The Bin Laden Card

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That's fair, Johnny. I only failed to mention the factual support because I assumed it was common knowledge.

According to everyone with knowledge, the first break in the case that led to Bin Laden's death, was intelligence obtained from Khalid Shiek Mohammed after he was waterboarded at Guantanimo Bay. Now, no one can prove that we wouldn't have gotten the information, eventually, from other means. But the fact is, the first break was the revelation of the identity of an Al Queda courier, and KSM only gave that up after he was waterboarded. Bush established the waterboarding aproach, and he set up the terrorist facility at Guantanimo. Obama is on record as being vehemently opposed to both of these things.

Appreciate the reply and agree on the facts you post... however, I disagree that "establishing the waterboarding approach" means that Bush played a large part in killing OBL. It was reported that since 2008, there's been a significant amount of surveillance and discover missions. Authorization of such tactical missions in another country's sovereign territory typically can come from no one other than the President and his staff.

"he did have two wars that he started to hold his attention"

Oh, Bush started the war in Afghanistan? Johnny, we sometimes disagree on the interpretation of facts, but we usually agree on the facts. That is the stupidest thing you have said on this forum. The Taliban started the war in Afghanistan when they gave support and safe haven for Al Queda to plan the 09/11 attacks. Maybe you aren't familiar with the events of 09/11.

I must be getting stupider and stupider then because you've said that at least a half dozen times. (yeah, opening the door wide there)

Johnny, given that the anniversary of Pearl Harbor was this week, let me ask you a similar question. Do you think that FDR started the war with Japan in WWII? 2,402 Americans were killed at Pearl Harbor (I think). Many more were killed on 09/11.

I was in Iraq with the USMC. Bush and other western leaders gave Saddam Hussein all kinds of chances to avoid war (I had ample reason to follow these events pretty closely). All Saddam had to do was comply with the UN resolutions which ended the first Gulf War, another war of aggression which Saddam initiated by the way. That we fired the first shot in Iraq iasn't necessarily the same thing as saying that we started the war (no one who has ever been in close-quarter combat would ever say there's any reason to ever let someone else fire the first shot). Hussein kept kicking out the weapons inspectors, and in my opinion, it seems like the prudent thing would be to assume that he was trying to hide something.

Pearl Harbor was a nation-sanctioned attack on our country and an obvious act of war by an obvious party.
9/11 was an act of war by a terrorist network who did not have any directly sponsored/authorization to attack the US. Yes, the Taliban turned a blind eye to OBL's network.
Iraq had *literally* absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Not a single thing.

Pearl Harbor is not the same as 9/11. Neither Pearl Harbor nor 9/11 are the same as the invasion of Iraq. You're comparing Apples to Oranges.

Very few people spoke against that war until it became politically convenient. What do you think of liberal politicians who voted to support the war initially, and then when public opinion eroded, these same politicians started acting like they were always opposed to it? If that's not a slap in the face to people like me who bled over there, and officers like me who lost kids under our command (I lost 2), I don't know what is.

Very few people spoke out because of the "detailed, accurate intelligence" that was presented for Iraq's sponsorship of terrorism and "advanced WMD programs". "Facts" which have been consistently proven false.

Listen, please don't take any of this as an attack on the Men and Women who risk their lives every day for us. As a country, we are eternally indebted to the work that our servicemen like yourself have done. Hell, in 2004, I tried to sign up for OCS and was medically declined. Went through a whole appeals process and the Marines ultimately said no.

At times, I'll vehemently disagree with your opinions and comments, but there is certainly a deeply-seated appreciation and gratitude for your service.

[nightfighter]

I believe missions had been presented to take out Bin Laden before it actually happened. They were probably not authorized due to level of risk and confidence in the intelligence. This one was the best option that had been on the table and he authorized it. He weighed the risks and he deserves the credit for authorizing. Bin Laden would have been target #1 for anyone who assumed the Presidency. But let's not lose sight of the men and women who worked on all the missions, the successful one as well as the ones which were not approved. They were told to come back with a better solution, and they did. Despite the loss of a chopper, the team pulled it off, flawlessly.... It is just unbelievable that the entire team from that mission was lost a few months later..........

As for Pakistan, I have been railing over that country's government and our financial aid there for years... What exactly are we getting in return for the hundreds of millions we've sent there? ST6 had to operate covertly in their air space to accomplish the Bin Laden take down.

But if a country is going to harbor enemies of the US and think we aren't going to put some boots on their turf, they have a limited shelf life... If Bin Laden were in Canada or Britain, be assured we would be deploying troops there..... The Paskistanis are just on the clock...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

I believe missions had been presented to take out Bin Laden before it actually happened. They were probably not authorized due to level of risk and confidence in the intelligence. This one was the best option that had been on the table and he authorized it. He weighed the risks and he deserves the credit for authorizing. Bin Laden would have been target #1 for anyone who assumed the Presidency. But let's not lose sight of the men and women who worked on all the missions, the successful one as well as the ones which were not approved. They were told to come back with a better solution, and they did. Despite the loss of a chopper, the team pulled it off, flawlessly.... It is just unbelievable that the entire team from that mission was lost a few months later..........

As for Pakistan, I have been railing over that country's government and our financial aid there for years... What exactly are we getting in return for the hundreds of millions we've sent there? ST6 had to operate covertly in their air space to accomplish the Bin Laden take down.

But if a country is going to harbor enemies of the US and think we aren't going to put some boots on their turf, they have a limited shelf life... If Bin Laden were in Canada or Britain, be assured we would be deploying troops there..... The Paskistanis are just on the clock...

"What exactly are we getting in return for the hundreds of millions we've sent there?"

One thing we're getting is the safety in knowing that as of today, all of Pakistan's nukes are safe and accounted for. We cannot afford to lose sight of that. If they didn't have a nuclear arsenal, nothing in that Godforsaken place would be worth the life of any of the kids in our military.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"What exactly are we getting in return for the hundreds of millions we've sent there?"

One thing we're getting is the safety in knowing that as of today, all of Pakistan's nukes are safe and accounted for. We cannot afford to lose sight of that. If they didn't have a nuclear arsenal, nothing in that Godforsaken place would be worth the life of any of the kids in our military.

As the 42nd most corrupt country in the world, I don't have the slightest bit of confidence that their nukes are safe.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

As the 42nd most corrupt country in the world, I don't have the slightest bit of confidence that their nukes are safe.

Can't argue with that. But the more involved we are, the better I'll feel.

[justplugit]

If Clinton had killed Bin Laden when he had the chance,
instead of a janitor in an aspirin factory, most all of this stuff
wouldn't have happened.

[Raven]

i don't think a single terrorist should ever be jailed

just shot....

a dead terrorist cannot escape prison

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Appreciate the reply and agree on the facts you post... however, I disagree that "establishing the waterboarding approach" means that Bush played a large part in killing OBL. It was reported that since 2008, there's been a significant amount of surveillance and discover missions. Authorization of such tactical missions in another country's sovereign territory typically can come from no one other than the President and his staff.


I must be getting stupider and stupider then because you've said that at least a half dozen times. (yeah, opening the door wide there)


Pearl Harbor was a nation-sanctioned attack on our country and an obvious act of war by an obvious party.
9/11 was an act of war by a terrorist network who did not have any directly sponsored/authorization to attack the US. Yes, the Taliban turned a blind eye to OBL's network.
Iraq had *literally* absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Not a single thing.

Pearl Harbor is not the same as 9/11. Neither Pearl Harbor nor 9/11 are the same as the invasion of Iraq. You're comparing Apples to Oranges.



Very few people spoke out because of the "detailed, accurate intelligence" that was presented for Iraq's sponsorship of terrorism and "advanced WMD programs". "Facts" which have been consistently proven false.

Listen, please don't take any of this as an attack on the Men and Women who risk their lives every day for us. As a country, we are eternally indebted to the work that our servicemen like yourself have done. Hell, in 2004, I tried to sign up for OCS and was medically declined. Went through a whole appeals process and the Marines ultimately said no.

At times, I'll vehemently disagree with your opinions and comments, but there is certainly a deeply-seated appreciation and gratitude for your service.

First, I would NEVER take anything you said as an attack on our military. If I thought you were capable of doing that, I wouldn't debate you.

"I disagree that "establishing the waterboarding approach" means that Bush played a large part in killing OBL."

I don't know that I'd say Bush played a "large role" either. But in my opinion, he did way more to complete the task than Obama, who pretty much just happened to be there when it all came to fruition.

"9/11 was an act of war by a terrorist network who did not have any directly sponsored/authorization to attack the US"

You are correct. The war on terror, in many ways, cannot be categorized and compartmentalized the way wars historically have been. As you said, it's not sovereign nations that are attacking us. But the American victims on 09/11 are every bit as dead as the American victims of Pearl Harbor, and their families deserve the same expectation of justice.

"Very few people spoke out because of the "detailed, accurate intelligence" that was presented for Iraq's sponsorship of terrorism and "advanced WMD programs". "Facts" which have been consistently proven false."

Most Democrat senators voted to invade Iraq, and they all know that intelligence gathering is not, has never been, and never will be, an exact science. Bill Clinton said many times that it was certain that Saddam had WMDs. It just seems unspeakably cowardly to me to support the war when it was popular, and then act like you never did when it becomes unpopular. I'm not saying it's wrong to change your mind when more data becomes available. But I think that everyone who supported the war at the time, is equally responsible for it. I don't like it when politicians RETROACTIVELY wash their hands of the mess, and almost everyone who did that is a democrat.

"Iraq had *literally* absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Not a single thing."

Agreed. Iraq also repeatedly violated the terms of the treaty that ended the first Gulf War, which Saddam also started. In my opinion, you don't want to give tyrants a free pass for that sort of thing. That sets a bad precedent.