New book says Hillary Clinton was force behind mission to kill Osama bin Laden

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-book-hillary-clinton-force-behind-mission-kill-osama-bin-laden-article-1.1140412

Originally Posted By ActionJack (20 AUG 2012 8:48pm)

New book says Hillary Clinton was force behind mission to kill Osama bin Laden

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-book-hillary-clinton-force-behind-mission-kill-osama-bin-laden-article-1.1140412

LOL ... Written by a writer who works for the wall street journal which  is owned by rupert murdoch - one of the most morally bankrupt businessmen in the world today - a man who thinks nothing of hacking in to dead childrens phones if it makes his company more money. I would give  as much credence to what a journalist from that organization says about anything as would have to bin laden himself.

Originally Posted By DBeves (21 AUG 2012 2:25am)

Originally Posted By ActionJack (20 AUG 2012 8:48pm)

New book says Hillary Clinton was force behind mission to kill Osama bin Laden

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-book-hillary-clinton-force-behind-mission-kill-osama-bin-laden-article-1.1140412

LOL ... Written by a writer who works for the wall street journal which  is owned by rupert murdoch - one of the most morally bankrupt businessmen in the world today - a man who thinks nothing of hacking in to dead childrens phones if it makes his company more money. I would give  as much credence to what a journalist from that organization says about anything as would have to bin laden himself.

 

A less wordy but equally substantive rebuttal may have looked like this: "La La la la la la la la."  Seriously, I saw a post on the internet the day after the administration touted the bin laden raid that said that Panetta gave the order while Obama was out golfing after he went to Hillary for support where she promised she would back him up.  Remember, they found bin laden in August!  How long does it take to plan an action?  How long did the Israeli's take to plan and execute their rescue mission in Uganda?  I've been waiting to hear more but figured it wouldn't come to light until after the campaign, but now we have this book.  Undoubtedly, once the election is over and spec operators lend credence to the report some will still not believe it possible that it was Hillary who displayed more spine when it counted.

Originally Posted By ActionJack (21 AUG 2012 11:08am)

Originally Posted By DBeves (21 AUG 2012 2:25am)

Originally Posted By ActionJack (20 AUG 2012 8:48pm)

New book says Hillary Clinton was force behind mission to kill Osama bin Laden

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-book-hillary-clinton-force-behind-mission-kill-osama-bin-laden-article-1.1140412

LOL ... Written by a writer who works for the wall street journal which  is owned by rupert murdoch - one of the most morally bankrupt businessmen in the world today - a man who thinks nothing of hacking in to dead childrens phones if it makes his company more money. I would give  as much credence to what a journalist from that organization says about anything as would have to bin laden himself.

 

A less wordy but equally substantive rebuttal may have looked like this: "La La la la la la la la."  Seriously, I saw a post on the internet the day after the administration touted the bin laden raid that said that Panetta gave the order while Obama was out golfing after he went to Hillary for support where she promised she would back him up.  Remember, they found bin laden in August!  How long does it take to plan an action?  How long did the Israeli's take to plan and execute their rescue mission in Uganda?  I've been waiting to hear more but figured it wouldn't come to light until after the campaign, but now we have this book.  Undoubtedly, once the election is over and spec operators lend credence to the report some will still not believe it possible that it was Hillary who displayed more spine when it counted.

 

La, La, La .... seriously - whether its true or not, you dont think its at all possible this guy has an agenda writing what he did especially at this time? - you will believe what you want to believe, and you want to believe it. "A post on the internet " is hardly the font of all truth. The Israelis could give a ***k what anyone else thinks, I am sure obama didnt have the same luxury which would explain why the decision was difficult - especially given where they were having to go in. What I dont get, or perhaps do, is the fact that as much as certain people may not like it - Obama was the president who found and killed Bin Laden. I guess if bush had managed it Rupert may not have been so keen to publish some hacks sour grapes.

Rupert Murdoch isn't morally bankrupt, he is Australian.

There is a slight difference I think, or there was when he originated.

Niall Ferguson has had many brilliant ideas and many....meh,  not so much.

What interests me is how somebody knows and publishes so much about

the inner personal relationships between the highest ranking people

in the Administration right at this particular time.  There should have been

some swift boats involved.  I can just picture the scene:

"Oh alright Hil....I'll do it," the President of the USA whined wiping away a communist tear.

Mrs. Clinton relaxed her manly grip from around his neck, she spat on the manicured golf green.

"Next thing your gonna want me to sleep with Michelle," she leered,"still doing your job for you."

"Really I thought we could convert him to our secret plan," Barry mumbled ashamed.

"I knew I shoulda been President!" said Mrs Clinton stomping away in a rage.

"Nasty hag," whispered Barry.

Mrs Clinton stopped and turned slowly around "Do I have to come back there?" she growled.

Originally Posted By DBeves (21 AUG 2012 3:02pm)
La, La, La .... seriously - whether its true or not, you dont think its at all possible this guy has an agenda writing what he did especially at this time? - you will believe what you want to believe, and you want to believe it. "A post on the internet " is hardly the font of all truth. The Israelis could give a ***k what anyone else thinks, I am sure obama didnt have the same luxury which would explain why the decision was difficult - especially given where they were having to go in. What I dont get, or perhaps do, is the fact that as much as certain people may not like it - Obama was the president who found and killed Bin Laden. I guess if bush had managed it Rupert may not have been so keen to publish some hacks sour grapes.

 

What difference does an agenda matter?  Lincoln had an agenda too.  Did that somehow make his cause worthless; his arguments moot?  It amazes me how often the tactic of attacking the messenger and ignoring the message is thought to be a worthy substitute for intelligent discussion.  Also amazing is somehow ignoring the administration's agenda in denying it.  Why doesn't that negate their validity?  What is at all possible too is that the author is reporting accurately what was conveyed to him.  What is also at all possible is that the information the author received and reported is also an accurate account.  What seems at all impossible is acknowledging that.  It doesn't have to be known as either true or false to acknowledge that possibility now does it?

And no, a post on the internet doesn't equate to an absolute truth but the lack of a follow up was deafening to my ears; even a denial.  As I've said, I've been waiting for this bombshell and boom, it went off.  What, Obama went golfing to fake bin laden into thinking he was safe?  Sure!  His decision was difficult because he's spineless!  Bush did an airborne raid into Afghanistan!  Look at Obam's glass-half-empty decision on the surge in Afghanistan in comparison.  During last year's budget batte there was absolutely no written or verbal message from Obama where his position was.  We heard directly from Boehner; we heard Boehner's critique of Obama's intransigience and backpeddling but we never heard it from the horse's mouth.  Dissembling!

Now if some spec op types who were involved in the planning say different after the election I'll believe it but until then, the behavior entirely fits.  It's a question of sand,  ie. character and he doesn't have it.  And to set the record straight, it was Bush's 'enhanced interrogation' that led to bin laden's location; in fact Obama inherited everything concerning the war on terror.  He doesn't hesitate to explain his failure on the economy by blaming Bush, so how can he take credit for anything Bush started if he's blameless for what he inherited?

The last there has often been sorta my point, although Bush was long gone

when Osama met Allah.  Just like Bill Clinton's army "won" the "war" in Iraq

not Rumsfield.  People love to blame long term issues on the schmuck who

is holding the bag when we find out it is not lunch.  The intelligence flaws that

allowed the 911 attack were years in the making not the direct fault of Bush.

This economic crap we're in right now is years in the making and people try

to do something about it and it just gets better or worse.  I sometimes think it would

be better if all presidents just played golf or cut brush or watched Brady Bunch

reruns.  How much government control on economic activity?  Those who cry

"None!!" are just as daft as those who cry "All!" We wallow about in the middle

and the economy does what it wants, never foreseen and someone always blamed after the fact.

Using illegal immigration as a barometer we can judge that things are better in USA

than they are in Mexico.  Compared to Canada not so much. This last is based on the fact

that I have crossed that border many many times without even being questioned as

to who I was let alone anything else. Non sequiter is the only sequiter.

Originally Posted By ActionJack (21 AUG 2012 5:14pm)

Originally Posted By DBeves (21 AUG 2012 3:02pm)
La, La, La .... seriously - whether its true or not, you dont think its at all possible this guy has an agenda writing what he did especially at this time? - you will believe what you want to believe, and you want to believe it. "A post on the internet " is hardly the font of all truth. The Israelis could give a ***k what anyone else thinks, I am sure obama didnt have the same luxury which would explain why the decision was difficult - especially given where they were having to go in. What I dont get, or perhaps do, is the fact that as much as certain people may not like it - Obama was the president who found and killed Bin Laden. I guess if bush had managed it Rupert may not have been so keen to publish some hacks sour grapes.

 

What difference does an agenda matter?  Lincoln had an agenda too.  Did that somehow make his cause worthless; his arguments moot?  It amazes me how often the tactic of attacking the messenger and ignoring the message is thought to be a worthy substitute for intelligent discussion.  Also amazing is somehow ignoring the administration's agenda in denying it.  Why doesn't that negate their validity?  What is at all possible too is that the author is reporting accurately what was conveyed to him.  What is also at all possible is that the information the author received and reported is also an accurate account.  What seems at all impossible is acknowledging that.  It doesn't have to be known as either true or false to acknowledge that possibility now does it?

 

And no, a post on the internet doesn't equate to an absolute truth but the lack of a follow up was deafening to my ears; even a denial.  As I've said, I've been waiting for this bombshell and boom, it went off.  What, Obama went golfing to fake bin laden into thinking he was safe?  Sure!  His decision was difficult because he's spineless!  Bush did an airborne raid into Afghanistan!  Look at Obam's glass-half-empty decision on the surge in Afghanistan in comparison.  During last year's budget batte there was absolutely no written or verbal message from Obama where his position was.  We heard directly from Boehner; we heard Boehner's critique of Obama's intransigience and backpeddling but we never heard it from the horse's mouth.  Dissembling!

 

Now if some spec op types who were involved in the planning say different after the election I'll believe it but until then, the behavior entirely fits.  It's a question of sand,  ie. character and he doesn't have it.  And to set the record straight, it was Bush's 'enhanced interrogation' that led to bin laden's location; in fact Obama inherited everything concerning the war on terror.  He doesn't hesitate to explain his failure on the economy by blaming Bush, so how can he take credit for anything Bush started if he's blameless for what he inherited?

 

 

Well as I am sure you know, by agenda I could have substituted lies. What reply were you expecting to "a post on the  internet" where was the post ? Maybe Obama didnt google it .... I make lots of posts on the internet and he never replies to mine...

And so - if you are going to give credit to Bush for the invasion of afghanistan in response to 9/11 why do you not do the same for obama in getting Bin Laden. Why was the decision to go into afghanistan any more Bush's decision than it was obamas to go into pakistan ?

Well "reporters" have been reporting the fact that the us governement has alien spacecraft at area 51 for about 40 years. The fact that they "report" it doesnt mean I give it any credence at all. The actual known facts of what happened are that special forces flew into pakistan and killed bin laden. The facts are that only the president, in the end could have signed off on that, whatever you say or some guy writing stuff which he has not attributed yet to any named individual. Given where they were going and what the result could have been if it went wrong - however it came about that is still a brave decision.. Thats something you and your politics wont ever give the man any credit for. Which is what I hate about politics.

And for the record, from what I have read about how they found bin laden it had nothing at all to do with what you euphemistically describe as enhanced interrogation and more to do with good old fashioned police work.

Originally Posted By DBeves (22 AUG 2012 12:04am)

Well as I am sure you know, by agenda I could have substituted lies. What reply were you expecting to "a post on the  internet" where was the post ? Maybe Obama didnt google it .... I make lots of posts on the internet and he never replies to mine...

 

And so - if you are going to give credit to Bush for the invasion of afghanistan in response to 9/11 why do you not do the same for obama in getting Bin Laden. Why was the decision to go into afghanistan any more Bush's decision than it was obamas to go into pakistan ?

 

Well "reporters" have been reporting the fact that the us governement has alien spacecraft at area 51 for about 40 years. The fact that they "report" it doesnt mean I give it any credence at all. The actual known facts of what happened are that special forces flew into pakistan and killed bin laden. The facts are that only the president, in the end could have signed off on that, whatever you say or some guy writing stuff which he has not attributed yet to any named individual. Given where they were going and what the result could have been if it went wrong - however it came about that is still a brave decision.. Thats something you and your politics wont ever give the man any credit for. Which is what I hate about politics.

 

And for the record, from what I have read about how they found bin laden it had nothing at all to do with what you euphemistically describe as enhanced interrogation and more to do with good old fashioned police work.

You said agenda and I took you for your word.  Now you want to call it lies but you haven't substantiated that they are indeed lies so I would suggest that 'agenda' is more appropriate.  Don't second guess yourself.

Bush's actions in Afghanistan were his administration's designs and not inherited.  Obama had handed to him an ongoing effort and all he had to do was get out of its way and he apparently, given the time it took to initiate action on actionable intelligence, couldn't do that.  He made himself an obstacle borne of doubt and fear.  I've seen officers in the military expose similar failures of leadership when placed under considerable strain.  Colonel Dowdy was relieved of his command in the middle of the advance on Baghdad.  That was a man who had years of training and experience but when placed under extreme stress he failed his commander's expectations.  I don't find it amazing nor unexpected from someone like Obama who has no such training or preparation.  We chose badly!  Yes, Hillary displays more spine and character but she's had some experience to prepare her.

As to the record concerning how information led to bin laden's whereabouts, former attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey; the former C.I.A. director, Michael V. Hayden; and the former director of the agency’s clandestine service, Jose A. Rodriguez Jr. say it was obtained from leads developed using the enhanced interrogation techniques.  Senator Boxer claims otherwise.  I'll go with the men in the know.  You can read about it in Rodriquez' book: Hard Measures: How Aggressive CIA Actions After 9/11 Saved American Lives
http://www.amazon.com/Hard-Measures-Aggressive-Actions-American/dp/1451663471/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345650531&sr=1-1

Originally Posted By ActionJack (22 AUG 2012 9:50am)

Originally Posted By DBeves (22 AUG 2012 12:04am)

Well as I am sure you know, by agenda I could have substituted lies. What reply were you expecting to "a post on the  internet" where was the post ? Maybe Obama didnt google it .... I make lots of posts on the internet and he never replies to mine...

 

And so - if you are going to give credit to Bush for the invasion of afghanistan in response to 9/11 why do you not do the same for obama in getting Bin Laden. Why was the decision to go into afghanistan any more Bush's decision than it was obamas to go into pakistan ?

 

Well "reporters" have been reporting the fact that the us governement has alien spacecraft at area 51 for about 40 years. The fact that they "report" it doesnt mean I give it any credence at all. The actual known facts of what happened are that special forces flew into pakistan and killed bin laden. The facts are that only the president, in the end could have signed off on that, whatever you say or some guy writing stuff which he has not attributed yet to any named individual. Given where they were going and what the result could have been if it went wrong - however it came about that is still a brave decision.. Thats something you and your politics wont ever give the man any credit for. Which is what I hate about politics.

 

And for the record, from what I have read about how they found bin laden it had nothing at all to do with what you euphemistically describe as enhanced interrogation and more to do with good old fashioned police work.

You said agenda and I took you for your word.  Now you want to call it lies but you haven't substantiated that they are indeed lies so I would suggest that 'agenda' is more appropriate.  Don't second guess yourself.

 

Bush's actions in Afghanistan were his administration's designs and not inherited.  Obama had handed to him an ongoing effort and all he had to do was get out of its way and he apparently, given the time it took to initiate action on actionable intelligence, couldn't do that.  He made himself an obstacle borne of doubt and fear.  I've seen officers in the military expose similar failures of leadership when placed under considerable strain.  Colonel Dowdy was relieved of his command in the middle of the advance on Baghdad.  That was a man who had years of training and experience but when placed under extreme stress he failed his commander's expectations.  I don't find it amazing nor unexpected from someone like Obama who has no such training or preparation.  We chose badly!  Yes, Hillary displays more spine and character but she's had some experience to prepare her.

 

As to the record concerning how information led to bin laden's whereabouts, former attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey; the former C.I.A. director, Michael V. Hayden; and the former director of the agency’s clandestine service, Jose A. Rodriguez Jr. say it was obtained from leads developed using the enhanced interrogation techniques.  Senator Boxer claims otherwise.  I'll go with the men in the know.  You can read about it in Rodriquez' book: Hard Measures: How Aggressive CIA Actions After 9/11 Saved American Lives
http://www.amazon.com/Hard-Measures-Aggressive-Actions-American/dp/1451663471/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345650531&sr=1-1

 

 

 

Well - they were hardly his designs - Terrorists sponsored by the taliban state of afghanistan had just flown four passenger jets into oblivion and taken thousands of innocent lives - seriously - there was no decision about what bush did - there was only ever going to be one course action he could take and one he was going to find little if any disagreement with. There would be those that say his job was to prevent it happening in the first place.

Really .. - the attorney General, the director of the CIA and Jose Rodriguez say the intelligence was gained via methods that are to most of the world dubious to say the least - now there is a surprise. Your willingness to believe those who absolutely have a vested interest in  wanting you to believe is not the greatest feature of your argument.

Originally Posted By DBeves (22 AUG 2012 1:58pm)

Well - they were hardly his designs - Terrorists sponsored by the taliban state of afghanistan had just flown four passenger jets into oblivion and taken thousands of innocent lives - seriously - there was no decision about what bush did - there was only ever going to be one course action he could take and one he was going to find little if any disagreement with. There would be those that say his job was to prevent it happening in the first place.

 

Really .. - the attorney General, the director of the CIA and Jose Rodriguez say the intelligence was gained via methods that are to most of the world dubious to say the least - now there is a surprise. Your willingness to believe those who absolutely have a vested interest in  wanting you to believe is not the greatest feature of your argument.

 

 

That's nonsense!  He could have taken a page out of Clinton's playbook and tossed a few missles in the desert, but instead he took direct action.  He had a choice and he made a bold one and took out a regime he neither accused of attacking the U.S. nor of being an enemy of the U.S.  They were harboring our enemies and when they passed on an offer to assist and refused, Bush put a target on their backs.  There were many choices of action to include inaction; Bush chose an action; Obama had to be dragged kicking and screaming.

My willingness to believe the same organization that blames 9/11 on bin laden; that organization?  Yeah, not a hard choice for me.  What I find amazing is those who'd believe the enemy before they would believe those who've dedicated their lives shielding those same doubters from harm.  Is there no shame?

Originally Posted By ActionJack (22 AUG 2012 2:15pm)

Originally Posted By DBeves (22 AUG 2012 1:58pm)

Well - they were hardly his designs - Terrorists sponsored by the taliban state of afghanistan had just flown four passenger jets into oblivion and taken thousands of innocent lives - seriously - there was no decision about what bush did - there was only ever going to be one course action he could take and one he was going to find little if any disagreement with. There would be those that say his job was to prevent it happening in the first place.

 

Really .. - the attorney General, the director of the CIA and Jose Rodriguez say the intelligence was gained via methods that are to most of the world dubious to say the least - now there is a surprise. Your willingness to believe those who absolutely have a vested interest in  wanting you to believe is not the greatest feature of your argument.

 

 

That's nonsense!  He could have taken a page out of Clinton's playbook and tossed a few missles in the desert, but instead he took direct action.  He had a choice and he made a bold one and took out a regime he neither accused of attacking the U.S. nor of being an enemy of the U.S.  They were harboring our enemies and when they passed on an offer to assist and refused, Bush put a target on their backs.  There were many choices of action to include inaction; Bush chose an action; Obama had to be dragged kicking and screaming.

 

My willingness to believe the same organization that blames 9/11 on bin laden; that organization?  Yeah, not a hard choice for me.  What I find amazing is those who'd believe the enemy before they would believe those who've dedicated their lives shielding those same doubters from harm.  Is there no shame?

 

Comparing 9/11 to anything that happened during clintons term of office is ridiculous. Therefore any comparison of their reaction to an event, or more importantly, the expected reaction to that event, is also ridiculous. I would say that your statement that the taliban werent our enemy but at the same time were giving safe haven to the man who had just killed thousand of innocent people in new york is somewhat contradictory.  Can you believe that any president, having clearly identified the organization responsible and the state  quite openly harbouring him would have actually got away with anything less than he did. There was no "choice" bold or otherwise, the man would have looked a fool and a coward to have done anything other than he did. It was an act of war. I would have more respect for Bush if on the day of the attacks he hadnt run around hiding being no where to be seen than if he had stood on the steps of the white house at some point that day and put himself in harms way the same as he expected thousands of other young men to afterwards. That would have been bold and couragous. Believe me I am no lover of clinton either.

Who said I believed the enemy ? I said I didnt necessarily take what those guys say at face value. Of course - you can if you wish but history and experience has taught me otherwise and I tend to be less trusting of the words from government than you are.

Originally Posted By DBeves (22 AUG 2012 5:22pm)

Comparing 9/11 to anything that happened during clintons term of office is ridiculous. Therefore any comparison of their reaction to an event, or more importantly, the expected reaction to that event, is also ridiculous. I would say that your statement that the taliban werent our enemy but at the same time were giving safe haven to the man who had just killed thousand of innocent people in new york is somewhat contradictory.  Can you believe that any president, having clearly identified the organization responsible and the state  quite openly harbouring him would have actually got away with anything less than he did.[?]

Yep; Bill Clinton!  You say there was no choice but a bold one?  Well, it took more than 6 months for Obama to find the only choice.  That's hardly the definition of bold.  Courage is not automatic no matter how much it's called for.

Whatever you want to say.... President Obama's Health Care Policy

sure did not work out for Osama Bin Ladin. Talk about your death panels.

Maybe Mrs. Palin (remember her?) was right about something after all?

But no matter what... you can bet that a Republican President wouldn't

just have killed Osama he would have killed him TWICE!  And even more deader!

And Faster!  And more braverly, Caesar-style, with his own bare hands!

Hillary had no choice but to try and kill Obama.

Obama could be a clone of Akhenaten and the Anti-Christ.

http://thefreemanperspective.blogspot.ca/2009/02/barackhnaten-and-renaissance-tiye.html

His plans to build a Satanic American Space Force directly conflict with the plans of the Lesbian Illumati, so she had no choice but to act to advance the plans of her sisters.

http://thefreemanperspective.blogspot.ca/2010/06/anubis-and-rise-of-dragon.html

Originally Posted By Centurion40 (10 SEP 2012 1:31pm)

Hillary had no choice but to try and kill Obama.

 

Obama could be a clone of Akhenaten and the Anti-Christ.

 

http://thefreemanperspective.blogspot.ca/2009/02/barackhnaten-and-renaissance-tiye.html

 

His plans to build a Satanic American Space Force directly conflict with the plans of the Lesbian Illumati, so she had no choice but to act to advance the plans of her sisters.

 

http://thefreemanperspective.blogspot.ca/2010/06/anubis-and-rise-of-dragon.html

This confirms my darkest suspicions about the Lesbian Illuminati. Thanks, 40.

No probelmo.  I'm here to learn and to edumacate. 

The Boy Scouts of America were in on it too.

Boy SCOUTS indeed!