http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/05/classy-.html Palin and the right wingers who refuse to give the current administration credit apparently have something in common with Daryl Morey: They believe that the first 3 quarters of the game is just as important as "crunch time." So, Bin Laden getting killed under Obama's watch is all due to the great "set up" work done by President Bush. At the same time, any economic problems the U.S. may hve is all Obama's fault even if the recession begain under Bush's watch. The KSM toruture argument is like a situation where the Rockets won a game on a last minute shot made by Kyle Lowry and people praise Chuck Hayes for having committed a foul on the opposing PG during the 2nd quarter, thus tiring Lowry's defender out a little bit and giving him a better chance of making the game-winning shot.
That story is talking about Ali Soufan who has not been mentioned once in this thread. The post you quoted said "KSM and al-libi" and you said "he". that usually doesn't imply you are talking about someone who was not part of the 20 page discussion.
You are calling me a liar? Thanks. I've posted this all before. I was nice enough to give you a couple of links despite the fact that I've posted it all before in other threads. You should at least do searches before calling me a liar. If I made a mistake I'd admit it. If I'm making one now I don't mind admitting it. Show the mistake if I'm making one, but don't start calling me a liar.
I talked about what we know about the interrogations. Soufan is part of what we know. If I was confused about the waterboarding interrogations and who they waterboarded then I made a mistake.
This wasn't even a fictional Jack Bauer situation. In this case, even if it took longer to "break" KSM, it's not like we wouldn't have received the same intel about the courier.
The discussion in this thread was about the intelligence leading to Osama's death. If you were speaking in generalities I doubt you would have said "he" and think you would have said in another case. KSM, the person named in the post you quoted, said nothing before the CIA took him away.
I thought KSM was one of the people Souffan interrogated. Like I said if he wasn't then it was mistake except for the general tactic as mentioned. I'd posted the stuff long ago in threads about the techniques. So it's possible I was confused about who Souffan had interrogated. I thought one of the suspects was KSM. If not then I was mistaken about that part. And we only know that in KSM's case he didn't say anything under standard interrogation before he didn't say anything under waterboarding, before he did say something under further standard interrogation techniques.
That doesn't matter as we've armed Taiwan well enough that it will be decades before the PRC has the amphibious capability to defeat and occupy Taiwan. The point is that no US president says that we actually support two Chinas or Taiwanese independence yet we in practice we do to save face with the PRC. Also we actually are treaty bound to defend Taiwan, another thing US Presidents don't talk much about publicly. So basically you are saying that Pakistan isn't as important as the PRC so it doesn't matter what we say about them. Regarding the War on Terror Pakistan is actually much more important than the PRC. Pakistan while shaky and untrustworthy at times isn't outrightly opposing the US. Consider if they turned their anti-aircraft guns on our drones and special forces helicopters. What if they blocked our access to their ports and overland supply routes to Afghanistan? Like it or not we need Pakistan which is why both the previous and current Admin. have often gone out of their way to praise Pakistan even though everyone knows they are shaky and untrustworthy. Pretty much Obama has publicly played nice with Pakistan as president, even to giving them credit in the lead up to getting OBL, because he recognizes the need for diplomacy. That is an act of war. If Cuba decided to undertake a similar operation in the US you can be sure Americans will be up in arms over that. I don't think you understand plausible deniability. It will not be a good thing for us and the Pakistani government if forces loyal to OBL gain the upper hand in the government. As the fractured unstable country it is Pakistan cannot give the impression to its people that it is just going along with whatever the US wants. It has to put up something of a front that it doesn't just allow drone strikes and incursions by foreign special forces with the government's full knowledge. Again you aren't that naive. It is a slap just like why no US President publicly says we support a two China policy when that is in practice what we do. Again if what you say is diplomatically correct we would never have to deal with that pantomine or many other sort of things. Let me ask you this. If the positions had been reversed and McCain was the one who said during the election we were going to go into Pakistan to get high level targets whether the Pakistanis liked it or not what would you have said then? Would you have been praising him or would you have said it was a rash and reckless statement that showed he didn't understand the fine points of diplomacy.
I'm saying China wasn't hiding the number 1 terrorist in the world. I'm also saying that Pakistan isn't as important an ally as China is. That's not how I would handle diplomacy, but those things do factor in when it comes to diplomacy. I'm not advocating that, just stating that's the way it is. Arming a nation while saying you support one china policy is different than saying the U.S. would take military action to stop China exerting more control over China. Obama has done what he said he would. He's used drones and now a special ops assaults to carry out military missions in Pakistan. I'm not advocating he purposefully embarrass Pakistan. He said what he'd do, and he's done it. Pakistan hasn't suffered any more from it than it would have had he simply done the actions. So you believe Obama committed an act of war against Pakistan? I'm saying that Obama saying something that would seem to put the US under more strained relations with Pakistan would do more to give them plausible deniability than allowing them to save face while carrying out military strikes all the same in their borders. I've never been in favor of our alliance with Pakistan to begin with. I would agree with McCain that if Pakistan couldn't or wouldn't act to apprehend known terrorists we would need to act regardless for our nation's self defense. I wouldn't be praising him, but I would agree with that position of his. I would be surprised if McCain had been that nuanced in a response. If he talked about attacking Pakistan rather than attacking simply the terrorist target inside Pakistan I would disagree with him.
The contortions going on to try and give Bush more credit than he deserves is hilarious. Obama made the call on Osama. Mission Accomplished. Thanks Obama.
Without the intel there would have been nothing to call. Thanks Bush and Cheney....and thanks for following through Obama.
Let me establish for the record that while I think Bush and his team deserve a lot of credit for this I don't want to take away from Obama. Giving the order to go into Pakistan was bold, especially if it went the way I suspect.
Bush is actually the "No-Stats All Star" of Presidents. Just minus the "All-Star" part of it. He managed to combine Battier's raw productivity with the court sense of Ricky Davis.
A little extreme, but sometimes you just get tired of it, so I sympathize with GRizzled, normally a very moderate poster. I must admit that ATW's exremity has almost made me wonder at times if it is a Germanic gene or something. Apparently xenophobia is sweeping Germany and ATW is just probably going with a certain flow.
Like I said, you could be right, but it would be hard to believe because it doesn't seem to fit with his actions. There are people who view things in the West vs Islam revenge for the crusaders way, but make no mistake, none of those people would ally themselves with the US to rid Afghanistan of the Russians. I'm not sure how important the name is to all this, but Al Qaeda has multiple meanings, many of which are different, all of which could be valid meanings for this purpose. I don't doubt that this could have become his obsession later on, but it certainly was not the plan initially. America was the thing in the way of him securing KSA, and I don't think anything else came close to that for him. Not by a mile. Maybe what you're referring to is his fear of Western culture invading KSA? That was always an issue for him. He was never a big fan of secularism lol.
Lawl a Ricky Davis mention. Rep for that, just the name brings a smile to my face. Homeboy misses a shot on his own backboard to get that triple double then says LeBron was brought in to help him out. Classic Bush.
