Two misc thoughts.

Although I do believe we got UBL, is it beyond belief that we captured him and brought him back to alive and are interrogating him now? Obviously an explosive power keg if ever made public but worth the risk?

Some news pundits (e.g. Fox) stressing that the harse interrogation tactics helped find UBL. Although I do not believe there is a necessarily a direct relationship (and knowing I would spill the beans under torture), isn't there some semblance of truth to ends justifies the means in extreme cases?

A host of folks on both sides of the aisle, including Rumsfeld, are saying torture did not lead to any of the intel in this case.

You expect them to say otherwise?

Why would Rummy, Graham, unnamed military and CIA sources, etc. lie?

Actually, Rumsfeld was on Hannity last night and I thought I heard otherwise. The word torture did not come up but the other set of euphemisms.

I'll try dig it up later.

I actually hope that the courier tracing was an elaborate front story they are putting out there. Seems that even though they got the big fish with it, it would be a very valuable way to get some other players. In reality, we have too many Americans who have this entitlement idea that they should be able to see evidence that really doesn't need to get released. I think the Bin Laden photos don't need to come out because they will likely do more harm than good. The crazy amount of conspiracy these days is sickening. Perhaps we do not have the most trustworthy government, however an alarming amount of the population is so blinded by conspiracy that they would argue that the sky isn't blue.

Sounds like a man wanting to say yes but knows its not prudent to do so.

Rumsfeld uncertain whether Bush policies helped find bin Laden - TheHill.com

I really don't care if UBL is dead or alive, or if he died 10 years ago (as I have heard some conspiracy theorists spew out). As long as he is in our custody or in one of our coffins, I am satisfied.

If he is secretly alive and in custody, I hope I never find out about it. Its one of those things I just don't need to know.

It's not ... the government uses planes to paint the sky blue so it positively affects our psychology and we turn into better consumers.

Attachment 2891

I sure hope no terrorists suffered any temporary physical discomfort so that we could shoot Osama in the head.

I heard some stuff yesterday about whether or not Osama was holding a weapon at the time that we shot him. Does it really matter? The guy is the #1 target in a building with numerous guards. I believe the phrase "shoot first, ask questions later" has never had a better use.

Probably not, it just sounds like it was incorrectly reported at first, and the White House is setting the record straight.

Even if some of that initially incorrect information came from sources at/very near the White House (which I believe to be the case, based on summaries of the discrepancies I read last night) I'm inclined to consider them as largely excusable for both the sources and the reporters.

Just as no plan survives contact with the enemy completely intact, infrequently do initial incomplete accounts of incidents completely match the version complied upon more thorough review. Heat of the moment & all that.

A couple of things do bother me a little bit though, I'll throw them in here.

1) Why admit that he was unarmed? Makes me concerned that we may not have been the only ones filming the climatic moments. Did we miss a security tape somewhere, or at least are worried that we may have missed one? I'm not entirely comfortable with that revelation being made solely in the interest of accuracy, simply put, most people don't have need to know about that.

2) Along those same lines, a little tighter grasp on what should/shouldn't be released would have been nice. Lord knows, I'm not into making life easier for Obama, but was it really necessary to mention the code name used to identify OBL? And to give someone something to bitch about in the process?
C'mon people, think a little bit before opening your yap. Beyond a few publicity seekers, no one gained anything from mentioning "Geronimo", so why even go there. That kind of lack of foresight is mostly harmless this time, but I'd prefer that people "in the know" not develop a habit of giving away things they shouldn't, could be a problem in a different situation if you used the same shitty judgment.

I hope that we didn't lower ourselves to the standards of our enemies in an attempt to defeat our enemies. It sounds like we didn't, and for that I am glad.

One could say we "lowered" ourselves by assassinating an unarmed man without trial (and invaded a sovereign country to do it.) I just think the dichotomy is amusing. Obviously violence against terrorists is accepted by almost everyone, and yet sleep deprivation techniques against terrorists are considered abhorrent. (There's obviously a completely seperate, and real concern about the actual effectiveness of "enhanced interrogation") Torture's bad (especially if there's no interrogation aim to it), but a lot of the interrogation techniques I've read about don't really seem all that significant compared to say - locking someone up forever. We just have a special enhanced sensivity to physical discomfort - somehow life in prison is considered more humane than 10 lashes with a singapore cane or something. In this country, we can lock someone up forever for dealing drugs, but if the prison guard shoves him to the ground - the latter is a gross abuse of authority, the latter is the thing that offends our souls.

I agree with your points here. It's like these schmucks all have diarrhea of the mouth. At least they aren't going to release the photos.

They probably should have just stuck by the intial reports, but they might be trying to correct the earlier statements because of not just the possibility of "other footage" (they were only there 40 minutes, and a little busy to boot. No telling what might be in Pakistan's hands right now that was missed), but they deffinitely left behind eye witnesses from the compound. You already have a daughter that was there claiming he was captured, then shot (not very credible considering the wounds. It would have been two in the back of the head in that case), but the others might have seen more and be a more credible witness.

Reuters has pics released from a Pakistani official of three dead men killed in the assault.

Didn't the CIA director already explain that the intent of the mission was to kill Bin Laden? In that case, it really didn't matter whether he had a gun or not. That should really be the end of that concern.

I don't really mind the WH coming being somewhat chaotic about what info they were putting out...and then correcting it. It doesn't all sound pre-scripted and in my eyes, makes it more honest/believable.

After the Tillman and Lynch fables I think DoD and the White House are pretty sensitive to getting correct info out. The truth eventually comes out and it looks better if it appears there is nothing to hide.

Yes, they are learning how to behave in a 24/7 video camera, facebook world. You simply can't bullshit as much as you used to. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there is plenty of bullshit flying around, we are just getting better at it.

So how bout those republican challengers. Santorum? They still make that shit?

Isn't Santorum too busy trying to kill the National Weather Service to run for president?

I think one of the problems is that all these reports seem to mix what's coming out of Washington with "anonymouse sources inside whatever agency". So people read this, assume the whole thing is the truth, when in fact the "source" could be full of shit.

Pawlenty looks good.

He's gay.

If I get a Palin v. Trump televised debate I'll be happy.

Too bad we missed. It would have been one hell of a week.

U.S. Drone Strike in Yemen Reportedly Was Aimed at Radical Cleric Seen as Post-Bin Laden Threat - FoxNews.com

Lot of leaked information on all the details of the whole situation that has been let out. A little weird to me.

Looks like we have them on their heals. Hopefully the information they got is coming in handy.

I don't get why he made home videos, hope this takes him down a peg.

NYT: Bin Laden’s secret life in diminished world - World news - The New York Times - msnbc.com

Another article with more description and links to videos.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ack-Obama.html

LOL!!!

More libertarian minded tea partiers.

How disingenuous of you to post “Libertarian” before that article. You are well aware that the religious nuts that dominate a wing of the Republican Party have nothing to do with the Libertarians. And while many of their views may seem extreme to some they are definitely completely behind gay rights. You know you aren't that naive .

So can we finally agree that a big portion of the tea party are nothing more than the far right of the GOP?

I don't think many people ever argued with you did they? Rand Paul seems to be about the only libertarian voice that emerged from that "revolution". Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin are typical social conservatives speaking the new "buzzwords". Don't ever recall disagreeing with you on this topic but I am glad you somehow think that is what makes someone libertarian.

Maybe, let's also agree on what the far left is. Then we'll be getting somewhere. :)

Oversimplification IMO.

There's a chunk that seems to be a different strain of what you're referring to, one that looks at both social and economic issues & considers them in tandem

At the risk of handing out a comparison that someone might enjoy just a little too much, trying to pin much of anything on "The Tea Party" is like labeling 100s of different strains as "The Flu".

Who said this?


or this?


or this?

And the true libertarian camp from Ron Paul's 2008 presidential run (that referred to themselves as the TEA party) are far different than the group that claims to be the tea party now. I don't contradict that one bit in any of the quotes you dug up.

There was a time around here when any saying the tea party was mostly just a rebranding of the far right would lead to instant replies that saying so was slanderous to independents that were mostly concerned with fiscal discipline.

I am glad you think there is something more important than fiscal discipline. Try applying that principle to your personal life. Oh it doesn't ever work does it? Sadly there is still a large number of people who are starting to understand the economic problems of this country but don't also understand you can't control how others live, nor should you.

? Where did I say anything like that?

I think it was the other way around (or at least it was also the other way around), there was a time around here where expressing concern about government debt and government corruption would lead to one being labeled as a tea partier (funny hat wearing version). It's promising though that the fiscal solvency of our nation is no longer a fringe concern.

But isn't it a reasonable theory that all of that non-partisan, independent Ron Paul love early in the 2008 presidential campaign sparked the "tea party" movement, but then right wing republicans took that moniker and ran with it during an election season?

I mean, there was clearly some Ron Paul momentum, and there was clearly republicans wearing funny hats at tea party rallys - those weren't the same thing - either it was something separate, or it was an evolution/takeover.

Here's a little something that ties into the whole GOP vs TP and how they (may) fit together thing somewhere.

The linkage is from the Athens daily but the column is actual a pick up from the LA Times. It's an op-ed about various findings in a recent Pew study but there's a reference in there that connects to something I said just up the thread a few posts (needless to say, I was a little surprised to see something backing up my assertion so quickly)

{snip}

Also of interest (and related to harder line TP'ers stances)

In other words, people who'd "destroy the village to save it".

I think it started with Paul but really has nothing to do with him anymore. Some of it started with that Rick Santelli rant on CNBC about bailouts for mortgage owners (when his paycheck was coming compliments of a bailout). The rest seemed to come from people upset about losing the elections and needing something to latch on to. The Republican Party has tried to butt into it and some others who have financial motives have gotten their hands on it.

It's such a mess now that I think it's silly to even be calling it by its name. There really is no definition, no organization, and no universal beliefs. It ranges from people who are genuinely upset about government to those just upset a black man is President.

That's most partisians though. The farthest of the far right and far left don't like compromise. It's a sport to many of them and that's seen as losing. The issues and the country don't matter to them, just winning.