UBL, Part II

Other than taking a jab at Obama, was there really a reason for this statement? No president would have allowed bin Laden to live, regardless of their affiliation. Why is it that hardcore right wingers never cease to be antagonistic? Originally Posted by jenesys

Because the left was so damn sanctimonious about human rights when the other side was in office.

I thought RK asked the question very nicely.

Why is it that hardcore right wingers never cease to be antagonistic? Originally Posted by jenesys

Because that's what they're all about anymore. The reason Trump has jumped to the top of the Republican polls isn't because he has great ideas for running the country, it's because he's the one who's shown himself to be most willing to get in Obama's face about anything, no matter how pathetic and petty (as is now obvious).

Trump leading the Republican polls based on his nonsense would be the equivalent of Michael Moore leading the Democratic field heading into 2004.

Because the left was so damn sanctimonious about human rights when the other side was in office. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I don't think "the left" ever gave a damn about human rights when it came to whether or not we killed Bin Laden.

I thought RK asked the question very nicely.

Sure, but the simple answer is there are no absolutes in life. The guy killed 3000 people, most of them Americans. We know this. It's not in dispute. Agreeing that this is a case where the death penalty is justified, without even so much as a trial is not as inconsistent as RK would like to suggest.

Because the left was so damn sanctimonious about human rights when the other side was in office.

Define the attack on the WTC as an act of war the operation against OBL is really not far fetched whatever side of the political spectrum one is on. Technically it was a capture or kill if resist order

The problem GWB ran into was that captured operatives were treated in a manner inconsistent with how captives should be handled.

The real question would be if bin Laden had chosen to surrender what would the US troops have done and if they did capture him alive what next? I'm happy there is no need to answer those questions.

I thought RK asked the question very nicely.

It was as nice a way to goad as I have seen, but still a goad. That's ok, RK - by his own admission - is just an old curmudgeon.

The reality is covert operations like this go on all the time and never are reported.

I'm not suggesting this one shouldn't have been reported due to the exceptional symbolism it has.

Letting me tweak the original question a little: does the left have a problem taking out terrorists in foreign countries without due process so long as their guy is calling the shots?

Letting me tweak the original question a little: does the left have a problem taking out terrorists in foreign countries without due process so long as their guy is calling the shots? Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I would have had no problem with GWB issuing the same order as Obama did; does that help?

Letting me tweak the original question a little: does the left have a problem taking out terrorists in foreign countries without due process so long as their guy is calling the shots?

I don't think anyone who agrees with taking out terrorists in foreign countries without due process seriously would care who is in office when this transpires. The question really should be: do those on the left have a problem taking out terrorists in foreign countries without due process period?

I would have had no problem with GWB issuing the same order as Obama did; does that help? Originally Posted by discreetgent

Kinda, I think there is overwhelming support for killing Bin Laden. I mean even people that detest football will go to a Superbowl party if there is gonna be good food.

The question really is will the left be as equally supportive of attacks under similar circumstances (foreign citizens, foreign soil) of less "infamous" or "symbolic" targets?

I don't think anyone who agrees with taking out terrorists in foreign countries without due process seriously would care who is in office when this transpires. The question really should be: do those on the left have a problem taking out terrorists in foreign countries without due process period? Originally Posted by jenesys

The question boils down to is this a war and what should be acceptable in fighting a war.

The question boils down to is this a war and what should be acceptable in fighting a war. Originally Posted by discreetgent

I agree (& we didn't win the war yet)

The reality is covert operations like this go on all the time and never are reported. News Flash!!! Film at 11

I'm not suggesting this one shouldn't have been reported due to the exceptional symbolism it has. Thank you very much, now we can all breathe easier

Letting me tweak the original question a little: does the left have a problem taking out terrorists in foreign countries without due process so long as their guy is calling the shots? That's about as fatuous as you can get - look it up, fatuous that is Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Ahhhh, taking a break from jacking-off to "Rush's Greatest Snits," eh? The height of faux-macho.

Mods please delete post.

News Flash!!! Film at 11. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Boy, talk about dating yourself. U-matics (precursor to Betacam which was precursor to the Betamax, i.e. video cassettes), are about 30 years old and replaced the "film at 11:00."

You can call it a “jab,” but I meant it as a compliment when I compared Obama to “W.” Obama promised “change” and insisted polite dialog was all that was necessary to resolve issues of international import. As a realist who doesn’t live in “Candy Land,” I took him at his word and didn’t vote for him. Yet when the rubber met the road, Obama discovered, no doubt to his great chagrin—and just like ol’ “W” before him—he had to rely once again on ol’ rule two-two-three.

Bin Laden’s death came at the muzzle of a weapon: probably an M4 Carbine, caliber .223 (maybe a 9mm Sig: it’ll come out eventually). So much for the “tea and crumpets” methodology Obama originally proposed when he campaigned. So is that really change, or more of the same? To me it sounds more like “W”—but he sure fooled you and Doove, et al.

And if any President would have killed Obama, why didn’t Clinton do it in 2000? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ns/nightly_news/


My question is: "What would Senator Obama's position have been if 'W' four years ago had sent troops to execute a foreign national, in a foreign country, without its knowledge or approval?"

Bin Laden’s death came at the muzzle of a weapon: probably an M4 Carbine, caliber .223 (maybe a 9mm Sig: it’ll come out eventually). So much for the “tea and crumpets” methodology Obama originally proposed when he campaigned. So is that really change, or more of the same? To me it sounds more like “W”—but he sure fooled you and Doove, et al. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Perhaps to you it seems that way. I never assumed that Obama would take a radically different approach to fighting al-Qaida or the Taliban. I did assume that he would ban certain things that went on in the Bush administration - torture for one - and am disappointed he has not been able to close Guantanimo (although in part that is Congress' doing). The tea and crumpet methodology was in reference to Iran, Russia, using international bodies - like Bush I did with Kuwait and Iraq - and he has done that (argue about the results all you wish but the approach has been different).