Finally someone with guts to say what I said all along.
partial quote. "-- Obama has taken way too much credit for killing al Qaeda's leader. "Mr. President, you did not kill Osama bin Laden, America did. The work that the American military has done killed Osama bin Laden. You did not," says a former Navy SEAL interviewed in the film."
IP: Logged
08:58 PM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
OK Roger, but there's more to the story than just that one comment.
You have to read the complete article that I posted, authored by Peter Bergen--who has no record (as far as I know of) of being particularly favorable to Obama.
What did I miss ? I just copy and pasted a direct quote from the article. Ive always said Obama was taking credit for something he had absolutely nothing to do with. I stand by that. Others here say he takes credit because he was president. I say no, he just happened to be president at the time the military killed him.
What did I miss ? I just copy and pasted a direct quote from the article. Ive always said Obama was taking credit for something he had absolutely nothing to do with. I stand by that. Others here say he takes credit because he was president. I say no, he just happened to be president at the time the military killed him.
I think he had something to do with it, he gave the order to kill him in a place where it was politically sensitive. It would have been more fitting if it had been done under the Bush administration or Clinton for that matter.
IP: Logged
09:23 PM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
I think he had something to do with it, he gave the order to kill him in a place where it was politically sensitive. It would have been more fitting if it had been done under the Bush administration or Clinton for that matter.
Obama had NOTHING to do with Obama's death besides being the president presiding while more competent men planned the attack. The real hero responsible is Admiral McRaven. Obama did not have the balls to make the call for the kill, as he asserts. Rather, he delegated that responsibility to a naval commander with the assurance that if things went wrong, he would have no connection with the operation. But continue with your boy crush on Obama, Newf. The whole forum already knows how sweet you are on him. Not that there is anything wrong with that...
[This message has been edited by loafer87gt (edited 08-17-2012).]
I think he had something to do with it, he gave the order to kill him in a place where it was politically sensitive. It would have been more fitting if it had been done under the Bush administration or Clinton for that matter.
He might have technically 'given the order', but if he hadnt, dont your think they would have done it anyway because of the opportunity. Its illegal here to play a car radio too loud but no one pays attention to it despite it being a police 'order'. It was the things Bush put in place to find him to give him more credit than Obama gets for saying ok, ill watch on TV. Its not that politically sensitive, Obama says the war in the middle east is over (if you pay attention to his BS speeches)....
Freudian slip. Only difference between the two is Bin Laden hasn't came out and said he enjoys the cullinary flavours of dog meat yet. That and none of Bin Laden's women looked like a gorilla...
[This message has been edited by loafer87gt (edited 08-17-2012).]
IP: Logged
10:03 PM
PFF
System Bot
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Using intel gained from the enhanced interrogation techniques used under the Bush administration and condemned by Senator Obama. The one thing he won't blame on Bush was in part made possible by Bush.
Using intel gained from the enhanced interrogation techniques used under the Bush administration and condemned by Senator Obama. The one thing he won't blame on Bush was in part made possible by Bush.
Pretty sure McCain is/was no fan of those internationally illegal interrogation techniques either.
We were 'ordered ' not to drop ANY ordinance in Hanoi anywhere near anything that could be civilian....ONLY on confirmed military targets by presidential order. Wanna make a bet how much we followed that one. We saw a missile or anti aircraft unit beside a school building or whatever, guess what ? No one was in school at 4 am...oops.
IP: Logged
10:17 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 37286 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by newf: I think he had something to do with it, he gave the order to kill him in a place where it was politically sensitive.
Politically sensitive ? The story I got was he delayed it many times. He gave the "go ahead" order out of fear of being found out he had not done it on multiple other opportunities. Out of fear of pulling another failed Carter mission when HE failed to rescue our Americans from hostage in Iran.
IP: Logged
10:48 PM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
The retired Navy SEALs beat down of Obama over the bin Laden raid comes in the format of a short film called "Dishonorable Disclosures".
Whatever credit is or is not due to Obama for the raid is almost completely beside the point.
Peter Bergen asserts that these retired Navy SEALs are dead wrong on just about every single specific charge that they lodge against the Obama administration in this film.
It's not about who deserves the most credit for the operation.
But you have to read the column--it's not easy for me to summarize.
It's a point-by-point refutation of everything that these retired SEALs are saying.
So Obama is trying to take too much credit for the bin Laden raid..? OK. Sure. But what about THIS..?
It doesn't mean that Obama should be reelected.
It does make me think that this retired Navy SEALs film is a lot of baloney.
IP: Logged
11:24 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 37286 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by rinselberg: Peter Bergen asserts that these retired Navy SEALs are dead wrong on just about every single specific charge that they lodge against the Obama administration in this film.
He said, she said ?
IP: Logged
11:28 PM
normsf Member
Posts: 1682 From: mishawaka, In Registered: Oct 2003
First though, let me orient you to familiarize you with the "terrain."
In Africa from Djibouti at the southern end of the Red Sea eastward through the Gulf of Aden to round Cape Guardafui at the easternmost tip of Africa (also known as "The Horn of Africa") is about a 600 nm transit before you stand out into the Indian Ocean. That transit is comparable in distance to that from the mouth of the Mississippi at New Orleans to the tip of Florida at Key West-- except that 600 nm over there is infested with Somalia pirates.
Ships turning southward at the Horn of Africa transit the SLOC (Sea Lane of Commerce) along the east coast of Somalia because of the prevailing southerly currents there. It's about 1,500 nm on to Mombassa, which is just south of the equator in Kenya. Comparably, that's about the transit distance from Portland Maine down the east coast of the US to Miami Florida. In other words, the ocean area being patrolled by our naval forces off the coast of Somalia is comparable to that in the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River east to Miami then up the eastern seaboard to Maine.
Second, let me globally orient you from our Naval Operating Base in Norfolk, VA, east across the Atlantic to North Africa, thence across the Med to Suez in Egypt, thence southward down the Red Sea to Djibouti at the Gulf of Aden, thence eastward to round Cape Guardafui at the easternmost tip of Africa, and thence southerly some 300 miles down the east cost of Somali out into the high seas of the Indian Ocean to the position of MV ALABAMA is a little more than 7,000 nm, and plus-nine time-zones ahead of EST.
Hold that thought, in that, a C-17 transport averaging a little better than 400 kts (SOG) takes the best part of 18 hours to make that trip. In the evening darkness late Thursday night, a team of Navy SEALs from NSWC (Naval Surface Warfare Center) Norfolk parachuted from such a C-17 into the black waters (no refraction of light) of the Indian Ocean-- close-aboard to our 40,000 ton amphibious assault ship, USS BOXER (LHD 4), the flagship of our ESG (Expeditionary Strike Group) in the AOR (Area Of Responsibility, the Gulf of Aden). They not only parachuted in with all of their "equipment," they had their own inflatable boats, RHIB's (Rigid Hull, Inflatable Boats) with them for over-water transport. They went into BOXER's landing dock, debarked, and staged for the rescue-- Thursday night.
And, let me comment on time-late: In that the SEAL's quick response-- departing ready-alert in less than 4 hours from Norfolk-- supposedly surprised POTUS's staff, whereas President Obama was miffed not to get his "cops" there before the Navy. He reportedly questioned his staff, "Will 'my' FBI people get there before the Navy does?" It took the FBI almost 12 hours to put together a team and get them packed-up-- for an "at sea" rescue. The FBI was trying to tell him that they are not practiced to do this-- Navy SEALs are. But, BHO wanted the FBI there "to help," that is, carry out the Attorney General's (his) orders to negotiate the release of Captain Phillips peacefully-- because apparently he doesn't trust GW's military to carry out his "political guidance."
The flight of the FBI's passenger jet took a little less than 14 hours at 500-some knots to get to Djibouti. BOXER'S helos picked them up and transported them out to the ship. The Navy SEALs were already there, staged, and ready to act by the time POTUS's FBI arrived on board latter that evening. Notably, the first request by the OSC (On Scene Commander) that early Friday morning to take them out and save Captain Phillips was denied, to wit: "No, wait until 'my' FBI people get there."
Third, please consider a candid assessment of ability that finds that the FBI snipers had never practiced shooting from a rolling, pitching, yawing, surging, swaying, heaving platform-- and, target-- such as a ship and a lifeboat on the high seas. Navies have been doing since Admiral Nelson who had trained "Marines" to shoot muskets from the ship's rigging-- ironically, he was killed at sea in HMS VICTORY at the Battle of Trafalgar by a French Marine rifleman that shot him from the rigging of the French ship that they were grappling alongside.
Notably, when I was first training at USNA in 1955, the Navy was doing it with a SATU, Small Arms Training Unit, based at our Little Creek amphib base. Now, Navy SEAL's, in particular SEAL Team SIX (The "DevGru") based at NSWC (Naval Surface Warfare Center) at Little Creek do that training now, and hone their skills professionally-- daily. Shooting small arms from a ship is more of an accomplished "Art Form" than it is a practiced skill. When you are "in the bubble" and "in tune" with the harmonic motion you find, through practice, that you are "able to put three .308 slugs inside the head of a quarter at 100 meters, in day or night-- or, behind a camouflaged net or a thin enclosure, such as a superstructure bulkhead. Yes, we have the monocular scopes that can "see" heat-- and, draw a bead on it. SEALs are absolutely expert at it-- with the movie clips to prove it.
Okay, now try to imagine patrolling among the boats fishing everyday out on the Grand Banks off our New England coast, and then responding to a distress call from down around the waters between Florida and the Bahamas. Three points for you to consider here: (1) Time-Distance-Speed relationships for ships on the high seas, for instance, at a 25-knot SOA (Speed Of Advance) it takes 24 hours to make good 600 nm-- BAINBRIDGE did. (2) Fishermen work on the high seas, and (3) The best place to hide as a "fisherman" pirate is among other fishermen
Early Wednesday morning, 4/8/2009, MV ALABAMA is at sea in the IO about 300 miles off the (east) coast of Somalia en route to Mombassa Kenya. Pirates in small boat start harassing her, and threatening her with weapons. MV ALABAMA's captain sent out the distress call by radio, and ordered his Engineer to shut down the engines as well as the ship-service electrical generators-- in our lingo, "Go dark and cold." He informed his crew by radio what was happening, and ordered them to go to an out-of-the-way compartment and lock themselves in it-- from the inside. He would stay in the pilot house to "negotiate" with the pirates.
The pirates boarded, captured the Captain, and ordered him to start the engines. He said he would order his Engineer to do so, and he called down to Engine Control on the internal communication system, but got no answer. The lead pirate ordered two of his four men to go down and find him and get the engines started.
Inside a ship without any lights is like the definition of dark. The advantage goes to the people who work and live there. They jumped the two pirates in a dark passageway. Both pirates lost their weapons, but one managed to scramble and get away. The other they tied up, put tape over his mouth and a knife at his throat.
Other members of the crew opened the drain cocks on the pirates boat and cast it adrift. It foundered and sunk. The scrambling pirate made it back to the pilot house and told of his demise. The pirates took the Captain at gun point, and told him to launch one of his rescue boats (not a life boat, per se). As he was lowering the boat for them, the crew appeared with the other pirate to negotiate a trade. The crew let their hostage go to soon, and the pirates kept the captain. But, he purposefully had lowered the boat so it would jam.
With the rescue boat jammed, the pirates jumped over to a lifeboat and released it as the captain jumped in the water. They fired at him, made him stop, and grabbed him out of the water. Now, as night falls in the vastness of the Indian Ocean, we have the classic "Mexican" standoff, to wit: A life-boat that is just that, a life-boat adrift without any means of propulsion except oars and paddles; and, a huge (by comparison) Motor Vessel Container Ship adrift with a crew that is not going to leave their captain behind. The pirates are enclosed under its shelter-covering, holding the captain as their hostage. The crew is hunkered down in their ship waiting for the "posse" to arrive.
After receiving MV ALABAMA'S distress call, USS BAINBRIDGE (DDG 96) was dispatched by the ESG commander to respond to ALABAMA's distress call. At best sustainable speed, she arrived on scene the day after-- that is, in the dark of that early Thursday morning. As BAINBRIDGE quietly and slowly, at darkened-ship without any lights to give her away, arrived on scene, please consider a recorded interview with the Chief Engineer of MV ALABAMA describing BAINBRIDGE's arrival. He said it was something else "... to see the Navy slide in there like a greyhound!" He then said as she slipped in closer he could see the "Stars and Stripes" flying from her masthead. He got choked up saying it was the "...proudest moment of my life."
Phew! Let that sink in. Earlier in the day, one of the U.S. Navy's Maritime Patrol Aircraft, a fixed wing P3C, flew over to recon the scene. They dropped a buoy with a radio to the pirates so that the Navy's interpreter could talk with the pirates. When BAINBRIDGE arrived, the pirates thought the radio to be a beaconing device, and threw it overboard. They wanted a satellite telephone so that they could call home for help. Remember now, they are fishermen, not "Rocket Scientists," in that, they don't know that we can intercept the phone transmission also.
MV ALABAMA provided them with a satellite phone. They called home back to "somebody" in Eyl Somalia (so that we now know where you live) to come out and get them. The "somebody" in Eyl said they would be out right away with other hostages, like 54 of them from other countries, and that they would be coming out in two of their pirated ships. Right-- and, the tooth fairy will let you have sex with her. Yea, in paradise. The "somebody" in Eyl just chalked up four more expendables as overhead for "the cost of operation." Next page.
Anyway, ESG will continue to "watch" Eyl for any ships standing out.
The Navy SEAL team, SEAL TEAM SIX, from NSWC briefed the OSC (Commander Castellano, CO BAINBRIDGE) on how they could rescue the captain from the life boat with swimmers-- "Combat Swimmers," per se. That plan was denied by POTUS because it put the captain in danger-- and, involved killing the pirates.
The FBI negotiators arrived on scene, and talked the pirates into sending their wounded man over for treatment Saturday morning. Later that afternoon, the SEAL's sent over their RHIB with food and water to recon the life boat but the pirates shot at it. They could have taken them out then (from being fired upon) but were denied again being told that the captain was not in "imminent danger." The FBI negotiators calmed the situation by informing the pirates of threatening weather as they could see storm clouds closing from the horizon, and offered to tow the life boat. The pirates agreed, and BAINBRIDGE took them under tow in their wake at 30 meters-- exactly 30 meters, which is exactly the distance the SEALs practice their shooting skills.
With the lifeboat under tow, riding comfortably bow-down on BAINBRIDGE's wake-wave ("rooster tail"), had a 17-second period of harmonic motion, and at the end of every half-period (8.5 seconds) was steady on. The light-enhanced (infra-red heat) monocular scopes on the SEAL's .308 caliber Mark 11 Mod 0 H&K suppressor-fitted sniper rifles easily imaged their target very clearly. Pirates in a life boat at 30-meters could be compared to fish in a barrel. All that was necessary was to take out the plexiglass window so that it would not deflect the trajectory of the high velocity .308 round. So, a sniper (one of four) with a wad-cutter round (a flaxen sabot) would take out the window a split second before the kill-shot-- no change in sight-picture, just the window blowing out, clean.
Now, here's the part BHO's "whiz kids" knew as well as the Navy hierarchy, including CO BAINBRIDGE and CO SEAL TEAM SIX. It's the law in Article 19 of Appendix L in the "Convention of the High Seas" that the Commanding Officer of a US Ship on the high seas is obligated to respond to distress signals from any flagged ship (US or otherwise), and protect the life and property thereof when deemed to be in IMMINENT DANGER. So, in the final analysis, it would be Captain Castellano call as to "Imminent Danger," and that he alone was obligated (duty bound) to act accordingly.
Got the picture?
After medically attending to the wounded pirated, and feeding him, come first light (from the east) on Easter Sunday morning and the pirates saw they were being towed further out to sea (instead of westward toward land), the wounded pirate demanded to be returned to the lifeboat. There would BE NO more negotiations-- and, the four Navy SEAL snipers "in the bubble" went "Unlock." The pirate holding Captain Philips raised the gun to his head, and IMMINENT DANGER was so observed and noted in the Log as CO BAINBRIDGE gave the classic order: WEAPONS RELEASED! I can hear the echo in my earpiece now, "On my count (from 8.5 seconds), 3, 2, 1, !" POP, BANG! Out went the window, followed by three simultaneous shots. The scoreboard flashed: "GAME OVER, GAME OVER-- NAVY 3, PIRATES 0!"
I hope you found the above informative as best I know it-- and, please excuse me in that after more than 50 years the Navy is still in me. I submit that AMERICA is going to make a comeback, and more than likely it'll be on the back of our cherished youth serving with honor in Our military. So, let's Look Up, Get Up-- and, Never Give Up!
IP: Logged
11:32 PM
PFF
System Bot
Aug 18th, 2012
Uaana Member
Posts: 6570 From: Robbinsdale MN US Registered: Dec 1999
"and, the four Navy SEAL snipers "in the bubble" went "Unlock." The pirate holding Captain Philips raised the gun to his head, and IMMINENT DANGER was so observed and noted in the Log as CO BAINBRIDGE gave the classic order: WEAPONS RELEASED! I can hear the echo in my earpiece now, "On my count (from 8.5 seconds), 3, 2, 1, !" POP, BANG! Out went the window, followed by three simultaneous shots. The scoreboard flashed: "GAME OVER, GAME OVER-- NAVY 3, PIRATES 0!"
A. Obviously you've never interacted with anyone in the US military. None of this terminology holds true. B. If what you're charging is true no windows would have been hit.
So at best you're repeating two lies. A. You have zero knowledge of spec ops, their terminology, much less their SOP. B. "Out went the window" You're kidding right? Even as a lowly Marine Combat Engineer.. If ever given this directive.. No shots would have exited anywhere but the target. Not at that range, don't even care about the weapon.
If anyone has the time (about 20 minutes) they can view the film and see whether Peter Bergen's beat down of these retired Navy SEALs is justified.
I may get around to it later: Although this is still prejudging the film (on my part), I will be surprised if Peter Bergen isn't accurate, because his points are so carefully enumerated and so clear and direct.
Peter Bergen is a widely quoted source on issues relating to Islamic terrorism: I am not aware that he has any track record of being particularly friendly to Obama.
He's very active with New America Foundation. An outfit looking for "new" (as in 'progressive') thinkers. Like most organizations, they like to call themselves "bipartisan", but that means "join us in doing it our way and we'll call it bi-partisan, but keep your own thoughts to yourself" Do some research--read his past articles. If you can't see it--well, I guess I can't help you with that.
IP: Logged
01:09 AM
normsf Member
Posts: 1682 From: mishawaka, In Registered: Oct 2003
You're kidding right? A. Obviously you've never interacted with anyone in the US military. None of this terminology holds true. B. If what you're charging is true no windows would have been hit.
So at best you're repeating two lies. A. You have zero knowledge of spec ops, their terminology, much less their SOP. B. "Out went the window" You're kidding right? Even as a lowly Marine Combat Engineer.. If ever given this directive.. No shots would have exited anywhere but the target. Not at that range, don't even care about the weapon.
So your source is a lie. End of story.
'
Hello, here is a link of the actual lifeboat at the UDT Seal museum that clearly shows the window was shot out first. Those Plexiglass windows are very thick and designed to withstand Ocean storms. So the window had to be shot out first to avoid deflection. I didnt write the story and the author may have used some laymans terms, so what! Youre a little testy to accuse someone of lying, research it yourself. Not only where there 4 snipers on the fantail with one shooting out the window first, there were 2 other inflatable boats with additional SEALS in each that were behind and to the side of the Lifeboat as they raced to the boat just after the first shots. http://www.navysealmuseum.com/virtualtour.php
If anyone has the time (about 20 minutes) they can view the film and see whether Peter Bergen's beat down of these retired Navy SEALs is justified. I may get around to it later: Although this is still prejudging the film (on my part), I will be surprised if Peter Bergen isn't accurate, because his points are so carefully enumerated and so clear and direct.
Peter Bergen is a widely quoted source on issues relating to Islamic terrorism: I am not aware that he has any track record of being particularly friendly to Obama.
It's not a "he said, she said.." because the film doesn't really say anything. It starts with the premise that official leaking of classified national security information for political purposes is deplorable (who would argue with that?)--and that's where it ends. It just doesn't deliver the goods, in the way of anything specific that could be substantiated. It's the same kind of fact-free, "something happened so Obama must have done it" baloney that PFF's "avengador1" revels in posting.
Peter Bergen demolishes the film, repudiating every single point that it tries to make, and he has the Internet links embedded in his column to back up everything that he says about it.
Here's part of what another columnist said about it:
quote
The “swift boat” attacks in the 2004 presidential election were effective, in part, because they played on real public anxiety: “We’re fighting two wars, is now a good time to change leaders?” For a critical number of Americans, the answer was no, and John Kerry couldn’t overcome the sense that we shouldn't change horses in midstream (to use a cliché).
“Dishonorable Disclosures” is a 22-minute video from a group of former special operations and C.I.A. officers that attempts to do the same to President Obama. The group, called Special Operations Education Fund (OPSEC), bills itself as a nonpartisan group—it calls on supporters to “stop the politicians, President Obama and others”— whose main goal is to inform the public. More specifically, it's registered as a 501(c)4, or "dark money" group, which doesn't have to reveal its donors to the public.
Its message is straightforward: The Obama administration is leaking sensitive national security information for the sake of political gain. In particular, the ad accuses Obama of bragging about the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound, and using its success as a weapon against his political opponents.
Of course, it’s hard to take this seriously as “educational” when key members of the group have ties to the Republican Party. Scott Taylor, the president of OPSEC, ran as a Republican in Virginia’s second congressional district (he lost the primary). The spokesperson, Chad Kolton, worked in the Bush administration, at the Republican National Committee, and in the office of John Boehner. OPSEC also shares an address with two GOP consulting firms—the Trailblazer Group and TelOpinion. I’d be surprised if that were a coincidence.
The video itself throws doubt on the group’s intentions. It’s saturated with anti-Obama content, and goes so far as to doctor a quote—from his address announcing the death of bin Laden—to portray the president as ungrateful to the troops. In that announcement, Obama thanked the “tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals." OPSEC removes the line from its excerpt.
"OPSEC removes the line from its excerpt." That means that the moment when Obama explicitly gave credit to the military and intelligence personnel didn't jive with the film's agenda--so the film just edited out that part of Obama's statement.
Of all the OPSEC film's various insinuations, the only one that Peter Bergen doesn't completely demolish is whether the Obama administration disclosed sensitive national security information to Hollywood film makers after the killing of Osama bin Laden.
Retired CIA officer Fred Rustmann says in the video that days after the killing of bin Laden, Hollywood elites were invited into the White House for a briefing on exactly how the raid took place. Rustmann says the administration leaked "what kind of sources we had, what kind of methods we used, all for the purpose of making a Hollywood movie."
The Hollywood movie he is referring to is "Zero Dark Thirty," which is directed by Oscar-winning Kathryn Bigelow and is set to come out in December. Last year, Rep. Peter King asked for an investigation into allegations that Obama leaked classified information to the filmmakers--allegations which the administration dismissed as "ridiculous."
As Rustmann speaks, the image in the background is of Bigelow receiving her Oscar--the first ever won by a female director--from Barbra Streisand for "The Hurt Locker."
When the video discusses the supposed briefing Hollywood got days after the raid, Obama is shown speaking in a small theater to Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg and others. The only problem is, that image was taken in March 2010 at the White House Family Theater before a screening of the HBO mini-series "The Pacific," The Hollywood Reporter points out. It's unlikely that Obama is spilling secrets about how he killed bin Laden--a whole year before it happened.
I guess I dunno, but why would I be inclined to believe that--after every other single point that the OPSEC film raises has been so neatly demolished by Peter Bergen?
I actually did a little digging on the Hollywood angle, but all I came up with was this:
The Central Intelligence Agency recently discovered a "4 to 5 inch stack" of documents that relate to the spy agency's cooperation with the makers of a forthcoming Hollywood film on the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, according to a new court filing.
The documents about CIA dealings with the film now titled "Zero Dark Thirty" were "inadvertently overlooked" in response to a Freedom of Information Act request and lawsuit filed by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, Justice Department attorneys said in a motion filed in federal court in Washington Tuesday . . .
The bin Laden raid movie, "Zero Dark Thirty," had originally been due out from Sony in October. However, after critics complained that it was a thinly-disguised effort to boost Obama's re-election chances, the studio moved the release date to December 19.
That (the overlooked CIA documents) was blogged on July 24. I can't find any more recent updates on it.
So the CIA overlooked some documents. I'm shocked. Never happens during a Republican administration..
So that's the "OPSECTeam" film: Over 20 minutes of vague insinuations, all proven false, and then this one possibility that maybe the CIA or DoD, with Obama's complicity, leaked something to some Hollywood film makers that should not have been disclosed.
Maybe: But I wouldn't hold my breath for any confirmation of it.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane: [Peter Bergen] is very active with New America Foundation. An outfit looking for "new" (as in 'progressive') thinkers. Like most organizations, they like to call themselves "bipartisan", but that means "join us in doing it our way and we'll call it bipartisan, but keep your own thoughts to yourself".
Do some research--read his past articles. If you can't see it--well, I guess I can't help you with that.
That's all well and good, but I think that if you look at the OPSECTeam film (or not) and read Peter Bergen's comments, you will come away with the same conclusion that I make: That Peter Bergen backs up every single point that he makes against this film.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-18-2012).]
Obama getting credit for this?...what a joke. This is like when your wife asks you to open that stubborn jar of pickles, so you give it a quarter of a turn and hand it back. Then She, with little effort, opens that jar. Gee, did she open the jar? technically, but we all know why that jar was opened in the first place. Obama was handed a jar of pickles that had been given a good strong quarter turn. That's it......Wow, he did what any competent president with half a brain cell would have done... bravo Mr. President.....now have a pickle, and let the REAL men do the heavy lifting once again for you.
[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 08-18-2012).]
IP: Logged
05:30 AM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
Originally posted by NickD3.4: Obama getting credit for this?...what a joke. This is like when your wife asks you to open that stubborn jar of pickles, so you give it a quarter of a turn and hand it back. Then She, with little effort, opens that jar. Gee, did she open the jar? technically, but we all know why that jar was opened in the first place. Obama was handed a jar of pickles that had been given a good strong quarter turn. That's it......Wow, he did what any competent president with half a brain cell would have done... bravo Mr. President.....now have a pickle, and let the REAL men do the heavy lifting once again for you.
Sigh. Yet another poster who doesn't want to take the time to deal with the TOPIC here..
NO. It's NOT about Obama getting the credit..
It's about retired Navy SEALs who are either intentionally or inadvertently misleading the public over alleged (but provably false) allegations about the official leaking of sensitive national security information.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-18-2012).]
IP: Logged
06:33 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 37286 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by rinselberg: It's about retired Navy SEALs who are either intentionally or inadvertently misleading the public over alleged (but provably false) allegations about the official leaking of sensitive national security information.
Allegations about the official leaking of sensitive national security information ? Allegations ? You have got to be kidding. The leaked info is so sensitive that it had to come from someone within the President's closest circle in the Situation Room. The President is investigating himself. Why is it taking so long ? There can not be that many people involved. Whether he is being Swift Boated or not, he deserves to be.
IP: Logged
08:49 AM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
Originally posted by cliffw: Allegations about the official leaking of sensitive national security information ? Allegations ? You have got to be kidding. The leaked info is so sensitive that it had to come from someone within the President's closest circle in the Situation Room. The President is investigating himself. Why is it taking so long ? There can not be that many people involved. Whether he is being Swift Boated or not, he deserves to be.
Former U.S. officers accuse Obama of leaking classified information for political gain.
Peter Bergen says that much of the information cited came from sources outside of the White House.
He says administration sought to keep details secret, but events led to their [unavoidable public] disclosure.
The OPSECTeam film is misleading from start to finish, and Peter Bergen backs up his contentions, point by point, with Internet links embedded in his column.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-18-2012).]
IP: Logged
09:03 AM
PFF
System Bot
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
Originally posted by rogergarrison: Pretty much...but ill take a group of guys word over a known liar any day. If it was in court, it would be a no brainer for me.
It's not about Obama taking credit for the raid.
It's not Navy SEALs vs. Obama.
It's about Navy SEALS vs. Peter Bergen.
Can you show me where Peter Bergen is a known liar?
Can you refute anything that I posted about this report from Peter Bergen?
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Say whatever you want... here's a news story from MS-NBC directly stating that White House aides gave information for the movie:
Judicial Watch has released hundreds of Defense Department and CIA communications that reveal the Obama administration leaked classified information to filmmakers on the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
But I didn't find anything more recent about this on the Judicial Watch website.
Going back as far as August (2011) The New York Times Maureen Dowd said:
quote
The moviemakers are getting top-level access to the most classified mission in history from an administration that has tried to throw more people in jail for leaking classified information than the Bush administration.
Access, yes. But was any classified information actually disclosed? Is "the media" suppressing this story? Where's avengador1 with his usual impeccable sources?
I am happy to leave this Hollywood access angle--which happened after the bin Laden raid--open for discussion.
But I don't see how y'all can defend the other 19 minutes of this 20 minute OPSECTeam film.
Bergen has shown that it is just one misleading allegation after another. Almost the whole 20 minutes of it.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-18-2012).]
IP: Logged
09:52 AM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 24614 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Access, yes. But was any classified information actually disclosed? Is "the media" suppressing this story? Where's avengador1 with his usual impeccable sources?
I am happy to leave this Hollywood access angle--which happened after the bin Laden raid--open for discussion.
But I don't see how y'all can defend the other 19 minutes of this 20 minute OPSECTeam film.
Bergen has shown that it is just one misleading allegation after another. Almost the whole 20 minutes of it.
I'm curious what makes you feel that you're more qualified to make determinations about classified material than people in the video who have been clearanced?
Bah, if Bush had been in office, he would have taken just as much, if not more credit for the killing of Bin Laden, and conservatives would have been fine with that, even probably feeling he deserved it.. If you think otherwise, your just lying to yourself.. Of course Bush even admitted that Osama was not a priority for him at all, he was to busy going after people who had nothing to do with 911.. Like Saddam..
IP: Logged
12:01 PM
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
Bah, if Bush had been in office, he would have taken just as much, if not more credit for the killing of Bin Laden, and conservatives would have been fine with that, even probably feeling he deserved it.. If you think otherwise, your just lying to yourself..
Maybe some but not all. I am very conservative and have never drank from the Kool Aid jar. If a CIC personally takes credit for anything that our guys do, he is a slime ball politician, regardless of party. And Obama became a slime ball politician when he took credit for this.
IP: Logged
12:18 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
OK Roger, but there's more to the story than just that one comment.
He's got a point Roger, The Killing of Bin Laden is the only achievement of his administration...wait, it is the only positive achievment of his administration so let him pound his chest over it. Afterall, he will be packing his bags in a couple months.
IP: Logged
06:30 PM
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
