America Could Have Killed Usama bin Laden — But Didn't

[Plan B]

... If you've ever listened to Hunt he constantly reminds us that the media has become more our enemy than our friend in this war.
That aside, you (always ever predictably) once again miss the part where I have stated (in other threads) that I blame Bush for allowing the media to sway his judgment in executing this war. And I blame liberals like you for exploiting the bias the media portrays in this war for political reasons. You're not interested in winning this war; you're only interested in your politics and your liberal/progressive agenda; all at the expense of our troops.

Here we go again; any questioning or dissent, yr a commie pinko fwag...

Anybody who resents media war coverage does not remember Viet Nam.
We are interested in winning this war; just not in getting lied to again. Along with Rush's ilk, why should conservatives be taken seriously?

 

[PsyOps]

I believe that you and I think the same in terms of how our nations enemies should be treated.

Finally! Thanks for FINALLY seeing it Larry.

I believe it is the administration's responsibility for how it is today and I believe they are at fault. You think the media are responsible. That is and has been and likely will continue to be our major disagreement. That and the jazz thing which I can accept on artistic merits.

No Larry, I think they are both at fault. It’s always ends up at The Man’s desk though. The media has launched an effective any-war anti-Bush campaign that has had a great affect on the effort. American sentiment goes into a lot in terms of how a president makes decisions; an impossible situation that I can’t even fathom. I would love nothing more than your tactic: go in, kill them all, then ask for forgiveness after we’ve won. It wasn’t until the media got in the middle, providing us with real-time footage, showing Americans the REAL brutality of war, that strategy started changing. Bush has used some very cunning politics to stave off a Congress that wants to end it all without a clear victory.

I don't believe for one second that OBL would still be alive if getting him was a priority of the US armed forces. They take their orders from the CIC.

It appears to be more a priority to have a real strategic reason to keep him alive. They certainly aren’t going to tell us what that is. But we seem to have a leaker to Col. Hunt that may screw the whole thing up. I trust they know what they are doing. But, I still want an explanation as to why they called the strike off (if Hunt’s story has any real fact to begin with).

I believe the WH has decided the exact same things the WH decided between 1993 and 2000; OBL is too sensitive a target to take out. I believe there are understandings with other world leaders that a good deal of pressure against further operations against us on US soil is the price to be paid in exchange for OBL being left alone.

This could be true. Is that an acceptable trade-off for saving American lives? We’ll have to let history sort that one out. I can also see a strategic value to keeping him alive. Bin Laden communicates, he moves, he talks, he commands. With him alive and with us knowing where he is provides us with loads of valuable intel.

 

[PsyOps]

Here we go again; any questioning or dissent, yr a commie pinko fwag...

You’re certainly not going to find this in any of my posts. The fact that you feel that is what I am saying must mean you have a guilty conscience.

Anybody who resents media war coverage does not remember Viet Nam.
We are interested in winning this war; just not in getting lied to again. Along with Rush's ilk, why should conservatives be taken seriously?

You guys, for lack of a better argument, can sum everything up in two words “Bush lied”. Talk about “here we go again”. If you guys were interested in winning the war you’d be talking about winning. But that’s not what’s coming out of your mouths. Hillary and Obama and other democrats talk constantly about “ending this war”. What’s missing from that Plan B? The word “Win”. With this and Harry Reid, Jack Murtha, John Kerry, etc… you’re not convincing me democrats are interested in winning.

The war coverage today isn’t much different than the days of Viet Nam. It creates two problems: 1) Showing people the horrors of war which the average American can’t stomach and 2) Presents that horror with a bias that is aimed at destroying the effort. Check this little bit out on how today’s media might have covered WWII.

As far as “questioning and dissent goes”… Did you see the protester that burst into a Congressional hearing with Condoleezza Rice? She went after Rice with blood on her hands calling Rice a war criminal and other anti-war rhetoric. She came within mere feet of Rice. Another case… Clinton was recently approached by some left-wing “dissenter” that 911 was an inside job and Clinton replied “"An inside job? How dare you. How dare you. It was not an inside job," Then there was the Bill Maher incident. This is where the anti-war gang is today. Their actions border on (and in many cases crosses) criminal behavior. Questioning and dissent? Is that what you want to call this?

 

[Kerad]

Kerad that's so lame. Apparently you're ignoring the fact that Col. Hunt also blames the media. If you've ever listened to Hunt he constantly reminds us that the media has become more our enemy than our friend in this war.

That aside, you (ever predictably) once again miss the part where I have stated (in other threads) that I blame Bush for allowing the media to sway his judgment in executing this war. And I blame liberals like you for exploiting the bias the media portrays in this war for political reasons. You're not interested in winning this war; you're only interested in your politics and your liberal/progressive agenda; all at the expense of our troops.

Yeah...I know.
You don't really have to post anything anymore, as we all know exactly what you're going to say.

" ...Liberal Media's fault.... ...Democrats hate America.... ....don't support our troops......liberal agenda....


You should go pick out a nice parrot avatar for yourself. It would suit you.

 

[PsyOps]

Yeah...I know.
You don't really have to post anything anymore, as we all know exactly what you're going to say.

" ...Liberal Media's fault.... ...Democrats hate America.... ....don't support our troops......liberal agenda....


You should go pick out a nice parrot avatar for yourself. It would suit you.

Pot calling the ket... Yeah, kinda pointless isn't it? how about a beer. I'm buying.

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

I counted 20 cars..... Where's Bin Laden?

i counted over 30 vehicles in that photo...and people on the ground that could have been civilians....

there was obviously a reason we didn't take the shot. i'm not blaming this one on the military. I feel confident that there was a reason here we didn't take him out (if he was actually there).

70% chance is not enough to drop a bomb... when half of them people over there look alike...how can you say 70% chance certain ID on somebody is enough to risk killing innocent people and probably having a retaliation?

(unless thats what we wanna do...i mean, i'm all for just taking out the whole country...better to do that than risk more lives of our soldiers.)

 

[Larry Gude]

That photo...

i counted over 30 vehicles in that photo...and people on the ground that could have been civilians....

there was obviously a reason we didn't take the shot. i'm not blaming this one on the military. I feel confident that there was a reason here we didn't take him out (if he was actually there).

70% chance is not enough to drop a bomb... when half of them people over there look alike...how can you say 70% chance certain ID on somebody is enough to risk killing innocent people and probably having a retaliation?

(unless thats what we wanna do...i mean, i'm all for just taking out the whole country...better to do that than risk more lives of our soldiers.)

...is an instant in time. There was time and place before that shot was taken. There was time and place after that shot.

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

...is an instant in time. There was time and place before that shot was taken. There was time and place after that shot.

Right.......?

and your point is.......?

 

[Larry Gude]

You...

Right.......?

and your point is.......?

...said;

"i counted over 30 vehicles in that photo...and people on the ground that could have been civilians...."

Perhaps there was a better opportunity five minutes or five miles earlier? Or later? Point being to say there is X cars and Y people only pertains to pretty much that exact time and place. There is absolutely no reason that convey was not stopped and searched or destroyed that has anything to do with how many cars there were or how many civilians.

If this administration has orders to pass on a golden opportunity because one mom or a kid in a stroller too many is going to die or two dogs and a canary they are BETRAYING their primary responsibility to provide for the common defense of the people via destroying our enemies.

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

...said;

"i counted over 30 vehicles in that photo...and people on the ground that could have been civilians...."

Perhaps there was a better opportunity five minutes or five miles earlier? Or later? Point being to say there is X cars and Y people only pertains to pretty much that exact time and place. There is absolutely no reason that convey was not stopped and searched or destroyed that has anything to do with how many cars there were or how many civilians.

If this administration has orders to pass on a golden opportunity because one mom or a kid in a stroller too many is going to die or two dogs and a canary they are BETRAYING their primary responsibility to provide for the common defense of the people via destroying our enemies.

o, i agree.

i was just saying that i counted more than stanley :shrug:

like i said, i'm fine with them just taking the whole country out if they know for certain he is SOMEWHERE within the country

 

[PsyOps]

That photo is an instant in time. There was time and place before that shot was taken. There was time and place after that shot.

And we really don't know if this photo has anything to do with the subject at hand.

 

[PsyOps]

If this administration has orders to pass on a golden opportunity because one mom or a kid in a stroller too many is going to die or two dogs and a canary they are BETRAYING their primary responsibility to provide for the common defense of the people via destroying our enemies.

The fly in the ointment is if they had missed OBL and killed a few dozen civilians, you can imagine the affect this would have had on the Arabs there and in our media.

 

[Larry Gude]

'We' don't...

And we really don't if this photo has anything to do with the subject at hand.

...know and 'we' don't need to know. The people who do need to know very, very much likely do know and are waiting on someone to say go.
That someone seems to have more of a one world view point than a US viewpoint.

 

[Larry Gude]

As I said...

The fly in the ointment is if they had missed OBL and killed a few dozen civilians, you can imagine the affect this would have had on the Arabs there and in our media.

...we'll never see this the same. What I am interested in is the affect it has on OBL.

 

[PsyOps]

As I said we'll never see this the same. What I am interested in is the affect it has on OBL.

Actually not true. If I had it my way the job would be done. I'm only putting myself in the shoes of the commanders having to face the criticism from the media and a Congress (that is bent on allowing the media to frame their thinking) for making a decision that resulted in a miss and several dead innocent people. This revolves back to the media being in the middle of this giving us real-time action. Without the media we could have accomplished so much a long time ago.

 

[PsyOps]

'We' don't know and 'we' don't need to know. The people who do need to know very, very much likely do know and are waiting on someone to say go.
That someone seems to have more of a one world view point than a US viewpoint.

There is my beef with Hunt. Having been an intel expert he should know better than to exploit information that was leaked to him and the potential classified nature to it. From that aspect I'm beginning to see him more as a media propagandist and opportunist than someone that is actually interested in postitively affecting the outcome of this war. I am shocked that he would report something like this.

 

[Larry Gude]

You just keep...

There is my beef with Hunt. Having been an intel expert he should know better than to exploit information that was leaked to him and the potential classified nature to it. From that aspect I'm beginning to see him more as a media propagandist and opportunist than someone that is actually interested in postitively affecting the outcome of this war. I am shocked that he would report something like this.

...on pointing fingers everywhere but where they belong. Hunt is as frustrated as anyone, I would venture, and I'd think he knows a hell of a lot more and much more damning to our leadership than what he says.

Way back in the beginning of this spiraling into tragicomedy, the man said, without hesitation, that Sadr needs to go down. This was when Sadr was first making a name for himself. Hunt said 'you just can't have this, you can't have people running around setting up independent power like this or the government isn't one.'

That is just about the time that this administration lost its way.

 

[PsyOps]

...on pointing fingers everywhere but where they belong. Hunt is as frustrated as anyone, I would venture, and I'd think he knows a hell of a lot more and much more damning to our leadership than what he says.

I’m not saying the buck doesn’t stop with Bush. But you seem to be in denial of the effects of this media on his ability to execute this war. I’m not in his shoes and can’t speculate on the impossibilities he has to deal with.

But if Hunt does know more, then perhaps he could enlighten us instead of making us speculate on this matter. He already let the cat out of the bag on this; why not give us the details? Which raises another question… I may have missed it, but why isn’t the media all over this? Have you seen any real reporting on this at all?

Way back in the beginning of this spiraling into tragicomedy, the man said, without hesitation, that Sadr needs to go down. This was when Sadr was first making a name for himself. Hunt said 'you just can't have this, you can't have people running around setting up independent power like this or the government isn't one.'

That is just about the time that this administration lost its way.

And who was it that said “leave him alone”? It was the Iraq government. So what does Bush do, disregard the authority of the very government he supported to stand up or honor their sovereignty in making their own internal decisions? Can’t you see the place Bush is in? How easy would it have been for Bush to disregard Iraq’s decision to leave Sadr alone and destroy the cooperation between us and them? I mean is there a diplomatic means to fighting this war as well as military? I seem to remember Hunt saying something about that too. We can’t win this militarily only. There has to be diplomatic solutions as well. Right?

One last thing to consider. Hunt doesn’t say this occurred in Afghanistan or Pakistan. He just said it was south of Tora Bora. This could be in Pakistan for all we know. Could it just be possible that we had to get permission from the Pakistani government before launching the strike and they said no? Pakistan is already restricting our ability to operate in that country, so since we are speculating…

 

[Larry Gude]

Let's agree to...

I’m not saying the buck doesn’t stop with Bush. But you seem to be in denial of the effects of this media on his ability to execute this war. I’m not in his shoes and can’t speculate on the impossibilities he has to deal with.

But if Hunt does know more, then perhaps he could enlighten us instead of making us speculate on this matter. He already let the cat out of the bag on this; why not give us the details? Which raises another question… I may have missed it, but why isn’t the media all over this? Have you seen any real reporting on this at all?



And who was it that said “leave him alone”? It was the Iraq government. So what does Bush do, disregard the authority of the very government he supported to stand up or honor their sovereignty in making their own internal decisions? Can’t you see the place Bush is in? How easy would it have been for Bush to disregard Iraq’s decision to leave Sadr alone and destroy the cooperation between us and them? I mean is there a diplomatic means to fighting this war as well as military? I seem to remember Hunt saying something about that too. We can’t win this militarily only. There has to be diplomatic solutions as well. Right?

One last thing to consider. Hunt doesn’t say this occurred in Afghanistan or Pakistan. He just said it was south of Tora Bora. This could be in Pakistan for all we know. Could it just be possible that we had to get permission from the Pakistani government before launching the strike and they said no? Pakistan is already restricting our ability to operate in that country, so since we are speculating…

...disagree, shall we?

 

[PsyOps]

Let's agree to disagree, shall we?

No... I disagree with that.....

I think we agree on many things. And really I'm not trying to point the finger at one particular thing. So many factors go into this mess. A lot of it comes from knee-jerk reporting like this Hunt article. I'm quite certain Hunt has his facts right, I just want to know the rest of the story. There has to be an explanation (acceptable or not) as to why they didn't pull the trigger. I just want to know before casting judgement.

Can we agree with that?