Intresting Obama/binladen article

[Richard L]

Bill V,

Very well said.



...Rich

 

[Rick Kent]

I am an independent as well and don't see this as bashing.



Anonymous sources have a long history in journalism. People in sensitive positions have to protect their careers and families.



There was a series of newspaper articles written in the 70's by Bob Woodward.



"Deep Throat" the anonymous source was only revealed 31 years after the fact. His information, while anonymous, led to a presidential resignation. It was not considered total left wing bashing at the time or now.



Bill Clinton was impeached when an anonymous tip led to Newsweek and the Washington Post to investigate the story. We all know what happened next.

 

[Bud Williams]

I am an Independent as well and I also do not see it as bashing...I think it make Leon Panetta look pretty good though.....Obama not so much....I agree with Eddie.....

Anyone ever notice, on this board? When some things get posted, that some others disagree with. A few get a little deeper than disagreeing. They tend go into auto pilot of calling articles propaganda. In a very diplomatic way calling the oppsing view, dumb or gullible.



I personaly feel as if they are trying to create menticide, with their beliefs snd inteligence. I hope Im wrong. It sure looks that way alot. If I tell someone enough times, thier opinion is wrong and what they read is all propaganda. I might be able to make them think like me. It is belittleing and undermining Aright to, the others opposing view.. Maybe those that do this need to step up and call out the names of those thay disagree with. And be specific about where in the article the koolaid is. instead of dismissing the whole thing. Then having the same old thing to say, to a mixed belief audience. Some never comeback to the conversation afterwards. I know I have steped out.

 

[Kevin Lang]

As I previously stated, people are bashing Obama for mostly rumors and statements claiming to be on the inside yet remain nameless??

Just as Team 6's member cannot be named, neither can the source. If the source is real, why would a perfectly good high-ranking informant blow his cover just to lend credence to a story that just gives evidence to what we already have established--Obama is indecisive and ponderous?



Again, President Obama himself said as much during his speech.

Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.

Translation: President Obama wasn't the fastest draw in the west when it came to making the decision to drop the hammer on Bin Laden.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Translation: President Obama wasn't the fastest draw in the west when it came to making the decision to drop the hammer on Bin Laden.

...and if Bin Laden was not in that compound and innocent people were killed or hurt, Obama would be the biggest A-hole in the world.





Tom

 

[Rick Kent]

...and if Bin Laden was not in that compound and innocent people were killed or hurt, Obama would be the biggest A-hole in the world.

In reality, had Bin Laden not been there we may have never heard of this raid in the first place.



Had we heard news reports about a raid, this is what we would have seen reported.



"US and Pakistan self defense forces engaged enemy combatants in a nighttime raid in a compound in Pakistan. 3 terrorists were killed. The compound was being used to house terrorists. A cache of intelligence was recovered and is being analyzed. "



Make nice with our pseudo allies and never mention what we were really up to. Happens all the time.

 

[Richard L]

KL,

Translation: President Obama wasn't the fastest draw in the west when it came to making the decision to drop the hammer on Bin Laden.[/quote



I guess in your mind he should have pulled the trigger immediately rather than devise a good plan...He could have easily ended up with egg on his face much like Jimmy Carter did with is poorly designed plan to rescue the Iran hostages ??



Again, everything people are saying about the raid and Obama's decision is just Monday morning quarterbacking. Regardless of how long it took him to make a decision, he obviously made the right one and it went off dispite a helicopter failure. All the contigencies and scenarios were worked out to include enough manpower to fight off any resistance from the Pakistan police or military.



Remember that they only felt there was a 50/50 chance that bin Laden was even there. The easiest solution would have been to launch a Cruise missile, a stealth fighter, or a Preditor to just take out the compound as was done unsuccessfully several times in the past.



Obama was also dealing with our so-called ally Pakistan who had already complained about some of our incursions into their country for attacks on al Qaida...Some were reported to have killed innocent civilians?



I also heard it was reported that we had an under the table deal with Pakistan. They would allow us to go after al Qaida in their country, but they would publicly protest those attacks.



So we may never know all the details as to what went on behind closed doors. It's also odd that none of the speculation about Obama's unwilling to make a decision ever hit the mainstream media? There has been a lot of coverage about the bin Laden raid including a lot of critical views, jet none of the information from this article ever made it to the mainstream media.



Everything in my mind tells me this article appeared on a Republican/Tea Party conservative blog as an attempt to smear Obama, and is not based on the truth.



When people mention Nixon and watergate or Clinton and Lewinski, they were being investigated for actual crimes. Nixon for the Watergate break-in, and Clinton for the WhiteWater scandal. The special prosecutor was informed of Clinton's infidelity with Lewinski and that led to Clinton's impeachment which was based on lying to the investigating committee in regards to his relationship with Lewinski.



If we assume the article is the truth, Nothing in the article accuses Obama of committing a crime, just that he was slow to pull the trigger on bin Laden. That would appear to be that persons opinion only, and hardly has an credibility without knowing who that person was??? The intelligence and military advisors in those meetings offered several possible scenarios that Obama had to determine which was the best option...I think he selected and approved the best option simply because it was so successful. Had the plan not worked, he would have been the goat and would have received even more criticism.



...Rich

 

[Kevin Lang]

[/quote]

That would appear to be that persons opinion only, and hardly has an credibility without knowing who that person was???

I already gave a rebuttal to this point of yours. Your retort to my rebuttal of my point was to simply restate what I countered, without providing ample evidence to negate my rebuttal.



Shoot, in prior posts I have rebuked everything which you have put in that post, a post which had an issue with the Quote tags, btw. Again, all you do is restate your original points--which have been countered--without providing additional evidence for them in an attempt to rule out the counter-arguments of either myself or other posters.

If we assume the article is the truth, Nothing in the article accuses Obama of committing a crime, just that he was slow to pull the trigger on bin Laden.

You're addressing me specifically with your post, so I ask you--where did I say that Obama committed a crime in relation to the Osama raid? You say "When people..." but I was not one of those people.



I find your selection of which conspiracies to buy into interesting. You seem to support this one:

I also heard it was reported that we had an under the table deal with Pakistan. They would allow us to go after al Qaida in their country, but they would publicly protest those attacks.

Yet you flat-out deny these 2:

It's also odd that none of the speculation about Obama's unwilling to make a decision ever hit the mainstream media?

He could have easily ended up with egg on his face much like Jimmy Carter did with is poorly designed plan to rescue the Iran hostages ??

You'll accept that the whole of Pakistan will be duplicitous to save face in the Muslim community, yet you can't accept that media has bias or that the United States Government could sweep a failed operation of such magnitude under the rug? Interesting.



If you aren't going to entertain a different train of thought than your own narrow one, a train of thought that for some reason you refuse to defend, why do you keep entering into discussions? I think Aristotle said it best all those eons ago.

 

[Richard L]

KL,

Everything you stated is just your opinion vs mine. You have not provided anymore evidence that the article posted is any more valid than what has been posted in the mainstream media, and is certainly more suspect due to the anti-Obama nature of the site.



I never said that I buy into the under the table deal with Pakistan, only that it was brought up by the mainstream press. If it is true then it may have been Pakistans way of saving face with their muslim population. Perhaps it was leaked by the US to get even with Pakistan for publicly revealing the identity of one of our senior intelligence agents in their country?? We don't know if either is true, and perhaps we may never know.



I never said that Obama did or did not delay his decision to proceed with the raid...My only point is that nobody knows if there was a delay, or if any delay was justifiable, when in the end the raid got bin Laden.



I am only concerned about the amount of griping going on and all the criticism of Obama for conducting a highly successful mission to get bin Laden and not a single American was killed, wounded, or captured.



What the hell is everybody so pissed off about? It appears obvious that because people don't like Obama because of his handling of the economy, jobs, healthcare, deficeit spending, etc., they simply do not want to give him any credit for going after bin Laden, and doing something right...for a change !!



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Anyone that thinks all dems, or all reps are the same, that Obama completely sucks, or that Bush was a total idiot, etc, etc (polar thinking) is, essentially, a "small thinker" that simply has bought into the ranting of the fringe.



The sad part is that more and more people are joining the fringe.



Meet me in the middle, and let's take back this country!



TJR

 

[Robert Thomas]

Everyone interested should read the posted Article.



Read the transcript of the Pannita Interview.



Read the transcript of President Obama's CBS interview last Sunday.



Then judge the directness of the answers for themselves and determine if the story is possible. Do you want to know more or do you think it's a tea party thing.



Pannita and Obama differ on when he gave Pannita the authority to proceed and the percentages (55/45) (60 to 80) given that Bin Laden was in the compound. Obama states that there were concerns expressed by staff members.



The only real concern I have is the golf outing on the morning of the raid. The White House gave one story why it was cut short and Obama gave another. Why would he go play golf knowing that the raid was scheduled? Politically, had the raid had failed this would have been a big problem. This administration doesn't make this type of errors.

 

[Richard L]

Redfish,

Do you really want to criticise the President for playing 9 holes of golf on the morning of the raid? How can you read something sinister into that??



I don't particularly like golf, but to some people is very relaxing...perhaps that's all he was doing was trying to get rid of some stress knowing there was going to be a nail biting event just ahead.



TJR,

You are absolutely correct. Not all Democrats are bad and not all Republicans are bad. The problem is polorization to the extreme left and right. Most people are much more middle of of the political road and may be conservative on some issues and libral on other issues.



We need politicians who know how to compromise and can give a little to get a little. The politicians in Washington want 100% of everything and are completely unwilling to compromise. That has now trickled down to the voting public because nobody is keeping their campaign promises.



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Obama can go play golf, he can make love to his wife, he can bounce a kid on his knee, he can throw back a stiff drink, he can smoke a cig, ... whatever it takes to sharpen his saw and make him a better president.



I don't think he is doing a great job, overall. I'd give him a C+ so far as president. I think he is a little more "on top of things" than Bush was, and he seems to be more of an efficient multi-tasker.



So, I'm not going to fault him for golf. He does seem to be taking a little less vacation time than GWB. But, maybe that's just my feeling based on media coverage of both presidents and their vacations.



TJR

 

[Bud Williams]

I don't think he is doing a great job, overall. I'd give him a C+ so far as president. I think he is a little more "on top of things" than Bush was, and he seems to be more of an efficient multi-tasker.

Wow, TJR, I think you are being quite generous on Obama....

 

[Robert Thomas]

Rich,



You can't keep changing what I say to make your points. I did not criticize the President. I said it was a concern of mine. Everything I stated relates to the article compared to transcripts of the interviews and White House press reports. Never have I criticized the President for his actions or denied bin Laden was killed on his watch.



If he didn't know the raid was underway, then going to play golf was all well and find. This is reasonable compared to article. The article does not ring true if you consider it states that the raid scheduled the day before was canceled by the White House. If Panetta was operating on his own the President would not have been able to cancel it. So the article contradicts itself saying he didn't know and did know? Judge for yourself.



If he did know the raid was underway? Would you have gone to play golf if you had ordered a raid and the troops were in the air? Read the Presidents statements on this, the White House reports, and the Article.



:banghead::banghead:

 

[Richard L]

Redfish,

Sorry if I thought you were criticising Obama for playing golf on the morning of the raid.

If Panetta was operating on his own the President would not have been able to cancel it. So the article contradicts itself saying he didn't know and did know? Judge for yourself.

Even you state that the article contradicts itself. So I will repeat, we don't know all the details, the press does not know all the details and it would appear that the Whitehouse, along with the military and intelligence planners of the raid did not get their stories straight...lol



I think it is more likely that many of those minor details were insignificant in the light of the complex decision process that went on. Hell, I have had days where I could not even tell you what I had for lunch, or even if I ate lunch simply because I had bigger things going on and little details like that get lost. A day or two later, I might remember some of the smaller details, but then it's only if I have the time or desire to think about it.



I certainly don't think Obama playing golf the morning of the raid proves or disproves anything...The problem appears to be that critics of Obama will look at every word or gesture as some sort of sign or proof that he has a sinister, alterior motive.



Yes the article contradicts itself...but Obama or Panetta did not write the article. How often have people been misquoted, or even misinterpreted. That does not mean either is lying, only that they don't have 100% perfect Tota Recall. I rather think it was just human nature to forget or confuse minor, insignificant details in light of the mountains of critical details and decisions that had to be made in preparing for the raid.



...Rich

 

[Les]

Yes the article contradicts itself...but Obama or Panetta did not write the article. How often have people been misquoted, or even misinterpreted. That does not mean either is lying, only that they don't have 100% perfect Tota Recall. I rather think it was just human nature to forget or confuse minor, insignificant details in light of the mountains of critical details and decisions that had to be made in preparing for the raid.

It also shows if you just tell the truth, all the lying and covering-up wouldn't get in the way.

 

[Richard L]

Les,

It also shows if you just tell the truth, all the lying and covering-up wouldn't get in the way.

I agree that if you lie you run the risk of contradictions and changing stories that will expose your lies. However, the article does not show that either person is lying. It only shows that there may be some confusion or different people's perceptions about minor details.



So unless you were present and have undeniable proof that either Obama or Panetta are lying, and clear motive for lying, your point is pointless. :banghead:



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Richard, Les,



I've been called a liar before, and I've heard others that are all too often quick to use that term.



A lie, by definition, is saying something that you know to be untrue.



If people say something that they think is true, but is later found to be false, that is not a lie. If people are misquoted, or if they say something that they then restate because it was misunderstood, then I feel they were not originally lying.



Still, everybody lies at some time or another. Most often we lie about unimportant stuff.



For example when asked:



"Do these jeans make my butt look big?"



The true answer is often: "No! Your big butt makes your butt look big!"



But we won't say that, do we men? We lie.



For many everyday things, we essentially can't handle the truth. Simple little questions like: "How are you today?", or "Do you like your church?", etc...



If you want to see a world without lying, watch the movie: "The Invention of Lying", which is largely forgetable, but a good premise to a film, nonetheless, and entertaining on that premise alone.



TJR

 

[Robert Thomas]

Would you have gone to play golf if you had ordered a raid and the troops were in the air?



Anyone?