Would YOU have ordered strike on bin Laden?

Yes - I would order the attack --- no, I don't think made the world a safer place.

Kill one nut case --- there's a dozen waiting to take his place.

Politically, I don't think there's a lot of choice in the matter.

Yes, it's good that OBAMA took him out, after Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld let him escape from Tora Bora into Pakistan...

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Well, we know who would have not ordered strike on bin Laden!

A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.

The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group’s operations.

But the mission was called off after Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, rejected an 11th-hour appeal by Porter J. Goss, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, officials said. Members of a Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was canceled, said a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning.

Mr. Rumsfeld decided that the operation, which had ballooned from a small number of military personnel and C.I.A. operatives to several hundred, was cumbersome and put too many American lives at risk, the current and former officials said. He was also concerned that it could cause a rift with Pakistan, an often reluctant ally that has barred the American military from operating in its tribal areas, the officials said.

The decision to halt the planned “snatch and grab” operation frustrated some top intelligence officials and members of the military’s secret Special Operations units, who say the United States missed a significant opportunity to try to capture senior members of Al Qaeda.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012 ... 22287.html

Must have missed it in the story - I didn't see a single sentence that says Rumsfeld, or Bush for that matter, called off an operation to snatch and grab Usama bin Laden. Lying like a dog again Dog? Calling off a snatch-n-grab to get a "senior member of Al Qaeda" isn't the equivalent of calling off a mission targeting the HMIC himself. More disinformation is all the left has got here?

Where did I state the mission was for bin Laden? The article was cited for the admission that the Republican administration was more concerned with the sensibilities of Pakistan than with dealing a crippling blow to the very entity that was responsible for the death of thousands of American lives. Really, you want to keep making accusations of lying about something that I never said? Who is bearing false witness here?

bailey bud wrote: Yes - I would order the attack --- no, I don't think made the world a safer place.

Kill one nut case --- there's a dozen waiting to take his place.

Politically, I don't think there's a lot of choice in the matter.

True, but it seemed like the people taking his place aren't nearly as competent, or maybe OBL was just lucky hitting a target that was unprepared.

Listening to Fox News release some of OBL's messages, he was also concerned that some of the copy cat terrorist organizations were killing too many innocents and failing in their goals to get the people on thier side. Was Osama learning compassion in his old age?

Something the Dog Said wrote: Well, we know who would have not ordered strike on bin Laden!

Someone else posting under your nic these days Dog? That was you who posted that statement, right? So what you are trying to do is equate going after Usama with going after any of the senior members of Al Qaeda, right? You are trying to use the example of calling off a mission aimed at getting someone other than Usama and offer that up as support for your premise that it means the same decision would have been made if it had been Usama.

Is there anyone out there who wants to inform Dog of the logical fallacy he has committed here, or shall I do it?

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Well, we know who would have not ordered strike on bin Laden!

Someone else posting under your nic these days Dog? That was you who posted that statement, right? So what you are trying to do is equate going after Usama with going after any of the senior members of Al Qaeda, right? You are trying to use the example of calling off a mission aimed at getting someone other than Usama and offer that up as support for your premise that it means the same decision would have been made if it had been Usama.

Is there anyone out there who wants to inform Dog of the logical fallacy he has committed here, or shall I do it?

No fallacy here. You are unable to back up your accusation that I stated that the Republican administration failed to attack bin Laden in that instance, because I did not make that statement. You can call names and throw hissy fits, but the facts are the facts. It was clear from my posting that the Bush administration was more concerned with the sensibilities of Pakistan than with striking a crippling blow against the enemies of the US. While you can contort and make up allegations, the facts are the facts. If the Bush administration would not strike against the operational heads of the enemy, why would they strike against the symbolic head? Unless you are willing to assert that the Bush administration would only do so for political gain while allowing those actually killing Americans to go free?

come on - let's stop with the blame game.

Clinton missed an opportunity to kill OBL in 1999.

He was in the crosshairs - but there was concern about the UAE royals.

LadyJazzer wrote: Yes, it's good that OBAMA took him out, after Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld let him escape from Tora Bora into Pakistan...

Saying that OBAMA took him out is an insult to the people who actually did. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld were not part of the actual ground operation. That's like saying Obama is reponsible for the attacks just after her left Afghanistan. But don't let facts get in the way of your faux logic.

bailey bud wrote: come on - let's stop with the blame game.

Clinton missed an opportunity to kill OBL in 1999.

He was in the crosshairs - but there was concern about the UAE royals.

Yes, more facts that conveniently get ignored.

The outrage from the right over Obama's big win is almost hilarious! Don't wind up in the hospital with all of those contortions - you may not have Obamacare to pay for it after you're buyoff of the Supremes!!