Would YOU have ordered strike on bin Laden?

I also see that 3 of you conservative wimps wouldn't even have ordered the strike. WIMPS!!!

Interesting polling results. Looks like all the lefties here haven't voted. Hopefully they won't vote this coming Novemeber either.

The logical fallacy is plain to see Dog. You are trying to establish what the previous administration would have done if presented the same opportunity as the Obama administration was based upon what they did when they had the opportunity to get someone other than Usama. The second or third in command isn't the head honcho. Passing up an opportunity to get Dick Cheney or Speaker Pelosi isn't on the same plane as passing up an opportunity to get President Bush. It might not be worth disrupting relations with a foreign nation to get the VP while more than worth the same possibility to get the President. How much do you think was lost when Kennedy was shot, or Lincoln? Would we have been as damaged if Oswald had targeted LBJ and Booth had taken out Andrew Johnson? That's your fallacy Dog - it requires speculation on what might have happened under different circumstances than the ones which were present. You don't know that Bush and Rumsfeld would have cancelled the mission if they knew that Usama was going to be there, you don't even know that they would have cancelled the mission if they suspected he might be there. All that you do know is that they cancelled a mission where it was known Usama wouldn't be there and you are trying to use that to prove they would have cancelled the mission if they knew he would be there. To call your fantasy a fallacy is being kind.

PrintSmith wrote: The logical fallacy is plain to see Dog. You are trying to establish what the previous administration would have done if presented the same opportunity as the Obama administration was based upon what they did when they had the opportunity to get someone other than Usama. The second or third in command isn't the head honcho. Passing up an opportunity to get Dick Cheney or Speaker Pelosi isn't on the same plane as passing up an opportunity to get President Bush. It might not be worth disrupting relations with a foreign nation to get the VP while more than worth the same possibility to get the President. How much do you think was lost when Kennedy was shot, or Lincoln? Would we have been as damaged if Oswald had targeted LBJ and Booth had taken out Andrew Johnson? That's your fallacy Dog - it requires speculation on what might have happened under different circumstances than the ones which were present. You don't know that Bush and Rumsfeld would have cancelled the mission if they knew that Usama was going to be there, you don't even know that they would have cancelled the mission if they suspected he might be there. All that you do know is that they cancelled a mission where it was known Usama wouldn't be there and you are trying to use that to prove they would have cancelled the mission if they knew he would be there. To call your fantasy a fallacy is being kind.

Making up your own facts again. This was not akin to the VP vs. the Prez, but more like General Petraeus vs. the Prez. If you pass on taking out the operational command because you are afraid of offending the sensibilities of Pakistan, you certainly would pass on taking out the symbolic head, unless you are doing so solely for political reasons. How many lives would be saved had the operational command been eliminated? Stretching your fantasies about Oswald and Booth, and you are attacking my reasoning? Comparing the operational command of the enemy to Biden is quite dishonest, is it not?

Are you really saying that the operational command of Al Quaeda was simply a minor target?

And I should care about the opinions of leftists because . . . . . . . .

Discussion requires clarity Sheldon. I could simply call Dog a liar and be done with it, but how does that advance the dialog? I know that the leftist elements here are only interested in drive-by postings and practicing the politics of personal destruction (as evidenced by your most recent offering), but I happen to think that reasoned discussion is a much better means of communicating, don't you?

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.

Really... Yeah, lessee in 1999, that ol' WTC attack was... Oh, wait...That happened on Bush's watch--after he ignored the intelligence that he was planning an attack on us... Sorry, my bad... :can't hear

None of the options apply to me...and I am unaware of the exact circumstances surrounding ordering this strike, as I surmise are most Americans...so until or unless I knew the "whole story", I'm not making a decision.

I do not believe though that the world is a worse place 'cuz OBL is gone from it.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Making up your own facts again. This was not akin to the VP vs. the Prez, but more like General Petraeus vs. the Prez. If you pass on taking out the operational command because you are afraid of offending the sensibilities of Pakistan, you certainly would pass on taking out the symbolic head, unless you are doing so solely for political reasons. How many lives would be saved had the operational command been eliminated? Stretching your fantasies about Oswald and Booth, and you are attacking my reasoning? Comparing the operational command of the enemy to Biden is quite dishonest, is it not?

Are you really saying that the operational command of Al Quaeda was simply a minor target?

No, I'm saying that risk reward figures into military decisions just as it does with business ones. Let's look at a few of the statements from the op-ed you provided earlier along with your flawed conclusions that were derived from them, shall we?

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.

The intelligence officials referenced didn't know[/i] that the assembled leaders would include al-Zawahri like the intelligence officials knew[/i] that the compound contained Usama. Your statements to the contrary are therefore little more than additional lies you are serially telling in the hopes that they will be somehow changed into truth.

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.

Does this sound like a political decision to you? Sounds like Rumsfeld was more concerned with the men and women he was commanding to me. If Rumsfeld knew[/i] that al-Zawarhi was there might he have made a different decision? Calls for speculation, doesn't it - and speaking of speculation:

How many lives would be saved had the operational command been eliminated?

There is no answering this purely speculative question as it isn't an established fact that the senior operational commander was going to be there at all - only that it was thought he might be there. Now, you may, in your partisan hyperbolic state, think it worth disrupting already frayed relations, not to mention putting the hundreds of lives of military personnel on the line, in the hope that an operational commander thought to be included in the meeting was actually going to be attending the meeting, but that is a far cry from knowing[/i] that he would be attending the meeting and knowing[/i] that lives could be saved by taking the risk. Obama knew[/i] that Usama was inside that compound when he gave the go ahead on that mission. Do you think he would have made the same decision if it was thought that he was inside that compound? Calls for speculation on a different set of facts than the ones that were present, as does your entire argument here by the way.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Making up your own facts again. This was not akin to the VP vs. the Prez, but more like General Petraeus vs. the Prez. If you pass on taking out the operational command because you are afraid of offending the sensibilities of Pakistan, you certainly would pass on taking out the symbolic head, unless you are doing so solely for political reasons. How many lives would be saved had the operational command been eliminated? Stretching your fantasies about Oswald and Booth, and you are attacking my reasoning? Comparing the operational command of the enemy to Biden is quite dishonest, is it not?

Are you really saying that the operational command of Al Quaeda was simply a minor target?

No, I'm saying that risk reward figures into military decisions just as it does with business ones. Let's look at a few of the statements from the op-ed you provided earlier along with your flawed conclusions that were derived from them, shall we?

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.

The intelligence officials referenced didn't know[/i] that the assembled leaders would include al-Zawahri like the intelligence officials knew[/i] that the compound contained Usama. Your statements to the contrary are therefore little more than additional lies you are serially telling in the hopes that they will be somehow changed into truth.

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.

Does this sound like a political decision to you? Sounds like Rumsfeld was more concerned with the men and women he was commanding to me. If Rumsfeld knew[/i] that al-Zawarhi was there might he have made a different decision? Calls for speculation, doesn't it - and speaking of speculation:

How many lives would be saved had the operational command been eliminated?

There is no answering this purely speculative question as it isn't an established fact that the senior operational commander was going to be there at all - only that it was thought he might be there. Now, you may, in your partisan hyperbolic state, think it worth disrupting already frayed relations, not to mention putting the hundreds of lives of military personnel on the line, in the hope that an operational commander thought to be included in the meeting was actually going to be attending the meeting, but that is a far cry from knowing[/i] that he would be attending the meeting and knowing[/i] that lives could be saved by taking the risk. Obama knew[/i] that Usama was inside that compound when he gave the go ahead on that mission. Do you think he would have made the same decision if it was thought that he was inside that compound? Calls for speculation on a different set of facts than the ones that were present, as does your entire argument here by the way.

Cutting selective quotes in an attempt to mislead is quite dishonest would you not agree?

Did not Rumsfield also state in the linked article that " 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." Yet you chose to ignore that quote.

And to pretend that since the intellegence only indicated a high probability that the operational command was present, that is a valid reason to scrub the mission, particularly when Rumsfield indicated that he did not want to upset Pakistan.

So who is being dishonest here, someone who makes up allegations and then calls someone a liar based on those allegations, which did not exist to begin with, someone who selectively takes quotes out of the context of their surrounding statements, or is this simply more of the conservative playbook. Keep digging, your attempts at character assassination is pretty pathetic. You used to be able to at least make a passable argument but now you are really falling into the mire.

CritiKalbILL wrote:

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.

Let me see if I have this straight. Conservatives blame Clinton for not killing bin Laden, yet will not say that Obama killed bin Laden? Which is it? You can't blame one and then not give the other the "blame".