home

The Death Of bin Laden

Justice, in the sense that a mass murderer has been killed, was done yesterday. No, there was no trial, etc, but Osama bin Laden never questioned his direction of the various acts of terrorism that killed thousands of people. He proudly proclaimed his involvement. His death was justice. Speaking for me only of course.

In terms of policy, does this weaken Al Qaida itself? Perhaps. It does not, in my view, weaken Islamic extremism, called Al Qaida or something else. Combating Islamic extremism remains a major foreign policy priority and foreign policy strategy and decision making requires a close look at impacts on Islamic extremism. The reaction in Pakistan is certainly worth following today.

On a lighter note, can you imagine a worse turn of events for Donald Trump? After becoming the butt of a national joke at the White House Correspondents' Dinner Saturday night, the next night while he was hosting his reality show - a show that, in Trump's words, is "a really successful television show," the President of the United States was reporting to the Nation on a different reality - one that did not involve whether or not to fire Gary Busey. The joke that is Trump, which did not seem possible to be bigger, is now so. What can Trump possibly say now on his "really successful television show's" finale 3 weeks from now? How much more embarrassing can he become for NBC? The end of Trump "Mania" will now be a whimper. An embarrassing whimper.

Speaking for me only

< Details Emerging on Osama Bin Laden's Killing | Monday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Chaps my ass though that Obama (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 08:37:46 AM EST
    called Bush to tell him that they got him.  Unless of course if he did the neener neener dance and chant while telling him, okay.  Bush NEVER meant to get Bin Laden though.  He needed the whole country to literally be suffering from an unresolved anxiety in order to brainwash enough people into Iraq and keep us in Iraq.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 02, 2011 at 08:54:43 AM EST
    that he called both Clinton and Bush and not Carter or Bush I. I guess that was because they both had to deal with OBL is my best guess.

    Parent
    Some dealt with him...and some didn't :) (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:00:41 AM EST
    Even in the last two administrations.  One was looking for him and then decided to not take him out when he had him in the cross hairs because of a stained dress.  And one only wanted to appear to be looking for him :)

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:12:00 AM EST
    I don't believe the stained dress had anything to do with because he went ahead and the GOP was screaming "wag the dog" IIRC.

    Parent
    Clinton's own account of (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:14:38 AM EST
    deciding to not take Bin Laden out is that he told the troops to stand down when they informed him that they had him in range and they were looking right at him, because it was in the middle of the Lewinsky scandal and he said he didn't feel like he could afford an international incident at that time.

    Parent
    Gee (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:19:00 AM EST
    another example of the GOP holding the country hostage.

    Parent
    YUP (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:26:14 AM EST
    If you hunt a CIC and look for any way to take him down any way you possibly can just because he is the opposition party and is very popular, you may end up allowing your own country to be attacked and harmed in horrible horrible ways.

    Parent
    9/11 is Newt's fault :) (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:26:51 AM EST
    Really? Bill Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by brodie on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:00:44 AM EST
    used that lame excuse when our people had OBL literally in their gun sights?  That would have been quite an indictment against Clinton as he let his reckless personal affairs trump nat'l security concerns.

    I don't think so.  Clinton actually ordered missile strikes against suspected terrorist camps in Afghan and Sudan in the middle of the Lewinski year of 1998, but apparently we were a few hours late as OBJ had just left the area.

    I think Clinton had a fairly good record of actually trying to get Laden.  

    Parent

    I don't believe that, either (none / 0) (#103)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:37:10 PM EST
    I have a vague memory of that allegation having been made in some hostile book or other.

    The only way Clinton had to hang onto his self-respect during that time was to push it all out of his mind and concentrate on doing his job without considering it.  And BC was/is extremely good at compartmentalizing, for good or ill.

    Clinton did nix a Predator strike on someone thought to be bin Laden because he was in the middle of a large hunting party of Pakistani and I believe Saudi falconers, many of whom were close relations of various muckety-mucks in those two countries and Predator strike technology was nowhere near as advanced as it is today.

    I think the U.S. had only just developed armed Predators at that point, and if I remember right, it was before it had even been acknowledged that we had strike-capable Predators.  So it would have been practically experimental at that point, and a very large risk of taking out a whole bunch of Saudis and Pakistanis and maybe missing OBL himself.  Not a good bet, IMO, and he did the right thing to decide against it.

    Parent

    Michael Scheuer (none / 0) (#123)
    by shoephone on Mon May 02, 2011 at 01:36:05 PM EST
    is the one who's been making that charge--ad nauseum--against Clinton. He was even on BBC last night doing his petulant whining about it.

    Parent
    Bingo (none / 0) (#142)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 02, 2011 at 03:50:13 PM EST
    Yes, it was Scheuer.  Thanks for the memory jog.

    Parent
    MT, do you really believe Bush didn't want (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:03:55 AM EST
    him captured?

    Parent
    YES (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:12:40 AM EST
    He wasn't putting any manpower or money into getting Bin Laden.  Some of soldiers died horribly in Afghanistan too because of that.  Politically he couldn't leave, but they wanted the oil in Iraq.  So they took a few thousand U.S. soldiers and hung them out to dry.  Those soldiers did nothing but try to stay alive under impossible circumstances.  The day that Obama took office our troops were risking being overrun and all taken out.  Obama had to immediately send more troops in just to save our own asses.

    Parent
    Tracy (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:24:51 AM EST
    we didn't get the oil in Iraq.

    If that had been the goal we could have done it with fewer troops and a lot less cost.

    We haven't gone into the high mountains because that would be a disaster. And if they were in danger of being overrun why did Obama take 6 months to decide to send in more??

    Look, I'm happy OBL is dead. Let's give credit to the troops and leave politics out of it.

    'Nuf said.

    Parent

    I know Jim (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:40:13 AM EST
    It hurts.  The Cowboy with the Silver Spoon and the Golden Pedigree is a total failure and phuckup in protecting his own nation that he was born in while that large eared mulatto of which there are so many questions about can easily accomplish what needs to be done :)

    Parent
    A hit, a most palpable hit (none / 0) (#55)
    by Dadler on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:48:11 AM EST
    Very nice.  

    Parent
    Re: Disaster (none / 0) (#62)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:30:10 AM EST
    We haven't gone into the high mountains because that would be a disaster.

    Yep, just as it was a disaster for the Soviets who couldn't deploy their helicopters in the same area against the guerrillas fighting them in the 1980s.

    Parent

    Harry. I am glad to see you agree (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:35:48 PM EST
    Think about what I wrote, PPJ (none / 0) (#110)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:43:46 PM EST
    No Tracy (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:27:07 PM EST
    What hurts is watching people turn everything into politics. That hurt us in Vietnam. It hurt us in Afghanistan and it hurt in Iraq.

    As I said, let's be happy OBL is dead. When you bring politics in it you hurt the people who got us to the place where we got him.

    Parent

    Re: Politics (none / 0) (#162)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue May 03, 2011 at 01:43:29 AM EST

    What hurts is watching people turn everything into politics. That hurt us in Vietnam. It hurt us in Afghanistan and it hurt in Iraq.

    Sure, PPJ, sure.................

       Proven on 11/4/08

            REMEMBER - sometimes a majority simply means that all the fools are on the same side...



    Parent
    The politics (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:37:22 AM EST
    are unavoidable.

    Imagine what the right would have done politically if bin Laden had been taken out during Bush's watch.

    That whole Mission Accomplished circus show was just a hint at what would have happened if bin Laden had been captured or killed in the years immediately following 911.

    IMO, concentration on capturing or killing bin Laden would have meant conceding that the 911 attacks were criminal acts by individuals rather than an act of war by some nebulous national power.  The Bush administration, neocons, etc. wanted to frame the 911 attacks in just that fashion, making possible enough support for invading Iraq, etc.

    Wolfowitz upbraided Richard Clarke for being fixated on 'this one person.' Neoconservatives like Wolfowitz kept insisting the 911 attacks could only have been executed by a sovereign nation.

    People who insisted the 911 attacks be treated as criminal acts were ridiculed by the right.

    IMO, the Bush regime had no interest in getting bin Laden.  They had their chance during operation Anaconda but chose to punt.

    IMO, the Bush II Administration was the most cynical administration in our history.

    Parent

    A wise man wrote this somewhere else (none / 0) (#164)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue May 03, 2011 at 08:10:00 AM EST

    A sure way to tell that conservatives have lost an argument is when they plead to leave politics out of something. Though invariably, their next sentence is to put politics into it.



    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:14:26 AM EST
    there's certainly evidence that Bush had him cornered but didn't do what should have been done.

    And you could make the case that Bush wanted him out there to use him as a tool to get us into Iraq. Even some of my conservative friends said that Bush didn't want  to catch OBL simply because then people would be "declaring operations over" and Bush wanted them to continue

    Parent

    Bush was too busy (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:09:33 PM EST
    going after the REAL culprit - Saddam Hussein!

    Parent
    IMO (none / 0) (#67)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:47:37 AM EST
    the Bush administration didn't want to concentrate on one person.  They didn't want 911 to be perceived as a criminal act by individuals.  I believe it was important to neocons (remember Cheney and Rumsfeld were neocons) that 911 be viewed as an act of war by some nation or nations.

    Wolfowitz had said that the American people needed a Pearl Harbor type event to get support for the neocon's middle east war fantasies.

    Parent

    Bush on Bin Laden (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:23:21 AM EST

    So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.

    YouTube Link

    Parent

    Some overall impressions and (5.00 / 10) (#3)
    by Anne on Mon May 02, 2011 at 08:41:04 AM EST
    random thoughts:

    1.  There is one less evil person in the world; that's not a bad thing, but if I removed one eyedropper of water from a full bathtub, would it look any different?

    2.  Are we now officially an eye-for-an-eye society now, where when we kill someone who killed others, "justice" has been done?  It appears so, which is both offensive and frightening.  I am troubled by the expression of this sentiment from the president, who is supposed to be a defender of the Constitution.

    3.  The real legacy of Osama bin Laden may not lie in the numbers of deaths he was responsible for, but in the erosion of freedoms, the loss of privacy and the perversion of our system of justice, which I do not believe will ever be restored.

    4.  Dancing in the streets in front of the White House to celebrate the killing of bin Laden is a scene I could have done without; a candlelit vigil in memory of all the lives lost and lives affected would have been a more fitting way to mark the occasion - in my opinion.

    5.  "Now is not the time to let down our guard" is the watchword of the day, just as I expected it would be; bin Laden's death is not the end of anything, just another data point on a spectrum that continues to move away from strengthening and protecting our individual rights.  Who will the new Face of Evil be, and what will we have to give up in that fight?

    6.  Lots of questions about Pakistan: how could Osama have been hiding in plain sight of the Pakistani equivalent of West Point?  Is their intelligence that bad, have they been paid to look the other way - or worse - and what will the repercussions be, if any?

    Finally, I said last night that for me, this is anticlimactic; bin Laden's death is never going to see the restoration of all that we have lost as Americans.

    That being said, I am not so jaded and cynical that I don't understand that this may have brought some kind of closure to those who lost loved ones in the many bin Laden-engineered attacks both here and around the world, and it isn't my intention to try to deny that to them; we all have to handle this in our own way - we all feel what we feel for our own reasons.  

    My concern really is how the government will handle it, and how they will take advantage of it in ways that won't positively affect us.

    Donald Trump?  Oy; if he's smart, he will find a way to be gracious in acknowledging this milestone event.  Since he's not - smart, that is - I expect many foot-in-mouth moments in the days to come.

    dancing in the streets.. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:19:13 AM EST
    at that hour and the age group, alchohol might have been a major contributing factor.  

    No one at our office has even mentioned obl today.....

    Parent

    You know who else is celebrating? (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by jbindc on Mon May 02, 2011 at 01:34:30 PM EST
    Check out the people who live in the largest Middle Eastern population outside the Middle East - in the suburbs of Detroit.

    These aren't drunk college students - these are people who were affected by the hatred towards directed towards them because of OBL's actions.

    Does it solve all the problems?  No - but how you can't understand how people might be jubilant that a mass murderer is gone for good is puzzling.

    Parent

    Absolutely true. (none / 0) (#129)
    by Tony on Mon May 02, 2011 at 01:59:36 PM EST
    Osama Bin Laden slandered them and a billion other Muslims across the globe.  I completely understand the ecstasy they are feeling.

    Parent
    Not here either (none / 0) (#76)
    by sj on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:02:38 PM EST
    Not a soul has mentioned it.  I haven't brought it up because I want to see when it becomes "buzz".  If no one mentions it by tomorrow I'll probably finally say something.

    Parent
    I promised myself that i would not be the one that (none / 0) (#83)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:11:48 PM EST
    mentions it.  not even a murmur here.  Now a 10:30 p.m. announcement that we are not going to spend 160 bn in Iraq/Afghan, not going to risk another soldier's life and being that ding dong the witch is dead, we are brining our soldiers home....

    Now that would get us talking.  A symbolic execution just isn't doing it for us...

    Parent

    I think you're right (none / 0) (#90)
    by sj on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:15:24 PM EST
    At least you are from my perspective.  Which makes me wonder where these cheering crowds are coming from.

    I can understand New York, but the rest?

    Parent

    The company my husband (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by vml68 on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:33:10 PM EST
    works for had their corporate headquarters in the South Tower. While many employees survived they lost about 300 others. No celebrating going on at his office.

    Parent
    That's an even more personal connection (none / 0) (#99)
    by sj on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:35:47 PM EST
    Now I'm really baffled about those crowds...

    Parent
    As they reported on the local news (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by jbindc on Mon May 02, 2011 at 01:18:34 PM EST
    Many of those (originally) at the WH last night were GW students - people of an age who have pretty much always lived in a world where OBL and his minions were a threat, we always had a Department of Homeland Security and terror level threats, etc.

    I'm in the minority around here and think the only thing that's too bad is that OBL could die one time.  Even if they had captured him and brought him to a trial, I would bet all the money in the world many around here would not have been happy with that process either and would have seen all kinds of government conspiracies behind every curtain.

    Good riddance to bad rubbish.

    Parent

    Nice Post (none / 0) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:21:06 AM EST
    MSNBC has a nice break down of what happened.  It seems as if this place was build for Bin Laden back in 2007.  There was never a confirmation that Bin Laden was there, only that one of his trusted couriers lived there which was learned from a detainee.

    The dancing in the streets reminds me of when a soldier is captured and we see some clowns celebrating in the streets.  Different I know, but still offensive to me.  Celebrating death is sick, no matter the person.  I wish the media had enough tact to stop broadcasting it.

    This isn't justice, justice is making a person answer for their crimes, and 10 mins gunfight is enough.  Death absolves him from the shame of the trial and solitude of imprisonment.  Hussein is the perfect example, the mighty man found in hole and made to answer/defend himself in court, for the world to witness.

    It really p*** me off that he was been hold-up in a million dollar home and not trekking through the mountaisn hiding in caves, as reported.  He lived a life of luxury with his wife(s) and the only suffering he endured was a 10 min gun battle before his death.

    I am glad the body wasn't brought back for public viewing, smart move burying him at sea after confirmation.  They also took DNA.

    Going forward.  I disagree with Anne on this point, well it may not be over, it's going to take a long time, if ever, to replace Bid Laden.  I don't know how charismatic he was, but he was definitely the money man.  Plus it seems like we have killed and/or captured the number 2,3,& 4 guys enough times that there upper management has to be filled with some pretty inexperienced people.  How this will effect recruiting, who knows.

    Ultimately, he didn't reach his goal, but he did make a lot of progress.  I propose the US officially call body scanners and pat-downs, Bin Ladens, so Americans can understand how he has changed the US and hopefully pull their scared heads out of their A's and bury them at sea with their inspiration.

    Last but not least, I would have loved to see Bush's face when Obama called him.  I can only imagine it was a Pet Goat look of unbelief.  Although, according to the article, the intelligence was acquired during Bush's tenure.  

    Parent

    His financing... (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:29:29 AM EST
    will be easy to replace, no shortage of uber-wealthy tyrants willing to fund murder and mayhem...his islamic militant street cred will be much harder to replace.  

    This was a Saudi rich kid who went to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets...Abraham Lincoln Brigade type sh*t.  Thats serious street cred to motivate poor slobs to follow him and get themselves killed.  The next financier ain't gonna be able to match that romantic tale of fighting oppression.  His "martyrdom" might motivate some recruits short term to get in the killing business...long term though he was probably more valuable alive to the cause of islamic militancy.

    Parent

    The rumor is that the funding (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:48:47 AM EST
    that Bin Laden brought to the terrorist platform in the area via Saudi Arabia will probably shift to elements in Yemen.  I know the Haqqani has some Saudi Arabia funding, but whatever Osama was bringing into the area via anything he blessed or was affiliated with is probably shifting out of the area now and rumor is it will be going to Yemen.....rumor

    Parent
    "Fundraiser" is Still a Talent (none / 0) (#84)
    by ScottW714 on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:12:19 PM EST
    It's impossible to know how it works, but if it's anything like American politics, raising money takes a talent with charisma and a keen sense of timing.  For these clowns I would suspect secrecy is a must as well, so there is a huge level of trust needed.  America gets wind of it and a drone might drop by with a bomb or two to say hello.

    I just don't believe it's as easy as you are suggesting, but then again, maybe it is.

    I wonder how much chatter went out today without the normal security precautions, I would think a whole hell of a lot.  CIA is probably creaming themselves today, one can only hope with information wasn't acquired through torture.

    Parent

    Just guessing... (none / 0) (#115)
    by kdog on Mon May 02, 2011 at 01:07:38 PM EST
    trillions in oil money floating through unfriendly hands...a little help from some friendly banksters and they can wash it and spread it to fund violence without a drone being sicked on ya...seems easy enough.

    A new figurehead with street cred to motivate the poor to go die, against their own interest, is a little tougher...but as always I could be way off.  

    Then again, not that tough...most every nation seems to have such figureheads, just none as well-known internationally as Osama was.  Sh*t half our country surrenders their financial self-interest to the greater good of Lloyd Blankfein.  Maybe I am way off:)

    Parent

    Time Will Tell (none / 0) (#145)
    by ScottW714 on Mon May 02, 2011 at 04:03:32 PM EST
    I think a lot is going to hinge on our actions, do we bow out and leave Afghanistan, or go in for the kill and inspire some young rich kid to head to Afghanistan fight the almighty capitalist pigs.


    Parent
    As to your no. 6 (none / 0) (#29)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:25:30 AM EST
    see JuanCole.com today - home page discussion of UBL; very informative.

    Parent
    Eye for eye--like Eichmann? (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    Eichmann was executed.  But he did have a trial.....

    But jurisdiction via kidnapping is highly questionable.

    Killing bin Laden was an act of war.  War is always ugly.  

    He was the commanding general of an enemy force.  His death is much like Tojo's.

    Parent

    correction: like Yamamoto's (none / 0) (#89)
    by MKS on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:14:57 PM EST
    This will hopefully (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon May 02, 2011 at 08:48:06 AM EST
    get rid of all the "I thinks Obama is a Moooooooslim terrorist" idiotic comments around the Web.

     

    You mean like (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:10:39 PM EST
    releasing his birth certificate will put an end to the birther movement?

    Parent
    Nah! Just like Islamic extremists (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 08:58:38 AM EST
    trying to plan and execute terrorist attacks no matter what anybody does or doesn't do....they'll come up with something shortly that is evidence enough for them that he is still a Mooooslim terrorist.

    I mean, you do know that Osama gave away where Zarqawi was because "there can be only one" dontcha ;)?

    Parent

    I expect the anti-Obama hysteria (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:08:10 AM EST
    has just encountered a 'short' market.

    I'll go ahead and say that any commentators with their own blog who don't mention Obama's success are probably sekret, scary Mooslim terrorists undercover and mourning the death of their leader, developing...........................

    Parent

    Not Islamic... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:52:11 AM EST
    but one could argue he is a terrorist.  Drone attacks, Navy Seal Hit Squads, assorted acts of political violence...if it ain't terrorism, it's damn close.

    Parent
    kdog (none / 0) (#46)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:29:16 AM EST
    it's only terrorism if it's done by swarthy people who plant bombs.

    You might remember that there were some who asserted that the MLK Parade bomb in Spokane, WA that didn't go off, could've been a Muslim plot, because it was 'terrorism'.

    Parent

    not on your life (none / 0) (#141)
    by jondee on Mon May 02, 2011 at 03:45:01 PM EST
    "paranoia strikes deep" into the heart of the None Dare Call it Treason crowd it has struck deep..

    They'll probably spin this as a Stalinist power play on the part of Obama to neutralize the  competition in the race to establish Sharia Law in the U.S.

     

    Parent

    Besides (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 02, 2011 at 08:50:09 AM EST
    actually getting OBL, the most amazing thing to me is that he was living in a mansion in Pakistan and not hiding out in a cave. This guy was either extremely brazen or had a lot of help from the Pakistani government. I wonder what the "official" line out of Pakistan will be about this?

    Don't (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 02, 2011 at 08:53:06 AM EST
    bet on it. If this had happened in October or November of '12 you would be right. I remember post Gulf War Bush Sr. was supposedly unbeatable too. In a few months, when people move on and focus on the economy, that will be the deciding factor in '12.

    Yes, getting OBL definitely hurts the GOP but whether it will last 18 months is doubtful.

    On a Donald Trumpy note though (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:06:51 AM EST
    Did you also catch Trump shooting his mouth off that we didn't have Bin Laden because we didn't have a hundreds of millions of dollars reward on his head?  Yeah....cuz the 52 million reward just wasn't enough.  God I wish I had known where Bin Laden was, it was enough for me :)

    What it really took though Donald was very good intel and prepared rested Special Forces, not that a chickenhawk draft dodger ever had a hope of understanding that :)  The last Republican one of those who was CIC couldn't seem to understand that and get Bin Laden either :)  Seems to be a bit of a pattern here.

    Obama's comments about Trump (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MKS on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:50:23 AM EST
    at the Friday night correspondents's dinner have even more bite now.

    Obama, in what I thought at the time the most biting criticism of Trump that night, went on and on about how Trump was making monumental decisions on Celebrity Apprentice...about firing  Gary Bussey.....

    When Obama had said that, he had just given the order to launch the raid.  He could not have known if the raid was going to be successful.  The disasters in Somalia and the botched attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages come to mind.  To drop two helicopters into the middle of large city, some 2 miles away from the Pakistani equivalent of West Point, and to bring our guys back safe and sound.....

    That was one helluva risk.....Failure means Jimmy Carter....

    Parent

    CAN YOU IMAGINE? (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 01:56:41 PM EST
    No wonder he was so mean :)

    Parent
    And he was dealing with Alabama too (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 01:59:48 PM EST
    at the same time.  That is a lot all on one very serious plate.

    Parent
    A tribute (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:03:41 PM EST
    to how little Trump knows about anything other than promoting himself.

    I swear, Trump was the biggest clown of a whole host of clowns we've seen pop up on the right over the last few decades.

    It was a pleasure seeing the shots of Trump in the audience at the WHCD while Seth Meyers disemboweled him.

    Parent

    Trump (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:07:02 AM EST
    Trump will demand to see the long form death certificate.

    Ah come on, folks (none / 0) (#85)
    by sj on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:12:39 PM EST
    This is funny!

    Parent
    If he'd been president (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:12:48 AM EST
    If he'd been president when the WTC destruction occurred, and then had gotten Bin Laden a year later, I'd agree.

    However, at this point, this country is war fatigued, and terrorism numb.  Other than maybe the people who've lived through the attacks, most people will hear then news, sigh their "oh good," and then move along.  It's almost anti-climactic.

    And the fact remains that getting Osama won't change ANYTHING.  We'll still be increasing our already exploding national debt by staying at war with umpteen countries.  We'll still be without some of our freedoms. Once all this becomes painfully obvious, once people know for certain that killing Osama doesn't make us any safer (maybe less), people will forget that he was even killed.  As many say, we plebes have short memories.

    And the economy will still suck (for we commoners, that is).

    So Obama should do his snoopy dance now, because by November nobody will care.

    You know what I'm happy about, though? (5.00 / 7) (#57)
    by Dadler on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:52:28 AM EST
    That my little brother, who has endured four tours, the quick end of his marriage, who has seen ungodly bloodshed and madness, that he is feeling some measure (I won't claim to know how much) of satisfaction, and accomplishment, and that maybe in his weary mind some small peace settles in for an extended stay, this I can be happy about.

    I listen to a local (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Anne on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:47:53 AM EST
    sports talk radio station on my way to and from work, and had tuned in this morning thinking it would be mostly post-NFL Draft discussion, but one of the on-air people is now serving a tour in Iraq with his National Guard unit, and they got him on the phone from Iraq this morning to get his take on the bin Laden killing.

    The one comment he made that stood out for me was that he was glad this wasn't the result of a bombing raid.  Why?  Because an attack from the ground, in person, meant that in the time between our forces attacking the compound, and bin Laden's actual death, he might have experienced the kind of fear that he, in directing the events of 9/11, had inflicted on all of those who died that day, and that those who survived still struggle with.  That, for this particular soldier, was where the real justice lay, not necessarily in the killing itself.

    I don't agree with the dancing in the streets, I think the infliction of that kind of fear is considered to be torture, and I would much rather bin Laden had been captured alive, but I completely get what this young man was expressing.

    Keeping good thoguhts for your brother...what a worry that must be; I just wish the events of the last 24 hours meant the end of war, but I don't think they do.


    Parent

    Most of the people who go after the big ones (none / 0) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:54:14 AM EST
    Say that capture is the goal.  What they possess in information is worth far more than any satisfaction they gain by killing them.  I do know that when they go into these ops, usually the rule is that if the targets are putting soldiers lives in danger by firing back or using any kind of weapon, the goal of capture takes a backseat. And they would not bomb Bin Laden once they knew where he was and had at least gained control of the residence because they want any and all information that they can get from everything they can find there.

    Parent
    Plus proof it was OBL (none / 0) (#108)
    by MKS on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:42:10 PM EST
    and avoiding civilian casualties....

    It would been much easier to bomb the compound with a predator.....As it was, our guys almost didn't get out....because one of the helicopters failed.....

    Parent

    They have a backup plan if they (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 01:05:35 PM EST
    have helicopter failure.  They probably have a plan to get everyone out if they even lose two :)  They can't leave anyone behind, that's the code.  Unlike Bush they always have a plan B and a plan C, largely because of Jimmy Carter's failure in Iran.  Because of that failure the 160th was created.  

    Parent
    Frankly, I would have just bombed (none / 0) (#124)
    by MKS on Mon May 02, 2011 at 01:39:34 PM EST
    the compound.  No chance that way our guys are hurt.

    But the raid proved better....

    Parent

    So apparently (none / 0) (#153)
    by sj on Mon May 02, 2011 at 05:24:29 PM EST
    "helipcopter failure" = "helicopter crash"?

    Parent
    Unless you can autorotate (none / 0) (#158)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:31:43 PM EST
    to the ground, helicopter failure = helicopter crash.  They were too close to the ground when it occured so there wasn't going to be any autorotation.  I read that it wasn't even a mechanical failure though, the enclosed high walled compound couldn't pull enough air over the walls and into it to maintain lift of one of the helicopters as it hovered over so it seems to have dropped a bit like a stone :)  Didn't hit hard enough to seriously hurt anyone in it, but they probably hit pretty hard.

    If you have another chopper in the wings to come to your rescue, why risk the possibility of any damage that could have been done that could cause a mission failure of some kind on a mission like this one.  Get on the helicopter that didn't take a hit and torch the other one.

    Parent

    My husband had a failure in Iraq (none / 0) (#159)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:01:42 PM EST
    that caused them to hit the ground very hard.  They both walked away, but the helicopter was deemed what we who drive cars call totalled.  It never flew anyone anywhere again even though you could probably start it up.  It was deemed too unsafe to fly.

    Parent
    Correct me if I'm wrong... (none / 0) (#160)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:13:32 PM EST
    ...but the assault occurred at fairly high altitude (6500-7000ft) which is hard on copters and their performance.  I believe there is high altitude training every Summer here because of the difficulties of flying in the thin air.

    Parent
    I didn't read that it was a very high (none / 0) (#163)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:49:50 AM EST
    altitude as well.  You are right.  And they do use the Rockies to train in for that reason, and they've had a few crunches and crashes in the Rockies too because of that as well.  The thinner air makes helicopter lift more difficult and according to my husband the aircraft response to your inputs is delayed to what you get used to at more common lower altitudes.  You have to plan carefully in higher altitudes, and plan your moves even further ahead of time.

    Parent
    FYI, every single report (none / 0) (#112)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    I've heard/read this AM says it was explicitly a "kill" operation with no intention of trying to take him alive.

    I think the use of special ops rather than bombs is partly what you said, the interest in the info in the house, but at least as much it was wanting to be able to verify he was actually for sure dead, and for that they needed to eyeball him and take possession of the body.

    Lastly, there is absolutely symbolic import to having him taken out by an American face to face on the scene and not some bit of munitions dropped from umpty-thousand feet.

    Parent

    If he would have surrendered they (none / 0) (#116)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 01:08:27 PM EST
    would have taken him alive.  The fire fight only lasted 4-5 minutes though.  The rest of the 30 minutes they were there was spent gathering intelligence.

    Parent
    MT...Somewhere in here (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by christinep on Mon May 02, 2011 at 01:23:41 PM EST
    I want to tell you how thankful I am for you and your husband...for the dedicated service, for the courage over there and here. Thank you, thank you.

    Like BTD, I feel that justice has been done for the reasons that he states. Reactions for so many of us have been at once simple & complex. For those who celebrate in the streets, it may be the first release of many feelings. My first reaction was relief, followed by remembered sadness, followed by a genuine sense of "all will be well" with this country. When I got to that point as I walked my dog this morning, we sat down in a nearby memorial park, and my eyes filled with tears in the moment of being shaken with the recognition of the tremendous service of people like your husband...of all those who have served so faithfully in trying times of wars.

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#122)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 01:35:09 PM EST
    I will tell my husband and my kids.  It hit me this morning how much all this has cost my kids, all the birthdays and Christmas.  I thanked my daughter this morning for her sacrifices.  Last years tour when my husband went largely because Obama had taken over and obviously meant to REALLY tend to the business at hand was a conscious decision.  My husband jockeyed hard for a job there that was meaningful to the real danger and he ended up with a slot much better than any of us imagined that he would.  And even though that was only a six month deployment, they worked so hard over there because they were so far behind in their minds and they had so many years of neglect to try to catch up on and make up for.

    I just talked to my husband, he was going to lunch.  He was still so reserved.  I asked him if everyone was happy, he said they were but they are preparing for what might come next :)  I guess we won't be partying hard tonight :)

    Parent

    It sure sounds like they had a special (none / 0) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 01:41:04 PM EST
    weighted white sheet ready and waiting for him though.

    Parent
    Dumbest On Air Comment (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:05:39 AM EST
    Some analyst on CNN said: " We now lose the stability of the Al Queda leadership.  We could have a more unstable leader".  Yikes.  We so love our stability.  

    Yes - we could have the real crazy guy in charge. (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by ruffian on Mon May 02, 2011 at 02:50:00 PM EST
    Unbelievable the things they come up with.

    Parent
    OMG.... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:40:25 AM EST
    Yeah (none / 0) (#74)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:55:14 AM EST
    this is a lot like GHW Bush offering to help the Soviets when eastern Europe was slipping away.

    Parent
    Sounds like Peter Bergen thinking (none / 0) (#113)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 02, 2011 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    Yes, you got it! (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by MKS on Mon May 02, 2011 at 07:32:55 PM EST
    I was watching CNN when he made the comment....

    Parent
    Promises (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:43:51 AM EST
    I believe last week that someone asked what promises Obama has kept.

    Please add this one to the list.

    "What I have said is we're going encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our non-military aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants. And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act, and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaida. That has to be our biggest national security priority."

    Source: Second presidential debate: foreign policy, Oct. 7, 2008

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/901/we-will-kill-bin-laden/

    He's having a good presidency.  

    Weak comment (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:21:32 PM EST
    Not seeing why that is so.... (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:38:07 PM EST
    Kept his promise? (none / 0) (#119)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 02, 2011 at 01:24:02 PM EST
    Really? You don't see how that is a weak comment?

    Well, I do not know how to explain it to you then.

    Parent

    Obama followed through (none / 0) (#126)
    by MKS on Mon May 02, 2011 at 01:42:56 PM EST
    on getting bin Laden in Pakistan if he had the chance....

    That was the gist of the comment....I'd say Obama followed through on that commitment....

    Parent

    Hehad to make a "campaign promise" (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 02, 2011 at 02:16:39 PM EST
    to do that?

    The entire premise is ridiculous and frankly, insulting, to Obama.

    IF he would not have made the promise he would not have done it is the idea?

    Ok, I've explained it. I was hoping that I would not need to but there it is.


    Parent

    Thank you for the explanation (none / 0) (#133)
    by MKS on Mon May 02, 2011 at 02:27:36 PM EST
    Yes, it was a disputed issue during the campaign.  Romney accused Obama of being "Dr. Strangelove" on this precise issue.....Conservatives said that Obama was being reckless with his comments and potentially destabilizing Musharraf....

    The idea behind ABG's comments was to compliment Obama for a job well done....And you guys dump on him....

    I believe it was a signficant military and political achievement.  Not without risk and not a no-brainer either as a bombing run looked very tempting...

    For Pete sake, Ike said he would go to Korea....not that he did


    Parent

    "Promise kept" (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 02, 2011 at 02:32:16 PM EST
    in not "job well done."

    To put the President's performance as C-i-C in the "promise kept" category is weak and insulting to the President.

    It was an extremely weak comment from ABG.

    Parent

    As (none / 0) (#139)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 03:29:52 PM EST
    news of the background on this trickles out, it looks like a promise kept and a job well done.

    Parent
    Exactly MKS (none / 0) (#140)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 03:31:14 PM EST
    BTD (none / 0) (#138)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 03:25:21 PM EST
    The point is relevant not because he said he'd get Obama but because of the way in which he said he would do so.  Obama asserted that his strategy involved ramping up pressure in both Afghanistan and Pakistan and if necessary going around the Pakistan government to accomplish the mission.

    I the debate and on the campaign trail both McCain and Palin scoffed at the idea.  Bush and others did to.

    He followed through with his strategy and it worked.

    But beyond that, Bush said he was going to kill Osama for 7 years and didn't Obama said he would do it and did.

    So yeah, the point is completely valid.  Give the man his due.  He chose a strategy frowned upon and it worked.

    Parent

    I think BTD's objection, and mine (none / 0) (#146)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 02, 2011 at 04:03:39 PM EST
    to your comment is that it seems pretty trivializing to say this is a "promise kept."

    Obama gets kudos from me on the way he and his people carried this out with such doggedness and carefulness, but I do not put it in the "campaign promises kept" category.

    Parent

    Why on earth is it trivializing it? (none / 0) (#149)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 05:08:24 PM EST
    I like this summary:

    "The short version of the story: Barack Obama promised to end the war in Iraq and to do whatever it took to get Osama bin Laden and defeat the people who attacked us on 9/11 so that we could end the so-called war on terrorism. John McCain said Obama was naive. Barack Obama won the election and did what he promised."

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/02/972424/-Obama-promised-to-get-bin-Laden-McCain-disagreed-Ob ama-won-And%C2%A0bin%C2%A0Ladens%C2%A0dead?detail=hide

    Parent

    I give the man his due (none / 0) (#147)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 02, 2011 at 04:08:04 PM EST
    I strongly defended Obama in 2007 and 1008 when he was attacked for saying he would launch military strikes in Pakistan against Al Qaida.

    I think your comment cheapens Obama's
    accomplishments.

    Extremely weak of you.

    Parent

    Aren't the ones (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 05:09:57 PM EST
    giving W the credit the ones cheapening the accomplishment?

    You are nitpicking.

    Parent

    the post-08 furies (2.33 / 3) (#152)
    by jondee on Mon May 02, 2011 at 05:20:46 PM EST
    have made you Public Enemy No 1 here, ABG. Your posts are all being forensically parsed for insufficent intolerance relating to all things Obama..

    Try not to take it personally.

    Parent

    Maybe for some (none / 0) (#165)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 03, 2011 at 08:35:28 AM EST
    But not for me.

    ABG's comment was extremely weak.

    Parent

    Looking for reasons to find fault (none / 0) (#148)
    by MKS on Mon May 02, 2011 at 04:51:37 PM EST
     I cannot fathom an interpretation of ABG's comments on this subject, or any other, that intend to diminish Obama.

    Perhaps you could have said that Obama's accomplishment was significantly more important than a mere campaign pledge.....

    Parent

    Not indended (none / 0) (#151)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 02, 2011 at 05:15:09 PM EST
    Just happens to be the effect.

    But have it your way if you lie,. Run around yelling "promise kept!" if you feel like it.

    I think it is an insult to Obama to do that. Enjoy yourself though.

    Parent

    He's not (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:24:08 PM EST
    keeping the entire paragraph as a promise not that I really care about "promoting democracy" in Pakistan anyway.

    Parent
    If we've crushed Al Qaida (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:35:18 PM EST
    then it's time to get out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.

    Bet we won't be doing that any time soon....

    Parent

    Not so sure (none / 0) (#102)
    by MKS on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:37:06 PM EST
    The impromptu celebration has a V-E feel to it....

    We have won, so time to go home.....could be a refrain that we hear next....

    Parent

    From your lips to Obama's ears. (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by vml68 on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:41:31 PM EST
    We have won, so time to go home


    Parent
    Hmmm (none / 0) (#127)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 02, 2011 at 01:51:56 PM EST
    Don't hold your breath.

    Parent
    It could go the other way (none / 0) (#131)
    by MKS on Mon May 02, 2011 at 02:06:20 PM EST
    A successful raid means Obama, Petraeus and Hillary know what the eff they're doing, and thus it could be argued, should be given the benefit of the doubt about our continued presence in Afghanistan.

    The one drawback from the raid is a potentially destabilized Pakistan.  Afghanistan has really been about Pakistan--and keeping the nukes away from the Taliban.

    Is staying in Afghanistan helps us deal with Pakistan, then maybe.

    I tend to think, however, that today is our V-E day and people want to say we're done....and to come home.

    Parent

    You just can't help yourself, can (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by caseyOR on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:40:47 PM EST
    you, ABG? This reflexive, non-stop Obama promoting. It's like you have a nervous twitch.

    Parent
    Justified here (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by MKS on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:42:50 PM EST
    Just as reflexive the other way too....

    Parent
    A couple of things: (none / 0) (#154)
    by Anne on Mon May 02, 2011 at 05:45:04 PM EST
    Or maybe several:

    Obama had the choice to make, in terms of the whole operation, whether to go for it or not.  In a rare example of gutsy leadership, he went for it, not knowing whether it would succeed or fail.  

    His team succeeded at killing bin Laden, but it remains to be seen whether this event will have entirely positive repercussions; I think it's worth noting that after the initial positive reaction on Wall Street, economic news eventually pushed it off the radar, and the market dropped.  If that doesn't tell you something about the big picture, I don't know what would.

    At the time Obama's original comments were made, it was a clear pander to the hawks - the kind who don't care how something is done, just that it is done.  And while I don't accuse you of being a hawk, I do think you fall into the category of someone who doesn't seem to care about the means, just the end.  Some of us actually care about the means, too, and feel that elevating what I believe will eventually be seen to be an assassination to the level of "justice" cheapens  the meaning of the word.

    And yes, I am aware that Hillary is a hawk, too, so don't think I'm sitting here under any illusions that she would have done anything differently; I can assure you that I would not be pleased at the "justice was done" assessment, nor would I be pleased that assassinating bin Laden has now been elevated to being an example of America's "can-do" spirit.

    In the grand scheme of things, I don't think this will matter nearly as much as some people think it will, but sure, go ahead and check it off the Big List of Things to Accomplish.

    As promises go, I think it was an easy one to make; a lot of people have been working for a long time to get to this point, so the odds were that sooner or later, Osama's ticket was going to be punched.

    But getting Osama does not a good presidency make.

    Parent

    It was not about being a hawk (none / 0) (#157)
    by Politalkix on Mon May 02, 2011 at 08:35:38 PM EST
    it was about being effective. Everybody knew that the problem about Al Qaeda had to pass through Pakistan but only BHO during the campaign trail was willing to address it directly. He did exactly what he said he would do. He said during the debates that if he got good information that OBL was in Pakistan, he would pursue him there irrespective of whether the Pakistani government gave him permission or not; he said that he was willing to go around the Pakistani govt if it helped him achieve his goal in this regard. He also said that he did not need to threaten anyone with nukes to get to OBL. HRC, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Edwards the Republicans and the media thought that he was making rookie mistakes in foreign policy by not showing respect for the sovereignity of Pakistan, for saying things that could destablize an "ally", for not understanding the value of keeping nukes on the table during bargaining, yada, yada, yada....
    Today Obama has proved that his approach was viable. It is clear that the ridicule he faced from his opponents for "lack of experience" in dealing with OBL and Pakistan was quite unfair.
    Capturing or killing OBL was not the only thing that BHO promised in his fight against terrorism, he took a more holistic approach than you give him credit for (his approach also involved repairing our relations with Muslims around the world).


    Parent
    Never assume (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by mmc9431 on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:47:17 AM EST
    You're assuming two dangerous things!

    1.That the American voter has an attention span greater than the gnat.

    2. That the Democrats will be able to control the message.

    Who would have thought that they would have put the very people that destroyed the economy in charge of fixing it?

    My faith in my fellow Americans and the Democratic Party has taken a major hit over the last couple of years.

    Great post, but as you said before (none / 0) (#1)
    by Buckeye on Mon May 02, 2011 at 08:32:11 AM EST
    I believe an opportunity was wasted on releasing the long form BC right now.  Imagine if Apprentice was interrupted with this news, coming on the heels of him being a big joke at the WDC dinner and Obama still had that ace up his sleeve?  He could have allowed other republican nominees to squirm for a while and then released it Q4 or Q1 next year.  Instead, Trump suffered a horrible horrible week.  The other nominees are off the hook.

    The other brand-R candidates will have their (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:04:26 AM EST
    own pet idiocies to knock down in due time. They aren't off the hook. Trump was the main one on the Birther bandwagon so it was good to nail him with that one.

    Parent
    Funny poster (none / 0) (#137)
    by ruffian on Mon May 02, 2011 at 02:51:59 PM EST
    Wolcott.

    I think Obama should use it.

    Parent

    Where are you getting (none / 0) (#5)
    by lilburro on Mon May 02, 2011 at 08:47:36 AM EST
    the reaction from Pakistan exactly?  Just curious.

    Video (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by ScottW714 on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:35:35 AM EST
    MSNBC has a video of the locals torching the compound he was killed at.  Tons of people outside throwing all kinds of C at the place, it definitely a celebration.

    Parent
    I'd be inclined to agree with you, if (none / 0) (#12)
    by Anne on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:03:19 AM EST
    it were October 2012 and not May 2011, because I think what's going to be driving this election in the end is the state of the economy; there won't be much comfort to be taken or gratitude to be expressed at the polls, for the death of bin Laden, if people still don't have jobs, or are still cobbling together part-time work to hang on, and if they feel the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress simply have not done what they needed to do to reverse the situation - and I don't just mean whether the stock market is booming, either.

    He IS going to get a very different sort (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:08:05 AM EST
    of Dead Cat bounce than we have ever seen out of this :)

    While it would be wise (none / 0) (#21)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:12:51 AM EST
    to wait until more information or maybe less disinformation regarding all the circumstances are available, my initial reaction to his killing is that Osama has long been on the assassination list. If an American citizen such as Anwar al-Awlaki could be justified for killing, it was obvious that Osama would be at the top of the list.  

    To me, it would have been a sign of American strength to capture Osama and entrust his fate to our judicial system.   We are ahead of the Iraqi's, at least, in their treatment of Uday and Qusay, not to mention Saddam himself.  

    My worry for the future is that rather than declaring the "War on Terror" to be a mission accomplished (of course, terrorist tactics will continue and need to be dealt with  such as by small groups of special forces or old fashioned police work) the argument will point to Iraq and Afghanistan as successes in dealing with terrorists.

    That (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:17:40 AM EST
    is the biggest trajectory that I hope is changed from this. Fact of the matter is, that terrorism is best handled by special ops and police work rather than sending massive troops into a country.

    Parent
    Some say that your (none / 0) (#32)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:28:58 AM EST
    comment is reflected in the appointment of Petraeus to CIA

    Parent
    Iraq is no success (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:23:14 AM EST
    If Afghanistan ever could be we don't have the time or the money.  I think the Panetta/Petraeus transfers indicate that this "war" is going CIA and Special Forces.

    Parent
    Petraeus running CIA will be a disaster (none / 0) (#53)
    by Dadler on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:43:23 AM EST
    We'd be better off having the CIA run by a rotating committee of university linguistics instructors, or elderly bridge tournament champions.

    Petraeus is an imagination vacuum.

    Our entire government is.

    The Bald Soprano States of America.  

    Parent

    Not really true (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by MKS on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:59:47 AM EST
    Petraeus was given credit for being quite imaginative when he commanded the 101st in Iraq--that is how he got noticed.....He was particularly adept in dealing with local leaders etc.

    His goals were military goals--Obama has to judge whether to accept or reject them from a broader strategic point of view.

    Parent

    Agreed (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 02, 2011 at 03:56:09 PM EST
    Petraeus has a fairly supple and subtle mind, which is actually a pretty good thing to have at CIA, seems to me.  I'd heard about what Petraeus was doing with his command in Iraq, very much against the grain of what Rumsfeld's military was doing, and the success he was having years before he vaulted into the spotlight.

    He's way too political for my taste, and I wonder how much ability he has to tell the bosses things they don't want to hear.  But it seems like a pretty good choice, especially given the tiny number of people that could pass confirmation these days.


    Parent

    I do wonder about Obama (none / 0) (#155)
    by MKS on Mon May 02, 2011 at 07:30:41 PM EST
    challenging Petraeus when necessary.....

    But if Petraeus sticks to finding facts rather than setting policy, a blurry line at best, then he should be fine and could be quite good.

     

    Parent

    Well said (none / 0) (#167)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 03, 2011 at 10:10:37 AM EST
    But having Panetta move over to Defense should help provide a reality check.

    Parent
    I think he'll do okay (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 02:50:21 PM EST
    but you need to admit Dadler that you would be happiest if the CIA just blew its own arse up and they were all gone :)

    Parent
    Tojo assasination (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:53:13 AM EST
    is precedent here.

    Bin Laden was the military leader of an enemy force.....He was not head of state.

    To kill him is part of war.  And, yes, it is unseemly, as is all war.

    Parent

    Tojo (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:09:44 PM EST
    was convicted of war crimes, sentenced to death and executed.

    Perhaps you're thinking of Yamamoto.

    Parent

    Yes, thank you, it was Yamamoto (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:13:04 PM EST
    Our fighters deliberately targeted him and shot down his transport plane....

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#33)
    by ScottW714 on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:33:49 AM EST
    This pretty much takes care of his National Defense creds for 2012.  He won't get the bounce effect, but this shored up one of his weakest areas, and gives him a huge edge for the stump speeches and debates.

    And most importantly, I won't have to watch some cheesy commercials about Obama being ineffectual in the pursuit of terrorists.

    And one would hope that this might give him the confidence to start addressing some of the Democratic issues he's been timid on.

    Pakistan High Commissioner to the UK (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:50:57 AM EST
    when discussing that Pakistan didn't know where Osama was said that Osama had only recently moved to Pakistan.  They built the compound five years ago.  I wonder how long Bin Laden had been there?

    I wonder (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:56:21 AM EST
    if the Pakistan High Commissioner is telling the truth.

    Interesting that this also proves that the Pakistani Military has been infiltrated by AQ.

    Parent

    Juan Cole (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by lilburro on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:05:29 AM EST
    appears to believe a lot of this is just kabuki (in terms of what Pakistan's government did and did not know).  From his post "Obama and the End of Al-Qaeda":

    My guess is that the US agreed to shield the government of Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and President Asaf Ali Zardari from al-Qaeda reprisals by putting out the story that the operation against Bin Laden was solely a US one. And it may be that suspect elements of the Pakistani elite, such as the Inter-Services Intelligence, were kept out the the loop because it was feared they might have ties to Bin Laden and might tip him off.


    Parent
    lilburro (none / 0) (#104)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:37:13 PM EST
    thanks for the link.  Great Juan Cole post.

    Parent
    We have to wonder (none / 0) (#120)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 02, 2011 at 01:32:01 PM EST
    how much this will destabilize Pakistan regardless.  Will Al Qaida believe that the Prez and Prime Minister had nothing to do with the assasination?

    Parent
    It has :) (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:07:12 AM EST
    They have assassinated a few Pakistani generals that were serious about going after terrorism with us.  The most recent one was right after my husband left Afghanistan this last tour.  They assassinated a general that was often meeting with us at Bagram. I'm pretty sure that the Pakistani military has now been successfully infilitrated by our CIA too though as well as the ISI.

    Parent
    I wonder, too, if (none / 0) (#42)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:12:54 AM EST
    the aid program promoted by John Kerry, chair of the foreign relations committee, was foundering.  That $7.5 billion package may be among dots to be connected in this picture.

    Parent
    My favorite comments comes ... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Robot Porter on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:23:41 AM EST
    from a Facebook friend:

    Bin Landen's dead? So 2001.


    That way basically my reaction too (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by andgarden on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:36:13 AM EST
    I think we've been genuinely out of the shadow of 9/11 since at least 2006 or so.

    Parent
    do you remember the 10 year anniversary (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by CST on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:29:36 AM EST
    of the Berlin Wall?  Do you remember the Berlin Wall coming down?  Do you remember how LONG ago that felt?

    I remember thinking all of these things and not feeling particularly young at the time.  There are people like that today who barely remember 9/11.  And they aren't just little kids.

    That being said (and this is carried over from something I read in another thread), you better believe people in their 20s remember it, it was our "jfk was shot"/"pearl harbor" moment.  But  after two wars and ten years, it's become about much more than just Osama.

    I'm glad that we caught him, although I don't really feel comfortable with the celebrations - a man is dead.  Maybe now everyone can rest a little more in peace.  Maybe the wars will get a little smaller.  Those are the only good things that could possibly come of this.

    Parent

    Oh, I vividly remember 9/11 (none / 0) (#88)
    by andgarden on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:13:21 PM EST
    I was doing group-building exercises with my 10th grade class in (I think) the Poconos. I had spent the summer in Paris, and woke up that morning with a charley horse (something about sleeping in summer camp facilities. . . .) By the time we got to the one TV in the place, both towers had collapsed, and people were assuming 20,000 dead. I remembered the Africa embassy bombings, and assumed Bin Laden was responsible.

    I had visited the WTC in early June of that year with my grandmother, who lived (and lives) in Manhattan. I think we had lunch in Chinatown afterwards. I remember thinking how eerily quiet it was on the observation deck (only a handful of other tourists were there at the time).

    As to the Berlin wall. . .I wasn't even in kindergarten when that happened. I vaguely remember the end of the Soviet Union, though. I took pleasure in picking out all of the world maps that were suddenly wrong.

    Parent

    I wonder how many know (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:48:34 AM EST
     in what year 9/ll occurred?  

    Parent
    best one I've seen (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by CST on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:53:30 AM EST
    "Osama dead, body carrying $15 trillion dollars cash, all problems solved."

    Parent
    LOL, If only that were true! (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by vml68 on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:22:10 PM EST
    Hopefully (none / 0) (#45)
    by SOS on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:25:24 AM EST
    we the USA! will stop mass murdering people for the sake of the shareholders now.

    Bin Laden is dead. And that's great. But (none / 0) (#48)
    by tigercourse on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:29:53 AM EST
    his ultimate goal of a utterly theocratic Middle East and a weakened/destroyed West seems to grow closer every single day. Once the barbarians amass at the gates, they don't go away.

    Beyond me how (none / 0) (#144)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 02, 2011 at 03:57:42 PM EST
    you figure that, with secular uprisings all over the place.

    Parent
    In case you happen to see this response, (none / 0) (#161)
    by tigercourse on Mon May 02, 2011 at 11:37:26 PM EST
    they might be secular uprisings, but theocracy will be the ultimate outcome. Egypt is barreling along in that direction right now. And the Libyan rebels are hardly secular humanists.

    Parent
    I would point out (none / 0) (#166)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 03, 2011 at 10:08:57 AM EST
    that having religious parties play a role in the government via parliamentary representation is hardly "theocratic government," at least in my understanding of the term, nor even is having an official state religion.  The UK has that, for one, as do other European states, and most certainly Israel.

    As an American, I don't like the idea, but that doesn't make them theocratic states.

    Parent

    Israel doesn't have civil marriages (none / 0) (#168)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue May 03, 2011 at 10:31:13 AM EST
    so many Israelis get married outside of the country if they don't want to have a rabbi involved in the process.

    Also, it should be pointed out that there is a very weak religious feeling amongst the populace of those nations with an official state religion, one would wish those Christians who inhabit the Bible Belts of the South and the West(Central California between Sacramento down to Bakersfield) would learn a lesson from this fact.

    Parent

    When conservative religious parties (none / 0) (#169)
    by tigercourse on Tue May 03, 2011 at 11:22:41 AM EST
    dominate the government (and I expect the Salafists, the more moderate Muslim Brotherhood and assorted other groups to do this eventually) it's basically a theocracy. They aren't going to play "a roll", they will play the main roll.

    Religion is too powerful and the secularists too small in number/weak for any other likely outcome.

    Parent

    The usual suspects (none / 0) (#49)
    by lilburro on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:34:01 AM EST
    proclaim this a wonderful validation of Guantanamo.  ...

    Yes, torture is good, (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 02, 2011 at 10:39:30 AM EST
    after all.

    Parent
    The tip from a Gitmo prisoner (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:03:26 PM EST
    dont' say how that tip was obtained.....and I had heard it was a tip years ago..........

    No, even the sketcy info we have does not confirm that torture works--which is what the usual suspects appeared to be saying...

    Parent

    No story I've seen (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:22:29 PM EST
    other than Fox credits a Gitmo tip.

    Parent
    Here is the LA Times (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by lilburro on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:35:41 PM EST
    From KSM (none / 0) (#111)
    by MKS on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:48:08 PM EST
    But even if true was it obtained before or after the waterboarding...

    Parent
    El Rusbo was off on that tangent (none / 0) (#101)
    by MKS on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:35:53 PM EST
    at the beginning of his show today--I couldn't resist.  Yes, he was all snide as usual--credit the military, not Obama.

    And, I do think I heard that "tip" story on Fox.

    Parent