ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on May 3, 2011 10:38:40 GMT -5
For those who told me to shut up, why is the president going to Ground Zero except for political advantage? I've posted twice congratulating the president for a job well done and I meant that. He authorized the mission and was in the loop throughout and it produced the head of Bin Laden. But now it seems Obama wants it all to be about him. He seems to want his Mission Accomplished moment. And, no I would not feel differently if it were Bush so stop trying to read my thoughts. Bush should not have flown on that aircraft carrier but, instead, he should merely have heralded what the troops had accomplished in removing Sadam Hussein. I personally have no problem with it, as long as it doesn't turn into a rah rah pep rally. Of course, the type of crowd will play a big role on that, since it could be all yelling/cheering or a more somber remembrance. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 3, 2011 11:01:44 GMT -5
On September 14, 2001, as the FDNY and a huge group of volunteers continued to remove remains from Ground Zero. President Bush grabbed a bullhorn and gave what was the best speech of his Presidency. He did so to raucous cheers (and without the political armchairing that we now see in certain conservative circles), not far from Ground Zero, as mourners grieved and families continued to pray for miracles. I have been reminded of this speech over the past few days, and it is well worth a watch.
And it should be remembered that nobody criticized this pep rally, and no significant conservative criticized any return visit to Ground Zero when conservative pundits often discussed a "bounce" for Bush around 9/11 every year.
|
|
CAHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by CAHoya07 on May 3, 2011 12:29:36 GMT -5
For those who told me to shut up, why is the president going to Ground Zero except for political advantage? I did not tell you to shut up, because I actually didn't really have a problem with what you said. I think people tend to jump on you based on what you said in the past. But anyways, I think the president could be going to Ground Zero to honor the more than 2,000 that died there, in the wake of the man resonsible for those deaths being brought to justice and killed himself. And I have no problem with that whatsoever. Nor would I if it were a Republican president. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2011 12:33:06 GMT -5
Wait a minute...there's a politician doing something for political advantage?
For shame, Mr. President. For shame...
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 3, 2011 12:45:51 GMT -5
On September 14, 2001, as the FDNY and a huge group of volunteers continued to remove remains from Ground Zero. President Bush grabbed a bullhorn and gave what was the best speech of his Presidency. He did so to raucous cheers (and without the political armchairing that we now see in certain conservative circles), not far from Ground Zero, as mourners grieved and families continued to pray for miracles. I have been reminded of this speech over the past few days, and it is well worth a watch. And it should be remembered that nobody criticized this pep rally, and no significant conservative criticized any return visit to Ground Zero when conservative pundits often discussed a "bounce" for Bush around 9/11 every year. I hope you can see the difference between Bush's visit and Obama's. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on May 3, 2011 12:54:22 GMT -5
On September 14, 2001, as the FDNY and a huge group of volunteers continued to remove remains from Ground Zero. President Bush grabbed a bullhorn and gave what was the best speech of his Presidency. He did so to raucous cheers (and without the political armchairing that we now see in certain conservative circles), not far from Ground Zero, as mourners grieved and families continued to pray for miracles. I have been reminded of this speech over the past few days, and it is well worth a watch. And it should be remembered that nobody criticized this pep rally, and no significant conservative criticized any return visit to Ground Zero when conservative pundits often discussed a "bounce" for Bush around 9/11 every year. I hope you can see the difference between Bush's visit and Obama's. He can't. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 3, 2011 13:15:48 GMT -5
I do see the difference between the two visits, among many that presidents have made and the many that were referenced in my post. I'll let you sort out what you believe to be politically correct and not.
I know you've provided political guidance on that in the past, including when a group of Muslims sought to construct a worship center or whatever it was. I hope they'll be welcomed at tomorrow's ceremony at Ground Zero.
|
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on May 3, 2011 13:31:56 GMT -5
Yet again, a thread that should be about a topic that all people with a shred of common sense can agree on is turned into a political slapfight. Pretty ridiculous.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on May 3, 2011 13:39:46 GMT -5
For those who told me to shut up, why is the president going to Ground Zero except for political advantage? I've posted twice congratulating the president for a job well done and I meant that. He authorized the mission and was in the loop throughout and it produced the head of Bin Laden. But now it seems Obama wants it all to be about him. He seems to want his Mission Accomplished moment. And, no I would not feel differently if it were Bush so stop trying to read my thoughts. Bush should not have flown on that aircraft carrier but, instead, he should merely have heralded what the troops had accomplished in removing Sadam Hussein. I personally have no problem with it, as long as it doesn't turn into a rah rah pep rally. Of course, the type of crowd will play a big role on that, since it could be all yelling/cheering or a more somber remembrance. Let's bring the Royal Wedding into this. The best argument for a monarchy is that they perform the head of state function as well as head of government. Very few countries make one person the same guy who proposes the budget and who welcomes the Packers to the White House. Bringing bin Laden to justice demands, in my opinion, some acknowledgement by the head of state. In my - admittedly biased - viewpoint, it's the ultimate "**** You" moment - standing at Ground Zero, with construction in the background, and essentially saying "we're still here, you S.O.B., and we always get our man." I'm OK with Obama doing that. The issue, as always, is the tone of the event. However, as he's the president, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 3, 2011 13:46:28 GMT -5
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/03/bin-laden-will-wives-childrenAs historians will no doubt analyze Bin Laden's psyche and background (Brooks spilled some ink on this earlier this week), the last will of Bin Laden will undoubtedly be combed over extensively. Some interesting insights already in the link and maybe some insufficient grace from Bin Laden himself.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on May 3, 2011 13:49:53 GMT -5
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/03/bin-laden-will-wives-childrenAs historians will no doubt analyze Bin Laden's psyche and background (Brooks spilled some ink on this earlier this week), the last will of Bin Laden will undoubtedly be combed over extensively. Some interesting insights already in the link and maybe some insufficient grace from Bin Laden himself. Hoo boy. What a great guy this one is. He's OK with other people getting their kids killed, but not with his own. What a piece of scum. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 3, 2011 14:03:41 GMT -5
Wait a minute...there's a politician doing something for political advantage? Damn. I had written this whole long post and then I accidentally hit backspace. In lieu of rewriting that whole thing, I'll just say: "pretty much this." ^^^^^ |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on May 3, 2011 20:47:46 GMT -5
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on May 3, 2011 21:14:12 GMT -5
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on May 3, 2011 23:09:34 GMT -5
Tbird, just so you know, when Stummer posted above as follows: Yet again, a thread that should be about a topic that all people with a shred of common sense can agree on is turned into a political slapfight. Pretty ridiculous. He was actually suggesting we make this thread A-Political, not MORE Political. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on May 3, 2011 23:15:03 GMT -5
I think one thing that's been underplayed in the news coverage is how *incredibly* risky that operation was. On one hand, it seems like the easiest decision a President could make - you know where Bin Laden is, so you order the attack. But think about it for a second. You have American troops flying into Pakistan without the Pakistanis' knowledge, not far from the Pakistan-India border and near a major Pakistani military base. You have two choppers, one of which wasn't able to return. You have good intel, but intel is never perfect, and you're operating in a residential area. Oh yeah, and the guy you're going after probably has some fanatically devoted and top-notch bodyguards. The potential for this operation to go badly wrong was pretty high, and the fallout from a fiasco would have been monumental. For starters, you'd have American troops on the ground in Pakistan for no good reason (at least publicly). The best case scenario would have been for the Americans to be captured without a fight, and that scenario is a total nightmare. It's only the best case scenario because the only other possibility would have been a firefight with the Pakistani military, which would have resulted in major casualties on both sides. The fallout from that would have made Desert One or the CIA contractor shooting in Lahore look like nothing. President Obama deserves HUGE credit for having the balls to order the strike, and the soldiers that carried it out deserve even more credit for executing it to absolute perfection. It was the ultimate high risk, high reward operation, and the extraordinary skills of our soldiers meant that we got all the reward with none of the downside. Bravo, bravo, bravo! Apparently Obama had the choice to order a B-2 airstrike with guided bombs to totally obliterate the compound, but he chose the special forces strike because he knew we had to have indisputable proof that we had killed Osama Bin Laden. I think today's rumors and such have proven that to be the right choice. Stig - I agree with you that Obama made the right call for a special forces strike rather than a B2 strike. Especially for the potential to obtain a treasure trove of intelligence. I hope he (and us) are rewarded with multiple announcements of cells disrupted, leaders arrested/terminated and money pathways rolled up. That I think would be a great reward for the risk. As you correctly point out the risk was of the seals getting into a fight with the Packistani military or police during the invasion given that we didn't tell them we were coming. But since there has been a lot of talk about a lot of conspiracy theories I would like to add to the list for fun. How did we land somewhere between 2 and 4 helicopters less than a mile from a major military base in a residential neighborhood, crash one and blow it up, have a major fire fight and still have the ability to spend 38 minutes on the ground gathering bodies and every piece of electronics in the place before taking off - and still have no police or military come to investigate in that 38 minute period? Unless they had been warned or convinced to stay away? If anyone remembers Arsinio, it is just one of those things that makes you go Hmmmm?? ;D At the least it is better speculation than worrying about whether Obama is grandstanding by going to Ground Zero.  |
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on May 3, 2011 23:25:50 GMT -5
But since there has been a lot of talk about a lot of conspiracy theories I would like to add to the list for fun. How did we land somewhere between 2 and 4 helicopters less than a mile from a major military base in a residential neighborhood, crash one and blow it up, have a major fire fight and still have the ability to spend 38 minutes on the ground gathering bodies and every piece of electronics in the place before taking off - and still have no police or military come to investigate in that 38 minute period? Unless they had been warned or convinced to stay away? I've been thinking about that too. How about the 40 minutes it took? So there were only two other male casualties? You mean, there wasn't any other security, only two males got shot, and it STILL took 40 minutes? My only conclusion is, There is a LOT we DON'T know about this operation, and probably never will. And that's OK. |
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on May 3, 2011 23:35:49 GMT -5
But since there has been a lot of talk about a lot of conspiracy theories I would like to add to the list for fun. How did we land somewhere between 2 and 4 helicopters less than a mile from a major military base in a residential neighborhood, crash one and blow it up, have a major fire fight and still have the ability to spend 38 minutes on the ground gathering bodies and every piece of electronics in the place before taking off - and still have no police or military come to investigate in that 38 minute period? Unless they had been warned or convinced to stay away? I've been thinking about that too. How about the 40 minutes it took? So there were only two other male casualties? You mean, there wasn't any other security, only two males got shot, and it STILL took 40 minutes? My only conclusion is, There is a LOT we DON'T know about this operation, and probably never will. And that's OK. They also secured a lot of intelligence from the compound. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on May 4, 2011 7:37:25 GMT -5
But since there has been a lot of talk about a lot of conspiracy theories I would like to add to the list for fun. How did we land somewhere between 2 and 4 helicopters less than a mile from a major military base in a residential neighborhood, crash one and blow it up, have a major fire fight and still have the ability to spend 38 minutes on the ground gathering bodies and every piece of electronics in the place before taking off - and still have no police or military come to investigate in that 38 minute period? Unless they had been warned or convinced to stay away? I've been thinking about that too. How about the 40 minutes it took? So there were only two other male casualties? You mean, there wasn't any other security, only two males got shot, and it STILL took 40 minutes? My only conclusion is, There is a LOT we DON'T know about this operation, and probably never will. And that's OK. 1. Pakistan apparently was warned just before the mission. That may have answered the question about the military/police intervening. Separately, if the Pakistanis were complicit and knew where bin Laden was hiding, I'd doubt that they'd want to draw a line in the sand on this. Finally, in third world countries, police don't show up immediately and they may not have been called (note that the tweeter didn't call the cops). A town with a military presence may have had its residents assume that something military was involved with helicopters, and had other parts of the military assume that other parts were doing things without coordinating. 2. Try out this timetable (yes, some parts bleed from one to the other - they probably did forensics as they were searching). Leave the helicopter - 2 minutes. Blow up the helicopter - 5 minutes. Perform raid, kill bin Laden - 5 minutes. Perform forensics on body to confirm it's bin Laden - 5 minutes. Search for everything that's not nailed down - 20 minutes. Board the helicopter - 3 minutes. The raid of five minutes is a wild guess. Depending on where bin Laden was relative to where the helicopter was, it could have taken a minute or two to get to the building, climb steps if necessary, and perform a firefight - all while moving carefully. This isn't Call of Duty - if you die here, you don't restart from your last checkpoint, so these guys get one shot and have to balance speed with risk. While the number of people resisting was limited, the SEALs never knew that - one person could have been hiding and waiting to blow them all up with an IED. The grabbing of the key data usually takes a lot longer in house searches, especially when the Pakistani police/military will contaminate the area eventually - honestly, for raiding bin Laden's hideout, searching for forensics/evidence/hard drives could take an hour or two, just to make sure you miss nothing. It also needs to include remembering that any searches have to be prefaced on the presumptionthat there are at least some booby traps. Given that, twenty minutes is gut-wrenchingly short. |
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on May 4, 2011 9:12:18 GMT -5
Idiotic of Brennan or anyone else to have ever suggested that bin laden was using a woman as a human shield (which instantly sounded false to my ears at the time- just smelled too much of Hollywood/cartoon bad guy), was armed and actively resisting, or to suggest that he ever really had a chance to surrender with his brains intact. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid to set that stage, which needed no set-dressing, only to have to crawl it back down later, which was highly predictable given the fact that photos/videos/witnesses remained.
There was never any need at all to frame it this way. It was and SHOULD have been a kill operation, period. I don't care if bin laden was caring for orphan puppies at the time of the raid, he should have been executed as soon as identified. Why make up facts that can so easily be disproven and in the process generate so much doubt among the moronic masses? It doesn't matter if he was armed or waving a white flag. Whoever made that stupid decision to sex up the circumstances, which needed NO sexing up, is a moron, and inadvertently (but predictably) has somewhat sullied the enormous achievement of the administration, DEVGRU, and CIA.
|
|
