Posted on 05/02/2011 9:33:06 PM PDT by macquire
COURIC: How important do you think it is, Mr. President-elect, to apprehend Osama bin Laden?
OBAMA: I think that we have to so weaken his infrastructure that, whether he is technically alive or not, he is so pinned down that he cannot function. My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him. But if we have so tightened the noose that he’s in a cave somewhere and can’t even communicate with his operatives then we will meet our goal of protecting America.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
It makes him look good, so they might.
“I was against killing him before I was for killing him. Or maybe it was the other way around, I can’t remember, that was like over 100,000 lies ago. Let me consult my trusty teleprompter and I will get back to you.....”
“....or, if I’m forced to release another forged BC, I say we need to nail him immediately.”
LOL, I thought about how true that is too.
What a doofus.
“It all depends on what the meaning of ‘kill’ is”...
The list, ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
This is more pathetic than ESPN’s Andy Katz drooling over obama’s NCAA brackets live on TV.
You talkin’ ‘bout assassination, boy?
Did latest Wikileaks revelations force U.S. to take out Bin Laden?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382908/Osama-Bin-Laden-Death-Did-latest-Wikileaks-revelations-force-U-S-out.html
By Neil Sears Last updated at 12:27 AM on 3rd May 2011
<>
Al-Qa’ida threat to stage nuke hellstorm
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/threat-to-stage-nuke-hellstorm/story-fn775xjq-1226044716503
John Zubrzycki
From: The Australian
April 26, 2011 12:00AM
AL-QA’IDA has threatened to unleash a “nuclear hellstorm” if its leader Osama bin Laden is captured or killed, according to a vast cache of secret documents detailing the interrogation of more than 750 Guantanamo Bay detainees that was released by WikiLeaks yesterday.
[snip]
Won’t see CBS, NBC, ABC, or MSNBC running this will we?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nor this:
*******************************
A feast of fools Posted by Richard Tuesday, May 03, 2011
Nothing could have been further from my mind as I scanned the morning’s news yesterday than spending the best part of the day exploring the recent history of Osama Bin Laden’s many deaths.
If, as increasingly seems likely, but not yet proven to any satisfactory degree, Bin Laden has finally been despatched, then all the previous commentators – including heads of state and senior government officials – who confidently asserted that the man had already been killed, were wrong. Further, the journalists who wrote the stories publicising these views were portraying falsehoods. They too were wrong.
As it stands, however – and certainly as it stood yesterday – those, including those in the US government, who were asserting that Bin Laden had now been killed were offering no more or better evidence than those who went before them.
Further, the source of the claim was the US government. And like all or any governments, it is prone to error, to deception and even outright lying. No such organisation has any right to expect trust, and anyone who unconditionally trusts any government is a fool.
Thus, as of yesterday and still, until the US government has proven its assertions, we reserve our position. We do not disbelieve the US government, but nor do we believe it. We simply expect a reasonable level of evidence which translates acceptance of its claim from one of unsupported belief to one of reasoned conclusion, thus also enabling us to reject previous claims as wrong.
Anyone with a modicum of intelligence and sense would, on reading my piece, readily have divined that this was my position. Two, however, did not – one was Tim Montgomerie who used his fool machine to label me an “OBL denier” and the other Tom Harris MP, who on the basis of Montgomerie’s jolly little intervention, decided on the label “nutter”. That Harris is an MP and should know better does not surprise me in the least. We expect very little from our elected representatives these days.
Subsequently, however. we see reported that White House is weighing whether to release photographs of Osama bin Laden’s corpse “amid calls from some key lawmakers to do so to prove the Al-Qaeda chief is truly dead”.
John Brennan Obama’s anti-terror adviser responds by saying: “We are going to do everything we can to make sure that nobody has any basis to try to deny that we got Osama bin Laden.” And that now includes determining whether to release photograph claimed to have been taken.
“It may be necessary to release the pictures - as gruesome as they undoubtedly will be, because he’s been shot in the head - to quell any doubts that this somehow is a ruse that the American government has carried out”, says Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joseph Lieberman.
Senator Susan Collins, the most senior Republican on Lieberman’s committee, declares she has “absolutely no doubt” Bin Laden has been killed, but adds: “... I recognize that there will be those who will try to generate this myth that he’s alive, and that we missed him somehow, and in order to put that to rest it may be necessary to release some of the pictures, or video, or the DNA test.”
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, a Republican, says US officials are working through whether to release photos of bin Laden’s corpse. “We want to make sure that we maintain dignity - if there was any - in Osama bin Laden, so that we don’t inflame problems other places in the world and still provide enough evidence that people are confident that it was Osama bin Laden,” he adds.
None of them have precisely got the point, but they are closer to it than either Montgomerie or Harris. It is no part of the duty of a responsible and alert citizen to believe unsupported assertions made by governments – and every bit a duty to exercise sensible scepticism. Neither governments nor anyone in authority should ever be given an easy ride. If they make claims, they should be required to support them.
Interestingly, the White House’s original plan had been to bomb the house, but Obama ultimately decided against that. “The helicopter raid was riskier. It was more daring”, an official said. “But he wanted proof. He didn’t want to just leave a pile of rubble”. The president wanted proof – which is deemed reasonable. When we ask for the same, Montgomerie and Harris would have us as “deniers” and “nutters”.
The very fact that clever sophisticates like Montgomerie and Harris could not see this inconsistency, and resorted to their silly comments, tells us we have a problem. For all their cleverness, they are too gullible, too trusting. They are fools at large – dangerous to themselves and the rest of us. And there are far too many like them.
The meaning of the picture, incidentally, may be obscure, but the title of the website from which it comes makes the point. You may chose who is who.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/05/feast-of-fools.html
“AL-QA’IDA has threatened to unleash a “nuclear hellstorm” if its leader Osama bin Laden is captured or killed,”
Some of the lowlies of even higher ups might have believed that, but anyone who understands islam knows they already would have if they had the capability.
During the campaign, he said very forcefully, “We will find him and we will him!”
And unlike woosie Bush, Obama actually said, “If we find him in Pakistan, then we will go into Pakistan and kill him.” I was very impressed.
Bush had such a tiptoe policy with Paki, I am not sure Bush would have made this strike. Or, Bush would have warned the Pakis, who would have warned Bin Ladin, who would have escaped. This has happened more than once.
Not telling them and violating their air-space, was the key to the whole thing. Bush admin was way too trusting of the Paki’s loyalty.
My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him.
Not telling them and violating their air-space, was the key to the whole thing. Bush admin was way too trusting of the Paki’s loyalty.
Yep. W also said he looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul. W let his fellow elites get away with too much, even if they were an enemy.
Quite a brouhaha...
Face it, W was one of those elites.
Amen. Bush should not only have taken over Pakistan after 9/11, but removed their nukes as well. NO Muslim nation can ever be trusted with nukes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.