On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 09:25:45 -0400, Joe from
wrote:

On 10/21/2011 8:20 PM, N? M? ?baMa? wrote:

So Bush got Saddam and Zero will claim he got Gaddafi - even though
Marco Rubio was right in observing that it was the Brits and French.

Technically, NATO got Gaddafi. But I understand what you are trying to
say -- sort of like W Bush horning in and trying to claim credit for
Osama well after W was *out* of office. At least Obama is -in- office.


On 10/22/2011 9:49 AM, First Post wrote:

Got a cote showing Bush claiming the credit dip****?

What the hell is a "cote"?

However, I -did- look up "dip****" in my dictionary and they had your
picture. And, yes, there are numerous newsreels showing the Repubs
saying Bush should have gotten some of the credit for Osama.

And while we are on the subject, I thought it was quite humorous that
the Republicans were whining that it took Obama eight MONTHS to get
Gaddafi. How odd that I don't remember the Repubs whining that Bush
*never* got Osama in eight *YEARS* and that it took Bush six *YEARS* to
get Saddam. Gee, maybe that eight months for Gaddafi wasn't so bad after
all, hmmm?

On 10/22/2011 9:49 AM, First Post wrote:

Obama didn't get Qadhafi dumbass.

I did not say Obama got Gaddafi. If you *carefully* re-read what I said
above, you will see that my exact words were "Technically, NATO got
Gaddafi."

And once again, let me refer you to the newsreels of the *Repubs*
whining that 8 MONTHS was too long for Obama to catch Gaddafi -- and
before you embarrass yourself again, please re-read the above where I
was quoting the R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N-S in the newsreels, dumbass.