New Navy Seal Book Says bin Laden Already Dead

Total bullshit. You known liars reference each other and pass on the lie to the next. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Goebbels actually claimed a lie had to be repeated often before it became the truth.

Boy was he dumb.

Yep, more proof that Whirlygig is on Pluto. Author and reporter Peter Bergen, who actually spoke to the people involved in the operation at the White House, like Mike Mullen, has this to say about the Miniter book that Whirly takes as gospel:

"In the course of reporting a book about the hunt for bin Laden, I spoke to scores of White House, Pentagon and intelligence officials familiar with the hunt for al Qaeda's leader, more than a dozen of whom had firsthand knowledge of Obama's decision-making process about the operation to take out the terrorist leader. Many of those officials spoke to me on the record. I also traveled to Pakistan three times after bin Laden was killed to do my own investigation of the hunt for al Qaeda's leader and spoke to a number of Pakistani military and intelligence officials who investigated the bin Laden raid and its aftermath.

Based on that reporting and also what is available on the public record, Miniter's account of the intelligence that led to bin Laden and the decision-making surrounding the operation that killed him is a pile of poppycock served up with heaps of hogwash."

Another Whirlygig fairy tale bites the dust.

By the way COG, the new SEAL book doesn't say that Bin Laden was shot when he stuck his head out the window of his bedroom. It says he was shot when he stuck his head out the door of his bedroom as the operators approached in the hallway.

Relying on Peter Bergen is a joke; he is a hard nosed liberal.....a member of the New American think tank.....he is a contributing editor at the New Republic.......hardly a middle road publication...he/and his wife are on the payroll of CNN, a corrupt news organization that mislead, obfusicated, and generally failed in reporting on the 2008 campgain, an organization that goes out of it's way to protect the reputation of Obama.

Both Tommy Vietor and Josh Earnest are political operatives attached to the White House for the sole purpose of protecting the president. Why you would trust any of the individuals that you have cited is foolish. Benjamn Rhodes is Obama's speech writer.......Offical title "Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications," another poltical operative whose purpose is to shield Obama from criticisms...his email is meaningless and offers no collabroateive truths..his email is a statement only to what he presumes to know. I doubt if Obama informs Rhodes of all the private (and off record) conversations he has.

Has Hillary denied the Miniter details ?
Has Obama denied the Miniter details ?
Has Jarrett denied the Miniter details ?

I doubt if Obama informs Rhodes of all the private (and off record) conversations he has. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

But Obama tells miniter and his "unnamed sources"?

You are a major league dumb ass.

Read his book. It's sourced. He spoke with the people involved and they've gone on the record. Military people, like Mike Mullen, former chief of the joint chiefs. He doesn't rely on unnamed sources like your boy Whirlygig.

And how about the comments from Republican and former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the guy that commanded the raid, Admiral McRaven. I notice you didn't have anything to say about their comments. Don't want to go there?

"For example, (former Defense) Secretary (Robert) Gates said 'this is one of the most courageous calls -- decisions -- that I think I've ever seen a president make.' (The raid commander) Admiral (William) McRaven said that 'At the end of the day, make no mistake about it, it was the president of the United States that shouldered the burden for this operation, that made the hard decisions, that was instrumental in the planning process, because I pitched every plan to him.' "

Has Hillary denied the Miniter details ?
Has Obama denied the Miniter details ?
Has Jarrett denied the Miniter details ?

Has Hillary denied the Miniter details ?
Has Obama denied the Miniter details ?
Has Jarrett denied the Miniter details ? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Whoops. You're right, forgot about that.....there's your proof. God, you clever bastard!

I guess Hillary will be indicted for the murder of Vince Foster shortly since I don't recall her making any public denials of the accusations against her regarding his death. Do you have inside information on that too? Tell me you believe that fairy tale as well. Because I know you do.....

It would be nice to know what was said "off record" though we never will. For the record is what you are told to say.

All you said was your not a fan of Obama...that tells us nothing where u are on the political spectrum. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

No, I said more than that.

Re-read ALL of my posts. Don't just skim I clearly identified a political party.

And why do you need to know my affiliations to begin with? So you can make even more assumptions and presumptions - this time about me?

If I point out that the report is bullshit or exaggerated or misconstrued, you should be able to point out where my argument is wrong - regardless of what my politics are.

When you let ideology trump common sense and go out of your way to construe all facts and even fictions regarding your political opponents in the worst light possible, you destroy your own credibility.

Ok; I see it, in your follow up post "traditionally Republican".....and I don't "need to know"...I just like to understand where people think they are on the political specturm...

No, I said more than that.

Re-read ALL of my posts. Don't just skim I clearly identified a political party.

And why do you need to know my affiliations to begin with? So you can make even more assumptions and presumptions - this time about me?

If I point out that the report is bullshit or exaggerated or misconstrued, you should be able to point out where my argument is wrong - regardless of what my politics are.

When you let ideology trump common sense and go out of your way to construe all facts and even fictions regarding your political opponents in the worst light possible, you destroy your own credibility. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Relying on Peter Bergen is a joke; he is a hard nosed liberal.....a member of the New American think tank.....he is a contributing editor at the New Republic.......hardly a middle road publication...he/and his wife are on the payroll of CNN, a corrupt news organization that mislead, obfuscated, and generally failed in reporting on the 2008 campaign, an organization that goes out of it's way to protect the reputation of Obama. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You're an embarrassment.

No wonder you wanted to know my political affiliations. You want to judge what I say based on my political beliefs, regardless of the merits of what I say.

You won't listen to contradictory evidence because the bearer of bad news is a liberal?

About 45% of the country identifies as liberal/Democrat. Are you saying you don't believe anything one of them says if it contradicts something you already believe?

Is it OK for liberals to do the same? Is it OK if a liberal refuses to believe you - simply because you are a conservative - when you say that Obama has gotten more troops killed in Afghanistan in 3.5 years than George Bush did in just over 7 years? That's a FACT and you can look it up in the NY Times.

But is it false if you say it because you are a conservative and liberals cannot trust you?

Has Hillary denied the Miniter details ?
Has Obama denied the Miniter details ?
Has Jarrett denied the Miniter details ? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

It is not necessary to deny the ludicrous accusations of every rank partisan with a word processor. That task would endless.

Did the Bush administration deny every 911 conspiracy accusation written by every left wing or right wing crazy. They did not. Nor should that have.

In fact, you can make a good case that any US President and his/her staff should routinely ignore rather than reply to ridiculous accusations.

It is beneath the dignity of their offices to get in the gutter and wrestle with cheap hacks.

It also gives the hacks undeserved credit and publicity.

Whirly,

You are getting your ass handed to you. But hey you won't believe me because you precieve me to be liberal! LOL

ExNYer,

Whirly is usually more logicial but I think the closer to the election gets the less logicial he becomes. I think , he thinks there is really a huge difference between political parties for the average taxpayer. There is not IMHO, therefore I do not get as amped up as Whirly does come election time. Talk to him in December after Romney has lost and reality has sunk back in!

You're an embarrassment.

No wonder you wanted to know my political affiliations. You want to judge what I say based on my political beliefs, regardless of the merits of what I say.

You won't listen to contradictory evidence because the bearer of bad news is a liberal?

About 45% of the country identifies as liberal/Democrat. Are you saying you don't believe anything one of them says if it contradicts something you already believe?

Is it OK for liberals to do the same? Is it OK if a liberal refuses to believe you - simply because you are a conservative - when you say that Obama has gotten more troops killed in Afghanistan in 3.5 years than George Bush did in just over 7 years? That's a FACT and you can look it up in the NY Times. I would say more troops have been killed during Obama's presidency (3.5 years) than during 7 years of the Bush presidency.

But is it false if you say it because you are a conservative and liberals cannot trust you? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Welcome to our world. You have summed up the "whirly factor" pretty well. But it goes beyond that. Any one can use a source that proves to be wrong or makes a mistake. It doesn't reflect on the person until they don't back check info that has been called into question.
You will also see people discredit sources with anecdotal stories and examples. No actual examples. Just a statement about how all of the facts are unreliable.
The big one though is that if you don't hate Obama, you are a leftist/liberal/socialist....at best. It couldn't be that there are enough real issues to discuss and that the constant misrepresentation of opinion as fact. As a matter of practice I usually link any facts I post. It's easy because I was just at the site I'm citing.

I don't hate Obama. I don't even hate you, Munchie. But I do think he is an incompetent president who doesn't understand his limitations.

Quite frankly, he has copied so many of GW Bush's policies, it's hard to classify his supporters as leftists, although many of them are.