Real Heros of BIn Laden Raid - VIDEO

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 03, 2012 12:19 PM GMT


    The attempt to use one event as a cover for 3 years of a pathetic foreign non-policy has backfired. The overreach by the Team Obama gives an indication of how they deal with challenges. As more people see how he has diminished the office, they will increasingly see him as non-presidential material.

    Intel resulted in part from information obtained using techniques Obama has always opposed (2 CIA Directors)

    Opinion: Almost every president would have made the same decision. Biden opposed, but he is wrong on most things.

    What was the downside had the mission failed? - Obama would still have been given credit for trying, and might have taken political advantage of the situation by speaking at a memorial service for the Seals. Would have been sincere, but opportunistic anyway.

    ***************************************************

    Attempts to mischaracterize Romney quote:

    Romney's point was you don't define an entire military strategy to get a single person:
    The original quote came from an April 2007 interview with the Associated Press. Romney said in that interview he backs a broad strategy to defeat Islamic jihadists and that it's "not worth moving heaven and earth" for one person. Romney said catching bin Laden would make the country safer by a "small percentage" -- he added, a "very insignificant increase in safety." Romney's argument was that somebody else would replace bin Laden at the helm of Al Qaeda. 

    ***************************************************

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303916904577374552546308474.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

    Michael Mukasey: Obama and the bin Laden Bragging Rights
    It's hard to imagine Lincoln or Eisenhower claiming such credit for the heroic actions of others.

    Consider the events surrounding the operation. A recently disclosed memorandum from then-CIA Director Leon Panetta shows that the president's celebrated derring-do in authorizing the operation included a responsibility-escape clause: "The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven's hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out."

    Which is to say, if the mission went wrong, the fault would be Adm. McRaven's, not the president's. Moreover, the president does not seem to have addressed at all the possibility of seizing material with intelligence value—which may explain his disclosure immediately following the event not only that bin Laden was killed, but also that a valuable trove of intelligence had been seized, including even the location of al Qaeda safe-houses. That disclosure infuriated the intelligence community because it squandered the opportunity to exploit the intelligence that was the subject of the boast.
    ......
    While contemplating how the killing of bin Laden reflects on the president, consider the way he emphasized his own role in the hazardous mission accomplished by SEAL Team 6:
    "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 . . ."
    .......
    Article compares the Obama I-I-I-I comments with those of Bush, Lincoln, and Eisenhower
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 03, 2012 12:22 PM GMT
    John -

    It's not working. Everyone knows that Obama did the job that the Republicans wouldn't or couldn't. The desperate attempts at spin are transparent and will just turn off Americans who know better.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 03, 2012 12:25 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidJohn -

    It's not working. Everyone knows that Obama did the job that the Republicans wouldn't or couldn't. The desperate attempts at spin are transparent and will just turn off Americans who know better.

    It backfired. Any Republican would have with the same information gathered over many years. Fun watching you squirm.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 03, 2012 12:30 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidJohn -

    It's not working. Everyone knows that Obama did the job that the Republicans wouldn't or couldn't. The desperate attempts at spin are transparent and will just turn off Americans who know better.

    It backfired. Any Republican would have with the same information gathered over many years. Fun watching you squirm.


    Your response makes no sense. And I'm not squirming, I'm delighted that the right-wing wants to keep Obama's victory front and center in the campaign.

    I hope Romney and the Super PACs keep reminding that American people that our cool president finally took out Osama bin Laden after the Republicans "didn't spend much time thinking about him" and disbanded the bin Laden unit and wasted trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives.

    Keep it up!
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 03, 2012 12:46 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidJohn -

    It's not working. Everyone knows that Obama did the job that the Republicans wouldn't or couldn't. The desperate attempts at spin are transparent and will just turn off Americans who know better.

    It backfired. Any Republican would have with the same information gathered over many years. Fun watching you squirm.


    So ..... The truth is ......

    THEY DIDN'T

    They had the same information ...... and they didn't use it

    Remember Tora Bora? They HAD HIM IN THEIR SIGHTS and they let him get away

    So please take your republican bitter grapes and peddle them elsewhere

    Oh UMM BTW did you see the daily show the other day ?
    Jon Stewart covered this topic pretty well

    ....... And we're laughing AT YOU not with you icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 03, 2012 1:22 PM GMT
    GQjock said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidJohn -

    It's not working. Everyone knows that Obama did the job that the Republicans wouldn't or couldn't. The desperate attempts at spin are transparent and will just turn off Americans who know better.

    It backfired. Any Republican would have with the same information gathered over many years. Fun watching you squirm.


    So ..... The truth is ......

    THEY DIDN'T

    They had the same information ...... and they didn't use it

    Remember Tora Bora? They HAD HIM IN THEIR SIGHTS and they let him get away

    So please take your republican bitter grapes and peddle them elsewhere

    Oh UMM BTW did you see the daily show the other day ?
    Jon Stewart covered this topic pretty well

    ....... And we're laughing AT YOU not with you icon_cool.gif

    They didn't have the same information. He wasn't occupying a specific location even described by a specific street address for months, verified by observable courier activity, HUMINT, etc. Not even close. You're better off copying and pasting than trying to come up with original stuff.
  • DalTX

    Posts: 612

    May 03, 2012 1:37 PM GMT
    G.W. Bush:
    "And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 03, 2012 1:48 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    GQjock said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidJohn -

    It's not working. Everyone knows that Obama did the job that the Republicans wouldn't or couldn't. The desperate attempts at spin are transparent and will just turn off Americans who know better.

    It backfired. Any Republican would have with the same information gathered over many years. Fun watching you squirm.


    So ..... The truth is ......

    THEY DIDN'T

    They had the same information ...... and they didn't use it

    Remember Tora Bora? They HAD HIM IN THEIR SIGHTS and they let him get away

    So please take your republican bitter grapes and peddle them elsewhere

    Oh UMM BTW did you see the daily show the other day ?
    Jon Stewart covered this topic pretty well

    ....... And we're laughing AT YOU not with you icon_cool.gif

    They didn't have the same information. He wasn't occupying a specific location even described by a specific street address for months, verified by observable courier activity, HUMINT, etc. Not even close. You're better off copying and pasting than trying to come up with original stuff.


    Not even a good try. We all know that our military is unparralleled in the world - as is our intelligence community - so they're not at fault in letting bin Laden go free for 7 years.

    It's a matter of leadership, which Obama provided, after the Bush admin (and Republicans) dropped the ball for 7 years.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3280

    May 03, 2012 1:50 PM GMT
    DalTX saidG.W. Bush:
    "And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."


    That is what Bush said at a press conference. The background story is the pressure was on.
    Who telegraphs punches in a war? Strategically it would be better publicly for Osama to think he was "ok"

    Obama of course deserves credit. The criticism is the "year anniversary victory tour" by his political handlers. They are specifically drawing the conclusion that Bush was against finding him and Obama somehow changed that.

    Only Obamas devoted believe this.


    If the above Democrat talking point i true then Clinton deserves 100% of the blame for 911, because Osama was in the crosshairs and Clinton called it off. ( few democrats believe that).



    Get Consistent.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 03, 2012 5:31 PM GMT
    socalfitness: The attempt to use one event as a cover for 3 years of a pathetic foreign non-policy has backfired.

    jockfever: Powerful video. Good post. Democrats can't resist weakening U.S. intelligence and military capabilities, e.g., the goofy Church Commission. The key intelligence used to locate Bin Laden was developed by people using techniques which Comrade Obama attacked. His foreign and national security policies are an embarrassment, betraying our friends and encouraging our enemies.

    Yes, it's another attempt to deflect attention from the failed policies of the worst, most anti-American presidency of modern times. To try to aggrandize himself using intelligence and military capabilities he has undermined is cynical hypocrisy unworthy of a president. When it comes to being unworthy though, Comrade Obama can indeed spike the ball -- he's second to none in being unworthy to occupy the Oval Office.


    Spiking-Osama-5902.jpg

    576227_392761107431086_100000916007135_1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 03, 2012 5:43 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH saidSimple incontrovertible fact:

    Bush decided not to go after Osama.
    Romney said he wouldn't pursue it.
    Obama did.
    Now they want to deny him the credit.
    Pitiful, but it isn't fooling anyone.

    Your misquotes aren't fooling anyone but your hard left brethren.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 03, 2012 5:44 PM GMT
    http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/rumsfeld-called-off-bin-laden-raid-despite-downplaying-122287.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 03, 2012 6:11 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH: Simple incontrovertible fact: Bush decided not to go after Osama.


    jockfever: Fact: Lefty loons will believe any conspiracy theory involving George Bush.

    Is your "incontrovertible" source, screwball Lefty Randi Rhodes?

    So Bush knew OBL's location, but decided to let his successor "discover" OBL's location and take credit for getting him. Makes sense, to a Lefty.

    "So if Bush knew OBL's location, then that information would have been passed along to the BO administration. So what, then, has BO been doing for the last two years, and why, since he had to know where OBL was, did it take BO 16 hours to decide if OBL was really there?"

    "Second, If, as [Randi Rhodes} says, the pakistani military was guarding OBL, where were they? The location was virtually unprotected and the military didn't respond until the SEALS left. This woman is NUTS!"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 03, 2012 6:32 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    JPtheBITCH saidSimple incontrovertible fact:

    Bush decided not to go after Osama.
    Romney said he wouldn't pursue it.
    Obama did.
    Now they want to deny him the credit.
    Pitiful, but it isn't fooling anyone.

    Your misquotes aren't fooling anyone but your hard left brethren.


    Au contraire. It's quite the opposite outside the (right-wing) bubble.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2012 1:33 AM GMT
    jockfever saidSo Bush knew OBL's location, but decided to let his successor "discover" OBL's location and take credit for getting him. Makes sense, to a Lefty.

    It does because they don't think logically.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2012 1:52 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    jockfever saidSo Bush knew OBL's location, but decided to let his successor "discover" OBL's location and take credit for getting him. Makes sense, to a Lefty.

    It does because they don't think logically.


    No. Bush stopped the troops from pursuing him at Tora Bora -

    Then invaded a different, unrelated country on false pretenses

    Then said he "didn't think much about bin Laden" all the while raising the "terror alert" every time his poll numbers dipped

    Then shut down the bin Laden unit

    And then left office in disgrace.

    Despite that, Obama still called Bush before the news broke the bin Laden was dead and thanked him for his administration's efforts to stop Al Qaeda, because Barack is classy...

    And, Socal, if you think jockfever is at all logical, you should up the Thorazine.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2012 2:02 AM GMT
    Here are two of my opinions.

    1. I do not agree that every president would have made the same decision as President Obama. Here is an excerpt from President Bush.

    http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201105020003

    Now of course, he is just answering a hypothetical so no one can really predict what he would do. But his policy of working with Pakistan on hunting down Bin Laden does seem to suggest that he would not have ordered a strike without the Pakistani government's knowledge.

    And as the OP posted, Vice President Biden opposed the action.

    2. I think Romney would have done better if he congratulated Obama on this issue. Romney has plenty of material on Obama without going after everything. His arguments are going to appear weaker and weaker and look overly negative (in my humble opinion) if he does attack the man on every issue under the sun.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2012 2:06 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    jockfever saidSo Bush knew OBL's location, but decided to let his successor "discover" OBL's location and take credit for getting him. Makes sense, to a Lefty.

    It does because they don't think logically.

    Are you good at anything but lies and distortions?

    No. Bush stopped the troops from pursuing him at Tora Bora -
    That is the stupidest thing you pulled from your spin site. Bush followed advice of military commanders. General Tommy Franks claims, “We don’t know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time…but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp.”

    Then said he "didn't think much about bin Laden" all the while raising the "terror alert" every time his poll numbers dipped
    You don't make an entire military policy about getting one person, and you don't telegraph obsession about him.

    Then shut down the bin Laden unit
    The actionable intelligence that in part led to bin Laden came by using techniques that Obama opposed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2012 4:06 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    jockfever saidSo Bush knew OBL's location, but decided to let his successor "discover" OBL's location and take credit for getting him. Makes sense, to a Lefty.

    It does because they don't think logically.

    Are you good at anything but lies and distortions?

    No. Bush stopped the troops from pursuing him at Tora Bora -
    That is the stupidest thing you pulled from your spin site. Bush followed advice of military commanders. General Tommy Franks claims, “We don’t know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time…but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp.”

    Then said he "didn't think much about bin Laden" all the while raising the "terror alert" every time his poll numbers dipped
    You don't make an entire military policy about getting one person, and you don't telegraph obsession about him.

    Then shut down the bin Laden unit
    The actionable intelligence that in part led to bin Laden came by using techniques that Obama opposed.


    Where's that snooze emoticon when you need it?

    Of course, Franks, whom Bush two warmly describes in the general's official bio as a "down to earth guy" certainly wouldn't be covering for his political ally and to cover up his own failure. No...

    In terms of the Bush's comments, he could have answered that question in a number of ways including "it's classified" but he didn't. His statement stands and his actions and that of the military under his command are well known.

    The "actionable intelligence" came through building relationships typical of assets pre-Bush's criminal torture regime regardless of what the Cheney family's "goodwill tour" and attempts to rewrite history claim.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 05, 2012 8:44 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidOf course, Franks, whom Bush two warmly describes in the general's official bio as a "down to earth guy" certainly wouldn't be covering for his political ally and to cover up his own failure. No...

    In terms of the Bush's comments, he could have answered that question in a number of ways including "it's classified" but he didn't. His statement stands and his actions and that of the military under his command are well known.

    The "actionable intelligence" came through building relationships typical of assets pre-Bush's criminal torture regime regardless of what the Cheney family's "goodwill tour" and attempts to rewrite history claim.

    So now you're claiming General Tommy Franks is lying. Anyone who disputes your delusions is lying. hehe

    As far as "actionable intelligence", you think you know more than two CIA directors as well as numerous intelligence experts who say enhanced interrogations, especially waterboarding, played a key role in ultimately getting bin Laden. Anything that does not fit the fiction of the left is a lie.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2012 1:56 PM GMT
    socalfitness said

    What was the downside had the mission failed? - Obama would still have been given credit for trying, and might have taken political advantage of the situation by speaking at a memorial service for the Seals.


    Bullshit. Had it failed, he would have been branded 'Jimmy Carter II'. It was an extremely difficult call for Obama, with lots of conflicting advice from his experts. You can criticize Obama for many things, but he nailed bin Laden, fair and square (and the right hate it).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2012 2:26 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidOf course, Franks, whom Bush two warmly describes in the general's official bio as a "down to earth guy" certainly wouldn't be covering for his political ally and to cover up his own failure. No...

    In terms of the Bush's comments, he could have answered that question in a number of ways including "it's classified" but he didn't. His statement stands and his actions and that of the military under his command are well known.

    The "actionable intelligence" came through building relationships typical of assets pre-Bush's criminal torture regime regardless of what the Cheney family's "goodwill tour" and attempts to rewrite history claim.

    So now you're claiming General Tommy Franks is lying. Anyone who disputes your delusions is lying. hehe

    As far as "actionable intelligence", you think you know more than two CIA directors as well as numerous intelligence experts who say enhanced interrogations, especially waterboarding, played a key role in ultimately getting bin Laden. Anything that does not fit the fiction of the left is a lie.


    Yes. I'm sure Franks is lying. As are the Cheneys and other pro-torture sociopaths.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2012 2:48 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidOf course, Franks, whom Bush two warmly describes in the general's official bio as a "down to earth guy" certainly wouldn't be covering for his political ally and to cover up his own failure. No...

    In terms of the Bush's comments, he could have answered that question in a number of ways including "it's classified" but he didn't. His statement stands and his actions and that of the military under his command are well known.

    The "actionable intelligence" came through building relationships typical of assets pre-Bush's criminal torture regime regardless of what the Cheney family's "goodwill tour" and attempts to rewrite history claim.

    So now you're claiming General Tommy Franks is lying. Anyone who disputes your delusions is lying. hehe

    As far as "actionable intelligence", you think you know more than two CIA directors as well as numerous intelligence experts who say enhanced interrogations, especially waterboarding, played a key role in ultimately getting bin Laden. Anything that does not fit the fiction of the left is a lie.


    Yes. I'm sure Franks is lying. As are the Cheneys and other pro-torture sociopaths.

    Tommy Franks has had a reputation over a long career as being a straight-shooter honest guy. You completely lose any credibility when you claim he or anyone who says things inconsistent with your view is lying.

    Regarding waterboarding being torture, many don't agree, defining torture as intense physical pain and suffering - or mental duress over an extended period. Waterboarding is neither. Many people who go through specific military courses are waterboarded. To label those who disagree with you as sociopaths further takes what little credibility you had.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    May 06, 2012 3:00 PM GMT
    and the idea of bringing this up in this way is more pathetic....

    a Repub example ??

    MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!


    and of course it wasn't even true.... a "blow from the blowhard"

    icon_mad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2012 3:03 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidOf course, Franks, whom Bush two warmly describes in the general's official bio as a "down to earth guy" certainly wouldn't be covering for his political ally and to cover up his own failure. No...

    In terms of the Bush's comments, he could have answered that question in a number of ways including "it's classified" but he didn't. His statement stands and his actions and that of the military under his command are well known.

    The "actionable intelligence" came through building relationships typical of assets pre-Bush's criminal torture regime regardless of what the Cheney family's "goodwill tour" and attempts to rewrite history claim.

    So now you're claiming General Tommy Franks is lying. Anyone who disputes your delusions is lying. hehe

    As far as "actionable intelligence", you think you know more than two CIA directors as well as numerous intelligence experts who say enhanced interrogations, especially waterboarding, played a key role in ultimately getting bin Laden. Anything that does not fit the fiction of the left is a lie.


    Yes. I'm sure Franks is lying. As are the Cheneys and other pro-torture sociopaths.

    Tommy Franks has had a reputation over a long career as being a straight-shooter honest guy. You completely lose any credibility when you claim he or anyone who says things inconsistent with your view is lying.

    Regarding waterboarding being torture, many don't agree, defining torture as intense physical pain and suffering - or mental duress over an extended period. Waterboarding is neither. Many people who go through specific military courses are waterboarded. To label those who disagree with you as sociopaths further takes what little credibility you had.


    Franks is a political animal and knows where his bread is buttered.

    Socal - You support a party that has lied about national security, climate change, gay rights, women's rights, basic historical facts.

    So either you're naive or stupid. Pick.

    In terms of waterboarding, it was defined as torture by the Geneva Convention and Japanese soldiers were tried for torture after doing it to American soldiers.

    It can't suddenly not be torture when the US does it. icon_rolleyes.gif