I’m rather puzzled about all the hoopla around how this is supposed to be bad for Obama. (I will leave the discussion about the possible prosecution of this former member of the military to those who know better.)
No matter what this guy says, Bin Laden is still dead and Obama is the one who gave the order to carry out this mission. Can someone explain why this is bad for Obama’s reelection chances? I’m totally missing that angle.
That’s the way I see it. This book publicity is just going to remind people that Osama bin Laden was killed during the Obama administration.
And being a SEAL or military in general does not mystically endow you with higher credibility than being a politician or just ol’ Joe Civilian. Specially if you had agreed to abide by having everything you publish previously vetted but went ahead and proceeded to disregard that.
Besides what percentage of the electorate minds if OBL was just whacked on sight? If that means that the Team went in with no real intent of taking extra risk to get him alive… to most of us that’s a brilliant statement of the bloody obvious. That part is is no Pat Tillman-type cover-up of a major clusterf**kup.
I’m just picturing Romney trying to get traction off this issue by publicly stating that he wouldn’t have killed bin Laden.
This illustrates why Romney is avoiding military issues. What can he say? That he agrees with the things that Obama has done? That he opposes the things that Obama has done? Either way, it’s a loss for Romney. The best he can do is avoid the subject as much as possible and nibble at trivia. And hope that he doesn’t take too bad a hit on it at the debates.
Not only that, SF312, “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement”, also says that one assigns “royalties, remunerations, and emoluments” to the US Government if one discloses classified information without going through the proper vetting procedures. The government could try to make sure he doesn’t see any of the income from the book, though I don’t believe they are required to do so.
This. I can’t imagine that the administration isn’t quietly pleased about the book, at least with their political hats on.
I don’t trust any assclown out there who will try to spin the President’s decisions, especially when this type of publication potentially breeches National Security. Remember you’re dealing with portion of a public who believes Michelle Bachmann when she says slavery was abolished by the founding fathers, and a Birthers movement that thinks Obama isn’t American. To now put yet another outlandish claim against this president’s ability to make the tough decisions implying he was merely propped up by stronger people around him is not only ridiculous it boarders on treason.
Huh? The book doesn’t say anything about the President’s decision making, as far as I can tell. The writer went out of his way to praise the decision. It says Obama politicized the killing a bit, which is certainly true (not that there’s anything wrong with it).
Oh come now, this asshole writes a book to slur Obama but gives him an “attaboy” to his decision to kill Bin Laden, well isn’t that PRESH, let’s give the dog a bone. He can’t say anything different than the actual happenings can he. He is still trying to undermine the administration with the release of such drivel.
What, specifically, gives you the idea the book was written “to slur Obama”? It’s a money grab, not a political statement.
Oops! :rolleyes:
I like how they double and triple tapped him. You can’t be too certain.
“According to AP, the book also asserts that one Seal sat on Bin Laden’s chest in a cramped helicopter as his body was flown out to sea. This again apparently contradicts official US claims that his body was treated with dignity ahead of his burial.”
So the official orders were to treat the body with respect, but the helicopter was crowded. Again, oops!
Another time “this.” Publicity being forced upon Obama that (per this version of events) he ordered Osama to be killed and perhaps didn’t really care too much if he was killed in cold blood and treated with less than dignity after the fact. Boy, that will rile up the base on the Right to vote against him.:rolleyes:
Really there are few on the* Left* who would be too upset to know that little effort was made to do other than make sure he was dead. The need to have attempted to complete the mission in the fullest professional manner was for international, not domestic political, consumption.
Obama failed to read ObL his Miranda rights!!!
Theirs a sniper on my team… I’ve had three shootings… god knows how many he’s had… LT had a couple in his twenty plus years… I think the way we deal with is by… NOT TALKING ABOUT IT…
I have a real problem with this sudden spate of SPEC OP books… the first Marcinko was one thing… he never actual talked about a mission… but shit people… the most accomplished sniper in US military history didnt talk about it… or write a book…
I think Navy Seals need to go back to shutting the fuck up… my suggestion…
I read this too, but I also read
So I think it is the flight from the compound - not the one out to sea to bury him - that this occurred. Since one of the copters crashed - and Osama was apparently a tall guy - it makes sense this flight was crowded - and they didn’t really have time to be gentle or respectful to a body (they were in a hurry to get out of Pakistan). Doesn’t necessarily mean that they didn’t treat the body with respect when burying him. Not saying they did, but the two stories aren’t necessarily in conflict.
Killjoy. 
In a way, there’s a lot of similarity between Charlie Manson and ObL. Did Osama himself, personally, ever actually commit murder? His legend has him as a mujihadeen combatant, but who knows? We are told he was the “mastermind” of 9/11, until we were told it was Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
Charlie Manson is a psychopath, and nothing I’m saying should be remotely construed as an expression of sympathy. But he didn’t actually kill anybody. The people who did kill people say they did it because he said so. Now, I believe them, but still, its a strange sort of law we practice in such extraordinary circumstances, that we accept the hearsay of proven murderers.
If we had captured Osama alive, could we have tried him? What sort of compromises might we be required to make, to convict someone of crimes he may have inspired but not actually planned or participated in.
By comparison, Eichmann. Another example of a foreign national being abducted from one sovereign nation by another with a minimum of formality. To say the least. Difference being, Eichmann was proven guilty by evidence, signed documents, pictures, rock solid stuff.
What I’m wondering is, if we had taken ObL to trial, what could we actually prove? Not what we believe, what we can prove. If we’re gonna say KSM is the mastermind of 9/11, what does that leave for ObL? Mastermind co-pilot? Inspirational leader, would that be enough of a crime?
Can we convict a man of inspiring murder, if he had no direct knowledge of the details? I’m thinking we should be able to, but it raises a lot of questions.
Didn’t one of the other helicopters crash? Extenuating circumstances and all that.
Edit: I would have liked to see Osama go to trial too. Affording the devil the protection of the law, one could say.
It was enough to put away Omar Abdel-Rahman. Not enough to execute him, though.
And Kahlid Sheik Mohammed? Isn’t it the same for him?
There are enough laws on the books (conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to commit terrorist acts) to jail ObL for life or execute him.