If Obama came out and said "We ordered the SEALS to kill him on sight" I would applaud.

As it is I think the SEALs took a little personal initiative.

Actually I believe Hussein would have LOVED to bring bin Laden back for a show trial. What could possibly be better than a year and a half of deafening media adulation for the John "Waynish" President who captured the EEEEEVIL bin Laden!!! Right up to election day!!! But you're right, the whack-job base would NOT have been amused, even though the purpose of the show would have been apparent. And Hussein will tolerate NO criticism of any kind from EITHER side.

Most transparent administration evah!

Best that they killed him. I would have hated to have my tax dollars supporting his trial etc. It was good that 10 years later and we still went after him. I would not care if he was 100 and we still made a effort to get him. Sooner would have been better, but this sends a message we will track you down as far as until the end of time and even into hell. This is what to celebrate.

Kill him, yes. Get rid of the evidence, NO.

Hmmm. I wonder if we had captured him and put him on trial if King and Spalding would have represented him?

There was never any point to a trial. This was a military action in a war that Bin Laden declared against us. He's a casualty of war.

It's nice that some lefties are willing to stick with their convictions that he should have been put on trial. I doubt that they have yet thought that completely through. obama believed in a criminal trial at one time too but reality seems to have slapped him hard enough that he has finally given up on that idea.

You could never hold him in a muslim nation as the pressure to release him would have been too great and the risk of an escape assisted by the local government or military would have been enormous.

A full and fair trial would have meant divulging national security secrets and that was never going to happen.

There is no way at all that Osama could be captured alive. There is not one thing in our nations interest that would be fullfilled by letting him live and abuse our justice system.

JT, I disagree a little. Osama was not marginalized. I think he was very much in the loop of what is happening and what is being planned. I also think if he was marginalized someone would have turned him in for the 25 million. Osama is a rock star in the Islamic Radical world. No doubt. ww

I wonder if there were any plans in case OBL was captured alive. Given that this administration screws up everything it touches. BTW, Holder has a hx of screw ups from the Clintin adminstration. Obama pays too much attention to his far left base to a point that it interfers with his decisions...that ain't gonna stop.

The only way the Administration could have effectively prosecuted ObL would have been before a Military Tribunal.

As such, it just made a whole lot more sense to take him out via direct military action. Having taken the extra risk of using ground forces to take him out, there is no fracking excuse for not publishing the photo's and video of the take down. They can redact or edit if they must, but they need to quit fracking about and close this chapter with a full stop.

If bin Laden had been captured and held for trial, Ramsey Clark would get another 15 minutes of fame. No thanks.

bin Laden would become a rallying point for the perpetually outraged, CAIR and the ACLU would be filing lawsuits all over the place and I suspect a high ranking/profile American or two would be kidnapped and used for negotiating bin Ladens release.

In this case, I agree with Jay and others. The way bin Laden was handled was correct.

I'm just thankful we finally have a president with brains AND big brass balls.

Thank God for President Barack Obama.

Just release the damned pictures!

If the Muslims are 'offended'. Tough!

419 @ 11,

ROFL!

Breaking news that explains a lot:

From Atlas Shruggs

And

Socyberty

If OBL was taken alive then no one should know about it, till we extracted every piece of actionable intelligence from him.

Then I would have let friends and family of the Rangers and Delta from Mogadishu have at him then anyone from 9/11.

However, we know true justice would have not been allowed few rounds fired into him is the only statement worthy of making.

No need to spend money on his protection and food.

I'm just thankful we finally have a president with brains AND big brass balls.

Thank God for President George W. Bush. He so set things in motion that even a Red spokesmodel couldn't screw it up.

If Bin Laden'd been brought back for a trial I'd have been alright with it. But only if it was a trial with no TV cameras or photographers. Press and sketch artists ok, otherwise nada. Purely for reaffirming justice and law, not one damn bit for anything else.

But this was a military operation, with specific goals that didn't have to include a trial phase. So I'm more than fine with the outcome. And I don't know many on the Left who feel different, honestly. If he lived to be captured, then he gets a trial. Since he didn't, so be it.

I don't like having a system where the captured aren't tried. I didn't like it under Bush and I don't like it under Obama, and if Bush is tried for it (which I seriously doubt will ever happen) then Obama should be too. And every single Democrat and Republican who allowed it to happen through action or inaction.

But a military situation in the field, which this was, is a separate situation entirely. That's how I see it.

As re: disposal of the body, I do think it was good to do it quickly and quietly. There's no disposal of the remains that would satisfy everybody, and there's no need to hold onto the body. Some people will always doubt no matter what the evidence presented is. Maybe Obama could have convened a UN coroner or something, but otherwise I do think it was best to dispose of the remains in a way that was specifically not disrespectful to honest Muslims, and move on.

I also read that the Saudis were offered his remains, and refused them.

That's my $.02.

Jay Guevera, of courser you realize that Bush *cancelled* the program that was looking for Bin Laden?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html

So it's hard for me to see how you can honestly credit this to Bush - since Obama's pursuit of Bin Laden was actually a reversal of Bush's policies. As well as the direct opposite of McCain's expressed preference of not going into Pakistan without their say-so.

I mean it's fine to not like Obama, but let's not reinvent history that much.

"There's no disposal of the remains that would satisfy everybody, and there's no need to hold onto the body."

In the old west, many times they would give photographer's a coffin shot of killed bank robbers/ gun slingers.

The same should have been done here.

another $.02

Why would you try this piece of bipedal feces? He isn't/wasn't a POW, therefore the Geneva Convention cannot apply. His status, as defined BY the GC allows for execution at the point of capture--nothing more.

I agree, speculating "what if" is fun, but that's all it ever can be.

Hopefully,the last thing bin laden saw was the SEAL who capped him, with the realization of WHO it was.

Disposal of the body could have as easily been done by throwing the corpse into a ditch--provided one didn't mind sullying the ditch so.

Could have had he stuffed and put in the Smithsonian.

18. Posted by Jim x

Perhaps you should read your own link first.

If you go into a bar and ask for an "Osama Bin Laden" drink, you'll get two shots and a splash of water! Cheers!!!

I know it isn't a tasteful joke, but it is funny!

Jim X ,

I can't see in the article you linked to where Bush was involved in that decision. It never mentions him. It was a group started by Clinton that seems to have lost its ability to function efficiently and was disbanded by the head of the CIA.

So it's hard for me to see how you can honestly credit this to Bush - since Obama's pursuit of Bin Laden was actually a reversal of Bush's policies.

Others have no trouble seeing this:

Pelosi thanks President Bush for his role in bin Laden's demise

419 Ref #11

ROFL. Yeah it took balls to order a strike on a compound where hte most wanted man in the world is. Yep that was a real tough decision there. Too many people knew what was going on in the administration. Somebody would have flapped their gums if they hadnt gone after him. As it is I am suprised the information held up as long as it did. Hell they had the operation and 30 min later it was all over the news and that was an hour before Obama went on TV.

Big brass balls my ass. A private could have made that decision.

------------------------

Ref kill or capture.

You kill him and it is out of the news cycle in 30 days or less. Maybe a flare up here or there. You capture him and try to put him on trial it is in the news cycle day after day for what could be years.
Expenses addup, threats to US bases, personnel and civilians ramp up as AQ tries to pressure us to release him the only way they know how, and the list goes on.

Then get one dumbass on the jury who wants his name to live on forever by being the guy (or gal Tina S) who voted not guilty and hung the freaking jury.

On top of that if OBL stubs his toe while in custody the ACLU would be screaming bloody murder and OBL family would be suing.

As I stated before. I will take the 100% quarter solution vs the 99% multimillion dollar solution any day.

"Could have had he stuffed and put in the Smithsonian."

That's along the lines of what I was thinking GarandFan. That or a carnival sideshow..

"If you go into a bar and ask for an "Osama Bin Laden" drink, you'll get two shots and a splash of water! Cheers!!!"

What? No salt?

And a question: suppose the reports are correct that the information leading to OBL's demise arose from harsh interrogations at Guantanamo.

Would you then support the utility of such interrogations, and of Guantanamo, or would you rather OBL were still running around loose?

This is a hypothetical. Please define away the dilemma with a third scenario. The question is simple: would you rather have harsh interrogations at Gitmo, or OBL still on the loose, if those were the only two possibilities?

Jim X your link is totally nonsense to your assersion. A unit that was set up in 1996 to hunt for Osama (great job they did) and disbanded to use the resources in the newly improved terrorist unit. Your nuts buddy. ww

The U.S. had to kill Osama bin Laden to avoid al Qaeda possibly taking American prisoners as hostages to attempt to force a hostage swap situation for bin Laden as a prisoner through extortion attempts. The U.S. went through a hostage situation in Iran back in 1979, and didn't need a replay of that sort of scenario. Further, the killing of bin Laden acts as a demoralizing force for al Qaeda, proving that they can be hit anywhere and hopefully substantially degrading the organization.

I think one of the greatest images to emerge from all of this was the "War Room" with Obama, Biden, Hillary Clinton and other top advisors watching the latest on the attempt to kill bin Laden. Mr. Obama looked so serious and intense, Mr. Biden was holding on to his Catholic rosary, and Hillary Clinton had her hand over mouth in nervousness that the mission would end in success and serve to substantially degrade al Qaeda and save American and other lives around the world as a big blow to terrorism.

If anything, Obama restored some faith here that he will act tough to defend Americans when the situation calls for it. Up to this point, I was having some personal doubts about his ability to act decisively as a strong leader. Obama has proved that like other Democratic presidents such as Wilson in WWI, Roosevelt in WWII, Truman with Korea, Kennedy with the Cuban missile crisis, or Johnson with Vietnam, that he will not hesitate to step up to defend this nation's interests. That's a reassuring note.

The US Special Forces only took two bodies with them in the military chopper; one is said to be Bin Laden’s and the other his son’s.

Rich, WW,
Remember, everything bad that happened when Bush was in office was because of his direct omnipotent will. Everything bad that happens on Obama's watch is someone else's fault. Understand this "truth", and most of Jim x, Chico and others' comments will make more sense.

rm, I totally understand your ODS, considering your crushing feelings of inadequacy.

I can't see in the article you linked to where Bush was involved in that decision. It never mentions him. It was a group started by Clinton that seems to have lost its ability to function efficiently and was disbanded by the head of the CIA.

Yes - started by Clinton, which shows his priority: direct the CIA to get Bin Laden before most other people even knew Bin Laden was dangerous. And cancelled under Bush, which shows his priorities - "I don't really think about Bin Laden."

Since the CIA is under the executive branch and the CIA head takes orders directly from the President, that's pretty much that.

....Obama's pursuit of Bin Laden was actually a reversal of Bush's policies....

This couldn't be more ignorant, bordering on retarded.

In the end, the SEAL that fired The Shots Heard Round The World (probably less $15 total for all 3 bullets) kept hundreds of millions of dollars from lining the pockets of asshat liberal defense lawyers that would have rushed to OBL's side. Yet another reason we should erect a monument to these SEALs.

SCSI, your projection is interesting. Since I'm seeing the reverse from a lot of comments here: all of Obama's successes are due to Bush, even if Obama is pursuing the opposite of Bush's policies. And all of Bush's failures didn't actually happen.

But, so be it. Obama got the job done when GWB didn't, and McCain admitted he wouldn't. Griping won't change that.

Paul it is interesting how people take away different impressions from a picture.
I look at that picture and see Biden,Hilary,and other stationed around the table with laptops and papers in front of them. To me it looks like they were already there working out the problems and following the operation. Obama looks like he just dropped in and someone said "here Mr.President have a chair". The look his face and the positioning of his body seems to me to be one of someone pissed off about whatever they are watching and unable to walk out.

Peter F.
"(probably less $15 total for all 3 bullets"

Try less than $1.

Jim X

"But, so be it. Obama got the job done when GWB didn't"

This is like saying the pitcher who pitched 1 out in a game got the job done when the pitcher who pitched the first 8 2/3 rds innings didnt. Kinda disengenuous isnt it?

I can see if the efforts of the two were not releated in anyway (say if the US had tried to get OBL but Iran got him instead). Then your statement may have more merit (replacing US with Bush and Iran with Obama).

This is like saying the pitcher who pitched 1 out in a game got the job done when the pitcher who pitched the first 8 2/3 rds innings didnt.

If the other previous pitcher GWB said he didn't like to throw fastballs, and the other pitcher McCain said he didn't like to throw pitches without warning the other team's coach what pitch was coming.

Kinda disengenuous isnt it?

Only if you ignore that the other pitchers weren't really playing the game, and this one was. Oh, and he was pitching the last 3 innings of an 11-inning game, and he said what he'd do back in the 7th inning before he got to the mound.

If we're going to do metaphors here, they should at least be accurate.

Jim X

"Yes - started by Clinton, which shows his priority: direct the CIA to get Bin Laden before most other people even knew Bin Laden was dangerous. And cancelled under Bush, which shows his priorities - "I don't really think about Bin Laden."

"

A. Clinton had the chance a few times and wasted time until he got away.

b. "I don't really think about Bin Laden." doesnt mean that he wasnt a priority and not pursued. I believe you are reading way way too much into that statement without context behind it. As i stated on another thread. Better to get the army and not the leader than the leader and not the army. With one you have one person that has to pick up the pieces. With the other any leader (of which AQ has a few) can step in and run the organization. Maybe not as efficienty but still you have the resources to do the damage, expecially with the decentralized chain of command that AQ has. AQ isnt like say Iraq where we took out Saddam (or had him in hiding) and his army pretty much fell apart because there were no successors (Saddam had pretty much killed them all).

First of all, preliminary noise about the seized materials (which should never have been leaked, but we are dealing with amateurs in the White House now) tends to suggest bin Laden was still directing the organization.

Secondly, noticing that Crickmore - and now, jim x - is just a mindless sycophant of the Marxist kisser of muslim arses is hardly news.

Hooson: "Mr. Obama looked so serious and intense"

Seriously? Sitting off in the corner, dressed like he was just pulled off the golf course, with an expression that seemed to be a mixture of anger and slight confusion looked "serious and intense" to you?

Up to this point, I was having some personal doubts about his ability to act decisively as a strong leader. Obama has proved that like other Democratic presidents such as Wilson in WWI, Roosevelt in WWII, Truman with Korea, Kennedy with the Cuban missile crisis, or Johnson with Vietnam, that he will not hesitate to step up to defend this nation's interests. That's a reassuring note.

Good grief, even liberals were worried about Obama? I thought it was just me.

Actually, Obama did hesitate – for 16 hours. Leon Panetta apparently held his feet to the fire to get his approval. And, realistically, Obama had to either bomb the compound or send troops in on the ground; a leak that he'd had OBL and let him go would have finished his career within a week.

Your list above also requires some comment.

Wilson had his hand forced by Congress, which declared war. Roosevelt had his forced by Pearl Harbor (although to his credit he did break American law – the Neutrality Act – and international law (as a neutral aiding a belligerent nation) to assist Britain, much like Iran-contra). Truman had his hand forced by the North Koreans; he could hardly have let their invasion go unopposed, since he was already stung by allegations of having "lost China" in 1949, and the Japanese were freaking.

Kennedy gets some, but not many, props for the Cuban missile crisis, since he caused it in the first place (by impressing Khruschev as a hopelessly callow and inexperienced youth). The real hero there was Oleg Penkovsky. Johnson gets no props whatever, for having a) gotten us into Vietnam with both feet, and then b) screwing up the whole venture, all the while c) dismantling the black family through his Great Society and welfare bullshit. LBJ was one of the worst Presidents in American history, in my opinion, along with Carter. Until this week I'd have included Obama, but hope is now flickering that he may grow into the job.

he will not hesitate to step up to defend this nation's interests. That's a reassuring note.

Ironically, the one President who really stepped up to defend this nation's interests, when he didn't have to, when he could have just written sternly worded letters, given some stirring speeches, maybe fired off a few cruise missiles and let it go at that is ... living in Crawford, TX right now.

Re: #42
Jim,

Public knowledge of the seized materials may not be a bad thing. It may force remaining AQ underground where they are less effective.

even if Obama is pursuing the opposite of Bush's policies.

Perhaps you'd care to specify which Obama policy is the opposite of Bush's.

Guantanamo? Nope.
Secret rendition? Nope.
Secret overseas prisons? Nope.
Drone airstrikes? Nope.
Military intervention in the ME? Nope.
Civilian trials for terrorists? Nope.

I would have tired to get information from him before remanding him to his just deserts.

Who knows? Maybe he *had to be put down* in order that he would not upset the international apple-cart RE: The GWOT. That is to say, reveal the level of collusion by governments in the region with terrorist organizations.

It does sound conspiratorial, I'll grant, but consider where OBL was living - for 6 years - without interference.

Only if you ignore that the other pitchers weren't really playing the game, and this one was. Oh, and he was pitching the last 3 innings of an 11-inning game, and he said what he'd do back in the 7th inning before he got to the mound.

If we're going to do metaphors here, they should at least be accurate.

Let's make it more accurate yet. Bush threw eight innings of shutout ball, Obama threw two, and in the bottom of the tenth the Seals hit a walk-off homer. That's a precise analogy. Obama was the pitcher of record when the hitters (literally and figuratively) won the game.

And what Obama said he'd do doesn't mean squat. He has said lots of things, 99% of which have not come to pass (Hello, Gitmo! Hello, civilian trials for terrorists!). His statement re Pakistan was just campaign bullshit, Red whack-a-mole. You know it, I know it, even the Reds knew it, or they'd have freaked.

Sorry, one more.

Clinton had the chance a few times and wasted time until he got away.

It's worse than that. Sudan offered Clinton OBL on a platter in the mid 90s. Clinton refused their offer, reportedly because he didn't have an indictment against OBL.

True story.

"Perhaps you'd care to specify which Obama policy is the opposite of Bush's."

Killing Bin Laden.

Let's make it more accurate yet. Bush threw eight innings of shutout ball,

Lol.

So, letting Bin Laden escape from Afghanistan because you're preparing to invade Iraq, qualifies as a shutout how exactly?

And then letting the CIA cancel the team, and saying you're not interested in "striking Bin Laden" out, thus continuing to allow him to wander around the bases?

I mean, come on. I know this is hard for you guys, but this is straining history to a really strong degree.

Clinton had the chance a few times and wasted time until he got away.

Sure, if by "wasted time" you mean "dealt with a GOP that refused to see the need in capturing Bin Laden, and accused Clinton of 'wagging the dog' to distract from Lewinsky."

Wow.

But let's say for a second this interpretation of Clinton is actually correct.

Wouldn't that make it FAR WORSE that Bush didn't pursue Bin Laden? Especially because while Bush was in office, Bin Laden killed 3000 US citizens??

How is it bad that Clinton didn't get Bin Laden, but just fine that Bush decided to stop looking for Bin Laden?

That's quite a universe.

I e-mailed Mrs epador the new Osama drink joke (2 shots and a splash)
She IM'd back:
"that sounds weak!"
then another IM
Oh, you said Osama, not Obama

My take on the picture is Obama is pissed and feels outclassed and usurped - he's sulking for God's sake. Then I read the stories alleging a "coup" required to get it done. Seems congruent with the picture.

Wanna bet the photos disappear before the next Conservative is seated in the white house?

419, Bush said "Bin Laden dead or alive."

You wanna point out when he took that back?

Or you just wanna admit that you don't understand the difference between "policy" and "achievement?"

J.

Jay,

First, OBL assuming deep ocean temperature as an ultimate outcome is perfectly acceptable. It keeps some liberal do good nut from ever thinking him reformed. It also keeps him from being a shrine for the rest of these whack jobs.

However I will take issue with one statement. "I doubt that Bin Laden really had a lot of useful intelligence." I can think of a lot of useful questions. Let's start with "Where have you been hiding the last 10 years?" I'll bet that's a good way to uncover some rats disguised as allies. I'll go out on a limb here and say that a lot of folks in the ISI are glad he's dead rather than captured.

Any organization questions you can get him to answer can be used to test the accuracy of other sources.

I'm sure he would have knowledge of deep cells and some of the revenge plots we keep hearing about.

I also like the notion of him squirming at the hands of American interrogators.

When we are done with him, then he can be shot while trying to escape and dipped in the drink.

Regardless, what is done is done. I'm not upset at the results to this point.

Something to consider.

There is one possible scenario that no one seems to be discussing. What if OBL was NOT killed, but indeed captured and the government is lying about that fact? Everything we know is based on what the U.S. Government has told us.

The U.S. Government has been known to lie. While it is remote, it is possible that they actually captured OBL and are interrogating him while telling the world that he is dead.

It would be a win win for the government. They get the PR coup of getting OBL, they can interrogate him all they want, any way they want without those messy civil liberties folks butting in. Since AQ, thinks he's dead they might leave some operational systems open that only OBL would know and "took to the grave".

Jim
Noone ever said that Bush stopped looking for Bin Laden (except you perhaps). Bush basically said he wasnt the top priority. As I explained above there is a reason for that. OBL without an organization isnt as much threat as the organization without OBL.
There is a very large difference.

REf Clinton wasting time.

THere were at least 2 times when the CIA had OBL whereabouts nailed under Clinton. CLinton refused to give the order for the airstrike. IN short, he literally wasnt available to asnwer the phone call from the CIA to order the air strike.

Oh and a more appropriate metaphor is Bush managed the game for 7 innings. Obama managed it for 2. The seals came in in the 10 inning and hit the winning homer.

Jim x

The efforts to find Osama bin Laden are as strong as ever," said Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a C.I.A. spokeswoman. "This is an agile agency, and the decision was made to ensure greater reach and focus."

jIm X. What this did was to allow intelligence to be shared among a broader group of people instead of one specific group. It allowed OBL to be a Person of Interest on everyones radar instead of just a small group.

As an example if a case officer in Pakistan got some intelligence that OBL might be in his region who could immediately get local resource involved and inform people up the chain of command instead of waiting to permission from a group in Langley. It the federation vs centralization principal.

This explains so many things that have been left "hanging"..............

http://socyberty.com/issues/white-house-insider-obama-hesitated-panetta-issued-order-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/

I love the baseball pitchers references mostly because we have all seen Obama Mommajeans pitch. With that in mind it is really hard not to get the real picture. Bush pitched a good game and the rest of the team brought it home. Obama was just the inept relief pitcher who finally got one across the plate at the end of the game.

Jim X from your own link to the NYT article :

Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals.

"The efforts to find Osama bin Laden are as strong as ever," said Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a C.I.A. spokeswoman. "This is an agile agency, and the decision was made to ensure greater reach and focus."

I am still searching for your perception of history being strained. Seems Bush's priorities were to follow the advice of his CIA leaders to more effectively deal with Al Qaeda while continuing to search for OBL.

Jim

Do some reading

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=%22bill+clinton%22+Bin+laden+escape&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=9e109416ad216412

There is ample evidence that Clinton didnt want to capture Bin Laden and let him go more than once.

some times Jay tea you drop your delusions for a moment and sorta look like you are going to embrace reality. This is not such a time.

Rich, from your quote of my own article:

Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals.

So, instead of concentrating on Bin Laden or even "specific organizations" like AL Qaeda, their focus was shifted to "regional trends". And thus they closed down the specific department.

It's interesting spin on behalf of the CIA spokeswoman to suggest that less people and resources focused on catching Bin Laden means that the effort "remains as strong as ever" - but to suggest it doesn't make it real.

Especially as shifting to "regional trends" and not "specific individuals or organizations" means not pursuing Al Qaeda as a priority either.

jIm X. What this did was to allow intelligence to be shared among a broader group of people instead of one specific group. It allowed OBL to be a Person of Interest on everyones radar instead of just a small group.

That's an interpretation that doesn't seem to be in the article. What the article seems to be saying is that pursuit of Bin Laden *or* Al Qaeda specifically was shifted away from, instead moving towards "regional trends".

I can only go by what Presidents say, and compare it to their actions. Bush said repeatedly he didn't really think about Bin Laden and wasn't concerned about him, and he let him go from Afghanistan and let the CIA disband the group pursuing him. Obama said capturing or killing Bin Laden was a priority for him, and he would do it even if he had to go into Pakistan without telling the Pakistanis first - and he ordered his people to do this, and they got it done.

Rm, let's say that's so.

How would Bill Clinton letting Bin Laden go **before** Bin Laden killed 3000 people, excuse GWB for letting Bin Laden go **after** he killed 3000 people?

In God we trust All others we monitor and we would monitor him to if we had the frequency Naval Intel saying

Rance,
Trust no one keep the information about what you got as quite as possible for as long as possible.
This provides opportunities to collect more information.

The administration is sharing too much information with the public.
No need for anyone to know we know the curriers nick names. These folks work as cells we might have been able to follow another one and kill a new leader.
how relevant OBL is well. You can carry a lot of information back and on portable hard drives. OBL may have not been a tactical commander but remained strategic and as such would been a great prize.

Another aspect is understanding of past intercepts, get conformation on what they meant could provide details on current operations.

Sorry Jim X,but to me it says they were too focused on the tree. The group had been working on it since the 90's and other than the times Clinton cockblocked their mission,they were no longer effective.

The bigger picture was that OBL had been marginalized by his own organization and stopping terrorist activities (including Al Qaeda) was to take the team apart and utilize their expertise throughout the CIA's operations.

Apparently they still found OBL regardless of who was in the presidents seat. That would have been true if McCain or Hillary or Peter Pan was the POTUS.

I realize that you are probably a serious expert on what was going on in the CIA and probably have tons of top secret information that none of us knows to claim that what the officials said was horseshit,but I am going with my own interpretation here.

Most of you still hold opinions of the Middle East, pre-Arab spring. The middle East is a changed place. No one is shedding tears even in the Arab world or stret, about his demise, so most of your arguments seem rather dubious that alive he might be a rallying figure. Only I believe Hamas has voiced any displeasure at US action.

I still think bin Laden rotting away in some prsion cell, in Gitmo, a broken man, spilling his guts out about his laisons with other terrorist organizations and governments, a terrorist form of wikiLeaks would have been a great benefit in the global war on terror. Osama who may have been in poor health and had a weak constitution doesn´t seem to be the toughest fighter- an al Queda version of a chicken hawk. For me, he would have been worth the additional slight risk of capturing him alive, and interrogating him and then putting him on trial in about five years time. I used the Saddam analogy partly facetiously.

As it was there wasn´t much of fight, two couriers and a woman and a unarmed but supposeddly resistant bin Laden, with what a Koran, being the only casualties. If it is revealed that he was just mowed him down, in front of his daughter that won`t be great talking point.

"Perhaps you'd care to specify which Obama policy is the opposite of Bush's." Killing Bin Laden.

A stupid comment, on so many levels. For one thing, Bush did not kill bin Laden, but was not as a matter of policy.

So, letting Bin Laden escape from Afghanistan because you're preparing to invade Iraq, qualifies as a shutout how exactly?

Another stupid comment. Really, c'mon you guys. You're equating an inability to do something will the desire (policy) not to do it even if you could. This is moronic.

Let me give you an example. "Obama's policy is the opposite of Bush's because Bush did not raise gas prices to $4/gallon." See how that works?

Sure, if by "wasted time" you mean "dealt with a GOP that refused to see the need in capturing Bin Laden, and accused Clinton of 'wagging the dog' to distract from Lewinsky."

Cut the horseshit. Read this:

Clinton: At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

In fairness, the article goes on to say:

Clinton later claimed to have misspoken and stated that there had never been an offer to turn over bin Laden. It is clear, however, that Berger, at least, did consider the possibility of bringing bin Laden to the U.S., but, as he told The Washington Post in 2001, "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States."

So ... ignoring Clinton's later claim of having "misspoken" ("I did not get an offer from that country, Sudan!"), Clinton did admit in so many words to having turned down an offer of bin Laden in 1996.

The middle East is a changed place. No one is shedding tears even in the Arab world or stret, about his demise, so most of your arguments seem rather dubious that alive he might be a rallying figure.

Ah, another example of Red whack-a-mole. We should be doing something different, but if we succeed at something, then it doesn't matter anyway.

I still think bin Laden rotting away in some prsion cell, in Gitmo, a broken man, spilling his guts out about his laisons with other terrorist organizations and governments

If this had happened, it would be fitting that you live in a liberal-infested city, i.e., the prime target for al Qaeda to try to apply leverage to free OBL, particularly at his "trial."

As it was there wasn´t much of fight, two couriers and a woman and a unarmed but supposeddly resistant bin Laden, with what a Koran, being the only casualties. If it is revealed that he was just mowed him down, in front of his daughter that won`t be great talking point.

So, what are you saying? Our President is a coward and a war criminal? A chickenhawk? What? I don't subscribe to your view at all. I don't support what he's trying to do, but I don't think he deserves that.

Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals.

An intelligence official who was granted anonymity to discuss classified information said the closing of the bin Laden unit reflected a greater grasp of the organization. "Our understanding of Al Qaeda has greatly evolved from where it was in the late 1990's," the official said, but added, "There are still people who wake up every day with the job of trying to find bin Laden."

The two dozen staff members who worked at the station, which was named after Mr. Scheuer's son and was housed in leased offices near agency headquarters in northern Virginia, issued regular cables to the agency about Mr. bin Laden's growing abilities and his desire to strike American targets throughout the world.

You had 24 analyst that issued cables on the growing threat.
It much better to have the entire organization working on it on site. They mainstreamed the organization. The group had years under Clinton and could not stop 9/11 or other major AQ attacks. It true that when Intel stops things we never hear about it. however if they were such an invaluable resource something would have slipped out to keep the unit whole.

Jim X

How would Bill Clinton letting Bin Laden go **before** Bin Laden killed 3000 people, excuse GWB for letting Bin Laden go **after** he killed 3000 people?

When exactly did Bush or his administration have Bin Laden and let him go?

Jay Guevera, our roles are reversed. I give Obama part marks for making the right decison for a manned more precise attack on the compound. I thought it was no brainer, but I will give him credit for not launching a drone or ground to air missle..Think if they had hit the garrison fort a block or two away or the miltary academy all hell would have broken out and bin Laden would surely have escaped?

I agree there was a little to much chest thumping and using the I word by Obama. Self praise is no praise. Obama should know that.

By chicken hawks I may have been alluding to the usual suspects, five deferment "I had other priorities" such as saving my ass, Dick Cheney, the ones that went took a step backward when they were called by their country to serve in a war they supported. I hadn´t thought of Obama having the profile of a chicken hawk but now that you mention it. He probably would be, in such a hypothetical situation.

For Osama bin Laden and the al Queda leaders the great honor of being chosen a suicide bomber, was always graciously bestowed on the younger men in al Queda. I have a feeling bin Laden might have ben a real coward. Had he ever been in jail before, I don´t think so? Now we will never know how he would have faced up to it?

SCSIWuzzy, that comment was in response to rm's theory that Bill Clinton could have gotten Bin Laden, but let him go. A theory which has been discredited, by the way.

But the point at which Bush let Bin Laden go, was when he had Bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora, surrounded him on all sides *except* the Pakistan border, and then outsourced his capture to Afghan warlords.

My point is if Clinton is to blamed for Bin Laden not being captured or killed, then Bush is even more to blame, for having had him even closer but taking his eye off the ball and blowing it.

So to claim after this that Obama's success is due to Bush's policies, is ridiculous. Unless what is really meant is Bush had to fail in order for Obama to succeed. That interpretation would be true. But I'm pretty sure that's not the interpretation Bush defenders are taking.

Another stupid comment. Really, c'mon you guys. You're equating an inability to do something will the desire (policy) not to do it even if you could. This is moronic.

You're equating Bush's inability to do something + his stated lack of interest in doing that something + the closing of a CIA team dedicating to do that something = Bush was really interesting in doing it.

And, unless Bush was both a) lying about being interested in Bin Laden AND b) **secretly** reformed a CIA team specifically to get him, that's just delusional.

I mean, literally delusional. You are deluding yourself into thinking that Bush's own repeated statements must mean the opposite of what he said, and his own actions be mean the opposite of what they were.

Sorry GWB blew it. Believe me. If he'd actaulyl kept his eye on the ball and caught Bin Laden, it would have been something I wholeheartedly praised him for. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan for exactly that reason.

But his words remain and his statements remain. Sorry.

Jim x,

The problem at Tora Bora was Gen. Franks deciding that we needed to use local troops in spat of Political correctness. So Bush did not take his eyes off the ball in 2002. We were not in Iraq at the time. We did step up US troops but it was missing it by days.

Cut the horseshit.

You first. Your quote itself states that this was in 1996 - before Bin Laden had actually committed any crimes. So what's your point then?

I mean, is your criticism that Bill Clinton is to blame because he refused to see Bin Laden's future, perhaps by using his psychic powers?

Does that mean Bill Clinton didn't try to get Bin Laden after that? Obviously not. Does that mean the GOP didn't criticize him for it, saying his attempt to get Bin Laden was attempting to distract from Lewinsky? Obviously not.

Okay then.

Now which of any of that means that Bush didn't let Bin Laden get away, AFTER he murdered 3000 of our people and we invaded an entire country to get him?

No matter how you spin it, that was an incompetent disaster. And you know it and I know it.

Jim X,

Have you ever worked int the intelligence community? That team was not very effective and missed all the significant AQ attacks and actual locations of POI. The look at events post action and traced it back. The should have been disbanded after 9/11.

The problem at Tora Bora was Gen. Franks deciding that we needed to use local troops in spat of Political correctness. So Bush did not take his eyes off the ball in 2002.

Bush is the Commander in Chief, right? Bush made the call. If Bush was truly focused and prioritized on getting Bin Laden, then he would have fired Franks, got a better general, and chased Bin Laden right into Pakistan.

He didn't. Therefore it wasn't his priority.

The buck stops at the top.

hccdbz,

No, I haven't worked in the Intelligence community. And in 8 years I had a far better record than the Bush administration. At least than what they claimed in public, for whatever that's worth.

But information I know. Information is something you can gather and arrange, but some of it you have to directly pursue. The flip side to this is, every person leaves some little mark of information on someone or something else. Troops movements can be deduced by civilian contractors requesting overtime. Hideouts can be deduced by anonymous loners who burn their own trash. So if you apply persistence and smarts to it, sooner or later you can find a shocking amount of information about anyone or any thing. Especially if you have the resources of the entire US government behind you.

So this notion that Osama Bin Laden couldn't be found is ridiculous. It just takes time and resources, which the Bush administration clearly wanted to spend elsewhere and then did so.

"his stated lack of interest in doing that something"

Yup Jim, we all remember the "I don't think about him that much" or whatever President Bush said when facing a group of terrorist weapons* who were behaving like obnoxious children on a long trip:

Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

Get bin Laden yet? Get bin Laden yet? Get bin Laden yet? Get bin Laden yet? Get bin Laden yet? Get bin Laden yet?

We're it me I would've just answered: "fuck you."

Anyway Jim, to use that single statement to imply that Bush wasn't trying to get Osama (for cying out loud-- they first picked up the current trail that ultimately led to last week's hit back in 2007 or earlier-- duh, how'd that happen when Bush didn't even care? duh?) is so far removed from reality that I feel kinda stupid even taking the time to point these simple facts out to you.

*Yes, journalists are a weapon of terrorism. It's usually more involuntarily than they were during the Bush years; but still, terrorism doesn't work without journalism.

There are other good reasons why I feel we should have made agreater efort to capture Osama, rather than perhaps summarily execute him.
Geofrey Robinson the human rights lawyer makes the point that the Nuremburg trials confounded the holocaust deniers. Don't forget we have the truthers, most of them far Democrats denying 9/11 was planned by Osama bin Laden but Bush.
Now we have a growing problem of the deathers, with Obama refusing to reveal photos of a dead Osama. Robinson is pretty harsh but I think the view has some truth to it.

America resembles the land of the munchkins , as it celebrates the death of the Wicked Witch of the East. The joy is understandable, but in some respects, unattractive. It endorses what looks increasingly like a cold-blooded assassination ordered by a president who, as a former law professor, knows the absurdity of his statement that “justice was done”. Amoral diplomats and triumphant politicians join in applauding Bin Laden’s summary execution because they claim real justice – arrest, trial and sentence would have been too difficult in the case of Bin Laden.

Yep, PBunyan - except Bush said similar things on several different occasions, and shaped his policies to suit.

So, besides everything you're ignoring you're almost kind of right.

And yes, they got a lead in 2007. Which they probably could have gotten earlier, as the guy was in custody for years before that. Hm, once again as if Bin Laden wasn't a priority to the Bush Administration. Which, once again, Bush said more than once.

But, believe what you like.

From my previous link.. I hadn´t read it to now, but I may amend my opinion that Osama bin Laden achieving his martyrdom instantly, rather than languish in an upstate New York prison wasn´t such a bad idea. "And (also) now Barack Obama has most likely secured his re-election approving the execution of Bin Laden. This may be welcome, given the alternatives."

Everything I'm ignoring. LOL.

You can expect to see more and increased increase in popularity of the stories after the killing of no body, no photos bin Laden. Simply capturing Osama, and presenting him would have avoided all this nonsense. The modern version of the holocaust deniers are just getting warmed up. Now Obama will join Bush and be part of their targets.

Top US government insider Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik, a man who held numerous different influential positions under three different Presidents and still works with the Defense Department, shockingly told The Alex Jones Show yesterday(May 3rd, 2011) that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001 and that he was prepared to testify in front of a grand jury how a top general told him directly that 9/11 was a false flag inside job.

Steve

"Simply capturing Osama, and presenting him would have avoided all this nonsense"

Yeah and presenting a birth certificate would shut up the hardcore birthers as well. There will always be people wanting their 15 min of fame by saying whatever it takes to get them.

As I stated before. Capturing Osama would have quieted stuff like the above but then you would have months if not years of conspiracy theories flying and other things popping up.

What if a captured OBL stated that Clinton was inside 911 to help Hillary get elected?
What about if he said that China was backing the attacks to bring down America?
what about if he said that Bush was in on the attack?

And the list goes on and on. Every day a different revelation released by Bin laden's lawyers.

The Obama admin has proven in the past 3 days that they are the gang that cant get their story straight. And you want this to go on for a few years?? The smartest decision that was made was to take OBL out permenently (and that was probably made by a Navy SEAL making about $50k a year).

You already having the UN asking the US to explain how the raid didnt violate international law. (personally I would tell them to take their request and shove it up their ass but we are talking about the Obama admin here0.

In fact Steve, Obama's admin cant even get the simple facts straight about that raid. Do you honestly think they could handle months and years of OBL in custody with stories, innuendos, and rumors changing by the minute.

"Osama Bin Laden was totally dead, so there’s no way they could have attacked or confronted or killed Osama Bin laden,” said Pieczenik, joking that the only way it could have happened was if special forces had attacked a mortuary.

Obama better show his royal flush hand, soon, or he is going to facing more jokes like this from former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Steve R. Pieczenik.

retied military, yes, people normally can´t get their stories straight when they are lying or to be polite being untruthful. A lot of Obama´s fear of going off script and lack of transparency feeds into this, but as JLawson reamrked Obama didn´t look a happy camper the other night, when he announced the news of the death of bin Laden. He seemed much more relaxed at the press dinner the previous night, as if the raid wasn´t quite the big success he was promoting, or he was hiding something.

Jim X,

Especially if you have the resources of the entire US government behind you.

As far as gathering of information you also have to realize that dis information is often practiced. Operational Security concerns help to obscure troop movements.

Last year 780 troops dies in Afghanistan 400 were Americans is President Obama responsible for each one of those deaths? For each operation that failed over that time period. Is President Obama responsible for the soldiers that committed atrocities?
Well no unless he gave direct orders to execute a specific operation or override the commanders in the field.
President Obama had direct oversight of this mission.
President Bush did not have direct oversight of Tora Bora.

I believe when Bush repeatedly said that OBL was not a priority or much of worry for him,it was just to piss them off. He knew Al Qaeda was watching everything that was said about them. Obviously they were still looking for him and following up leads. Its not like they all looked at each other after 2008 and said " hey lets start looking for OBL again".

As Jim X said " it just takes is time and resources". The time just happened to be 4/11 and the resource was still the CIA.

Can we say for sure that OBL was at tora bora? I mean are we sure that the CIA's intelligence was correct? Or any other intelligence? I mean look at the WMD situation. Everyone said that Saddam had them. Bush, Both Clintons, Kerry, Edwards, Munchin (Albright), and a whole host of others. Yet none were found. How can we know that OBL being at Tora Bora wasnt like this?

As far as Franks running the operation a good CINC lets the commander on the ground call the shots and backs him up if things go wrong. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesnt.

As far as Piecnik goes. THe false flag inside job conspiracy yet again???? Give me a break. And Bush was responsible for the Lincoln assasination as well. I mean it is the only thing that he hasnt been blamed for yet.

If OBL had died in 2001 and 911 had been an inside job than the Obama administration would have known it after being in the WH in 2.5 years (unless they are total incompetents - something that they seem to be trying to prove with their changing stories) and leaked pertinent details to the press.

I mean look at the Obama admin with this. They cant get basic facts straight about something that they were watching (at least some of it) on video feed. Yet we are expected to believe that McChimpy Bush the moron (per the left) pulled off a false flag inside job that killed 3000 people and no conspirators who helped set up this massive cover up has come forward and said "Hey have I got news for you". Come on. Something like this would destory the republican party yet we are supposed to believe that noone has come forward in 10 years.

I don´t believe for an instance, but the Obama adminitration doesn´t seem to have the least understanding that the ordinary citiizen, show me I´m from Missouri attitude, is sceptical of the big bad government as if there were not conflciting interests, agencies.
I would have hung on the body at least of Osama bin Laden, dressed up the wounds,(was there one a bullet entry wound to the back of his head that might complicate matters?) then taken a couole of photos, perhaps had a couple of relativies identify it, then i don´t care sent it say to Saudhi Arabia, who cares if he has a grave, let the Saudis worry about that.

RM

The Case for Tora Bora claims
Tora Bora
Tora Bora outsourced ?

The Case against those Claims.

Gen Tom Franks

NRO take on Tora Bora

The fog of Tora Bora or where in the world is OBL.
This 2001 so did that 24 man CIA team confirm OBL presence ?

Steve

But the Obama admin is all about PC and muslim sensitivities.

I can also see why a burial at sea is better in the long run than hanging onto the body or turning it over for burial.

Funny how I am defending what Obama did and you are criticizing it.

hcddbz

The bottom line is this (IMO), here we are fighting ancient history. Tora bora, Clinton not getting OBL, etc etc. picking various stories like picking at peas in a bowl of beef stew. Yes we got some peas but there is a lot of other stuff there.

The vast majority of it is like dogs scrapping over pieces of meat. The meat in this case is the credit for the good stuff and the blame for the bad stuff.

I feel that Bush and Obama both deserve some of the credit. OBL is dead (IMO) and it was a result of actions taken by both. THe complete and utter truth behind the motives for those actions is something we will never know.

I generally try to give a President a pass on very big matters of foreign affairs (like this one anyway - giving IPODS with your speeches on it is another matter) generally because of the information available to them that is not available to us, personalities of heads of state involved, other items which are influenced by actions taken, information which they have received through the 100 layers of filters, agendas of the personnel below them feeding them the information, etc.

I do think that the Obama admin has been very incompetent in getting the story out and even then I have posted in the past few days some of what I feel are the reasons for it. It just gives the Obama admin an appearance of the Keystone cops when their message gets this garbled over something this important. A lot of that is due to the "I want to be a star and get my 15 min of fame on Tv and this could make or break my career" syndrome that the Obama admin seems to be infected with. There is some in every admin but it appears to be particularly bad in this one. It may be especially bad now just due toto the nature of this story in particular.

RM,

I agree with you. I was just providing frame of reference for Jim X arguments.
1. To show that multiple sources cannot corroborate the Tora Bora story.
2. That the Bin Ladin section were not that effective.

CIA, DOD and SpecOPS all did their jobs. The president did a good job by OK-ing the raid. Though it a nice narrative , I cannot see military coup happening and everyone not be dismissed.

If this administration would stick to short factual statements they would do everyone a world of good.

Me @32

everything bad that happened when Bush was in office was because of his direct omnipotent will. Everything bad that happens on Obama's watch is someone else's fault. Understand this "truth", and most of Jim x, Chico and others' comments will make more sense.

jim x @ 36

SCSI, your projection is interesting.

me again

When exactly did Bush or his administration have Bin Laden and let him go?

jim x @ 77

But the point at which Bush let Bin Laden go, was when he had Bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora, surrounded him on all sides *except* the Pakistan border, and then outsourced his capture to Afghan warlords.

My point is if Clinton is to blamed for Bin Laden not being captured or killed, then Bush is even more to blame, for having had him even closer but taking his eye off the ball and blowing it

Turning down Sudan's offer of Bin Laden is just like not capturing someone in the foothills of Afghanistan... but I digress. Back to the money quote:

Jim x @82

Bush is the Commander in Chief, right? Bush made the call. If Bush was truly focused and prioritized on getting Bin Laden, then he would have fired Franks, got a better general, and chased Bin Laden right into Pakistan.

Which brings us back to @32.

Which brings us back to @32.

Except for the part of # 36 that you originally skipped over, because it undermined your argument:

Since I'm seeing the reverse from a lot of comments here: all of Obama's successes are due to Bush, even if Obama is pursuing the opposite of Bush's policies. And all of Bush's failures didn't actually happen.

But, so be it. Obama got the job done when GWB didn't, and McCain admitted he wouldn't. Griping won't change that.

OH, and this was also dealt with,

Turning down Sudan's offer of Bin Laden is just like not capturing someone in the foothills of Afghanistan...

in another comment you are not referencing, # 90, where I point out that this offer from the Sudan was

before Bin Laden had actually committed any crimes. So what's your point then?

I mean, is your criticism that Bill Clinton is to blame because he refused to see Bin Laden's future, perhaps by using his psychic powers?

That shows clearly the two situations were entirely different - because 1996 was before Bin Laden's full status was known - and Bush let Bin Laden go after we invaded a country to bring him to justice for the murder of 3000 innocent US civilians.

You know, that little thing.

Ah well. Obama got results, sorry if some of you can't accept that but it changes nothing.