[quote]Sloth wrote:
It’s ultimately small potatoes compared to what else we’ve managed to get wrong during all of this. We not only knew Saddam had WMD, but where we would find them, after all.
[/quote]
This is a good point.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
- OK: text follows.[/quote]
First, Thanks for the post. This is very interesting. Further, if the account is as true it will be a huge scandal I think. This account seems quite different than what I remember reading (The New Yorker I believe it was). So I guess we will have to look at sources for each. Who did he talk to? Who did the NewYorker guy talk to, etc. I’d like to see if anyone was incorrect or lying.
Secondly,
I’d like to see how he came to this assessment. I criticized TB above for this assessment so I won’t repeat it here. That said, this man may have access to better sources. According to the article though (perhaps poorly written) he did not speak with CIA or Defense analysts or upper-level individuals, he spoke to the team. That too seems to be in question, though, from a brief google search (look at the bottom of the article). Breaking News - Headlines & Top Stories | The Star
IMO, if you are going to make the accusation, you had better ask the principals their reasoning first. Slinging mud is easy. Taking the time to get the facts out is hard. Maybe he has done so, but there is no mention of this in this article. If he has, I’ll probably end up buying the book.
I’m sorry, you are fundamentally misunderstanding this. The ISI would have nothing to do with the “tweeter.” That was an example to show that “everyone” knew about this. There was no way to keep it secret, certainly not for days. Look up the ISI to see what I mean.
Think about it this way, if the FBI or CIA was hiding someone near West Point and Iranians sent a team in to kill him with helicopters, crashes, and a gun battle, would the CIA need a “tweet” and “days” to figure out that person was captured or killed? AQ is quite sophisticated, why would you assume they did not have plans in place for the kill/capture of OBL? Where does “days” come from?
TB’s argument about “blowing it” is absurd for the reasons I listed above. He has shown no evidence whatsoever regarding Obama’s “preferences.” Instead, he made assumptions and conclusions. Now if evidence does come out, I’d like to see it. But right now it looks like a lot of mud slinging with no proof. More Rush Limbaugh than Bob Woodward as it were.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Other than your hatred for the man, do you have any evidence of this whatsoever? [/quote]
I don’t hate him, but I don’t mince words when I think such an immature mistake was made for such political reasons.[/quote]
I explained why your non-minced words were absurd above. If you have any proof of these accusations, please post them. Right now your claims appear to be standing on assumptions, hypotheticals, and mis-understandings.
[quote]
Tell me, what strategic advantage was there in declaring OBL dead when Obama did? Other than political points, what was a good reason? [/quote]
Is this a serious question? I have no idea what the strategy was. I haven’t seen anything that Obama, Gates, or Panetta has said about this. Have you? Unless you have proof, I’ll assume that the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the head of the CIA are competent and trying protect America and save lives.
If you honestly can’t think of a “good reason” in a hypothetical sense, look at the situation in Pakistan and the CIA and you’ll have answers quickly.
Again, if you have any evidence or proof, I’ll be happy to read it. Right now it looks like you are simply slinging mud or, to use the vernacular of the media we are communicating on, you are just hating.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I explained why your non-minced words were absurd above. If you have any proof of these accusations, please post them. Right now your claims appear to be standing on assumptions, hypotheticals, and mis-understandings. [/quote]
Well, no you didn’t - I said it was strategic idiocy, and I believe it was. If you think it was smart to pre-emptively announce OBL’s demise, be my guest and explain why.
These aren’t “accusations”, these are policy critiques. My policy critique is shared by the same individuals in Doc’s article, and many other besides.
Sorry, Gambit - fanboyism won’t cut it. Grown men with responsibilities deserve to be criticized if they screwed up, and the Commander in Chief is no different.
Just tell me your opinion. What is the strategy in doing this? What is the advantage in doing this?
And you won’t hear from Gates or Panetta on this - they are subordinate to the Oval Office.
That doesn’t make any sense. In fact, it made better sense to keep quiet w/r/t OBL so that we could bird dog more of the problems with Pakistan’s complicity in terror.
It’s a policy critique, Gambit. I am not sure why you have such a difficult opinion with someone making an argument as to why the President screwed up here. He’s an elected servant in charge of our national security. Highlighting an area where he chose political optics over smarter strategy isn’t “slinging mud” - it’s democracy.
I’ll take this to mean that you have no proof.
I’ve explained why “the critique” is absurd. You have yet to address that post. You don’t know the policy, how could you possibly critique it?
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I’ll take this to mean that you have no proof. [/quote]
What “proof” are you looking for exactly, Gambit? We have no idea what was lost and what wasn’t. What can only evaluate what would have been a better course.
You’ve done no such thing - you’ve been nothing but a breathless fanboy who won’t engage in debate.
The raid on OBL no doubt uncovered lots of useful intelligence, including leads on other AQ members. There was simply no reason to hurry up and alert the world - and AQ, and other terror outfits - that OBL and his communications had been compromised.
If you can come up with a reason why this was a good idea to rush out and alert the world that OBL was compromised, again, be my guest. The President had two choices: (1) remain quiet, and (2) alert the world that OBL was dead. He did (2), and I say that was the wrong move, and I explained why. You say (2) was the right move. Ok - explain why.
Instead of hiding behind demands for “proof”, just tell me what Gambit Lost thinks - you know, make a policy defense of the president’s actions. Should be easy, and I look forward to hearing it.
I seriously doubt it makes THAT much difference either way tbh.
I mean, if actual footage of the guy being killed had found it’s way into the public domain… yeah, that might just prove to be a crucial ‘tipping point’ to help radicalize certain potential terrorists etc.
One mere picture, not so much.
TB, Please don’t respond quickly. I feel like I’m covering the same ground again and again. If you don’t care to address my arguments directly, or find anything to back up your own, that’s fine, but boring.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I’ll take this to mean that you have no proof. [/quote]
What “proof” are you looking for exactly, Gambit? We have no idea what was lost and what wasn’t. What can only evaluate what would have been a better course.[/quote]
How can you “evaluate what would have been a better course” without knowing what “was lost and what wasn’t”.
There are people who do know these things. Proof that there was a better option would be one person who is aware of the intelligence saying that it was or that they disagreed.
[u]Please directly address this point. [/u]
You’ve done no such thing - you’ve been nothing but a breathless fanboy who won’t engage in debate.[/quote]
???
This is why I’m asking you not to respond quickly. Did you miss this?
I wrote above:
[i][b] I guess, for me, this is the crux of the reason I think this argument is absurd and I’m glad you [Sloth] have a good sense of humor about it. Obama was sitting in a room with many of the principals present. The argument that he “done wrong” rests on the assumptions that:
- Either he (a) completely ignored the principals or (b) they are utterly incompetent.
- The leader of AQ, backed by a state intelligence agency, was so incompetent that he and his organization would neither be able to detect nor have contingency plans for the death or capture of their leader or the taking of the compound.
I apologize for being blunt, but to me, both of these assumptions are absurd, even for PWI.
If the article or anyone has evidence to the contrary, not assumptions based on their hatred of the democrats, I’m willing to look at it. [/i][/b]
[u] Please directly address this argument [/u]
How do you know this? Is there one person that works at the CIA or Defense who can back up this claim that there was “no reason?”
[quote] If you can come up with a reason why this was a good idea to rush out and alert the world that OBL was compromised, again, be my guest. The President had two choices: (1) remain quiet, and (2) alert the world that OBL was dead. He did (2), and I say that was the wrong move, and I explained why. You say (2) was the right move. Ok - explain why.
Instead of hiding behind demands for “proof”, just tell me what Gambit Lost thinks - you know, make a policy defense of the president’s actions. Should be easy, and I look forward to hearing it.[/quote]
Once again, I don’t presume to know what the intelligence said at that time or why that decision was made. You, apparently, do.
I’m still waiting on you to either directly address my argument or to provide evidence that your presumptions/statements are correct. Also, as you are claiming this is a “policy critique” please tell me the specific policy you are critiquing. “Should be easy”
Just to be clear on my position.
I don’t see why–despite the possibility of what AQ might know and how quickly–we wouldn’t milk every second of ambiguity about OBL’s fate. Is he alive? Could he be talking? If so, do we (AQ) need to start moving assets? And moving them quickly might make them pop up on our radar. I seriously doubt the assault on the compound would’ve been a secret within an hour of it happening. But still, the uncertainly of his fate for a day or two may have made for panicked movement. However, the whole situation is a mess. War is a mess. Mistakes are going to happen.
In my mind, there’s a case for this being a mistake. A good one. But in total, in the context of the entire war, it isn’t even close to being the biggest screw up. That, rests with the last administration. As a conservative no screw-up in the history of this conflict pisses me off more than the WMD claims. We supposedly knew WHERE we would find them, even…
So, even if it’s a potential blunder, let’s keep this one in perspective. The worst blunders have come from our side of the aisle. It’s hard to admit, but it’s true none the less. Look, this has no legs. Further it seems completely disingenuous coming from the right, the home of the “we know were them WMD are parked” George W. Bush.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
How can you “evaluate what would have been a better course” without knowing what “was lost and what wasn’t”. [/quote]
Because one choice keeps options for additional intelligence, the other choice takes that option away.
You keep insisting on this “proof”, but you won’t get it because members of the intelligence community - even if they had information that suggested Obama’s decision was the wrong one - can’t hit the editorial pages and criticize the Commander in Chief.
You have this naive view that if someone somewhere in the chain of command had information suggesting that Obama mad a poor choice, we would have heard about it. It’s nonsense.
That’s why it is a policy critique - I am criticizing the policy choice made by the president. There was no downside to remaining quiet - there was downside in letting the cat out of the bag.
[quote][i][b] I guess, for me, this is the crux of the reason I think this argument is absurd and I’m glad you [Sloth] have a good sense of humor about it. Obama was sitting in a room with many of the principals present. The argument that he “done wrong” rests on the assumptions that:
- Either he (a) completely ignored the principals or (b) they are utterly incompetent.
- The leader of AQ, backed by a state intelligence agency, was so incompetent that he and his organization would neither be able to detect nor have contingency plans for the death or capture of their leader or the taking of the compound.
I apologize for being blunt, but to me, both of these assumptions are absurd, even for PWI.
If the article or anyone has evidence to the contrary, not assumptions based on their hatred of the democrats, I’m willing to look at it. [/i][/b][/quote]
But this is incorrect on its face - Obama doesn’t need to “assume” AQ’s incompetence in order to stay quiet in hopes of gaining more intelligence - he doesn’t need much of an opinion on it all. It’s an unknown. Maybe AQ is highly competent, maybe they aren’t. Maybe they find out OBL is dead within 5 minutes of his demise. Maybe its 5 days. No one knows - so why eliminate the oportunity to find out they are just incompetent long enough to score additional intelligence? That’s what Obama did.
Your explanation is ridiculous, sorry to be so blunt. The idea that Obama decided to forfeit the chance to score additional intelligence because he concluded “well, these guys are very sophisticated, I bet they already know - no harm in going ahead and announcing” is just bizarre.
AQ might be incredibly competent. That doesn’t matter. Once we compromised OBL, the very best strategy was to begin a race against that competence and contingency plan to go as long as we could gathering as much as we could. We don’t need to be in the business of handing over gimmes to the other side by giving them the benefit of the doubt as to their competence.
And in fact, the exact opposite is true - the more competent and sophisticated AQ is, the more the reason to keep quiet and make it as hard as possible for them to get reliable information. They are already sophisticated - don’t hand them freebies. Your arguments suggest a backwards result from the one you are intending.
You don’t need a CIA operative to file a brief on this to discuss whether you think the policy choice is right or wrong. I’ve told you - policy-wise - why I thought it was a bad idea. So did the SEAL in the article. Stop trying to appeal to authority and just give me your input.
That is what I am asking you - think of a policy reason to announce OBL’s death as soon as practically possible, as Obama did. I’ve explained why I think so. Now let’s hear why it was smart to announce.
No, I don’t know what the intelligence said - and it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if the intelligence said AQ was very competent, not competent, or somehwere in between. You don’t forfeit the opportunity to gather as much as you can in the period of time where the truth is unclear, whether that is 10 minutes or 10 days.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
- OK: text follows.[/quote]
I’m sorry, you are fundamentally misunderstanding this. The ISI would have nothing to do with the “tweeter.” That was an example to show that “everyone” knew about this. There was no way to keep it secret, certainly not for days. Look up the ISI to see what I mean.
Think about it this way, if the FBI or CIA was hiding someone near West Point and Iranians sent a team in to kill him with helicopters, crashes, and a gun battle, would the CIA need a “tweet” and “days” to figure out that person was captured or killed? AQ is quite sophisticated, why would you assume they did not have plans in place for the kill/capture of OBL? Where does “days” come from?
…
OK. Let’s review:
-
SEALs mission is a) to “clean” (kill or capture or immobilise) Ben Laden and others and b) collect information. THey do both things; they come out with documents, computers, drives, etc.
-
Truth is hard to come by. “everybody know” does not mean the same thing in Pakistan as it does here. If Obama had not acknowledged capture, the Pakistan GOvernment and Military and ISI would not acknowledge it either, out of fear of embarassment, until they cold collect a cover story. In the meantime rumors fly, AQ is left indoubt as to factws, orders, whos is in charge. Meanwhile the SEALs, CIA, etc, are analysing the captured intelligence for future or immediate use.
BUt Obama did not let it play out that way. When Obama made the announcement, AQ agents go to ground, trails are covered, documentary evidence is destroyed, bank accounts are emptied.
Agree? Obama did not play the endgame to wring out the maximum benefit. He did not even try to do so, and played a media event instead.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[/quote]
From my previous post:
That’s why it is a policy critique - I am criticizing the policy choice made by the president. There was no downside to remaining quiet - there was downside in letting the cat out of the bag.
The policy Obama chose was to publicly announce OBL’s death, not to keep quiet about it in hopes of securing additional intelligence during the period of uncertainty after OBL’s death.
Now, you tell me why Obama’s choice to announce OBL’s death was a good, strategic decision in light of his other option.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
OK. Let’s review:
-
SEALs mission is a) to “clean” (kill or capture or immobilise) Ben Laden and others and b) collect information. THey do both things; they come out with documents, computers, drives, etc.
-
Truth is hard to come by. “everybody know” does not mean the same thing in Pakistan as it does here. If Obama had not acknowledged capture, the Pakistan GOvernment and Military and ISI would not acknowledge it either, out of fear of embarassment, until they cold collect a cover story. In the meantime rumors fly, AQ is left indoubt as to factws, orders, whos is in charge. Meanwhile the SEALs, CIA, etc, are analysing the captured intelligence for future or immediate use.
BUt Obama did not let it play out that way. When Obama made the announcement, AQ agents go to ground, trails are covered, documentary evidence is destroyed, bank accounts are emptied.
Agree? Obama did not play the endgame to wring out the maximum benefit. He did not even try to do so, and played a media event instead.
[/quote]
This is a nice story. Here is an honest question: did you just now make it up?
Were there any other factors to the decision? What reason (other than your own opinion) do you have to think that he didn’t use it to the maximum benefit? Was the CIA concerned about attacks or reprisals? Did people “the right people” in Pakistan need political cover? What about Oman? Saudi Arabia? Uzbekistan? (Uz beki beki beki stan stan?)* Was the CIA able to monitor communications/actions they knew/thought would take place when OBL was captured or killed? Why did the head of the CIA and Defense okay it if they didn’t think it was in the best interests of the USA? Did AQ agents “go to ground” as you say or did sleeper cells activate? Did both things happen simultaneously? These questions could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.
This appears to be an argument based primarily on ignorance and supposition. I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that the primary principals and the president did anything wrong. Instead, it appears the writer of the book, you, and TB are simply making things up based on what you “think” happened and what you “think” their motivations are. Am I wrong in this?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[/quote]
From my previous post:
That’s why it is a policy critique - I am criticizing the policy choice made by the president. There was no downside to remaining quiet - there was downside in letting the cat out of the bag.
The policy Obama chose was to publicly announce OBL’s death, not to keep quiet about it in hopes of securing additional intelligence during the period of uncertainty after OBL’s death.
Now, you tell me why Obama’s choice to announce OBL’s death was a good, strategic decision in light of his other option.[/quote]
Well, obviously he had more than two options. I don’t know why you are pretending there are only two.
I don’t know why he made the decision, nor do you. How do you know there wasn’t a downside to being quiet? Do you have any experience with counter-terrorism? It seems like you just making this up as you go along, are you? I’ll pose to you the same questions I posed to DrS. above. There is a lot we don’t know.
I could go through your post and pick at it. But in the end you are making assumptions about what happened and what might have happened and then constructing an argument based on those “thoughts.” You are making an argument without any of the facts or intelligence. It is pure supposition and assumption. I’ve asked if you have any sources; you don’t. I am saying that doing this is wrong. Is there anything else you want to talk about? I guess I could take one of your assumptions and run it through my argument above if you would like.
I won’t be constructing an argument based solely on assumptions, no matter how many times you ask.
PS your use of the word “policy” is strange to me. You seem to be arguing about the timing, not the policy.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
OK. Let’s review:
-
SEALs mission is a) to “clean” (kill or capture or immobilise) Ben Laden and others and b) collect information. THey do both things; they come out with documents, computers, drives, etc.
-
Truth is hard to come by. “everybody know” does not mean the same thing in Pakistan as it does here. If Obama had not acknowledged capture, the Pakistan GOvernment and Military and ISI would not acknowledge it either, out of fear of embarassment, until they cold collect a cover story. In the meantime rumors fly, AQ is left indoubt as to factws, orders, whos is in charge. Meanwhile the SEALs, CIA, etc, are analysing the captured intelligence for future or immediate use.
BUt Obama did not let it play out that way. When Obama made the announcement, AQ agents go to ground, trails are covered, documentary evidence is destroyed, bank accounts are emptied.
Agree? Obama did not play the endgame to wring out the maximum benefit. He did not even try to do so, and played a media event instead.
[/quote]
This is a nice story. Here is an honest question: did you just now make it up?
Were there any other factors to the decision? What reason (other than your own opinion) do you have to think that he didn’t use it to the maximum benefit? Was the CIA concerned about attacks or reprisals? Did people “the right people” in Pakistan need political cover? What about Oman? Saudi Arabia? Uzbekistan? (Uz beki beki beki stan stan?)* Was the CIA able to monitor communications/actions they knew/thought would take place when OBL was captured or killed? Why did the head of the CIA and Defense okay it if they didn’t think it was in the best interests of the USA? Did AQ agents “go to ground” as you say or did sleeper cells activate? Did both things happen simultaneously? These questions could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.
[/quote]
No actually, in each of your questions, you have made my point; it would have been better policy to remain silent. Not one of your concerns is aided by blabbing on national TV.
DId the President do anything wrong? Wrong? Not wrong, maybe foolish, or naive, or narcissistic, or wasteful of the efforts of the SEALs who put their lives at risk for hard-won intelligence. But not wrong, certainly.
Are you wrong in this? Yes. Thinking is what we are about. It is not wrong to think, and to do so based on some facts. When a better explanation comes forward, I will amend my thoughts. Show me better facts that those which I provided you in that little article.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Stuff [/quote]
To summarize:
You don’t know what happened or why, but will assume Obama is wrong, based on an extremely limited amount of information, despite his obviously conferring with the principals, until you receive evidence otherwise. Is that correct?
If so, thank you for your opinion. You’ve stated it well.
Out of a sort of curiosity, what did you mean by [quote]“everybody know” does not mean the same thing in Pakistan as it does here. [/quote]
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Stuff [/quote]
To summarize:
You don’t know what happened or why, but will assume Obama is wrong, based on an extremely limited amount of information, despite his obviously conferring with the principals, until you receive evidence otherwise. Is that correct?
If so, thank you for your opinion. You’ve stated it well.
Out of a sort of curiosity, what did you mean by [quote]“everybody know” does not mean the same thing in Pakistan as it does here. [/quote]
[/quote]
My, my. So you have either thin skin or better facts. I know you a little and respect you, so it cannot be the former. I have invited you to share them with me so that I may be corrected. New facts come out all the time.
Please, show me something other than your opinion, which it seems is based on a persistent delusion that Obama can do no wrong and that “the principals” agreed with him that night.
Like, “everybody knows…”
(And, btw, I have met Adm McRaven, but only once, and I don’t have the nerve to call him about this.)
Sorry if this came out harshly. I’m probably off today because of personal issues. My apologies.
I do think this is an “invented controversy” though. In the end I suppose I just assume the government worked as it should (not given evidence to the contrary) and you believe it didn’t (not given evidence to the contrary).
Have a good night.