Would YOU have ordered strike on bin Laden?

Allies can change. At one time, we were supplying OBL with training and weapons to harass the Soviets.

I don't think there's many people who would not have ordered the execution.

Yes, over history, there are numerous instances of Presidents of both parties missing opportunities to
kill OBL - both before and after the attacks of 9/11.

Give credit where it's due

---

Obama killed Osama ---- congratulations --- you're the big man Barack.

That said, OBL's death doesn't make America a safer place (I'd say the same thing regardless
of who lives on Pennsylvania Ave in Washington, DC). If you feel that it does, you're fooling yourself.

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.

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.

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".

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.

PrintSmith wrote:

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.

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.

Gee, you are really getting sad. The original article which I did read, stated that:
"But they said that the United States had communications intercepts that tipped them off to the meeting and that intelligence officials had unusually high confidence that Zawahiri was there."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/world ... 47489.html

Do you really want to keep embarrassing yourself? You are the one who made the claim that the mission was scrubbed because they were not sure that Zawahiri was there, when in fact, there was nothing to indicate that as a reason at all. Who is dishonest? The plain fact is that bin Laden was not a priority for the previous administration, as they have admitted, they did not put the resources into finding him, and were more concerned with relations with Pakistan than eliminating the operational command of Al quaeda.

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?

Some posts from this thread have been split out and moved here: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href=" 285bound.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=19773 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=29&t=19773<!-- l -->

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?

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?

LOL You guys crack me up. High confidence , unusally high confidence .....bla bla bla. That is all flag officer speak for I do not want to get blamed for something that will cost me a promotion.

At the end of the day the CNC has to decide who do I hire Grant or McCellan.

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?