swiftboat part 2

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Oh really? I'd read they "disowned" him, which is bullshit, but not assisting in the hunt. Link?

"In 1994, the bin Laden family disowned Osama and the Saudi government revoked his passport" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_family

The United States has asked the family of Osama bin Laden for DNA samples, to rule out the possibility that he may have been among the casualties of a U.S. missile strike earlier this month.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=80108&page=1

They weren't exactly out looking for him but giving DNA does help and they could have easily told us to take a hike.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,782
10,079
136
Obama gave the green light, he didn't stand in the way between us and Bin Laden. As for Bush, is anyone dumb enough to believe he wouldn't have authorized it if he were President?

Only President to turn down a Bin Laden kill was Clinton before September 11th. Unless you want to count the invasion of Iraq, but Bin Laden was in Pakistan all along... pretty difficult to gauge the impact after learning he wasn't in Afghanistan.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
As if wishy-washy Romney would have ever, in a million years, issued an order to send in the Seals. At the very most he would have bombed the area and we would never know what happened to OBL.

I find it supremely ironic the GOP is so bent out of shape about this supposed security leak when they had no problem at all with Cheney authorizing Scooter Libby to leak classified information to the media for the specific purpose of making a current undercover CIA operative look bad for partisan purposes. Now that was real patriotism!
Wow, so much fail it's hard to ignore the stench of desperation. Cheney never authorized Scooter Libby to leak classified information to the media. Richard Armitage, the anti-war lion of the anti-war State Department, gave Ms Plame's name to Robert Novak. Ms Plame was an analyst, NOT an agent; her employment with the CIA was widely known. (Just the fact that Ms Plame, wife of a middle level State Department, had ever been even a handler of agents shows how incompetent our CIA can be.) Libby was prosecuted NOT for divulging Plame's name, but for denying he remembered a conversation with Novak and specifically for denying remembering that when presented by Novak with Plame's name, he confirmed that she was indeed the one responsible for sending her husband to verify her own conclusions. Libby could not be prosecuted for divulging her name as Fitzgerald had already determined that Plame was not a protected covert operative. However, lying about it is a different matter. Just as with Clinton's perjury, lying to a federal special prosecutor investigating a potential crime - even if it turns out, as in this case, that there was no actual crime - is still obstruction of justice. A jury agreed and convicted Libby. But again, the jury convicted Libby not for the conversation, which had already been determined was not a crime, but for lying about it. (Evidently not remembering is a privilege reserved for Democrats.)
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,931
3,910
136
About how I see it. He greatly overplayed his hand on his original announcement - the "I love me some me" speech. He should have not awarded himself any credit while sending his supporters out to praise him.

Mission_Accomplished.jpg
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Obama gave the green light, he didn't stand in the way between us and Bin Laden. As for Bush, is anyone dumb enough to believe he wouldn't have authorized it if he were President?

Only President to turn down a Bin Laden kill was Clinton before September 11th. Unless you want to count the invasion of Iraq, but Bin Laden was in Pakistan all along... pretty difficult to gauge the impact after learning he wasn't in Afghanistan.

It's a bit stronger than that. It's entirely possible that one or both of our helicopters could have been shot down, including by Pakistani forces as well as by Usama bodyguards. It's entirely possible that our SEALs could have raided the house and shot up Pakistanis not associated with terrorism - our evidence for bin Laden's presence was I believe all circumstantial. It's entirely possible that our SEALs could have gotten into a firefight with Pakistani forces, and/or been captured and imprisoned for years if not executed. Should any of those have happened, it's doubtful that Obama would even be a viable candidate this year. I would never conflate political risk with the actual risk to life, limb and liberty faced by the men at the sharp end, but as political risks go Obama took a significant one here.

Who knows whether another President might have made the same call or sent in cruise missiles - guaranteed to reduce our standing in the world and guaranteed to allow Pakistan the ability to deny Usama was ever there - or even to continue surveillance in the hopes of getting stronger intelligence or a better opportunity? Clinton for instance tipped off the Saudi royal family - allowing Usama to escape if indeed he had ever been at that camp - rather than risking political damage (to the country more than to him personally - I can't imagine American voters would give two shits if a Saudi prince visiting Usama got blown up along with him.) My gut tells me that Bush or Romney would have made the same call, but that's speculation. And in any case, credit goes to he who acts, not to he who would have acted with the benefit of hindsight had he been in place.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,357
32,862
136
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/us-usa-campaign-binladen-ad-idUSBRE87E01F20120815








lol. here we go again. I hope the obama campaign hits back real fast and not let this gain any traction

If anyone can produce a quote where Obama took personal credit for getting Bin Laden, I'll listen.

I do notice the GOP has no problem with giving Reagan credit for the fall of the Soviet Union.

Two facts we do know. Obama gave the order and Romney stated he would not go into Pakistan.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I never had a problem with that banner. A military unit is tasked with certain missions; this group had accomplished its mission (supporting major combat operations in Iraq) and deserved its banner. Remember that Bush was there to honor the Abraham Lincoln. But I agree it's debatable; since he also gave his speech which announced (prematurely as it happened) the end of major combat operations, it could at least arguably be considered his mission that was being proclaimed as accomplished. Certainly the political effect on the two Presidents was the same.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Well, we all know how fond Obama is of the word "I." His narcissism runs deep. From all indications, Obama spends a LOT of time doing the mirrror, mirror on the wall thing (biographical books, speeches, references to himself over and over again.)

Military operations are complex and involve teams with many players. Some of the players get the spotlight (ie fighter pilots,) others not so much (mechanics.) Those whose lives depend on the professionalism of the team are particularly prone to recognize that dependency and offer credit. Those who are oblivious to such dependency, don't.

For the life of me I don't see how approving the raid on Bin Laden's compound was "gutsy," the most common term bandied about.

Sure, if things went wrong he would have more blame for violating Pakistan's sovereignty than he did. If the team that went in had casualties, he would have caught some flack. But the only risk to him was POLITICAL, and compared to the risk of life that the SEALs and aviators faced, this is NOTHING.

Obama hemmed and hawed for months before approving the raid, waiting for David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett to give him their OK. His POLITICAL team structured their orders so that if a failure occurred it would be laid solely on the military. CYA all the way! That's Team Obama's motto!

The special operations community prefers to work anonymously. When they don't, they become targets and they lose their ability to work in the shadows. The stars of CIA officers killed in the line of duty that are on display at CIA HQ don't have names for many very good reasons. Save the medals for private ceremonies in anonymous rooms, and then hold them for after retirement, or risk the lives and even the careers of those getting the medals.

Don't worry President Obama, the community recognizes its own, and that recognition is much more valued than the politically opportune and fleeting nods that politicians make.

We, the citizens who live free due to their devotion, we do owe gratitude. I like to give contributions to the Wounded Warrior Project, because some transitions from active service are much harder than others.

So long as I am on about this, one thing that Obama seems to have no clue about is the daily bravery, the willingness to confront fear and physical hardship, the isolation from family that goes with this line of work. But within the community, these are a given, they are the glue of common hardship overcome.

But when politicians jump to take the spotlight, to claim they are "gutsy," well, I invite them to take a week out of their lives to share BUDS, Ranger, Aviation Rescue Swimmer or some other challenging course of instruction to get a "feel" for what the military considers "gutsy."

No, they don't have to spend time in places like the Korengal Valley, that is not their job. But with many of the current generation of political leaders, Rs and Ds alike, lacking ANY military experience, it would be a good idea to have such an orientation a visceral requirement upon getting the job. IMHO.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
If anyone can produce a quote where Obama took personal credit for getting Bin Laden, I'll listen.

Lots of references, this is the first one that popped up. It may not be the best one, but, hey, you could have easily done your own search.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGBCMyw1oH0

"I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority . . . even as I continued our broader effort. . . . Then, after years of painstaking work by my intelligence community I was briefed . . . I met repeatedly with my national security team . . . And finally last week I determined that I had enough intelligence to take action. . . . Today, at my direction . . ."

Yadda, yadda, yadda.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
I've read some commentary on Obama's style of giving credit to himself. The comparisons with real leaders are striking.

Michael Mukasey: Obama and the bin Laden Bragging Rights

It's hard to imagine Lincoln or Eisenhower claiming such credit for the heroic actions of others.

(Mr. Mukasey served as U.S. attorney general from 2007-09, and as a U.S. district judge from 1988 to 2006.)

The first anniversary of the SEAL Team 6 operation that killed Osama bin Laden brings the news that President Obama plans during the coming campaign to exploit the bragging rights to the achievement. That plan invites scrutiny that is unlikely to benefit him.

Consider the events surrounding the operation. A recently disclosed memorandum from then-CIA Director Leon Panetta shows that the president's celebrated derring-do in authorizing the operation included a responsibility-escape clause: "The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven's hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out."

Which is to say, if the mission went wrong, the fault would be Adm. McRaven's, not the president's. Moreover, the president does not seem to have addressed at all the possibility of seizing material with intelligence value—which may explain his disclosure immediately following the event not only that bin Laden was killed, but also that a valuable trove of intelligence had been seized, including even the location of al Qaeda safe-houses. That disclosure infuriated the intelligence community because it squandered the opportunity to exploit the intelligence that was the subject of the boast.

The only reliable weapon that any administration has against the current threat to this country is intelligence. Every operation like the one against bin Laden (or the one that ended the career of Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S. citizen and al Qaeda propagandist killed in a drone attack last September) dips into the reservoir of available intelligence. Refilling that reservoir apparently is of no importance to an administration that, after an order signed by the president on his second day in office, has no classified interrogation program—and whose priorities are apparent from its swift decision to reopen investigations of CIA operators for alleged abuses in connection with the classified interrogation program that once did exist.

While contemplating how the killing of bin Laden reflects on the president, consider the way he emphasized his own role in the hazardous mission accomplished by SEAL Team 6:

"I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority . . . even as I continued our broader effort. . . . Then, after years of painstaking work by my intelligence community I was briefed . . . I met repeatedly with my national security team . . . And finally last week I determined that I had enough intelligence to take action. . . . Today, at my direction . . ."

That seems a jarring formulation coming from a man who, when first elected, was asked which president he would model himself on and replied, Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln, on the night after Gen. Robert E. Lee's surrender ended the Civil War, delivered from the window of the White House a speech that mentioned his own achievements not at all, but instead looked forward to the difficulties of reconstruction and called for black suffrage—a call that would doom him because the audience outside the White House included a man who muttered that Lincoln had just delivered his last speech. It was John Wilkes Booth.

The man from whom President Obama has sought incessantly to distance himself, George W. Bush, also had occasion during his presidency to announce to the nation a triumph of intelligence: the capture of Saddam Hussein. He called that success "a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq." He attributed it to "the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers. . . . Their work continues, and so do the risks."

He did mention himself at the end: "Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them."

That is not to say that great leaders, including presidents, have not placed themselves at the center of great events. But generally it has been to accept responsibility for failure.

Lincoln took responsibility in August 1862 for failures that had been attributed to General George McClellan—eventually sacked for incompetence—and Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Lincoln told a crowd that McClellan was not at fault for seeking more than Stanton could give, and "I stand here, as justice requires me to do, to take upon myself what has been charged upon the Secretary of War."

Dwight Eisenhower is famous for having penned a statement to be issued in anticipation of the failure of the Normandy invasion that reads in relevant part: "My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."

A week later, when the success of the invasion was apparent, Eisenhower saluted the Allied Expeditionary Forces: "One week ago this morning there was established through your coordinated efforts our first foothold in northwestern Europe. High as was my preinvasion confidence in your courage, skill and effectiveness . . . your accomplishments . . . have exceeded my brightest hopes.

Eisenhower did mention himself at the end: "I truly congratulate you upon a brilliantly successful beginning. . . . Liberty loving people everywhere would today like to join me in saying to you, 'I am proud of you.'"

Such examples are worth remembering every time President Obama claims bin Laden bragging rights.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Lots of references, this is the first one that popped up. It may not be the best one, but, hey, you could have easily done your own search.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGBCMyw1oH0

"I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority . . . even as I continued our broader effort. . . . Then, after years of painstaking work by my intelligence community I was briefed . . . I met repeatedly with my national security team . . . And finally last week I determined that I had enough intelligence to take action. . . . Today, at my direction . . ."

Yadda, yadda, yadda.
It's a bit hubristic and off-putting, and definitely politically wasn't a smart move in this instance. But in a general way, it's also a bit refreshing from the usual political-speak use of the plural. Elect us, we're going to act, we want to assure you, we stubbed our toe . . . It's like seeing a politician with the stones to point with his finger rather than with his thumb.

EDIT: I'd be very very surprised if the SEALs didn't snatch up every bit of obvious potential intel in the available time. That's SOP for all spec ops. But at any rate, that belongs to the military planners, not to the President who while nominally Commander-In-Chief is very rarely an individual with training in military operations and never an individual currently qualified as an O3 for that particular operation. I do think Obama made the announcement too quickly, but I doubt very many terrorist leaders who first learned of UBL's death through Obama's speech would have been fingered through intel at UBL's home. I strongly suspect that such individuals would have been warned through their Pakistani intelligence, military and government contacts within a couple hours of the event.
 
Last edited:

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
My guess is the obama campaign won't say shit. otherwise it will be revealed how many times obama waffled on the decision to finally give the go ahead to the intelligence groups tracking bin laden.
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,642
62
91
My guess is the obama campaign won't say shit. otherwise it will be revealed how many times obama waffled on the decision to finally give the go ahead to the intelligence groups tracking bin laden.

If he hadn't waffled at least a couple of times I would think less of him.
There is so much crap that can go wrong with an operation like that, many of them very succinctly named by Werepossum. Not a decision that should be made without much thought as to the consequences.
 
Last edited:

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
You mean the Republicans are going to lie 1/2 as much as the Democrats in this campaign cycle?
 

JKing106

Platinum Member
Mar 19, 2009
2,193
0
0
About how I see it. He greatly overplayed his hand on his original announcement - the "I love me some me" speech. He should have not awarded himself any credit while sending his supporters out to praise him. But that's just politics - what would have best benefited Obama himself, not whether he deserves credit. In reality a President gets credit or blame for most everything that happens on his watch, and in killing Usama he took a very real political risk he could easily have avoided. This operation took much more Presidential involvement than do most things for which a President takes credit, and he deserves his kudos.

These people have a point about the leaks; those are very bad. But by tying it into an attack on his taking credit where he is legitimately due credit, they undermine their own argument. "America" didn't kill bin Laden, SEALs did, and while they deserve the lion's share of the credit for risking their lives to do so, Obama, the CIA, and military intelligence all deserve their share as well.

Incidentally I'm still very supportive of the original Swift Boaters. They forced Kerry to backtrack on several outright lies, including slanderous attacks on his fellow Swift Boaters (e.g. claiming that both other boats fled the area after one boat struck a mine when in fact Kerry's boat was the only boat to flee the area.)

They really earned those paychecks, didn't they? I wonder if they got paid as much as old draft dodging, all limbs having Saxby when he called Max Cleland, who lost 3 limbs to a hand grenade, a traitor?
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
They really earned those paychecks, didn't they? I wonder if they got paid as much as old draft dodging, all limbs having Saxby when he called Max Cleland, who lost 3 limbs to a hand grenade, a traitor?

You mean that asshole Vice President Biden and all his draft dodging?
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
It's a bit hubristic and off-putting, and definitely politically wasn't a smart move in this instance. But in a general way, it's also a bit refreshing from the usual political-speak use of the plural. Elect us, we're going to act, we want to assure you, we stubbed our toe . . . It's like seeing a politician with the stones to point with his finger rather than with his thumb.

EDIT: I'd be very very surprised if the SEALs didn't snatch up every bit of obvious potential intel in the available time. That's SOP for all spec ops. But at any rate, that belongs to the military planners, not to the President who while nominally Commander-In-Chief is very rarely an individual with training in military operations and never an individual currently qualified as an O3 for that particular operation. I do think Obama made the announcement too quickly, but I doubt very many terrorist leaders who first learned of UBL's death through Obama's speech would have been fingered through intel at UBL's home. I strongly suspect that such individuals would have been warned through their Pakistani intelligence, military and government contacts within a couple hours of the event.

Time allowed to remain on site is based on intelligence and is always part of the mission brief. The mission, air and ground commanders can modify on the run, but these raids are planned out pretty carefully and take into account fuel states, air corridor security, etc. as well as likely responses from all likely parties, so if the planning is for 30 minutes on the ground that is what they go with. Having a disabled lift aircraft does throw mission planned schedules off, they can't take as many prisoners as they might have wanted to for one thing and they now have to allow time to place demo, etc.

I agree that Pakistani ISI would probably put the word out once they figured that something happened but that figuring out may have taken more than a day and then only if someone was in the loop enough to know not only that UBL was gone but who needed to know that.

If there is immediately actionable intel, every minute counts.

Likely it would have been better to wait as long as possible to make any announcement, just to let the rumor mills have at it.

Why not take the opportunity to put out some misinformation? The enemy team is relying on couriers and other slow commo, my guess they would not be getting the news out on Twitter even once the select few were briefed in by ISI. FUD would have been our friend in this circumstance, especially if the intel pointed directly to some quick snatches or a chance to put trackers on more targets to follow them to lairs and associates once they start bolting.