- Posts: 26560
- Thank you received: 150
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Care to point to anything, anything, in the article you linked to that says there was a high probability that al Zawahri would be in attendance? Oh, that's right, you can't - because you either made that up or "interpreted" it into being there. Fact is, the probability estimate is entirely absent from the article, isn't it. Your entire premise - that we know who wouldn't have gone after bin Laden - is a thinly veiled, and entirely transparent because the veil is so thin, speculation fueled by partisan hyperbole.Something the Dog Said wrote: 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.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Haven't seen even one conservative fail to give Obama recognition for giving the go ahead on the mission - not a single one. Haven't seen even one conservative fail to give him credit for making that decision. To a person they have applauded the decision and agreed with it. What I have seen them take issue with was the claim that it carried vast political risks for him by correctly pointing out that the alternative to making the decision he did, not giving the go ahead when Usama's location was known, had far more political risks than the decision to proceed did. Doesn't diminish the decision or the effects of that decision, it just rationally and reasonably notes that the decision he made carried fewer political risks for him than not proceeding would have even if the mission was unsuccessful.Kate wrote: 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".
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
PrintSmith wrote:
Care to point to anything, anything, in the article you linked to that says there was a high probability that al Zawahri would be in attendance? Oh, that's right, you can't - because you either made that up or "interpreted" it into being there. Fact is, the probability estimate is entirely absent from the article, isn't it. Your entire premise - that we know who wouldn't have gone after bin Laden - is a thinly veiled, and entirely transparent because the veil is so thin, speculation fueled by partisan hyperbole.Something the Dog Said wrote: 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.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Perhaps you could provide your backup to your assertion that the raid was scrubbed due to the lack of confidence that Zawahri was there? Hmm? Or did you "lie" about that too? Hmm?PrintSmith wrote: What is an "unusually high confidence level" derived from communication intercepts Dog? Is 50% confidence unusually high? 60%? 80%? Does it indicate a 90+% confidence level? The term remains undefined, even in the NYT article (thank you for the link by the way). I'm sure the the intelligence officials can quantify what an "unusually high confidence level" means, but that information still isn't in the article Fact of the matter, according to the Times article in the sentence immediately preceding the portion you quoted, two years after the meeting took place they still don't know that he attended the meeting, right? About a dozen of them were interviewed for the article and not a single one of them, according to the article written 2 years later, knows whether or not al Zawahri was actually there at the meeting, right?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
PrintSmith wrote: What is an "unusually high confidence level" derived from communication intercepts Dog? Is 50% confidence unusually high? 60%? 80%? Does it indicate a 90+% confidence level? The term remains undefined, even in the NYT article (thank you for the link by the way). I'm sure the the intelligence officials can quantify what an "unusually high confidence level" means, but that information still isn't in the article Fact of the matter, according to the Times article in the sentence immediately preceding the portion you quoted, two years after the meeting took place they still don't know that he attended the meeting, right? About a dozen of them were interviewed for the article and not a single one of them, according to the article written 2 years later, knows whether or not al Zawahri was actually there at the meeting, right?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.