Osama Bin Laden Dead.

How can anybody aside from the seal team that had boots on ground take credit? I hate the navy as much a's the next guy ( go army) but those gals deserve full credit for executing such a mission.
There's plenty of people who can take some credit for this--as my boss's recently-retired boss often said when people gave him credit for what had happened under his leadership, when you see a turtle on a fence post, you know he didn't get there by himself. The people who gathered the intel deserve some, as do the people who analyzed that intel, the people who planned the op, and the people who waterboarded the Al Qaeda prisoners in Gitmo to learn the identity of the courier who led them to the compound. And let's not forget the personnel operating the recon aircraft who were circling overhead and the pilots flying cover for SEAL Team 6.

Hell, even President Obama deserves some credit for issuing the orders--if this thing had gone sideways, it could've gotten really bad. Let's not forget that the failed mission to rescue the American hostages in Iran went on President Carter's personal authority as the Commander-in-Chief. The big complaint I, and many others, have is that Obama took too much credit, not that he didn't deserve any credit.
 
I don't get what the big woop is all about. This in no way is going to fix our economy, this in no way will pull our troups out of the middleeast. As stated the "government" has put...it's a war on "terror" sop we're stuck there cause the terror will not stop...if anything now we got the Muslim Extremists whom are gonna be angry like bees.....remember...they only needa sting once!

If we don't kill him, he sits around for years ordering new attacks. If we do kill him, his followers want revenge and order new attacks. If we take him prisoner, other muslim terrorists use that as an excuse to kill innocent people.

It sounds like a no win scenario, but it's not. They know we got him, they also know that his own people gave us the info that led to him. They also know that we will go anywhere, anytime to get them and there is no 'Put your hands up, you're under arrest' mentality when it comes to people like themselves.

If anything, they are scared. They will look at each other now and wonder if anyone can be trusted.
 
Credit goes to all those serving our country. Thank you to all who have/are serving/served
 
If we don't kill him, he sits around for years ordering new attacks. If we do kill him, his followers want revenge and order new attacks. If we take him prisoner, other muslim terrorists use that as an excuse to kill innocent people.

It sounds like a no win scenario, but it's not. They know we got him, they also know that his own people gave us the info that led to him. They also know that we will go anywhere, anytime to get them and there is no 'Put your hands up, you're under arrest' mentality when it comes to people like themselves.

If anything, they are scared. They will look at each other now and wonder if anyone can be trusted.

like I said how is this "big event" supposed to fix our economy or bring our troops back. I Believe there are far bigger issues than Osama, to be honest. Hell our last Terrorist threat was from a young black boy from Yemen.....with his penis bomb....is that not?
 
Al-Queda isn't organized like some of you imagine. Bin Laden wasn't really the head guy as you imagine. He wasn't sitting in a big chair, petting a cat, issuing orders.

Al-Queda doesn't have an organized hierarchy either. It's not a linear organization. You can almost imagine it as a tight kernal with branches going in all directions with cells all over the world. Al-Queda can even be imagined as a licensing agreement. Little political groups around the world can essentially ask to join Al-Queda in their pursuit of funding and increased exposure and legitimacy. Groups that were originally just about oil rights suddenly ad a bit about zionists and the Jews, then become Al-Queda cells.

Bin Laden was more of a money man, a fund raiser, and the marketing face of the organization. And since his movement and communication has been so limited these past six years, his death won't change anything directly, other than the emotional response. He was a tool of propaganda and represented defiance of the West.

Will his death change the world?
No.

Will it fix the economy?
No.

Will it mean that our troops can come home?
Personally, I think that we should use this PR opportunity to declare victory and withdraw from Afghanistan. Based on what I understand of Obama, I doubt this will happen.

With that said, it's wildly irresponsible to presume that we are safe from attack or that they don't have the means to attack. Our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have stopped a number of large attacks over these past few years. The shoe and panty bombers are examples of people who made it through the system and were able to carry out their attacks. Fortunately, they had technical problems.

But terror attacks will further devastate the economy. Imagine what happens if Islamic lone gunmen start attacking shopping malls after Thanksgiving? Or an airport attack before the security screening area?

These problems are interconnected, it's a mistake to isolate and compartmentalize them. It's good that Bin Laden is no longer active. How/whey/ect. it was done are questions for another thread.
 
like I said how is this "big event" supposed to fix our economy or bring our troops back. I Believe there are far bigger issues than Osama, to be honest. Hell our last Terrorist threat was from a young black boy from Yemen.....with his penis bomb....is that not?

As for our economy these events provide nothing. As far as our troops coming home this brings them one step closer but your right, the fight is not over. It is, however an important time in this countries “war on terror” time line. It is a possible turning point.

Look at it like the battle of Midway, the first lost for Japan. After 8 or 10 years of gobbling up other territories they couldn’t gain 1 more square foot of ground for the rest of the war. That battle was around 4 months after Pearl Harbor and we had another 3½ years of WWII to go yet. It wasn’t an end, it didn’t stop the killing but it was a very key turning point. Is the killing of Bin Laden the same type of turning point? I don’t know. But it is as close as we have gotten in the last 9½ years. Only time will tell. I hope so.

We are not any safer today than we were on Sunday and I think you are correct that we are probably even less safe right now. But that would have been the case if Bin Laden was killed 5 years ago or 5 years from now. If you think that this should make any difference at all you’re just plain wrong. Of the people that need to be removed from the face of the earth this son of a bitch topped my list.

The economy is the most important issue we face. No doubt. But that doesn’t mean we ignore the other issues. If you can come up with a way to solve all our countries problems in one step you are a lot smarter than I. For now we have to settle for one step at a time. I think this was a very big step in a fight that has stretched out for almost 10 years, consumed better than a trillion dollars, and I don’t know how many life’s on both sides.
 
I am like listening to you all that are rambling about it did not happen, pics or it did not happen, C'mon, who is getting the credit for this, who is going to get re-elected or whatever else, WTF?

You know it is easy sitting in a Lazy Boy chair and be the arm chair quarterback and looking at a satellite image on a flat screen as it unfolds. They sit there with their hearts rapidly beating and eyes wide open in complete bewilderment. I am speaking of the President, Senate, Congress, and the rest of the hill.

The only people deserving of recognition and our praise is the soldiers, end of story. Did the President or Hilliary Clinton or any of the invited bunch have a weapon in their hands, standing on foreign ground placing their life on the line? NO!

The politicians talking sh*t and voting on how US is going to fund the military and the conflicts the soldiers are in. How is US going to fund upgrades to vehicles to withstand roadside bombs (IED'S) and ballistic vests, and Kevlars. Not a one of them even have a clue what it takes or it is like to be a soldier. Except some like Senator McCain.

To give those asshats credit for this is like saying they were the ones over there pulling the trigger.

SOLDIERS are the only one's deserving of the credit for the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

And for those that say it did not happen, get your head out of your ass. Do you really think that the gov't would have the main street media publish such great news that is going to be seen and heard by every Islamic Extremists in the world? Those same extremists would be the first to stand up and say we as a country are liars. And take advantage of the air time to show everyone that he is alive and here is the proof. Has any Islamic Extremist stood up and said we lied or he is not dead? F**k no, because they know we did and he is dead.

So stop with the dishonoring of the soldiers and what they did, for you and I country, and world population. And if you think for one second that you are not dishonoring them for the words you speak, think again.

untitled.jpg

untitled.jpg
 
I would certainly argue that the armed forced performed their jobs with remarkable effectiveness and professionalism. They accomplished their mission-

Unfortunately, it looks like the civilians are making an absolute mess of it. It such a cluster, it's hard to just dismiss it as incompetence on their part.
 
And for those that say it did not happen, get your head out of your ass. Do you really think that the gov't would have the main street media publish such great news that is going to be seen and heard by every Islamic Extremists in the world?

Even Al Queda has confirmed we killed Bin Laden.
His wife has said he was shot right in front of her.
So why do we need to see pictures right now.
Sarah Palin in her judgement was wrong again (!) about releasing the pictures with 2/3 of Americans supporting not releasing them so as to not inflame things at this moment.
Good thing she's only a mascot for amusement purposes.
The pics will probably leak out as soon as 3 months or within 2 years somehow.
Bush ignored Bin Laden before 9/11 and then again ignored him after doing his side show non sequeter Pax Americana invasion of Iraq (who had nothing to do with 9/11)that cost over a trillion dollars.
In 2003 Bush said Bin Laden was not important in the war on terror.
Bush's trillion dollar war and his tax cuts is what's put the country in it's current dire economic straits.

Obama put a priority on getting Bin Laden.
They were studying that compound where Bin Laden was holed up since August.
Wonder if cowboy Bush would have waited 9 months for this baby to be born.
I think he would have gone off prematurely and been stillborn and would have made a mess of it.
It is appropriate for Obama not to give him much credit and share any of the spotlight.
Obama was yukking it up earlier at the correspondents dinner while soon later Moe Green (Osama) was being shot in the eye like the baptizing scene with Michael in the Godfather.
 
So why do we need to see pictures right now.

I'll give you two reasons.

1. As psychological warfare.
We don't cut off heads and stick them on stakes outside of the territory, but in this digital age, we could stick that image on the web as a reminder.

Personally, in this internet age, there's nothing that takes the piss out of one of those mouth breathing, commie Che Guevara cheerleaders than tossing his death picture up.

There is no glory in death. There is nothing romantic about being layed out on the floor with the top of your head missing and an entry would in the middle of your face.

As you have recognized, we are dealing with a culture that DOES NOT subscribe to Western values. Compromise and all those things we consider decent in warfare are merely recognized as weakness in that world. Remember, this is a culture where "cease fire" is merely a ruse to resupply when you're losing.

Every time we pull a cartoon, censor a statement, or remove the picture of a dog from a a public service brochure to accommodate their 'sensibility,' we are presenting weakness.

Additional point, we keep talking about who we really are.
This country was founded on individual liberty, rugged individualism- why do we now pretend that it's about sensitively fought warfare? Other than our Judeo-Christian value system (which you are inclined to dismiss) there's no other restriction on our actions.

And secondly, the longer the issue remains unresolved, the longer it remains an issue to be exploited for political issue. I think there's a political interest by the administration and Democrats to leave it unresolved to remind the public that Bin Laden has been killed and Obama had a hand in it. Release the pictures, the video dumping him into the ocean, and call it a day.

Bush ignored Bin Laden before 9/11 and then again ignored him after doing his side show non sequeter Pax Americana invasion of Iraq (who had nothing to do with 9/11)that cost over a trillion dollars.
Rather than just staying on topic, you have to succumb to your verbal diarrhea and just start spewing off grossly uninformed opinion, only supported in your mind by your ego.

In 2003 Bush said Bin Laden was not important in the war on terror.
Bush's trillion dollar war and his tax cuts is what's put the country in it's current dire economic straits.
You have achieved a new level level of ignorance.
While I don't doubt you are capable of such ignorance, the manner in which you're presenting it leads me to believe your trolling to spark activity in the thread.
 
Rather than just staying on topic, you have to succumb to your verbal diarrhea and just start spewing off grossly uninformed opinion, only supported in your mind by your ego.

You have achieved a new level level of ignorance.
While I don't doubt you are capable of such ignorance, the manner in which you're presenting it leads me to believe your trolling to spark activity in the thread.
__________________

Crude excremental Ad Hominem attack Cal.
I'm not speaking out of ignorance.
Bush did make these statements about Bin Laden even if it was only to minimize him and did drag Iraq into this because it was a state run by the nasty hated Saddam who Bush Sr left in place.
He could attack Saddam under the Pax Americana plans Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neocons put together after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
They were itching to do this as the sole superpower and the plans were dusted off and adapted and made ready to go.
Instead of going fully after the Al Queda terrorists he decided to take out Saddam because it's easier to attack a state.
His net was to make it harder for terrorists and not so much to get Bin Laden himself as Bin Laden had outwitted him and it was hard :rolleyes:
The economy was humming along fine without his tax cuts which did have some benefit for some in the short run but would have at least paid for his war.
Well as far as trolling I perhaps have been trying to flush foss out since he credited Bush tersely here after leaving in January but hasn't said anything thoughtful or even commentative otherwise about the death of Bin Laden.
 
I haven't went reading through this but I could care less about seeing pictures. I know he's dead and that's all that matters. It's a good thing but then again, it could also be a bad thing because he's not the only Bin Laden out there. Now that he's not in charge, the others will take it upon themselves to take charge.

Also, even if pictures were released, well..... just give the link below a read and then most will understand how things can be altered but again, I believe he's dead because the entire Middle East is verifying it.

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowl...inton-from-iconic-situation-room-photo_b35096
 
Good thing she's only a mascot for amusement purposes.

Ain't that the truth, she is air headed and her brain is that of an amusement park. And I personally do not beleive she is amusing. I think that she is an embarrassment to this country and other countries that look to us to elect a serious real politician in office. I can not believe that McCain allowed his hand to be twisted to have taken her as a running mate. I would of voted for him if it had not been for Sarah (I am a IDIOT) Palin. I am neither a republican nor democrat, I always vote for who I believe will represent our needs and this country as a whole. And McCain was a real soldier in combat, which is a big plus to me as a disabled vet.

And I know McCain knew he could not win with her as his running mate, and has since been further embarrassed with her life profile.
 
Dear President George W. Bush,

“It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.”

Signed,

Harry S. Truman

:bsflag:

PLEASE. WTF did BuSh ever do to take one iota of credit for locating Bin Laden? After tucking his tail and refused to provide the requested troops to prevent Bin Laden's escape in Tora Bora, he threw in the towel and gave up the hunt in 2002, then allowed his CIA to breakup the Bin Laden hunt unit in '06. Waterboarding? LMFAO. Despite all the noise from the know-nothings on the right, THE MAN who'd know best even disputes that claim (had to dig to the bottom of the foxnews.com site to find this, how convienient that they try to bury this):

McCain Speaks Against Enhanced Interrogation Techniques
by Wes Barrett | May 12, 2011

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., spoke against the use of enhanced interrogation techniques Thursday, saying in a Senate floor speech that they weren't integral in finding and killing Usama bin Laden, and that they damage U.S. national character and its reputation.

"I believe some of these practices - especially waterboarding, which is a mock execution, and thus to me, indisputably torture - are and should be prohibited in a nation that is exceptional in its defense and advocacy of human rights," McCain said. "I opposed waterboarding and similar so-called ‘enhanced interrogation techniques' before Osama bin Laden was brought to justice. And I oppose them now. I do not believe they are necessary to our success in our war against terrorists, as the advocates of these techniques claim they are."

He suggests the trail to bin Laden didn't begin years ago with the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed at the Guantanamo Bay prison where the U.S. holds prisoners from the War on Terror.

"In fact, not only did the use of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques' on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden's courier, Abu Ahmed; it actually produced false and misleading information," he said.

Keep drinkin' the kool-aid, foss.

If waterboarding produced the key intel that led to Bin Laden, then what is the BuSh/Cheney administration's EXCUSE for not finding him earlier?? If waterboarding worked so well, then THEY could've hunted him down and taken all the credit. But NOOOOOOooooooo.........

I really don't care if Obama gets any credit or not, the credit belongs to the CIA and the SEAL team. And NONE of it belongs to the BuSh/Cheney administration.
 
The only trouble with the 'MEMEBUSTERS', above, is that it's not in a form that could be jammed into the wrecktum of all the whinging negative dorks that come around here and try to spew their lib/progressive BS. Or check with me and I'll tell you what I really think. I'll probably be profane and make use of scatological terminology.

KS
 
Osama bin Laden came close to achieving his goal of bankrupting the U.S.

http://www.thestar.com/business/mar...chieving-his-goal-of-bankrupting-the-u-s?bn=1

It’s impossible with certainty to know how deeply Osama bin Laden reached into his pocket to finance the September 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S. The consensus estimate is $500,000, or less than the current average house price in Vancouver.
The estimated cost to the United States from its reaction to those attacks range from $4 trillion (U.S.) to $6 trillion, a “return on investment” unsurpassed in the annals of terrorism.
And the Americans did this to themselves.
Transfixed by the television images that morning, I kept thinking of The Day of The Jackal. What this called for was an intelligence operation to hunt down the perpetrators.
Instead, America over-reacted, beyond Osama’s most ardent hopes.
Osama’s goal was to bankrupt the U.S. In his earlier role in helping reverse the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Osama did his part in bankrupting that 73-year-old empire. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, scarcely three years after the chastened Soviets gave up their decade-long failed effort to “pacify” Afghanistan.
“We are continuing this policy of bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy,” bin Laden said in a 2004 video dispatched to news outlets. Any hint of another al-Qaeda attack on U.S. assets at home or abroad, bin Laden was convinced, would “make generals there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations.”
And that, sad to say, is a near letter-perfect description of what al-Qaeda in fact achieved.
Osama represents more than anything a tremendous economic blow to the world’s lone superpower.
In response to 9/11, the U.S. launched a counter-insurgency campaign at a cost of $1.4 trillion during the 2000s.
Then-president George W. Bush created the Department of Homeland Security, the largest new government bureaucracy since the new Department of Defense in 1947.
Homeland Security is a monster of inefficiency, as the Washington Post reported last year. It encompasses 1,271 distinct government agencies assigned to counter-terrorism functions (51 alone tracking terrorism financing). It generates about 50,000 intelligence reports a year for officials who don’t have time to read more than a fraction of them.

The U.S. botched a post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan, allowing Osama to escape in the battle of Tora Bora.
America then hastily embarked on a botched invasion and occupation of Iraq – the worst U.S. foreign-policy blunder since Vietnam four decades earlier.
Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel laureate economist, and co-author Linda Bilmes, a lecturer at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, have calculated the costs of those two wars at as much as $6 trillion.
Horrific as it was, the U.S. Civil War also ramped up America’s industrial revolution. World War II ended the Great Depression and brought unprecedented American domestic prosperity and global hegemony. The Cold War yielded advances in computer and satellite technology, a triumphant space race and the creation of the Internet.
The positive legacy of reacting as America did to Osama has been unmanned Predator drones. And, as Osama predicted, a windfall for “private corporations” like Halliburton and Blackwater.
U.S. defense spending soared by 50 per cent in the 2000s. The war and terrorism-fighting costs were borrowed. Taxes weren’t raised, as they had been in America’s previous major conflicts. Indeed, Bush stuck by the massive tax cuts early in his administration.
Thus America squandered the “peace dividend” that it was beginning to reap after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Nation-building at home has been put on hold. The Washington consensus is that austerity measures to cope with a record deficit ($1.5 trillion) and debt ($14 trillion) are America’s chief priority. The country is, after all, heading toward insolvency, if Standard & Poor’s recent “negative outlook” forecast of America’s fiscal infirmity is to be believed.
There have been terrorists since Caesar was murdered on the steps of the Senate. They have no real power, only a hope of terrorizing monarchs and presidents into committing their realms to fantastically expensive lost causes.
Osama was tracked down and killed after many years of old-fashioned detective work. They’ll make a movie about it. It will follow the rough outlines of The Day of The Jackal.
In the meantime, the U.S. has celebrated over Osama’s death a mere few days before the U.S. powers that be in Congress, 50 state houses and the media returned their attention to the nation’s dismal finances.
Of the psychological boost from Osama’s demise, Michael O’Hanlon, a national security analyst at the Brookings Institution, told The Atlantic recently: “I take no great satisfaction in his death, because I’m still amazed at the devastation and how high a burden he placed on us.”
_______________________________________________________________

Osama outwitted the crude simpleton Bush who took the bait and used his full lazy idiocy and his lumpen faith and patriotism to help tank the country like a puppet of the puppetmaster.
One man challenged the entire United States.
It remains to be seen if he will leave a lasting legacy.
Yes we finally killed Bin Laden but who really won.
 
Osama outwitted the crude simpleton Bush who took the bait and used his full lazy idiocy and his lumpen faith and patriotism to help tank the country like a puppet of the puppetmaster.
One man challenged the entire United States.
It remains to be seen if he will leave a lasting legacy.
Yes we finally killed Bin Laden but who really won.

Here's the problem, you really don't have a very deep understanding of what you're talking about. You'll take something with a kernal of truth and then, through your analysis, you build it up into something that is easily dismissed and just passes for ignorant, inflammatory rhetoric.

You fling so much against the wall in those broad posts, it's simply not worth the frustration and time to go through and sort it all out. Occasionally, I'll try.

It is widely recognized the the prolonged military engagement by the Soviet's in Afghanistan HELPED bring about the perceived collapse of that empire.

And it's believed that Islamists like Bin Laden believed that it was the sole reason the Soviet system fell, and they even tend to be dismissive of the role the U.S. played in that.

Does that mean that the grand strategy of Al-Queda was to instigate a ground war in Afghanistan, incur the full force of the U.S. military, and over extend the resources of the United States?

No, that wasn't the plan.
Would they like for that to happen now? Sure.
And that is only possible with poor political and civilian leadership in the U.S.

The strategic failure in Afghanistan wasn't the invasion as much as the idealistic effort and scope of nation building afterwards.

It's very nice to reflect on historical events and international affairs with the benefit of a decade of hindsight. And at that time, there was an effort to prevent a broader, possibly "world" war or sustained conflict, with Islam by 'converting' countries like Afghanistan and Iraq to constitutional republics. This was idealistic. Afghanistan was NEVER a viable candidate for this, Iraq was believed to be.

Back to your point though-
the military engagements aren't torpedoing our economy. While not helpful, they aren't the main problem. However, they are exhausting our military and depleting equipment. If we withdrew immediately, it wouldn't change the economic outlook of the U.S.

In fact, since we're riding this suicidal Keynesian roller coaster into the ground, pulling out now might actually hasten the economic reality we are facing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You of course are entitled to your narrow opinion in the face of my broad one.
I thought Bush was mostly a swaggering idiot who played right into Bin Laden's plans even greater than Bin Laben had imagined. Other than a few good things like Stuxnet Bush was IMO a disaster for the country.
 
You of course are entitled to your narrow opinion in the face of my broad one.
I actually provided a very broad assessment.

The goal of 9/11 was not to draw the U.S. into a military conflict in the Middle East. Bin Laden thought the U.S. was a paper tiger, he is on record as having said so based on his experiences in the nineties.

That they would inflict a massive, devastating hit on the U.S. that undermined our country both emotionally and financially. While a counter-strike would be inevitable, it would probably have been limited in scope. If it were to escalate beyond simple airstrikes, we'd immediately withdraw upon taking casualties. And maybe even trigger a withdrawal of the region- NOT building bases in Afghanistan and Iraq.

That proved to NOT be true under George W. Bush's administration.
And the Russian's aren't going to start arming the Muslims.

It is true that by 2005, they did change their objective and start saying that there goal was to provoke a protracted military engagement in the Middle East putting local insurgent groups against the West. But I think that was just a recalculation of strategy.

The Islamasist movement is not led by goat-herders as you are inclined to think. The 'leadership' of these groups consist of well-educated, Western educated, well funded, men who probably understand the West better then most Americans.

The terror model is no longer the most effective method. They are now using their affiliation and associations with the left and exploiting the Democracy movement to advance their strategic goals in the region right now.

Remember, Al-Queda is an affiliated, sub-group of Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Candidly, I would not be surprised if it eventually turns out that the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood had decided that Bin Laden was long past his usefulness.

With him gone, the likelihood the U.S. withdraws from Afghanistan and Iraq are greater. Without him, it's easier for the stooges in the media to use the "Islam is about peace and peaceful democracy" meme, helping generate Western support for the faux-democracy movement in the region. And he was divisive and associated with violence against Shi'ites, it's easier for the Islamasist sects to form a coalitions, if only a temporary one, without him.
 
The goal of 9/11 was not to draw the U.S. into a military conflict in the Middle East. Bin Laden thought the U.S. was a paper tiger, he is on record as having said so based on his experiences in the nineties.

But Bush went and did it anyways .
A stupid genius!
giving Bin Laden a big bonus for his efforts.
 
John McCain to Bush apologists: Stop lying about Bin Laden and torture

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...den-and-torture/2011/03/03/AF10AnzG_blog.html

By Greg Sargent
This is getting really good. As noted below, John McCain in an Op ed this morning skewered the claim that the killing of Bin Laden vindicates torture. But just now, on the Senate floor, he uncorked a new broadside that is quite remarkable, taking direct aim at Bush apologists who are reviving this debate in order to claim Bin Laden’s death as part of the Bush legacy.
McCain amplified his case, and called on former Bush attorney general Michael Mukasey — whose recent op ed claiming torture led to Bin Laden has been widely cited by the right — to retract his claims. McCain’s speech is worth quoting at length:
“With so much misinformation being fed into such an essential public debate as this one, I asked the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta, for the facts. And I received the following information:
“The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. We did not first learn from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the real name of bin Laden’s courier, or his alias, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the man who ultimately enabled us to find bin Laden. The first mention of the name Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, as well as a description of him as an important member of Al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country. The United States did not conduct this detainee’s interrogation, nor did we render him to that country for the purpose of interrogation. We did not learn Abu Ahmed’s real name or alias as a result of waterboarding or any ‘enhanced interrogation technique’ used on a detainee in U.S. custody. 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, not only did the use of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed; it actually produced false and misleading information. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married, and ceased his role as an Al-Qaeda facilitator — which was not true, as we now know. All we learned about Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti through the use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ against Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the confirmation of the already known fact that the courier existed and used an alias.
“I have sought further information from the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and they confirm for me that, in fact, 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 Osama bin Laden — was obtained through standard, non-coercive means, not through any ‘enhanced interrogation technique.’
“In short, it was not torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees that got us the major leads that ultimately enabled our intelligence community to find Osama bin Laden. I hope former Attorney General Mukasey will correct his misstatement. It’s important that he do so because we are again engaged in this important debate, with much at stake for America’s security and reputation. Each side should make its own case, but do so without making up its own facts.
This is taking on the makings of an old-fashioned, barn-burning senatorial crusade, and it’s unclear if anyone of McCain’s stature is going to step up and make the pro-torture case. For all his flaws, McCain carries great authority on this issue because of his own past experiences.
It’s becoming clearer that despite the Obama administration’s desire to avoid relitigating the torture debate, this is precisely the time to do it. The emerging evidence is on the side of torture opponents: A careful and extensive New York Times investigation concluded that torture “played a small role at most” in tracking down Bin Laden. Beyond this, the larger dynamic is perfect: The president that has been widely derided by the right as weak for ending torture tracked down and killed the world’s most wanted terrorist. That’s a pretty strong starting point for this argument.
Republican Senators are apparently set to grill David Petraeus and Leon Panetta at their confirmation hearings over torture’s role in getting Bin Laden. So in addition to McCain’s increasingly high profile on the issue, we may soon see the popular Petraeus reiterating his opposition to torture in a high-visibility setting — after the Obama administration killed America’s number one terrorist foe. Gettin’ mighty interesting.

_______________________________________________________________

More repudiation of Bush by someone who actually served in the military in a real war.
 
You're completely changing the subject, but, to keep things more interesting.

We use this term torture without defining it.
What is torture. What constitutes the use of torture.

Because, in some circles, they call it torture when prisoners were kept awake for too long. Playing songs by "Barnie." A cold cell. A warm cell. Leaving the lights on. Water boarding, as defined by tilting them back, putting a towel on their head and briefly pouring water on it to simulate the sensation of drowning.

And then, in some cases, cases we don't usually hear discussed, it had to do with rendition.
 
You're completely changing the subject, but, to keep things more interesting.

We use this term torture without defining it.
What is torture. What constitutes the use of torture.

Because, in some circles, they call it torture when prisoners were kept awake for too long. Playing songs by "Barnie." A cold cell. A warm cell. Leaving the lights on. Water boarding, as defined by tilting them back, putting a towel on their head and briefly pouring water on it to simulate the sensation of drowning.

And then, in some cases, cases we don't usually hear discussed, it had to do with rendition.

This is to the subject of Bin Laden dead and then some people seeking credit for Bush.
The Bin Laden Bush(the witless one) team did a great job on weakening and pushing America towards bankruptcy.
I think McCain knows what constitutes torture.
You make waterboarding sound benign.
I'm sure if someone tilted your head back and poured water down your nose
you would be "uncomfortable" to say the least and would yell out something
even if it wasn't the truth.
 

Members online

Back
Top