• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bitter Seals tell of killing 'Bert' Laden

Pretty disappointing. By running to the cameras before Bid Laden was cold, it pretty much made the intel gathered in his complex useless.

Again, it's not like the WH had much choice. News of the raid was all over Twitter. In this age of social media, there's just no way to keep something like this secret for very long.

As to the intel gathered, again I agree the WH should have kept some of the details quite alittle while longer, but I don't think releasing what they did know, i.e., that they had gathered flash drives, CDs, operations manuals, did too much damage. I mean, they were about to confirm that the America Terrorist was in Yemen based on the intel gathered from the raid and look at how well that turned out?

DING, DONG, The American Al Quaida terrorist recruiter is dead, too!

You can't be upset about how well that bombing raid went either.
 
Obama couldn't wait to annouce wasting UBL. It's the single biggest positive event of his presidency.

Partisan hack and anti-Obama hater, BE GONE!!!

Oh, wait...this is a public forum. And you're entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong it may be.

My bad...rant away, oh, yea of no faith. :roll:

Of course, why should he have waited? GWB sure didn't wait when he got his public enemy #1, Saddam. Hell, America waited for 11 YEARS to get this guy! Why should Pres. Obama have waited to report that we got the man responsible for the death of near 3,000 American lives whereas Saddam killed or was responsible for killing how many Americans?

That's what I thought.

NEXT FOOLISH RANT...PLEASE!!!
 
Last edited:
It had everything do with it. Once UBL's compatriots learned that he was at room temperature, they instantly changed their MO, because they knew that we knew what he knew.

I have but one question for you: "What has Al Quaida operatives done since the death of OBL?" Anything at all? And have their latest terrorist attacks, if any, had any success on American soil, its territories or our ally nation states?

Here's a clue as to the answer to the question: CHIRP, CHIRP, CHIRP....
 
that, to me, was the hugest SNAFU of the whole thing. I am amazed that they didn't have an overwatch drone with hellfires. What an obvious, "no-kidding" addition to a raid like this.

Think about what you're saying here, cpwill.

How far can those drones fly without needing to be refueled? And I'll remind you they are radio controlled. So, unless you have a monitoring station nearby housing someone trained to fly the darn thing...

(It's okay...you're having one of those V-8 moments...:doh )
 
If Obama had held onto the information and released it later, Obama-haters would have complained that he withheld information from the American people. They would have complained that his presidency wasn't so transparent as advertised. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
 
If Obama had held onto the information and released it later, Obama-haters would have complained that he withheld information from the American people. They would have complained that his presidency wasn't so transparent as advertised. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

So then be damned doing the thing thats the most beneficial for the nation, not whats most beneficial politically. Wait to analyze the intel gathered, act on if necessary, then announce it.
 
So then be damned doing the thing thats the most beneficial for the nation, not whats most beneficial politically. Wait to analyze the intel gathered, act on if necessary, then announce it.

Al-Jazeera was reporting it within 24 hours. Was that enough time to analyze the intel and then act upon it? Or would we look like buffoons if a hostile news agency looks like it knows more about what's happening than our own government?
 
Al-Jazeera was reporting it within 24 hours. Was that enough time to analyze the intel and then act upon it? Or would we look like buffoons if a hostile news agency looks like it knows more about what's happening than our own government?

Reporting what? All the Admin, Pentagon, etc would have had to announce is that it was a strike on a high level AQ operative, give a fake name if they had too. The story would go for a couple days and fade away just like the many other times it was announced that high level AQ operative was killed or targeted. No one knew it was Bin Laden until it was leaked out earlier in the day that the President announced it.

Problem is that a political decision was made in lieu of tactical. So one of two things happened. The pro/cons were discussed of announcing the death of Bin Laden and the decision was to go for the political benefit and announce it. Or, the President and his upper level staff are truly that incompetent that they didn't discuss the option of waiting and seeing if their were tactical possibilities rooted in the intel. I see potentially either of these scenarios paying and neither one shed a positive light on this Administration.
 
Reporting what? All the Admin, Pentagon, etc would have had to announce is that it was a strike on a high level AQ operative, give a fake name if they had too. The story would go for a couple days and fade away just like the many other times it was announced that high level AQ operative was killed or targeted. No one knew it was Bin Laden until it was leaked out earlier in the day that the President announced it.

Problem is that a political decision was made in lieu of tactical. So one of two things happened. The pro/cons were discussed of announcing the death of Bin Laden and the decision was to go for the political benefit and announce it. Or, the President and his upper level staff are truly that incompetent that they didn't discuss the option of waiting and seeing if their were tactical possibilities rooted in the intel. I see potentially either of these scenarios paying and neither one shed a positive light on this Administration.

Read this link very carefully (originally posted by Frolicking Dinosaur). OBL was killed on May 1. Al-Jazeera was specifically reporting OBL's death on May 2. The US reporting the death of "a high level AQ operative" would look like a clumsy and foolish deception.
A witness account of bin Laden's death - Asia - Al Jazeera English
 
As I noted early on IMO Pakistan knew what was going down. Obama had to make a statement right away to provide cover for Pakistan. Did he lie? Yeah, but this is one lie I can understand a president making.

People inside of Pakistan knew what happened in a very short time. If the U.S. hadn't provided Pakistan cover in saying that they didn't know about the intrusion, it could have been pretty messy for Pakistan.
 
If Obama had held onto the information and released it later, Obama-haters would have complained that he withheld information from the American people. They would have complained that his presidency wasn't so transparent as advertised. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

This seems to be the case with partisan hackjobs here. If Obama didn't do a stimulus and let demand drop dramatically causing unemployment to possibly spike to 25%, they would call for his head. If he had stopped TARP and let thousands of businesses relying on that money directly or indirectly go, they'd call for his head.

These people will attack Obama on anything he does. Even when the policies mirror, incorporate or are identical to Bush policies. How many of the stimulus haters attacked Bush's 2008 stimulus? None. Obama follows suit with a huge amount of tax rebates, the SAME THING Bush did and they call it a total failure while being silent on Bush's tax rebate failure. The problem they have isn't Obama's policies. It's the fact that there's a D, not a R after his name.

And when you start calling them out on this, they insult you rather then address your points.
 
This seems to be the case with partisan hackjobs here. If Obama didn't do a stimulus and let demand drop dramatically causing unemployment to possibly spike to 25%, they would call for his head. If he had stopped TARP and let thousands of businesses relying on that money directly or indirectly go, they'd call for his head.

These people will attack Obama on anything he does. Even when the policies mirror, incorporate or are identical to Bush policies. How many of the stimulus haters attacked Bush's 2008 stimulus? None. Obama follows suit with a huge amount of tax rebates, the SAME THING Bush did and they call it a total failure while being silent on Bush's tax rebate failure. The problem they have isn't Obama's policies. It's the fact that there's a D, not a R after his name.

And when you start calling them out on this, they insult you rather then address your points.

the converse is true as well--there are those who slurp Obama constantly while claiming everything Bush did was damned
 
Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

"They were also shocked that President Barack Obama announced bin Laden's death on television the same evening, rendering useless much of the intelligence they had seized." That's because they didn't understand it was only about a photo op and a small bump in the polls to Obama.
None of this makes sense to me. A former SEAL commander speaking the press about this, the SEAL team that carried out the mission voicing their disapproval of Obama in a book not a year after their mission and implications that Obama COULD have waited to reveal the death of bin Laden? None of that adds up. I'm not buying it.
 
the converse is true as well--there are those who slurp Obama constantly while claiming everything Bush did was damned

Absolutely. The Obamabots who give Obama a pass on the things they cried bloody murder on Bush for are just as bad. Honestly, that's the #1 thing wrong with America. The inability to apply our standards consistently. It shouldn't matter what letter follows a politicians name. It's their policies. Obama failed on the healthcare bill (for one) because it did the SAME THING as Bush's Medicare D bill, it refused to apply the massive buying power of the government to cut down drug prices and thus save taxpayer dollars. I have YET to see a partisan acknowledge that. I have YET to see a partisan attack Bush's 2008 rebates yet they routinely call $330 billion in tax rebates in the Stimulus bill "a total failure."

Seriously, we outta just chuck these people out of the country and revoke their citizenship. We don't need that kind of stupid.
 
This seems to be the case with partisan hackjobs here. If Obama didn't do a stimulus and let demand drop dramatically causing unemployment to possibly spike to 25%, they would call for his head. If he had stopped TARP and let thousands of businesses relying on that money directly or indirectly go, they'd call for his head.

Partisan rants are not a legit counter to what you percieve as partisan rants.
 
Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

"They were also shocked that President Barack Obama announced bin Laden's death on television the same evening, rendering useless much of the intelligence they had seized." That's because they didn't understand it was only about a photo op and a small bump in the polls to Obama.
Looks like the book was filled with fiction ...

Spec-Ops Command: SEAL raid book 'a lie'

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. military is denouncing a former Navy SEAL's book that claims to describe the "real" version of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

"It's just not true," U.S. Special Operations Command spokesman Col. Tim Nye said. "It's not how it happened."

[...]

Nye says Pfarrer had no access to any troops connected to the mission. He said there will be no investigation into whether individual SEALs spoke to Pfarrer because his account is so off-base.
 
None of this makes sense to me. A former SEAL commander speaking the press about this, the SEAL team that carried out the mission voicing their disapproval of Obama in a book not a year after their mission and implications that Obama COULD have waited to reveal the death of bin Laden? None of that adds up. I'm not buying it.


Looks like the book was filled with fiction ...

Spec-Ops Command: SEAL raid book 'a lie'

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. military is denouncing a former Navy SEAL's book that claims to describe the "real" version of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

"It's just not true," U.S. Special Operations Command spokesman Col. Tim Nye said. "It's not how it happened."

[...]

Nye says Pfarrer had no access to any troops connected to the mission. He said there will be no investigation into whether individual SEALs spoke to Pfarrer because his account is so off-base.

Darn...You guys beat me to the punch. But let me throw these tidbits from the YahooNews article out there:

Pfarrer claims he is still part of the fighting SEAL network, even intimating that he was part of the bin Laden raid preparation.

"In the weeks and months leading up to Neptune's Spear (the code name for the bin Laden mission), it was my privilege to help troops and platoons train for submissions and run parallel HVT (high-value target) missions," Pfarrer writes.

"That is categorically incorrect," spokesman Nye said. "He was not involved in mission planning, execution or close mission analysis."

Pfarrer deflected that criticism, saying he was conducting training for the SEAL Team 6's parent organization, the Naval Special Warfare Command, through his defense security company Acme Ballistics. He refused to describe how closely such training was related to the raid, saying the contracts are classified.

That is Pfarrer's frequent refrain when asked for proof of his controversial claims: that the accounts are from a top secret world only he has access to and that a reader must take his word on faith.

But Pfarrer gets a multitude of facts wrong in describing events that are part of the public record.

For instance, Pfarrer states that Obama appointed McRaven as the first Navy SEAL to head JSOC in April of this year. McRaven was actually appointed to that post in early 2008 by President George W. Bush. He states that the Army Special Forces Green Berets were established in 1962, instead of 1952. When U.S. special operations forces rehearsed for the famous Son Tay Raid in Vietnam in 1970, they trained at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, not Offutt in Nebraska.

And a jet bombing run, not a drone strike, killed Iraqi al-Qaida ringleader Abu Musab al Zarqawi in 2006.

This guy takes "war profitiering" to a whole new level. His accounts kinda make you wanna go "LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE!," doesn't it?
 
Last edited:
This entire thread is such nonsense. Obama is their commander-in-chief, so I do not know where they get off questioning his releasing of information. And all of you on this thread who say it was just a "photo-op" by Obama, hacks. I know it, and any other reasonable individual that reads this thread knows it.

Get a life.
 
Back
Top Bottom