PDA

View Full Version : Not so 'Gutsy' Afterall



llotter
04-29-2012, 08:07 AM
Turns out that even the one minor feather in The Moron's cap was not as advertised. Yes, the 'gutsy' decision to get OBL was really off-loaded onto Admiral McRaven according to a memo by Sec. Panetta. No doubt the Admiral would be left holding the bag if the operation failed while any success fell to The Moron's credit. No guts required for the responsibility avoiding CIC.

Gayle in MD
04-29-2012, 08:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Turns out that even the one minor feather in The Moron's cap was not as advertised. Yes, the 'gutsy' decision to get OBL was really off-loaded onto Admiral McRaven according to a memo by Sec. Panetta. No doubt the Admiral would be left holding the bag if the operation failed while any success fell to The Moron's credit. No guts required for the responsibility avoiding CIC. </div></div>


<span style="color: #CC0000">It is irrational to suggest that such an operation, which could only go forward by a directive from the President of the United States, would not have been blamed on him, had it failed.

G.</span>

llotter
04-29-2012, 09:19 AM
Yes, I hate to admit it but you are right. The Moron's exact quote was, 'Do what you think is best, I have a foursome waiting.' Irrational? Definitely.

Gayle in MD
04-29-2012, 09:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, I hate to admit it but you are right. The Moron's exact quote was, 'Do what you think is best, I have a foursome waiting.' Irrational? Definitely. </div></div>

Not true!!

The president took six months to thoroughly investigate and then choose this operation.

Within the week before he gave the GO, which ONLY the president
COULD give, he was still reviewing four or five different, but possible operations, that decision was made just days before he gave the GO.



No one else could give the OK, to go through with the operation that HE, and HE ALONE, selected.

To suggest that he was not the person who made the decision, after talking with ALL of his advisors, or that he would not have been the person blamed, had the operation not gone forward so incredibly successfully, is pure BS!

Additionally, nothing Bush did during his tenure, had anything at all to do with the success of the operation, and in fact, testimony indicates that the Bush Torture Program, prolonged bin Laden's safety, and damaged our reputation around the world, AND gave al Qaeda a powerful recruiting tool, which actually franchised their operations.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tortured logic: Waterboarding didn't help U.S. get bin Laden
Matthew Alexander, a fellow of the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations, is an 18-year veteran of the Air Force and Air Force Reserves. As a former senior military interrogator, he conducted or supervised more than 1,300 interrogations in Iraq and was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for his achievements. He has written for The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, among other publications, and appears frequently on television and radio as an expert on interrogations. He is also the author of "How to Break a Terrorist." This op-ed originally appeared in Foreign Policy on May 4.

Did torture work? This is the question everyone is asking after Osama bin Laden’s death and the revelation that his fate was sealed by the identification of a courier whose nom de guerre emerged from the interrogation of top al Qaeda operatives who were known to have been subjected to waterboarding and similar techniques. “Did brutal interrogations produce the intelligence that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden?” a May 3 New York Times story asked.

This is hardly the first time we’ve had this debate. In 2006, my team of interrogators in Iraq located local al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi by identifying and following one of his spiritual advisors, Abu Abd al-Rahman. Eric Maddox, a U.S. Army interrogator, found Saddam Hussein by similar means, identifying his former bodyguards. It’s these little pieces of information that form the mosaic that gradually leads to a breakthrough. But how best to get those little pieces?

Current and former U.S. officials and their supporters have been quick to argue that “enhanced interrogation techniques” and waterboarding led to the identification of the courier’s alias, which started U.S. intelligence down the road to bin Laden. The day after the al Qaeda leader’s death was announced, U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the House Homeland Security Committee chair, told Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly that “For those who say that waterboarding doesn’t work, who say it should be stopped and never used again, we got vital information [from waterboarding] that directly led us to bin Laden.” John Yoo, the former U.S. Justice Department official who drafted the George W. Bush administration’s legal rationales for officially sanctioned torture, repeated the claim and praised “Bush’s interrogation and warrantless surveillance programs that produced this week’s actionable intelligence.” The torture bandwagon has started to kick into high gear. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

In fact, the information about the existence of a courier working for bin Laden was provided by several detainees, not just waterboarded al Qaeda operatives Kalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi — we had one detainee in Iraq who provided information about a courier in 2006. The key pieces of information, however, were the courier’s real name and location. His family name was first uncovered by CIA assets in Pakistan through other sources. The NSA subsequently figured out his full real name and location from an intercepted phone call. Waterboarding had nothing to do with it.

Moreover, common sense dictates that all high-ranking leaders have couriers — and their nicknames do little to lead us to them. This is because many members of al Qaeda change names or take on a nom de guerre after joining for both operational security and cultural reasons. The names are often historically relevant figures in the history of Islam, like the Prophet Mohamed’s first follower, Abu Bakr. Think of it as the equivalent of a boxer taking on a nickname like “The Bruiser.”

Understanding these cultural nuances is just one critical skill interrogators must have to be effective. The other is an understanding of the social science behind interrogations, which tells us that torture has an extremely negative effect on memory. An interrogator needs timely and accurate intelligence information, not just made-up babble.

What torture has proven is exactly what experienced interrogators have said all along: First, when tortured, detainees will give only the minimum amount of information necessary to stop the pain. No interrogator should ever be hoping to extract the least amount of information. Second, under coercion, detainees give misleading information that wastes time and resources — a false nickname, for example. Finally, it’s impossible to know what information the detainee would have disclosed under non-coercive interrogations.

But to understand the question “Does torture work?” one must also define “work.” If we include all the long-term negative consequences of torture, that answer becomes very clear. Those consequences include the fact that torture handed al Qaeda its No. 1 recruiting tool, a fact confirmed by the U.S. Department of Defense’s interrogators in Iraq who questioned foreign fighters about why they had come there to fight. (I have first-hand knowledge of this information because I oversaw many of these interrogations and was briefed on the aggregate results.) In addition, future detainees will be unwilling to cooperate from the onset of an interrogation because they view all Americans as torturers. I heard this repeatedly in Iraq, where some detainees accused us of being the same as the guards at Abu Ghraib.

The more you think about, the less sense torture makes. U.S. allies will become unwilling to conduct joint operations if they are concerned about how detainees will be treated in U.S. custody (an argument made by the 9/11 Commission, among others). And future enemies will use our actions as justification to torture American captives. Torture also lowers our ethical standards to those of our enemies, an ugly shift that spreads like a virus throughout the Armed Services; witness the abuses of Abu Ghraib or the recent murders of civilians in Afghanistan.

Most importantly, we should be talking about the morality of torture, not its efficacy. When the U.S. infantry becomes bogged down in a tough battle, they don’t turn to chemical weapons even though they are extremely effective. The reason they don’t is because such weapons are illegal and immoral.

During the Revolutionary War, one top general made the point that torture was inconsistent with the fundamental beliefs of our founding fathers. “Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to insure any [prisoner] ... I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require,” he wrote to his troops in the Northern Expeditionary Force in the first year of the war. The general in question was George Washington. There’s a reason we pledge to believe in “liberty and justice for all” and not “liberty and security for all”: It’s because we place our values and principles higher than we place our security. When we cease to do so, we forfeit our right to be called Americans.

We cannot become our enemy in trying to defeat him. American interrogators safely guided us through World War II without the use of torture, fighting an enemy and interrogating prisoners every bit as brutal and dedicated as the members of al Qaeda. Our interrogators continue to prove time and time again that they are smart enough to outwit al Qaeda’s best and brightest. No one should ever doubt that we have the mental and ethical fortitude to win this war — and to do it without lowering ourselves to the level of our foes </div></div>

http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/PRN-tortured-logic-waterboarding-didn-202666.aspx



IOW, we would have known more, sooner, and gotten bin Laden, sooner, had the BUSH REGIME, not broken the Geneva Conventions in secret, and committed War Crimes.

Study after study, has proven that we got absolutely nothing of any value, from the illegal, inhumane Bush Torture program, and in fact, not until this president was in office, did our approval rating around the world, start to recover...much higher now, than at the end of the Bush Regime.

G.

llotter
04-29-2012, 11:08 AM
I think there is a little something coming on '60 Minutes' this evening that is on point. Probably worth watching.

Stretch
04-29-2012, 11:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Turns out that even the one minor feather in The Moron's cap was not as advertised. Yes, the 'gutsy' decision to get OBL was really off-loaded onto Admiral McRaven according to a memo by Sec. Panetta. No doubt the Admiral would be left holding the bag if the operation failed while any success fell to The Moron's credit. No guts required for the responsibility avoiding CIC. </div></div>

Yes we are well aware that the Reps. only gave "minor feather" status to bringing OBL down. You needed a boogie man out there to keep the military industrial complex alive and well. Thanks for confirming your contempt and apathy for the victims of 9/11. St.

Soflasnapper
04-29-2012, 12:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Turns out that even the one minor feather in The Moron's cap was not as advertised. Yes, the 'gutsy' decision to get OBL was really off-loaded onto Admiral McRaven according to a memo by Sec. Panetta. No doubt the Admiral would be left holding the bag if the operation failed while any success fell to The Moron's credit. No guts required for the responsibility avoiding CIC. </div></div>

So, why didn't McRaven, or whomever filled that equivalent office during the Bush years in Afghanistan, take this same action under Bush's CIC days?

Wait, I know! Because Bush decided to close the CIA 'get bin Laden' unit that Clinton had created, and not to look for him any longer. Even though, it is claimed, he had the crucial intelligence as to how to find bin Laden for years, they say?

Fact is, Obama's approved actions here risked dead or wounded/captured Navy Seal team members, and perhaps even a state of war with Pakistan. None of those possible extreme downside results could conceivably be anything but the responsibility of the president, in the aftermath.

It seems you are more thinking of the operational and logistical details, which Obama should have rightly left to the senior military in charge to determine the best way to execute the go-order from the CIC, and apparently, he did just that.

DiabloViejo
04-29-2012, 08:12 PM
"In 2006, conservative Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes told Hannity’s Fox News that in a recent meeting with Bush, the president had told him “bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism.” Barnes said Bush told him that capturing bin Laden is “not a top priority use of American resources.”

And just six months after 9/11, Bush suggested in a press conference that Bin Laden was not a top priority for his administration. Asked whether Bush thought capturing Bin Laden was important, Bush scolded those who cared about Bin Laden for not “understand[ing] the scope of the mission” because Bin Laden was just “one person,” whom Bush said, “I really just don’t spend that much time on “:
Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not. We haven’t heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. He’s just a person who’s been marginalized. … I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.
Watch it: YouTube (http://youtu.be/4PGmnz5Ow-o)

Towards the end of his presidency, Bush seemed to acknowledge that he would never get Bin Laden, saying, “He’ll be gotten by a president,” without specifying which one."

Obama fulfilled his campaign promise to capture the terrorist leader. That's a hell of a lot "gutsier" than Bush. Since you like to sling the word "moron" around, try calling Bush a moron because he sounds like an uneducated idiot every time he opens his mouth and he sucked as President. In fact, he was an embarrassment to our nation.

Face it dude..Obama got Bin Laden, it was Obama who authorized the raid by the Navy Seals *period* case closed. Jeezes H. Christmas! I bet you and your ilk would love to have Bin Laden still around just so you could rag on Obama.

Gayle in MD
04-29-2012, 09:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think there is a little something coming on '60 Minutes' this evening that is on point. Probably worth watching. </div></div>

I've already seen it. It's a repeat, from last week. Additionally, it doesn't change a thing I have referenced. The facts are all there.

You should correct your misstatements in this thread. I've heard generals, and former presidents, from both sides of the isle, and they all say Obama's call was a VERY GUTSEY decision, but he surely didn't go off half cocked, and scfrew it up, like the MORON did, you just get mixed up about who the real MORON is!

G.

eg8r
04-30-2012, 08:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, why didn't McRaven, or whomever filled that equivalent office during the Bush years in Afghanistan, take this same action under Bush's CIC days?

Wait, I know! Because Bush decided to close the CIA 'get bin Laden' unit that Clinton had created, and not to look for him any longer.</div></div>LOL, whew, I think that is the fastest you have ever changed the subject. I guess when you have no defense you revert to qtip's normal way of doing things.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fact is, Obama's approved actions here risked dead or wounded/captured Navy Seal team members, and perhaps even a state of war with Pakistan. None of those possible extreme downside results could conceivably be anything but the responsibility of the president, in the aftermath.
</div></div>You are missing the real fact which is that we had idiot lefties here like qtip and gaylio that actually thought Obama was planning everything and the actions and plans taken by our mercenaries were born out of Obama's head.

I think everyone here gave him credit for approving the mission, it was just the dumb lefties that wanted to take that way too far.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-30-2012, 09:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, why didn't McRaven, or whomever filled that equivalent office during the Bush years in Afghanistan, take this same action under Bush's CIC days?

Wait, I know! Because Bush decided to close the CIA 'get bin Laden' unit that Clinton had created, and not to look for him any longer.</div></div>LOL, whew, I think that is the fastest you have ever changed the subject. I guess when you have no defense you revert to qtip's normal way of doing things.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fact is, Obama's approved actions here risked dead or wounded/captured Navy Seal team members, and perhaps even a state of war with Pakistan. None of those possible extreme downside results could conceivably be anything but the responsibility of the president, in the aftermath.
</div></div>You are missing the real fact which is that we had idiot lefties here like qtip and gaylio that actually thought Obama was planning everything and the actions and plans taken by our mercenaries were born out of Obama's head.

I think everyone here gave him credit for approving the mission, it was just the dumb lefties that wanted to take that way too far.

eg8r </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>From my original thread on the subject of the President's gutsey decision to give his directive to get bin Laden, just as he said he would if the opportunity presented itself. </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You can bet those at CIA, and the White House, are celebrating tonight.

Our troops are elated!

I'm so glad that it WAS our US forces, that got him, and the rather large group, of al Qaeda, that were with him.

They are saying, it was quite a battle. Calling it a fire fight, and saying that the US, has his body.

I remember when the president said he would go across the border, into Pakistan, to get bin Laden, if necessary, and all the flack, from the right, at the time.

But, that is precisely what they did. They were very careful, and didn't go off half cocked, but plotted for months, after getting a bead on him, to bring about this huge victory, for our country, and for those whom we lost, that very tragic day.



<span style='font-size: 20pt'>This is a great day for America! A major victory, for our CIA, our troops, all those who have worked and fought, so hard, for this day, and especially, for our President!</span> </div></div>


http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=351324&fpart=1


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

eg8r
04-30-2012, 12:11 PM
LOL, yeah right as if this one and only post was all you ever said about the event. Nice try.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-30-2012, 12:18 PM
Consistant to everything else I wrote about the decision.

I gave you a link to access the entire thread. Be my guest.

Or be just the same ol' drive-by, irrelevent, sniper you've always been, with no live ammo.


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

eg8r
04-30-2012, 12:25 PM
LOL, go on dreaming gayle.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-30-2012, 12:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, go on dreaming gayle.

eg8r </div></div>

Like I said, just another irrelevant, unsupportable drive-by sniper attack with no effective ammo to back it up.

Same ol' same ol'.

G.

Soflasnapper
04-30-2012, 12:35 PM
LOL, whew, I think that is the fastest you have ever changed the subject. I guess when you have no defense you revert to qtip's normal way of doing things.


Au contraire!

What I wrote was entirely on point, and no change of subject.

llotter claimed O didn't deserve credit, because it was all the work of his subordinate officer, Gen. McRaven (although surely on orders from the chain of command above him). I asked why it was that a similarly situated officer under GW Bush didn't then take the action earlier? And supplied part of the answer.

There were no such orders to local commanders. Ever, actually. Confirmed by senior commanders in the field at the time. They were asked, how goes the search for bin Laden? They frankly admitted they were not even ordered to search for him.

eg8r
04-30-2012, 01:51 PM
You might think it is on point but that does not make it so. This was not about Bush or positions people held underneath him. We have people like gayle that gave all credit, including planning to Obama and that really wasn't the case.

eg8r

eg8r
04-30-2012, 01:51 PM
LOL, you are right, you still spout dreams and fantasies. Same ol' same ol'.

eg8r

LWW
04-30-2012, 02:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You might think it is on point but that does not make it so. This was not about Bush or positions people held underneath him. We have people like gayle that gave all credit, including planning to Obama and that really wasn't the case.

eg8r </div></div>

If Obama says he flew to Pakistan on a unicorn and ripped off Osama's head with his bare hands and then shat down his throat ... that's what the O-cultists will believe.

The only exceptions might be Snoopy Nd witch who have been known to be confused aboit Osama and Obama being the same person.

Gayle in MD
04-30-2012, 03:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You might think it is on point but that does not make it so. This was not about Bush or positions people held underneath him. We have people like gayle that gave all credit, including planning to Obama and that really wasn't the case.

eg8r </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'> This is a great day for America! A major victory, for our CIA, our troops, all those who have worked and fought, so hard, for this day, and especially, for our President!


G. </span>

Soflasnapper
04-30-2012, 03:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You might think it is on point but that does not make it so. This was not about Bush or positions people held underneath him. We have people like gayle that gave all credit, including planning to Obama and that really wasn't the case.

eg8r </div></div>

I expect llotter understands my point, even if you do not.

He said it was the general doing this. Umm, ok, but under orders. (Actually, even the general didn't do it-- that was the Seal Team-- but omitting that for now.)

Why could he act now, when other generals in the past could not? They weren't given those orders, nor could those orders have been made, without identifying where Osama was.

Obama ordered that Osama be located as a top priority (fact), looked at and weighed the evidence that he had been located (not a certainty, but just a probability, requiring a judgment call), and then made that judgment call and made those orders.

This is why substantial credit flows to Obama in this matter, although llotter denies it, using the general as the reason.

Sid_Vicious
04-30-2012, 03:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You might think it is on point but that does not make it so. This was not about Bush or positions people held underneath him. We have people like gayle that gave all credit, including planning to Obama and that really wasn't the case.

eg8r </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'> This is a great day for America! A major victory, for our CIA, our troops, all those who have worked and fought, so hard, for this day, and especially, for our President!


G. </span> </div></div>

Sure as hell trumps Bush when he allowed BL to excape in Afganistan in Tora Bora,,,Afganistan being the country we WENT to with all of America's might, just to do that very thing. Obama said he'd go into Pakistan if needed,,,he did,,,and GWB miserably failed when he had rifle sights at Tora Bora. What an incompentent ah president. Bush wanted BL kept alive, political gain, and both he and Cheney shoulda been hung already for treason.

BTW, can anyone imagine the impact to our fragile economy if Bush had killed BL in Tora Bora that many years ago? Astronomical. Bush is nothing but a crook, a murderer, responsible for many, many lives, and such suffering to injured vets, simply for his political advantage. martin

Soflasnapper
04-30-2012, 05:29 PM
You forgot murderer of a child, as Larry Flynt found when he looked into that rumored abortion W paid for, at the time it was still a crime in Texas or wherever it was.

I remember on the old Crossfire show, when Flynt appeared with Bob Novak and Bill Press, I think it was. Rather than their usual one-on-one wrapping things up in the final, they had Flynt on for the last segment, and brought up his research. Novak challenged him, 'you don't really have this nailed down, though, do you?' Flynt shot back, 'the HELL I DON'T! I have the doctor, the nurses, and the woman involved.'

The later night replay of that edition of the show, and the later provided transcript, purged that last segment entirely, to considerable notice at the time.

Qtec
05-01-2012, 02:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think everyone here gave him credit for approving the mission, </div></div>

LOL. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Everyone <u>except </u>the the poster who started this thread</span>........idiot!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Turns out that even the one minor feather in The Moron's cap was not as advertised. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Yes, the 'gutsy' decision to get OBL was really off-loaded onto Admiral McRaven</span> according to a memo by Sec. Panetta. </div></div>

Got it?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are missing <u>the real fact</u> which is that we had idiot lefties here like qtip and gaylio that actually thought Obama was planning everything and the actions and plans taken by our mercenaries were born out of Obama's head. </div></div>

Nothing to do with the topic and totally made up by you.

Are Navy Seals now mercenaries?

Q

Qtec
05-01-2012, 03:45 AM
Can you imagine the outcry from the right if the mission was a disaster?

Headline.

"Shock Horror!!!!!!!!!

Uppity elitist Obama sends our boys to their death and he wasn't even 100% sure OBL was there!"

" Obama knew better!!! Overrules experts."

They would have crucified him. Knowing this, Obama went ahead and gave the green light. That takes a lot of guts. His chance of a second term was on the line.





Q...can you make up your own headline!

eg8r
05-01-2012, 07:43 AM
Everyone knows that Obama had to give the go ahead for the mission. If one poster did not agree then that does not deter from the fact that the overwhelming majority did and as usual you get your panties in a knot over irrelevant issues.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are Navy Seals now mercenaries?
</div></div>Look up the definition, if it fits then yes.

eg8r

eg8r
05-01-2012, 07:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why could he act now, when other generals in the past could not?</div></div>Nobody has said they couldn't. Liken it to baseball...The third base coach sends down a flurry of signals to the batter. On the next strike the batter decides not to swing and strikes out. Is this because he was told not to swing or because he made the decision not to swing?

eg8r

eg8r
05-01-2012, 07:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Novak challenged him, 'you don't really have this nailed down, though, do you?' Flynt shot back, 'the HELL I DON'T! I have the doctor, the nurses, and the woman involved.'

The later night replay of that edition of the show, and the later provided transcript, purged that last segment entirely, to considerable notice at the time.</div></div>What happened when the segment was purged? Did Flynt drop it or did he again try to make a big deal out of it?

eg8r

DiabloViejo
05-01-2012, 07:53 AM
So are you admitting that you don't know the definition of the word mercenary? Here, allow me to provide you with it! :

<span style="color: #FF0000">mer·ce·nar·y (mûrs-nr)
adj.

1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.

n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies

1. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.

2. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.
[Middle English mercenarie, a mercenary, from Old French mercenaire, from Latin mercnnrius, from mercs, wages, price.]

merce·nari·ly adv.
merce·nari·ness n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition</span>

eg8r
05-01-2012, 08:11 AM
Well thanks. You proved Obama used our soldiers as mercenaries. Obama was out for monetary and material gain and his recent ad supports this explicitly.

eg8r

Sev
05-01-2012, 08:37 AM
The heat is building on Obama using our fighting mens success for his personal gain.

You can expect the military vote to be disenfranchised to new heights this election.

DiabloViejo
05-01-2012, 09:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well thanks. You proved Obama used our soldiers as mercenaries. Obama was out for monetary and material gain and his recent ad supports this explicitly.

eg8r </div></div>

Only a deluded person could make a statement like that. Obama ordered the Seals in to kill Obama *period*. I suppose you'd feel better if poor old misunderstood Bin Laden was still alive and well in his compound with his wives and kids. The President orders the Seals to kill the man responsible for the horrible acts of 9/11, and rather than rejoice at justice having been served, you and your sick cohorts turn it into an opportunity to sh*t on the memory of the thousands who perished. Do you not have any shred of decency? Or is that something which is alien to you and your ilk?

Gayle in MD
05-01-2012, 09:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you imagine the outcry from the right if the mission was a disaster?

Headline.

"Shock Horror!!!!!!!!!

Uppity elitist Obama sends our boys to their death and he wasn't even 100% sure OBL was there!"

" Obama knew better!!! Overrules experts."

They would have crucified him. Knowing this, Obama went ahead and gave the green light. That takes a lot of guts. His chance of a second term was on the line.





Q...can you make up your own headline!

</div></div>

If only the President had thought to dress up like G.I.Joe, waving idiotic banners that weren't true, and keeping the country terrified through Fear Mongering Cowboy Bravado, while letting the powers that be know, "Awe, just forget bin Laden, we have to focus on no-bid contracts for The Carlyle Group, and Halliburton.

Repubs have been using the death of bin Laden, for political gain, by skewing the entire story, trying to use it for their own advantage, but just let this president, who gave the order, and risked his presidency in doing so, even mention it, annd OMG, the entire Republican owned and operated media, comes out screaming, along with the Republicans who all hate the president, because he really showed them all up, proving that with the correct policies, and decisions, we are free of more threats from bin Laden, and al Qaeda, is fractured more than ever before.

EIGHT DAMNED YEARS, TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS, AND BUSH COULDN'T GET IT DONE!

That is what all of this BS outrage is all about, Republicans, doing what they have done for decades, lying, denying, and turning everything they can into political rhetoric, and then accusing the president, of what they themselves have been doing for forty years!

PIGS!

eg8r
05-01-2012, 11:37 AM
Hey big boy, mommy let's you use the cuss words now. Must make you finally feel like an adult.

Now back to reality, Obama was out for his own personal gain when he decided to illegally enter that country to kill bin laden. Like I said, we all congratulated him on making the decision but that still does not detract from the fact that he used our military as a group of mercenaries.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-01-2012, 02:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You forgot murderer of a child, as Larry Flynt found when he looked into that rumored abortion W paid for, at the time it was still a crime in Texas or wherever it was.

I remember on the old Crossfire show, when Flynt appeared with Bob Novak and Bill Press, I think it was. Rather than their usual one-on-one wrapping things up in the final, they had Flynt on for the last segment, and brought up his research. Novak challenged him, 'you don't really have this nailed down, though, do you?' Flynt shot back, 'the HELL I DON'T! I have the doctor, the nurses, and the woman involved.'

The later night replay of that edition of the show, and the later provided transcript, purged that last segment entirely, to considerable notice at the time.

</div></div>

WOW, I remember that program! But, didn't Flynt come back out later with some signed proof, or something? Seems like I recall some kind of resistance or coeback, from Flynt?

G.

Soflasnapper
05-01-2012, 04:41 PM
Fact page, with transcripts (http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=159)

Gayle in MD
05-02-2012, 03:41 AM
Thanks.
G.

llotter
05-02-2012, 06:44 AM
Lefties are so low that even Larry Flint becomes a reliable source.

Gayle in MD
05-02-2012, 07:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well thanks. You proved Obama used our soldiers as mercenaries. Obama was out for monetary and material gain and his recent ad supports this explicitly.

eg8r </div></div>

Only a deluded person could make a statement like that. Obama ordered the Seals in to kill Obama *period*. I suppose you'd feel better if poor old misunderstood Bin Laden was still alive and well in his compound with his wives and kids. The President orders the Seals to kill the man responsible for the horrible acts of 9/11, and rather than rejoice at justice having been served, you and your sick cohorts turn it into an opportunity to sh*t on the memory of the thousands who perished. Do you not have any shred of decency? Or is that something which is alien to you and your ilk? </div></div>

An excellent post my friend, and expresses exactly the way I felt when I heard the news.

Some on the far right, hate President Obama, more than they love America!

Sad but true.

G.

Gayle in MD
05-02-2012, 07:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lefties are so low that even Larry Flint becomes a reliable source. </div></div>

His information has been proven accurate and true a number of times, but each time, it exposed Republican Corruption and lies, so you probably never heard about it, or quite likely, didn't believe it, even though the culprits admitted their crimes, all but Bush, that is...

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

LWW
05-02-2012, 09:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey big boy, mommy let's you use the cuss words now. Must make you finally feel like an adult.

Now back to reality, Obama was out for his own personal gain when he decided to illegally enter that country to kill bin laden. Like I said, we all congratulated him on making the decision but that still does not detract from the fact that he used our military as a group of mercenaries.

eg8r </div></div>
Remember the infamous ...

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND!</span>

that our leftist brethren and sistren believed?

Soflasnapper
05-02-2012, 11:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lefties are so low that even Larry Flint becomes a reliable source. </div></div>

If you don't recall, ask then-Speaker Elect Bob Livingstone, and his begging wife, how accurate Larry Flynt's information was.

Why wouldn't it be? He paid good money for these leads.

Do you think the Nat'l Enquirer got it wrong when they scooped the national press and outed John Edwards' affair?

Here's a few of things Larry got right:

Bob Livingston cheating on his wife

Bob Barr's secret abortion

Dan Burton's out-of-wedlock child

Henry Hyde breaking up his mistress's marriage

Newt Gingrich's secret girlfriend

eg8r
05-02-2012, 11:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why wouldn't it be? He paid good money for these leads.
</div></div>Is his money any better the Trump's money? No, money is money and they both spent lots of it. The quantity has nothing to do with the quality of the result.

Everything else in the post is fine but when you make statements like this it makes zero sense. Oh well, you asked the question.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
05-07-2012, 05:56 PM
I don't understand your comparison of Flynt to Trump.

Flynt offered OTHERS large cash awards for leads against GOP politicians THAT PROVED OUT.

So far as I've heard, Trump hired his own investigators, who could only find out what could be discovered, and not get insiders to spill whatever beans they had for the large cash award.

IIRC, Flynt offered either 1/2 million or $1 million for inside information that could be shown true. Trump, a cheap man, probably paid some PI firm $50k or whatever.

If money talks, very large money screams through a bullhorn. Millions of times, in fact.

eg8r
05-07-2012, 07:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't understand your comparison of Flynt to Trump.

Flynt offered OTHERS large cash awards for leads against GOP politicians THAT PROVED OUT.

So far as I've heard, Trump hired his own investigators, who could only find out what could be discovered, and not get insiders to spill whatever beans they had for the large cash award.

</div></div>Go back and read exactly what part of your post I was quoting. You mentioned the results should have been correct considering the money he spent and I am pointing out that the money spent has little bearing on the quality of the results.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-07-2012, 09:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't understand your comparison of Flynt to Trump.

Flynt offered OTHERS large cash awards for leads against GOP politicians THAT PROVED OUT.

So far as I've heard, Trump hired his own investigators, who could only find out what could be discovered, and not get insiders to spill whatever beans they had for the large cash award.

IIRC, Flynt offered either 1/2 million or $1 million for inside information that could be shown true. Trump, a cheap man, probably paid some PI firm $50k or whatever.

If money talks, very large money screams through a bullhorn. Millions of times, in fact. </div></div>

Flynt's offer was a million, for anyone who came forward with proof on Republicans.

He got the goods on a bunch of Republicans who were hypocritically trashing Bill Clinton, as you pointed out.

Trump, OTOH, got absolutely NOTHING! He came out with a whole lot of insinuations, and no proof of any of them.

Trump ended up looking just like what he is, an unattractive egomaniac with bad hair, a big mouth, and a great big idea of himself. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

G.