with the possible sources of the intel being floated around....

[musclehead]

that led to the demise of one of the most wanted men in history. we are starting to hear the "T" word again. torture, torture, torture, on and on. I believe Obama hinted if he was elected pres that he would 'end the torture' with some references to trials for 'war crimes'. his base was salivating like a starving dog at the prospect of bringing Bush/Cheney to 'justice'.

however the DOJ (Obama's DOJ) sent him 2 reports telling him water boarding is not torture. there is no way they could bring anyone to trial for water boarding, because we do this to thousands of our troops every year as part of SERE training.  no it's not pleasant, but it's not torture under any definition. Nancy Pelosi was read into the methods the CIA was using, she was in the intelligence sub committee or something, when it came to light she didn't have objections before but later when the political divide began and the roars of "TORTURE" started being raised she answered almost no questions from the media. then told the reporters she would 'answer no more questions about enhanced interrogations' and the obedient press lap dogs shut up.

here's a quiz of the thousands of captured terrorists how many did the CIA detain?

of those detained how many did they use ANY of the enhanced interrogation techniques on?

how many did they water board?

the CIA early on went to Bush and said they won't talk, we need stronger measures. they in turn went to the DOJ and asked how far they could go with interrogation within the limits of our constitution.
they came up with an approved list and NEVER wavered from it, and interpreter went off script and cocked a side arm in a room with a hooded detainee, and on another occasion used a power drill to scare a different hooded terrorist. he was removed from the program when found out.

KSM was the key, once they pushed him as far as he thought he could take it he turned and became an abundant source of intel. the Muslim religion allows for a soldier to turn coat and tell all he knows after the breaking point. that was almost all we needed, we were able to grab so many operatives off streets all over the world, they knew something was up but not exactly what. that scared them more then anything, more then one captured terrorist was led into a room and when the hood came off and the CIA introduced themselves they spilled their guts as fast as they could.

all this info and much more is in the book 'courting disaster' by Marc Thiessen.

[bigfish_Oh]

my brother in law was an Army interogator(spoke 7 lang), I ask him what they could do. He said we can go so far, then the CIA gets the answers !  Several things he was part of he told us years after he done them.

[3fan4life]

I somewhat understand the point of the people that think we are lowering ourselves if we torture terrorists to get information.

However, I would like to ask them one simple question........... How far would you go if you knew that terrorist had information that you needed to save the life of one of your loved ones?

[Bobbo]

As I understand it, KSM denied knowing the courier that led to OBL, and continued to deny it even as he was extensively waterboarded.  The intel that led to OBL was obtained from captured al Qaeda members that were held in Eastern European detention centers.  Haven't heard what interrogation methods were used there, but that intel was apparently more reliable and abundant.

[3fan4life]

As I understand it, KSM denied knowing the courier that led to OBL, and continued to deny it even as he was extensively waterboarded.  The intel that led to OBL was obtained from captured al Qaeda members that were held in Eastern European detention centers.  Haven't heard what interrogation methods were used there, but that intel was apparently more reliable and abundant.

I'll bet that it was a "little" more intense than waterboarding.

[Jess from VA]

The law of armed conflict (Hague and Geneva conventions) has prohibitions, but is very arguably inapplicable to civilian terrorists who never follow any of these rules.

IMHO interrogation resulting in permanent damage to the body (physical, not psychological) (like cutting off fingers) should be avoided, but waterboarding and like techniques (is not torture) and should be used with these people whenever relevant information may be available. 

AND, the press and public have absolutely no right to know, and there should never be a single word discussing it in the media (national security)...... as such coverage results in a direct threat to our servicemen and women.  Not that they can expect much mercy regardless of our conduct.

[NiteRiderF6]

We could just use their own techniques for suspected spies. They would beg to go back to water boarding. Water boarding is a day at the beach when compared to beheading, for which there is no recovery or legal recourse. It is final!

[fudgie]

Manual irrigation. 

[musclehead]

As I understand it, KSM denied knowing the courier that led to OBL, and continued to deny it even as he was extensively waterboarded.  The intel that led to OBL was obtained from captured al Qaeda members that were held in Eastern European detention centers.  Haven't heard what interrogation methods were used there, but that intel was apparently more reliable and abundant.

read the book, it'll outline the methods used.

[YoungPUP]

I may be a bit cold hearted, but if ya'll really want to know if that courier was water boarded, just lock him in a quiet room with a dripping faucet.  Should get you your answer REALLY fast....Just my $.02

[Bobbo]

read the book, it'll outline the methods used.

Since Mr. Thiessen was only a speechwriter for Bush and Rumsfeld, I doubt he has detailed information about the inner workings of the CIA...  The title of his book suggests it is mostly or completely political propaganda, and apparently wrong.  Not only haven't we had another attack, we nailed the top player in al Qaeda under Obama.

[big d]

i will gladly give obamam the credit for giving the go ahead for the mission that got usama bin laden. i will also blame clinton for not taking out usama bin laden when he had the chance, saying it was the rebels responsabilty. i will credit George Bush for having the guts to use water boarding that got the original information from ksm. that info was later confirmed from other detainees that obama used. i know certain people on this site will never be able to say anything good about a conservative and think that if  you disagree with them that you are qwrong. certain people are very small minded. it is ok to disagree if you are a democrat but not if you go against them. what gives, is this crazy and to you bobbo, you can tell  the book is  fictional from the title. damn, wish i could read everyones mind and know exactly what they are thinking like you can  

[Trynt]

It's okay to shoot an unarmed UBL twice ( and I agree it was) but you can't water board someone? The logic of that is not immediately apparent to me.  ???

[musclehead]

read the book, it'll outline the methods used.

Since Mr. Thiessen was only a speechwriter for Bush and Rumsfeld, I doubt he has detailed information about the inner workings of the CIA...  The title of his book suggests it is mostly or completely political propaganda, and apparently wrong.  Not only haven't we had another attack, we nailed the top player in al Qaeda under Obama.

what about the underwear bomber? and the times square bomber, and major Hassan, and the recruiting center in KY (maybe, cant remember?) we HAVE been attacked under Obama, or at least they have tried. luck is NOT a policy for stopping terror.

Thiessen has interviewed many of the major players involved, read it and keep an open mind, or do you read all your books by thier cover?

[Bobbo]

what about the underwear bomber? and the times square bomber, and major Hassan, and the recruiting center in KY (maybe, cant remember?) we HAVE been attacked under Obama, or at least they have tried. luck is NOT a policy for stopping terror.

Thiessen has interviewed many of the major players involved, read it and keep an open mind, or do you read all your books by thier cover?

The failed attempt by "the underwear bomber" was on a flight that originated from Amsterdam, hardly under the control of the Obama administration.

The failed "times square bomber" was foiled by alert vendors and police.  Again, no Obama policy causing this attempted attack.

Major Hassan was just another kook with a gun, hardly a terrorist.  No different than the many other kooks that use firearms illegally.

I'm not familiar with a recruiting center in KY, and not much comes up searching for it, even with Fox news...

I haven't spoken to the content of this book, only what the title suggests.  What specific Obama policies have invited more attacks, and what proof is there?  Maybe you can give a synopsis that isn't simply conjecture.

[Trynt]

Major Hassan was just another kook with a gun, hardly a terrorist.  No different than the many other kooks that use firearms illegally.

 

Oh really? Perhaps you should read the following regarding the Senate investigation into the matter.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/03/AR2011020301899.html

[John Schmidt]

This isn't necessarily my position, just as my Subject line states....Food for thought!  Frankly, I don't really have a problem with it, even if it may be conjecture. It's a "copy & paste" so direct your tirades elsewhere, I'm not interested in it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This, forwarded by a Marine friend, is devastating if true.!  And I for one would bet it is.! !


     "What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him –and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound."

     Q: You stated that President Obama was “overruled” by military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound.  Was that accurate?

     A: I was told – in these exact terms, “we overruled him.” (Obama)  I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president’s “persistent hesitation to act.”  There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so.  President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president.



     (Notice that Panetta is NOT in the room)

     This update comes some 24 hours after our longtime Washington D.C. Insider first outlined shocking details of an Obama administration having been “overruled” by senior military and intelligence officials leading up to the successful attack against terrorist Osama Bin Laden.  What follows is further clarification of Insider’s insights surrounding that event.



     I was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper.  The primary opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama.  Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position.  This situation continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton.  She was livid over the president’s failure to act, and her office began a campaign of anonymous leaks to the media indicating such.  As for Jarrett, her concern rested on two primary fronts.  One, that the military action could fail and harm the president’s already weakened standing with both the American public and the world.  Second, that the attack would be viewed as an act of aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in the Middle East.

     Q: What changed the president’s position and enabled the attack against Osama Bin Laden to proceed?

     A:  Nothing changed with the president’s opinion – he continued to avoid having one.  Every time military and intelligence officials appeared to make progress in forming a position, Jarrett would intervene and the stalling would begin again.  Hillary started the ball really rolling as far as pressuring Obama began, but it was Panetta and Petraeus who ultimately pushed Obama to finally act – sort of.  Panetta was receiving significant reports from both his direct CIA sources, as well as Petraeus-originating Intel.  Petraeus was threatening to act on his own via a bombing attack.  Panetta reported back to the president that a bombing of the compound would result in successful killing of Osama Bin Laden, and little risk to American lives.  Initially, as he had done before, the president indicated a willingness to act.  But once again, Jarrett intervened, convincing the president that innocent Pakistani lives could be lost in such a bombing attack, and Obama would be left attempting to explain Panetta’s failed policy.  Again Obama hesitated – this time openly delaying further meetings to discuss the issue with Panetta.  A brief meeting was held at this time with other officials, including Secretary Gates and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but Gates, like Panetta, was unable to push the president to act.  It was at this time that Gates indicated to certain Pentagon officials that he may resign earlier than originally indicated – he was that frustrated.  Both Panetta and Clinton convinced him to stay on and see the operation through.

     What happened from there is what was described by me as a “masterful manipulation” by Leon Panetta.  Panetta indicated to Obama that leaks regarding knowledge of Osama Bin Laden’s location were certain to get out sooner rather than later, and action must be taken by the administration or the public backlash to the president’s inaction would be “…significant to the point of political debilitation.”  It was at that time that Obama stated an on-ground campaign would be far more acceptable to him than a bombing raid.  This was intended as a stalling tactic, and it had originated from Jarrett.  Such a campaign would take both time, and present a far greater risk of failure.  The president had been instructed by Jarrett to inform Mr., Panetta that he would have sole discretion to act against the Osama Bin Laden compound. Jarrett believed this would further delay Panetta from acting, as the responsibility for failure would then fall almost entirely on him.  What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him –and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound.  Basically, the whole damn operation was already ready to go – including the specific team support Intel necessary to engage the enemy within hours of being given notice.  Panetta then made plans to proceed with an on-ground assault. This information reached either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates first (likely via military contacts directly associated with the impending mission) who then informed the other.  Those two then met with Panetta, who informed each of them he had been given the authority by the president to proceed with a mission if the opportunity presented itself.  Both Gates and Clinton warned Panetta of the implications of that authority – namely he was possibly being made into a scapegoat.  Panetta admitted that possibility, but felt the opportunity to get Bin Laden outweighed that risk.  During that meeting, Hillary Clinton was first to pledge her full support for Panetta, indicating she would defend him if necessary.  Similar support was then followed by Gates.  The following day, and with Panetta’s permission, Clinton met in private with Bill Daley and urged him to get the president’s full and open approval of the Panetta plan.  Daley agreed such approval would be of great benefit to the action, and instructed Clinton to delay proceeding until he had secured that approval.  Daley contacted Clinton within hours of their meeting indicating Jarrett refused to allow the president to give that approval.  Daley then informed Clinton that he too would fully support Panetta in his actions, even if it meant disclosing the president’s indecision to the American public should that action fail to produce a successful conclusion.  Clinton took that message back to Panetta and the CIA director initiated the 48 hour engagement order.  At this point, the President of the United States was not informed of the engagement order – it did not originate from him, and for several hours after the order had been given and the special ops forces were preparing for action into Pakistan from their position in Afghanistan, Daley successfully kept Obama and Jarrett insulated from that order.

     This insulation ended at some point with an abort order that I believe originated from Valerie Jarrett’s office, and was then followed up by President Obama. This abort order was later explained as a delay due to weather conditions, but the actual conditions at that time would have been acceptable for the mission.  A storm system had been in the area earlier, but was no longer an issue.  Check the data yourself to confirm.  Jarrett, having been caught off guard, was now scrambling to determine who had initiated the plan.  She was furious, repeating the acronym “CoC” and saying it was not being followed.  This is where Bill Daley intervened.  The particulars of that intervention are not clear to me beyond knowing he did meet with Jarrett in his office and following that meeting, Valerie Jarrett was not seen in the West Wing for some time, and apparently no longer offered up any resistance to the Osama Bin Laden mission.  What did follow from there was one or more brief meetings between Bill Daley, Hillary Clinton, a representative from Robert Gates’ office, a representative from Leon Panetta’s office, and a representative from Jim Clapper’s office.  I have to assume that these meetings were in essence, detailing the move to proceed with the operation against the Osama Bin Laden compound.  I have been told by more than one source that Leon Panetta was directing the operation with both his own CIA operatives, as well as direct contacts with military – both entities were reporting to Panetta only at this point, and not the President of the United States.  There was not going to be another delay as had happened 24 hour earlier.  The operation at this point, was in effect, unknown to President Barack Obama or Valerie Jarrett and it remained that way until AFTER it was already underway.  President Obama was literally pulled from a golf outing and escorted back to the White House to be informed of the mission.  Upon his arrival there was a briefing held which included Bill Daley, John Brennan, and a high ranking member of the military.  When Obama emerged from the briefing, he was described as looking “very confused and uncertain.”  The president was then placed in the “situation room” where several of the players in this event had already been watching the operation unfold.  Another interesting tidbit regarding this is that the Vice President was already “up to speed” on the operation.  A source indicated they believe Hillary Clinton had personally made certain the Vice President was made aware of that day’s events before the president was.  The now famous photo released shows the particulars of that of that room and its occupants.  What that photo does not communicate directly is that the military personnel present in that room during the operation unfolding, deferred to either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates.  The president’s role was minimal, including their acknowledging of his presence in the room.

     At the conclusion of the mission, after it had been repeatedly confirmed a success, President Obama was once again briefed behind closed doors.  The only ones who went in that room besides the president were Bill Daley. John Brennan, and a third individual whose identity remains unknown to me.  When leaving this briefing, the president came out of it “…much more confident. Much more certain of himself.”  He was also carrying papers in his hand that quite possibly was the address to the nation given later that evening on the Bin Laden mission.  The president did not have those papers with him prior to that briefing. The president then returned to the war room, where by this time, Leon Panetta had personally arrived and was receiving congratulations from all who were present.

     In my initial communication to you of these events I described what unfolded as a temporary Coup initiated by high ranking intelligence and military officials. I stand by that term.  These figures worked around the uncertainty of President Obama and the repeated resistance of Valerie Jarrett.  If they had not been willing to do so, I am certain Osama Bin Laden would still be alive today. There will be no punishment to those who acted outside the authority of the president’s office.  The president cannot afford to admit such a fact.  What will be most interesting from here is to now see what becomes of Valerie Jarrett.  One source indicated she is threatening resignation.  I find that unlikely given my strong belief she needs the protection afforded her by the Oval Office and its immense powers to delay and eventually terminate investigations back in Chicago, but we shall see.

[Bama Red]

I think I'd like some of whatever it is you're smoking!

[musclehead]

what about the underwear bomber? and the times square bomber, and major Hassan, and the recruiting center in KY (maybe, cant remember?) we HAVE been attacked under Obama, or at least they have tried. luck is NOT a policy for stopping terror.

Thiessen has interviewed many of the major players involved, read it and keep an open mind, or do you read all your books by thier cover?

The failed attempt by "the underwear bomber" was on a flight that originated from Amsterdam, hardly under the control of the Obama administration.

The failed "times square bomber" was foiled by alert vendors and police.  Again, no Obama policy causing this attempted attack.

Major Hassan was just another kook with a gun, hardly a terrorist.  No different than the many other kooks that use firearms illegally.

I'm not familiar with a recruiting center in KY, and not much comes up searching for it, even with Fox news...

I haven't spoken to the content of this book, only what the title suggests.  What specific Obama policies have invited more attacks, and what proof is there?  Maybe you can give a synopsis that isn't simply conjecture.

major hassan said  'allah akbar' before opening fire, many witness claim he did so. he's a kook alright but your ignoring his connections to radical islam.

the times square bomber went to the middle east to learn how to make a car bomb.

our enemies loathe us no matter how much president apologizes, in fact the weaker we appear the more they are emboldened. so how many attacks did we have AFTER 9-11 under Bush?

[Bobbo]

Major Hassan was just another kook with a gun, hardly a terrorist.  No different than the many other kooks that use firearms illegally.

 

Oh really? Perhaps you should read the following regarding the Senate investigation into the matter.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/03/AR2011020301899.html

Was Maj. Hasan influenced by radical Islamists?  Probably, but that doesn't automatically elevate him to a terrorist.  Doctor murderers are influenced by radical Christians, and they aren't considered terrorists either.

[John Schmidt]

I think I'd like some of whatever it is you're smoking!

Bamared, as I said...it's a "copy/paste."  Just passing it on, nothing more. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some substance to that narrative, but we'll never know and I don't really care. Bin Laden is now fish food, that's all that matters to me, I'll leave the rest up to the military and the undercover boys.

[Bobbo]

major hassan said  'allah akbar' before opening fire, many witness claim he did so. he's a kook alright but your ignoring his connections to radical islam.

the times square bomber went to the middle east to learn how to make a car bomb.

our enemies loathe us no matter how much president apologizes, in fact the weaker we appear the more they are emboldened. so how many attacks did we have AFTER 9-11 under Bush?

"Allah Akbar" is simply an Arabic expression that means "God is Great".  Most Muslims say it, and it isn't a "terrorist thing".  Many Christians say the English equivalent, and I'm sure there is a Hebrew version.  Even a country bumpkin wrote a song with the phrase:  "God is Great, beer is good, and people are crazy".  Time to look out for hillbilly terrorists!!      

I don't keep a scoreboard of attacks under political administrations, since they have nothing to do with them.  Apparently you do, I'll step aside and let you tell us.

[x]

I think I'd like some of whatever it is you're smoking!

Bamared, as I said...it's a "copy/paste."  Just passing it on, nothing more. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some substance to that narrative, but we'll never know and I don't really care. Bin Laden is now fish food, that's all that matters to me, I'll leave the rest up to the military and the undercover boys.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were no substance to the narrative... just one more internet smear.

Cheers.

[musclehead]

Major Hassan was just another kook with a gun, hardly a terrorist.  No different than the many other kooks that use firearms illegally.

 

Oh really? Perhaps you should read the following regarding the Senate investigation into the matter.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/03/AR2011020301899.html

Was Maj. Hasan influenced by radical Islamists?  Probably, but that doesn't automatically elevate him to a terrorist.  Doctor murderers are influenced by radical Christians, and they aren't considered terrorists either.

true but the administration didn't want to even consider this might possibly be an act of terror. I've only met one radical christian, I avoided eye contact and backed away slowly. 

[Bobbo]

I think I'd like some of whatever it is you're smoking!

Bamared, as I said...it's a "copy/paste."  Just passing it on, nothing more. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some substance to that narrative, but we'll never know and I don't really care. Bin Laden is now fish food, that's all that matters to me, I'll leave the rest up to the military and the undercover boys.

It's good to know that the military industrial complex can overrule the President.  That explains Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and a lot of other highly profitable military actions.  

[musclehead]

major hassan said  'allah akbar' before opening fire, many witness claim he did so. he's a kook alright but your ignoring his connections to radical islam.

the times square bomber went to the middle east to learn how to make a car bomb.

our enemies loathe us no matter how much president apologizes, in fact the weaker we appear the more they are emboldened. so how many attacks did we have AFTER 9-11 under Bush?

"Allah Akbar" is simply an Arabic expression that means "God is Great".  Most Muslims say it, and it isn't a "terrorist thing".  Many Christians say the English equivalent, and I'm sure there is a Hebrew version.  Even a country bumpkin wrote a song with the phrase:  "God is Great, beer is good, and people are crazy".  Time to look out for hillbilly terrorists!!      

I don't keep a scoreboard of attacks under political administrations, since they have nothing to do with them.  Apparently you do, I'll step aside and let you tell us.

thats a reach even for you mr Bobbo

[Bobbo]

true but the administration didn't want to even consider this might possibly be an act of terror. I've only met one radical christian, I avoided eye contact and backed away slowly. 

I don't know what criteria any administration uses to define "terrorist", but it apparently doesn't include picking out specific victims, aiming, and shooting them.  If that were the case, we would be overrun with "terrorists".

[Trynt]

Major Hassan was just another kook with a gun, hardly a terrorist.  No different than the many other kooks that use firearms illegally.

 

Oh really? Perhaps you should read the following regarding the Senate investigation into the matter.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/03/AR2011020301899.html

Was Maj. Hasan influenced by radical Islamists?  Probably, but that doesn't automatically elevate him to a terrorist.  Doctor murderers are influenced by radical Christians, and they aren't considered terrorists either.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". If you kill an innocent individual you're a murderer.  If you kill 13 innocents at a time you are a mass murderer.  If you commit mass murder in the name of your god, religion or politics you're a terrorist.  It doesn't matter whether you use an airplane, a bomb or a gun. The result is the same. The Obama administration has a vested interest in not labeling violent acts as terrorism.   It makes their stats look better. They have a "see no evil, speak no evil" policy regarding violent acts committed in the name of Islam. They don't want to inflame Muslims or the populace with clarity. They are apologists and deniers.

[John Schmidt]

I think I'd like some of whatever it is you're smoking!

Bamared, as I said...it's a "copy/paste."  Just passing it on, nothing more. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some substance to that narrative, but we'll never know and I don't really care. Bin Laden is now fish food, that's all that matters to me, I'll leave the rest up to the military and the undercover boys.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were no substance to the narrative... just one more internet smear.

Cheers.

You're right Wayne, it could go either way, don't really care. Like I said....just passing on what I've read and leaving it for people to draw their own conclusions.

PS: It didn't come from Faux News!! 

[musclehead]

major hassan said  'allah akbar' before opening fire, many witness claim he did so. he's a kook alright but your ignoring his connections to radical islam.

the times square bomber went to the middle east to learn how to make a car bomb.

our enemies loathe us no matter how much president apologizes, in fact the weaker we appear the more they are emboldened. so how many attacks did we have AFTER 9-11 under Bush?

"Allah Akbar" is simply an Arabic expression that means "God is Great".  Most Muslims say it, and it isn't a "terrorist thing".  Many Christians say the English equivalent, and I'm sure there is a Hebrew version.  Even a country bumpkin wrote a song with the phrase:  "God is Great, beer is good, and people are crazy".  Time to look out for hillbilly terrorists!!      

I don't keep a scoreboard of attacks under political administrations, since they have nothing to do with them.  Apparently you do, I'll step aside and let you tell us.

  "country bumpkin" are you sure you want to rile up the country and western folks like that?

[Bobbo]

"country bumpkin" are you sure you want to rile up the country and western folks like that?

Don't mind a bit!  I enjoy virtually all genres of music, from classical, rock, head banger, jazz, blues, and bluegrass.  The new country western music makes me feel queasy, and they all sound the same.  I think most are dancing songs, so they fit a pattern.

[Jess from VA]

Just passing it on, nothing more. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some substance to that narrative,

John, I'll bet it is very accurate in overall terms (if not small details).  It confirms that the commander in chief could not/would not make a decision for a lengthy period, took the advice of his PR lady over the career intel/cia/military leadership, and backed his way into the decision all the way.  It's what I guessed before the facts were in, and what the facts bear out.  No surprises here, none whatsoever.  Sure I'm glad the op was eventually run........ but it is certainly relevant to choosing a future commander in chief.

[3fan4life]

Just passing it on, nothing more. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some substance to that narrative,

John, I'll bet it is very accurate in overall terms (if not small details).  It confirms that the commander in chief could not/would not make a decision for a lengthy period, took the advice of his PR lady over the career intel/cia/military leadership, and backed his way into the decision all the way.  It's what I guessed before the facts were in, and what the facts bear out.  No surprises here, none whatsoever.  Sure I'm glad the op was eventually run........ but it is certainly relevant to choosing a future commander in chief.

 +1

I Am GLAD that the decision was made, no matter how it was made.

The ONLY REGRET I have is that I didn't get to pull the trigger on Bin-Laden myself (343 of my "Brothers" died on Sep 11th).

And if I ever have the opportunity to meet the guys that did, whatever they're drinking is on me.

I sincerely hope that as Commander in Chief Obama is not really that "Wishy Washy".

I can however easily see him being more concerned about his "Image" than doing the right thing.