May 5, 2011

They had to shoot Osama bin Laden because he was not naked.

"Being naked was the only way Osama Bin Laden could have avoided being killed, it emerged today. The elite U.S. Navy Seals team that killed him was told to assume he was wearing a suicide vest if he was clothed, according to a briefing given to a congressional aide."

But he was in his pajamas, so, no matter what he did, he was doomed.

ADDED: Instapundit links, saying: "OTHER NIGHT I SHOT OSAMA IN HIS PAJAMAS. How I wound up in his pajamas I’ll never know...." That flickered through my head too.

305 comments:

1 – 200 of 305   Newer›   Newest»
Ignorance is Bliss said...

But he was in his pajamas, so, no matter what he did, he was doomed.

They had to assume that he might start blogging. Couldn't let that happen.

MadisonMan said...

Joke I heard today: The decision to withold the photo was a no-brainer.

Scott M said...

But he was in his pajamas, so, no matter what he did, he was doomed.

I wish I had PJ's with 450 EU sown in. Besides, assuming he's got a 'splosive 'neath his nethers is a reasonable assumption. Especially if you don't really care if you kill him or not.

warlocketx said...

It was Moe Lane who said it first that I saw, and it's looking more and more correct: those SEALs need to lawyer up, preferably with somebody familiar with international law. Somewhere in the distance the sound of a bus being started up is faint but distinct.

TWM said...

A very good reason. But even if it was just a "kill on sight" order that was justified as well.

Lord, Barry screwed-up what should have been nothing but great PR.

Tell me again how fricken' smart this guy is?

Mike said...

Every minute a new story. Haven't these guys ever heard of Baron Von Munchausen Syndrome? They need to see a doctor and get treatment for it ASAP.

Scott M said...

those SEALs need to lawyer up, preferably with somebody familiar with international law.

I wonder how Obama et al, who ordered this raid, feel about it's relevance to the International Criminal Court.

Lincolntf said...

Good. My rule would've been "if he's breathing, assume he's about to kill you", rather than giving him the naked way out. As long as he's dead, I'm happy.
I really can't believe he's not releasing the photo, though. I assume that if we don't get it through FOIA or some such appeal to transparency under Obama, the next Adminstration will let it out.
It's History, not the President's personal trophy, and the nation has a right to see it.

Lucien said...

The real reason the whole operation was approved is that Julian Assange got hold of an encrypted tweet from Leon Panetta that read:
"Got video of Bin Laden. He's making out with a Dude! Yay!"

Original Mike said...

It's hard to believe that he's walked around with a suicide vest on for all these 10 years.

I'm going with, "If you bring him back alive, you'll be shoveling shit in Louisiana for the rest of your military career."

Bob said...

This is lame BS CYA. The SEALS must be laughing their behinds off reading this ROE.

The only part of the operation that went well is the intel/military piece. The political part is a looping slow moving car wreck.

"Obama is such a bad-ass" then "No really, he is no cowboy." Loop again.

Somebody forgot to tell Obama that the afterglow of a successful operation last but a few days. The 2nd guessing goes on forever. Then again, he's not use to being 2nd guessed now is he?

Scott M said...

Somebody forgot to tell Obama that the afterglow of a successful operation last but a few days.

From where I've been sitting, and correct me if I'm wrong, the general MSM didn't quite spoon with Him after this. This was too big a story and it forced most of them, against their daily grooves, to actually fall back on whatever innate journalistic training they may have. I don't a whole lot of comfort zone out there and, in fact, the snide comments are starting to fly that the WH press sec might not have the gravitas for the job.

He'll be under a bus in short order if this torrent of bad PR doesn't settle down asap.

Geoff Matthews said...

Would anyone fault Obama if he said "We wanted him dead. I gave the order to kill him, and I don't regret it. We are at war with Al Qaeda, and it is my belief that the leaders of Al Qaeda should have more to fear from us than the foot soldiers.
And if you have a problem with that, you can kiss my @$$".
Seriously, would anyone (besides his base) object to that?

The Crack Emcee said...

As long as he wasn't in women's clothing, I'm cool with it. But, as long as Obama is in office, the folks at Pajamas Media had better watch their back,...

Mark O said...

They shot him because Panetta told them to. BHO really had very little to do with it.

MaggotAtBroad&Wall said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Crack Emcee said...

TWM,

Lord, Barry screwed-up what should have been nothing but great PR.

Tell me again how fricken' smart this guy is?


Smart enough to fool Ann and Meade. Their latest twist is a fine example of why, if you're not a real conservative - or, especially, a critical thinker - you really shouldn't be fucking with politics. Here, let me put it into terms they'll understand:

Soilent Green is people!

The Crack Emcee said...

Lincolntf,

I assume that if we don't get it through FOIA or some such appeal to transparency under Obama, the next Adminstration will let it out.

I'm counting on WikiLeaks finally doing something useful, myself.

AllenS said...

More bullshit from this idiotic administration.

Steve Koch said...

From an intelligence perspective, it would have been infinitely better to capture Osama alive and extract everything he knows via interrogation. It is criminal that Obama ordered that Osama be killed rather than attempt to take Osama alive.

The left hates the interrogations and Guantanamo so Obama has been killing Al Qaeda leaders rather than violate their rights by sticking them in Guantanamo and interrogating them. As a result, our intelligence is drying up. The lead to Osama's courier (which led us to Osama) came via interrogation of a captured Al Quedan. Dead Al Quedans provide no leads.

Scott M said...

They shot him because Panetta told them to. BHO really had very little to do with it.

I read a long account from a supposed insider that describes a very opposed Valarie Jerrett basically keeping the President from making a final decision. According to this source, it was a Panetta/Clinton/Gates cabal that made the final decision for him and basically forced him along.

Interesting if true.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

I have never seen an image of OBL without a firearm slung over his shoulder or within arms reach. It has been widely reported before that he was rumored to wear a suicide vest at all times so as to never be taken alive.

Killing OBL on sight was the only prudent thing to do.

OT- Obama is spiking the football at ground zero as we speak.

Chip S. said...

Day 1 of this saga is why Althouse voted for Obama. Days 2+ are why the people who didn't vote for him, didn't.

Chip S. said...

@Steve Koch, Are you one of the Kochs, even by remote relation? If so: I really like Quilted Northern--thanks!

Carol_Herman said...

Back in the Situation Room, they were watching what? Coming attractions?

Panetta says the CIA has nothing in terms of visuals, from the compound. No lights. No camera. But, yes, I did hear dogs barking.

And, yes, too. I saw a big DISH on the roof that has somehow disappeared.

The "photo op" of this event has turned around and bitten pretty much everyone in the White House on the arse.

And, then you have this character Carney trying to "explain it all." Will SNL touch this stuff? It's comedic gold.

Seven Machos said...

I wonder how Obama et al, who ordered this raid, feel about it's relevance to the International Criminal Court.

The United States is not a member of said tribunal, and not under its jurisdiction. No world marshal is going to arrest a Navy SEAL and take him to The Hague.

You people are getting ridiculous. What's gotten into you?

Jay said...

it was a Panetta/Clinton/Gates cabal that made the final decision for him and basically forced him along.


Kind of like affirmative action...
Or perhaps, on the job training.

4thGenerationBuck said...

I think the Team was wise to disable their cameras during the actual kill. Otherwise Obama would use it against them at their eventual human rights trial.

Wahrheit said...

The Crack MC said:

But, as long as Obama is in office, the folks at Pajamas Media had better watch their back,...

Yes, read this from Roger Simon and tell me if it doesn't ring true. Especially if you know anything about Valerie Jarrett. Were you aware of how much influence she has on BHO?

Agree with everyone wondering how the WH could have taken a silk purse like this and rapidly turned it into a pig in a wallow.

Finally, this was a kill operation from start to finish. Even Eric Holder had that precognition. Ask yourself if the Paks really could have not noticed this whole thing for 45 minutes. They wanted him dead, Obama would have been sick to his stomach with indecision about where to try OBL and the quality of the Koran in his cell.

So the killing went well and then they started fouling it up shortly thereafter.

Sheesh, doesn't anyone know how to play this game?

Original Mike said...

"They had to shoot Osama bin Laden because he was not naked"

I heard he was wearing shorts.

traditionalguy said...

This is hilarious. Was this order from the TSA guys? Seriously, the only weapon the USA feared was Osama's brain alive and well and issuing more orders to kill Americans.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seven Machos said...

Otherwise Obama would use it against them at their eventual human rights trial.

Stupid. Fail. What are you trying to prove with this utter fantasy?

Original Mike said...

"The United States is not a member of said tribunal,"

We would be if Clinton and the Dems had had their way. IIRC, Bush put a stop to this effort early in his tenure.

Phil 3:14 said...

All of this "information" is making everyone look bad. Is it still possible to control info in this day and time?

OBL is dead via special ops. That's good and that's all I want to know.

Seeing Red said...

I I I

Me Me Me

His narcissism

The WH's incompetence

& the Press' need to control the narritive & build up The Won for re-election

Have Bermuda Triangled him.

Now he takes the victory walk which may or may not help him in the long run.

At least some are actually asking questions, that's a change.

Scott M said...

The United States is not a member of said tribunal, and not under its jurisdiction. No world marshal is going to arrest a Navy SEAL and take him to The Hague.

You people are getting ridiculous. What's gotten into you?


My point was exactly that we're not a part of it despite clamoring on the left to be so. My question was what those people now think.

Carol_Herman said...

How stupid does a person have to be to think McCain stood a chance in 2008?

I guess the ones who voted for Bob Dole, thinking he'd beat Clinton, in 1996.

Keep hugging your belief system there. Keep believing Obama didn't win the election fair and square. You want to blame only a few voters for the gigantic mistakes made by the GOP selection process?

Seven Machos said...

We would be if Clinton and the Dems had had their way.

Not so, Mike. Clinton did not even bother to submit the ICC to the Senate for advice and consent. A very politically astute thing.

I know quite a bit about this area of law. And you are wrong.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott M said...

I know quite a bit about this area of law. And you are wrong.

Ah, but there was clamoring to submit it, wasn't there? I heard clamoring. Didn't you hear the clamoring?

Titus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Titus said...

What if his pajamas had little bunnies on them?

His choice of pajamas would be fun to contemplate.

DADvocate said...

I want to know why Dwayne Johnson, aka The Rock, knew about this before the media outlets reported it. Is someone in the WH a Rock fan?

Scott M said...

Just read that OBL's last tweet has been translated and released - BRB - someone is at the door.

I just checked and there is actually a Dominos Pizza in that area. He could have met them at the door with cash in hand, ready for his triple-cheese melt with (don't tell anyone) sausage and bacon. New York-style, of course.

DADvocate said...

His choice of pajamas would be fun to contemplate.

I heard he was wearing bunny slippers.

Seven Machos said...

There will always be a clamoring by a small but loud segment of the American population that wants to submit to world government. The vast majority of Americans would never stand for such a thing, even if they say they want an International Criminal Court.

Americans would be enraged if any American soldier or politician was ever tried for war crimes. It would be bloody, Jacksonian war. Senators and members of the House understand this. So does President Clinton. Thus his "failure" to submit the ICC to the Senate.

4thGenerationBuck said...

Stupid. Fail. What are you trying to prove with this utter fantasy?

I'm saying if the PR on this turns south for Obama I would not hesitate to think that he would throw the Frogmen under his well used bus to save his own bacon.
Weren't there issues with this administration poking around the CIA interrogators with threats to prosecute waterboarders.
I am simply saying that if I was in charge of the raid I would have ensured that there was no video of the actual kill. I do not trust Obama.

Original Mike said...

"Not so, Mike. Clinton did not even bother to submit the ICC to the Senate for advice and consent. A very politically astute thing."

I assume (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the political astutness refers to the fact that if he had submitted it to the Senate, it would have ocassioned a political argument, which implies that there were supporters, in the Senate and on the left in general.

Patrick said...

Oh for Pete's sake, how can you take out probably the most reviled man in the world, and screw up the PR so bad?

Seven Machos said...

I'm saying if the PR on this turns south for Obama I would not hesitate to think that he would throw the Frogmen under his well used bus to save his own bacon.

Then you are a tool and an idiot. The United States has a law against exactly this action. The American Service Members Protection Act. Please do look into it before spouting further. Thanks.

Scott M said...

This didn't take long to find.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says it is a "great regret" that the United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court.

Clinton spoke Thursday in Kenya during a seven-nation tour of Africa.

The court is the first permanent institution authorized to try individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so.

The U.S. formally rejected U.S. participation in May 2002. A main concern was that American servicemen hunting down terrorists abroad might not be safe from politically motivated prosecutions.

Clinton said it is "a great regret but it is a fact that we are not yet a signatory. But we have supported the court and continue to do so."


From 2009, no less.

Wahrheit said...

Lady Gaga wrote : "What a historical moment in the fight against hatred."

Coffe. Spew. Keyboard. But no matter, it was worth it.

Seven Machos said...

I assume (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the political astutness refers to the fact that if he had submitted it to the Senate, it would have ocassioned a political argument, which implies that there were supporters, in the Senate and on the left in general.

It would have been voted down something like 90-10. What was politically astute was for Clinton to sign it, thus placating Euro weenies but not submitting it to the Senate, thereby assuring that (1) it could never become law, and (2) he wouldn't face a firestorm of criticism.

Whatever Clinton's faults, he was a major-league politician. Obama could learn much.

The Grand Inquisitor said...

Well, he shouldn't have orchestrated 9/11 then, I suppose.

I bet he had that thought, too. This guy didn't go to all that effort to hide himself in that big home if he didn't cherish his own life.

Sending a pawn to die, or sentencing a little kid on an airplane to death wasn't such a problem for him, but that's because he craved power.

He was sorry when they took him out.

Marshal said...

There isn't going to be any political fallout from this. We on the right are laughing at various inanities and the general hypocrisy of the left. But very few are upset with the outcome, even Obama's role.

Those on the left are mumbling objections so the next time they go after a Republican for the same offense they have something to show they aren't hypocrites. After each journalist's obligatory wave to principle they'll drop the matter. There's no reason to discuss the media separately.

The SEALs don't need lawyers, and Obama's political advisers are having wet dreams some international court asserts jurisdiction so Obama gets his Sister Souljah moment.

The media will follow up on the details until the narrative coalesces around a few stable talking points, then it dies until election time.

madAsHell said...

This story is changing too fast.

Did they not agree upon the spin BEFORE the operation?

Even the use of the Chinook helicopters is in question. The wrecked helicopter left debris that was distinctly not a Chinook.

Seven Machos said...

Scott -- Do you believe that politicians say what they think all the time? Further, the Secretary of State does not make U.S. law, not even close. Nor does the First Lady.

Scott M said...

From the 2008 campaign...

Unlike the rest of the Republican field, Sen. John McCain has said he would like to see the United States join the international court, although he would first require more protections for U.S. personnel. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have taken similar wait-and-see positions, while most of the other Democratic hopefuls have called for full U.S. membership.

hombre said...

We should appreciate the commitment of fighting men of this quality to following orders, but wearing a suicide vest around the house? Please.

I have no sympathy for a monster like bin Laden, but this was an assassination, pure and simple. I am uncomfortable with the dissembling surrounding it. I am particularly uncomfortable with the killing of unarmed members of his retinue - if current reports are accurate.

This guy had to be an intelligence treasure trove. Why was the only option to silence him? In essence, to martyr him?

4thGenerationBuck said...

Then you are a tool and an idiot. The United States has a law against exactly this action. The American Service Members Protection Act. Please do look into it before spouting further. Thanks.

Oh so our servicemen can do as they please anywhere they please to anyone at any time because there's a law that says so. A serviceman who disregards the ROE and Geneva Conventions can expect no discipline? Sure thing.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
I'm saying if the PR on this turns south for Obama I would not hesitate to think that he would throw the Frogmen under his well used bus to save his own bacon.






It needn’t be the ICC, Seven…and yes there WAS discussion of investigations, by DoJ, of the CIA interrogators.

Scott M said...

The wrecked helicopter left debris that was distinctly not a Chinook.

I noticed that too. I would have though Blackhawk or Jolly Green before seeing the wreckage from the Paki pictures. Now, I'm not sure what the hell that is.

Seven Machos said...

although he would first require more protections for U.S. personnel

Read much? If there is American-decided immunity for American "personnel," who in their right mind could want to shun the ICC? It would be at the very worst a tremendous asset for American imperialism.

I get the sense, based on the googling you spout about, that you haven't spent much time on this issue and don't understand the nuances.

Titus said...

We are going to find out he had a butt plug in his ass.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
I'm saying if the PR on this turns south for Obama I would not hesitate to think that he would throw the Frogmen under his well used bus to save his own bacon.






I still don’t grasp the problem with just owning up to the fact, we assassinated Usama….instead we make it sound like we have to have an IAB “justified shooting” .

traditionalguy said...

I bet that ever alert Qadaffi is sleeping in the nude these days.

Seven Machos said...

there WAS discussion of investigations, by DoJ, of the CIA interrogators

And?

David said...

Naked, he still could have farted.

MadisonMan said...

So are the people in DC really still running off at the mouth about this event, or is this just different media sources running stories on the event to keep up sales? (I can't tell)

The Crack Emcee said...

Seven Machos,

No world marshal is going to arrest a Navy SEAL and take him to The Hague.

That image, of someone even trying, cracks me up!

Wahrheit,

Read this from Roger Simon and tell me if it doesn't ring true.

I will - but why does a picture of Bob Dobbs have this strange power over me?

Carol_Herman,

Keep hugging your belief system there. Keep believing Obama didn't win the election fair and square.

Oh, if only you could see me laughing and pointing at the moment! You're Rielle Hunter telling John Edwards he's Ghandi and MLK. Insane. As the resident expert on cultism and belief systems I can tell you, without hesitation, that you, Madam, are severely delusional. If you missed the unethical media blitzkrieg of the last election - and, even three years later, haven't sorted out how they accomplished this disaster - you are not even remotely attached to reality.

Seek medical attention.

Seven Machos said...

Oh so our servicemen can do as they please anywhere they please to anyone at any time because there's a law that says so. A serviceman who disregards the ROE and Geneva Conventions can expect no discipline? Sure thing.

The United States may choose to allow any American personnel to be subject to local law. Or not. The U.S. may also prosecute under American criminal or military law.

Are you really suggesting that the Obama administration is going to turn Navy SEALS over to a foreign government or prosecute them under military or criminal law?

You are perhaps the biggest idiot ass clown ever to find a way here. Impressive.

Original Mike said...

"Further, the Secretary of State does not make U.S. law, not even close. Nor does the First Lady."


The women "came close" to being President.

I don't disagree with your point that there is much opposition to the U.S. joining the ICC, nor do I disagree that Bill Clinton was a smart politician. I also agree with Scott that the ICC is a talisman of the left, and it good at this juncture to point out how incedibly stupid it would be for the U.S. to join.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

Ah, but there was clamoring to submit it, wasn't there? I heard clamoring. Didn't you hear the clamoring?

I remember that very well.

Wahrheit said...

Did they not agree upon the spin BEFORE the operation?

Exactly. Even at the state level where I work we have a contingency plan for if things go right...

My advice would have been: President makes minimum announcement (less "I" less detail) that night, NOTHING from Admin. for 8 hours until full debriefing, NOTHING about captured docs and computers, NOTHING about exactly whodunnit (Biden, you idiot), finally midafternoon next day release a timeline of events that is for sure.

A few hours of partial mystery would have served the President well. Take your time and keep retractions to a minimum, people. Keep your eyes on Nov. 2012 and not netx week's polls, fools.

Scott M said...

I also agree with Scott that the ICC is a talisman of the left, and it good at this juncture to point out how incedibly stupid it would be for the U.S. to join.

That was why I brought it up "originally" (no pun...well, maybe).

Seven Machos said...

People, listen to me. There is no way on earth that the United States will ever join the International Criminal Court if there is even a remote risk that an American solider or politician could be prosecuted. This is because Americans would never stand for it. This is also because Presidents and Senators are not stupid. They would be putting exactly their own asses on the line.

Think about it.

Chip S. said...

74 comments and still no reference to Groucho Marx?

the wolf said...

Right now there is a Navy Seal telling a joke about having once shot bin Laden in his pajamas.

Scott M said...

Seven, that was why I brought it up. Those same people that "clamored" for it should now think long and hard about the implications. For the record, I agree with your point.

MadisonMan said...

President makes minimum announcement (less "I" less detail) that night, NOTHING from Admin. for 8 hours until full debriefing, NOTHING about captured docs and computers, NOTHING about exactly whodunnit (Biden, you idiot), finally midafternoon next day release a timeline of events that is for sure.

That would be ideal, but it'll never happen. DC is filled with people filled with self-importance who love to leak info to credulous journalists. Leaking means you're important! Look at me! I know something! Receiving leaks means you're important! Let me take your junk out of my mouth so I can write this important information down!

It would be interesting to see that happen, a news blackout for hours after an event. I suspect there would be loud complaining from the self-important DC Press Corps.

Wahrheit said...

Crack Emcee:

I will - but why does a picture of Bob Dobbs have this strange power over me?

The power of Slack can overcome even your own extremely well-developed cult fighting prowess!

David said...

Clarity from Sarah Palin on photo release: 'No pussy-footing around, no politicking, no drama; it's part of the mission.'

I don't agree with her on releasing the photos, but at least we have one politician who can make herself clear with a minimum of words.

Scott M said...

but at least we have one politician who can make herself clear with a minimum of words.

I'm not the biggest Palin fan, unless it's Micheal, and then only prior to 1980, but she does have a knack for clear, concise point-making.

Unlike myself.

Original Mike said...

"This is because Americans would never stand for it."

And how would they express their disapproval? Blogs, perhaps?

Wahrheit said...

MadisonMan:

Yeah, you're spot on. I was talking about some Platonic ideal of a White House. The real human animal can rarely keep its mouth shut for even five minutes.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
EDH said...

Talk about revealing methods...

Look for terrorist to develop a suicide merkin.

A merkin (first use 1617) is a pubic wig. Merkins were originally worn by prostitutes after shaving their genitalia, and are nowadays used as decorative items or in film making.

Titus said...

He and his wives were watching the dvd Torch Song Trilogy.

Seven Machos said...

And how would they express their disapproval?

They'd vote the bastards out. If there ever was an American tried for war crimes, they'd vote in demagogues who would make war over it.

You grossly under-estimate how responsive members of Congress are to the beliefs and desires of their constituents.

AllenS said...

Please, everyone, it's not Navy Seals, seal team, or seal anything, unless you're talking about a zoo or circus. They are called SEALs. Use the shift key.

The Crack Emcee said...

DADvocate,

I want to know why Dwayne Johnson, aka The Rock, knew about this before the media outlets reported it.

DAD, that's nothing - what about Christiane Amanpour?

PaulV said...

he sahould have been at the AQ nudist colony.

wv: haingene

The gene that was tested for.
It is a marker for terrorists

PaulV said...

he sahould have been at the AQ nudist colony.

wv: haingene

The gene that was tested for.
It is a marker for terrorists

AllenS said...

bin Laden has been living at this place for years. Does anybody really believe that he awoke every morning, and put on a suicide vest?

Seven Machos said...

I'm with Allen. This was a shoot-him-dead operation. I understand, however, why the United States would not admit this (and also why the United States would actually have taken Bin Laden alive).

What's actually really troublesome to me is why so many people expect transparency in this delicate wartime foreign policy situation. It's weird.

Original Mike said...

"They'd vote the bastards out. If there ever was an American tried for war crimes, they'd vote in demagogues who would make war over it."

Something about a horse and a barn door.

"You grossly under-estimate how responsive members of Congress are to the beliefs and desires of their constituents."

Can you say Obama-Care? I knew you could. (H/T Mr. Rodgers).

Chip S. said...

Suicide vests are for the little people.

Michael K said...

Early in the Iraq War, there was an instance of this sort of second guessing. A news video guy was embedded with Marines and he got a shot of a Marine killing a jihadi who had been playing dead as they went through an enemy house room by room. There was a big furor because the Marine didn't let him "surrender." The Marine was court martialed, as I recall, due to senior officers getting wee weed up about the media.

You are dealing with an enemy that wants to die. As Schwartzkopf said in the first Gulf War, "They want to see Allah and we are trying to arrange a meeting."

Smilin' Jack said...

If they took him alive, do you really think they would say so? And if they did take him alive and he is now undergoing "super-enhanced" interrogation, would I mind?

No.

Original Mike said...

Allen S: I'm telling you, the man was wearing shorts. You know how that sets some people off.

4thGenerationBuck said...

You are perhaps the biggest idiot ass clown ever to find a way here. Impressive.

Language!
I can't believe the smartest guy on the internet is reduced to simple vulgarity. Also don't put words in my mouth, I wrote what I meant which is simply that I do not trust Obama to do the right thing very often. It is now, after a successful mission, inconceivable that a SEAL would get disciplined for the raid. However, flying in there was no guarantee of success and in order to cover my ass I would have made sure there was no video of the actual attack because this administration has a history of throwing people under the bus.

Seven Machos said...

Something about a horse and a barn door.

Tell us about all the successful, expedient prosecutions at The Hague. I'll wait.

Can you say Obama-Care? I knew you could.

Obamacare is mildly unpopular. A lot of people like it. Are you really suggesting that the arrest by a world court of an American politician of service member would be similarly mildly unpopular? If so, you are brain dead. Such a scenario would be grossly disgusting to 85 percent of Americans.

Also, what you fail to understand is that the United States will never accede to an international criminal court that allows the prosecution of Americans. It's simply not going to happen, precisely because members of Congress are -- how to put it? -- remarkably more politically astute than you are.

Seven Machos said...

I wrote what I meant which is simply that I do not trust Obama to do the right thing very often.

Nowhere did you write this. Ass clown.

The Crack Emcee said...

4thGenerationBuck,

Language!
I can't believe the smartest guy on the internet is reduced to simple vulgarity.


“Be not intimidated… nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.” - John Adams

Seven Machos said...

Michael -- Please link to your story.

Maguro said...

What's actually really troublesome to me is why so many people expect transparency in this delicate wartime foreign policy situation. It's weird.

I'm not naive enough to expect transparency, but a little consistency from our government officials would be nice.

It really smacks of incompetence to not have all these answers gamed out ahead of time.

Original Mike said...

What makes you so angry, Seven?

4thGenerationBuck said...

Nowhere did you write this. Ass clown.

My second post said "I do not trust Obama". Distrust of the administration was central to every one of my posts. You not especially good at reading comprehension are you? h yeah, and I take back that thing about you being the smartest guy on the internet, it appears you're not too bright at all.

Seven Machos said...

Things said by Buck in this thread:

I think the Team was wise to disable their cameras during the actual kill. Otherwise Obama would use it against them at their eventual human rights trial.

I'm saying if the PR on this turns south for Obama I would not hesitate to think that he would throw the Frogmen under his well used bus to save his own bacon.

Lem said...

But he was in his pajamas..

In one version Rush said Bin Laden had phone numbers sown to his "clothing" and money on him, in case they had to make a quick get away.

The WH seems determined to go thru every possible permutation of what could have happened that night.

The Crack Emcee said...

Original Mike,

What makes you so angry, Seven?

Jesus, first language, and now anger?

Is this an ashram?

Seven Machos said...

I'm not angry. I'm just aghast at the fantastic stories people are apparently willing to believe in. I notice, though, that there is almost always an inverse relationship between additional knowledge in a subject area and willingness to believe fantastic stories.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Panetta/Clinton/Gates cabal

Hmmm...Triumverate has a ring to it.

Coketown said...

Did they think Osama just lounged around the house with a suicide vest on beneath his jammies? I guess it makes sense if you're paranoid. But he lived in the middle of Pakistan, right next to their military academy. That doesn't sound like paranoia.

Truth be told, I probably would have shot him if he was naked.

Original Mike said...

Go back and read your posts, in this thread alone, Seven. Your level of vitriol is uncalled for.

It's of no consequence; it's just a blog thread, but it wouldn't hurt to chill out a little.

Stephen A. Meigs said...

The whole business makes Americans and Obama in particular look kind of cowardly. As if Obama thought all Americans were too scared and NIMBY to put up with a trial of bin Laden near them, and Obama cravenly felt he had to cater to that by making sure bin Laden wasn't captured alive, lest he be forced to make a difficult decision or some act of violence near the trial screw up his political future. And the solemn ceremonies to me seem a kind of ridiculous effort to make up for the earlier truth-stretching and lack of bravery.

hombre said...

Seven M wrote: What's actually really troublesome to me is why so many people expect transparency in this delicate wartime foreign policy situation. It's weird.

It's not that people expect transparency. It's that something other than the usual flurry of lies and misinformation either disseminated by, or left uncorrected by, the White Hoouse seems in order.

Additionally, this is a major decision, supposedly by the Commander-In-Chief, and it deserves public assessment just as other major decisions do. E.g., Who says killing was better than capturing? And Why?

Original Mike said...

I mean, shit, I'm basically agreeing with you, yet I'm "brain-dead".

traditionalguy said...

The idea that the CIA/Seals must give out video proof which must also be thrown out to the Blogging mob is weird. By that standard, the use of stealth technology in aircraft design and encoded military communications must either be a stupid blunder or an Un-American act. Secrets are kept in wartime because Lose digital lips sink ships.

Seeing Red said...

Ok, b honest.

When U 1st heard there was no video, after that war room shot suggesting they were watching it, you thought, "Hello, Rose Mary?"

Seven Machos said...

a trial of bin Laden

Funny.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
The idea that the CIA/Seals must give out video proof which must also be thrown out to the Blogging mob is weird. …. Secrets are kept in wartime because Lose digital lips sink ships.






And what secrets would be “betrayed” by releasing the video? I’m not asking for the Complete Five Paragraph OpOrder and Annexes.

Anna said...

"Only he could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."

That quote was used to describe Pickette after his infamous charge.

I think we can use it to describe the Obama administration in regards to taking out bin Laden.

Seven Machos said...

What secrets would be “betrayed” by me filming naked sorority girls in the shower and releasing it on the Internet?

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
D.D. Driver said...

"Secrets are kept in wartime because Lose digital lips sink ships."

For those that haven't noticed yet: we will be at "wartime" for the rest of our lives.

Folks are also setting up phony dichotomy: either the government completely opens up its doors during wartime or it gives absolutely no evidence of its claims aside from government proclamations. Don't you think there is a middle ground here? Stop kicking around straw men.

To quote our VP: this is a big fucking deal.

Erring on the side of transparency **in this particular instance** is called for.

Seeing Red said...

carpel tunnel

shorter is btr

Chip S. said...

@Crack, Peter Drucker dissents from your view, respectfully.

Possibly he's just another fuckin' third-eye douchenozzle. But maybe he knew something about getting a point across.

D.D. Driver said...

"What secrets would be “betrayed” by me filming naked sorority girls in the shower and releasing it on the Internet?"

Well, the sonority girls have privacy rights. Are you saying that Bin Laden's corpse enjoys privacy rights? Or are you just be argumentative for the sake of being argumentative?

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
hombre said...

The idea that the CIA/Seals must give out video proof which must also be thrown out to the Blogging mob is weird.... Secrets are kept in wartime because Lose digital lips sink ships.

C'mon, TG, what wartime secrets are jeopardized by videos of a home invasion by armed men accompanied by dogs resulting in the shooting of the occupants?

I don't think release of the video should be necessary either, but for all the lying that has gone on about what happened.

But "national security," or some such, is a bogus excuse for not correcting the record. Believe it or not, there are people in this country who will not vote for a President who ordered the shooting of unarmed people - even OBL.

Wahrheit said...

"Hello, Rose Mary?"

Exactly. The "Gap"! What did the president know and when did he know it? I'm sure they thought that photo made them look all serious about National Security. Apparently Hilary was stifling a cough while they all stared at a blank screen.

If you would have told me this would be the result after the high of Sunday night, I would have called you an Obama-hating fantasist.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seven Machos said...

What did the president know and when did he know it?

Obama knew Bin Laden was dead when military personnel told Obama that Bin Laden was dead.

What is the problem exactly?

edutcher said...

This is the same Daily Mail which gave us the gushy article on Tuesday about Little Zero needing to "sleep on it", holding up the op 16 hours.

Somehow, I don't buy this one, either.

Also, what TWM, Bob, and (in reply) ScottM said.

PS Why are Marshal and hombre recycling their comments from Monday?

Bryan C said...

"Secrets are kept in wartime because Lose digital lips sink ships."

Keeping everything secret just because you can is just counterproductive. Secrecy creates a vaccum which is filled by rumors and conspiracies. It makes even the most trivial snippets of information valuable enough to be worth leaking, and it makes people who know things (and there are lots of them) careless and confused about distinguishing what's really important and what's not.

It's all about propoganda, in the true, morally-neutral meaning of the term. You release information in such a way as to harm the enemy, and withhold information that would help them. The corpse photos would not help the bad guys, but it would help us. So release them.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
What secrets would be “betrayed” by me filming naked sorority girls in the shower and releasing it on the Internet?







What ships would be sunk? In your case? So basically you’re arguing that Usama and his estate have to privacy in this case, and unless they sign a waiver the photo’s may not be released of is it the SEALS (ALL CAP’s folks) whose privacy is sacrosanct? Or is it that your analogy is hopelessly bad and mayhap you ought to start again? Orr to carry it further you don’t HAVE an argument, but merely a sentiment, a prejudice, on this matter? As I said, I don’t need the OpOrd and Annexes, a film of the PCI, the Mission Brief or Brief-back…how about just showing me the D@mned photo of a dead mass-murderer?

Further, how about the WH stops acting like an “assassination” would cause international legal vapours! We ASSASSINATED Usama, no loss…he didn’t need to be armed, reach for a gun, be suspected of having a suicide vest, or any other foolish and tortuous explanation. He was a “bad man” we wanted him dead and now he IS. As Jim Treacher said, “I don’t care if he had a tray of fresh-baked cookies in his hand….”

Seven Machos said...

Well, the sonority girls have privacy rights.

Do highly classified government operations not have some expectation of privacy similarly?

What provides those privacy rights? Is it law? Is there a law allowing the United States to keep this information private?

These are things you should consider. Before spouting about your voyeuristic desires to see dead people.

There is an argument to be made that it would be good to see dead Bin Laden. However, transparency and rights ain't it.

Wahrheit said...

What did the president know and when did he know it?

That's supposed to be funny. Howard Baker said it about Nixon and I was conflating that with the "18-minute gap."

It loses all it's impact when it has to be explained :(

Seven Machos said...

Joe -- It's not Bin Laden that has rights of privacy. It's the government's right to classify information.

Seven Machos said...

War -- Sorry.

Anna said...

Sorry Sixty Grit I just noticed my typo. My bad.

Hoosier Daddy said...

British SAS were whacking IRA members left and right back in the good old days and I don't recall the international community getting their dander up over it.

The idea that killing bin laden violates some 'international law' has about the same amount of meaning to me as when Lybia was named to the UN Human Rights Council.

Wahrheit said...

Seven--it's okay, we're cool. You sem to have one of the clearest heads here about this matter.

Your photo kinda scares me though.

:)

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Do highly classified government operations not have some expectation of privacy similarly?






The government doesn’t have a RIGHT to privacy, or secrecy, q.v., First Amendment. It has a NEED for privacy or secrecy…it’s not the same thing. The DEFAULT position ought to be transparency, not SECRECY. Again the Federal Government needs to show a Compelling Interest in NOT revealing the photo’s, not say “We don’t WANT to show the photo’s.”

I would grant that there is a compelling interest in NOT revealing the operator’s faces or names, a compelling interest in NOT revealing tactics, techniques, and practices of covert operations…but I DON’T see the Compelling Interest in not releasing the photo. A case could be made, I’m sure, but the government needs to be making it. Not just having folks like you talk about the need for secrecy or privacy.

Lincolntf said...

Oh please, does anyone think for one second that there is a legitimate security concern regarding releasing the photo? That's a joke. Killing him and a few of his buddies might piss somebody in Al Qaeda off, but a snapshot after the deed? Give me a break. Obama is keeping it as his special little treasure (or to be leaked when he needs to remind people he's the second coming of MacArthur).

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
British SAS were whacking IRA members left and right back in the good old days and I don't recall the international community getting their dander up over it.






I remember one case, in Spain…At a Petrol Station, dude or dudes (PIRA) get ‘whacked” by someone (Cough*SAS*COUGH) and the Spanish and British Labour Party went @peSh!te! Of course, Thatcher was PM, and Spain was grumpy, as usual, about Gibraltar. So to be fair, the International Community has been known to get their dander up, depending who got whacked and who did the whacking.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seven Machos said...

Joe -- Please save the semantic quibbles for undergraduate papers. The fact is that the government can, under certain circumstances, keep information from the public, at least for a limited amount of time. That's the law.

I stand by my contention, stated in previous threads, that the photos will come out unofficially. If I am right, then this big fuss about not wanting to release them makes plenty of sense.

But anyway, you should race to the courthouse and file the FOIA claim. What's stopping you?

hombre said...

edutcher wrote: PS Why are Marshal and hombre recycling their comments from Monday?

Although I'm not sure of the comments to which you refer, I appreciate your attentiveness.

Assuming without agreeing that you are correct, is there nothing redundant about the Professor's post? Have the issues under discussion Monday been resolved? Are all the commenters today the same as Monday?

And, finally, wtf are you, the arbiter of repetition?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
The fact is that the government can, under certain circumstances, keep information from the public, at least for a limited amount of time. That's the law.

I stand by my contention, stated in previous threads, that the photos will come out unofficially. If I am right, then this big fuss about not wanting to release them makes plenty of sense.

But anyway, you should race to the courthouse and file the FOIA claim. What's stopping you?





Why should I even HAVE to file a FOIA claim? And no it’s NOT just semantic quibbles…reverse it, do you have a RIGHT to a firearm or just a NEED for a firearm? If the former, then the default position is you can have one, if the latter you have to demonstrate that need and if the “need” is not great enough, no firearm…it’s not a QUIBBLE, it’s a d@mned big difference!

Seven Machos said...

Indeed, Joe, why should you have to do anything to get what you want when there is disagreement? The default should be your bidding.

As for rights vs. needs, bullshit. We have laws. Some are held more sacrosanct than others. Anybody who tells you different is pushing an ideology.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Dershowitz: Release OBL Photos or Face Lawsuit
May 5, 2011 2:44 P.M.
By Andrew Stiles
Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz renders his two opponents — Col. Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor at Guantanamo and Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times — speechless as he makes the case for why the photos of a dead Osama bin Laden should be released, dismantling every one of their counterpoints in the process. He suggests that newspapers, should they elect to sue the government to obtain the photos, “may very well win.” But will any have the gumption to do so? (Or at least, more than had the gumption to publish the Muhammad cartoons?)





Via NRO….

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
As for rights vs. needs, bullshit. We have laws. Some are held more sacrosanct than others. Anybody who tells you different is pushing an ideology.




No we have a CONSTITUTION and laws…the Constitution is sacrosanct, the law far less so….

Seven Machos said...

Joe -- See. Dershowitz is thinking clearly. He is going to sue -- take action -- to get what he wants. Bet he starts with a FOIA.

Not you, though. You are going to sit on your ass and make vacuous demands.

Robert Cook said...

"I wonder how Obama et al, who ordered this raid, feel about it's relevance to the International Criminal Court."

I really don't think Obama or associates give a second's concern to the ICC.

"My rule would've been 'if he's breathing, assume he's about to kill you', rather than giving him the naked way out. As long as he's dead, I'm happy."

THAT'S the American Way!

Seven Machos said...

No we have a CONSTITUTION and laws…the Constitution is sacrosanct, the law far less so

So you agree. Great. However, you forgot to add the obvious point that the Constitution is merely law.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I really don't think Obama or associates give a second's concern to the ICC.

Good.

PaulV said...

sixty I think that was super secret stealth helicopter.

Seven Machos said...

Robert Cook! I've been waiting a decade for your dumb ass to tell me how and under what law any American is going to be seized and charged as a war criminal.

Is today the big day?

edutcher said...

hombre said...

edutcher wrote: PS Why are Marshal and hombre recycling their comments from Monday?

Although I'm not sure of the comments to which you refer, I appreciate your attentiveness.

Assuming without agreeing that you are correct, is there nothing redundant about the Professor's post? Have the issues under discussion Monday been resolved? Are all the commenters today the same as Monday?

And, finally, wtf are you, the arbiter of repetition?


No, shiloh, J, Jeremy, or whomever else you are, I just thought you might have some dazzling new insight.

Silly me.

Lincolntf said...

Damned right, Cookie. Soldiers who don't pull triggers get carried home in boxes.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
So you agree. Great. However, you forgot to add the obvious point that the Constitution is merely law.




No it’s not, and I shouldn’t have to EXPLAIN that to you, if you’re so smart….it is the philosophic framework of government, that is Social Contract for America…ObamaCare is LAW, the Assault Weapons Ban is LAW, the First Amendment far more….

Seven Machos said...

Joe -- The First Amendment could be changed today by a simple two-thirds majority of the House and Senate, and then two-thirds of the state legislatures.

The Constitution itself was changed in exactly this way to add the First Amendment.

And, of course, the original Constitution of 1789 had some serious, disgusting flaws.

Law is law. Get off the high horse.

DADvocate said...

I'm sleeping nakes every night now.

Hoosier Daddy said...

a simple two-thirds majority of the House and Senate, and then two-thirds of the state legislatures.

Getting those 2/3 majorities ain't so simple. Thankfully ;-)

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Joe -- The First Amendment could be changed today by a simple two-thirds majority of the House and Senate, and then two-thirds of the state legislatures.

The Constitution itself was changed in exactly this way to add the First Amendment.

And, of course, the original Constitution of 1789 had some serious, disgusting flaws.

Law is law. Get off the high horse.




I’m sorry you’re obviously an idiot if you believe that…I mean sure it takes 2/3 of two houses and 2/3 of the states, and a lengthy process only accomplished 26 times in the US’ history, but it’s law…like any other.

What were the disgusting flaws, please don’t trot out he the “3/5ths” of a human being argment…..

cassandra lite said...

Pajamas? I expected him to sleep naked with naked teenage girls, like Gandhi. Oh, wait. OBL was Muslim, not a Hindu. That's just normal marriage.

Seeing Red said...

Get surgery and quit typing like a fool, Red. Better yet, quit typing.


I really don't understand Y shortening some words caused this reaction.

It seems a little over the top.

Seven Machos said...

I agree the Constitution is harder to change, which is good. That said, we'd be better off if Congress and the states took control of the Constitution away from the unelected courts by changing it and clarifying it more often. Or not, because then we are even more subject to the passions of the electorate and all that.

Tough questions. But let's see things for what they are, and not some mystical thing that they are not.

Sloanasaurus said...

The description I read said that there was a large wound in Obama's head with brains leaking out above his eye.

Does ths wound mean that he was in fact shot in the back of his head while wearing his pajamas?

If so, perhaps this is why the photo isn't being relased.

Shooting a guy who is unarmed, in the back of his head, while he is wearing his pajamas sounds a bit cold-blooded....

But, I am just guessing....

Seven Machos said...

please don’t trot out he the “3/5ths” of a human being argment

Do you not find it disgusting?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Do you not find it disgusting?




Since it was designed to LIMIT the power of slave-holding states, no…or do you read history?

kurt mueller said...

Eric Holder's politicized justice department continues its investigation of CIA interrogators for using enhanced interrogation techniques. So, whoever said I would not trust the Obama administration on this certainly has a point notwithstanding Seven's disjointed rants on this thread. Here is a WSJ opinion column re Holder's investigation:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703937104576302890747157756.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Seven Machos said...

It was designed to placate slaveholders so they would agree to join the Union under the Constitution of 1789.

Nice try, though.

Comrade X said...

I would have counted them as 0/5ths. Because I wouldn't want the South to get any Congressional seats based on their non-voting slave population.

Seven Machos said...

Kurt -- Your link is to nothing.

Chip S. said...

please don’t trot out he the “3/5ths” of a human being argument.

Do you not find it disgusting?


Surely you know that the lower the fractional representation granted to states for their slave populations, the greater the political power of the whites in those states that would have resulted. It's not as if blacks were actually getting 3/5 of any vote. That's why the argument is fundamentally, grotesquely stupid.

Joe said...

The Crypto Jew)




To placate them, they wanted slaves COUNTED 100% FOR THE PURPOSES OF REPRESENTATION IN THE US HOUSE….the rule was not about “personhood” merely how to calculate population…Mississippi wanted to count ALL slaves for population, but NONE as citizens. It LIMITED the power of slave holding states….try reading the Constitution and reading some history, and leave the TPM talking points at home.

J said...

1:48.

The war room pic may be a bit melodramatic but at least they made an attempt at "transparency"

In Bushco days, the good ol boys watched the iraqi war from a texass country club, with their drinks and stepford-wifeys cookin' up some chow or somethin'.

("Subgenii"...representing for the GOPers? More like....a pink. Don't make me send something to Stang).

Seven Machos said...

Chip -- The compromise was designed to placate slaveholders so they would agree to join the Union under the Constitution of 1789. The approval of the Constitution was no certain thing. At all.

I don't know where you people got your history. It's disconcerting. Face it: slavery was and is grotesque. And 1789 wasn't 1492 or something like that.

Seven Machos said...

Oh God. It's J. Moron. Coming to ruin a good thread.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
I don't know where you people got your history. It's disconcerting. Face it: slavery was and is grotesque. And 1789 wasn't 1492 or something like that.




Let’s see Britain didn’t outlaw slavery UNTIL AFTER THAT DATE…it might not have been 1492, but Slavery wasn’t even all that limited, Seven…again HISTORY, not talking points.

Marshal said...

edutcher,

Are you sure you have the right comment? Perhaps you think my prediction doesn't appropriately weigh the controversy of the last two days?

If the latter, let me assure you it does. Nothing has changed since Monday. A few knuckle-headed moves by the administration which promised a return to professional government. But mistakes without serious consequences don't mean much. Americans don't care.

So we get a few laughs that Obama's hubris was so completely unwarranted. Some details such as his being unarmed are nice as they make it harder for the left to differentiate this from their attacks on Republicans the next time we kill a terrorist. And the next time it happens we point out that killing terrorists is just like killing Bin Laden, only before the WTC goes down.

The only meaningful political outcome is that we got Bin Laden. Everything else is a crumb.

Seven Machos said...

try reading the Constitution and reading some history

Slave states would not have joined the Union without the 3/5 compromise.

And that original state Mississippi? Really? Indeed, dude. You must get your history from an extra special source.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
The Slave Trade Act was passed by the British Parliament on 25 March 1807, making the slave trade illegal throughout the British Empire. The Act imposed a fine of £100 for every slave found aboard a British ship

After the 1807 act, slaves were still held, though not sold, within the British Empire. ….
On 28 August 1833, the Slavery Abolition Act was given Royal Assent,

Seven Machos said...

Joe -- What about Mississippi and the 3/5 compromise?

Chip S. said...

SM, Maybe you don't visit the sites where the "3/5 of a human" meme is thrown about, but I don't think it's generally just an attack on slavery. Otherwise we'd hear a lot more about the Missouri Compromise on the internet than we do.

Seriously, who's debating the merits of slavery? You want to denounce the Founders for tolerating slavery, go right ahead. But as you said, that was a founding compromise that remained contentious until resolved by war. That would have been true whether the "3/5" clause was "1/5" or "8/5." The "3/5" thing is just a stupid rhetorical trick that's mutated into the propagation of genuine ignorance.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)




Slave states like North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia, possibly Delaware actually Massachusetts too.

Seven Machos said...

Chip -- I am merely pointing out that this document that Joe and others are calling all glorious and sacrosanct was (and remains) far from anything that ought to be called sacrosanct.

My point is that the Constitution is a law, just like any other law, just somewhat more weighty.

Seven Machos said...

So not Mississippi?

Wahrheit said...

1:48--oh, that was me.

That pic was no more an attempt at transparency than Michelle's bust-a-move.

Look at it with discernment my friend. It says "We are Serious." It advances the "Obama personally supervised the raid" narrative. They chose it from dozens or hundres of images for just that purpose. It added no infromation to the situation.

I don't think there was anything wrong about putting it out, either. Just another PR photo.

Ralph L said...

What's the difference between Arab male dress and a nightshirt?

J said...

2:52.

Yes logic does tend to interfere with the AA Klansmen par-tay, eh, Macho mouse.

Better some transparency --ie Obama admin--than none, ie BushCo

Chip S. said...

SM, I don't disagree with those points. All I'm saying is that in certain circles the "3/5" clause is waved around as if the Founders did some pseudoscientific assay of relative racial worth and decided that slaves were worth 60% of whites. That is a pernicious revision of history, so I think it's important to keep record clear on that point.

D.D. Driver said...

Seven was talking about sorority girls and now he is talking about slavery.

His points are as on point and persuasive as ever!

Seven Machos said...

J -- Atrocious fail. Like shit-your-pants fail. Funny, though.

Joe said...

I don't get your point Seven, what about Mississippi? What about it and the 3/5th rule, please explain....

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 305   Newer› Newest»