Osama Bin Laden killed?

When will those "smart" people in Washington ever learn?

The cover-up is always worse than the crime and in the case of OBL, there wasn't even a crime committed - except by him. And he was the only one who counted last Sunday.

Well what do you know?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theenvoy/20110504/ts_yblog_theenvoy/al-qaeda-member-surrenders-saudi-arabia-says

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Well what do you know? http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theenvoy/20110504/ts_yblog_theenvoy/al-qaeda-member-surrenders-saudi-arabia-says

That's why Obama needs to take the hard line. His first statement should have been that he sent a team of Seals to go kill him. Not capture, but kill him and everyone in the same building.

Imagine what would happen if we had actually killed him!

You know, that "DEBKA" (whatever that is) article is interesting. But you notice it says the daughter was shot in the leg, then later corrects and says she was not injured. So, the only thing we can be sure of is that whatever they reported is BS.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: You know, that "DEBKA" (whatever that is) article is interesting. But you notice it says the wife was shot in the leg, then later corrects and says she was not injured. So, the only thing we can be sure of is that whatever they reported is BS.

This kind of "reporting" is what we get when facts are substituted by speculation.

The problem was exacerbated by a rush to get the news into the public domain. The WH provided some "details" that were retracted, reporters also used their "sources" within government to gather additional information and some reports have been little more than rank speculation.

I'm in no way saying this is the Obama administration's fault. Every WH has had its' share of fuster-clucks and this is just another example. E36M3 rolls downhill regardless of who is at the top.

oldsaw wrote:

Waste of perfectly good bacon if you ask me.

oldsaw wrote: This kind of "reporting" is what we get when facts are substituted by speculation. The problem was exacerbated by a rush to get the news into the public domain. The WH provided some "details" that were retracted, reporters also used their "sources" within government to gather additional information and some reports have been little more than rank speculation. I'm in no way saying this is the Obama administration's fault. Every WH has had its' share of fuster-clucks and this is just another example. E36M3 rolls downhill regardless of who is at the top.

I guess I just don't think it's a big deal. Actually, I guess I don't think it's a small deal. I just think it's silly. Obama didn't say anything about a human shield or bin Laden being armed. One guy did. And pretty darn fast, the White House got out and said "no, that's not what happened". Sounds like they trying to tell it as clearly as they can. Not really a cluck of any kind, fluster or otherwise.

TRoglodyte wrote: Waste of perfectly good bacon if you ask me.

But... proving once again that everything is better with bacon.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/03/bin.laden.evolving.story/index.html?hpt=T1

Pretty much what the DEBKA story is. How you gonna blimp this one?

How am I going to "blimp" it?

Whatever. Like I said. Some info got out there that was a little out of control. So, they got in front of it and corrected it. Sounds like they're trying to do a good job.

How you gonna blimp that?

If you'll notice the picture from the War Room, they were watching it AS IT WENT DOWN. Seems like they could have taken at least as much time to make sure they got it right, as it did to figure out how it should go down.

But if you read the articles all the way through, they were still giving out this 'misinformation' as late as Monday, on all the morning talk shows.

racerfink wrote: But if you read the articles all the way through, they were still giving out this 'misinformation' as late as Monday, on all the morning talk shows.

Well, okay. Let's say you're right. They intentionally misled all of us about details of the mission. Why? What do you think their intention is? If you give me a plausible motive I'll listen with an open mind. Sure wouldn't be the first time a politician lied.

Ah, okay. Once again, I'm just not being clear. Let me explain. I don't doubt the account of the DEBKA (whatever that is) article. It has, as was pointed out, pretty much the same facts as other reports. I had heard all that. Where I once again failed was at my poor attempt at humor. Okay. When Dr. Hess posted the DEBKA (whatever that is) article, he included this quip explaining that any minor variation in fact proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama has never told us anything that was true...

Dr. Hess wrote: As usual, the only thing we can be sure of is that whatever they told us is BS.

I was trying, and it seems failing to poke a bit of fun at that absolute proclamation when I said this...

fast_eddie_72 wrote: You know, that "DEBKA" (whatever that is) article is interesting. But you notice it says the daughter was shot in the leg, then later corrects and says she was not injured. So, the only thing we can be sure of is that whatever they reported is BS.

I hope that clears things up.

And for the record, I don't think Sarah Palin was born in Russia.

Some people are naive. They tend to vote D. "Vote for me for Hope and Change." Uh-huh. Shall we list what didn't change? Regardless, here's how you can tell a politician is lying: Their lips are moving.

Now, in this case, as I said, what they told us is BS. As usual, some of it is interspersed with non-BS. What we know (sort of) is someone, probably SEAL Team 6, dropped out of the sky, had a helicopter either fail or get shot down, whacked some people, most likely including UBL, and left with a bunch of stuff. Oh, and The O took a LONG time to give the go-ahead on the deal. Sleep on it. Uh-huh. Who did he call? The spin was "UBL was fighting back," then "UBL was 'reaching for something'" (my favorite quote from the PoPo just before they waste an unarmed suspect), then they just whacked him because he needed whacking. Which one? Who cares. The have been BSing us, which was my point, lost on the naive.

Eddie, Debka is a private security analysis service in Israel. They give interesting "alternate" view points on world events. Some say they are not so private. The truth probably lies in-between there too. Regardless, the views are interesting reading and usually eventually come out in other sources.

So now, it's the seal team that made the 'FINAL' call?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8493391/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-Blackout-during-raid-on-bin-Laden-compound.html

I don't really get the question about capturing Bin Laden. If the soldiers captured him, it just seems like they would have been at a much greater risk. They neutralized the threat. Did soldiers discuss politics with the Germans in WW2 on the battlefield? No, they exchanged polite gunfire.

Dr. Hess wrote: Some people are naive. They tend to vote D... The have been BSing us, which was my point, lost on the naive.

I've been here with you before. You have some points worth making, but are so quick to resort to name calling and school yard bullying that it makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about. Have confidence in your argument and make it. You're better than that.

Did "they" intentionally make it out like he posed some threat that he didn't? Well, yeah. That's not a revelation. "They" admitted it. They held a press conference and said so. It was on CNN, but I'm sure some more exotic, alternative news sources reported it too. I don't know how they feel about it in Pakistan, but over here, doesn't look like anyone cares. I know I don't.

Look at your post. You call me naive, then you say everything they told us is a lie... except for the parts that weren't... which was pretty much all of it. It just sounds like sour grapes.

Leave it to the NY Post to have a quote from Bin Laden's ice cream man

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/beast_hid_in_plain_sight_0S5yoaYHG48MrkwWw6V5iO#ixzz1LSMquXJb

"If a ball went into bin Laden's compound, the children would not be allowed to get it," ice-cream man Tanvir Ahmed told The Australian. "They were given money instead -- 100-150 rupees [$2-$3] per ball."

Wally wrote: Leave it to the NY Post to have a quote from Bin Laden's ice cream man Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/beast_hid_in_plain_sight_0S5yoaYHG48MrkwWw6V5iO#ixzz1LSMquXJb

"If a ball went into bin Laden's compound, the children would not be allowed to get it," ice-cream man Tanvir Ahmed told The Australian. "They were given money instead -- 100-150 rupees [$2-$3] per ball."

LOL seems like it would be easier/cheaper just to throw the ball back.

carzan wrote:

Wally wrote: Leave it to the NY Post to have a quote from Bin Laden's ice cream man Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/beast_hid_in_plain_sight_0S5yoaYHG48MrkwWw6V5iO#ixzz1LSMquXJb

"If a ball went into bin Laden's compound, the children would not be allowed to get it," ice-cream man Tanvir Ahmed told The Australian. "They were given money instead -- 100-150 rupees [$2-$3] per ball."

LOL seems like it would be easier/cheaper just to throw the ball back.

I would have been the richest kid on that street!

Is it a coinkidink that hitler dies on the same date?

Dang look at that, my tinfoil hat is all dusty.

Dr. Hess wrote: Some people are naive. They tend to vote D. "Vote for me for Hope and Change." Uh-huh. Shall we list what didn't change? Regardless, here's how you can tell a politician is lying: Their lips are moving.

Way to wax politically. I am not a D or an R. Or at T. And you are right, ALL politicians are liars. Even the ones with Rs. Why? Because there is no money in being truthful, and everyone is out to get anyone that doesn't say everything with perfect political correctness.

D is > than R!! R is > than D!!! Both are wrong. There is a thing called a middle ground where, I am sure, quite a few of us reside. Unfortunately, because of the damn Ds and Rs, and Ts, we don't get to have a voice. I get so sick all the freaking finger pointing. GROW UP!

Rant off.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I guess I just don't think it's a big deal. Actually, I guess I don't think it's a small deal. I just think it's silly. Obama didn't say anything about a human shield or bin Laden being armed. One guy did. And pretty darn fast, the White House got out and said "no, that's not what happened". Sounds like they trying to tell it as clearly as they can. Not really a cluck of any kind, fluster or otherwise.

Eddie, it is indeed, silly. We're playing ping pong-semantics with our descriptions. My f-cluck vs. your no-big-deal = Business As Usual.

When something momentous occurs, every WH spin doctor presents a narrative that suits the current resident's purposes. As always, it's the "other" accounts that are problematic.

It's happened before, it's happening now and it WILL happen again.

Just sayin'.