Patterico's Pontifications

5/1/2012

Smartest President Ever diminishing his one bipartisan success

Filed under: 2012 Election — Karl @ 6:59 am

[Posted by Karl]

It would take a lot of effort to turn the killing of Osama bin Laden into a political liability.  But Team Obama is working on it:

Serving and former US Navy SEALs have slammed President Barack Obama for taking the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and accused him of using Special Forces operators as ‘ammunition’ for his re-election campaign.

The SEALs spoke out to MailOnline after the Obama campaign released an ad entitled ‘One Chance’.

In it President Bill Clinton is featured saying that Mr Obama took ‘the harder and the more honourable path’ in ordering that bin Laden be killed. The words ‘Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?’ are then displayed.

***

A serving SEAL Team member said: ‘Obama wasn’t in the field, at risk, carrying a gun. As president, at every turn he should be thanking the guys who put their lives on the line to do this. He does so in his official speeches because he speechwriters are smart.

‘But the more he tries to take the credit for it, the more the ground operators are saying, “Come on, man!” It really didn’t matter who was president. At the end of the day, they were going to go.’

Chris Kyle, a former SEAL sniper with 160 confirmed and another 95 unconfirmed kills to his credit, said: ‘The operation itself was great and the nation felt immense pride. It was great that we did it.

‘But bin Laden was just a figurehead. The war on terror continues. Taking him out didn’t really change anything as far as the war on terror is concerned and using it as a political attack is a cheap shot.

‘In years to come there is going to be information that will come out that Obama was not the man who made the call. He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn’t allowed to speak out against the commander- in-chief so his secret is safe.’

But wait, there’s more… from BuzzFeed’s Michael Hastings:

Most active duty SEALs were reluctant to go on the record venting or praising their boss, but one of the most interesting responses I received from an operator was to direct me to Leif Babin, a SEAL who left active duty last year.

Babin, who runs the consulting firm Echelon Front, wrote a little noticed op-ed in Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal four months ago. The headline: OBAMA EXPLOITS THE NAVY SEALS. Babin took aim at “the president and his advisors, writing: “It is infuriating to see political gain put above the safety and security of our brave warriors and our long-term strategic goals.”

***

[As] the stagey outrage over the politicization of foreign policy from Mitt Romney and his Republican allies gained momentum over this past weekend, White House officials started to have their doubts. Was spiking the football, again, and again, and again, in a public such a good idea? Was it necessary? Was the campaign in Chicago, White House officials wondered, going too far?

This sentiment is likely why former chair of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen fired a warning shot about it on national television.  But does Team Obama, which rolled out an attack ad against Romney and had Obama comment on the subject in a presser really harbor doubts about this tactic?  As the WSJ noted in an op-ed titled “Obama’s Ron Burgundy Campaign:

It’s easy to imagine Robert Gibbs, David Plouffe and the boys yucking it up as they put that one together, just like Ron Burgundy and his news team in the Will Ferrell satire. Stay classy, Chicago.

But the better Anchorman comparison might be: “For the last time, anything you put on that prompter, Burgundy will read!”  And that trait — along with an unhealthy dose of arrogance — was the basis for his comeuppance.

–Karl

143 Responses to “Smartest President Ever diminishing his one bipartisan success”

  1. Ding!

    Karl (6f7ecd)

  2. Remember when FDR took credit for D-Day in 1944?

    Except that didn’t happen.

    Any president of any party makes the same decision. And they probably don’t delay it because of some pissant like Valarie Jarrett tells him or her not to. Which happened when the first date was scrubbed and then Pannetta and Clinton read the Golfer-In-Chief the riot act sbout how this decision wasn’t really a choice at all.

    No sensible White House employes a Chicago machine hack dolt like Jarrett. Plouffe, Gibbs et al managed to cow enough silly white liberals to win a presidential election. They and The One have no idea how to run this country. But if Romney makes some mistakes it’s still possible they could win a 2nd time.

    Bugg (ea1809)

  3. Racist

    JD (2585aa)

  4. AS he told Harry Reid ‘he has a gift’ but it’s much like that eponymous box of chocolates

    narciso (8d0f34)

  5. Romney’s invocation of Carter’s daring (and subsequent loss) is enough to remind us of the political stake Obama played.

    We’ve reached the point when it’s offensive that politicians (1) stake out different foreign policy position; (2) follow through on those commitments; and (3) ask us to consider what it would mean for others to follow through on theirs.

    TJ (6eeaf5)

  6. the man is just tacky and what’s embarrassing is him not even having a clue

    just no class at all

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  7. It is bizarre that a year later Obama is turning it into: “na na na na na, Romney wouldn’t kill him.”

    And the press seems to be buying it as seem in Piers Morgan and Jonah Goldberg so called book interview.

    AZ Bob (1c9631)

  8. Well the Press is like Mikey in the life cereal commercials, but Piers who was totally willing to slandering troops in Basra, about eight years ago, is not a good measure of sentiment,

    narciso (8d0f34)

  9. Four years ago, Republicans were evil warmongers. Today Demo’s are perfectly happy with drone strikes and dropping US bombs in many more countries. Republican wars are bad, Democrat wars are good, according to the mass media.

    AZ Bob (1c9631)

  10. “In it President Bill Clinton is featured saying that Mr Obama took ‘the harder and the more honourable path’ in ordering that bin Laden be killed.”

    And everybody knows how much credibility Mr. Bill has on that issue…

    alanstorm (cb237b)

  11. ZER0 can’t sell steak
    so he tries to sell sizzle
    sadly pathetic

    Colonel Haiku (51e9e1)

  12. just can’t see Ike
    or FDR or Truman
    “victory mincing”

    Colonel Haiku (51e9e1)

  13. I heard a clip of Gibbs’ comments starting off with something like, “President Obama instructed our intelligence services to find Bin laden…”, as if that was a brilliant, new, and novel idea.

    Former CIA high-ranking Rodriguez argues that had Obama been in power 2004-2008 we never would have found Bin Laden, because the info came from interrogating live-captured terrorists in places and with techniques that Obama has reportedly scrapped.

    Historically, at any rate, in science one conclusion/consensus out of Nuremburg and such was to not use data that had been gathered with unethical techniques. If Obama and company wanted to claim a moral high ground (claim it, not necessarily have it) to be consistent they would have rejected all intel gathered in ways they had rejected.

    But then again, the moral “consistency” of such folks is to always do what is best for one’s own selfish gain at the moment.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  14. The more “I” I see from Obama, the less I see him as a credible leader of a free people. And I saw little credible evidence to begin with.

    GM Roper (a0b04a)

  15. Well there is that, now they say, Quahtani who gave
    up the courier, wasn’t obtained by aggressive interrogation, but he was close enough to AQ’s inner
    circle, to be aware of him, unlike what Durbin suggested.

    narciso (8d0f34)

  16. they carry water
    Gunga Din look like slacker
    media lapdogs

    Colonel Haiku (51e9e1)

  17. be careful lapdogs
    when you lose your usefulness
    it’s man eat dog world

    Colonel Haiku (51e9e1)

  18. “I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority . . . even as I continued our broader effort. . . . Then, after years of painstaking work by my intelligence community I was briefed . . . I met repeatedly with my national security team . . . And finally last week I determined that I had enough intelligence to take action. . . . Today, at my direction . . .”

    JD (318f81)

  19. The anti-war President is thumping his chest about an assasination that was executed by Navy Seals halfway around the world. He nearly behaves as if he actually pulled the trigger. (But HIS authorization for pulling the trigger on the national debt accrued during his term is always someone else’s fault !)

    His crackpot left wing politics aside, Obama is just a bizarre human being.

    This is the guy who stands in everyone else’s light, while he blames everyone else for the shadows he casts.

    Only a bizarre human being puts his hand in front of another diplomat’s face during a photo-op when they’re all packed in like sardines…remember that from last September ? What did he think they were doing—taking a vacation photo at Disneyland, or the Grand Canyon ? “Hey Barry, wave your hand so Uncle Mahmoud can see you !”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/21/obama-united-nations-photo_n_973586.html

    Elephant Stone (0ae97d)

  20. This is another losing issue for us, as I see it. Sure it feels good to joke about Obama eating dog, or point out that Obama is a politician who took a calculated political risk, not a politician. But independent/swing voters aren’t going to get into the details of these stories and they aren’t going to read political blogs; they don’t care, that’s why they’re independent/swing voters.

    Instead, harping on these issues just reminds (or informa in the first place) these uninvolved voters that Romney was mean to a dog, that Obama got Osama. I submit that every time they try to DISTRACT with these non issues we simple go back to the one issue independent/swing voters consistently say they care about: the economy.

    Romney was mean to a dog!
    How’s your job security, house value, retirement, your states finances? Kids got enough for college? What’s it cost to fill up the car?

    Alex (002494)

  21. Sorry, third line “not a politician” should be “not a SEAL”

    Alex (002494)

  22. Thank you for the leftist point of view, Alex. Romney was not mean to a dog, and even if he was, is it worse to be mean to a dog, or to eat a dog? Good Allah, have you never seen a dog sticking it’s head out of a car window?

    JD (318f81)

  23. I bring up that last link, because it was Judge Crawford, who said Qahtani who Mayer had the violins out for, was unable to be charged because
    of the interrogations, well they got useful information out of him

    narciso (8d0f34)

  24. Jd: their point with the Romney dog story is to make the claim that Romney was mean to a dog. My point is to counter that not by engaging in a debate about dogs, but by going after the issue that independent and swing voters actually care about: the economy!

    Most, prob nearly all, indp/swing voters have never heard the Romney dif story, and won’t care much if they do. So instead of informing them of it and harping on it by discussing O’s childhood, let’s focus on what they CARE ABOUT!

    Alex (002494)

  25. No meme is ever dead to them, they brought back Hilary Rosen for ‘the war on women’ and they resurrected the kennel bit for a faux ad in the Correspondents Dinner.

    narciso (8d0f34)

  26. 26: exactly. Don’t play the game!

    Left: war on women, birth control, arrrgh
    Us: hows the job security? Your friend still unemployed? What’s the house worth? Kids got enough for college? What’s a tank of gas cost?

    Alex (002494)

  27. They seem to have taken Spinal Tap as a how tow guide, with ‘ever more selective’ audiences, and
    ‘dialing right up to 11′

    narciso (8d0f34)

  28. ______________________________________________

    The growing number of people throughout this country who are similar to much of the populace in nations like Argentina, Mexico, Venezuela, Greece and France (ie, socialized Europe in general) mean that a liberal politician can be as outrageous and reprehensible as possible and still get away with it. Or just within the borders of the US, think of a city like Detroit and a huge percentage of its voters, and then apply those two elements to growing portions of America.

    I’d be surprised if the one basic dynamic that brings down any nation doesn’t involve much of its populace tossing out common sense and basic standards of right and wrong, and instead happily (or desperately and foolishly) buying into liberal or leftist policies and the politicians (and people in the private sector too—hi, George Soros!) who adhere to such things.

    It will be a miracle if America’s future somehow doesn’t reflect that of a Banana Republic, or a cross between Argentina, Greece, Mexico, France and Venezuela.

    Mark (411533)

  29. 29: or maybe people leave those places to come here for opportunity and freedom. They will support opportunity and freedom, you just have to articulate to them that you stand for opportunity and freedom.

    Alex (002494)

  30. Obama has held more fundraisers than the previous five presidents combined, played 93 rounds of golf, enjoyed super-deluxe vacations with his family, while our economy sucks, the unemployment rate remains unacceptably high, the price of gas has doubled and he wants to brag about one decision that was a no-brainer?

    He’s a freaking moron.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  31. I find it horrific that this administration took no criticism at all for publicizing the team that carried out the OBL raid and then was targeted in an attack that killed almost 30 of them.

    Jaynie59 (058ebb)

  32. Daley – it was the most audacious military action in 500 years.

    JD (2585aa)

  33. Jaynie’s right. It wasn’t necessary to broadcast what unit conducted this attack. In fact, not telling that info was a powerful propaganda tool. But bozos playing macho had to spill the beans and pat themselves on the back for steeling themselves to watch the video feed.

    And the reports that Obama waffled on this decision, or that one of his advisers actually opposed it… that’s disturbing. That’s stuff Romney should start asking about.

    Dustin (330eed)

  34. Good point, Alex.

    Obama knows that when the national conversation is focused on jobs, unemployment, national debt, price of gas, et al, he LOSES.

    That’s why he’s got the Obama Zombies working full throttle to distract people with talk of dog crates, Ann Romney’s resume, and free birth control for 30 year old law students attending one of the most expensive law schools in the country.

    I do, however, think it’s strategic for the GOP and grassroots to develop counter-narratives for the left’s distracting red-herring topics of conversation (i.e. dogs, Ann Romney, birth control).

    For instance, where George Stephanopolous and Diane Sawyer used to want to talk about dog crates, it was only because it was to their advantage to put Romney in a bad light. Now that there’s a counter-narrative about dogs—i.e., Obama used to eat dogs—he admitted so in his own book (that Bill Ayres wrote)—George Stephanopolous and Diane Sawyer all of a sudden don’t want to talk about dogs anymore. Of course, they really don’t want to talk about jobs, debt, gas, or unemployment either because it doesn’t play to Obama’s advantage, so they will inevitably come up with a new distraction to confuse the undecided/independent/moderate/centrist/clueless voters who will ultimately decide the election.

    We have to develop a counter-narrative for every one of their left wing distractions—all the while the Romney campaign must remain publicly focused on talking about jobs. The Romney camp can’t be seen as talking about dogs or whatever the distraction of the day happens to be.

    In other words, we need to provide the reason for the lefties to want to avoid further discussion of each of their distracting topics of conversations.

    To facillitate a Lolo Soetoro pun, “dogs are now off the table !”

    Hopefully, when Romney gets asked distracting questions during the fall debates, he will respond along the lines of, “I don’t see how this distracting topic will help struggling Americans get jobs, or pay their bills, et al.”

    Elephant Stone (0ae97d)

  35. Well the I Man is at it again.

    And it seems to me that Romney might just decide that when your opponent is shooting himself in the foot–well just let him go on doing it.

    One of the best lines I’ve heard on this is that The Bamster has been so clumsy on this line of attack that he makes Biden look like Machiavelli.
    Whne you’re making Slow Joe look good, then you’re doing something wrong.

    But keep on flailing there Bamster.

    Comanche Voter (dc4fc0)

  36. Comment by Bugg — 5/1/2012 @ 7:17 am

    They and The One have no idea how to run this country.

    That’s an improvement, actually. They used to think they knew. (at least when it comes to the economy) Simply get as much money out the door as fast as possible.

    But if Romney makes some mistakes it’s still possible they could win a 2nd time.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  37. The last line is a quote. My comment on that would be: it would not be something unexpected for Romney to make mistakes.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  38. “But if Romney makes some mistakes it’s still possible they could win a 2nd time.”

    Sammy – Your hope springs eternal.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  39. The Obama people really don’t know how pathetic this is. It’s one thing to celebrate after it happened. But to continue the football analogy, you don’t spike the ball 20 plays later. Let him keep pushing this issue all he wants, by the time the convention rolls around, people will be sick of it.

    bskb (7be5cf)

  40. Comment by Bugg — 5/1/2012 @ 7:17 am

    Any president of any party makes the same decision.

    Not true. McCain might easily not have. As I wrote here on March 7:

    http://patterico.com/2012/03/07/selectively-edited-video-of-obamas-radical-college-days-released/

    In comment number 240:

    Comment by JD — 3/8/2012 @ 3:52 pm

    Not true. There was nothing gutsy about that, as anyone with more than one cell would have made the same decision.

    John McCain might not have (because he didn’t want to invade Pakistan.)

    In fact, I think, Barack Obama was maybe the only candidate running for president in 2008 who said he would go into Pakistan, without the consent of its government, to get Osama bin Laden.

    The Democratic debate in New Hampshire on ABC, Saturday night, January 5, 2008.

    MR. GIBSON: ….Osama bin Laden, as he pointed out, has said it is his duty to try to get nuclear weapons….it was you who said in your foreign policy speech that you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after him whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Do you stand by that?

    SEN. OBAMA: I absolutely do stand by it, Charlie….

    ….MR. GIBSON: I’m going to go to the others in a moment, but what you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine: we can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis.

    SEN. OBAMA: No, that — that is not the same thing because here we have a situation where al Qaeda, a sworn enemy of the United States that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that. And you know, this is not speculation. This is not a situation where we anticipate a possible threat in the future. And my job as commander in chief will be to make sure that we strike anybody who would do America harm when we have actionable intelligence to do so.

    [Note May 1 - I see Edwards also rather flippantly said (using generalities) he would go after bin laden whereever he was:

    MR. GIBSON: Edwards, do you agree with him?

    MR. EDWARDS: If I know what -- if I as president of the United States, know where Osama bin Laden is, I would go get him. Period. This man is the mastermind of a mass murder in the United States of America. He is public enemy number one, as
    al Qaeda is.

    Hillary Clinton was less clear about this.]

    Notice that here, unlike the case later with Sarah Palin, Charlie Gibson defined the “Bush doctrine”, which existed mainly in his own head or that of some person ABC consulted. He defined it for everyone that day.

    First Presidential debate between McCain and Obama,moderated by Jim Lehrer of the Newshour on PBS Friday, September 26, 2008

    OBAMA: …..Number three, we’ve got to deal with Pakistan, because Al Qaida and the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan, across the border in the northwest regions, and although, you know, under George Bush, with the support of Senator McCain, we’ve been giving them $10 billion over the last seven years, they have not done what needs to be done to get rid of those safe havens.

    And until we do, Americans here at home are not going to be safe……

    MCCAIN: …..Now, on this issue of aiding Pakistan, if you’re going to aim a gun at somebody, George Shultz, our great secretary of state, told me once, you’d better be prepared to pull the trigger.

    I’m not prepared at this time to cut off aid to Pakistan. So I’m not prepared to threaten it, as Senator Obama apparently wants to do, as he has said that he would announce military strikes into Pakistan.

    We’ve got to get the support of the people of — of Pakistan. He said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan.

    Now, you don’t do that. You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government…….

    ——————————–

    The quote the Obama campaign now has from Romney in 2007 is not really quite good.

    The big problem is that Obama wants to indicate that the possible opposition to going after bin Laden was aboit something else than what it was: the problem had to do with were you going to disregard Pakistani sovreignty and Obama does not wanty to reemphasize that now, so his statements come out incomplete or lame. He really shouldn;t use it in his campaign, of course, at lkeast if he can’t make the point. But there’s actually truth to this claim.

    Republican presidential candidates debate | Full transcript SPONSORED BY FOX NEWS JANUARY 10, 2008

    http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/republican-presidential-candidates-debate-full-transcript-sponsored-by-fox-news-january-10-2008/

    Now foreign policy is more like three-dimensional chess, where we have to understand all the players throughout the world and develop strategies to help move the world towards more stability and safety for ourselves.

    And our interests in Pakistan, just to make sure, number one, that the nuclear weapons are secure; number two, we go after Al Qaida. And the power going after Al Qaida is in General Kiyani, who is a friend, and our funds can go to him and to the military to fight Al Qaida. And we will work with him to find Osama bin Laden. [!!!]

    And if, for some reason, General Musharraf does not want to find Osama bin Laden, then we need to make sure that General Kiyani does. And our support will be key to being able to provide that kind of support to us.

    But we also have to make sure that we’re going to see a much more robust effort throughout Pakistan to go after Al Qaida…

    The only thing here is, Obama is not being very clear about the reason another president might not have done this.

    Of all the presidential candidates in 2008, he was perhaps the most willing to violate Pakistani sovreignity. And he also didn’t tell the Pakistani government. In 2007/8 Romney was willing trust the leading Pakistani general – even more than Mushareff. (of course the assumption was it would be done by air and that the Pakistani government would detect the misisles) So he was starting off from a really bad position.

    Others may have advised not telling them, but at least he appointed the right people in taht regard.

    (There are some other points to make too, including that he;s making other mistakes in the war in terror, especially avoiding interrogating anyone, and if that had happened earlier the information never would ahve been there. I think also not enough precautions were made to take bin Laden alive, which could have been done, buit Obama is to be given credit foir at least not bombinbg the compound so a lot of intelligence was collected.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  41. Comment by Bugg — 5/1/2012 @ 7:17 am

    Remember when FDR took credit for D-Day in 1944?

    Except that didn’t happen.

    And that year Dewey did not say anything allowing Pearl Harbor to get bombed (that really was more the fault of J. Edgar Hoover, who had been warned by Dusko Popov, the British double agent TRICYCLE, the original model for James Bond, that the Japanese might very well bomb Pearl Harbor because they were very interested in colecting information about it, but all Hoover wanted to do was threaten him with violating the Mann Act because he’d taken a girl to Hawaii. And he never passed along the information.

    J. Edgar Hoover still had his defenbders in the FBI in 1982:

    http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1856917?uid=3739832&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=56127735333

    Research Note. Pearl Harbor, Microdots, and J. Edgar Hoover.

    By Leslie B. Rout, Jr.

    Published by the American Historical Association VOLUME 87•NUMBER 5 December 1982 pages 1342ff

    Nor did Thomas E Dewey criticize FDR for invading Italy, and then getting caught in a quagmire.

    He didn’t say this is a distraction from the war,
    the goal in Europe is Germany, and France, not Italy, should have been invaded in 1943, the way Obama and other Democrats critized the invasion of Iraq as being a distraction from Afghanistan/Pakistan theatre.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  42. Comment by AZ Bob — 5/1/2012 @ 7:31 am

    Four years ago, Republicans were evil warmongers. Today Demo’s are perfectly happy with drone strikes and dropping US bombs in many more countries. Republican wars are bad, Democrat wars are good, according to the mass media.

    But the Obama policy is still incoherent with regard to Syria, Iran, China, North Korea and South Sudan. With Iran something may happen. It’s not going to go on the way it is now till the election. And I guess there’s not to much to critize about the hunt for Kony.

    By the way the sanctions on Iran have reached the point that Iran is not able to sell all the opil it is pumping. they are being stored in tankers, but they’ll run ouit of tankers in the summer and will then have toi cut back production unless tehy can get somebody to buy.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  43. Comment by alanstorm — 5/1/2012 @ 7:32 am

    “In it President Bill Clinton is featured saying that Mr Obama took ‘the harder and the more honourable path’ in ordering that bin Laden be killed.”

    And everybody knows how much credibility Mr. Bill has on that issue…
    ———————————

    This means more tahn you think. Because Bill Clinton cancelled the orders to kill or capture bin Laden and he’s told nothinmg but lies about that ever since.

    Here is a quote from the 911 Commssion where it says Bill Clinton was obsessed (deeply concerned you could say = obsessed) with bin Laden, but he kept that concern secret
    :
    Page 174 at the start of Chapter 6:

    President Clinton was deeply concerned about Bin Ladin. He and his national security advisor, Samuel “Sandy” Berger, ensured they had a special daily pipeline of reports feeding them the latest updates on Bin Ladin’s reported location.1 In public, President Clinton spoke repeatedly about the threat of terrorism, referring to terrorist training camps but saying little about Bin Ladin and nothing about al Qaeda. He explained to us that this was deliberate-intended to avoid enhancing Bin Ladin’s stature by giving him unnecessary publicity. His speeches focused especially on the danger of nonstate actors and of chemical and biological weapons.

    Clinton signed an order to kill bin Laden, or something close to it, in December 1998, but then he took it back!

    He later lied about it to the 911 Commission

    http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm (page 133 in the book)

    Policymakers in the Clinton administration, including the President and his national security advisor, told us that the President’s intent regarding covert action against Bin Ladin was clear: he wanted him dead. This intent was never well communicated or understood within the CIA. Tenet told the Commission that except in one specific case (discussed later), the CIA was authorized to kill Bin Ladin only in the context of a capture operation. CIA senior managers, operators, and lawyers confirmed this understanding. “We always talked about how much easier it would have been to kill him,” a former chief of the Bin Ladin unit said.128

    In February 1999, another draft Memorandum of Notification went to President Clinton. It asked him to allow the CIA to give exactly the same guidance to the Northern Alliance as had just been given to the tribals: they could kill Bin Ladin if a successful capture operation was not feasible. On this occasion, however, President Clinton crossed out key language he had approved in December and inserted more ambiguous language. No one we interviewed could shed light on why the President did this. President Clinton told the Commission that he had no recollection of why he rewrote the language.129

    Later in 1999, when legal authority was needed for enlisting still other collaborators and for covering a wider set of contingencies, the lawyers returned to the language used in August 1998, which authorized force only in the context of a capture operation. Given the closely held character of the document approved in December 1998, and the subsequent return to the earlier language, it is possible to understand how the former White House officials and the CIA officials might disagree as to whether the CIA was ever authorized by the President to kill Bin Ladin.130

    Bill Clinton did not want to kill or capture bin Laden. He wanted to create a paper trail
    that that’s what he had wanted to do.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  44. Except there had been strikes in Pakistan, before,
    like this one;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_Rabia

    and a more controversial one against Zawahiri in Bajaur in 2006

    narciso (8d0f34)

  45. At one time there was maybe an offer to hand Bin laden over on a silver platter, and President Clinton did not take it. He’s lied about that, too:

    From the 9/11 Commission Report:

    In late 1995, when Bin Ladin was still in Sudan, the State Department and CIA learned that Sudanese officials were discussing with the Saudi government the possibility of expelling Bin Ladin. U.S. Ambassador Timothy Carney encouraged the Sudanese to pursue this course. The Saudis, however, did not want Bin Ladin, giving as their reason revocation of his citizenship.

    Sudan’s minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Ladin over to the United States. The Commission has found no credible evidence this was so. Ambassador Carney had instructions only to push the Sudanese to expel Bin Ladin. Ambassador Carney had no legal basis to ask for more from the Sudanese since, at the time, there was no indictment outstanding.

    - The 9/11 Commission Report, authorized edition, 109-110.

    From the 9/11 Commission Report footnotes, middle of footnote 7 to Chapter 4 to the last paragraph:

    …President Clinton, in a February 2002 speech to the Long Island Association, said that the United States did not accept the Sudanese offer and take Bin Ladin because there was no indictment. President Clinton speech to the Long Island Association, Feb. 15, 2002 (videotaoe of speech) But the president told us that he had “misspoken” and was, wrongly, recounting a number of press stories he had read. After reviewing this matter in preparation for his Commission meeting, President Clinton told us that Sudan never offered to turn Bin Ladin over to the United States. President Clinton meeting (apr 8, 2004) Berger told us that he saw no chance that he saw no chance that Sudan would have handed Bin Laden over and also noted that in 1996, the U.S. government still did not know of any al Qaeda attacks on U.S. citizens. Samuel berger interview (Jan. 14, 2004)

    The 9/11 Commission Report, authorized edition, 480).

    From the tape: (quoted here)http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_didn’t_Clinton_take_bin_laden_when_Sudan_offered_him_to_America

    So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [Al Qaeda]. We got — well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ’cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.

    Note this:

    After reviewing this matter in preparation for his Commission meeting…

    As you know, Sandy Berger was combing through the National Archives before his and Bill Clinton’s testimony to the 911 Commission.

    He could have removed things or just simply verified that something wasn’t there.

    What Sandy Burglar was caught at was something later, after they were supsicious, when he was trying to pretend that some action on the Clinton Administration’s part had caught the Millennium bomber at the border, so he wanted to prevent the after-action report that didn’t say anything about that from getting to the 911 commission.

    At that point, at least anyway, he was dealing only with copies.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  46. Which is a curious thing, because the chief of Station, in Khartroum, was future CTC head, Blackwater VP, and now Romney advisor Cofer Black, who I do recall Bin Laden had put out a contract on, if memory serves.

    narciso (8d0f34)

  47. “Any president of any party makes the same decision.

    Not true. McCain might easily not have. As I wrote here on March 7:”

    Sammy – You’ve got Mcain’s words right but the interpretation wrong.

    “Now, you don’t do that. You don’t say that out loud.”

    McCain’s point was that you don’t publicly telegraph your intentions and piss people off the way neophyte Obama was during the campaign. It was the same debate over the announcement of withdrawal dates in Iraq and Afghanistan. People with experience understood the danger of telegraphing moves. Newbies and Democrats like Obama didn’t or didn’t care.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  48. Comment by narciso — 5/1/2012 @ 11:24 am

    Except there had been strikes in Pakistan, before, like this one;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_Rabia

    In 2005. OK.

    and a more controversial one against Zawahiri in Bajaur in 2006

    Yes, attacks from the air were a bit tolerated, but not any action on the ground.

    Now the reason Obama maybe wanted to have people on the ground was that he’d know for sure Bin Laden was there. Still, it was a very good decision to reject Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’s advice and take that of David Petraeus and others, and go in on the ground, which enabled them to get much intelligence (not to mention not killing some of his children that way!)

    As McCain said, it was a good call:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/us/politics/critics-pounce-on-obamas-trumpeting-of-bin-laden-death.html

    Obama Trumpets Killing of Bin Laden, and Critics Pounce by Peter Baker and Michael D. Shear

    Saturday April 28, 2012, New York Times, page A13:

    Senator John McCain of Arizona, Mr. Obama’s Republican opponent four years ago, lashed out at the Web video, saying the president was turning “the one decision he got right into a pathetic, political act of self-congratulation.” He added, “Shame on Barack Obama for diminishing the memory of September 11th and the killing of Osama bin Laden by turning it into a cheap political attack ad.”

    He did say, this was the one thing he got right. IT IS SOMETHING HE (and somebody else also) COULD HAVE GOTTEN WRONG.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  49. Comment by narciso — 5/1/2012 @ 11:24 am

    Except there had been strikes in Pakistan, before, like this one;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_Rabia

    In 2005. OK.

    and a more controversial one against Zawahiri in Bajaur in 2006

    Yes, attacks from the air were a bit tolerated, but not any action on the ground.

    Now the reason Obama maybe wanted to have people on the ground was that he’d know for sure Bin Laden was there. Still, it was a very good decision to reject Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’s advice and take that of David Petraeus and others, and go in on the ground, which enabled them to get much intelligence (not to mention not killing some of his children that way!)

    As McCain said, it was a good call:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/us/politics/critics-pounce-on-obamas-trumpeting-of-bin-laden-death.html

    Obama Trumpets Killing of Bin Laden, and Critics Pounce by Peter Baker and Michael D. Shear

    Saturday April 28, 2012, New York Times, page A13:

    Senator John McCain of Arizona, Mr. Obama’s Republican opponent four years ago, lashed out at the Web video, saying the president was turning “the one decision he got right into a pathetic, political act of self-congratulation.” He added, “Shame on Barack Obama for diminishing the memory of September 11th and the killing of Osama bin Laden by turning it into a cheap political attack ad.”

    He did say, this was the one thing he got right. IT IS SOMETHING HE (and somebody else also) COULD HAVE GOTTEN WRONG.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  50. “But the Obama policy is still incoherent with regard to Syria, Iran, China, North Korea and South Sudan.”

    Sammy – You forgot Libya and are completely missing the point. Yes Obama’s policy is incoherent, but the media is not pointing it out, because he is a Democrat.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  51. Also, Obama did not inform the Pakistanis.

    True, there were strong reasons not to, but somebody else might have, or perhaps decided not to go ahead at all yet.

    So Obama has a point, but it is not exactly the one he’s making – or he’s not making it very clear.

    He has a reason not to:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/world/asia/talks-between-us-and-pakistan-fail-over-airstrike-apology.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

    From the Saturday April 28, 2012 New York Times front page:

    United States Talks Fail as Pakistanis Seek Apology by Declan Walsh, Eric Schmitt, and Steven Lee Myers

    ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The first concentrated high-level talks aimed at breaking a five-month diplomatic deadlock between the United States and Pakistan ended in failure on Friday over Pakistani demands for an unconditional apology from the Obama administration for an airstrike.

    The White House, angered by the recent spectacular Taliban attacks in Afghanistan, refuses to apologize.

    http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/lack-of-a-u-s-apology-is-sticking-point-for-pakistan/?partner=rss&emc=rss

    Lack of a U.S. Apology Is Sticking Point for Pakistan blog post by Mark McDonald April 30, 2012, 1:06 AM.

    HONG KONG — It was a difficult weekend in Pakistan. The body of a British Red Cross doctor was found, beheaded, dumped by the side of a road in Quetta. A C.I.A. drone strike killed three suspected militants in an old schoolhouse. And talks last week about a “reset” of the deeply troubled relationship with the United States went nowhere, partly because of Washington’s refusal to apologize for an earlier air attack that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

    The Dawn newspaper in Pakistan quoted police officials as saying the kidnapped doctor, 60, was killed because no ransom had been paid, and the Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility. The body was found wrapped in white plastic with the doctor’s name, Khalil Rasjed Dale, written on the side in black marker. An examining physician said a sharp knife had been used to cut off the head.

    The so-called resetting talks had an ambitious agenda. Pakistan wants the United States to stop the drone attacks, apologize for the air attack last November and make payment of more than $1 billion in overdue military assistance. And there are plenty of other demands.

    For its part, Washington wants Pakistan to reopen critical NATO supply lines into Afghanistan and assist in efforts against the Haqqani militancy. The U.S. side, led by the special envoy Marc Grossman, has refused to end the drone effort and so far has shown no inclination to apologize for the airstrike.

    The relationship, everyone agrees, is in a terrible place, complicated by the planned U.S. pullout from Afghanistan, dwindling military aid to Pakistan, a weakened government in Islamabad, Washington’s diplomatic coziness with India and upcoming elections in both countries. There are plenty of other issues…

    Not exactly the best time to trumpet how you got bin Laden because you kept the Pakistani government in the dark.

    But Obama still wanted to make the ad.

    He made the ad, but sat on the main point (violating Pakistani sovreignity and keeping this secret from the Pakistani government till after it was over) so everybody thinks that what he said was ridiculous and any president would have done the same thing..

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  52. “But the Obama policy is still incoherent with regard to Syria, Iran, China, North Korea and South Sudan.”

    Comment by daleyrocks — 5/1/2012 @ 11:46 am

    Sammy – You forgot Libya

    No, Libya is over. If you mean post revolution policy, it may also be stumbling in Egypt, but perhaps this new guy who was expelled from the Moslem Brotherhood, may turn out all right. I think the whole sex with the dead law was being proposed to try to prevent his alliance with the Salafis, who have no candidate who can win, and are scared of the Moslem Brotherhood.

    and are completely missing the point. Yes Obama’s policy is incoherent, but the media is not pointing it out, because he is a Democrat.

    They are not noticing but they wouldn’t notice anyway, because it is incoherent because it is too leftist/peaceful.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  53. Let’s give three cheers for the Arab Spring. It is so wonderful to see democracy come to the Middle East.

    But be careful what you wish for.

    AZ Bob (7d2a2c)

  54. “No, Libya is over.”

    Sammy – It doesn’t matter if it is over. Honduras is over. You keep missing the point. The overall theme is incompetence and incoherence.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  55. “They are not noticing but they wouldn’t notice anyway, because it is incoherent because it is too leftist/peaceful.”

    Sammy – Syria is even more incoherent when you consider Obama’s public statements about Libya.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  56. Syria is terribly incoherent. Libya was incoherent too, but resolved itself in the end (still it had this unnecessary “we’ll limit U.S. forces as much as possible” If this was a test of NATO’s capabilities, NATO failed. They couldn’t do much wityhoiuyt the United States. Libya should have been over very fast. In the end they carefully planned, or helped plan, an offensive that would get as few people killed as posisble and it more or less worked.

    This is Richard Cohen on Syria:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-long-must-syrians-wait-for-help/2012/04/30/gIQANhYdsT_story.html

    How long must Syrians wait?

    By Richard Cohen, Published: April 30The Washington Post

    The United States seems to have two plans to deal
    with what is fast becoming a civil war in Syria.

    Plan A calls for the full implementation of the U.N. cease-fire and the complete cooperation of Bashar al-Assad, a dictator who would, at the risk of his very life, give up some power to the opposition.

    Plan B, on the other hand, envisions a military response through air power.

    For that to be implemented, Plan A must fail and more Syrians must die.

    Just how many more Syrians must die no one can say. But it seems pretty clear that the toll — now in excess of 9,000 — must mount before the United States, NATO and maybe the Turks and the Saudis will move to bring the slaughter to a halt. Bloomberg News reports that “more than 500 people” have been killed since the start of the cease-fire on April 12. This cease-fire is more fire than cease.

    Obama seems to be waiting for X number of Syrians to die. Otherwise, the policy is just wishful thinking, like it is in some other places.

    In the meantime, Islamists may get to control the opposition.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  57. No, Libya is over.”

    Comment by daleyrocks — 5/1/2012 @ 12:28 pm

    Sammy – It doesn’t matter if it is over. Honduras is over. You keep missing the point. The overall theme is incompetence and incoherence.

    Honduras I did forget about. I was just listing what was current.

    People look forward, and the question really is whether he has improved or how he is doing now.

    Honduras actually was not incompetence. It was ideology. Not the ideology of favoring a so-called progressive or whatever Manuel Zelaya called himself, but the ideology of adhering to legality – and Honduras, unfortunately, unlike Illinois, did not have an impeachment clause in its constitution. Obama paid no attention to the the Declaration of Independence which justifies acting outside the law occasionally.

    There was an argument that the removal was legal – or that he had effectively resigned by advocating a change the constitution – so unconstitutional that even to advbocate it was to remove himself. But they ignored it.

    In the end it was resolved because Obama held that the new election resolved the issue and would not go along with Hugo Chavez and others that because Zelaya’s removal was wrong the election was too. The candidates had already been chosen before this all happened.

    Obama’s love of “legality” is a problem,actually, that shows up in different places. It causes him in many cases, to wait for or depend on the approval of Russia and China.

    It wasn’t a problem in Pakistan because he held this was clearly a case of the U.S. exercising its right to self defense under article 51 of the United Nations charter.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  58. No, Sammy is about ideology, as Castaway, would prove, they are still trying to destabilize the Lobo regime, mostly by arming the local mobs,

    narciso (8d0f34)

  59. Interesting. President Obama made a surprise visit to Kabul, Afghanistan..

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  60. Obama will address the nation from Afghanistan.

    At 7:30 PM Eastern time. From Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan

    Mission accomplished?

    Or will he threaten Pakistan?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  61. Comment by narciso — 5/1/2012 @ 1:39 pm

    about ideology, as Castaway, would prove, they are still trying to destabilize the Lobo regime, mostly by arming the local mobs

    Mobs as in Al Capone, Bugsy Siegel, Joseph Columbo, the Untouchables.

    I didn’t know anything about this. There seems to be quite a number of accusations on the left against the government about killing journalists.

    Operation Castaway is a twin to Fast and Furious.

    Fast and Furious was guns going from Phoenix into Mexico, this is Tampa, Florida to Honduras.

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/13/did-operation-fast-and-furious-have-a-tampa-twin-operation-castaway/ (July 13, 2011)

    It figures.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  62. Best of the Web compares this to Nixon basing his 1972 re-election campaign on the boast that he landed on the moon….what if something went wrong? But that’s why you hire a president, to make those gutsy calls.
    ——————-

    The problem is there actially is a point here, but Obama is stepping on it or obfusticating it because he’s right now in a conflict with Pakistan about an apology, so now is not exactly the time to boast about doing this without telling the Pakistani government.
    Althouigh he did say:

    I’d just recommend that everybody take a look at people’s previous statements in terms of whether they thought it was appropriate to go into Pakistan and to take out bin Laden,” Obama said, obviously taking a shot at Romney. “I assume that people meant what they said when they said it. And that’s been at least my practice. I said that I would go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him–and I did. If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they would do something else, then I’d go ahead and let them explain it.

    It’s true. This was a campaign promise. That some people opposed.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  63. TJ:
    Romney’s invocation of Carter’s daring (and subsequent loss) is enough to remind us of the political stake Obama played.
    – Sure . . . because Osama was holding 52 hostages at the time he was taken out; right? Sheesh.

    Icy (62f882)

  64. “That some people opposed.”

    Sammy – Who opposed it?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  65. there’s a white house over yonder
    that’s where bin Laden stayed
    Lord, there’s a white house over yonder
    that’s where bin Laden stayed
    abbottabad bad feelin’
    0sama don’t live there no mo

    Colonel Haiku (51e9e1)

  66. “Honduras I did forget about. I was just listing what was current.

    People look forward, and the question really is whether he has improved or how he is doing now.”

    Sammy – Sorry, I am a person and I look at his whole presidency, not just what is going on currently. Many people think like me and realize Obama is stuttering stumbling clusterf*ck of a miserable failure from Day 1 and that he has not gotten better with age.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  67. The cost of killing bin-laden. Too much. The helicopter the pakistanni’s sold to the chicoms. The 23 special forces shot down after biden opened his treasonous mouth. I prefer him being alive living in a cave.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  68. “Obama’s love of “legality” is a problem,actually, that shows up in different places.”

    Sammy – Not in the U.S., apparently.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  69. Obama is so awesome!

    He did something right!

    Amphipolis (e01538)

  70. funny thing about Honduras…

    a friend of mine just deployed there for a year.

    redc1c4 (403dff)

  71. PS: Obama is a stuttering clusterf**k of a miserable failure and Alex is a not too bright concern troll.

    redc1c4, proud AoS moron (403dff)

  72. some day in future
    this will be known as Zer0′s
    huge campaign mistake

    Colonel Haiku (51e9e1)

  73. not happy campers
    will Seals swiftboat 0bama?
    There Will Be Blowback

    Colonel Haiku (51e9e1)

  74. I enjoyed Toby Harnden today on the SEALS reaction to the politicization of the Osama kill,

    Chris Kyle, a former SEAL sniper with 160 confirmed and another 95 unconfirmed kills to his credit, said: ‘The operation itself was great and the nation felt immense pride. It was great that we did it.

    ‘But bin Laden was just a figurehead. The war on terror continues. Taking him out didn’t really change anything as far as the war on terror is concerned and using it as a political attack is a cheap shot.

    ‘In years to come there is going to be information that will come out that Obama was not the man who made the call. He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn’t allowed to speak out against the commander- in-chief so his secret is safe.’

    Dana (4eca6e)

  75. “I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority . . . even as I continued our broader effort. . . . Then, after years of painstaking work by my intelligence community I was briefed . . . I met repeatedly with my national security team . . . And finally last week I determined that I had enough intelligence to take action. . . . Today, at my direction . . .”

    I am still hurling

    JD (2585aa)

  76. This shows the essential tone-deaf nature of the clowns in the White House, Obama and his crew of low IQ “advisors”.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  77. and now this just in
    Zer0 hurt rotator cuff
    patting self on back

    Colonel Haiku (51e9e1)

  78. Compare and contrast Bush on the capture of Saddam to Teh One dislocating his shoulder in order to pat himself on his own back for his heroism in killing Bin Laden. As someone noted, he should give himself the Confressional Medal of Honor.

    JD (2585aa)

  79. Slick Willie Clinton said:
    “If the SEALs were captured or killed, the downside would have been horrible for him.”

    Horrible for 0bama???

    F*ck me running if that isn’t the quintessential Clinton, but damn if it doesn’t fit right in with “I Me Mine” 0bama.

    Colonel Haiku (51e9e1)

  80. “I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority . . . even as I continued our broader effort. . . . Then, after years of painstaking work by my intelligence community I was briefed . . . I met repeatedly with my national security team . . . And finally last week I determined that I had enough intelligence to take action. . . . Today, at my direction . . .”

    But none of this would be possible if the groundwork hadn’t already been laid. My impression is that he wants us to believe that he started at square one, yet he didn’t. I don’t mind giving credit where credit is due, but it is very unattractive of the President to whore himself out like this.

    I prefer my heroes cloaked in courage, and so hedged in humility that they would never deign to shine the spotlight on themselves.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  81. I prefer my heroes cloaked in courage, and so hedged in humility that they would never deign to shine the spotlight on themselves.

    Amen.

    JD (2585aa)

  82. Colonel Haiku,

    Sir, you should put your haikus on Twitter…I bet some of them would end up catching the attention of Michelle Malkin’s latest enterprise, a Twitter aggregator, called, Twitchy.

    And Sammy Finkelman, man, you made this thread longer than Santa Claus’ list—but not as long as Obama’s Enemies List—with all those cut & paste jobs !

    Elephant Stone (0ae97d)

  83. In his campaign appearance from Afghanistan this evening Obama twice managed to work into his speech the words “as commander and chief I”….

    Do you think maybe he really likes the sound of that?

    elissa (d61400)

  84. OT- In the “all the news that’s fit to be buried” category, 5 people have been arrested in a plot to blow up a bridge in Cleveland. Piecing things together from a few reports, and between the lines, I think 3 of the 5 are “anarchists” with ties to the “Occupy Movement”

    But don’t jump to any conclusions, they might be R wing conservative agitators that wanted to detract attention from the one’s victory/campaign speech from Afghanistan

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  85. the title for tonight’s bloviating by the SCOAMF in Chief?

    “Mission Accomplished!”

    redc1c4 (403dff)

  86. Oh dear. Chris Matthews leg is tingling overtime.

    Priceless: Matthews also likened the leadership of President Obama to that of Henry V of England.

    “It was right out of Henry V actually, a touch of Barry, in this case, in the night for those soldiers risking their lives over there,” Matthews said.

    “Well that’s great stuff. I was so proud of the President there, I must say. This has nothing to do with partisanship; this is the Commander-in-Chief meeting with the troops,” Chris Matthews gushed on his program today.

    **IIRC, Henry V actually entered the battle fray with his men, leading them & commanding them from the battle field itself… but it’s been a long time since I’ve read about him so maybe I’m wrong and he was directing battles from the other side of the world…

    Dana (4eca6e)

  87. Henry V was indeed on the field of battle. And he actually set the dispositions of his troops, using their terrain and tactical advantages to defeat a numerically greater and more heavily armed force.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  88. I think Branagh gave the best rendition of the St, Crispin’s Day speech, but I may be wrong;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_V_%28play%29

    narciso (8d0f34)

  89. That’s what I thought, SPQR, just like POTUS. :)

    Dana (4eca6e)

  90. Did Henry V use a teleprompter for the St. Crispin’s Day speech?

    elissa (d61400)

  91. Dana, uh … not exactly.

    elissa, well unlikely since Shakespeare wrote it quite a few years later.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  92. Recall Henry, rather than leading his army, was a few continents away playing golf while soldiers carried out the battle. Also, prior to the speech his generals had to convince him it was a good idea after a witch told him it was not. Plus siad witch had him scrub the battle plans 2 days efore for no goo dreason, causing said general staff to demand he so agree to battle.

    Bugg (ea1809)

  93. Heh. This is too easy.

    I am as annoyed with this president’s politicizing such a serious issue and framing it in a campaign stop in Kabul as I was with Bush giving his Mission Accomplished speech in front of that ridiculous banner. Poor for on both their parts. But at least Bush quickly recognized that publicly stated he wished hadn’t done that.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  94. eh. Poor form on both their parts.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  95. At least Bush gave credit where credit was due, elsewhere I read where the only two times he said “I” was in the context of “I thank…”.

    And I thought the banner was not a Bush official idea, but some military person on the carrier.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  96. Bush said that the banner was put up by the US Navy, not the White House. Nonetheless, he did stand in front of it and yet recognized it wasn’t the most tactful backdrop.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  97. Dog is going to be begging for the coup de grace before the end. Absolutely every measure of a POTUS will turn poison by Nov.

    Middle East, Europe, China, Japan, race relations, OWS, Unemployment, foreclosures, gas prices, Bush tax cuts, sequestered Medicare and Defense, SS employee tax cut, student loans,..all worse than ever.

    Holder, Supremes, EPA, Salazar, Van Jones,..the list of losers is endless.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  98. So, did the President, like Henry V, spend the rest of the day killing prisoners?

    What rot. This whole trip ought to be charged to his campaign, and the press coverage ought to count as an in-kind contribution. The only “news” was that Obama was in Afghanistan; the speech was pure campaign.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  99. I think Obama’s only hope is with voters who aren’t paying attention, which is a problem for a narcissist.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  100. A handful of x-friends, who are liberal, have given in to the fact that the democrats in this country are traitorous. Democrats are extremely slow learners.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  101. you know Change is Slow
    but We Are Blessed to Have Him
    catchy… don’t you think?

    Colonel Haiku (2603b5)

  102. Correction, it has been celebrated before, but this is the first time since 1993, that it fell on May 1st.

    narciso (8d0f34)

  103. angry? Seal Team Six?
    be thankful He prefers dogs
    and He don’t eat Seals

    Colonel Haiku (2603b5)

  104. besides… Seals be waaaaaaay too tough!

    Colonel Haiku (2603b5)

  105. Comment by daleyrocks — 5/1/2012 @ 11:40 am

    Sammy – You’ve got Mcain’s words right but the interpretation wrong.

    “Now, you don’t do that. You don’t say that out loud.”

    I was thinking about the end of that sentence:

    and you work with the Pakistani government…….

    Everybody knew what happened if you worked with the Pakistani government. The people being targeted were warned. The only exceptions maybe were the capture of Ramzi Youssef (when it was very tightly held in Pakistan) and maybe Khalid Sheik Muhammad

    The way to understand this was that there were people in the Pakistani military who were on the other side. Pakistan was a prime sponsor of terrorism. Good people in the government had no control over the ISI.

    During the 1980s the Pakistani intelligence agency had had control of the money the U.S. sent to support the rebellion against the Soviet-backed government and they had supported only Islamists of one sort or another. They used BCCI as their bank. The death threats against Salman Rushdie (who was from India) had originally been made in Pakistan, until Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran took over that cause.

    The previous December, 2007, somebody had assassinated the person most likely to become the new head of state: Benazir Bhutto – and there were gaps in the security and a coverup after the fact.

    You just can’t talk about co-operating with the government of Pakistan. This has to be understood right. If you could establish a government that had control of these things that would be good of course.

    I don’t believe anybody is playing a double game for U.S. aid. There’s good guys, and there’s bad guys, probably bribed by China who also probably have arguments that things about their relationship with the PLA have to be kept secret.

    And the bad guys are far more competent and united than the good guys, who are all each basically on their own.

    The only reason the Taliban even existed was because of Pakistan’s rogue military intelligence agency. They were protecting Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden, but by not capturing bin Laden alive, or some his men, and leaving his family behind, we passed up the chance the chance to find out who, or throw fear into them at least that he had given it away (you could even let him write a letter to whomever he wanted. Osama bin Laden probably didn’t like being cooped up there so long anyway)

    If that wasn’t clear then that important people in Pakistan were protecting Osama bin Laden, it is surely clear now. EXCEPT WE STILL APPARENTLY STILL HAVE NO CLEAR IDEA WHO THEY ARE!

    I think the United States turned over whatever information they had about Osama bin Laden’s support system to Pakistan. Bad move. But it is clear anyway, some people do not want to put an end to Al Qaeda and terrorism.

    In his speech President Obama said there were only two things the U.S. wanted from the government of Pakistan (which implies that first, he is not looking for disarmament of its nuclear weapons or an end to corruption, and second he are not getting it yet)

    1) an end to terrorism and

    2) respect for the sovereignty of Afghanistan. (a desire to prevent an Afghan-India alliance has been proposed as a possible motive for the continued Pakistani support of the Hekmatyr group and the Afghan Taliban. BTW until this is taken car of, the U.S. cause in Afghanistan is doomed to failure. No amount of training can compensate for this.

    Sammy Finkelman (841fc6)

  106. “Everybody knew what happened if you worked with the Pakistani government. The people being targeted were warned.”

    Sammy – Correct. Threatening to invade friendly other countries in a campaign event, which is what Obama did, is just plain reckless and counter to expected rules of diplomacy. Other candidates merely said they would get Bin Laden wherever he was.

    In contrast, a situation like Iran, military options have been discussed publicly now for years, we have no diplomatic relations with the country and have essentially been at war with them since 1979.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  107. McCain’s point was that you don’t publicly telegraph your intentions and piss people off the way neophyte Obama was during the campaign. It was the same debate over the announcement of withdrawal dates in Iraq and Afghanistan. People with experience understood the d of telegraphing moves. Newbies and Democrats like Obama didn’t or didn’t care.

    The effects of announcing things are exaggerated.

    And that only matters really for one time things I think.

    If you don’t announce things, and they repeatedly happen, maybe people could get more angry. If they repeatedly happen, you want people to accept that they will.)

    About publicity, here’s an interesting item:

    From the front page of yesterday’s (Tuesday, May 1, 2012)

    Top Item in the second column from the left – the World-Wide portion of the Whats News section:

    The White House opened up about drone strikes
    Counterterrorism adviser Brennan detailed and defended the use of unmanned planes to conduct what he called targeted killings of al Qaeda terrorists. Brennan said he was speaking out because Obama told aides to more openly discuss the program’s aims. A12
    National-security scholars don’t expect the administration to go much further in discussing specific strikes.

    Sammy Finkelman (841fc6)

  108. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303916904577376141668874580.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
    U.S. Shifts Policy on Secrecy of Drone Use

    Top Adviser Defends Use of Unmanned Planes in Targeted Killings—a Program Widely Discussed but Rarely Acknowledged

    Sammy Finkelman (841fc6)

  109. “The effects of announcing things are exaggerated.”

    Sammy – That’s one opinion. Just like your opinion that people only care about current events in the Obama Administration. Or that the government doesn’t need budgets and deficits don’t matter.

    People differ. Obama was and remains a neophyte at foreign policy. The results have been predictable.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  110. “Everybody knew what happened if you worked with the Pakistani government. The people being targeted were warned.”

    Comment by daleyrocks — 5/2/2012 @ 8:33 am

    Sammy – Correct.

    Which means it was very problematical what McCain said.

    Threatening to invade friendly other countries in a campaign event, which is what Obama did, is just plain reckless and counter to expected rules of diplomacy.

    Against the expected rules of diplomacy maybe, except that it was understated, but not an operational danger like the case of telling Pakistan in advance of attacks on Al Qaeda sites.

    Other candidates merely said they would get Bin Laden wherever he was.

    I am not sure about that. McCain here for instance said he would work with the Pakistani government. A good policy if you wanted Bin Laden to escape.

    Obama said what needed to be said, or at least done. And if a candidate wouldn’t say it, he probably wouldn’t do it.

    (At that time they thought he could be in Waziristan elsewhere in FATA (Federally Administered tribal areas) or or the more rural areas of the (then called) Northwest Frontier Province, or to a city Al Qaaeda was known to operate in, or possibly in a cvave but he had moved to that house in Abbotabad, near Pakistan’s version of West Point, within a mile from the front gate, in 2005.

    In contrast, a situation like Iran, military options have been discussed publicly now for years, we have no diplomatic relations with the country and have essentially been at war with them since 1979.

    But there has to be some awakening in Pakistan.

    Sammy Finkelman (841fc6)

  111. Comment by Dana — 5/1/2012 @ 8:19 pm

    Bush said that the banner was put up by the US Navy, not the White House.

    And it really applied to the crew of that ship, not the whole Iraq operation.

    Nonetheless, he did stand in front of it and yet recognized it wasn’t the most tactful backdrop

    They didn’t argue with the thought, because they really thought it was virtually over.

    Sammy Finkelman (841fc6)

  112. “Which means it was very problematical what McCain said.”

    Sammy – What the heck are you talking about?

    “Against the expected rules of diplomacy maybe, except that it was understated, but not an operational danger like the case of telling Pakistan in advance of attacks on Al Qaeda sites.”

    “I am not sure about that. McCain here for instance said he would work with the Pakistani government. A good policy if you wanted Bin Laden to escape.

    Obama said what needed to be said, or at least done. And if a candidate wouldn’t say it, he probably wouldn’t do it.”

    How obtuse do you want to be today? After restating the obvious about our ability to trust Pakistani Intelligence Services would it have been better for each candidate to actually say “we can’t trust you sh*theads” out loud. That seems to be your logic. None of them did that, thankfully. Those messages were delivered privately as is appropriate.

    Pakistan is an ostensible ally. We were giving it substantial amounts of aid in the hopes it would help us in the fight against terror. It also has nuclear weapons and a fragile governing coalition and a sizable radical population.

    If you don’t see the danger of a presidential candidate saying “ima gonna invade you” whenever I want, you are not as smart a person as I thought. Those are the thoughts McCain was referring to when he said you don’t say them out loud. The prudent course of action is to say you will work with the government if they don’t do what you want, do it anyway, but you don’t say that in advance to a bunch of people who want to remove all infidels from their soil and fly into murderous rampages over cartoons and burnings of Korans.

    You choose how obtuse you want to be.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  113. “The effects of announcing things are exaggerated.”

    Comment by daleyrocks — 5/2/2012 @ 8:51 am

    Sammy – That’s one opinion.

    I know, but I think so. It’s easy to agree with or talk yourself into the idea that something matters a great deal, if there’s no clear idea how it would affect things. I think it almost amounts to superstition. If you can’t make a hard, rigorous case that it does, I would say that it doesn’t much matter. And in any case, there are pluses and minuses.

    Sammy Finkelman (841fc6)

  114. People differ. Obama was and remains a neophyte at foreign policy. The results have been predictable

    It’s not that he’s new – it is that he (and his people) have some wrong ideas. That are really, really ingrained in academia. Above all, there’s too much reliance on diplomacy (as something that would work, or as something that should be tried, till there are no more arguments that there are chances.

    Look, if you want to us diplomacy, you’ve got to understand how pople think. How they really think, not what they say. And their real fears, not the ones they express, or the comfortable, easy to deal with, more or less ethical, ones we imagine for them.

    I mean look at Syria. Why should anyone expect Bashir Assad to surrender power? If you do, why don’t you at least talk about the good conditions in the jail at the Hague and the absence of a death penalty? That’s realistic. The current policy, which just avoids all discussion of the ultimate fate of Bashir Assad, is not.

    He’s learning a little. Still sticking to a lot of bad ideas, though. Or just floundering..

    I think he’s learning a little bit about China.

    There are some fewer errors, and the errors are not so deep.. It is probably because he is a little bit more informed.

    But he’s floundering a lot, where it is obvious his policy isn’t working and isn’t going to work. He may not care enough. In North Korea. In regards to the Sudan. With China, it hasn’t jelled yet. Floundering, somewhat, on Egypt.

    Burma is a success, but more because the military junta got scared of Burma being controlled by China than because of anything Obama did.

    But there are some improvements. He has given up on the idea of getting a Middle East peace agreement anytime soon.

    I don’t know about Iran and Pakistan – there there is the military option.

    Afghanistan is a floundering policy. Even the New York Times had problems with his policy on Afghanistan in an editorial today.

    Sammy Finkelman (841fc6)

  115. Just like your opinion that people only care about current events in the Obama Administration.

    No, what I was thinking is that, when it comes to voting, people care only about, or can afford to care only about, continuing failure. The failures or horrible stupidities of the past of course are an indication also of current things wrong, but people care only about them if they are still going on. Therefore I mentioned what was still going on, and not Libya. Now you may not always know what is currently going on, and you have to project from the past, but here there was plenty to mention.

    Same thing about the economy, or Obamacare. Or abortion, or anything. If somebody has come to a new position, and people think it is genuine, they’ll go by that. Now thinking it is genuine, and thinking it is permanent is the key.

    Or that the government doesn’t need budgets and deficits don’t matter.

    Governments not only don’t need budgets, but the effectiveness of government is positively harmed by budgets. You may need to know where you are going, but a budget isn’t the way. Budgeting is the essence of top-down centralized planning. And that never works. No place. It is either all after the fact, or it causes mistakes.

    And deficits don’t matter. The total size of the federal debt may matter, but not the annual deficit.

    Sammy Finkelman (841fc6)

  116. Obama: I’d just recommend that everybody take a look at people’s previous statements in terms of whether they thought it was appropriate to go into Pakistan and to take out bin Laden,” Obama said, obviously taking a shot at Romney. “I assume that people meant what they said when they said it. And that’s been at least my practice. I said that I would go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him–and I did. If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they would do something else, then I’d go ahead and let them explain it.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 5/1/2012 @ 2:08 pm

    “It’s true. This was a campaign promise. That some people opposed.”

    Comment by daleyrocks — 5/1/2012 @ 2:57 pm

    Sammy – Who opposed it?

    Most of the candidates, I think, running in 2008. They opposed going into Pakistan against the wishes of its government or didn’t openly endorse it.

    In the ABC debate on January 5, 2008, Charlie Gibson was trying to get everybody to agree that Obama was wrong:

    …it was you who said in your foreign policy speech that you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after him whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Do you stand by that?

    SEN. OBAMA: I absolutely do stand by it, Charlie….

    ….MR. GIBSON: I’m going to go to the others in a moment, but what you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine: we can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis.

    SEN. OBAMA: No, that — that is not the same thing because here we have a situation where al Qaeda, a sworn enemy of the United States that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that. And you know, this is not speculation. This is not a situation where we anticipate a possible threat in the future. And my job as commander in chief will be to make sure that we strike anybody who would do America harm when we have actionable intelligence to do so.

    So you see going into Pakistan to get Bin Laden, without the consent of its government or against their wishes was a campaign promise that Obama made. That others didn’t make.

    What did Romney say:

    And the power going after Al Qaida is in General Kiyani, who is a friend, and our funds can go to him and to the military to fight Al Qaida. And we will work with him to find Osama bin Laden.

    And if, for some reason, General Musharraf does not want to find Osama bin Laden, then we need to make sure that General Kiyani does. And our support will be key to being able to provide that kind of support to us.

    Any hint of not sharing intelligence with Pakistan? Any hint of going ahead without Pakistan’s knowledge or consent? No.

    Trust the military leadership of Pakistan, Kiyani more than Musharraf, that was his thinking at the time.

    What did McCain say in one of the presidential debates with Obama? He thought Obama was bluffing. He thought you had to break the alliance, or at least cut off military aid to Pakistan, if you wanted to do a raid inside Pakistan against the wishes of its government or threaten to do so. He thought there was a problem with public support in Pakistan. He thought you needed to work with the government. Wrong on all points.

    …if you’re going to aim a gun at somebody, George Shultz, our great secretary of state, told me once, you’d better be prepared to pull the trigger.

    I’m not prepared at this time to cut off aid to Pakistan. So I’m not prepared to threaten it, as Senator Obama apparently wants to do, as he has said that he would announce military strikes into Pakistan.

    We’ve got to get the support of the people of — of Pakistan. He said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan.

    Now, you don’t do that. You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government…….

    Working with the Pakistani government would probably have meant, of course, that Bin Laden would have left the house in Abbotabad.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  117. Now if the rest of President Obama’s foreign and military policy made as much sense, there would be a different story here. But he’s too wedded to too much doctrine, and his previous statements.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  118. “Look, if you want to us diplomacy, you’ve got to understand how pople think. How they really think, not what they say. And their real fears, not the ones they express, or the comfortable, easy to deal with, more or less ethical, ones we imagine for them.”

    Sammy – That is a good explanation of diplomacy. From there, understanding what somebody wants, what we can offer in return leads to understanding of the parameters of negotiations, which are not necessarily put on the table first thing.

    Insulting the other side by saying you are going to invade them or that you do not trust them is not a great way to ensure cooperation, which was the problem with Obama’s comments.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  119. “Any hint of not sharing intelligence with Pakistan? Any hint of going ahead without Pakistan’s knowledge or consent? No.

    Trust the military leadership of Pakistan, Kiyani more than Musharraf, that was his thinking at the time.

    What did McCain say in one of the presidential debates with Obama? He thought Obama was bluffing. He thought you had to break the alliance, or at least cut off military aid to Pakistan, if you wanted to do a raid inside Pakistan against the wishes of its government or threaten to do so. He thought there was a problem with public support in Pakistan. He thought you needed to work with the government. Wrong on all points.”

    Sammy – You’re just repeating the same stuff we’ve already been over and taking the Media Matters approach with quotes. If you enjoy repeating yourself, go for it.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  120. Countdown’s on: only three more days until Fiesta de Sammy!

    Icy (f263d7)

  121. Diplomacy is certainly the answer.
    We’ve got the most accomplished corps of diplomats in our nation’s history -
    our successful NoKor policy is testament to that.

    AD-RtR-OS! (b8ab92)

  122. “Governments not only don’t need budgets, but the effectiveness of government is positively harmed by budgets. You may need to know where you are going, but a budget isn’t the way. Budgeting is the essence of top-down centralized planning. And that never works. No place. It is either all after the fact, or it causes mistakes.”

    Sammy – I confess to finding the above statements astounding. Virtually all of the business I have worked for or had as clients except the smallest operated with some form of budgeting process. It instills discipline, holds people accountable, projects funding needs, and signals trouble if done properly. I think one of the great problems we have in government is that not enough of our politicians have real world experience with accountability for profits and losses and view government expenditures as you do, inviolate, because cutting them would cause disruptions. People who have run businesses understand that there is nobody or no expenditure that is inviolate and we need more of them in government, enough to get over the fear of doing things that are right for the country which might not be the greatest things for reelection prospects.

    Somebody like Romney who has “f*ck you” money and doesn’t need cushy director or think tank jobs after a presidency is hopefully in a better position both by experience and financially to make those decisions than an Obama or Clinton. He just needs enough support from Congress.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  123. SF: Obama said what needed to be said, or at least done. And if a candidate wouldn’t say it, he probably wouldn’t do it.”

    Comment by daleyrocks — 5/2/2012 @ 9:32 am

    How obtuse do you want to be today? After restating the obvious about our ability to trust Pakistani Intelligence Services

    But they didn’t restate the obvious. they maybe talked about non-co-operation, but not about deception.

    They seemed even, some of them, to state the contrary. And if they don’t state it, how can anyone know that they know it?

    would it have been better for each candidate to actually say “we can’t trust you sh*theads” out loud. That seems to be your logic.

    If you strike out one word sh*theads” yes.

    Not just for the U.S. electorate, but for the sake of public relations in Pakistan. And not just for the public, but for the people you are working with in Pakistan. It wouldn’t cause any more problems, and might possibly improve the situation, because everyone knows it is true. Somebody might act.

    Of course what you’d probably get is “we’ve cleaned out the moles” “we’ve solved the problem” “It’s those guys” “Nobody now currently employed by the government” “How can we clean things out if you don’t tell us the details?” That’s maybe probably exactly what’s been happening.

    None of them did that, thankfully. Those messages were delivered privately as is appropriate.

    And not enough got done, and we have this propaganda campaign against drone strikes.

    Because the United States government is not willing to say out loud that the Pakistani government can’t be trusted with secrets.

    Pakistan is an ostensible ally. We were giving it substantial amounts of aid in the hopes it would help us in the fight against terror. It also has nuclear weapons and a fragile governing coalition and a sizable radical population.

    No, the radical population is actually pretty small. As Pakistan’s leaders like to point out, the Islamic parties don’t get too many votes. Yes it is an ostensible ally. It will remain so even if we invade it. The British did that a couple of times with some countries during World War II. Maybe they weren’t quite allies before. Iraq. Iran. We didn’t just give Pakistan aid in 2001. We threatened them, or Holbrooke did. we asked them to pick sides. Pakistani military leaders have said the idea of war with the United States is unthinkable (and so we are supposed to believe nobody helped Al Qaeda, but still) If it is unthinkable, it is unthinkable, and they’ll cave. And nobody wants it.

    The nuclear weapons are either a problem or not. The important point is that the people actually in charge not want to use them.

    The United States anyway, will not attack the government of Pakistan itself, just some places not under their control. That’s the idea.

    It would be a good idea to work with some people in Pakistan, maybe even at the right time, the official government, to try to exert control over all the rogue elements.

    Yes the coalition is fragile, but at the same time, the really bad guys, except maybe for an attempt in 2009, have avoided taking official control. They always want some other more friendly to the U.S. government. At least until the U.S. gets weak enough or they get enough nuclear weapons and missiles. They all believe hat in any case of hostilities between the United States and Pakistan, they will lose. So they will avoid it.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  124. If you don’t see the danger of a presidential candidate saying “ima gonna invade you” whenever I want, you are not as smart a person as I thought.

    Well, a presidential candidate pretty much said as much – how much of problem did it cause?

    Well, actually there is now this year a presidential candidate who sees a problem with that: Obama, and it is causing his campaign to be incoherent.

    The whole point about claiming credit is that he defied Pakistani sovereignty, but he can’t say that, but, oh, how much does he want to use that issue, because it is a real issue. But he can’t say that.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  125. Those are the thoughts McCain was referring to when he said you don’t say them out loud.

    he said you shouldn’t threaten them – because he thought that would disrupt the alliance. Not true.

    The prudent course of action is to say you will work with the government [and?] if they don’t do what you want, do it anyway, but you don’t say that in advance to a bunch of people who want to remove all infidels from their soil and fly into murderous rampages over cartoons and burnings of Korans.

    Nobody’s like that. It’s all fake. There is a problem with removing infidels.

    But let’s say there are people in positions of power who would want to go into murderous rages over Korans or drone strikes, or nothing at all.. What’s keeping them from doing that and launching attacks on U.S. soldiers and the United States? Only fear of the U.S. military response. We might s well be blunt about it so there won’t be any miscalculation.

    You choose how obtuse you want to be.

    I think people stat wars and mount attacks when they think they can win or survive them, but not when they are angry.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  126. daley, the Best & Brightest “don’t need no stinkin’ budgets”.
    Which is why they are always in the red.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  127. Matthew Eid, pointed out, in Intelligence Wars, how
    the US got less results out of Kayani as ISI chief
    after 20o4, as they did with his predecessors

    narciso (8d0f34)

  128. “Look, if you want to use diplomacy, you’ve got to understand how people think. How they really think, not what they say. And their real fears, not the ones they express, or the comfortable, easy to deal with, more or less ethical, ones we imagine for them.”

    Comment by daleyrocks — 5/2/2012 @ 10:31 am

    Sammy – That is a good explanation of diplomacy.

    Not usually, at least in the U.S. State Department, because there it seems to be based too much on believing you are being told what people really think.

    Why else these ridiculous offers to Iran or North Korea to let them use uranium for electrical power? Is that what anyone there wants? So how is that a compromise?

    Why offers to send food to North Korea? Does anyone in the North Korean government care about feeding their people?

    And doesn’t anyone understand their fears, that even if we say we don’t want to overthrow their government, would we still feel that way if we knew all the crimes and atrocities they are committing?

    From there, understanding what somebody wants, what we can offer in return leads to understanding of the parameters of negotiations, which are not necessarily put on the table first thing.

    Not necessarily. What somebody wants sometimes wants is evil. We can’t give it to them. Iran can give Syria what it wants. We can’t. Russia maybe can. We can’t. China can. We can’t. It’s no use pretending and letting them pretend they want something else other than what they want.

    Insulting the other side by saying you are going to invade them or that you do not trust them is not a great way to ensure cooperation, which was the problem with Obama’s comments.

    It is not an insult if it is true, and I think it is the maybe the sole hope of getting genuine co-operation.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  129. The United States government only has real trouble, or real long-lasting disputes, with evil governments.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  130. “How obtuse do you want to be today? After restating the obvious about our ability to trust Pakistani Intelligence Services
    But they didn’t restate the obvious.”

    Sammy – I was referring to you, you obtuse, verbose, reading-challenged git.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  131. “How obtuse do you want to be today?”

    I believe I have my answer.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  132. Deal with China about dissident unraveling. Now he says he wants to leave China. He only agreed to the deal because he was getting threats against his family.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  133. Comment by daleyrocks — 5/2/2012 @ 11:30 am

    D: How obtuse do you want to be today? After restating the obvious about our ability to trust Pakistani Intelligence Services

    SF: But they didn’t restate the obvious.”

    Sammy – I was referring to you, you obtuse, verbose, reading-challenged git.

    Reading challenged? If this was on a test, AND MY INTERPRETATION WAS MARKED WRONG, they’d have to discard the question.

    I looked it over. If that’s what you meant to say, you didn’t punctuate it correctly. Actually, there have to be a bunch of words left out to understand it the way you meant.

    I read it correctly – you didn’t write it correctly, or at least the only way in which it could be understood. (Although it didn’t make sense the way you had it and I questioned it.)

    You wrote:

    How obtuse do you want to be today? After restating the obvious about our ability to trust Pakistani Intelligence Services would it have been better for each candidate to actually say “we can’t trust you sh*theads” out loud. That seems to be your logic.

    Maybe you meant:

    How obtuse do you want to be today? After restating the obvious about our ability to trust Pakistani Intelligence Services, you say a person couldn’t know that a candidate believed that unless he said that. Would it really have been better for each candidate to actually say “we can’t trust those sh*theads” out loud?? But that seems to be where your logic leads.

    By the way, you are right, I needed to find different quotations, otherwise it is like Media Matters.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  134. Sammy – Thank for repeating my words. I stand by them. They actually show that I did not claim the candidates said out loud they could not trust Pakistani intelligence and that I was referring to your logic rather than yours. Very clear.

    No reason to correct what I wrote. You are being obtuse and reading-challengenged for some reason.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  135. I was referring to your logic rather than yours the candidates’.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  136. I saw that

    would it have been better for each candidate..

    was a question to me

    (And you indicated my logic was that it would ahve been but you thought that it went without saying that that idea was bad)

    But what didn’t seem to refer to me, but instead to the candidates was:

    After restating the obvious about our ability to trust Pakistani Intelligence Services

    It sounded like you meant:

    Would it have been better for each candidate to actually say “we can’t trust you sh*theads” out loud after restating the obvious about our ability to trust Pakistani Intelligence Services

    In other words that the candidates restated the obvious about our ability to trust Pakistani Intelligence Services but should they also have actually said “we can’t trust you sh*theads” ??

    That’s the way it read.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4535 secs.