An interesting read about the decision to take Bin Laden.... [Archive]

LnGrrrR

05-04-2011, 12:35 PM

:lol Especially when said insider says things like:

President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president.

Plus, the details don't quite make sense.

What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him –and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound. Basically, the whole damn operation was already ready to go – including the specific team support Intel necessary to engage the enemy within hours of being given notice.

So Panetta had somehow masterminded the people, the training, the materials, etc etc months in advance?

CosmicCowboy

05-04-2011, 12:36 PM

I'd take any comments by unnamed "insiders" with a factory full of salt.

If you think about it, the shuffle of people last week with Gates officially calling it quits (after Bin Laden was taken) and Obama moving Panetta out of the CIA makes sense in this context.

CosmicCowboy

05-04-2011, 12:37 PM

Look guys, I know it's ambiguous and I hate un-named sources as much as y'all do. Don't kill the messenger. I just posted it.

CosmicCowboy

05-04-2011, 12:39 PM

So Panetta had somehow masterminded the people, the training, the materials, etc etc months in advance?

Whats hard to believe about that? That the CIA working with special forces had already started working on a hypothetical direct assault contingency plan? Seems pretty credible.

clambake

05-04-2011, 12:39 PM

Look guys, I know it's ambiguous and I hate un-named sources as much as y'all do. Don't kill the messenger. I just posted it.

don't sweat it. you get props for that "2 shots and a splash of water"

LnGrrrR

05-04-2011, 12:43 PM

Whats hard to believe about that? That the CIA working with special forces had already started working on a hypothetical direct assault contingency plan? Seems pretty credible.

Not to me. That kind of training requires months, and they've already said that there was even a dupe compound built to practice with. All this occurs a) without Obama knowing it and b) Obama authorizing this op without knowing the SEAL team is trained?

Oh, also, the special forces stopped responding to their military chain and responded directly to Panetta. So a whole team of Special Forces can start doing unauthorized functions for months without someone in the chain raising a red flag?

Spurminator

05-04-2011, 12:47 PM

Right now just seems like a blogger catering to the demand for anti-Obama accounts of the capture. I'm sure he'll get a ton of visits and I'll probably have this forwarded to me in an email.

CosmicCowboy

05-04-2011, 12:53 PM

Not to me. That kind of training requires months, and they've already said that there was even a dupe compound built to practice with. All this occurs a) without Obama knowing it and b) Obama authorizing this op without knowing the SEAL team is trained?

Oh, also, the special forces stopped responding to their military chain and responded directly to Panetta. So a whole team of Special Forces can start doing unauthorized functions for months without someone in the chain raising a red flag?

You don't think that Gates and Panetta could have decided that "just in case" they should have a viable ground attack option ready to go? Under the circumstances it would almost seem like a dereliction of duty if they didn't. Just because Obama is commander in chief that doesn't mean he has to make all the operational decisions...

RandomGuy

05-04-2011, 12:54 PM

I'd take any comments by unnamed "insiders" with a factory full of salt.

Inside Sources: Bin Laden’s Corpse Has Been On Ice For Nearly a Decade (surprise! it's prison planet) (http://www.prisonplanet.com/inside-sources-bin-ladens-corpse-has-been-on-ice-for-nearly-a-decade.html)

Mmmmm "inside sources".

CosmicCowboy

05-04-2011, 12:56 PM

Inside Sources: Bin Laden’s Corpse Has Been On Ice For Nearly a Decade (surprise! it's prison planet) (http://www.prisonplanet.com/inside-sources-bin-ladens-corpse-has-been-on-ice-for-nearly-a-decade.html)

Mmmmm "inside sources".

Mmmmmmm "straw man"

vy65

05-04-2011, 12:56 PM

Oh, also, the special forces stopped responding to their military chain and responded directly to Panetta. So a whole team of Special Forces can start doing unauthorized functions for months without someone in the chain raising a red flag?

Isn't that essentially what the A-Team is?

RandomGuy

05-04-2011, 01:11 PM

Write it off as a "right wing blog" if you want to, but it certainly seems credible...

http://patdollard.com/2011/05/obama-hesitated-%E2%80%93-panetta-issued-order-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/

No, no one saw the Republican/conservative attempts to spin this to mimize any credit that might be given to a Democratic president. (edit) ...and by no one, I mean everyone.

Fox "news" being the propaganda wing of the Republican party, whose job it will be to regurgitate the RNC's talking points on this, whatever they turn out to be.

I see. So they haven't yet, but they will, right?

Daily affirmation much?

I have zero doubt that will happen. Personally I give it within a week.

Do you doubt at all that such minimizing will take place during the coming election?

This is too big to simply cede to a Democrat.

Some blogger will take it up within the next few days along those lines, then this will be incessantly emailed to the faithful, only to be taken up by ever more prominent talking heads in the conservative movement, until it is GOP canon by the time the election rolls around.

Looks like I had to wait exactly 2 days for this to start happening, in exactly the manner I predicted, a right wing blogger minimizing Obama's role in the process. Astonishly enough the poster, Cosmic Cowboy finds the unnamed insider's implications of Obama "phoning it in and generally being absent" as being "credible", no offense intended, CC.

LnGrrrR

05-04-2011, 01:26 PM

You don't think that Gates and Panetta could have decided that "just in case" they should have a viable ground attack option ready to go? Under the circumstances it would almost seem like a dereliction of duty if they didn't. Just because Obama is commander in chief that doesn't mean he has to make all the operational decisions...

There's a chance, sure, but I highly doubt that Gates would authorize monthslong training for a covert mission without mentioning it to Obama.

CosmicCowboy

05-04-2011, 01:28 PM

Looks like I had to wait exactly 2 days for this to start happening, in exactly the manner I predicted, a right wing blogger minimizing Obama's role in the process. Astonishly enough the poster, Cosmic Cowboy finds the unnamed insider's implications of Obama "phoning it in and generally being absent" as being "credible", no offense intended, CC.

Guilty as charged. I am pre-disposed to believe it and you are pre-disposed to deny it. It's all good. This almost feels like a Clinton ambush. If THATS true we will certainly be hearing more about it...:lol

LnGrrrR

05-04-2011, 01:28 PM

CC, it's just hard to believe an unnamed source when they are as obviously biased as this guy is.

EVAY

05-04-2011, 01:32 PM

If you think about it, the shuffle of people last week with Gates officially calling it quits (after Bin Laden was taken) and Obama moving Panetta out of the CIA makes sense in this context.

Your facts are incorrect, CC, at least with regards to the timing of Gates, and Panetta.

Gates had been saying for months that he was leaving soon, and so Obama has known for a long time that he had to replace him. The announcements regarding Panetta going to replace Gates and Petraeus going to replace Panetta were made well before the taking of Bin Laden.

Had this not gone down when it did, your right-wwing bloggers would be fussing about Obama putting Panetta in charge of the Pentagon.

Moreover, since Petraeus was, according to your article, on the same side of this issue as was Panetta and Clinton (how come your author refers only to her by her first name and none of the others?), your 'surmise' regarding the shake up making sense fails on a logical basis.

EVAY

05-04-2011, 01:32 PM

CosmicCowboy

05-04-2011, 01:32 PM

CC, it's just hard to believe an unnamed source when they are as obviously biased as this guy is.

I prefaced the whole thing that it was an "un-named source" but they aren't ALWAYS wrong...remember "Deepthroat"? It brought down a Presidency and the source wasn't named for 31 years..

CosmicCowboy

05-04-2011, 01:37 PM

Your facts are incorrect, CC, at least with regards to the timing of Gates, and Panetta.

Gates had been saying for months that he was leaving soon, and so Obama has known for a long time that he had to replace him. The announcements regarding Panetta going to replace Gates and Petraeus going to replace Panetta were made well before the taking of Bin Laden.

Had this not gone down when it did, your right-wwing bloggers would be fussing about Obama putting Panetta in charge of the Pentagon.

Moreover, since Petraeus was, according to your article, on the same side of this issue as was Panetta and Clinton (how come your author refers only to her by her first name and none of the others?), your 'surmise' regarding the shake up making sense fails on a logical basis.

you are right that Gates notified Obama months ago he was leaving in 2011.

EVAY

05-04-2011, 01:42 PM

you are right that Gates notified Obama months ago he was leaving in 2011 but the official shuffle announcement was on April 27, after Bin Laden was killed.

No. Check your facts again. Bin Laden was killed on April 29th.

CosmicCowboy

05-04-2011, 01:43 PM

I already double checked and edited.

EVAY

05-04-2011, 01:46 PM

I already double checked and edited.

So you edited your prior erroneous post to indicate that you were not in fact wrong when you were, in fact, wrong?

I have to stop this. I cannot believe that I am actually trying to engage in a logical conversation with someone who would take this approach.

Forget it. Your position in unworthy and I will no longer participate in it.

lazerelmo

05-04-2011, 01:51 PM

I knew something was up since NATO wasn't involved and no waiting on a UN resolution. This operation was clearly not the President's MO.

CosmicCowboy

05-04-2011, 01:53 PM

So you edited your prior erroneous post to indicate that you were not in fact wrong when you were, in fact, wrong?

I have to stop this. I cannot believe that I am actually trying to engage in a logical conversation with someone who would take this approach.

Forget it. Your position in unworthy and I will no longer participate in it.

Are you kidding? I was going by memory and double checked the date and had already edited it before you actually posted. What are you arguing about?

Marcus Bryant

05-04-2011, 02:53 PM

:jack

If the president had rushed the deal and failure occurred then it would have been Obama the neophyte screwing up while attempting to bump up his poll numbers or some such.

Motherfucker. The president made the right call, a gutsy call, and administered justice to public enemy #1. And :tu to dumping his corpse in the middle of the fucking ocean.

Crookshanks

05-04-2011, 03:01 PM

a gutsy call

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

Marcus Bryant

05-04-2011, 03:06 PM

Gfy.

clambake

05-04-2011, 03:12 PM

you're a worthless cunt, crookskanks.

LnGrrrR

05-04-2011, 03:34 PM

I prefaced the whole thing that it was an "un-named source" but they aren't ALWAYS wrong...remember "Deepthroat"? It brought down a Presidency and the source wasn't named for 31 years..

And a broken clock is right twice a day. Doesn't mean they're something to keep time by. :toast :)

LnGrrrR

05-04-2011, 03:36 PM

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

Why do you think it wasn't a gutsy call? Can you imagine the blowback if this had failed? If the intel was wrong? If Pakistan caught us? etc etc.

LnGrrrR

05-04-2011, 03:37 PM

Motherfucker. The president made the right call, a gutsy call, and administered justice to public enemy #1. And :tu to dumping his corpse in the middle of the fucking ocean.

:tu

Spurminator

05-04-2011, 04:38 PM

Crookshanks is the audience to which the OP was written.

ChumpDumper

05-04-2011, 06:29 PM

Just when you thought Crookshanks couldn't be any more bitter....

Wild Cobra

05-04-2011, 08:22 PM

I'd take any comments by unnamed "insiders" with a factory full of salt.
I don't recall that being your normal take...

LnGrrrR

05-04-2011, 09:44 PM

I don't recall that being your normal take...

Some of it depends on how the evidence corroborates. In this case, I'd say, not very well.

Was there a time when I supported what an unnamed source said recently?

Wild Cobra

05-04-2011, 09:58 PM

Was there a time when I supported what an unnamed source said recently?
I don't know for sure, but it seems to me you have.

PublicOption

05-04-2011, 10:08 PM

you fucking GOP losers will drum up any fucking thing.......you guys are stupid and quite frankly fucked.....shut the fuck up.....NO ONE WANTS TO LISTEN TO YOU FUCKS ANYMORE.

go away.....Obama is a bad ass.......DEAL WITH IT.

ElNono

05-04-2011, 10:25 PM

Here's a more plausible reason why the administration had to act when it did...

Leaked Doc May Have Forced US To Speed Up Bin Laden Raid (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/05/03/228235/Leaked-Doc-May-Have-Forced-US-To-Speed-Up-Bin-Laden-Raid)

ChumpDumper

05-04-2011, 10:40 PM

RandomGuy

05-05-2011, 12:36 PM

Guilty as charged. I am pre-disposed to believe it and you are pre-disposed to deny it. It's all good. This almost feels like a Clinton ambush. If THATS true we will certainly be hearing more about it...:lol

Well, honestly, after having read the peice it certainly seems that it was written by someone with some in-depth knowledge of the people involved.

That goes a way towards some credibility. That is not to say that there have never been well-written fakes like this though. I have seen one or two.

That said, I would actually agree that this sounds credible. It seems that the primary resisting force for acting in this case was one of Obama's advisors, who has apparently been effectively eliminated in a political/influence sense.

Here it seems that, once again, a president is vulnerable to the advice that he gets. In the first Bush administration, I have little doubt that Bush's bubble was responsible for most of the shit that irritated me about his administration, as well as the total fuck-up that was the post-war occupation of Iraq.

This is an interesting account, and not all that flattering of Obama.

Still doesn't make me regret for a second voting for him over McCain/Palin. (shudders)

I can live with a learning curve for presidents. Even Bush found his ground towards the end.

RandomGuy

05-05-2011, 12:39 PM

CC, it's just hard to believe an unnamed source when they are as obviously biased as this guy is.

Biased, yes. I think the account probably deliberately paints a somewhat less flattering picture of Obama.

It is, though, well-written with careful attention to detail that is hard to fake or 100% make up.

I strongly suspect the author/source is collecting notes for a "tell all" book in a few years. We will get the identity at some point.