The Bin Laden Card

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If I'm wrong, let's see some evidence.

Even though you try and state it as such, opinion is not fact. How about some evidence to support your claims for all the work the Bush Administration did?

Bush seemed to be pretty passive with Pakistan. You can't fully blame him though for a lack of focus on Pakistan, as he did have two wars that he started to hold his attention.

[justplugit]

Bin Laden is old history.
If he wants to take credit for something,
destroy our downed drone in Iran and I'll give him full credit.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

It's like when Bush said something like you don't appease your enemies you kill them.

Obama has a good record here, and it's come with a lot of political risk.

-spence

The left giving Bush credit for anything was rare and usually sarcasm was involved.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Obama taking any significant credit for killing Obama is a classic case of the rooster taking credit for the sunrise. Yes, Obama was the sitting President when this mission became possible, but everything that made it possible had its genesis in the security apparatus set up by the previous administration. I'll give Obama credit for not derailing the mission, but he had almost nothingf to do with it.

He id make the "Go" call, which for a politician of his, err, politicalness was significant.

Originally Posted by justplugit

Bin Laden is old history.
If he wants to take credit for something,
destroy our downed drone in Iran and I'll give him full credit.

Too late. But interestingly, O finally did find a border he would respect.

[UserRemoved1]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Too late. But interestingly, O finally did find a border he would respect.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Even though you try and state it as such, opinion is not fact. How about some evidence to support your claims for all the work the Bush Administration did?

Bush seemed to be pretty passive with Pakistan. You can't fully blame him though for a lack of focus on Pakistan, as he did have two wars that he started to hold his attention.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Oh, Bush started the war in Afghanistan?
Do you think that FDR started the war with Japan in WWII?

Yes and Yes. Were they both justified? 110% yes. You are arguing semantics. Maybe if Johnny said they both 'declared' war on these countries it would have been more 'factual'

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I was in Iraq with the USMC.

As always, thanks for your service.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Very few people spoke against that war until it became politically convenient.

I agree. One of the main reasons I couldn't support Hillary in '08, even though I think she is doing a decent job as SoS.

All along Afghanistan, while probably 5+ years too long, was justified. Iraq, I have to disagree, and have been personally consistent on this.
This does not demean what you and your troops did, you guys did/are doing an exemplary job. Support the troops, if not the war...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Yes and Yes. Were they both justified? 110% yes. You are arguing semantics. Maybe if Johnny said they both 'declared' war on these countries it would have been more 'factual'


As always, thanks for your service.



I agree. One of the main reasons I couldn't support Hillary in '08, even though I think she is doing a decent job as SoS.

All along Afghanistan, while probably 5+ years too long, was justified. Iraq, I have to disagree, and have been personally consistent on this.
This does not demean what you and your troops did, you guys did/are doing an exemplary job. Support the troops, if not the war...

I just don't get how you can say that America "started" the conflict with Japan in WWII. We didn't engage Japan untikl afte rthey attacked Pearl Harbor. Maybe you and Johnny need to look up the word "started" in the dictionary, I'm just at a loss. If someone shoots at you, and then you shoot back, how do you say that you "started" the shooting?

Your welcome for the service, as always, I appreciate the very pro-vet stance of all here.

[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.

[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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

What about the people with "knowledge" that have said we got much of this intel before he was water boarded?

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.

The reports actually indicate he gave false information when being water boarded.

I believe they didn't learn of the couriers identity until 2006 and his location until 2009.

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.

Actually, it was used hundreds of years before Bush. The Spanish Inquisition, Khmer Rouge etc.. have all been big fans of the technique.

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.

Well...

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.

We've beaten this horse to death, but the fact is that after some time (yes they misled at first) Hans Blix was reporting back to the UN that Saddam was indeed starting to cooperate and they were still finding nothing. The Duelfer report confirmed this.

The justification Powell presented to the UN has been reduced to nearly a joke.

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.

Mainstream support for the war eroded because the justification for the war fell apart and the Administration's efforts to "market" the war were exposed.

Bush's inner circle had a transformational strategy for the Middle East that was radically liberal and 9/11 gave them the opening. Most of the quotes I've read (Like the often quoted out of context Hillary Clinton speech) agreed Saddam was a problem but stopped short of unilateral action.

Some politicians have voiced regret over their initial support of the war, but they were also being led by the marketing effort. I'm sure some didn't do their own work and deserve criticism.

I'd note that President Obama opposed it from the start but after being elected didn't rush the withdrawal his base wanted and instead has looked after the safety of our troops and stability of the region.

-spence