<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/502642</link>
		<description>Comments by TheRealSamIam</description>
<item>
<title>Breitbart.com : Mexican detained with anti-aircraft machine gun</title>
<link>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97IE0A02#IDComment18757819</link>
<description>The .50 cal machine gun came from a Texas gun dealer, just ask Obama and Holder. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2009 03:56:12 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97IE0A02#IDComment18757819</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Breitbart.com : Mexico slams Burger King for \&#039;whopper\&#039; of insult</title>
<link>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97HSL0O1#IDComment18701304</link>
<description>Hearing about this ad and the complaints from the narco-terrorist state of Mexico about it settles it for me. BK is going to be my fast food place of choice. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2009 02:13:39 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97HSL0O1#IDComment18701304</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Breitbart.com : Teen piracy suspect raises legal, moral issues</title>
<link>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97HQFGO1#IDComment18699951</link>
<description>Dude, you are delusional. If you reside in America please leave. You will be happier. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2009 01:38:19 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97HQFGO1#IDComment18699951</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Breitbart.com : Teen piracy suspect raises legal, moral issues</title>
<link>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97HQFGO1#IDComment18698955</link>
<description>Hopefully they were killed before they fathered any children. Death to all Islamopirates. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2009 01:14:12 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97HQFGO1#IDComment18698955</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Breitbart.com : Obama twice approved force to rescue hostage#IDComment18639758</title>
<link>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97H4LVO0#IDComment18655437</link>
<description>BillR, no. Obama had highly restrictive rules of engagement in place for this. He ordered no rescue. he didn&amp;#039;t even permit the SEALS to take advantage of an opportunity if it presented itself. The ROE as stipulated by Obama was that no action was to be taken UNLESS the commander on the scene (Capt of USS Bainbridge) determined that the hostage was in imminent danger of being killed.   Obama voted present. You are the one who apparently doesn&amp;#039;t understand how this works. There are incremental levels you can choose from in the ROE Rules of Engagement). Obama had pretty much the strictest ones in place, the usual, everyday standing orders. he deserves zero credit.  </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2009 05:12:04 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97H4LVO0#IDComment18655437</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Breitbart.com : Obama twice approved force to rescue hostage#IDComment18639758</title>
<link>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97H4LVO0#IDComment18639498</link>
<description>The briefing by CENTCOM directly contradicts this article and the Drudge headline.  CENTCOM specifically said there was no order to do a rescue, not even an opportunity attempt. It was left up to the Bainbridge commander on the scene to determine if there was an immediate threat to the hostage and only under that circumstance was action allowed.   </description>
<pubDate>Sun, 12 Apr 2009 21:31:02 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97H4LVO0#IDComment18639498</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>