No,judge.Obama is pulling a fast one to further diminish George Bush’s lousy presidency.He just oversaw the operation to kill “America’s #1 enemy”,which Bush and the gang failed to accomplish in his disastrous 8 years in office.You were too busy on Iraq,cowboy.You failed miserably.

Quite a stretch there, judge.

It is now official. The WH spokesman in a live briefing which is on now verified that UBL was UNARMED when he was shot to death. When reporters asked why didn’t they take UBL alive, the WH spokesman said “there was a lot of resistance going on.” When asked if the resistance was in UBL’s room, he said no, but there was resistance in other areas.

Translation: UBL was unarmed in a room with his wife and he was murdered rather than taken alive.

writer said:
Quite a stretch there, judge.

Not that much of a stretch. 95% of you would start frothing at the mouth and cheer wildly if Obama started having political opponents killed.

Just a quick question, were the troops sent in to “kill” Bin Laden or “capture” Bin Laden. And Bin Laden fought back, so he was killed due to self defense? I think that’s the importance difference here. In other words, was it a government ordered assassination or a government ordered arrest of the man responsible for the death of 3000 Americans?

From being a Truther to being a Deather.

It’s right and proper to raise the question: Should I been happy someone was murdered (or executed)? Having raised that question, we’ll probably get many different answers. If a murder (or execution) is solely for the purpose of revenge, it’s wrong. But, if the murder (or execution) deters mass murder, or if it stops a crime in progress, then it can be justified. I worked through arguments. I am satisfied the decision is morally sound. I also believe that dealing with a live Bin Laden, meting out justice to a live Bin Laden would have been terribly dangerous. Like all Libertarians, Napolitano raises good questions, he offers interesting solutions. He goes a bit far.

The same President also authorized missiles and drones that killed Libyan dictator Gaddafi’s infant grandchildren last weekend. . .

So is he also against president Reagan?

when the regime gets their stories straight we might know. Until then, he was unarmed we are told, you be the judge.

Kitsune, despite your thoughts on conservatives, I don’t see Obama forming Brazilian style hit squads. Bin Laden needed to be taken out.

Now one can understand why Glen Beck chose this clown to replace him on the Fox network. Can there be any doubt that this F**K who by the way used to sit on the Supreme Court of New Jersey is auditioning for the JOB???? Seems like a perfect fit one Ignorant clown to replace another ignorant clown….

notsofast said:
Translation: UBL was unarmed in a room with his wife and he was murdered rather than taken alive.

And this is a problem why?

danker said:
No,judge.Obama is pulling a fast one to further diminish George Bush’s lousy presidency.He just oversaw the operation to kill “America’s #1 enemy”,which Bush and the gang failed to accomplish in his disastrous 8 years in office.You were too busy on Iraq,cowboy.You failed miserably.

The facts are the facts, Bush gave the order for troops to pull out of Tora Bora when they had bin Laden surrounded and told the commanders on the ground that he couldn’t afford to send reinforcements. In 2005 the bin Laden unit of the CIA was closed. Obama got him, Bush failed.

The good Judge is a 911 Truther. End of discussion.

The nutballs at Fox are now so desperate to criticize Obama, that they’ll defend Bin Laden to do so.

Proud of yourselves?

Apparantly the libs in America don’t like it one bit when the dog shit ( Obama doctrine ) is on their shoes. It stinks real bad ( trampling our Constition, arbitraily murdering people Obama doesn’t like ) and it’s going to continue to stink until he’s brought to justice for his crimes.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
It’s right and proper to raise the question: Should I been happy someone was murdered (or executed)? Having raised that question, we’ll probably get many different answers. If a murder (or execution) is solely for the purpose of revenge, it’s wrong. But, if the murder (or execution) deters mass murder, or if it stops a crime in progress, then it can be justified. I worked through arguments. I am satisfied the decision is morally sound. I also believe that dealing with a live Bin Laden, meting out justice to a live Bin Laden would have been terribly dangerous. Like all Libertarians, Napolitano raises good questions, he offers interesting solutions. He goes a bit far.

Obama is mighty big on compliance with international law, according to Obama. But we broke a shitload of them in taking bin Ladin out. Personally, I don’t have a problem with it, but those who like to scream “WAR CRIMINAL” have a long row to hoe in order to square that circle.

Further, we were told, and the UN mandate authorizes, the maintenance of a no fly zone in Libya. We seem to be going for extralegal regime change by way of assassination there.

Is this Hope or Change?

MediaWhorse said:
The nutballs at Fox are now so desperate to criticize Obama, that they’ll defend Bin Laden to do so.

Proud of yourselves?

Who’s defending bin Ladin, nutjob?

Edith Massey said:
The facts are the facts, Bush gave the order for troops to pull out of Tora Bora when they had bin Laden surrounded and told the commanders on the ground that he couldn’t afford to send reinforcements. In 2005 the bin Laden unit of the CIA was closed. Obama got him, Bush failed.

Tommy Franks would like you to know that you are an idiot.

Sometimes presidents have to bend a few rules. You shouldn’t scream ‘war criminal’ at one and ‘hero’ at another when they’re doing the same types of things.

writer said:
Kitsune, despite your thoughts on conservatives, I don’t see Obama forming Brazilian style hit squads.

Of course not! Capone style, sure. But not Brazilian. That’s not the Chicago Way.

writer said:
Sometimes presidents have to bend a few rules. You shouldn’t scream ‘war criminal’ at one and ‘hero’ at another when they’re doing the same types of things.

What if one is an evil Republican and the other is a messianic Democrat?

The Church has long used the Justified War criteria developed by Augustine of Hippo and Aquinas, evolved through the House of Bishops and encapsulated in the Cathechism. The theory is complex, but the conclusion that a war is justified requires satisfying the criteria:

Jus ad bellum – that the entry into war is justified, that “but-for” intervention innocent life would be lost and that the intervention will protect life.

Jus en bello – the proper conduct of the war, that it be directed to enemy combatants, that there be proportionality in the conduct of the war, that death be born of necessity.

The analysis is difficult. It seems envision an enemy which is a nation state. The War on Terror is not a traditional war. We don’t have a defined national enemy. We are not at war against any nation. But, these principles can be seen to clearly apply. As for the justification for entry into war, that war will protect life, the American Revolution seems to fail the test. It ought to have been waged in the same manner as the Indian Independence movement. Similarly, unless you can make an argument that African American lives were in imminent danger, the Civil War did not pass the test. The Spanish American War clearly did not pass the test. WW I? That’s interesting. By the time the US entered the War, entry saved lives, British, French, German and the like. WW II? Clearly justified. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada? No. Afghanistan? Yes. Iraq? No. The War on Terror? Yes. And, to the extent that Bin Laden was a combatant in that War, a considerable extent in my view. Yes. An attack on him was justified.

So, if the attack itself were justified, was it properly conducted? The attack was directed against an Enemy Combatant, and these seems to have been little collateral damage. There was a proportionality. Another attack on a major city, London, New York, even the Hague, Houston, would likely have resulted in far greater loss of life. The one stumbling block might be if Bin Laden’s death were born of necessity. Would capture and confinement be adequate? I come down that death was necessary. If Bin Laden were to live, to be sent to GITMO or SuperMax, the threat would continue to exist, if not by him, by his crazed followers. By virtue of the fortune he had to supply arms. In a War on Terror and not a war against a nation-state, that may be the very best result.

Hey, Does anyone have a copy of “interpreting liberal spin 101″?

Nancy Pelosi, press conference, September 7, 2006:

Even if [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done . . . is done. And even to capture him now I don’t think makes us any safer.

Nancy Pelosi, earlier today:

The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. . . . I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment. . . . The death of Osama bin Laden is historic.

notsofast said:
Translation: UBL was unarmed in a room with his wife and he was murdered rather than taken alive.

Not murder when during time of war you kill someone, especially the chief, unarmed or not.

Pablo said:
Tommy Franks would like you to know that you are an idiot.

History has proven Gen. Franks wrong, what he says in the article is wrong, we do now know (as some of our soldiers did) that Osama was at Tora Bora. Read the congressional report, this is an indisputable fact.

BTW, in my opinion Rumsfeld and Franks bear more of the blame than president Bush, but you can’t say the commander in chief doesn’t share responsibility.

Pablo said:
Who’s defending bin Ladin, nutjob?

You can’t read?

“Beyond the issue of whether the government is telling us the truth or pulling a fast one to save Obama’s lousy Presidency – is the issue of the lawful power of the President to order someone killed, no matter how monstrous, how dangerous or how unpopular.”

He’s defending Bin Laden’s right to trial, nutjob. Something the right has laughed at and scoffed for the last decade when it comes to terrorists, much less the top terrorist on the list.

Obama couldn’t carry Tommy Frank’s golf bag.

Pablo, then that’s different.

MediaWhore says:

He’s defending Bin Laden’s right to trial, nutjob.

How is that different from Obama and Co. wanting miranda rights for terrorists?

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
The Church has long used the Justified War criteria developed by Augustine of Hippo and Aquinas, evolved through the House of Bishops and encapsulated in the Cathechism. The theory is complex, but the conclusion that a war is justified requires satisfying the criteria:

Great analysis, right up to the references to St. Augustine and St. Aquinas, I’m a theology nerd :-)

But killing Uday and Qusay Hussein was perfectly fine, right “Judge”?

UNAMERICAN

Pablo said:
What if one is an evil Republican and the other is a messianic Democrat?

For what it’s worth, I’ve never considered W evil. At heart, he’s a decent sort of guy. I don’t share that opionion with Cheney or Liebermann, however. Cheney, I believe to have formed the requisite intent to commit war crimes. He simply lacked the authority or power to do so. Thankfully. The problem with W is that he ran his Administration in a slipshod and negligent fashion, negligently entrusting certain tasks to people. But, again, evil never came into play.

Obama, at heart, is a decent sort of guy. He’s not the Messiah, however. Been there. Done that. Where, in my opinion, he has it on W, is that Obama is a more capable administrator.

By the way, “but-for” 11 September, W would have never taken us into war. He may have harbored ill will against Saddam, but he would not have used that to take us into war. 11 September justified Afghanistan. Unfortunately, it also gave pretense to the war criminals to push and cajole W into Iraq.

Your formula maybe a bit too simplistic. But, I don’t think you intended it as anything other than a response to the inane comment of another.

Liberal Tormentor said:
MediaWhore says:

He’s defending Bin Laden’s right to trial, nutjob.

How is that different from Obama and Co. wanting miranda rights for terrorists?

Or KSM’s right to trial? Wait…

OBAMA AND ERIC HOLDER ARE DEFENDING KHALID SHEIK MOHAMMED!!!!

Thanks for the clarification, Media Whore. Ya nutjob.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
The Church has long used the Justified War criteria developed by Augustine of Hippo and Aquinas, evolved through the House of Bishops and encapsulated in the Cathechism. The theory is complex, but the conclusion that a war is justified requires satisfying the criteria:

Great analysis, right up to the references to St. Augustine and St. Aquinas, I’m a theology nerd :-)

Indeed. The roots were pre-Church, weren’t they. At least as early as Homer and Cicero. To that extent, it is at the very core of Western Civilization. And, I wouldn’t argue with you if you concluded that Aquinas merely gave formulaic expression to it.

Liberal Tormentor said:
Obama couldn’t carry Tommy Frank’s golf bag.

General Franks would likely disagree with you, Michelle-in-Utah. But, he is a decent person with a keen sense of order and discipline.

THE REAL RABID KOOK said:
Your formula maybe a bit too simplistic.

You’re a lawyer, right Kook? Does “He’s a nice guy” factor into whether or not a defendant has broken a law?

I would have liked for them bring him alive but I would not have liked the whole new circus that would have come along with that.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
in my opinion Rumsfeld and Franks bear more of the blame than president Bush,

Correct as to Rumsfeld, to be sure.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
History has proven Gen. Franks wrong, what he says in the article is wrong, we do now know (as some of our soldiers did) that Osama was at Tora Bora.

You know better than Franks what he knew when he was commanding the operation? I think not. You might want to reread what Franks said. You are mistaken.

Read the congressional report, this is an indisputable fact.

Congressional reports are neither evidence nor conclusive.

Capture a terrorist and it is inhumane and illegal to waterboard him. Capture a terrorist and shoot him in the face and that is justice. Bin Laden was unarmed and in his bedroom with his wife and kids. The mission was to kill him, not capture him. I think Bin Laden would have chosen waterboarding to two shots in the face.

Pablo said:
You’re a lawyer, right Kook? Does “He’s a nice guy” factor into whether or not a defendant has broken a law?

I didn’t say “nice”. I said “decent”. That carries with it some bearing in determining intent. When the Law provides a legal presumption of intent (driving a get away car at a ban heist in which someone is killed), decency is inadequate to rebut, to be sure. But, when intent has to be proven, decency sheds some light on the question, doesn’t it, much as indecency (torturing pets and other animals) might help us establish intent to abuse a child or a wife.

Nacho said:
I would have liked for them bring him alive but I would not have liked the whole new circus that would have come along with that.

That’s a key issue here, isn’t it? Law tends to evolve responsively. I’m not sure we’ve had sufficient time to evolve to handle Bin Laden.

Interesting fact: although “You Lie!” hussein has been in office for more than two (disastrous) years, and the suspected location of osama has been known for months (he’s lived in that compound for more than six years), osama is killed ONLY AFTER “You Lie!” begins his re-election campaign, ensuring maximum campaign publicity.

Pablo said:
Or KSM’s right to trial? Wait… OBAMA AND ERIC HOLDER ARE DEFENDING KHALID SHEIK MOHAMMED!!!! Thanks for the clarification, Media Whore. Ya nutjob.

Can’t understand the difference between being captured alive and killed in a firefight, can you douchebag?

THE REAL RABID KOOK said:
I didn’t say “nice”. I said “decent”. That carries with it some bearing in determining intent. When the Law provides a legal presumption of intent (driving a get away car at a ban heist in which someone is killed), decency is inadequate to rebut, to be sure. But, when intent has to be proven, decency sheds some light on the question, doesn’t it, much as indecency (torturing pets and other animals) might help us establish intent to abuse a child or a wife.

Intent is pretty clear here, Kook. We went to kill him, correct?

TeaPartyPatriot said:
Interesting fact: although “You Lie!” hussein has been in office for more than two (disastrous) years, and the suspected location of osama has been known for months (he’s lived in that compound for more than six years), osama is killed ONLY AFTER “You Lie!” begins his re-election campaign, ensuring maximum campaign publicity.

Hey, everyone, we have a genuine Afterbirther here.

MediaWhorse said:
Can’t understand the difference between being captured alive and killed in a firefight, can you douchebag?

We’re talking about right to trial, remember? If you defend someone’s right to trial, you’re defending that person, according to you. But Eric Holder has been defending KSM, according to your metric, while he’s supposed to be prosecuting him.

Oh, and Osama wasn’t armed. Wasn’t firing. Wasn’t in a firefight. Now, I’m tickled that they plugged him, but that’s entirely beside Napolitano’s point, which is strict adherence to the rule of law.

Pablo said:
Intent is pretty clear here, Kook. We went to kill him, correct?

Never said we didn’t, did I? I was merely responding to a very general question you had posed about legal culpability. Perhaps, I misunderstand your question.

Pablo said:
You know better than Franks what he knew when he was commanding the operation? I think not. You might want to reread what Franks said. You are mistaken.

See the interview with Dalton Fury, we were very close;
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/02/60minutes/main4494937.shtml

Also the article you linked to was from 2004, the congressional report is from 2009. However, Rumsfeld and Franks still say “we’ll never know” if bin Laden was at Tora Bora. Most other experts disagree. But I’m not surprised they would see it this way.

BTW I don’t think Franks was an incompetent General at all. I think a mistake was made at Tora Bora, and maybe it was more of Rumsfeld’s fault, but Franks was the general, and Bush the commander in chief so they get blamed too.

Congressional reports are neither evidence nor conclusive.

Did you read the report, please let us know what parts you think are inaccurate.

http://foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Tora_Bora_Report.pdf

Do you deny that most people now agree bin Laden *was* at Tora Bora? Do you think the will he wrote there is fake?

Is Obama trying to pull the wool over our eyes yet again? Yes…. because Osama died the first time December 2001 (Bush “resurrected” him) and now Obama needed to killed him again to save his presidency. Obama loved to perpetrate and capitalize upon Bushs’ cover-up. This was the ace that Obama was carrying around in his back pocket and now that he used it tells us how desperate Obama is.

They could have compromised. The Seals could have done like on the cop shows and put a ‘throw down’ next to Bin Laden’s body. But I don’t think the Seals do that.

Ah, yes.

Truther Napolitano needs to scare the flock to get some ratings. No wonder he is such good pals with the Baboon Beck.

JanetFlorida said:
Is Obama trying to pull the wool over our eyes yet again? Yes…. because Osama died the first time December 2001 (Bush “resurrected” him) and now Obama needed to killed him again to save his presidency. Obama loved to perpetrate and capitalize upon Bushs’ cover-up. This was the ace that Obama was carrying around in his back pocket and now that he used it tells us how desperate Obama is.

What in the world?!?!

Pablo said:
Tommy Franks would like you to know that you are an idiot.

What part of outsourced don’t you understand. The General said they didn’t outsourced, but then went on to describe how they heavily relied on the Afghan fighters to do the Tora bora fighting (which can be summarized as outsourcing).

Napolitano is welcome to pull whatever he wants out of his ass to get attention for himself.
That’s not the problem. The problem is always the Fox News idiot viewers who believe him.

redleaf said:
Napolitano is welcome to pull whatever he wants out of his ass to get attention for himself.
That’s not the problem. The problem is always the Fox News idiot viewers who believe him.

Who do you think is voting you down?

Watched it and agreed with him!

Way to Go, Judge and TRUMP!

redleaf said:
Napolitano is welcome to pull whatever he wants out of his ass to get attention for himself.That’s not the problem. The problem is always the Fox News idiot viewers who believe him.

You’re in the MINORITY! HeHeHe

juan said:
Watched it and agreed with him!

Way to Go, Judge and TRUMP!

Bad Combover and Fruitcake?

JanetFlorida said:
Is Obama trying to pull the wool over our eyes yet again? Yes…. because Osama died the first time December 2001 (Bush “resurrected” him) and now Obama needed to killed him again to save his presidency. Obama loved to perpetrate and capitalize upon Bushs’ cover-up. This was the ace that Obama was carrying around in his back pocket and now that he used it tells us how desperate Obama is.

Are you taking your pills with orange juice, again, Janet? Johnny warned you about that.

“Is Obama ‘Pulling A Fast One’”

Yeah, he told the SEALs to use rubber bullets. Sheesh.

Barack Must Go said:
Apparantly the libs in America don’t like it one bit when the dog shit ( Obama doctrine ) is on their shoes. It stinks real bad ( trampling our Constition, arbitraily murdering people Obama doesn’t like ) and it’s going to continue to stink until he’s brought to justice for his crimes.

Congrats (?) on joining nitsowit in his anal/fecal fixation.

You consider taking out bin Laden “arbitrary murder”? You would’ve popped in your panties if Bush had ordered a similar action.

“Who’s defending bin Ladin, nutjob?”

nitsowit and BMG, et al . . . nutjob.

Literal Tool: “Obama couldn’t carry Tommy Frank’s golf bag.”

THERE’S a spirited defense of the man!

RRK: ““but-for” 11 September, W would have never taken us into war. ”

In ’99, Bush told his autobiographer, Mickey Herskowitz (sp), that he wanted to be remembered as a great wartime president. He NEEDED a war someplace. 9/11 provided the excuse for one.

Saddam/Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Bush and Cheney cooked the intel until it came out the way they wanted.

Bush and Cheney are what radio host Thom Hartmann (.com) classifies as “high-functioning sociopaths.” They are incapable of compassion for anyone other than themselves. Wall St. types who can throw thousands of people out of work and still sleep soundly that night are of a similar mindset.

TeaPartyPAIDtriot: “osama is killed ONLY AFTER “You Lie!” begins his re-election campaign”

If Obama truly wanted political mileage from this, he would have waited until just before the election, a la Bush and the convenient “high alerts” just before the ’04 election.

Pablum: “We went to kill him, correct?”

Reports indicate that he was given a chance to surrender, but declined.

“Hey, everyone, we have a genuine Afterbirther here.”

A paid-blogger/after-birther, at that.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
Never said we didn’t, did I? I was merely responding to a very general question you had posed about legal culpability. Perhaps, I misunderstand your question.

HE misunderstood his question.

Once again, it didn’t take long for neocon hypocrisy, hatred and hubris to hit the fan.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
Also the article you linked to was from 2004, the congressional report is from 2009. However, Rumsfeld and Franks still say “we’ll never know” if bin Laden was at Tora Bora.

And Tora Bora was in 2001. Franks was running the operation, Kerry and his committee were not. Franks knows what information he had at hand at the time he (not Bush) was giving orders. Kerry does not. Hindsight does not impact what was known at the time. My original comment, with which you took issue, stands.

Pablo said:
And Tora Bora was in 2001. Franks was running the operation, Kerry and his committee were not. Franks knows what information he had at hand at the time he (not Bush) was giving orders. Kerry does not. Hindsight does not impact what was known at the time. My original comment, with which you took issue, stands.

What part of the report is false? Do you dispute the account of the US soldiers that were there, working with the locals (who negotiated a truce without their consent, and even some abandoned our troops)?

So nobody can talk or evaluate a military confrontation after the fact, only the Gen. being criticized in such operation? I mean I gave you the full report (you didn’t read it) and I gave you a video of a soldier that was there, and that doesn’t mean anything.

Wow.

The killing of Bin Laden is a feel good moment for America.
But the feel good moment is short lived for the families out there that can’t afford the gas to go to the job that is on the verge of closing down. Which means they won’t be able to buy the food that went up in price to feed their kid’s.

The killing of Bin Laden was a good thing that was ten years in the making.
But what exactly does that do for America and her struggling people?

Obama can kill and wage war as good as any POTUS (As long as the POTUS has a (D) after his name, the “anti-war” left is ok with this) , but I hope the voting population remembers that when it comes to gas prices and overall inflation plus unemployment ( the things that matter to the average American), Obama’s job performance is subpar at best.

juan said:
You’re in the MINORITY of Fox Viewers! HeHeHe

Nappy is a perfect Foxite. “It’s bad bidness when Obama does something Boosh could not. He is setting a bad precedent” I bet BOR would roast this little piglet on a spit. ‘

Hmmm…roasting Nappy, Becko, and Rushbo would be a sure recipe for a grease fire.

And now we have a new wing of the GOP…the “Body’ers” Where is the long form corpse?

illusive man said:
The killing of Bin Laden was a good thing that was ten years in the making

technically 18 years since the first terrorist attack by Bin Laden happened in New York in 93 with the first WTC attack.

MediaWhorse said:
And this is a problem why?

Because it’s murder, son. And you pathetic libs cry over water-boarding and then you hypocrites cheer a murder.

Typical liberalism.

Good reading here. Recommended for the very far, far, far rightwingers.
http://www.frumforum.com/can-we-stop-questioning-obamas-legitimacy-now
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704436004576298743812732446.html

valkyrie101 said:
Not murder when during time of war you kill someone, especially the chief, unarmed or not.

Barry blew it. If it’s illegal to water-board someone, son, it’s illegal to murder them.

Barry lost the best intel we ever could have gotten.

Bill Huggins said:
But killing Uday and Qusay Hussein was perfectly fine, right “Judge”?

UNAMERICAN

Son, those guys were shooting machine guns and rockets at US troops.

UBL was unarmed with his wife and non-adult children in the room when he was killed.

Most of you know I’m a conservative (R) and I like the Judge. But he’s DEAD WRONG on this one. WAY out of line!!!!! I believe the prez ordered his “capture” and in the process our troops were fired upon making all the navy seals action 100% appropriate! Deal with it and stop trying to brain f*ck the american people with hogwash made up BS. Kudos to our white house, president, and the brave men and women who carried out the mission. I’m proud to be a conservative Republican but when you’re wrong I’ll bust your balls on it.

illusive man said:
The killing of Bin Laden is a feel good moment for America.But I feel the need to piss on the parade and remind everyone how bad things really are, and see if I can divert some of the blame for that to Obama

Naturally, we would expect no less!

notsofast said:
Barry blew it. If it’s illegal to water-board someone, son, it’s illegal to murder them. Barry lost the best intel we ever could have gotten.

Yea, what we need is another martyr. Why don’t you volunteer to take OBL’s place in that respect.

And of course, your logic, as always is flawed and hypocritical. Massively so. Osama, as leader of the enemy, was fair game for killing. How you don’t understand that I don’t know. But then I consider the source, and the level of reasoning involved in your posts, and it becomes clear. People in the immediate vicinity of such a fine target are either collateral damage or guardians.

"Real" American said:
And of course, your logic, as always is flawed and hypocritical. Massively so. Osama, as leader of the enemy, was fair game for killing.

LOL- no son, you are a hypocrite again. Water-boarding is a war crime and illegal but shooting an unarmed man is OK.

Typical pretzel logic of a lib.

I swear Fox knows its viewers a gullible. They can tell them anything and they will believe it.

"Real" American said:
“Real” American says:
May 3, 2011 at 5:25 pm “Real” American(Quote)

You really are a pathetic loser, son.

TrollJuice said:
I swear Fox knows its viewers a gullible. They can tell them anything and they will believe it.

Kinda of .like you and MSNBC, trollfart.

"Real" American said:
Naturally, we would expect no less!

I’m just reminding everybody about the facts.

Really? REALLY??
This is what we’re supposed to believe.
Osama Bin Laden, a 6’5” Arab, lived in compound in a house on the 2nd and 3rd floor, behind a 12’-18’wall in a heavily populated area of Pakistan less than 800 yards from a military academy for as long as 6 years without being noticed. The compound was raided by 40 Navy Seals in 4 helicopters and a fire fight ensued lasting from 20-40 minutes with an unarmed Bin Laden and 2 of his couriers. He was then killed because he resisted along with 4 other people including a wife, 1 son and 2 couriers. No other people were killed including US military, guards, lookouts or Al Qaida in this 20-40 minute fire fight. His body was then examined, facial measurements taken, DNA sample taken, photos taken, and then he was flown over 600 miles to an aircraft carrier in the N. Arabian Sea, and washed, wrapped in a white sheet, then eased into the ocean because they were concerned about Islamic burial tradition. DNA analysis was done and compared with a sample from his dead sister’s brain, in just hours to positively identify him.
Are these guys efficient or what?

illusive man said:
Obama can kill and wage war as good as any POTUS (As long as the POTUS has a (D) after his name, the “anti-war” left is ok with this)

The “anti-war” left is VERY against this. They are not saying what Obama’s doing is “ok.” You must have missed the code pink protests which have NEVER stopped! This is typical rightwing boilerplate that doesn’t discern/distinguish the various factions within the Democratic party. There’s a reason the following maxim is true when it comes to legislators in DC. Republicans fear their base, Democrats loathe their base. The very staunch anti-war group(s) (ie. very far left) is actually very small and not powerful at all. Obama as we people on the left have argued for at least two years is not a far left potus. He’s actually to the right of Bill Clinton on FP and about as hawkish as Hillary and Lieberman are. Don’t forget groups like the ACLU (who are basically ideological buddies of Judge as far as civil liberties and the power of the unitary executive are concerned) are very against Obama in this policy arena. This has never really changed. It just doesn’t get as much attention (I will admit) if a person further to the right had done it. Partisanship will always cloud everything. It’s just the way it is. Basically what I’m saying is, those groups have not flip-flopped their positions/stances on war — they just don’t get the media attention they garnered during the Bush years.

Jeff Webber said:
Really? REALLY??
This is what we’re supposed to believe.
Osama Bin Laden, a 6’5” Arab, lived in compound in a house on the 2nd and 3rd floor, behind a 12’-18’wall in a heavily populated area of Pakistan less than 800 yards from a military academy for as long as 6 years without being noticed. The compound was raided by 40 Navy Seals in 4 helicopters and a fire fight ensued lasting from 20-40 minutes with an unarmed Bin Laden and 2 of his couriers. He was then killed because he resisted along with 4 other people including a wife, 1 son and 2 couriers. No other people were killed including US military, guards, lookouts or Al Qaida in this 20-40 minute fire fight. His body was then examined, facial measurements taken, DNA sample taken, photos taken, and then he was flown over 600 miles to an aircraft carrier in the N. Arabian Sea, and washed, wrapped in a white sheet, then eased into the ocean because they were concerned about Islamic burial tradition. DNA analysis was done and compared with a sample from his dead sister’s brain, in just hours to positively identify him.
Are these guys efficient or what?

Wow…..another conspiracy! What will we call you guys? Osama-deathers?

Gasket said:
You must have missed the code pink protests which have NEVER stopped!

Yeah. I was in DC last fall and there were two whole Code Pink people at the Capitol. They’re en fuego.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
So nobody can talk or evaluate a military confrontation after the fact, only the Gen. being criticized in such operation?

Of course you can. What you cannot do is apply hindsight retroactively. I’ll refer you again to my original comment with which you took issue and note that it still stands. Apart from that, I’m really not interested in re-litigating Tora Bora.

If he does not get at least a 10% bounce out of this Obama 2012 is in trouble…

JanetFlorida said:
Is Obama trying to pull the wool over our eyes yet again? Yes…. because Osama died the first time December 2001 (Bush “resurrected” him) and now Obama needed to killed him again to save his presidency. Obama loved to perpetrate and capitalize upon Bushs’ cover-up. This was the ace that Obama was carrying around in his back pocket and now that he used it tells us how desperate Obama is.

i haven’t gone through all the posts yet, but was this called out yet?

I respect Netalapano but the special powers of the executive are to affirm that no matter how restrictive the Constitution is, it is not a suicide pact.

Pablo said:
Of course you can. What you cannot do is apply hindsight retroactively. I’ll refer you again to my original comment with which you took issue and note that it still stands. Apart from that, I’m really not interested in re-litigating Tora Bora.

Your link shows Franks was wrong in 2004 (when he wrote that article). We now know Obama was in Tora Bora, he is wrong.

The sad truth is, we once again cast our principles of freedom aside, thereby destroying them in order to kill a man who we claim wanted to destroy our freedoms. Thereby granting that man a victory over us. We might have won a fight, but I fear in the war against our freedom, they will win the war.

It’s similar to the reaction to the guy who burned the Koran, which may have motivated nut bags in Pakistan to go and lop some heads off. Did we seek to reward the man who chose non-violent freedom of expression, or did we (in effect) reward the killers by granting them the power (with their killings) to silence our ability to burn their damn Holy book?

This country has become quite stupid and overly emotional, so much so that it cannot comprehend what it means to have a free society. And as such, we’ll no longer have one. We make emotional decisions on a whim and don’t consider for a second the long-term ramification of those decisions and the effect they may have on EVERYONE.

The inflation eating away at America is representative of a society on the verge of collapse. A society that’s bought into the notion that we can destroy our money and future and yet, still remain great. We can’t and we won’t. Not if you people have your way.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
Your link shows Franks was wrong in 2004 (when he wrote that article). We now know Obama was in Tora Bora, he is wrong.

Dude, try to focus. Remember this?

The facts are the facts, Bush gave the order for troops to pull out of Tora Bora when they had bin Laden surrounded and told the commanders on the ground that he couldn’t afford to send reinforcements.

It’s nonsense. True or false?

Gasket said:
Wow…..another conspiracy! What will we call you guys? Osama-deathers?

Who said anything about a conspiracy? I just pointed out a few things that don’t make sense to me.

Gasket said:
The “anti-war” left is VERY against this. They are not saying what Obama’s doing is “ok.” You must have missed the code pink protests which have NEVER stopped! This is typical rightwing boilerplate that doesn’t discern/distinguish the various factions within the Democratic party. There’s a reason the following maxim is true when it comes to legislators in DC. Republicans fear their base, Democrats loathe their base. The very staunch anti-war group(s) (ie. very far left) is actually very small and not powerful at all. Obama as we people on the left have argued for at least two years is not a far left potus. He’s actually to the right of Bill Clinton on FP and about as hawkish as Hillary and Lieberman are. Don’t forget groups like the ACLU (who are basically ideological buddies of Judge as far as civil liberties and the power of the unitary executive are concerned) are very against Obama in this policy arena. This has never really changed. It just doesn’t get as much attention (I will admit) if a person further to the right had done it. Partisanship will always cloud everything. It’s just the way it is. Basically what I’m saying is, those groups have not flip-flopped their positions/stances on war — they just don’t get the media attention they garnered during the Bush years.

You’re lying, the anti-war movment has died out since Obama took office.
When Bush was in office people would attend by the thousands in every city to partake in a anti-war protest.
Now that Obama is POTUS the left dropped their protest signs and went home.
You can’t dispute this fact.

Are we still waiting on Fox Business to release its ratings information? I bet this show has fewer viewers than Joy Behar.

I like how 2 cowards gave me a thumbs down on my comment, but offer no response. Typical liberty destroyers, don’t know and can’t explain why I’m wrong, but they FEEL I am wrong. Losers.

You people destroy freedom more than a terrorist ever could. Keep up your stupidity and watch your country continue to deteriorate.

This is the worst slippery slope argument I’ve ever heard. You got to be kidding me.

First the Conservatives became defenders of radiation, now they are friends with bin Laden.

btimsah said:
I like how 2 cowards gave me a thumbs down on my comment, but offer no response. Typical liberty destroyers, don’t know and can’t explain why I’m wrong, but they FEEL I am wrong. Losers. You people destroy freedom more than a terrorist ever could. Keep up your stupidity and watch your country continue to deteriorate.

Wow do people really check out the thumbs up/down stuff? I guess some people need affirmation.

kvon said:
First the Conservatives became defenders of radiation,

That was of course right after they were opposed to radiation from airport security scanners. There is little point in engaging swine like this

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
For what it’s worth, I’ve never considered W evil. At heart, he’s a decent sort of guy. I don’t share that opionion with Cheney or Liebermann, however. Cheney, I believe to have formed the requisite intent to commit war crimes. He simply lacked the authority or power to do so. Thankfully. The problem with W is that he ran his Administration in a slipshod and negligent fashion, negligently entrusting certain tasks to people. But, again, evil never came into play.

Obama, at heart, is a decent sort of guy. He’s not the Messiah, however. Been there. Done that. Where, in my opinion, he has it on W, is that Obama is a more capable administrator.

By the way, “but-for” 11 September, W would have never taken us into war. He may have harbored ill will against Saddam, but he would not have used that to take us into war. 11 September justified Afghanistan. Unfortunately, it also gave pretense to the war criminals to push and cajole W into Iraq.

Your formula maybe a bit too simplistic. But, I don’t think you intended it as anything other than a response to the inane comment of another.

i disagree with the “but-for” 9/11, i believe cheney (or cheeny as mathews loves to say), rumsfeld, and bush already had the discussion on going to iraq and how to do it, whether a claim of violation of no fly or the lies of wmd (which is what they agreed on, plus the added on ‘connections to 9/11 terrorists.

as far as bush being evil, i’ve struggled with that because he just doesn’t come off like that, but i asked myself whether they chose to go into iraq for the betterment of bringing democracy to the middle east to see if that spark burns, or if he went for his own selfish reason of being a (successful?) wartime president. right now i’m leaning to the former but only leaning that way because i’m still questioning the claim oliver stone makes of a conversation bush had with pm of argentina in which he told him war is always good for economy.
i’m sure bush would deny this but in the words made famous by bush…fool me once shame on…you, well, you can’t fool me.

btimsah said:
I like how 2 cowards gave me a thumbs down on my comment, but offer no response. Typical liberty destroyers, don’t know and can’t explain why I’m wrong, but they FEEL I am wrong. Losers.

You people destroy freedom more than a terrorist ever could. Keep up your stupidity and watch your country continue to deteriorate.

I gave you a thumbs down for being unpatriotic. You are very likely a Marxist. If I could give you two thumbs down I would. Maybe more.

"Real" American said:
Wow do people really check out the thumbs up/down stuff? I guess some people need affirmation.

i do only because some of the posts are so dumb, i forget if i read them or not.

kvon said:
This is the worst slippery slope argument I’ve ever heard. You got to be kidding me. First the Conservatives became defenders of radiation, now they are friends with bin Laden.

Its fun tho. They be loving them some bin Laden. Pretty good example of the con motto “If Obama does it, it must be wrong”.

Next week they’ll be blaming the Obama for polluting the Indian Ocean with bodies.
Week after that it’ll be “show me the long form corpse”
Week after that it’ll be “it never happened”
Week after that it’ll be “I saw Osama at the Hawaii Birth Certificate office”
Week after that it’ll be “Pablo hosted Osama at a pig picking/Nascar watching party”
Week after that it’ll be “Osama is going to sing the National Anthem at the Stanley Cup playoffs”.
and maybe we’ll one day we’ll hear “Osama is going to be the halftime show at the Super Bowl”

Welcome to the table, Body’ers

Gasket said:
Wow…..another conspiracy! What will we call you guys? Osama-deathers?

that is exactly what they will be. i just saw beck do an hour on whether on not to release the photographs and how it will benefit the socialists/communists.

"Real" American said:
“If Obama does it, it must be wrong”.

No, you see, this is where you’re missing the point. Things are either right or wrong. Who does them does not matter.

Again, I applaud bin Ladin’s demise. But, things that you lefties were howling about as war crimes when Bush was POTUS are brave, heroic and glorious now that it’s Obama doing them.

You may not care if you’re a hypocrite, but it’s impossible not to notice it.

Gasket said:
The “anti-war” left is VERY against this. They are not saying what Obama’s doing is “ok.” You must have missed the code pink protests which have NEVER stopped!

i’m surprised that code pink has the time. maybe i’m watching him too much, but according to him code pink is now working with the muslim brotherhood. (he is kinda funny)

Pablo said:
No, you see, this is where you’re missing the point. Things are either right or wrong. Who does them does not matter.

Again, I applaud bin Ladin’s demise. But, things that you lefties were howling about as war crimes when Bush was POTUS are brave, heroic and glorious now that it’s Obama doing them.

You may not care if you’re a hypocrite, but it’s impossible not to notice it.

you are right, war crimes are war crimes. until i hear differently, i don’t believe obama used torture to get this information. he did not lie to say he would kill bin laden, he said that back in his election campaign. and even going to libya, he didn’t lie. if it turns out he lied or tortured i would think him just as guilty as those in the previous administration.

Oh, so this is a business channel? Not so much, as reflected in the ratings. Maybe they should stick to “The Power To Prosper” .

ChiliPeppersFan said:
you are right, war crimes are war crimes. until i hear differently, i don’t believe obama used torture to get this information. he did not lie to say he would kill bin laden, he said that back in his election campaign. and even going to libya, he didn’t lie. if it turns out he lied or tortured i would think him just as guilty as those in the previous administration.

The latest little tidbit I heard was that one of OBL’s aides made a cell phone call that ultimately led to the courier being identified. I don’t claim my source is ironclad, but their sources are usually quite good (maybe not as good as The Rock’s). Torture may have little to do with it.

I love watching the righties try to spin this into something bad for Obama, and good for them.

I will withhold judgement, but I will be curious to see if someone’s balloon ventures too close to a very sharp needle.

Pablo said:
No, you see, this is where you’re missing the point. Things are either right or wrong. Who does them does not matter.

So torture is either right or wrong, irregardless of whether it was WWII Japs or WOT Americans? So which is it? Right or wrong?

Pablo said:
<You may not care if you’re a hypocrite, but it’s impossible not to notice it.

Yea, through the lens of Pablo, I am sure most people seem hypocritical. Pablo has a special divinity of his own making.

What a shame, the judge is obviously suffering from dementia. Of course, he has been for some time. Hang in there you crazy bastard!!

Dirk said:
What a shame, the judge is obviously suffering from dementia. Of course, he has been for some time. Hang in there you crazy bastard!!

Nappy has found a nice spot over there at the Fox Retirement Home, where old pols and journos go to spend their final days drooling into microphones in hope that a good electrical short will kick start their erections.

Gosh this site really loves to “read into” everything, just like the Denver Post & every other MSM on Palin, who allegedly didn’t thank the president (not by name)! Whoop didoo!

It now comes out that there were no armed guards in the compound and all the men in the compund were killed. The men in the compund include an unarmed Bin Laden and 2 so called couriers. Who did the elite group of 40 Navy Seals have a 20-40 minute fire fight with? The women and children? I guess one of Bin Ladens women made a move towards the Seals, so they shot her in the leg and shot an unarmed Bin Laden in the head. Why would they kill the best possible sourcce of inteligence regarding Al Qaeda?

ChiliPeppersFan said:
you are right, war crimes are war crimes. until i hear differently, i don’t believe obama used torture to get this information. he did not lie to say he would kill bin laden, he said that back in his election campaign. and even going to libya, he didn’t lie. if it turns out he lied or tortured i would think him just as guilty as those in the previous administration.

He invaded a sovereign country with a military force in which he invaded a private home, killed 5 people and absconded with a body after torching the place. That is an act of war.

So torture is either right or wrong, irregardless of whether it was WWII Japs or WOT Americans? So which is it? Right or wrong?

Your premise? Wrong. I can assure you that we’re working with different definitions of torture. I can also assure you that, using your definition, the people left alive in bin Ladin’s compound were tortured. Not by mine, though.

ChiliPeppersFan said:
and even going to libya, he didn’t lie.

Oh, he said we’d be there for “days, not weeks” on March 18. He also said we were just going to help with a no fly zone.

Pablo said:
Your premise? Wrong. I can assure you that we’re working with different definitions of torture. I can also assure you that, using your definition, the people left alive in bin Ladin’s compound were tortured. Not by mine, though.

Damn, didn’t mean to confuse you, let me distill it down to basics:

Waterboarding by Japs – torture or not?
Waterboarding by Americans – torture or not?

"Real" American said:
Damn, didn’t mean to confuse you, let me distill it down to basics:

Oh, you needn’t worry about that.

"Real" American said:
Waterboarding by Japs – torture or not?
Waterboarding by Americans – torture or not?

1. Yes

2. No

Anything you can’t tell happened 15 minutes after it’s over isn’t torture.

Pablo said:
Oh, you needn’t worry about that.

1. Yes

2. No

Anything you can’t tell happened 15 minutes after it’s over isn’t torture.

This is tea-bagging logic, which is really no logic at all. This is some dude who is as dumb as a shovel. Simple as that.

Dirk said:
I gave you a thumbs down for being unpatriotic. You are very likely a Marxist. If I could give you two thumbs down I would. Maybe more.

Oh please.. What a crock of bull.

Unlike you and your fascist friends, I’m a libertarian constitutionalist who actually defends the very roots of our freedom, and that seems to be RATHER PATRIOTIC.

No, the truth is you and your hypocritical kind, will claim it’s Osama Bin Laden and people like myself who wish to destroy freedom, while you at the same time, pound your chest and support things like the Patriot Act.

Make up your mind already. Do you support freedom, or don’t you?

"Real" American said:
Wow do people really check out the thumbs up/down stuff? I guess some people need affirmation.

Yes, because just like polls illustrate the failure in our understanding of liberty, so do these thumbs up and thumbs down things.

btimsah said:
Oh please.. What a crock of bull.

Unlike you and your fascist friends, I’m a libertarian constitutionalist who actually defends the very roots of our freedom, and that seems to be RATHER PATRIOTIC.

No, the truth is you and your hypocritical kind, will claim it’s Osama Bin Laden and people like myself who wish to destroy freedom, while you at the same time, pound your chest and support things like the Patriot Act.

Make up your mind already. Do you support freedom, or don’t you?

You are obviously a Marxist that supports suppression and stupidity in the extreme.

Is it easier to:

1- show “proof” of a dead Osama Bin Laden and make sure his body is never found

2- show we have a live Osama Bin Laden in custody

One More Thing – This is what the statists claim;

We have to intervene in the middle east to secure cheap oil. Result of that policy? VERY EXPENSIVE OIL.
We have to intervene in the middle east to increase stability in the region. Result? INSTABILITY.
We have to intervene in the economy to create a more stable economy. Haha, result? INSTABILITY and INFLATION.

You name it, you statists have completely screwed us.

STOP and END the welfare and warfare state and interventions. They are not working!

Edith Massey said:
Bush gave the order for troops to pull out of Tora Bora when they had bin Laden surrounded and told the commanders on the ground that he couldn’t afford to send reinforcements.

credible source please.

Edith Massey said:
In 2005 the bin Laden unit of the CIA was closed

It was revamped, sources have already been provided.

Dirk said:
You are obviously a Marxist that supports suppression and stupidity in the extreme.

No, I don’t. You idiot. Nothing I’ve wrote has anything to do with Marxism. You really are an idiot.

btimsah said:
No, I don’t. You idiot. Nothing I’ve wrote has anything to do with Marxism. You really are an idiot.

Why do you hate the United States of America? You should be deported for having failed to pull your head out of your ass. You sad, pathetic fool.

"Real" American said:
Osama, as leader of the enemy, was fair game for killing

Next up, the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad for killing our soldiers and funneling ieds in Iraq.

Rio said:
Next up, the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad for killing our soldiers and funneling ieds in Iraq.

Or Anwar al-Awlaki the traitor.

OxyCon said:
Or Anwar al-Awlaki the traitor.

He’s already ordered a hit on al-Awalaki:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/7564581/Barack-Obama-orders-killing-of-US-cleric-Anwar-al-Awlaki.html

Better be a clean hit, wouldn’t want al-Awlaki to suffer a “torturous” death. That’s the Obama way.

btimsah said:
No, I don’t. You idiot. Nothing I’ve wrote has anything to do with Marxism. You really are an idiot.

btimsah, Ted (Dirk in his current incarnation) is eternally a jackass. Mock him if you enjoy doing so, but don’t waste your time trying to debate him. It’s like the old teaching a pig to sing thing.

Pablo said:
Tommy Franks would like you to know that you are an idiot.

Tommy Franks was so far up George Bush’s backside he could tell you what he ate three weeks ago. Why don’t you ask General Shinseki? You really bring up Tommy Franks oh man, this is easy.

Rio said:
He’s already ordered a hit on al-Awalaki:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/7564581/Barack-Obama-orders-killing-of-US-cleric-Anwar-al-Awlaki.html

Better be a clean hit, wouldn’t want al-Awlaki to suffer a “torturous” death. That’s the Obama way.

When are you people going to make up your minds. I seem to remember you people saying Obama was weak on terror and now you don’t like the way he kills bad guys? Seriously I hope your kids don’t read your comments. Do you teach your kids to lie like you do?

OxyCon said:
Or Anwar al-Awlaki the traitor.

You guys are so funny. For 2 years you called Obama weak on terror and now you have a problem with him kicking ass. No one other than your teabagger/Repuke pals take anything you say seriously and most of the country is laughing at you.

What was McCain saying during the election? He said Obama was naive for telling the world he would go into Pakistan to get bin Laden

Hey McCain he told the world he was gonna do it and he did it. Didn’t McCain say he knew how to get bin Laden? Sucks to be Republicans doesn’t it.

Edith Massey said:
What was McCain saying during the election? He said Obama was naive for telling the world he would go into Pakistan to get bin Laden

Let’s see what happens to Pakistan in the next two weeks… before we declare mission accomplished…

skoorbekim said:
Let’s see what happens to Pakistan in the next two weeks… before we declare mission accomplished…

Our side doesn’t declare Mission Accomplished, That would be Bush wearing a flight suit costume.

Rio said:
credible source please.

It was revamped, sources have already been provided.

Sure here ya go.

The decision not to deploy American forces to go after bin Laden or block his escape was made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his top commander, Gen. Tommy Franks, the architects of the unconventional Afghan battle plan known as Operation Enduring Freedom. Rumsfeld said at the time that he was concerned that too many U.S. troops in Afghanistan would create an anti-American backlash and fuel a widespread insurgency. Reversing the recent American military orthodoxy known as the Powell doctrine, the Afghan model emphasized minimizing the U.S. presence by relying on small, highly mobile teams of special operations troops and CIA paramilitary operatives working with the Afghan opposition. Even when his own commanders and senior intelligence officials in Afghanistan and Washington argued for dispatching more U.S. troops, Franks refused to deviate from the plan.

There were enough U.S. troops in or near Afghanistan to execute the classic sweep-and-block maneuver required to attack bin Laden and try to prevent his escape. It would have been a dangerous fight across treacherous terrain, and the injection of more U.S. troops and the resulting casualties would have contradicted the risk-averse, “light footprint” model formulated by Rumsfeld and Franks. But commanders on the scene and elsewhere in Afghanistan argued that the risks were worth the reward.

After bin Laden’s escape, some military and intelligence analysts and the press criticized the Pentagon’s failure to mount a full-scale attack despite the tough rhetoric by President Bush. Franks, Vice President Dick Cheney and others defended the decision, arguing that the intelligence was inconclusive about the Al Qaeda leader’s location. But the review of existing literature, unclassified government records and interviews with central participants underlying this report removes any lingering doubts and makes it clear that Osama bin Laden was within our grasp at Tora Bora.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2009_rpt/091130_tora-bora_ubl.htm

skoorbekim said:
Let’s see what happens to Pakistan in the next two weeks… before we declare mission accomplished…

Total moron.

For more than eight years we understood that no matter what Bush did, Leftists would hate him.

Welcome to payback.

Edith Massey said:
credible source

I asked for a credible source. Here you go, from Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong (USMC, ret.), he was there.

The Wall Street Journal
November 1, 2004
COMMENTARY

Setting the Record Straight on Tora Bora

By MICHAEL DELONG
November 1, 2004; Page A15

In recent days, John Kerry has repeatedly accused President Bush of having “outsourced the job” in Tora Bora to kill Osama bin Laden. Knight Ridder reporters concluded that in Tora Bora we “relied on three Afghan warlords” to catch bin Laden, “ignored” warnings from our own officers about incorrect methodology, and that we also relied on the Afghan warlords as our blocking forces, thus letting more than 1,000 al Qaeda fighters escape. As the No. 2 general at CentCom in charge of the Afghanistan War, I can say with certainty that all of these allegations are incorrect. And it is past time someone set the record straight on what really happened in Tora Bora.
* * *
We strategized Tora Bora in essentially the same way we strategized the rest of the Afghanistan war: by using a combination of our elite Special Forces and CIA Agents, embedded with native Afghan troops. We chose this approach in waging the Afghan war for many reasons: it minimized the number of U.S. troops put in harm’s way; it drew on the strengths of the native Afghans who had been fighting in that terrain for years and who were adept at traversing the mountainous terrain on horseback; and it helped avoid the same mistake the Soviets made in Afghanistan. They had opted for a large troop presence and ended up with thousands of their troops killed.

The fact that we took Afghanistan in a matter of weeks — a feat which tens of thousands of Soviet troops were unable to accomplish in a matter of years — proves that our strategy was exactly the right approach for Afghanistan. This was essentially the same strategy we employed at Tora Bora. Thus, to say that we “outsourced” the job when we relied primarily on American Special Forces and American CIA agents is absurd.

This is especially the case in Tora Bora. I said “essentially” the same strategy because in Tora Bora we did shift tactics. Instead of letting the Afghan warlords have command (as they had for the rest of the Afghan war), we put U.S. Special Forces in command. These Special Forces conceived and executed the attack on Tora Bora, while the Afghan warlords took orders from us. We never “relied” on them: we were 100% in charge. Few people realize that Tora Bora began as a ground war, led by U.S. troops; bombing only followed later. Despite what some have said, no caves were too deep for our reach. We bombed nonstop for three weeks. We received many leads on bin Laden’s whereabouts, and had U.S. troops rush in only to find dry holes.

The Knight Ridder reporters claim that we let 1,200 U.S. Marines sit idly by in an air base 80 miles away from Tora Bora while the Afghans did the fighting for us. This is also not the case. Gen. Tommy Franks, working with the Special Forces commander and consulting with the secretary of defense, all agreed that tactically it would be best not to use those 1,200 troops. It was a deliberate decision, because using them would have meant killing hundreds — if not thousands — of Afghan civilians, hostile to a heavy U.S. presence. A strong Afghan warlord presence was essential. We could have sent more U.S. forces in and killed everybody — but we may very well still not have gotten bin Laden, and we would have definitely forever put the South at odds with us. Indeed, if we pursued such a strategy, the ramifications would be so great that it is quite possible there would be no stable Afghan government today.

The same holds true for the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan, where bin Laden likely escaped (if indeed he was there to begin with). The Knight Ridder reporters claim that we relied on the Afghan warlords to block the border for us. Again, this is incorrect. We relied on the Pakistani Frontier Forces — once again, because we had to. The U.S. could not go in to the border region with a heavier presence without sparking a war with the locals; indeed, the regular Pakistani army could not even go in there without sparking a war. The border area had to be blocked by Pakistani Frontier Forces if we didn’t want to risk murdering thousands of civilians and making Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s position untenable with his people. Such actions would have meant losing a strong U.S. ally in Gen. Musharraf, an ally who has facilitated the killing or capturing of the largest percentage of al Qaeda in the world since 9/11.

Finally, most people fail to realize that it is quite possible that bin Laden was never in Tora Bora to begin with. There exists no concrete intel to prove that he was there at the time. Most importantly, capturing bin Laden was not our No. 1 priority. Our mission was to topple the Taliban regime and rid Afghanistan of al Qaeda. If we caught bin Laden it would have been a major plus — but it was not our No. 1 objective.

One must remember that Tora Bora was a military operation and its execution was a tactical decision, which means that it was never run by the president, and never should have been — which makes this one less reason to hold the president directly accountable on this issue. If anyone should be accountable, it should be us. And we are more than satisfied with the way we handled the Afghan war — including Tora Bora. If we had to do it again, we’d do it exactly the same way.

Um, Rio…You’re not a great student.

I just heard Karl Rove (on FOXNEWS) giving W credit for getting OBL . You have to be shitting me. He actually thinks that. The same pasty half-a-man who thought it would be cool to land W on a carrier and tell us that it’s “Mission Accomplished”. Oh, Boy….

Isn’t the real problem that Obama’s action justifies the sovreign of any other nation to order an assassination effort against the leader of any other nation?

David F. Diamond said:
Isn’t the real problem that Obama’s action justifies the sovreign of any other nation to order an assassination effort against the leader of any other nation?

Of what nation was OBL the leader?

Edith Massey said:
Sure here ya go.

The decision not to deploy American forces to go after bin Laden or block his escape was made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his top commander, Gen. Tommy Franks, the architects of the unconventional Afghan battle plan known as Operation Enduring Freedom. Rumsfeld said at the time that he was concerned that too many U.S. troops in Afghanistan would create an anti-American backlash and fuel a widespread insurgency. Reversing the recent American military orthodoxy known as the Powell doctrine, the Afghan model emphasized minimizing the U.S. presence by relying on small, highly mobile teams of special operations troops and CIA paramilitary operatives working with the Afghan opposition. Even when his own commanders and senior intelligence officials in Afghanistan and Washington argued for dispatching more U.S. troops, Franks refused to deviate from the plan.

There were enough U.S. troops in or near Afghanistan to execute the classic sweep-and-block maneuver required to attack bin Laden and try to prevent his escape. It would have been a dangerous fight across treacherous terrain, and the injection of more U.S. troops and the resulting casualties would have contradicted the risk-averse, “light footprint” model formulated by Rumsfeld and Franks. But commanders on the scene and elsewhere in Afghanistan argued that the risks were worth the reward.

After bin Laden’s escape, some military and intelligence analysts and the press criticized the Pentagon’s failure to mount a full-scale attack despite the tough rhetoric by President Bush. Franks, Vice President Dick Cheney and others defended the decision, arguing that the intelligence was inconclusive about the Al Qaeda leader’s location. But the review of existing literature, unclassified government records and interviews with central participants underlying this report removes any lingering doubts and makes it clear that Osama bin Laden was within our grasp at Tora Bora.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2009_rpt/091130_tora-bora_ubl.htm

I was in Iraq the day Franks was fired because the Rumsfeld plan he was charged with executing had started falling apart. His departure was greeted by everybody I talked to with relief. This was after the Tora Bora fiasco. Franks was no better at his job than Rumsfeld was.

mediadoubt said:
mediadoubt says:
May 4, 2011 at 2:28 am mediadoubt(Quote)

Yeah, right, rolls eyes.

Franks, who led U.S. forces in the latest U.S.-led war against Iraq, is also credited with creating winning military strategies in Afghanistan.

Earlier this month, Rumsfeld offered Franks, 57, the post of Army chief of staff — the highest job in the Army. But Franks turned it down.

While many senior officers are anxious to make more money in the private sector after a lifetime of military pay, sources said Franks’ decision was less about money than a lack of enthusiasm for the internecine battles in the Pentagon bureaucracy.

“This is a man, a combatant commander who has won two wars,” one official said. “He’s not really excited about a desk job.”

Sources said Rumsfeld informally offered the job to Franks after his first choice, Gen. John Keane, the current vice chief of staff, bowed out.

The term of the current Army chief of staff, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, ends in June, and Rumsfeld is expected to recommend a successor soon, sources said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/05/22/franks.retires/

Rio said:
I asked for a credible source. Here you go, from Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong (USMC, ret.), he was there.

My link is the bipartisan congressional investigation of what happened in Tora Bora and you linked me to the Wall Street Journal, does anyone take you seriously?

Edith Massey said:
My link is the bipartisan congressional investigation

Bipartisan?

(blockquote>The report represents unfinished political business on the part of Mr. Kerry.
_______
The Senate report was prepared by the Foreign Relations Committee’s Democratic staff,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/world/asia/29torabora.html

That WSJ column was written by Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong. Here’s another:

John Kerry’s Tora Bora Campaign
The Senator is now in favor of more troops after he was against them.

The timing of the report’s release suggests that Mr. Kerry intends this as political cover for Mr. Obama and Democrats, and some in the press corps have even taken it seriously. But coming from Mr. Kerry, of all people, this criticism is nothing short of astonishing.

In 2001, readers may recall, the Washington establishment that included Mr. Kerry was fretting about the danger in Afghanistan from committing too many troops. The New York Times made the “quagmire” point explicitly in a famous page-one analysis, and Seymour Hersh fed the cliche at The New Yorker.

On CNN with Larry King on Dec. 15, 2001, a viewer called in to say the U.S. should “smoke [bin Laden] out” of the Tora Bora caves. Mr. Kerry responded: “For the moment what we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way.” The Rumsfeld-General Tommy Franks troop strategy may have missed bin Laden, but it reflected domestic political doubts about an extended Afghan campaign.

Remarkably, Mr. Kerry is now repeating those same doubts about Mr. Obama’s troop decision, saying that the “Afghans must do the heavy lifting” and that he supports additional troops only for “limited purposes” and wants the U.S. out within “four to five years.” Adapting his legendary 2004 campaign locution, Mr. Kerry is now in favor of more troops after he was against them, but in any case not for very long.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567941741432788.html

OSAMA IS ALIFE
1. I Belief it is a FAKED DNA, there is not mention of how they got a blood reference on O. BinLanden, not even a piece of hear.
2. WHERE IS THE BODY; pictures can be fabricated to perfection. Smart people will not be fooled. Remember the funny weading?
3. Unfortunately, Osama Bin Laden is alife and kicking. The Bible is saying he would have never be found in the Book of Daniel
DAN 11:19 Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found. This is an invention by the administration to stop the desperation of the American people.

Pulling a FAST ONE?

You mean because THIS video?

The video that will END the Obama Presidency! Birthers Get Last Laugh & Demand Formal Apology
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1DHZmeMXyE&feature=channel_video_title

TERESA BAEZA says:
OSAMA IS ALIFE
1. I Belief it is a FAKED DNA, there is not mention of how they got a blood reference on O. BinLanden, not even a piece of hear.
2. WHERE IS THE BODY; pictures can be fabricated to perfection. Smart people will not be fooled. Remember the funny weading?
3. Unfortunately, Osama Bin Laden is alife and kicking. The Bible is saying he would have never be found in the Book of Daniel
DAN 11:19 Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found. This is an invention by the administration to stop the desperation of the American people.

…………………
What?

Ahh, the low-life of it all. The judge is but another well-known & recorded alcoholic. In the BushDrunks’ tradition. Another unAmerican atrocity of the mind. Yup.

Napolitano, are you vying for “Biggest Joke”, in the U.S.? You have stiff competition, from the front runner, Donald “Racist” Trump, but you are sure giving him a run, for his money.

He should call his show “Freedom’s Death Watch” at least that’s what he’s trying to do to it.

The judge is anxious to prove he is crazy enough to replace Beck and entertain his acolytes.

Where the -0bama regime is concerned, NOTHING is out of the question.

If ever their was a man I’d vote for to become the president, it’s judge-Napolitano. A man of clear thinking and common-sense.

Right now Napolitano has some confused grandmother and some nut in a basement believing this spew and that’s what he wanted! He’s among his peeps! Keep the hate alive!

CAconservative said:
If ever their was a man I’d vote for to become the president, it’s judge-Napolitano. A man of clear thinking and common-sense.

I’m not certain this country could handle a pure pragmatist–most Americans are too caught up in all the “touchy-feely” crap that is known as political correctness. As much as anything, PC is going to be the cause of our nation’s demise.