It's all about Pakistan now

[Pam]

billb wrote:
Um, actually we'd more likely be listening to the Left's drumbeat of impeachment for war crimes. Sovereignty invasions, god knows what else.

It's certainly GREAT that it happened on Obama's watch and not 7 years from now on someone elses's.
It would have been even nicer if Clinton had got him before 9/11.
Or the Soviets got him .

Whoa, so we send a small, special forces team into Pakistan (somewhat of an ally), to one residence, to retrieve a known, wanted terrorist, whom the hosting country was supposed to be helping us find. And you equate this with concocting a tie between Al Qaeda and Iraq and mobilizing an invasion of an entire country???

[Grace62]

I'm sure he's nice. But he's not investigating war crimes, and that has angered some people.
Personally I think the Bush administration covered itself legally pretty intelligently with regards to torture and I think such investigations would be fruitless. Other countries have and will investigate, but the US won't.

[Pam]

Grace62 wrote:
[quote=swampy]
Sorry... but I think you knew I meant era and got the point.

What "war crimes" investigations are underway at DoJ? Didn't Holder announce a couple of years ago that DoJ was not going to investigate?

If you have updated info on that, please do share.
Obama had this announced quickly after he took office.

[$tevie]

Grace62 wrote:
I'm sure he's nice. But he's not investigating war crimes, and that has angered some people.
Personally I think the Bush administration covered itself legally pretty intelligently with regards to torture and I think such investigations would be fruitless. Other countries have and will investigate, but the US won't.

Somebody has to end the nasty, back-stabbing political use of investigations and impeachments for the sole purpose of "getting" one's "enemies". While I believe there is a good solid case to be made against the previous administration, I think it is admirable to try to move forward and avoid escalating the unfortunate warlike mentality that has overtaken politics in this country. Unfortunately, the people who most need to learn this lesson will not do so.

[OWC Jamie]

Pam wrote:
[quote=billb]
Um, actually we'd more likely be listening to the Left's drumbeat of impeachment for war crimes. Sovereignty invasions, god knows what else.

It's certainly GREAT that it happened on Obama's watch and not 7 years from now on someone elses's.
It would have been even nicer if Clinton had got him before 9/11.
Or the Soviets got him .

Whoa, so we send a small, special forces team into Pakistan (somewhat of an ally), to one residence, to retrieve a known, wanted terrorist, whom the hosting country was supposed to be helping us find. And you equate this with concocting a tie between Al Qaeda and Iraq and mobilizing an invasion of an entire country???
and I did this where exactly ?

[Pam]

billb wrote:
[quote=Pam]
[quote=billb]
Um, actually we'd more likely be listening to the Left's drumbeat of impeachment for war crimes. Sovereignty invasions, god knows what else.

It's certainly GREAT that it happened on Obama's watch and not 7 years from now on someone elses's.
It would have been even nicer if Clinton had got him before 9/11.
Or the Soviets got him .

Whoa, so we send a small, special forces team into Pakistan (somewhat of an ally), to one residence, to retrieve a known, wanted terrorist, whom the hosting country was supposed to be helping us find. And you equate this with concocting a tie between Al Qaeda and Iraq and mobilizing an invasion of an entire country???
and I did this where exactly ?
What I quoted you saying seem to imply just that.

[kj]

Gutenberg wrote:
You can't take it, kj. Neither can Dakota. If this particular shoe were on a Republican foot we would all be hearing what a magnificent accomplishment this is for the US and all of mankind. But since the President happens to be a Democrat, it's a terrible abuse of international law and an awful blow to our national image while somehow vindicating W's use of torture. Don't bother us with all of the Faux News Rush Limbaugh-Michelle Malkin crap.

Not from me you wouldn't. Don't have Fox News, wouldn't know where to find Rush, I don't even know who Michelle Malkin is. My only real feeling on the killing of OBL is that I'm uncomfortable with the celebration, and I don't think it really accomplishes all that much, other than good pr for Obama.

A liberal friend of mine "liked" both these articles within a couple hours of each other, yesterday:

http://www.truth-out.org/chris-hedges-sp...1304343151

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/0...2O20110503

I guess it would make a liberal democrat choose between being liberal, or being a democrat. Or not, evidently. Or maybe principles vs politics? Interesting to see where people fall, but I can't see any way to reconcile the "liking" of both points of view. kj.

[kj]

Lux Interior wrote:
[quote=kj]
My perception is that people on this forum are enthusiastically praising Obama for the Bin Laden execution, but I guess ymmv. And that's ok. kj.

So now you're saying that praising Obama is tantamount to worshiping him as a god?

Or were you avoiding that part of Black's question altogether?
Hyperbole Lux. Unheard of in these parts (kind of like sarcasm). kj.

[Gutenberg]

You make a huge mistake thinking that all Democrats are liberals and all Republicans are conservatives, kj. There is a large number of moderates in both parties. The moderates at the moment control the Democratic Party, and my bet is within a few years the moderates will gain a lot of ground in the GOP. The rigid orthodoxy of the neo-cons and social cons is going to work against them, sooner than later.

---------------

Now, back to the subject. How did someone build such a large and expensive complex in Abbottabad when an ordinary Pakistani can't sell or buy property, or even rent a room, without producing state-issued identification?

I think the answer is, a foreigner built that compound, and that should have excited the interest of the military and intelligence agency, but it did not. And that should REALLY make the United States leery of any further cooperation with Pakistan, because apparently Al Qaeda has enough high-level sympathizers in Pakistan's army and intelligence agency that it could pull this off.

[Grace62]

kj wrote:

Not from me you wouldn't. Don't have Fox News, wouldn't know where to find Rush, I don't even know who Michelle Malkin is. My only real feeling on the killing of OBL is that I'm uncomfortable with the celebration, and I don't think it really accomplishes all that much, other than good pr for Obama.

A liberal friend of mine "liked" both these articles within a couple hours of each other, yesterday:

http://www.truth-out.org/chris-hedges-sp...1304343151

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/0...2O20110503

I guess it would make a liberal democrat choose between being liberal, or being a democrat. Or not, evidently. Or maybe principles vs politics? Interesting to see where people fall, but I can't see any way to reconcile the "liking" of both points of view. kj.

If you have facebook connections to know that something is getting "liked" and internet links, you have Fox news, Rush, and pretty much everything else.
Your comment doesn't make any sense.
But agree on not being comfortable with celebrations of death, but I understand the profound sense of relief for people who have suffered because of this man.