So Now There IS a Recording From the Helmet Cams of the SEALs Who Killed bin Laden?!
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
So says CBS News giving us the latest of our 72 versions:
CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports the 40 minutes it took to kill bin Laden and scoop his archives into garbage bags were all recorded by tiny helmet cameras worn by each of the 25 SEALs.
Officials reviewing those videos are still reconstructing a more accurate version of what happened. We now know that the only firefight took place in the guest house, where one of bin Laden’s couriers opened fire and was quickly gunned down. No one in the main building got off a shot or was even armed, although there were weapons nearby.
And, by the way, these were nutters known to wear and use suicide vests. Killing them on sight makes perfect sense from a safety point of view, although I would have preferred we captured bin Laden and waterboarded him as needed. (And in case you are not a regular reader, my position is we should have captured bin Laden solely because of the intel we could have gained. In other words my objection to killing bin Laden is purely a tactical concern and has nothing to do with morality. I had zero concern for his life.)
The SEALs first saw bin Laden when he came out on the third floor landing. They fired, but missed. He retreated to his bedroom, and the first SEAL through the door grabbed bin Laden’s daughters and pulled them aside.
When the second SEAL entered, bin Laden’s wife rushed forward at him — or perhaps was pushed by bin Laden. The SEAL shoved her aside and shot bin Laden in the chest. A third seal shot him in the head.
Which is all interesting, except for the fact that I can’t trust what I am hearing anymore. Indeed this story seems to contradict what Leon Panetta said about a a blackout during the raid. And it is definitely the inconsistencies here that is contributing to the doubts about bin Laden’s death, as illustrated well by this cartoon:
Meanwhile in the same week that Ron Paul “announced” he was running for President (um, didn’t showing up at the debate close off any question that he was running?), we get this bit showing why Paul should never be anywhere near the Presidency:
So let’s count the ways in which he gets the issue wrong. First, he apparently thinks we can trust Pakistan on this, and that Pakistan is as trustworthy as England. Second, he thinks that we must respect international law and never invade a sovereign nation to accomplish our goals. Third, he thinks that we should abandon this whole “War on Terror” concept for a criminal justice model.
By comparison we are learning today that while bin Laden definitely wanted to kill Obama, on the other hand, he was not so interested in killing Biden. Those who jokingly called Biden “assassination insurance” for Obama apparently forgot that those who hate America would welcome a President Biden.
And yesterday James Taranto accused Eric Holder of being inconsistent on the issue of bin Laden’s death. You see it turns out that Holder seemed to suggest that surrender was an option:
Mr Holder told the BBC the operation was a “kill or capture mission” and that Bin Laden’s surrender would have been accepted if offered.
And that seemed to contradict something he said about a year ago during the controversy over the proposed trial of KSM in New York City:
Al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden “will never appear in an American courtroom,” Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. told lawmakers at a hearing Tuesday.
“Let’s deal with the reality here,” Holder said in response to aggressive questioning by Rep. John Culberson (R-Tex.). “The reality is we will be reading Miranda rights to a corpse.”
Members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science pressed the nation’s top law enforcement official about the Justice Department response to the failed Christmas Day bombing plot and the aborted decision to try the alleged Sept. 11 masterminds in a civilian court in Lower Manhattan.
Holder grew most heated, however, amid GOP attacks over the hypothetical capture of bin Laden. No law enforcement response would be necessary, Holder said, because “he will be killed by us or by his own people. I was being a little flippant. . . . He is not going to be alive.”
And at first blush Taranto seems to be right. That is contradictory, and indeed it suggests that Holder knew that we never had any plan to take bin Laden alive. But I think the BBC actually missed the actual import of what Holder was saying. Here’s his exact words:
“If the possibility had existed, if there was the possibility of a feasible surrender, that would have occurred,” he said.
“But their protection, that is the protection of the force that went into that compound, was I think uppermost in our minds.”
So if you buy the theory that these are kamikaze bastards who are likely to wear and use suicide belts, making it necessary for us to assume at all times that bin Laden is armed and dangerous even if he has no visible weapon and therefore making it impossible to safely allow him to surrender, then both statements are consistent. Seen in that light his discussion about how we would have accepted surrender “if there was a possibility of a feasible surrender” can be read as referencing the unfeasibility of allowing a kamikaze idiot to surrender. So he might have been consistent, but misleading. Whether Holder meant to be misleading or not is another matter.
And that doesn’t bother me. If giving the Euroweenies the false impression that if Osama only gave up, we would have accepted the surrender makes them less critical of our conduct, then I am okay with that.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
The Administratlion appears to have been mostly concerned with a ratings bump for Obama. Had we really recovered a treasure trove of intelligence in the raid, then why immediately announce the mission’s success. We might have had several days head start on tracking down other terrorists. Granted word would have spread underground but still why not try to get more value out of it. Then, there was the sponge bath and proper Muslim burial. The success of this mission will not make up for the failure of Obama foreign policy. And I would guess that had this happened under Bush, the media would have called it a violation of international law. Let the air brushing continue.
Arizona Bob (aa856e) — 5/13/2011 @ 7:33 amarizona
its hard to escape that conclusion. i will probably post something more on that in a bit.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/13/2011 @ 7:35 amGive the 25 videotapes to a competent director )not Michael Moore) and you could close a bit of the deficit with the box office take.
Kevin M (298030) — 5/13/2011 @ 7:40 amOh boy now you have given the paulnuts something to sweat about.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/13/2011 @ 7:41 amRecordings from helmet cams is not inconsistent with a blackout in the WH Situation Room–the helmet cams recorded, but did not necessarily broadcast.
TennLion (f66002) — 5/13/2011 @ 7:43 amIt really doesn’t matter what happened during the raid, or afterwards. If bin Laden was captured alive, if it was filmed in iMax…. none of that would make a difference. Because nothing is going to stop the right wing from its agenda: trying to paint this as some sort of failure (and/or a self-serving plot) on the part of the Obama Administration.
Gin up the manufactured outrage machine (it goes to 11!)
Kman (5576bf) — 5/13/2011 @ 7:43 amGin up the manufactured outrage machine[It goes to 11]
Uh……..did you forget to turn off the irony.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/13/2011 @ 7:46 amif your goal is to safeguard the security of the United States, you would capture and interrogate the terror monkey you had spend billions and billions to track down… if your goal is to leverage the intelligence your CIA douchebags bring you for political gain, you put a couple bullets the valuable intelligence the terror monkey has in his head and then go preen and strut pout and put it out for Daddy Soros
What Obama is saying is that America is too inept, too cowardly, too incredibly faily faily fail to know what to do with a super-important captured terrorist if they had one.
And he’s probably right.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/13/2011 @ 7:49 amspent I mean and
*into* the valuable intelligence
sorry stupid phone rang while I was typing and i thought I could just dash that off
but it’s not that kind of morning it’s Friday and I’m a lot ready for this week to be over
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/13/2011 @ 7:50 amKman,
Is it painting it as a failure to say I would prefer to have captured OBL rather than a summary execution? I think not.
Do you really think the empty presidential suit behind the teleprompter (aka the Pierson’s Puppeteer) was not looking for a rating bump as a fallout of OBL’s summary execution?
I have seen little outrage from the right …. perpetual manufactured rage is a left wing tactic of long standing.
quasimodo (4af144) — 5/13/2011 @ 7:53 amQuasimodo – if AW typed “A”, kmart would type “not-A”.
JD (194dc5) — 5/13/2011 @ 7:55 amKman
> Because nothing is going to stop the right wing from its agenda
you’re projecting.
> . If bin Laden was captured alive, if it was filmed in iMax…. none of that would make a difference.
Except we do know that people are susceptible to proof, as is demonstrated by the body blow delivered to the birthers by the release of the birth certificate.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/13/2011 @ 7:56 amIndeed, when Israel did exactly the same thing to Ahmed Yassin it was harshly condemned by the EU, the UN Secretary General, France, the UK, Japan, New Zealand, and Malaysia, all of whom have fallen over themselves to praise Obama’s coup against bin Laden.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/13/2011 @ 7:56 amFollowed by B!, and what about C, you never said anything about C, followed shortly by denying he ever said not-A, and then unknowingly refuting the B! he just stated.
JD (194dc5) — 5/13/2011 @ 7:57 amKman
btw, at what point did i say or suggest obama failed?
i just said i wish something different happened. but apparently the left is back in fellatio mode with obama where apparently he can do no wrong and all criticism is inherently unfair.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/13/2011 @ 7:58 amThought; Perhaps part of the confusion is the disconnect between competent military (hey, they got him) and incompetent administration.
Capturing Bin Hiding alive would have to be thousands of times more trouble than it could be worth. It would attract rescue oriented terrorism/hostage operations all over the place. Dead he’s a martyr. Alive he would have been a trouble magnet.
As for concealing the operation to exploit intelligence; I seriously doubt we could whack Bin Hiding without his people knowing. They have to have a pretty good idea what kind of information was on site. Saying we got a treasure trove could have them greatly exaggerating their danger, which could have them making hasty mistakes that we can exploit.
The Military may be making very good plans, which when filtered through the spokespeople of teh Administration end up sounding disorganized and stupid.
C. S. P. Schofield (8b1968) — 5/13/2011 @ 7:59 amKman,
Do you disagree with this:
If so, will you support your disagreement?
quasimodo (4af144) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:00 am“What Obama is saying is that America is too inept, too cowardly, too incredibly faily faily fail to know what to do with a super-important captured terrorist if they had one.”
It’s a long way from “Wanted dead or alive”
Bruuuuce (059a24) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:01 amBruuuuuuuce quits reading at Wanted – dead.
JD (194dc5) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:03 amIt’s conceivable that the uplink (to satellite or AWACS)from the helmet-cams failed but that each helmet-cam has its own recording capability. That would explain the blackout of live coverage and the fact that tapes were made from each individual cam.
Hangtown Bob (5cbad5) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:05 amExcellent points. Still I am uncomfortable with summary executions. So capture him and deny having done it? Keep him on a small island with no fresh water?
quasimodo (4af144) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:05 amWell, “the media” is a pretty broad thing, and it doesn’t speak with one voice.
I’m sure SOMEBODY would call it a violation of international law, just as some people are saying it now.
But generally speaking, I don’t think the overall response from the media would be different, based on who is President.
Kman (5576bf) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:06 amWho’s to say that hasn’t happened?
Kman (5576bf) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:07 am#22 is proof positive how mendoucheous kmart is. Not that there was ever any doubt.
JD (194dc5) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:08 amThat depends on the definition of “Who,” “say,” “hasn’t,” and “happened.”
See how irritating that is, Kman? You are just playing the part of John Cleese in that “Argument Room” sketch.
Simon Jester (01bfda) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:09 amSo capture him and deny having done it? Keep him on a small island with no fresh water?
Who’s to say that hasn’t happened?
Comment by Kman — 5/13/2011 @ 8:07 am
KMART IS A DEATHER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!eleventh!!!!!!
JD (194dc5) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:09 amJust a quick aside. My wife is from China, and she reads Chinese news sometimes. She said they’ve started putting bin Laden’s “death” in quotes, basically suggesting strongly that they don’t believe it happened.
I’m not saying that I don’t generally believe the provided story, I do, and good on Obama for getting the guy. But there are starting to be a lot of people around the world who don’t believe it happened. I mean if you lived in China, knowing that your government lies and changes its story all the time, wouldn’t you think changing our story all the time sounds awfully familiar, and probably means that it never happened at all?
Plus, if there’s freaking video of the whole thing, how could we ever have conflicting stories on what happened? After the first 8-12 hours, I mean? Are they totally incompetent, or were they lying? Is there another option?
Rob (1858aa) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:10 amlook Obama’s job is to do what he needs to to keep Americans safe from terrorist attack, and knowing what bin Laden knew would be a nice step towards that goal – what we’re seeing is a man what is happy to have his government union whores sexually molest children at airports, but can’t be inconvenienced with the capture of a terrorist under circumstances what were not anticipated by his whore secretary of state or his corrupt attorney general and what were not a meaningful part of the curriculum any of his other lackeys encountered at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:10 amboth?
JD (194dc5) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:11 amKman
> Who’s to say that hasn’t happened?
Do you really think this administration is competent enough to pull that off?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:13 amAW, Barack Obama’s so-called “birth certificate” is very persuasive on its face. But if you take a close look (due diligence), say at the multiple layers of alterations and revisions undeniably revealed by an elementary examination in Adobe Illustrator, then it’s possible (just possible) you might to come to a different conclusion.
Additionally, the only valid reason to kill Osama bin Laden was to prevent him from telling what he knew. It’s the same reason Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald: Dead Men Tell No Tales.
ropelight (ac959c) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:21 amrope
we’ve talked about the layering, and the evidence suggests that its just something adobe did automatically, not signs of a forgery.
but then i buy into none of your conspiracy theories.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:22 amOf course. And the difficult aspect of such a plan would be handled by the military anyway.
Kman (5576bf) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:23 am> Dead Men Tell No Tales.
btw, that reminds me that if you were interested in reading the autobiography of mark twain, it is available through amazon through that gadget on the sidebar. doing so give patrick money with no additional cost to you!
now there is a dead man telling a tale…
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:23 amObama failed to keep his promises to his ultra left base.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:30 amAnyone want to bet that parts of the video won’t show up in Obama re-elect spots?
Kevin M (298030) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:36 amStill I am uncomfortable with summary executions.
Yes, am uncomfortable w/ that too, mostly if the pre-order was no-attempt-to-capture-UAC (aren’t we still getting different stories on that part too), but as a practical matter in any case, we have no idea of course how much threat the SEALS were under.
So capture him and deny having done it? Keep him on a small island with no fresh water?
Comment by quasimodo — 5/13/2011 @ 8:05 am
Am only half-joking when I say it’s surprising how many — and how believable — the possibilities can be when there are no pictures or video to see.
no one you know (fd287d) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:49 am**WARNING** language at the link
no one you know (fd287d) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:50 amKmart is a deather. How cute.
JD (306f5d) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:52 ambtw, i am smacking around Willis again on twitter.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:54 am#34, AW, too late, I’ve read Mark Twain, I’ve visited his old office at the Territorial Enterprise in Virginia City, knocked back shots at The Bucket of Blood, rode the VC&T, dug for ore in Crown Point pit and been run off with rifle shots whistling close overhead, found blue mud, walked 6 Mile Canyon, read the epitaphs on the grave markers, paid my respects to Julia Bulette, and encountered the Clampers.
But, if I was going to buy a book the first place I’d go is Patterico’s sidebar.
ropelight (ac959c) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:54 amIt’s just my two cents, but I’ve known a few SEALs in my day; we had a group attached to our MARDET when the T.R. was test-driving the Marine amphibious ready group concept. They are professional and so accomplished that the word competent doesn’t begin to accurately capture it.
If they had been instructed to capture only, ObL would have been captured; unless he committed suicide.
My intuition is that they were given broad latitude to kill/capture ObL depending on the tactical situation. I don’t fault them for killing him in the least.
That said, were I POTUS (a truly scary thought indeed) I would have ordered a capture at all costs, and used some more exotic non-lethal devices at the point where you were sure that you were dealing with bin Laden; because as has been mentioned many times, the intel he could have provided would have been strategically useful.
Final note: I think the demonstrated ineptitude in rolling this out is purely becuase it’s being used for a “spike the football/victory lap” political purpose. In the eeeeeevollllll BOOOOOOOOOOOSH! administration these kind of briefings were generally handled by uniformed service personell; who, owing to SOP, would have debriefed and decided on the counter-intel considerations of just how much information to release before going to meet the press.
And as an added bonus, would have been able to claim that the inability to provide any more detail was above their pay grades, and shove the problem up the chain of command to the joint chiefs.
But, the administration is trying to exploit this one accomplishment to try and politically revive/cover for the otherwise utter failure of Obama’s foreign policy.
SMART POWER!
Bob Reed (5f2db5) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:55 amDoes Kman ever sleep?
vor2 (6c8528) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:56 amKman
> Of course. And the difficult aspect of such a plan would be handled by the military anyway.
i think the most hilarious part of that is your implicit admission that the only one you trust to pull if off is the military.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:57 amI heard that Osama was found lying next to a cheap nickel-plated .25 automatic that the authorities “found” after the shooting. It is the Chicago-way.
Californio (67e715) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:58 amI think that its clear that the SEALs were told not to capture because this utterly inept administration would be politically paralysed if they actually had OBL in their hands.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2011 @ 8:58 amObama: “We don’t ‘spike the football'”, then leaning to the side he was heard to mutter to the aide behind him” [“isn’t that how those people put it?”]
Californio (67e715) — 5/13/2011 @ 9:00 am“Obama: “We don’t ‘spike the football’”, then leaning to the side he was heard to mutter to the aide behind him” [“isn’t that how those people put it?”]”
He is more of a hoops fan.
Bruuuuce (3a0f11) — 5/13/2011 @ 9:16 am“Implicit admission” = “what I wish you had said, although you actually didn’t, but I’ll pretend you did”
Kman (5576bf) — 5/13/2011 @ 9:17 amKman
then why mention that the military would be handling it. what is the relevance?
Face it, yer busted.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/13/2011 @ 9:27 amKmart is projecting again.
JD (306f5d) — 5/13/2011 @ 9:27 amTo point out the stupidity of your question: “Do you really think this administration is competent enough to pull that off [a capture-only mission]?”
Kman (5576bf) — 5/13/2011 @ 9:29 amTo Kman, the only difference that matters is whether the right wing pursues its agenda. National security gains don’t even get processed.
What a partisan hack.
Thousands of lives are at stake when these intel finds are concerned. Of course it would make a difference to handle this professionally, with secrecy and care. Yes, the ‘right wing’ would still criticize Obama, for one, over his condemnation of waterboarding and undermining of Bush’s agenda before acting as though he always knew much of it was helpful. So?
In a democracy, you probably always see some criticism of leadership. That’s no excuse for screwing up, Kman.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/13/2011 @ 9:32 amAre you trying to beclown yourself, kmart?
Kmart is a DEATHER
JD (306f5d) — 5/13/2011 @ 9:34 amAnd, actually, why all this crap about who shot Osama under what conditions, anyway? This was a military operation, and last I looked the job of the military was to effect the state’s political will by main force. In short, their job IS to kill people at the command of the “national command authority.” Why is this a surprise?
Kevin M (298030) — 5/13/2011 @ 9:35 amKman
notice how you put words in my mouth.
I questioned whether the administration was competant enough to keep the secret. i never questioned whether they were able to capture him. indeed the entire premise of my criticism is that i think
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/13/2011 @ 9:35 amObamaOsama could have been captured alive.Of course he is. He spent all day yesterday inventing wide slurs of racism, and then demanding we prove them wrong… because we point out real racism too much for Kman’s comfort.
Attempting to capture Osama Bin Laden would have changed only one factor of this SEAL mission: it would have greatly risked the lives of the SEALs who first saw him. They would have to slow their shooting enough to ID him from each man, tackle him, and search him for bombs and weapons.
We needed a President with the stomach to risk American lives on a mission of this sort. Obama would have preferred an airstrike (and he relies on airstrikes all the time). We see this in Libya and Pakistan. Clinton relied on air power in Kosovo. Why? Partly because American Casualties are a political liability, I imagine. The only reason he sent SEALs in was to maximize his political gains from knowing we got OBL.
Anyhow, it’s not a minor thing to ask the SEALs to risk themselves by capturing OBL whether he surrenders or not, but I think that would have been the real ‘gutsy call’.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/13/2011 @ 9:40 amOsama bin Laden’s death was the quid pro quo the Pakistanis demanded in exchange for looking the other way while the SEALs did the dirty work.
If bin Laden was taken alive he would have fingered the government officials and the ISI brass who protected him for all those years.
ropelight (ac959c) — 5/13/2011 @ 9:43 amBingo. Kman is freaking out hoping people don’t notice this, but they would tear eachother apart trying to handle the difficult decisions that Bush had to make. It’s lazier to just kill any potential intel sources. When national security and politics collide, Bush chose national security, and Obama did not. But we already knew that by how he carped about much of Bush’s doctrine when it helped Obama take office.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/13/2011 @ 9:43 amropelight:
First of all, others in the compound could finger as well.
Secondly, keeping bin Laden alive adds little (if anything) more to intel gathering, BUT it does make him a cause celebre. A captured bin Laden is GREAT for recruitment. A dead one, not so much.
But worse than that — everybody (every nation, every political party, every pundit, etc) would have given their ten cents about “what to do with him” and it would have dragged ooooon and ooooon and oooon for months, if not years.
But guess what — problem solved. AND justice met.
Kman (5576bf) — 5/13/2011 @ 9:53 amIts the usual Democratic hypocrisy, partisanship and deliberate undermining of the nation. When a Republican is in office, Democrats undermine the Republican’s efforts at conducting foreign policy.
When a Democrat is in office, Republicans sincerely support their foreign policy where they agree with its goals and methods.
Democrats once into office, adopt the Republicans policies and practices which they had been criticizing in bad faith.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2011 @ 9:57 amKman, bullshit. Obama had no clue what to do with OBL if captured, because Obama would have dragged out the question for months if not years because of Obama’s own ineptness, and hypocrisy. The debate would have required no one else to become a confused muddle of idiocy.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2011 @ 9:59 amso now we know that dirty socialist Soros-humpers like our coward president are not nearly as committed to their criminal-justice approach to terrorism as they seem
In fact you might could argue that it’s entirely a matter of political convenience with respect to the welfare of America’s Democratic party whether any given terrorist is captured and interrogated or not. The entire process is divorced from national security.
Way to make the CIA and the SEAL monkeys your bitch, Mr. Obama.
Nicely played.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/13/2011 @ 9:59 amCompare and contrast Bush and Obama, try as I might, I don’t see Bush ordering someone killed specifically so that he did not have to endure the political heat of having a notorious enemy in custody.
Obama – prefers killing to capture for its convenience.
Not impressive bit of “making the tough call” there.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:03 amThe reason to announce right away is because the bad guys would know almost immediately. Elements of the ISI were protecting him and would have alerted his friends within 24 hours anyway.
I’m sure we have agents looking at suspected terrorists, and each one who has gone silent or started moving around will be noted.
rbj (9ae8d9) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:04 amWrong. Of course. Once again you pretend the bottom line of every conversation is whether Kman is pleased. If you don’t know something, then that something doesn’t exist.
It’s clear we need to know more about Osama Bin Laden’s helpers in Pakistan, a nuclear armed country. We also should have learned more about the intel gained instead of readying the announcement 3 hours after we got him.
Also, no, justice wasn’t really met. Osama killed thousands of people, and there was no hope we could ever really exact justice on him for that. The priority should have been protecting America from future attacks and taking advantage of any intel we could, rather than just killing the guy. Sure, Osama deserved to die, but that’s a small goal in a very large and complex issue.
Capturing Osama Bin Laden was possible, but required a President who is not indecisive and weak, because a dangerous capture mission places American soldiers at much increased risk. I could rely on 20:20 hindsight and point out that a capture mission would have been a huge success, given what Obama’s admin is telling us about the level of resistance, but that wouldn’t be fair.
Regardless, ‘mission accomplished’ for partisan purposes, which if one really pays attention, you already explained was more important to you than national security.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:04 amDo you have any evidence for this?
It’s very unlikely, given what we know about Al Qaida. Extremely unlikely.
They operated under a ‘need to know’ data compartmentalization. KSM didn’t know the name of the courier, but knew his codename. Most, perhaps almost all of Al Qaida, didn’t know OBL was still alive. They wouldn’t have been sure what happened if he suddenly wasn’t there one day, since surely he had contingencies to escape quickly.
This idea that everyone we just got intel on knew exactly what intel we got and that OBL was dead soon anyway seems out of step with reality.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:08 amReally? Tell me….. Why wasn’t Saddam tried in a US military court?
Kman (5576bf) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:15 amSaddam’s trial and execution in Iraq was a good team-building exercise for our Iraqi friends
but also he was interrogated up one side and also down the other
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:16 amlooking back, that Bush feller sure did have some smartness in his head
smartness and courage
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:17 amREALLY??!?!!!!???!!!
He had a very lengthy trial, and was executed in a criminal justice system. Bush didn’t even control the process.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:19 amBush was eating souffle when he heard of Bin Laden’s demise……..Michelle on the other hand was like who the heck is Bin Laden? Didn’t you mean Bin Lottery?
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:21 amNot here. And that’s because Bush couldn’t HANDLE the political heat of keeping Saddam here. That’s why he gave him up.
(Seriously, that’s the argument you guys are making now)
Kman (5576bf) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:21 amFrankly, Saddam’s #1 crime was against his own people, and his #2 was against Persians.
I’m not sure why the US Government would prosecute him.
Osama Bin Laden’s greatest crime was against Americans, so it’s a little difficult to just hope Karzai’s government or, lol, Pakistan, give him a trial.
This was the perfect example of a use for a military tribunal. Capturing him was clearly possible, albeit it would have taken guts for the US President to make that call. At every step, it’s clear Obama is a weak president making the easiest call with indecision and fear.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:22 amSeriously that is why I love sniffing Obama’s farts.
FIFY 😀
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:23 amKmans biggest crime is his posts.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:25 amBush was really calm while bumble looked like one of those shivery-tense yappy dogs when he was announcing about the news. That’s cause Bush is very presidential whereas Obama is a cowardly Soros-fellating whore.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:25 amThanks happyfeet for stating the obvious.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:26 amRight. It wasn’t like he was an imminent threat or anything.
Kman (5576bf) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:27 amMr. Biden I’m here to serve
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:27 amYou’re insane, Kman. That’s an irrational comparison. We captured Saddam instead of shooting him over the possibility he had a suicide vest or something. We then let a criminal justice process we didn’t even control handle his prosecution. The process was established before he was even captured, and greatly added to the legitimacy of the interim government, and helped the Iraqi people see some measure of justice for the oppression they suffered.
He even had the chance to make an appeal after sentencing.
Your response to this great success is to make some incredibly dumb partisan hack argument. You don’t have a single patriotic bone in your body. It’s all about partisanship.
Regardless, Aaron already said he doesn’t care about OBL’s life. This isn’t about him getting a trial. We lost valuable information when OBL died. Obviously you’re devoted to arguing like a pissant instead of granting his point.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:27 amI wrote: Compare and contrast Bush and Obama, try as I might, I don’t see Bush ordering someone killed specifically so that he did not have to endure the political heat of having a notorious enemy in custody.
Kman delivers this incredibly devastating response: Really? Tell me….. Why wasn’t Saddam tried in a US military court?
Well, the obvious answer becomes because he didn’t commit any crimes against the US. But really, this is the perfect example of the non sequitur approach Kman has. A completely incoherent, incompetent attempt at “Ha! gotcha!” that had nothing to do with the topic, my point or whether or not there is an adequate supply of tea leaves in the PRC.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:28 amDid everybody think all those officials were sitting in the situation room watching “American Idol”?
I don’t have any need to see the carnage, thank you.
I have confidence in the ability and veracity of our brave soldiers.
Dick Cheney (50ec23) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:28 amProve it. Prove that OBL had information that couldn’t be gleaned from others captured at the compound, or the computers, videos, etc.
Or…. are you just assuming this?
Kman (5576bf) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:29 amIf Saddam were a jew or christian than he would be an imminent threat.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:30 amWhat does being an imminent threat have to do with whether someone is prosecuted?
And Osama wasn’t an imminent threat either, nutcase, as far as we know. We’d have to interrogate him to really know, but I guess we can’t now, thanks to Obama’s failure to be a president.
I guess you’re just trying to toss in random lefty memes into the conversation, flailing when you lose an argument? This has become a daily routine for you. Say something stupid, and then just randomly mention things with hopes of trolling attention away from you being a dumbass.
What a coward.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:30 amWow.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:30 amKman, but you’ll obviously not try to prove that OBL had no valuable information. Meanwhile, the administration is leaking (with some ridiculous exaggerations of the significance) what supposed terrorist plans that they got from the compound.
That’s evidence that OBL had valuable information in and of itself, but you won’t bother to prove your assertion that nothing useful was in his head.
Again, this logic thing just does not work for you at all.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:32 amKman
> Secondly, keeping bin Laden alive adds little (if anything) more to intel gathering
How can you claim to know that? And how would you pretend that anyone could know that ahead of time?
> A captured bin Laden is GREAT for recruitment. A dead one, not so much.
Right and if Obama captured him alive, you would claim it was great that he didn’t make a martyr of him.
> But worse than that — everybody (every nation, every political party, every pundit, etc) would have given their ten cents about “what to do with him” and it would have dragged ooooon and ooooon and oooon for months, if not years.
Only if Obama was indecisive. Which means of course you are right.
> Why wasn’t Saddam tried in a US military court?
Because we knew the Iraqis would kill him.
> And that’s because Bush couldn’t HANDLE the political heat of keeping Saddam here.
It couldn’t be that Bush wanted the Iraqi people to kill the bastard themselves so they could show the world they rejected saddam. Nah, you’re right, its because Bush cared too much about world opinion.
Bwhahahahahahahahhahahaa
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:34 amDid Osama Bin Laden know anything helpful to our war on terror?
Did he have some associates in Pakistan capable of building an expensive little fortress and covering his tracks?
He eluded capture for many years, and in various locations, had affiliates who killed thousands of Americans, and we already know, for sure, that he highly compartmentalized information. His close associates wouldn’t even know the names of his other close associates.
Kman demands proof of the very obvious, which the overt insinuation that the very obvious is not true because of Kman’s ignorance.
However, Kman will happily make the most unlikely and obnoxious assertions for his partisan purposes (And has up and down this thread).
Obviously, Kman in not interested in convincing anyone. His argument is irrational, and he’s a hack who can’t hold his own against Aaron Worthing despite 9 years of trying.
I have to prove it was worthwhile to interrogate Osama Bin Laden? HAHAHAHAHAHA
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:35 amThat’s not my assertion. My assertion is that we can’t possibly know whether OBL had useful information in his head that couldn’t be obtained elsewhere.
So stop asserting affirmatively that he did, as if it is a fact.
Kman (5576bf) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:36 amKmart is well and truly beclowning herself today. More than usual, which is no small feat. If you cannot understand the basic and fundamental differences between Osama and Saddam, then you are too stupid to dresss yourself. If you think that OBL would not have yielded actionable intel, then you are too stupid to breathe.
JD (a15cfe) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:36 amI think the demand to STOP should have been accompanied by a foot stomp, kmart.
JD (29e1cd) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:39 amKman, you are an incompetent plain and simple. First of all, I don’t myself think that OBL had useful intel because I’m not convinced he was that active operationally. I find the administration’s attempts to leak what they found in the compound to be juvenile attempts to improve their disasterous PR work on this.
Second, your statement:
“My assertion is that we can’t possibly know whether OBL had useful information in his head that couldn’t be obtained elsewhere.”
is hilarious. Because you just made the whole point of the utility of interrogating OBL.
Utter incompetence, Kman, that’s all we get from you.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:40 am“We lost valuable information when OBL died.
Prove it.”
Kman – I’m embarrassed for you. What a maroon.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:40 amAlso, I think SPQR makes a great point. The administration claims Osama Bin Laden was in control of plans for terrorist operations, but it’s not like he personally listed out every fact in his head.
The guy has been planning horrible things for a very long time. He was a treasure trove of information, and this is well proven beyond any doubt. Kman demands proof because by doing so he is trying to establish the idea there is some question about something there is no question about.
SPQR has it right: Kman needs to explain his basis for his radical claim that OBL didn’t have valuable information in his head. He can’t, because that’s ridiculous. We interrogate people, such as terrorists, but also witnesses in many areas, because people are better sources of information than the contents of their wallets and desks.
Kman claims to be a lawyer, and didn’t know that you talk to people to find things out?
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:40 amDustin, you are wrong. Kman is a hack who can’t successfully argue against himself.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:41 amP.S. We found Osama’s porn stash. Don’t tell me it wasn’t a successful raid.
Kman (5576bf) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:43 amDo you have any evidence for this?
It’s very unlikely, given what we know about Al Qaida. Extremely unlikely.
They operated under a ‘need to know’ data compartmentalization. KSM didn’t know the name of the courier, but knew his codename. Most, perhaps almost all of Al Qaida, didn’t know OBL was still alive. They wouldn’t have been sure what happened if he suddenly wasn’t there one day, since surely he had contingencies to escape quickly.
This idea that everyone we just got intel on knew exactly what intel we got and that OBL was dead soon anyway seems out of step with reality.
Comment by Dustin — 5/13/2011 @ 10:08 am
Really? you don’t think that there are elements within the Pakistani military & ISI who aren’t in contact with the Taliban & AQ?
Read this post:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/13/pakistani-general-refusing-to-cut-ties-with-militants/
Short quote: “But those who have spoken with General Kayani recently said that demands to break with top militant leaders were likely to be too much for the military chief,”
Bin Laden was a veteran fighter. He’s not going to hide out for along time in a place unless he felt secure there. And why would he feel secure 800 yards away from Pakistan’s West Point?
If we had gotten him in a remote village, then sure, delay the announcement and yes, I think part of the reason to crow so early was to help Dear Liar’s popularity), but this happened in a Karachi suburb, it wasn’t going to go unnoticed for long.
rbj (9ae8d9) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:43 amKman – I think you need to take a break and go shopping. Lane Bryant is having some nice sales somebody told me.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:44 amKman, your snark does not improve my opinion of your IQ. It was a very successful raid. However, the raid revealed several things about the Obama administration including their paralysis caused by their own abandonment of principle, their dishonesty about that, their lack of any leadership ability and their ineptness.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:44 amIf I’m an international terrorist mastermind, I’m going to put all my secrets into my computer and diaries, uncoded, no code names, nothing to confuse people. Cuz that’s the way I roll.
Prove me wrong BEYOTCHES!!!!!!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:47 amI think we should all pause and be thankful Obama is our president instead of Kman. Yes, same results in this case, but at least Obama knew he was giving up valuable intel in exchange for avoiding the risk of a political problem. Kman is too stupid for that kind of calculation.
I can see it now: some general comes up to President Kman,
General: Madam President, we just intercepted a box headed straight for a known terrorist.
Kman: Give that to me! (runs off to the pentagon, obtains box, returns, and throws box into fireplace and lights it on fire)
General: What in the hell, Mr President?
Kman: Can you prove to me the papers in that box were of any intelligence value?
General: We have a really good reason to want to look at them because national security requires us to be proactive, but … they were bomb parts, Madam President.
[cartoon explosion]
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:48 amYour appraisal seems reasonable enough, but why assume that? Why not be proactive with national security and try to keep as much secrecy about this as you can while you process the intel gains, interrogate, Osama and everyone else present, and try to hunt down those who didn’t know to leave?
It could have been possible to stage a fake OBL escape. There are a lot of possibilities here.
One thing is very clear: most of Al Qaida and its associates would not have known OBL was captured for some time. Most of them have no idea what intel we found, or even that there was any.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:52 amShows how unknowledgeable you are about these things. Given the closeness of OBL’s hideout to the Pakistani military — and by “closeness”, I don’t just mean physical proximity — the word would have spread pretty quickly and I’m sure it would be known throughout AQ within 24 hours.
Kman (5576bf) — 5/13/2011 @ 10:57 am“Shows how unknowledgeable you are about these things.”
Kman – Since by implication you are claiming to be knowledgeable, PROVE we did not give up actionable intelligence by invading the sovereign territory of another country and executing an unarmed person in cold blood.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/13/2011 @ 11:08 am“Why wasn’t Saddam tried in a US military court?”
“Well, the obvious answer becomes because he didn’t commit any crimes against the US.”
He ordered deadly fire against our planes which were enforcing a no-fly zone in keeping with the cease-fire agreement he had signed.
That there is a court-martialing offense. It’s not exactly as sexy as genociding the Marsh Arabs, but it’s easy enough to prove and prosecute.
luagha (5cbe06) — 5/13/2011 @ 11:09 amDaley at #104, see #89
Kman (5576bf) — 5/13/2011 @ 11:09 amKman
> My assertion is that we can’t possibly know whether OBL had useful information in his head that couldn’t be obtained elsewhere.
Except you didn’t merely say that. you also said this:
> keeping bin Laden alive adds little (if anything) more to intel gathering
You pretended you positively knew he knew nothing.
But as a point of fact, you’re right. We will never know what we might have learned… BECAUSE WE SHOT HIM IN THE HEAD BEFORE WE COULD FIND OUT. But to cut off a potential source of information and then hide behind the fact we destroyed that source of information to prove we never needed it, is just bad logic.
> P.S. We found Osama’s porn stash. Don’t tell me it wasn’t a successful raid.
Actually that is good to prove he is a hypocrite. Of course by porn, they meant a lot of goats in provocative positions. 🙂
But of course it was successful. We didn’t say it wasn’t. the moment osama was sent to his 72 virgin goats it was successful. The issue is could we have handled it better?
And you apparently believe it was perfection.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/13/2011 @ 11:14 amActually, Kman, no.
Most of the people around that compound probably did not know OBL was inside, actually. There was a huge monetary reward for information leading to OBL’s capture, and the real reason no one claimed it is because information was so tightly controlled.
Al Qaida is not the kind of organization you think it is. It’s not like they all get together and have meetings, and they aren’t even one organization. It’s a network for assistance and financing (largely torn apart by Bush’s excellent diplomacy).
We know for sure that they relied on a very high degree of information compartmentalization. The left hand usually did not know what the right hand was doing.
You are asserting expertise to the point where the entire organization would know everything within 24 hours, and I’m suggesting that’s unlikely and at best an open question. And I also not we could have conducted counter intelligence.
Once again, you take a mild, sane point and demand outrageous proof, and at the same time, you make a ridiculous assertion without any proof.
And you do all this because you’re a partisan hack. Now, the facts just have to be that there was no reason to be careful about intel, because Obama’s a democrat.
What do you know about the people living in every house within a mile of you? And how many of them are trying to hide? The truth is that you’re obviously not very familiar with what we’ve known about Al Qaida for years. My guess is that if we hadn’t told anyone about Osama Bin Laden’s death, almost no one would know it happened. In fact, those who do would have a very good reason to keep quiet, as we’d be trying to learn more about who knew, so we could catch them.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/13/2011 @ 11:17 amYou’re falling behind here as a guest blogger. Being whatever-you-call-it-Friday, you need to open the doors and have people come up with the best Osama porn video title (“Deep Goat”)
Just sayin.
Kman (5576bf) — 5/13/2011 @ 11:21 amAnd just imagine the psychological warfare gains of Al Qaida announcing the USA killed OBL, and the USA remaining silent about it as they freak out wondering what we know and who is next.
We’d see what’s left of Osama’s allies go very quiet.
But that’s just not likely, given what we know (And kman doesn’t know, for some reason).
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/13/2011 @ 11:23 amKman
well, i just put up the sockpuppet post, so have at it. we don’t really control that thing very much.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/13/2011 @ 11:27 amDustin:
Exactly. So with AQ so “torn apart”(as you say), and OBL so isolated from everything (as you say), what makes you think he’s liable to be a fountain of information?
I mean, if I had to guess (and I AM guessing), I would conclude that OBL himself probably didn’t hold a lot of actionable intelligence in his head. The computers and phones were where the good stuff is at.
So the “downside” of killing him (rather than capturing) outweighed the upside.
Kman (5576bf) — 5/13/2011 @ 11:27 amComplete beclowning of kmart.
JD (109425) — 5/13/2011 @ 12:14 pmI’m sincerely curious if anyone has ever paid Kman to argue their case. I guess the real question is if anyone became a repeat customer.
I guess I’d know more if Kman linked his blog, but cam you blame him? He comes across so poorly here, and it probably would not help his career to be known as such a dishonest clown.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/13/2011 @ 12:49 pmIs Kman seriously arguing that the computer, not bin Laden, made the plans?
What’s the name of the program he used — C.A.T. (Computer Aided Terrorism)?
Icy Texan (6baa4d) — 5/13/2011 @ 12:54 pmLet me guess Osama’s secret combover did the actual terrorism?
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/13/2011 @ 12:59 pmThe “upside” of killing him was mainly to avoid embarrassing Obama with the fact that Obama has abandoned all of the lofty principles that his supporters told us made him the “urgent moral change” and to avoid making Obama actually make real “gutsy” decisions.
Because trying to figure out where to try OBL would really put a crimp in Obama’s tee times.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:00 pmIcy Texan, you nailed it. Kman thinks OBL’s computer and phone were the threats.
Hilarious, but such a perfect nailing of Kman’s bizarre attempt to justify his illogic.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:01 pmThe assertion that a UBL kill by GWB would have been treated as a war crime by the media and the Democrats (birm) is self-evidently true. Is it any wonder nobody in the media (except on FOX) even bothers to ask the question?
Another ironic (and humorous) comparison: GWB was assailed for allegedly holding a plastic turkey, while Obama is praised for BEING a plastic turkey!
sherlock (62f2cf) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:04 pmWell, I suppose Obama could have done what Bush did… which was not to focus on OBL at all. Gutsy call.
Kman (5576bf) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:11 pmKman why don’t you go suck eggs you pompous jackoff.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:16 pmOur favorite opposition player has written his own program: K.I.T.T.Y.
Kman’s Idiotic Tantrum Throwing Yammerer
Icy Texan (6baa4d) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:18 pmKman, any adult knows that there were several reasons for that statement by George W. Bush. But you don’t.
Because, Kman, you typify the non-adult behavior of Democrats today. George W. Bush, whether you agreed with his policies or not, took stances on key policy issues and stuck by them. Obama has not. Bush worked hard on the nitty-gritty of fighting terrorism – attacking the financing network – work that was unpopular with our allies and other more neutral nations and took real, competent diplomacy. Obama? Not so much. He can’t even organize a coherent response to important liberation movements in Iran, Egypt, Libya etc.
Democrats undermine important foreign policy initiatives when out of office, and then pretend that they deserve unquestioned support when in office. Because they put temporary partisan advantage over the country’s welfare.
Just like you do, Kman. That’s why you are the poster boy.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:22 pmTroll.
And Bush focused on dismantling Al Qaida’s ability to plan and finance major terror attacks. Of course, doing so involved learning as much as possible about OBL as possible, and it’s not like they left any stone unturned.
We even know that the big break, the courier’s name, came from a man captured in Iraq.
It’s a big picture issue, something I guess you wouldn’t understand, but of course Bush’s focus was protecting Americans in a long term war effort.
As I said earlier, you made a fool of yourself early, and now want to make cheap shots to change the subject. That’s pathetic.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:25 pmI imagine Kman was praising hit squads before Obama took office, too.
Oh wait, no, he wasn’t. He plays politics with national security.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:26 pmkman
bush never stopped focusing on bin laden in terms of trying to find him. he just de-emphasized him politically. there is a difference, you know, and indeed the reason why we got bin laden was because what bush did finally bore fruit.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:29 pmSomeone is sock pupating kmart, aren’t they? That was a whole new level of aggressive stupidity, even for her.
JD (318f81) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:31 pmThings happened under the Bush Administration which lead to the “fruit”, simply because the CIA and military intelligence continue to do their work despite who is in power.
But some of the Bush policies (like de-emphasizing the hunt for bin Laden and closing the bin Laden unit of the CIA) undoubtedly slowed down his eventual capture/killing.
Kman (5576bf) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:34 pmkman
bush didn’t actually let up. that is the fact, whether you want to acknowledge them or not.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:35 pmUndoubtedly? From the same person unthread that was arguing that since we do not know, we must stop saying that OBL would have been a good source of intel? really?!?! How do you keep your head from assploding?
JD (318f81) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:38 pmIt’s amazing — as in “amazingly pathetic” — that K-Pax and the lefty media give all the credence in the world to ONE statement, “I don’t think about [bin Laden] that much,” made by W (off the cuff) at a press conference.
Icy Texan (6baa4d) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:40 pmSPQR:
Kind of like the Bush Administration trying to organize a coherent reason to invade Iraq, you mean?
“WMDs and mushroom clouds! Oh, they’re not there?!? Uh… well, Saddam has ties to bin Laden. Somewhere. Maybe. A guy bin Laden knew had some ties to someone who once visited someone who saw a picture of Saddam on TV. No?? Um, um, um. Gimme a sec. Oh! He’s committing genocide against his people! Darfur-what? Um, um, yeah he tried to kill my father. Heh. Yep. Cuz I’m the decider. Look, yellowcake!!!”
Good times.
Kman (5576bf) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:40 pmAW:
Well, except for moving our highest trained units out of the Tora Bora region so they could go fight in Iraq, and stuff like that.
Kman (5576bf) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:42 pmKman, first of all, Bush did not stop the hunt for OBL. The closing of a particular unit did not mean that the tasking ended. That’s another example of your juvenile nature. Second, Bush’s coalition of nations invading Iraq was better organized than Obama’s half-hearted, inept, and confused interventions in Libya. Obama has failed to articulate what our goal is. Bush had no trouble articulating goals.
You really are confirming my extremely low opinion of your honesty and perspicacity.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:43 pmWell, except for moving our highest trained units out of the Tora Bora region so they could go fight in Iraq, and stuff like that
Now you are making up stuff. What are you? 12 years old?
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:44 pmThank you for vomiting out almost every stupid dishonest leftist talking point, kmart. I work here is done.
JD (318f81) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:44 pmKman
> “WMDs and mushroom clouds! Oh, they’re not there?!? Uh… well, Saddam has ties to bin Laden. Somewhere. Maybe. A guy bin Laden knew had some ties to someone who once visited someone who saw a picture of Saddam on TV.
Well there was the part when the official iraqi newspaper stated there was an AQ liaison. not to mention the fact that an iraqi agent was present at the meeting when 9-11 and the attack on the cole was planned.
But no please explain to me why saddam really hated OBL.
>He’s committing genocide against his people! Darfur-what?
Wait, are you talking about Bush on Iraq, or Obama
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:44 pmon Libya?
Kman
> Well, except for moving our highest trained units out of the Tora Bora region so they could go fight in Iraq, and stuff like that.
more lies.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:45 pmAre you talking about the unit that led us to Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti by capturing Hassan Ghul in Iraq?
Because to people who aren’t partisan shills, it’s clear that sending units after terrorism supporters wherever they are, including Iraq, is why we caught OBL.
You’re just too much of a hack to admit it. Bush prioritized the big picture, and that’s why we got this little picture victory that Obama still half assed.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:46 pmAnd just to be clear, I think Aaron is right that you’re lying, Kman, to claim to know that we actually took highly trained units off the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. You like to make stuff up.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:47 pmBwwhahahaha! I lost it at “coalition of nations”!
Kman (5576bf) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:49 pmWhatever.
Kman (5576bf) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:53 pmKman
more nations in the coalition than there was in libya, dumbass.
seriously, now you are just demonstrating aggressive ignorance.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:53 pmEngaging in actual combat?
Kman (5576bf) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:54 pmExactly. And I doubt we knew all the missions involved. While Kman likes to invent secrets about Al Qaida to cover Obama’s brag rush, it seems he’s ignored some of the more obvious secrets we would keep.
It really is amazing how Obama has taken Bush’s approach to Iraq, which Obama was an early and loud critic of, and then performed an absurd caricature of it. Any antiwar Obama supporters who haven’t condemned his Libya leadership are proven hacks now.
We’ve gone from moaning about Cheney’s death squads to praising them. We’ve gone from moaning about a many month rush to war to praising an instantaneous rush to war with no goal. Kman busts the Iraq war that rid Libya of its nuclear weapons program, actually so stupid he directly references mushroom clouds, but where’s the evidence that Obama’s war found WMDs? Oh, he didn’t even suggest there’s an imminent threat? Huh.
I guess Kman is a shameless hack.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:55 pmKmart now reminds me of Lawrence ODonnell right before Condi pulled out the whuppin stick.
JD (d48c3b) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:56 pmAnyone else picture kmart ankle deep in a pile of empty white zinfandel and wine spritzer bottles?
JD (d48c3b) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:58 pmRe: “Coalition”
Thank goodness Iceland sent those 2 guys.
Kman (5576bf) — 5/13/2011 @ 1:58 pmI’m thinking Zima, JD.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 5/13/2011 @ 2:01 pmYou creep. A lot of great people from around the world died in the fight for freedom in Iraq. You pretend they don’t exist just to make an incredibly small partisan point. That’s really sad.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/13/2011 @ 2:03 pmMaybe Kman will regale us with the multinational force composition in NATO’s Libya mission right now.
Here’s a hint; it’s nowhere near as impressive as Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Bob Reed (5f2db5) — 5/13/2011 @ 2:08 pmThe idea that kman cares about the actual coalition is laughable. A complete farce. His movkery and scorn of the coalition partners shows that this is nothing but a partisan talking point for them, and the idea that we would restore Americas standing in the world by mocking and lying about those that sacrificed is disgusting. /spit
JD (d48c3b) — 5/13/2011 @ 2:13 pmEven if one were to assume that Kman is interested in actual debate and/or truth – you would still have to get past the fact that he is simply going to be using different benchmarks than you. The Iceland comment is a perfect example.
Makewi (0864f9) — 5/13/2011 @ 2:22 pmDon’t worry we will all die on May 21st 2011 anyways.
/Sarcasm off
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/13/2011 @ 2:32 pmI never cut and paste because I can’t keep the order of tasks consistent. But for Kman to stop his idiocy, here’s something from a about eight years ago.
I wonder if Kman can name the coalition members in Libya?
Who are the current coalition members?
Birdbath (19803d) — 5/13/2011 @ 2:42 pmPresident Bush is assembling a Coalition that has already begun military operations to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, and enforce 17 UNSC resolutions.
The Coalition will also liberate the Iraqi people from one of the worst tyrants and most brutal regimes on earth.
Contributions from Coalition member nations range from: direct military participation, logistical and intelligence support, specialized chemical/biological response teams, over-flight rights, humanitarian and reconstruction aid, to political support.
Forty-nine countries are publicly committed to the Coalition, including:
Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Tonga
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan
This number is still growing, and it is no accident that many member nations of the Coalition recently escaped from the boot of a tyrant or have felt the scourge of terrorism. All Coalition member nations understand the threat Saddam Hussein’s weapons pose to the world and the devastation his regime has wreaked on the Iraqi people.
· The population of Coalition countries is approximately 1.23 billion people.
· Coalition countries have a combined GDP of approximately $22 trillion.
· Every major race, religion, ethnicity in the world is represented.
· The Coalition includes nations from every continent on the globe.
Kman wrotes above: ….you’re lying, Kman, to claim to know that we actually took highly trained units off the hunt for Osama Bin Laden.
Whatever.
Comment by Kman — 5/13/2011 @ 1:53 pm
The link that Kman put under “Whatever”, to support his brazen and absurd lie that Bush moved units from Tora Bora region supposedly looking for Bin Laden to Iraq was dated 2002 – well before the Iraq operation – and says nothing about removing troops from looking for Bin Laden. To the contrary, it discusses the belief that Bin Laden has already escaped from the Tora Bora Taliban defensive positions.
This is the incoherent, fact-free, and indeed brazen lies, that underlie all of Kman’s warped view of events.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2011 @ 2:44 pmPerhap’s you gentleman are correct, I just thought I’d ask Kman out of curiousity.
Here’s the link to NATO’s press office
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/71679.htm
They’ve just reached the 5000 sorties-flown milestone a few days ago.
US forces have flown over 800 sorties since we supposedly turned over command to NATO around the middle of April.
I’m still trying to fin the details of the sorties flown by nation. As of the end of April, the US had flown a bit more than 1/4 of all sorties.
Bob Reed (5f2db5) — 5/13/2011 @ 2:51 pmI love it. Kman’s argument is “whatever” and then that old Kman classic: a link to a story that Kman clearly did not read in the first place, and proves his argument was wrong (since staying in Tora Bora after Osama isn’t there is hardly necessary).
Kman went out searching for evidence, and if he read his links, he learned he was wrong and then linked it anyway because he doesn’t care. More likely, he just found a link with the word ‘Tora Bora’ in it.
Birdbath, nothing will stop Kman’s idiocy. This person has absolutely no integrity. Personally, it bothers me to think that some client out there might pay him to argue their case without knowing what Kman is.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/13/2011 @ 2:51 pmAnd yes there is such a thing as muslim on muslim hate crimes.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/13/2011 @ 2:53 pmDustin, I still really don’t believe that Kman ever leaves his mom’s basement.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2011 @ 3:02 pmGiven the impracticality of trying to broadcast 25 helmet cams worth of data to the helicopter and back to the US I suspect the soldiers carried (much) less weight and simply stuck a memory card into their helmet cams for downloading later.
{^_^}
JD (bcdcf2) — 5/13/2011 @ 11:18 pmIt occurs to me that if I were a SEAL (ROFL, this is absolutely ridiculous) and sent on a mission with a helmet cam recording any mistake I make, that might be one of the first things to malfunction.
Not to question the integrity of these men, but there is such a thing as too much micromanagement.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/13/2011 @ 11:29 pmDouchenozzle cleanup on aisle 163!
Hard Reality (69140d) — 5/14/2011 @ 1:54 amWhat is wrong with what he said?
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/14/2011 @ 4:44 am” Officials reviewing those videos are still reconstructing a more accurate version of what happened.”
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 5/14/2011 @ 5:21 amAs usual, a few minutes of clips takes the “officials reviewing” no doubt YEARS to figure out….
I am really, really sick of it.
FIRE THEM ALL( as if it’s true), or FIRE THE SPOKESPERSON LYING, or both.
They PREACH full blown absolute incompetence a freaking ROOKIE could breakout above without even trying.
In 18 years they can tell us the archive of the incident was first misplaced, then lost for good, before it was possibly burned in a data center fire or lost due to a virus that deleted it.
Or they can just tell us it turns out the webcams all malfunctioned it was discovered as the review process moved along, and the msm won’t find that strange at all.
I swear to God the open STUPIDITY is past the unbearable level.
“Still under review to find out what happened”… AMAZING – no wonder it takes 10 years to “get it going with an undeclared war”…