented GW in those major announcements.Final judgement :O-man actually did it – and graciously.
May 22, 2011 at 10:47 pm
That’s about the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. It’s like saying that the trust fund kid is actually the really successful and accomplished one because, after all, he’s the one with all the money that daddy left him. So let’s forget the fact that it was his dad who worked his whole life prior to that who made all that money. Or take a basketball game where the star of the team scores 60 points, but the final basket is actually made by a third stringer off a dunk (his only points) after being set up by aforementioned star of the team. And then YOU say the third stringer won the victory, of course.
Bush put everything into place. He got the information that UBL used couriers. Bush identified that these couriers were going back and forth to a city in Pakistan, and identified that city as Abbottabad. Bush identified the code name of these couriers. It was only a matter of watching Abbottabad and monitoring the signals traffic to tie in the “code names” of these couriers to the specific individuals.
Apart from the intelligence that was developed by George Bush and waterboarding, we had absolutely no leads whatseover on the location of bin Laden or how to track him down.
But I suppose Obama is your god, and so on your warped theology Obama is omniscient and just used his infinite intellect to know exactly where bin Laden was.
And of course you’ve got nothing on the most hypocritical president in U.S. history. Obama demonized Gitmo, but he’s still using it two years after he swore he’d have it shut down. He demonized the Patriot Act, but he loves it now. He demonized domestic eavesdropping, but guess whose doing it? He demonized military tribunals, but ditto? He demonized rendition, and ditto ditto. He demonized Bush for somehow ignoring Congress (when Bush got Congressional approval for his wars), but look who REFUSED to get Congressional approval for his new war in Libya? And now we find that after demonizing waterboarding he totally benefitted from intelligence that every expert including LEON PANETTA acknowledged was essential to getting bin Laden.
I don’t say anywhere that Obama deserves no credit at all getting bin Laden. I merely provide a history lesson that points out all the facts. Which makes it rather clear who should get the lion’s share of that credit.
And just how much of that history that I provide did the mainstream media tell us when they lavished their praise on Obama???
I wrote this piece because the mainstream media wouldn’t, and because people like you (a guy who literally called Bush “cowardly”) wouldn’t.
May 24, 2011 at 4:45 am
Obama is a successor to the office,not a backup.He followed thru,his predecessors couldn’t.What initially provoked me was your calling him a “vile coward” & “treasonous” because he opposed the security infrastructure.But what if he abandoned UBL,which woud’ve been another continuation of GW? That would have made him what: nonhypocritical,noncowardly,nontreasonous?Consistent?Sure,if he’s continuing St.George’s policies! And what does make him.?He had the security system in place,so he can pursue everyone except the man who was still planning to kill Americans. Is GW a “vile coward”? According to your definition! Actually, I thought his cowboy style was made to order for killing BinLaden. I liked GW from 9/11 to March19,2003. I agree that the the international community was soft on Saddam, but Bush clearly prioritized that worthless bum over a man who was still bloodthirsty for Americans. You’re in denial that you iniated the word “coward” for Obama & misinterpreting that I did the same for Bush. It was a comparative query :If Obama is,and the other names that HackHannity & RustySharpe have called him,what does that make the guy who deprioritized UBL? We agree, not a coward -end of petty argument.My answer: both an opportunist who decided to divert the war on terror to settle the unfinished biz of the GHW administration under the guise that it was an imminent security need, and a willing accomplice of the Neo-Cons & their stooges in Congress.You said previously that I believe only Bush,and never Obama could be opportunistic.On the pursuit of UBL,it’s self-evident & history will record it as such.As much as I respect The Bomber -SURPRISE ! To the relief of your partisan rage & Obama derangement, I may not vote for him! He spends too much time raising $ while running up debt and doing nothing to control escalating CEO salaries.And health care seems to be in limbo.Though I unabashedly ID myself as a liberal, he has appointed not liberals but activists to the courts.It’s only for my believe that his foreign policy is an improvement over Bush and my personal admiration for him do I give him plaudits.
May 25, 2011 at 1:06 pm
Liberal Larry,
That is interesting. You say,
.What initially provoked me was your calling him a “vile coward” & “treasonous” because he opposed the security infrastructure.
But this is how you introduced yourself to me:
What does that make the real,true,deserving,legitimate,red-blooded AMERICAN president GW : weaker,more timid,more cowardly? GO BARACKSTER !
Which is to say that you don’t mind in the slightest calling [GW] Bush weak, timid and cowardly. You’re just a naked ideologue who worships at the feat of your messiah.
I don’t deal well with hypocrites who seek to denounce me for doing the very thing that they do. And did for eight years.
Here’s the bottom line: Obama was able to take advantage of a system that he demonized and dismantled. That well is dry now. And that is a documented fact. Not only that, but the brave CIA people who GOT us that intelligence are STILL under fire from Obama, and may STILL be prosecuted even after their work got us bin Laden.
And you contradict your own “logic.” You say that “Obama is a successor to the office,” and then you proceed to pretend that he WASN’T a “successor,” but that he somehow got bin Laden in a vaccum free from all the documented intelligence that Bush produced. Are you some kind of twisted pretzel that learned to type???
I state it again: Obama demonized the Patriot Act. Now he’s seeking to extend it. Obama demonized renditions. But he still does it. Obama demonized Gitmo. But he still uses Gitmo. Obama demonized us being in two wars. But now he’s got us into THREE wars. Obama demonized domestic eavesdropping and said it was un-American. But now that he’s president he has defended the SAME capability that he demonized. Obama demonized military tribunals, but here we are, still using them.
To the extent that Obama has done ANYTHING right, it is only because he is now acting just like George Bush – the same guy he unrelentingly demonized.
Take this one:
And compare it to the COWARD Obama:
You say, “To the relief of your partisan rage & Obama derangement, I may not vote for him.” And I say, “Yeah, right.” I’m kind of used to überliberals such as yourself – “LIBERAL Larry” – pretending to be moderates while denouncing me for my being an ideologue. Which is to say – LIBERAL Larry – that you are simply a liar; you’re not going to vote for a Republican. You’re going to vote for your spend-crazy messiah just like you did last time. You know what they say: “With “friends” like you…
May 26, 2011 at 4:20 am
You don’t know me;only I do,& that’s the truth.I’ve never voted in my life:FACT.And I thought SenObama was joking in 2008 when he said he would kill UBL.Excuse me for my approbation for a politician who keeps a promise that dramatic.Liberalism IS moderation & complex thinking; I’m actually forcing myself to put asiide my sincere believe that Obama was too inexperienced & idealistic for this job and praise him for something Dubya & SlickWillie couldn’t finish.Your concession now is that killing BinLaden is the liberal view.Maybe I’m wrong: liberaliism is too hawkish! You are the right-wing equivalent of RosieO’Donnell : both angry that UBL is dead,for different reasons. I’m happy.HackHannity is still calling Barackster “weak&timid”, in that squeaky,leprechaun voice.Between The Hackster & The Bomber,I remain curious: If the man who set the agenda to kill UBL is those things, what the f^%# does that make the man who abandoned the mission-the man whose rear that high-pitched voiced faggot was kissing for 8 years? I insist that no president, except maybe JamesBuchanan should be called a coward. But No-Testacles Hannity? Coward,scumbag,pretender.I swear,is there any man above the age of 15 with a voice that undeveloped? Back to your point about Obama’s overall approach to security: I’ll say you’re right. He’s been erratic & political. But that’s my point: he overcame ideology & politics to set aside the UBL mission as exceptional,urgent,& indepedent of whatever foolishness he may be guilty of. And no,I’m not fine with “OverseesContingencyOp” & I never said Obama did this in a vacuum. You compared him a bench player & my point was that,like evey prez, he inherited the office & all that goes with it.Which is,the policies he chooses to continue & discontinue – both politically motivated & not. If you believe that Dubya must get most of the credit for this, it’s Barackster who invoked Bush the night of May 1 & invited him to the WTC site. You’re overwrought with Obama’s demonization of Bush.That’s politics( whiich is why I honestly don’t trust any of them! ) But, once again, the ability to overcome politics & partisanship for this one historic event & confirm Bush’s role in it – I think Obama displays statesmanship.I’ll confess ,maybe my dislike for GW as a spoiled immature legacy president prevents me from giving him due credit.So if you substitute “VP Cheney” I might be better persuaded. Dickster is selfish & contemptuous, but self-made,sophisticated & commanding.Credit for a more credible man.
May 26, 2011 at 3:43 pm
You just ventured into the territory where I block you as a troll. I do NOT waste my time arguing with those who pathologically misrepresent my arguments.
You assert:
Bullcrap!!! Here’s what I said in my last response to you that promted your gross misrepresentation: