Where should the credit go?
 

Where should the credit go?
 

On Thu, 5 May 2011 04:32:19 -0700 (PDT), John H
wrote:

On May 4, 8:50*pm, Gene wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2011 07:10:34 -0400, John H
wrote:



From yesterday's Washington Post:

"U.S. analysts and operatives spent years figuring out the courier’s identity, senior administration
officials said, concluding that he was a former protege of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-declared
mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks who is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The courier "had our
constant attention," one official said.

Detainees "identified this man as one of the few al-Qaeda couriers trusted by bin Laden, [and]
indicated he might be living with or protecting bin Laden," the official said. But until four years
ago, the United States was unable to track the courier down or uncover his real name. In 2009, U.S.
officials narrowed down the region in Pakistan where the courier was working, senior administration
officials said."

'Years' it says. "Four years ago..." Well, that dumps it in Bush's lap.

http://tinyurl.com/6f65um6

Yesterday, Panetta admitted to Brian Williams that 'enhanced interrogation techniques', including
waterboarding, provided intel which ultimately lead to the attack.

http://tinyurl.com/6kz5423

I'll give Obama a 'C' for allowing the action to take place. He didn't do much else.

You would benefit from a deeper pursuit of this than what Panetta
said. He was wrong about releasing photos and he was wrong about
reliable responses from people under torture.

I don't know how we got so stupid, but we had a LOT more effective
interrogation techniques when dealing with captured Japanese in WWII
than we do now.....

--

Forté Agent 6.00 Build 1186

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by
the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do.
So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover." * - Unknown

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
*http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm

Even the liberal Washington Post is giving the credit where due.
Notice that they also credit the interrogation techniques so down-
played by the Obama bunch.

Maybe the liberals will learn something after all. Sure hope so.

http://tinyurl.com/3gklkaw

From a racist/liar like you?

Where should the credit go?
 

On Thu, 05 May 2011 12:31:39 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Yep, saved millions in legal, pandering, pussy footing around, no court
and judge costs and no expensive keep.

Not to mention hostage taking, exchange demands, muslim outrage, etc.
He's enough of a martyr already.

Where should the credit go?
 

On 05/05/2011 2:45 PM, Harryk wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 12:31:39 -0600,
wrote:

On 05/05/2011 12:04 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:05 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not
targeting people for assassination.
Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping
civil
war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000
troops.

It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they
made the right choice and blew his head off on site.

Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could
not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if
he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story.

I prefer to deal with what we know...or were told. We were told Osama
was given an opportunity to surrender and live or go out in a blaze of
what he probably assumed was glory. We were told he chose the latter.

That's no different than the choices the police in this country offer
dangerous fugitives who they have cornered or who respond by opening
fire. It usually is referred to as "Death by Cop."

Assuming that was the case, I don't have a problem with the outcome. A
trial would have been long and messy, but it is our way to try
criminals
and prove their guilt in a court of law. To dispose of criminals
otherwise brings us down to the level of the terrorists.
The reports coming back from the SEALs is that there was only one
armed man there, who they shot right away. It is clear they wanted to
kill OBL. I think that was a wise choice.
Yep, saved millions in legal, pandering, pussy footing around, no court
and judge costs and no expensive keep.

Gitmo isn't needed, a mass execution is.


You can't execute those people but we could have a horrible plane
crash where the crew were the only ones with parachutes.

Did you ever hear the Willie Nelson song about the detainees? (on the
Highwayman album I think)


I guess I'll never understand righties and their disdain for the rule of
law or custom or behavior considered appropriate for Americans. When the
government engages in this sort of execution, it is no better than those
it executes.

Why? You want to see Obama in a comunity jail and have the Islamic nut
cases try to free him?

While I generally agree with your statement, for Osama I make an
exception as with over 300 indictments and warrants, 9.5 years to
surrender ont eh 9/11 one, he had his chances.

Kadafi is a different story, that is about a vendetta of the egalitarian
back room powerful.

--
I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with
fleabagger debt.

Take a look at ANY country, more debt more problems. So why do we allow
our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial?

Where should the credit go?
 

On 05/05/2011 1:00 PM, Harryk wrote:
John H wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:04:53 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:05 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not
targeting people for assassination.
Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil
war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000
troops.

It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they
made the right choice and blew his head off on site.

Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could
not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if
he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story.

I prefer to deal with what we know...or were told. We were told Osama
was given an opportunity to surrender and live or go out in a blaze of
what he probably assumed was glory. We were told he chose the latter.

That's no different than the choices the police in this country offer
dangerous fugitives who they have cornered or who respond by opening
fire. It usually is referred to as "Death by Cop."

Assuming that was the case, I don't have a problem with the outcome. A
trial would have been long and messy, but it is our way to try
criminals
and prove their guilt in a court of law. To dispose of criminals
otherwise brings us down to the level of the terrorists.
The reports coming back from the SEALs is that there was only one
armed man there, who they shot right away. It is clear they wanted to
kill OBL. I think that was a wise choice.

Very. But it was not in keeping with the liberal interpretation of
'American values'.

The "conservative interpretation" of American values is to shoot, no
matter what? That's the sort of stupidity that got us into Iraq.

Mind you, I don't oppose the shooting of bin Laden, assuming he was
given a chance to surrender alive and turned it down.

He had 9.5 years on the 9/11 charges. Good enough? I thinks so.
--
I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with
fleabagger debt.

Take a look at ANY country, more debt more problems. So why do we allow
our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial?

Where should the credit go?
 

On 05/05/2011 1:00 PM, Harryk wrote:
John H wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:04:53 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:05 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not
targeting people for assassination.
Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil
war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000
troops.

It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they
made the right choice and blew his head off on site.

Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could
not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if
he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story.

I prefer to deal with what we know...or were told. We were told Osama
was given an opportunity to surrender and live or go out in a blaze of
what he probably assumed was glory. We were told he chose the latter.

That's no different than the choices the police in this country offer
dangerous fugitives who they have cornered or who respond by opening
fire. It usually is referred to as "Death by Cop."

Assuming that was the case, I don't have a problem with the outcome. A
trial would have been long and messy, but it is our way to try
criminals
and prove their guilt in a court of law. To dispose of criminals
otherwise brings us down to the level of the terrorists.
The reports coming back from the SEALs is that there was only one
armed man there, who they shot right away. It is clear they wanted to
kill OBL. I think that was a wise choice.

Very. But it was not in keeping with the liberal interpretation of
'American values'.

The "conservative interpretation" of American values is to shoot, no
matter what? That's the sort of stupidity that got us into Iraq.

Mind you, I don't oppose the shooting of bin Laden, assuming he was
given a chance to surrender alive and turned it down.

If it were you son looking Osama in the eye, and Osama pull a hand into
hidden view --

Would you want your son to chance it that Osama wasn't going for a
grenade, bomb or firearm?

--
I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with
fleabagger debt.

Take a look at ANY country, more debt more problems. So why do we allow
our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial?

Where should the credit go?
 

On Thu, 05 May 2011 17:20:23 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 05 May 2011 13:32:09 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 05 May 2011 13:55:37 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2011 12:42:22 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:25:15 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2011 11:38:43 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 04/05/2011 9:46 AM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 4 May 2011 04:50:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Here, just for the fun of it...


http://utopianist.com/wp-content/upl...lled-trump.jpg

Careful, Tim. The liberals are already *extremely* upset that Osama didn't receive a fair trial, but
was instead shot while defenseless.

You know, I've reached a decision. When Harry accuses Scotty of pedophilia, and therefore is
accusing Scotty's daughter of incest, I think he's committing a vile act. Likewise, when Scotty
accuses Harry of pedophilia, without any basis, Scotty is committing a vile act.

Therefore, I've decided to have nothing to do with either of them. They both owe each other an
apology. Hopefully they're both man enough to do so.

Freaking fleabagger lefties, didn't get to spend millions on useless
liberal lawyers? Wow, my sympathies not. Osama needed it. Over 300
indictments and warrants properly processed from multiple
countries...Osama just needed a bullet.

Think of the money it saved taxpayers, the chopper loss was peanuts.
Keeping Osama for trial then incareration costs... best spent bullets
were the ones sent to Osama.


I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not
targeting people for assassination.
Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil
war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000
troops.

It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they
made the right choice and blew his head off on site.

Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could
not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if
he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story.

There was no such repeal of any policy. We target people all the time.
I believe it's mostly appropriate, given what they've done or are
doing.

So, you're claiming to know all the details of the raid, including the
motion by motion action? Sounds to me like you really don't give Obama
an "A". Rather, you're just looking for a way to put him down.


Not at all but it is clear this was a hit, no more, no less. The SEALs
have reported that there was only one armed person there, the courier,
who they shot right away, then they shot 3 more unarmed people,
including Bin Laden. This is the report the government has released.
I think they all needed killing.

So, you don't know all or even most of the details, yet you're
claiming you know it was a "hit." Sounds like you're just looking
around for an excuse to claim Obama is evil.

I am saying he did the right thing and I have consistently said so.
You are the one who argues with me, even when I am giving Obama props.

It is still no reason to call this anything but what it was, a mission
to kill OBL, even if it offends your sensibilities.
The more that comes out, the more it becomes apparent there was no
attempt to take him alive. There was only one armed person in this
compound and that was the first one shot according to the news today.
Maybe you don't get CNN at work.

Maybe you didn't listen to the four-hour old clip that says they were
fighting for 40 minutes.

Where should the credit go?
 

On Thu, 05 May 2011 17:31:39 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 05 May 2011 16:45:41 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 12:31:39 -0600,
wrote:

On 05/05/2011 12:04 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:05 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not
targeting people for assassination.
Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil
war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000
troops.

It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they
made the right choice and blew his head off on site.

Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could
not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if
he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story.

I prefer to deal with what we know...or were told. We were told Osama
was given an opportunity to surrender and live or go out in a blaze of
what he probably assumed was glory. We were told he chose the latter.

That's no different than the choices the police in this country offer
dangerous fugitives who they have cornered or who respond by opening
fire. It usually is referred to as "Death by Cop."

Assuming that was the case, I don't have a problem with the outcome. A
trial would have been long and messy, but it is our way to try criminals
and prove their guilt in a court of law. To dispose of criminals
otherwise brings us down to the level of the terrorists.
The reports coming back from the SEALs is that there was only one
armed man there, who they shot right away. It is clear they wanted to
kill OBL. I think that was a wise choice.
Yep, saved millions in legal, pandering, pussy footing around, no court
and judge costs and no expensive keep.

Gitmo isn't needed, a mass execution is.


You can't execute those people but we could have a horrible plane
crash where the crew were the only ones with parachutes.

Did you ever hear the Willie Nelson song about the detainees? (on the
Highwayman album I think)


I guess I'll never understand righties and their disdain for the rule of
law or custom or behavior considered appropriate for Americans. When the
government engages in this sort of execution, it is no better than those
it executes.


I guess the question is what are we going to do with the several
hundred people we are holding. Two presidents agree they will never
see the inside of a regular court room and they are too dangerous to
turn loose. I don't see anyone on the GOP horizon that has a different
opinion. The Dems are going to stick with Obama and I don't see his
policy changing

The number is 172 unless others have been released.

Obama wanted to house them in SuperMax or equiv. But, Congress said
no.

Where should the credit go?
 

On Thu, 05 May 2011 17:26:43 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 05 May 2011 13:44:12 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:14:51 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 05 May 2011 09:18:52 -0700, wrote:

All
this nonsense about OBL as though his capture is going to solve all
the problems of terrorism is astounding.

I don't have to mine many of your posts to see you saying OBL was the
key to stopping terrorism (trying to justify our crusade in
Afghanistan).

BS. I never said that. Show us.

What's in it for me?
You would just change the subject to blaming Bush for something.

Which means... you can't.

Where should the credit go?
 

On Thu, 05 May 2011 17:22:00 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 05 May 2011 13:40:24 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 05 May 2011 16:05:40 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 05 May 2011 15:00:49 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

John H wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:04:53 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:05 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not
targeting people for assassination.
Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil
war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000
troops.

It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they
made the right choice and blew his head off on site.

Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could
not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if
he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story.

I prefer to deal with what we know...or were told. We were told Osama
was given an opportunity to surrender and live or go out in a blaze of
what he probably assumed was glory. We were told he chose the latter.

That's no different than the choices the police in this country offer
dangerous fugitives who they have cornered or who respond by opening
fire. It usually is referred to as "Death by Cop."

Assuming that was the case, I don't have a problem with the outcome. A
trial would have been long and messy, but it is our way to try criminals
and prove their guilt in a court of law. To dispose of criminals
otherwise brings us down to the level of the terrorists.
The reports coming back from the SEALs is that there was only one
armed man there, who they shot right away. It is clear they wanted to
kill OBL. I think that was a wise choice.

Very. But it was not in keeping with the liberal interpretation of 'American values'.

The "conservative interpretation" of American values is to shoot, no
matter what? That's the sort of stupidity that got us into Iraq.

Mind you, I don't oppose the shooting of bin Laden, assuming he was
given a chance to surrender alive and turned it down.

I doubt there was much of an offer to surrender. They certainly could
have taken him alive if that was what the mission was. If nothing
else they could have knee capped him. These guys can hit whatever they
shoot at inside of a room

Sure. You know everything about everything. We get it.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...en-raid-emerge

Turn on the news

Interesting how the story keep changing. I wonder what the Oracle will
say next.