Great job by Special Ops. Oo-rah.
As for Cadet Bone Spurs:
BFD. He should've gotten Al-baghdadi sooner. He didn't get Al-Bagdadi -- Special Ops did. Trump didn't do anything. Anyone with a brain would have done the same thing.
What goes around...
“Wouldn’t it have been nice if we got Osama Bin Laden a lot sooner than that, wouldn’t it have been nice? You know, living—think of this—living in Pakistan, beautifully in Pakistan in what I guess they considered a nice mansion, I don’t know, I’ve seen nicer. But living in Pakistan right next to the military academy, everybody in Pakistan knew he was there. They took him down but—look, look, there’s news right there, he lived in Pakistan, we’re supporting Pakistan, we’re giving them $1.3 billion a year, which we don’t give them anymore, by the way, I ended it because they don’t do anything for us, they don’t do a damn thing for us.”
Donald J. Trump
Verified account @realDonaldTrump
Stop congratulating Obama for killing Bin Laden. The Navy Seals killed Bin Laden. #debate
6:12 PM - 22 Oct 2012
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Yesterday I explained to @wolfblitzercnn on @CNNSitRoom why @BarackObama doesn't deserve credit for killing Bin Laden http://bit.ly/TkduX
Video News - CNN
10:49 AM - Dec 9, 2011
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Admiral McRaven had full operational control of the Bin Laden mission http://bit.ly/Kg7vrN @BarackObama gave vague directions.
What 'Gutsy Call'?: CIA Memo Reveals Admiral Controlled bin Laden Mission | Breitbart
The memo doesn't show a gutsy call. It doesn't show a president willing to take the blame for a mission gone wrong. It shows a CYA maneuver by the White House.
breitbart.com
11:41 AM - Apr 27, 2012
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
When the military informed Obama that they had Bin Laden, is there anyone with a brain that would not have said "Ok, go get him"?
10:02 AM - Oct 23, 2012
JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial
Re: The Politics of National Security
Last edited by ggait on Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Boycott stupid. If you ignore the gator troll, eventually he'll just go back under his bridge.
Re: The Politics of National Security
Begrudgingly covered by the lefts megaphones in the MSM.
Nothing from Democrats
Nothing from Democrats
Re: The Politics of National Security
Well Trump could have called them:
Before the 2011 raid in Pakistan that killed bin Laden, the Obama administration did give advance word to the top two Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate as well as the four leaders of the congressional intelligence committees.
And the GOP didn't say much about bin laden either:
Obama's bin Laden coup has GOP at a loss for words
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politi ... 31519.html
Before the 2011 raid in Pakistan that killed bin Laden, the Obama administration did give advance word to the top two Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate as well as the four leaders of the congressional intelligence committees.
And the GOP didn't say much about bin laden either:
Obama's bin Laden coup has GOP at a loss for words
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politi ... 31519.html
Boycott stupid. If you ignore the gator troll, eventually he'll just go back under his bridge.
- youthathletics
- Posts: 15793
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm
Re: The Politics of National Security
.....and the difference. Leaking in this era is like a colander for the past 3 years. Not to mention, Schiff has not been trustworthy of late.
This completely detracts from the success of the mission. And is nothing more than talking points of partisanship. Next we’ll hear there is probably something impeachable in his latest decision.
How about we just be thankful......for once.
This completely detracts from the success of the mission. And is nothing more than talking points of partisanship. Next we’ll hear there is probably something impeachable in his latest decision.
How about we just be thankful......for once.
A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” -Soren Kierkegaard
~Livy
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” -Soren Kierkegaard
Re: The Politics of National Security
Nonsense......and the difference. Leaking in this era is like a colander for the past 3 years. Not to mention, Schiff has not been trustworthy of late.
GOP was intensely opposed to Obama. Yet Obama informed the full bi-partisan gang of eight.
Trump did not. Only informed a few Reps, but unclear how many. Apparently, Trump doesn't trust Reps either. Not appropriate.
And did you catch how Trump spent his news conference talking about his many successful books? Including the one that would have averted 9/11 if only people had listened to him. And did you catch his twitter rants posted above about how lame Obama and McCraven were in going after bin Laden. Trump is just not the same as other people -- Rep and Dem.
He's still a POS and always will be.
Proudly moderate, non-partisan and Never Trump!!
Boycott stupid. If you ignore the gator troll, eventually he'll just go back under his bridge.
Re: The Politics of National Security
^^^ that's when the ranking (D) on the HPSIC was a former Terp & Mt Wash Dman who did not leak like a sieve & play to the cameras.
-
- Posts: 34057
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: The Politics of National Security
… leaking like a sieve and playing to the cameras -- perfect description of Orange Duce.
"He was whimpering, screaming, and crying." -- sure he was. Trump can never play it straight.
"He was whimpering, screaming, and crying." -- sure he was. Trump can never play it straight.
STAND AGAINST FASCISM
- MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 27066
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: The Politics of National Security
Your arrogance continues unabated, Salty.old salt wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 11:35 amNo I did not. You interpret any discussion of an issue which does not include a harsh critique of Trump as support.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 5:16 pmYou've previously made it sound as if you were supporting Trump's decision...You have a fundamental lack of understanding of the tactical situation that departs from rationality....withdrawing air support... Would that have meant 'fighting' the Turks? Well, yes, if they were firing on us or those we were protecting, darn tootin...and Trump should have made clear that would be result of our taking fire. We certainly have those capabilities.I'll rely on the public statements of the members of the chain of command who were privy to the call, rather than your hunch.So...what did Trump actually say to Erdogan?
My hunch is that perhaps he hemmed and hawed and choked and sputtered and then said, "well, if that's what you're going to do, we'll get out of the way." And then said to those who had been listening, 'well, time to get out anyway, right boys? I said, right boys?"
You seem to be unable to understand the reality that we had agreed with the Turks, months in advance, to not militarily oppose an incursion into Syria, so long as US troops were not endangered.
I appreciate your sharing with us various 'tactical' detail that you feel is relevant to the discussions. Truly do.
But you have big blinders on.
Re: The Politics of National Security
Blinders ? You have a bucket over your head if you think the use of US air power against NATO ally Turkey in this scenario was a viable option.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:13 pmYour arrogance continues unabated, Salty.old salt wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 11:35 amNo I did not. You interpret any discussion of an issue which does not include a harsh critique of Trump as support.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 5:16 pmYou've previously made it sound as if you were supporting Trump's decision...You have a fundamental lack of understanding of the tactical situation that departs from rationality....withdrawing air support... Would that have meant 'fighting' the Turks? Well, yes, if they were firing on us or those we were protecting, darn tootin...and Trump should have made clear that would be result of our taking fire. We certainly have those capabilities.I'll rely on the public statements of the members of the chain of command who were privy to the call, rather than your hunch.So...what did Trump actually say to Erdogan?
My hunch is that perhaps he hemmed and hawed and choked and sputtered and then said, "well, if that's what you're going to do, we'll get out of the way." And then said to those who had been listening, 'well, time to get out anyway, right boys? I said, right boys?"
You seem to be unable to understand the reality that we had agreed with the Turks, months in advance, to not militarily oppose an incursion into Syria, so long as US troops were not endangered.
I appreciate your sharing with us various 'tactical' detail that you feel is relevant to the discussions. Truly do.
But you have big blinders on.
...& Erdogan knew that.
Re: The Politics of National Security
Baghdadi Bob bagged :
https://www.thehindu.com/news/internati ... 811552.ece
https://www.thehindu.com/news/internati ... 811552.ece
- MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 27066
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: The Politics of National Security
That was the only option at that point?old salt wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:18 pmBlinders ? You have a bucket over your head if you think the use of US air power against NATO ally Turkey in this scenario was a viable option.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:13 pmYour arrogance continues unabated, Salty.old salt wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 11:35 amNo I did not. You interpret any discussion of an issue which does not include a harsh critique of Trump as support.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 5:16 pmYou've previously made it sound as if you were supporting Trump's decision...You have a fundamental lack of understanding of the tactical situation that departs from rationality....withdrawing air support... Would that have meant 'fighting' the Turks? Well, yes, if they were firing on us or those we were protecting, darn tootin...and Trump should have made clear that would be result of our taking fire. We certainly have those capabilities.I'll rely on the public statements of the members of the chain of command who were privy to the call, rather than your hunch.So...what did Trump actually say to Erdogan?
My hunch is that perhaps he hemmed and hawed and choked and sputtered and then said, "well, if that's what you're going to do, we'll get out of the way." And then said to those who had been listening, 'well, time to get out anyway, right boys? I said, right boys?"
You seem to be unable to understand the reality that we had agreed with the Turks, months in advance, to not militarily oppose an incursion into Syria, so long as US troops were not endangered.
I appreciate your sharing with us various 'tactical' detail that you feel is relevant to the discussions. Truly do.
But you have big blinders on.
...& Erdogan knew that.
And are you really saying that had the Turks been shelling our guys on the ground, air power response wasn't a "viable option"?
Serious question.
Re: The Politics of National Security
There would have been significant casualties on both sides, but the Turks would have continued.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:31 pmThat was the only option at that point?old salt wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:18 pmBlinders ? You have a bucket over your head if you think the use of US air power against NATO ally Turkey in this scenario was a viable option.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:13 pmYour arrogance continues unabated, Salty.old salt wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 11:35 amNo I did not. You interpret any discussion of an issue which does not include a harsh critique of Trump as support.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 5:16 pmYou've previously made it sound as if you were supporting Trump's decision...You have a fundamental lack of understanding of the tactical situation that departs from rationality....withdrawing air support... Would that have meant 'fighting' the Turks? Well, yes, if they were firing on us or those we were protecting, darn tootin...and Trump should have made clear that would be result of our taking fire. We certainly have those capabilities.I'll rely on the public statements of the members of the chain of command who were privy to the call, rather than your hunch.So...what did Trump actually say to Erdogan?
My hunch is that perhaps he hemmed and hawed and choked and sputtered and then said, "well, if that's what you're going to do, we'll get out of the way." And then said to those who had been listening, 'well, time to get out anyway, right boys? I said, right boys?"
You seem to be unable to understand the reality that we had agreed with the Turks, months in advance, to not militarily oppose an incursion into Syria, so long as US troops were not endangered.
I appreciate your sharing with us various 'tactical' detail that you feel is relevant to the discussions. Truly do.
But you have big blinders on.
...& Erdogan knew that.
And are you really saying that had the Turks been shelling our guys on the ground, air power response wasn't a "viable option"?
Serious question.
Do you think we'd escalate with 5000 personnel. several special & tactical aircraft & 50 nucs held hostage at Incirlik ?
The US Chain of Command was not so stupid enough as to allow such a dilemma to arise.
Had they been ordered to do so -- then you might have seen some resignation letters.
Serious answer.
-
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm
Re: The Politics of National Security
Initial reports indicate --
-- Army Delta Force (direct action), 75th Ranger Regiment (force protection) & their dedicated 160th Night Stalkers Aviation Regiment.
-- mission to/from Irbil in NW Iraq
-- 8 helos, primarily MH-47G Chinooks, with gunships (probably MH-60 L/M Direct Action Penetrator variants)
All probably equipped with in-flight refueling probes to refuel enroute from C-130's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/160th_Spe ... (Airborne)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH ... ook#MH-47G
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_ ... al_purpose
I hope Mark Bowden & Ridley Scott do the movie.
-- Army Delta Force (direct action), 75th Ranger Regiment (force protection) & their dedicated 160th Night Stalkers Aviation Regiment.
-- mission to/from Irbil in NW Iraq
-- 8 helos, primarily MH-47G Chinooks, with gunships (probably MH-60 L/M Direct Action Penetrator variants)
All probably equipped with in-flight refueling probes to refuel enroute from C-130's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/160th_Spe ... (Airborne)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH ... ook#MH-47G
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_ ... al_purpose
I hope Mark Bowden & Ridley Scott do the movie.
Re: The Politics of National Security
Nothing to get over. I'm enjoying this news cycle immensely. Have a nice day. ..
Susan Rice picked a great time to do a book tour. She hasn't lost her sense of timing.
Last edited by old salt on Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Politics of National Security
Damn, it just keeps getting better.old salt wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:26 pm Baghdadi Bob bagged :
https://www.thehindu.com/news/internati ... 811552.ece
With the collateral intel the good guys now have after this raid, who knows where this will lead...
Re: The Politics of National Security
This is spoiling seacoaster's impeachment-paloozaold salt wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:20 pmNothing to get over. I'm enjoying this news cycle immensely. Have a nice day. ..
-
- Posts: 34057
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: The Politics of National Security
That’s a good publication. I read it frequently.tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:21 pmDamn, it just keeps getting better.old salt wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:26 pm Baghdadi Bob bagged :
https://www.thehindu.com/news/internati ... 811552.ece
With the collateral intel the good guys now have after this raid, who knows where this will lead...
“I wish you would!”