OBL(UBL) Killed

[zimmy]

Jim, Why do you bring this crap up if you don't want people to respond? This wasn't an issue of liberals distorting it, as you claim (like in most things you say). The white house had the banner made, even if the Navy asked for it. Bush was commander in chief. Revolting liars? You have a distorted sense of reality. You are right though, he didn't say mission accomplished, but he did let pictures of him standing in front of it get printed everywhere. He did say we have moved from major combat to stability and re-building. Bush also said "In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban..." He was wrong on those accounts. The irony of today and it's juxtaposition to the Bush speech is notable, whether you want to believe it is liberal liars distorting it. Salty bugger certainly isn't very liberal.

"NEIL CAVUTO (host): Senator -- after a conflict means after the conflict, and many argue the conflict isn't over.

McCAIN: Well, then why was there a banner that said mission accomplished on the aircraft carrier?

Look, the -- I have said a long time that reconstruction of Iraq would be a long, long, difficult process, but the conflict -- the major conflict is over, the regime change has been accomplished, and it's very appropriate."

[FishermanTim]

Let's just give credit where credit is due: To all the military that have served and to all that have died in defense of our country!
No praise, no credit, no kudos should be given to the president, since all he did was say "go"! (I mean, if Bush isn't going to be given his just credit, certainly Obama hasn't earned any!)

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by FishermanTim

No praise, no credit, no kudos should be given to the president, since all he did was say "go"! (I mean, if Bush isn't going to be given his just credit, certainly Obama hasn't earned any!)

But I read that JimCt said that Bush s/b praised for keeping us safe after 9/11. So if you like the pres. you give credit for something that happens during his term but if you don't like him, no kudos?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

But I read that JimCt said that Bush s/b praised for keeping us safe after 9/11. So if you like the pres. you give credit for something that happens during his term but if you don't like him, no kudos?

Paul, if you read my posts before criticizing me, you'd see that I posted this...

"Not easy for me to admit, but Obama deserves some kudos here."

If I say it again, will you be able to recognize that I said it? I give Obama credit for always tightening th enoose around Bin Laden, and for being aggressive with predator drone attacks. I may be an S.O.B., but I'm extremely rational and fair.

Zimmy, someone else posted that BUsh declared "Mission Accomplished" in a speech. I pointed out the irrefutable fact that Bush said no such thing during the speech in question. You "responded" by posting a picture of the banner, and by posting quotes attributed to people other than Bush.

For the third time...huge mistakes were made in planning the Iraq strategy, and it's completely fair to criticize Bush for that. It is NOT FAIR to imply that he said "mission accomplished" during that speech, and anyone who claims he said that is lying. The banner was put up to help one ship celebrate the fact that their mission was accomplished. Liberals twist that to attack Bush. I don't like that, I presume you are OK with it...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul, if you read my posts before criticizing me, you'd see that I posted this...

"Not easy for me to admit, but Obama deserves some kudos here."

If I say it again, will you be able to recognize that I said it? I give Obama credit for always tightening th enoose around Bin Laden, and for being aggressive with predator drone attacks. I may be an S.O.B., but I'm extremely rational and fair.

I saw your quote and I was not criticizing you for anything related to this. I was crit. FishermanTim for his comments that Obama deserved no credit. I shouldn't have used your name, just the point about Bush keeping us safe after 9/11. My apologizes.

Does anyone know why seals would have been used for a land based mission? Are they considered the best trained of our special forces?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Jim, Why do you bring this crap up if you don't want people to respond? This wasn't an issue of liberals distorting it, as you claim (like in most things you say). The white house had the banner made, even if the Navy asked for it. Bush was commander in chief. Revolting liars? You have a distorted sense of reality. You are right though, he didn't say mission accomplished, but he did let pictures of him standing in front of it get printed everywhere. He did say we have moved from major combat to stability and re-building. Bush also said "In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban..." He was wrong on those accounts. The irony of today and it's juxtaposition to the Bush speech is notable, whether you want to believe it is liberal liars distorting it. Salty bugger certainly isn't very liberal.

"NEIL CAVUTO (host): Senator -- after a conflict means after the conflict, and many argue the conflict isn't over.

McCAIN: Well, then why was there a banner that said mission accomplished on the aircraft carrier?

Look, the -- I have said a long time that reconstruction of Iraq would be a long, long, difficult process, but the conflict -- the major conflict is over, the regime change has been accomplished, and it's very appropriate."

Wow...

"This wasn't an issue of liberals distorting it, as you claim"

Bush never said "mission accomplished" during that one speech. He did, however, claim that there was a lot of hard work left to do in Iraq. Please just read the speech.

"The white house had the banner made, even if the Navy asked for it"

If what you say is true, so what? The banner was designed to help those kids celebrate their accomplishments. If liberals want to distort the intent of the banner, that's the fault of the White House?

Maybe Bush should have demonized everyone who claimed he said "mission accomplished", just like Obama likes to demonize the birthers. I mean, what's the difference? Obama provided his birth certificate, so you can't rationally claim he wasn't born here. And as for Bush, you can download the text of his speech, not only does he not say mission accomplished, he says we have a lot of work left to do. So how can you rationally claim he said "mission accomplished"?

"You have a distorted sense of reality. You are right though, he didn't say mission accomplished"

So, in the same sentence, you say (1) my view of reality is distorted, and that (2) I have my facts straight. So which is it?

[american spirit]

i can't believe any propaganda i see on tv. didn't osama have diabetes and was getting dialysis? i think he may have just died from complications of that. if he is even dead at all. very quick to report he was killed, identified, and already buried him at sea.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by american spirit

i can't believe any propaganda i see on tv. .

Originally Posted by american spirit

didn't osama have diabetes and was getting dialysis? .

....didn't they report that on TV....or maybe it was on the Internet......because there's nothing but the truth on the internet.

I see my Reynolds Wrap Stock Climbing.....

[zimmy]

No question some in the Pakistani govt. knew he was there.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Saltys

BTW

Yesterday marked the 8th anniversary of George W. Bush's "mission accomplished" speech....

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Zimmy, someone else posted that BUsh declared "Mission Accomplished" in a speech. .

The original post in reference to it never said Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" in a speech It is typically referred to in common vernacular as the mission accomplished speech. I don't know anyone who thinks Bush used the exact words mission accomplished in the speech. You can argue semantics all you want.

[PaulS]

Zimmy - you ever see the Osama look alike in the area we fish this time of year? Same scruffy, unkept beard. Keeps 2 fish a day to sell. He gave me a bunch of crap last night. I think he was off his meds. If I does again, I'm going to call him Osama.

[zimmy]

I think I know who you mean. Saw him a couple of nights ago. Maybe he won't be around anymore.

[buckman]

Maybe Fox is a little biased!

Fox News Says President Obama Is DeadVideo

[RIJIMMY]

I think there is a very good argument that Bush policies led to the unrest and action in the mid-east today. Bush's actions also led to OBL living in seclusion for over 5 years, his influence greatly reduced.

[spence]

You guys are funny...and really missing the point.

The issue isn't if we ever got anything of value from EITs.

The issue is if getting Bin Laden proves that water boarding "works"...that was the entire point of the discussion. To "work" means that you get the intel that you wouldn't have gotten using less abusive means.

While there are certainly some who advocate torture, the expert opinions seems to be weighted the other way, that coercive and abusive methods are unreliable. If you'd like I can post dozens and dozens of quotes that reinforce this position.

Here's just one set of expert opinions from a few days ago...

Torture Did Not Lead the U.S. to bin Laden, It Almost Certainly Prolonged the Hunt


We are concerned about the suggestion by some that the use of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques led U.S. forces to Osama bin Laden's compound.

The use of waterboarding and other so-called "enhanced" interrogation techniques almost certainly prolonged the hunt for Bin Laden and complicated the jobs of professional U.S. interrogators who were trying to develop useful information from unwilling sources like Khalid Sheik Muhammed.

Reports say that Khalid Sheik Muhammed and Abu Faraq al-Libi did not divulge the nom de guerre of a courier during torture, but rather several months later, when they were questioned by interrogators who did not use abusive techniques.

This is not surprising. Our experience is that torture is a poor way to develop useful, accurate information.

We know from experience that it is very difficult to elicit information from a detainee who has been abused. The abuse often only strengthens their resolve and makes it that much harder for an interrogator to find a way to elicit useful information.

We believe that the U.S. would have learned more from Khalid Sheik Muhammed and other high value detainees if, from the beginning, professional interrogators had a chance to question them using the sophisticated, yet humane, approaches approved by U.S. law.

We are convinced that the record shows that abusive questioning techniques did not help, but only hindered, the United States' efforts to find bin Laden.

Bios

Matthew Alexander

Matthew Alexander (a pseudonym) has spent more than 18 years in the U.S. Air Force and Air Force Reserves. He personally conducted more than 300 interrogations in Iraq and supervised more than a thousand. Alexander was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for his achievements in Iraq, including leading the team of interrogators that located Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who was subsequently killed in an airstrike. Alexander has conducted missions in over 30 countries, has two advanced degrees, and speaks three languages. He is the author of How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq (Free Press, 2008) and Kill or Capture: How a Special Operations Task Force Took Down a Notorious al Qaeda Terrorist (St. Martin's Press, 2011).

Colonel (Ret.) Stuart A. Herrington, U.S. Army

Stu Herrington served 30 years as an Army intelligence officer, specializing in human intelligence/counterintelligence. He has extensive interrogation experience from service in Vietnam, Panama, and Operation Desert Storm. He has traveled to Guantanamo and Iraq at the behest of the Army to evaluate detainee exploitation operations, and he taught a seminar on humane interrogation practices to the Army's 201st MI Battalion--Interrogation, during its activation at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.

Joe Navarro

For 25 years, Joe Navarro worked as an FBI special agent in the area of counterintelligence and behavioral assessment. A founding member of the National Security Division's Behavioral Analysis Program, he is on the adjunct faculty at Florida's Saint Leo University and the University of Tampa and remains a consultant to the intelligence community. Mr. Navarro is the author of a number of books about interviewing techniques and practice including Advanced Interviewing, which he co-wrote with Jack Schafer, and Hunting Terrorists: A Look at the Psychopathology of Terror. He currently teaches the Advanced Terrorism Interview course at the FBI.

Ken Robinson

Ken Robinson served a 20-year career in a variety of tactical, operational, and strategic assignments including Ranger, Special Forces, and clandestine special operations units. His experience includes service with the National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency. Ken has extensive experience in CIA and Israeli interrogation methods and is a member of the U.S. Military Intelligence Hall of Fame.

To put it quite simply...to assert that water boarding "works" based on this example, where intel gained by EIT's seems to have played such a small role in an operation spanning many years is simply misleading. To do so without a serious analysis of methods to determine the likeliness of similar lintel being gained via conventional means makes it quite disingenuous.

The idea that water boarding is only to break someone to get information later is laughable...I'm sure a multitude of techniques are being used simultaneously. If you can't measure, you have no idea if the methods are successful. Again, the experts seem to run counter to conventional tough guy wisdom.

As I said before, this seems to once again be more of a political issue than a professional or scientific one.

-spence

[Sea Dangles]

Spence, sometimes it is better to remain silent and let them call you a fool. Unfortunately, you keep getting sucked in to prove them right.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Spence, sometimes it is better to remain silent and let them call you a fool. Unfortunately, you keep getting sucked in to prove them right.

The classic non post. Perhaps just a trite ad hominem attack...

You should deconstruct my line of reasoning which has been made very clear in this thread. That would impress me. So far the usual suspects don't seem to be getting it...as usual.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You guys are funny...and really missing the point.

The issue isn't if we ever got anything of value from EITs.

The issue is if getting Bin Laden proves that water boarding "works"...that was the entire point of the discussion. To "work" means that you get the intel that you wouldn't have gotten using less abusive means.

While there are certainly some who advocate torture, the expert opinions seems to be weighted the other way, that coercive and abusive methods are unreliable. If you'd like I can post dozens and dozens of quotes that reinforce this position.

Here's just one set of expert opinions from a few days ago...



To put it quite simply...to assert that water boarding "works" based on this example, where intel gained by EIT's seems to have played such a small role in an operation spanning many years is simply misleading. To do so without a serious analysis of methods to determine the likeliness of similar lintel being gained via conventional means makes it quite disingenuous.

The idea that water boarding is only to break someone to get information later is laughable...I'm sure a multitude of techniques are being used simultaneously. If you can't measure, you have no idea if the methods are successful. Again, the experts seem to run counter to conventional tough guy wisdom.

As I said before, this seems to once again be more of a political issue than a professional or scientific one.

-spence

"To "work" means that you get the intel that you wouldn't have gotten using less abusive means. "

No, it doesn't. "Work" means that it provided something useful. No one can possibly know what would have happened if we did things differently. What we do know is, in this case, waterboarding gave us actionable intelligence that we didn't get from any other sources. We know that for a fact. Spence, you have descended into the darkness where the "birthers" live, you are simply unable to process irrefutable facts that do not serve your agenda.

Spence, at least once a week, I threathen my kids with severe punishment to get them to behave. Guess what? It works. Sometimes dangling the carrot gets you what you want, sometimes you have to swing the stick. A 5 year-old grasps this concept, but not you or your liberal ilk.

"The idea that water boarding is only to break someone to get information later is laughable"

Maybe it's laughable to you, but it's still fact. Hard, irrefutable fact. KSM started singing like a canary after he was broken. They didn't need to continue waterboarding him after he was "broken"...

"the experts seem to run counter to conventional tough guy wisdom."

WRONG. Not "the" experts, just the ones you choose to listen to. Is Leon Panetta (Obama's CIA chief) not an expert? He says waterboarding gave us actionable intelligence that helped kill Bin Laden.

Sometimes you need tough guys Spence. How would you have pushed the Nazis out of western Europe in 1944? Would you have stormed the beaches at Normandy with a sign that said "Visualize Peace"?

Being strong of will does not mean one lacks reason...

"As I said before, this seems to once again be more of a political issue than a professional or scientific one."

Of course it's a political issue! Because only a brainwashed, unthinking, liberal, Kool Aid-drinking zealot could possibly suggest that torture could NEVER get a terrorist to reveal something that could save lives.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You guys are funny...and really missing the point.

To "work" means that you get the intel that you wouldn't have gotten using less abusive means.


-spence

I cannot get past the utter absurdity of this statement. So if something does what you hoped it would do, you can't say it "worked" unless you can prove that the result could not have been achieved any other way??

Spence, using your logic (or lack thereof)...there was a house fire in my neighborhood last year. The fire department came and put out the fire. USING YOUR LOGIC, I cannot say that calling the fire department "worked", because it might have started raining and that might have put out the fire anyway...There's no way to prove that calling the fire department was the only conceivable way to put out the fire, so Spence would not say that calling the F.D. "worked".

Is that about right, Spence? Do I have that right? You sticking by that?

No one can say for sure what would have happened if things unfolded differently. But I do know 2 things in the "here and now"...the fire department put out that fire, and enhanced interrogation (according to the current and two previous CIA chiefs) produced actionable intelligence. Spence, I am sorry if that fact spits in the face of one of the more asinine platforms of the liberal agenda...but it's still a fact.

How do we ever come together as a nation...we have crazy conservatives who still insist Obama wasn't born here, and we have liberals still saying that waterboarding never works...what do you say to people who won't concede irrefutable facts?

[spence]

As an aside, can anyone cite an instance where a spontaneous rain shower put out a house fire, or even a credible situation where it might have?

Hey Jim, a good young friend of mine looks to be heading to Parris Island soon. I told him to make sure he addresses his instructor as "you", doesn't bother with those silly drills, hymns and creed, and is sure to get his full nights rest.

Good thing he's in great shape

-spence

[Sea Dangles]

Trying to deconstruct your line of reasoning is like scolding a dog for chasing his tail.Your blind faith in the party yields predictable responses.Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't get it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Trying to deconstruct your line of reasoning is like scolding a dog for chasing his tail.Your blind faith in the party yields predictable responses.Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't get it.

What was predictable was the Right jumping on this immediately in an attempt to free the Bush Admin from controversy over the use of torture. Hell, Obama's announcement wasn't even over before they were out shouting SEE! SEE!! SEE!!!.

I haven't seen such a response from the left...who by your logic would "predictably" assert that this proves torture doesn't work.

What I have seen, is a quite clear assertion that states that given what is believed to be known, the success of this mission doesn't prove that torture is effective.

Even John McCain (R) who's quite well informed on the subject (quite literally) seems to strongly reinforce this point.

Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently claimed that “the intelligence that led to bin Laden . . . began with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information — including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.” That is false.

I asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and he told me the following: The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden — as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda.

In fact, the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced false and misleading information. He specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married and ceased his role as an al-Qaeda facilitator — none of which was true. According to the staff of the Senate intelligence committee, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in al-Qaeda and his true relationship to bin Laden — was obtained through standard, noncoercive means.

Bin Laden’s death and the debate over torture - The Washington Post

What I've asked is that if you disagree and believe that this event does prove torture works, present a line of reasoning that backs up your argument.

So far nobody seems to be able to accomplish this task. Instead I hear misleading over simplifications and lofty philosophical remarks which miss the question actually being asked. When challenged, the response is not facts or reasoning but ad hominem attacks...quite predictably...

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I haven't seen such a response from the left...who by your logic would "predictably" assert that this proves torture doesn't work.

-spence

Because it worked !!!
Unless you are talking about yourself and then the "left" has asserted that it didn't work.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

Because it worked !!!
Unless you are talking about yourself and then the "left" has asserted that it didn't work.

I could use Dynamite to take down a tree, and you bet that it'll work. Doesn't mean it was the necessary tool for the job.

Quite honestly, I don't give a damn about putting people under the bucket. Hell, if you think they might hold valuable information that would protect this country, get out the wet sponges connected to a car battery.

On the other hand, just because waterboarding *may* have gotten them information that assisted to killing bin Laden, it doesn't mean that they would not have been able to extract the information through other, less tortuous means.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Even John McCain (R) who's quite well informed on the subject (quite literally) seems to strongly reinforce this point.

-spence

maybe

Maverick Malice - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

As an aside, can anyone cite an instance where a spontaneous rain shower put out a house fire, or even a credible situation where it might have?



-spence

No, I cannot. But even if I could think of a credible case where that happened, you would deny it. Because there IS a credible case of someone saying waterboarding works (CIA Chief Mr Panetta), and that wasn't enough to satisfy you....so please stop pretending that you listen to credible arguments, because you do not.

And if "credibility" were a pre-requisite for posting, no one here would have ever heard of you...

[Raven]