[lugsoul]

But you are talking about actual people who were involved in actual events. To 'sex them up' in an account claiming to be "based on" something factual just ain't right.

There was lots of action in the true version. There WAS an Afghan snatch team. They WERE in a position to make an attempt near Tarnak Farms. But they were basically a bunch of boobs, had never pulled off this kind of military operation, and were likely feeding intel to the ISI. Massoud was never even in the province. Or in that half of the country. And there were NONE of our people on the ground there. Our plan was, in fact, to let them get the guy to Pakistan or a mountain hideout and we'd swoop in and get him 30-60 days later. And, rather than guys wanting to go being told no, the Agency that was running the Op said 'we don't think it is a go - the odds are bad.'

There was the other time when we didn't blow the hunting camp to smithereens because we weren't sure OBL was there but we did know some UAE royals were there. Did we miss a chance? Maybe. At the time, did anyone think OBL was such a priority that we should blow the hell out of some royals from a Gulf ally? Not a chance. No one thought that.

Why not tell the truth? Why advocate for not telling the truth?

[bpjam]

I'm pretty sure I mentioned 'telling the truth'. I think the real stories would be far, far worse than the fictionalized versions from hollywood. I'd rather see somebody playing Mansour Ijaz on TV explaining to Sandy Burglar why it was a good idea to get the Sudanese or the Saudis to turn over OBL to us in any form possible. Or having DOJ lawyers explaining to the FBI why info on terrorists couldn't be passed to State, CIA or Customs in order to avoid violating grand jury secrecy rules.

I'm with you. Tell the truth. The truth is so very much worse for Clinton than anything else.