XDFDE45
Regular Member
My God!!!! A rational post
!!! Thank you.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Bin laden whacked!!!!!
- Thread starter XDFDE45
- Start date
!!! Thank you.
stainless1911
Banned
obama wins and there might not be enough value in the dollar to cover that bet.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Are you saying that you think our fifty dollar beer-bet is going to cost one of us five hundreed dollars post-election LOL. You're right, you do drink expensive beer.
Last edited:
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
If the mission had gone south, the DemonRats would have tied frantically to find some way to blame it on Bush, the Republicans, and the TEA party. :cuss:
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
*sniggers*
Not hard to understand why?
Oh did we all hear the lastest, he will not release the photo's.
http://www.cnn.com/
http://www.msn.com/
http://www.foxnews.com/
http://drudgereport.com/
Greg Bradburn
Regular Member
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
I'm not surprised he won't release the photos. Now that the more reasonable Birthers have been shot down, he's in need of another fantasy distraction.
When I found out there was an old yellowed clipping in a Honolulu newspaper announcing his American birth, I was satisfiedt that "president" Obama was indeed born in the United States. I still question his loyalty, but his birthplace has long been a non-issue to me. I'm glad Trump forced the issue, though; because all but the most deluded bone-brains now realize they have been barking up an empty tree.
In the case of the demise of Osama binLaden, however, the honor and reliability of the United States Navy SEALS team is at stake.
If the SEALS say they killed Osama, then he is by-God dead. They are not political pawns, they are the cream of American fighting men. They would not be party to a lie constructed to keep an unqualified Marxist dweeb living in taxpayer-funded luxury. If it was only Obama's word, I'd doubt it. But I DO NOT doubt the word of our brave SEALs. If this was all a lie, one of them would have stepped up. If in fact this is all a lie, one or more of the SEAL team will step to the occasion.
Personally, I would love to see binLaden's shattered skull on TV. Also I would like to see the scumbags who would commit mass murder in Osama's cause to see exactly where their actions will lead.
Personally, I sleep better knowing that the last thing this piece of poop ever saw was a Navy SEAL aiming a firearm at his worthless, murdering, twisted troglodyte skull. It just wouldn't have done for a drone airlplane piloted by some chick in Platte, Nebraska to have done him in. One American soldier wiped this dingleberry from the ass of humanity.
I don't need to see the pictures. (I'd like to, though).
Agreed there are better ways he can get his rating up than making this up, but we have been lied to over bigger things than this in the past so maybe the the skepticism is warranted. Worst has been shown on tv and for them to refuse to release the photos I couldn't understand why.
eye95
Well-known member
My God!!!! A rational post
Thank you. It is always my goal, but rarely the result.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
My God!!!! A rational post
Packed with hyperbole, sure, Eye's post is rational
.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
'Reasonable Birthers'? Considering the majority of Republican actually believed or were not sure that President Obama was born in the United States, it is a good idea to make a crude attempting at clearing things up. Most Birthers (Republicans) are innept to intellectually metabolize factual information.
"(p)resident Obama," shocking. "Dlu[t]ed bone-brains" is a wonderful description of the majority of Republicans who believed President Obama had been born in Kenya, or some Muslim State.
Could you elaborate?
But if President Obama states that Bin Laden is dead means nothing? Pst, did you know Obama is the leader of this fine group of SEALs? The President handed down the orders of whether or not to take Bin Laden out.
Nearly every President lived in the White House, and yes, it is funded by taxpayers.
Last edited:
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
Cite for proof.
Cite for proof. If you aren't "innept". Wouldnt attack Grammar but after stating how "innept" someone is, you should probably focus on your typing skills. Now Beretta will reply with how I pointed out her grammar and whine and snivel about that after she made herself look like an ass with that comment.
Pstt, you do know that military leaders can make calls without his approval yes?
Cite that President Obama personally made the call?
Last edited:
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Multiple sources:
"
58 percent of GOP not sure/doubt Obama born in US
Shocker poll from Kos/Research2000 today.
A whopping 58 percent of Republicans either think Barack Obama wasn't born in the US (28 percent) or aren't sure (30 percent). A mere 42 percent think he was.
That means a majority of Republicans polled either don't know about -- or don't believe the seemingly incontrovertible evidence Obama's camp has presented over and over and over that he was born in Hawaii in '61."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/58_of_GOP_not_suredont_beleive_Obama_born_in_US.html
************************
"Dixie may once have been the so-called land of cotton, but it has become the cradle of creeping Birtherism. According to a new poll from Research 2000 (commissioned by Daily Kos), a majority of Southerners either believe that Barack [COLOR=#005497 !important][COLOR=#005497 !important]Obama[/COLOR][/COLOR] was not born in the United States (23 percent) or are not sure (30 percent). Only 47 percent of Southern respondents believe Obama was born in the USA. By contrast, 93 percent of Northeasterns said yes, he was born here, 90 percent of Midwesterners did and 87 percent of Westerners.
Wow.
And while 93 percent of Democrats say he was born in the country and 83 percent of [COLOR=#005497 !important][COLOR=#005497 !important]Independents[/COLOR][/COLOR], the figure is only 42 percent for Republicans. A majority of Republicans either believe he was born abroad (28 percent) or don't know (30 percent)."
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...erners-republicans-question-obama-citizenship
********************************
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/28/birther-polls-unite-obama_n_855135.html
************************
Wou
ldn
I don't have to, it's called an opinion.t attack Grammar but after stating how "innept" someone is, you should probably focus on your typing skills. Now Beretta will reply with how I pointed out her grammar and whine and snivel about that after she made herself look like an ass with that comment.
"Making calls," and ordering assassination are not the same 'thing'. Yes, the military are generally allowed to make calls without approval. But assassination is a totally different 'thing'. I should mention that I think it is interesting that Bin Laden's death is not referred to as an "assassination." Bin Laden is the leader of a worldwide Organization, and what did occur was an assassination.
I see, so given the issue that I was referencing, you are stating that the military can order that Bin Laden be killed? Funny, I was under the impression that the President could only order the military into pakistan, and whether or not someone is to be killed (refer below).
I would appreciate you citing where military officials below the President are authorized, without the President, to order assassination. As well as military officials are able to order crossing into a sovreign State without the order of the President.
""This was a kill operation," the official said, making clear there was no desire to try to capture bin Laden alive in Pakistan."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/02/us-binladen-kill-idUSTRE7413H220110502
Unless someone else is President of the United States, then it must have been President Obama. Only Obama can authorize military persons to move into Pakistan. If I am wrong, cite it.
You know me, just some 'liberal' who you assert doesn't know what they are talking about. A little reading material for you, Slow. Study-up, there will be a test in the morning!
Nice try though:
"1.1Goals. The United States intelligence effort shall provide the President and the National Security Council with the necessary information on which to base decisions concerning the conduct and development of foreign, defense and economic policy, and the protection of United States national interests from foreign security threats. All departments and agencies shall cooperate fully to fulfill this goal."
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12333.html#1.1
http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bciclr/26_1/01_TXT.htm
"C. Executive Order 12333 and Schultz’s “Active Defense”
In 1981, President Reagan issued the most recent version of the ban, Executive Order 12333. This new Order, which remains in effect today, retained President Carter’s wording, but added a section that prohibits indirect assassination by members of the intelligence community.153 It was the Reagan administration’s use of force in response to terrorism, however, not the minor revisions in the Order itself, that proved to be more significant. On April 15, 1986, U.S. Air Force F-111 fighter-bombers struck three targets in Libya in retaliation for a Libyan-plotted terrorist attack at a Berlin nightclub that had killed a U.S. servicemen and wounded over two hundred others. One of these targets, the El Azziziya Barracks, was reportedly known by American intelligence to be the home and headquarters of Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Qadhafi. Although he was not present at the time of the attack, his wife and two sons were injured, and his young adopted daughter was killed.154
Press scrutiny of the raid revealed considerable evidence suggesting that the attack was intended to kill Qadhafi.155 The strike targets were close to his tent—which was in the corner of a very large open [*PG25]courtyard156—and the United States supposedly sought intelligence on his location right up until the night of the attack.157 According to reporter Seymour Hersh, nine of the eighteen bombers employed in the raid had a specific mission to target Qadhafi and his family.158 As one Air Force intelligence officer put it: “There’s no question they were looking for Qadhafi. It was briefed that way. They were going to kill him.”159 Additionally, administration officials were instructed before the raid to prepare briefs that distinguished how Qadhafi’s hypothetical death in the pending attack was not an assassination.160 Furthermore, language announcing his demise was reportedly prepared for the President’s speech that evening.161
In response to these accusations, the Reagan administration argued that the raid did not violate Executive Order 12333, and strenuously denied that Qadhafi was even a target. “We weren’t out to kill anybody,” said the President, although he doubted that “any of us would have shed tears” if Qadhafi had indeed died.162 Meanwhile, senior administration officials hastily categorized the raid as a legitimate Article 51 self-defense operation to the United Nations, sharing U.S. intelligence which conclusively linked Libya to the Berlin attack and revealed that as many as thirty more attacks were being planned.163
While the State Department invoked Article 51 to satisfy international law, White House legal counsel Abraham D. Sofaer argued that the strike fell within a loophole in Executive Order 12333. Qadhafi was not a target of the raids, Sofaer reasoned, but if he merely happened to be present at one of the facilities that was bombed, his death would not be an assassination—just a consequence of the raid.164 A leader’s position, Sofaer opined, does not legally immunize him from the effects of being present at a valid military target that is being attacked.165 Effectively, this reasoning reflected the law of armed conflict as it applies to non-combatants166—a legitimate defense if [*PG26]there was indeed a state of armed conflict or a continuing threat against the United States that merited a preemptive act of self-defense.
Secretary of State George Schultz, who had openly complained that the United States had responded to terrorism by becoming “the Hamlet of nations, worrying endlessly over whether and how to respond,”167 strongly supported this argument. In a public address, he asserted the U.S. government would have to prepare an “active defense” to counter the rise in terrorism the future would bring.168 His statements were more than mere rhetoric—they were a glimpse of a persistent policy trend that would remain through the next three presidential administrations. Secretary Schultz predicted, “We can expect more terrorism directed at our strategic interests around the world in the years ahead. To combat it, we must be willing to use military force.”169 What is needed to undermine the growing threat of terrorism, Secretary Schultz proposed, was a doctrine of active interventionsm:
We must reach a consensus in this country that our responses should go beyond passive defense to consider means of active prevention, pre-emption, and retaliation. Our goal must be to prevent and deter future terrorist acts, and experience has taught us over the years that one of the best deterrents of terrorism is the certainty that swift and sure measures will be taken against those who engage in it. We should take steps towards carrying out those measures. There should be no moral confusion on the issue. Our aim is not to seek revenge but to put an end to violent attacks against innocent people, to make the world a safer place to live for all of us. Clearly the democracies have a moral right, indeed a duty, to defend themselves.170
In his remarks, Secretary Schultz also stated that there were cases where international rules and traditional practices did not apply, and that the free nations cannot afford to let the “Orwellian corruption of language hamper our efforts to defend ourselves, our interests, and our friends.”171
[*PG27]D. Post Cold War: From Saddam to September 11
Although the Cold War was not yet over, the Libyan raid became the model military action and legal precedent upon which many post-cold war attacks would be based. The lines between formal war and peace were no longer clear—the United States had indicated its intent to use deadly force against foreign leaders, even in peacetime, should they pose a threat to the nation. The use of more overt methods such as an airstrike, however, marked a shift away from the cloak-and-dagger schemes of the Cold War. Instead of covertly working to end a leader’s life, America would strike openly, with gun camera footage visible to all on CNN the next day.
This strategy was to be employed against Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War. As part of the air campaign leading up to the ground war, coalition strike aircraft hit 580 command and control sites from which Saddam might control his forces and another 260 “leadership targets” that included his palaces and other buildings he was known to frequent.172 Publicly, senior American leaders continued to deny that Saddam was an official target of the campaign. General Norman Schwartzkopf stated repeatedly that the United States does not “have a policy of trying to kill any particular individual,”173 but President George Bush was more ambivalent: “We’re not in the position of targeting Saddam Hussein,” he commented, “but no one will weep for him when he is gone.”174 Administration officials were so sensitive to the suggestion that they were targeting Saddam that Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney fired Air Force Chief of Staff Michael Dugan, who had the poor judgment to boast that the United States would “‘decapitate’ Iraqi leadership by targeting Saddam, his family, and even his mistress.”175
After the war, however, individual generals were more forthcoming. General Charles Horner, the Commander of the U.S. Ninth Air Force and one of the major engineers of the air war, was quoted as saying, “As a matter of policy we were not trying to assassinate [Saddam] but we dropped bombs on every place that he should have been at work . . . that’s . . . getting kind of fancy with words but in reality [*PG28]that’s the truth of the matter.”176 The General continued by explaining that U.S. aircraft were actively hunting down the Winnebagos the Iraqi dictator was using as mobile command posts.177 On one occasion, one of Hussein’s groups of Winnebagos was reportedly attacked by U.S. A-10 strike aircraft, which destroyed several vehicles but narrowly missed the dictator himself.178 Although Horner’s comments belie his lack of understanding of the laws of war as they apply to assassination, these attacks were nonetheless perfectly legal. Open strikes by cruise missiles and bombers against Saddam, a combatant in his role as the Commander in Chief of the Iraqi Army, were neither treacherous nor outlawry, and thus were valid. Furthermore, under international law, the coalition’s UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force, the Iraqi armed invasion of Kuwait, and the Iraqi abduction of over 3,500 American hostages, add more legal legitimacy to the United States’ claims that the war was a valid self-defense action on behalf of Kuwait. Additionally, even if Saddam had been killed by one of these raids, it would not be an assassination under Executive Order 12333, as the attacks fell under President Reagan’s exception for strikes against valid military targets.
The Clinton administration employed airstrikes and cruise missiles more frequently than its predecessors to strike directly at foreign leaders. President Clinton used force against Saddam several times, first in 1993, when he employed a barrage of Tomahawk missiles to destroy Iraqi intelligence headquarters in retaliation for a plot to kill former President George Bush.179 Then, in 1998, Clinton struck at the dictator with air raids for forcing weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Administration officials commented at the time that the “candles” their predecessors had supposedly lit during the Gulf War in hopes that Saddam Hussein would be killed would be lit again.180 As one official put it, “command and control sites will be targeted and we hope Saddam Hussein is in one of them.”181 A year later, the U.S. Air Force also bombed the home of Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic—des[*PG29]ignated a “command and control” target by NATO—during the 1999 Kosovo campaign.182
However, certainly the greatest effort to kill a specific individual has been directed toward Usama bin Laden. This former Saudi national has been on the United States’ “most wanted” list since 1996 when information linked him to the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center in New York. A fatwa, or religious edict, issued by bin Laden in 1998 which urged all Muslims to kill Americans, and his subsequent involvement in the attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa in August of 1998, the attack against the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen in 2000, and the September 11, 2001 attacks at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have made him the target of a wide range of lethal operations.
The Clinton administration struck out at bin Laden and his organization several times, and amended Executive Order 12333 to make this task easier. First, in 1998 President Clinton removed from the Order’s scope the death of a foreign leader that results from a counterterror operation.183 He then authorized the use of deadly force against bin Laden and his al-Qa’ida organization—with the understanding that bin Laden might not survive the campaign.184 Clinton opted not to strike directly at bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan with a risky helicopter raid, choosing instead to bombard them with some 60 cruise missiles.185 However, the Tomahawks reportedly missed bin Laden by perhaps as little as two to three hours.186 By the end of his term, Clinton’s initial timidity had hardened into a greater dedicated resolve, and he became more willing to take more risks to eliminate bin Laden. In 1999, press reports suggest he authorized the CIA to train and equip some 60 Pakistani commandos to enter Afghanistan and either capture or kill bin Laden.187 However, the over[*PG30]throw of Pakistani President Nawaz Sharif by a military coup in 1999 reportedly forced an indefinite suspension of the operation.188
The newly elected George W. Bush administration added dramatically to its predecessors’ efforts to eliminate bin Laden as a threat to national security and adopted his elimination as a consuming goal of the new Bush presidency after September 11th. In Mid-September of 2001, President Bush, supported by a Joint Resolution of Congress authorizing him to employ “all necessary and appropriate force,”189 issued an intelligence finding—an order dictating the use of funds appropriated for covert actions.190 The finding further authorized the CIA to attack bin Laden’s al-Qa’ida organization. The President specifically directed that al-Qa’ida communications, security apparatus, and infrastructure be targeted with the assistance of covert action teams from the U.S. military.191 The President’s intelligence finding authorized the CIA to employ deadly force to achieve these objectives, and as one senior Bush official put it, “The gloves are off. . . . [L]ethal operations that were unthinkable pre-September 11 are now underway.”192 Although the finding does not specifically exempt the government from complying with Executive Order 12333, the Clinton exception for counterterror operations would no longer categorize bin Laden’s death, should it arise from these covert actions, as an assassination under Executive Order 12333. Targeting bin Laden, the head of al-Qa’ida’s chain of command and the engineer of a string of terrorist attacks, would be legal as an Article 51 self-defense action against an imminent threat to the United States’ national security. His death would not therefore be an assassination unless it resulted from one of the methods expressly prohibited by the laws of war. Only Bush’s own suggestion that bin Laden was “wanted, dead or alive,” strays dangerously close to those prohibited means of killing. Were the statement more than just a figure of speech, it would constitute outlawry, rendering any resulting deaths as assassination under international law.
[*PG31] Since the drafting of Executive Order 12333 in the 1970s, the United States has refrained from applying deadly force against foreign leadership except in times of war, near war, or imminent threat against the nation. And even when such force was applied, the United States has typically employed direct and overt means, such as airstrikes or cruise missile attacks. Whether America’s new determination to eliminate threats by more unconventional means is merely a unique response to September 11 or marks a return toward the Cold War practices that gave rise to Executive Order 12333 remains to be seen. Although such covert attacks might be illegal in the absence of provocation, in the light of the continuing terrorist threat a state-sponsored killing of Usama bin Laden or other terrorist figures would be justifiable as an Article 51 action, as well as permissible under established exceptions to Executive Order 12333."
I almost forgot - there is this 'thing' called the Constitution of the United States:
"
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1
Apparently the Constitution states that the President is Commander in Chief. Go figure you would ask me a question regarding the Constitution LOL.
Last edited:
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
So 42% is now a majority?
Ok so you were wrong.
Then again, I knew that.
Wouldn
No COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attack / inappropriate. . Please learn to read.
I underscored where you made all Republicans birthers by default.
Your own source even says you are wrong there too.
You have no idea what the operational orders were. You are a civilian, COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attack / inappropriate.. Obama may have ordered the entry into Pakistan true, but you have no clue what the actual directive was.
Without knowing said directive you are guessing that Obama did not give military senior leaders who are far more competent to lead a nations military than Obama, much leeway to take care of all of the mission specific details.
You don't understand the term "Operational Discretion".
This entire mission, from start to end, was in fact started by the Bush campaign. They have had operational discretion since that campaign. The entire thing was probably never even seriously mulled over by Obama.
To hold your precious hand and help you out here, it works like this:
Bush issued a standing order for the pursuit and termination of bin Laden.
The order has stood since its inception, applying to any and all military units as a lawful order.
The DoD itself has had full discretion in dealing with these matters, with very little or no
contact with Obama for certain.
The pursuit has never stopped, therefore the DoD has been operating with impunity in this matter since Bush's original order.
Sorry COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attack / inappropriate.. Your President has ordered ****, to be completely honest.
Here is your citation COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attack / inappropriate.:
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-11-04/justice/us.assassination.policy_1_assassination-prohibition-cia-lawyers?_s=PM:LAW said:
Only "The President" can authorize such activity. Too bad this operational order was not originally assigned to our military, nor the liberty to act, by your current Commander in Chief.
That's got to be heartbreaking for you.
What is funny a hell, is what you just posted says exactly what I told you.
So uh, do you read things before blindly throwing them out there?
LOL
Thanks for all of this. It says the same thing I just told you, and reaffirms I am right!
Cheers!
The President being Commander in Chief has very little correlation to operational activities. Specifically in this case, where it is likely that Obama fumbled and mumbled while the DoD and DEVGRU simply used the previous operational orders given during the Bush administration to continue the path of hunting this madman down.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Wouldn
Obviously you screwed up on properly reading my response, then adding up the poll numbers. Go back and read again. If you don't get it this next time, I will quote, and explain.
As I stated, go back and read what I had posted, then the poll, and do the math.
Speculative on your part. Until there is proof that it came from another source other than the President, you are the one who must prove the speculative assertion that military officials made the decision.
I do. And you don't understand that "Operational Discretion" means that the President gave the order of said 'discretion'. The buck stops at the White House, because it starts at the White House.
Your first sentence is a contradiction, and is absent of reality. Bush started 'it', yes. But Obama is President, which means, 'He' ended it.
No, they do not have 'Operational Discretion' unless one of two things happens, either President Obama let's the policy, or order stand, or orders that the policy, or order no longer stands.
Refer above.
Only because President Obama allowed the policy, or order stand.
The only reason I am responding to your posts are because they are questions, and I have provided answers. BTW, so, you were lying before? Now that you are being "completely honest" and all.
Here is your citation so you can stop looking like an idiot:
I am not sure what you are referencing.
I am fine with all of this, and will let my responses speak for themselves. If someone has a question about them, they will surely ask.
Sure, aside from the fact that he is the person who is in charge of all military personel, and either affirms directives, or implements new directives.
Last edited:
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
I think you miss the point here. President Obama must either affirm the policy, or order; or allow the policy, or order to stand, but that is an affirmation in itself; both are 'affirming'. Bush may have signed the 'finding," but President Obama affirmed it, either by allowing it to stand (indirect affirmation), or affirming the policy, or order (direct affirmation).
Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with these exchanges, but you seriously need to bring it up a couple of knotches in the linguistic department. Treating issues that are discussed as though they are a singular in nature, and absent breadth and depth is disingenuous.
If I error in my explanation, meaning, if I either do not clearly explain an issue, or do not stick within the parameters of my explanation, and it seems contradictive, point it out, and I will clarify. I have no issue with elaborating on my posts, if asked.
I tend to ignore your condescending tone, and ad hominem attacks because I realize you can't help including them as part of your responses.
Last edited:
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
Telling me to "bring it up a few notches in the linguistic department" is certainly laughable. Particularly from you.
You have backed yourself into more corners with your mouth than you could ever walk out of. I am specifically referring to your abhorrent grammar, and unintelligible ramblings in your posts.
The absolute, finite point to this exchange, is that you do not understand how military operations work. You have this gun-ho image of Obama screaming into a microphone to "shoot the bastard", when I promise you no such exchange ever took place. Somewhere, once upon a time, someone sure did come to Obamas office, and ask "Do we have permission to enter Pakistan to 'pursue' bin Laden?". Once this activity was authorized, the request to terminate the target was not mandatory. It was not likely that they even had confirmed knowledge of bin Ladens presence at the compound prior to their arrival.
These operations move fast, and while I am willing to concede that this operation and its success did occur on Obamas "watch", he had as much to do with this operations success and it's in depth decision making as him wiping his ass creates changes in the gulf stream.
You need to grow up Beretta and learn to think like a big girl now. There is a distinct difference between giving the "green light" to infiltrate a countries borders, and actually ordering the termination of the target. The majority of the operation, up to, and likely including the order to engage, probably came from localized or senior military leaders.
These operations call for seasoned and experienced military operatives and iron-jawed leaders who have had their elbows in the ****. Their ability to do their job, and the speed and professionalism with which they do it, has very little to do with your Presidential heart-throb.
So why don't you stop trying to gloat about your imbecilic mouth-breathing President who gives you "free" health care being some major player in this operation.
It is both disgusting, and reprehensible in light of the sacrifices and valor the DEVGRU unit has displayed in taking bin Laden down.
You really should be utterly ashamed of yourself.
Last edited: