Nailing Bin Laden: Was It A Military Or A Media Operation?

The tip on bin Laden’s whereabouts came in back in 2010. You have to assume the house was under surveillance. If they thought they “bagged him” they would be watching closely and choosing the right time to deep six the target (I actually wrote this lead paragraph sentence before reading this “Breaking News” from the Washington Post: “CIA had secret outpost in Abbottabad”).

“The CIA maintained a safe house in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad for a small team of spies who conducted extensive surveillance over a period of months on the compound where Osama Bin Laden was killed by U.S. special operations forces this week (U.S. officials).”

Both Afghan agents and Pakistani intelligence now say they told the US about the house as early as 2001.

Osama bin Laden hideout

So, they knew he was there. That was a reason drones weren’t used.

The CIA wanted a more controlled high profile and dramatic intervention for public consumption, for what, in the end, was a marketing campaign— marketing the centrality of the agency’s role in a war whose main audience is not on the battlefield, but in the homeland.

They needed a heroic narrative to revive support for a war they have been losing, and a scalp to sell to a conflict-weary and disillusioned population. It is no surprise that the Seals labeled UBL “Geronimo” reviving memories of fighting guerilla-style Indian wars. Muslim renegades are apparently our new “savages.”

The Native Americans took their enemy’s head and hair—Donald Trump, beware; we shoot out their eyes and waterboard their brains.

The target was not “the terror mastermind” but the American people. It was an exercise in political mobilization and perception management. It was the ultimate media operation, relying on many of the tactics used in Iraq that I document in my film WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception.

We are as conscious about what we say as what we do, we always fashion a propaganda storyline demonizing the enemy who is often compared to Hitler.  Bin Laden lived in a “million dollar mansion” (It cost $48,000 to buy six years ago). He was heavily armed (he wasn’t). He hid behind female human shields (he didn’t). Who cares about facts… this was a TV orchestrated event. The Daily Mail in London complained that their raising questions led to being derided as “cheese eating surrender monkeys.”

They could have captured him, but that would lead to the hassle of putting him on trial. Besides, what if he revealed his long connection with the CIA and US officials? Can’t have that. So the kill order was given, along with a quick disposal of the body, mafia-style (as in “sleeping with the fishes).”

The legal justification was self-defense, an argument that any government can use to dispatch its enemies.

Why was it done, and why now?

It was certainly not because Al-Qaeda is ascendant. Our experts believe only 100 of them remain in Afghanistan, where their capacity has been diminished. Remember: Al-Qaeda is not a centralized top-down machine but a decentralized and sophisticated network.

We can only surmise all the factors, but the larger context here has fallen away with the focus on the narrowness of the dirty details, many calculated to inspire enthusiasm for the bravery and heroism of the death squad, but not any reflection of the strategy and larger context of the events.

Even as the cover stories about what happened fell away into the foggy soup of covert action and its contradictions, it devolved into to a case of excuses about haste– ‘he said that but didn’t mean it’. Even as the raid inspires mass euphoria and self-righteous blood lust, the full meaning of it is missing in a media that is much better at the how than the why.

First of all, this operation reflected the reorganization of the national security state with the CIA taking over from the soldiers. This operation was Leon Panetta’s last hurrah as Spook-in Chief before he uses his covert ops portfolio to takeover the Pentagon.

Second, that most hyped soldier’s soldier, Generalissimo David Petraeus, who has failed to end the insurgency in Afghanistan (and who is now warring on Pakistan) is being moved into Panetta’s job. A Navy Seal Commander has now been promoted to the Central Command.

The bottom line: public accountability and open disclosure has become a thing of the past. No wonder the ongoing campaign to ‘get WikiLeaks’ before it exposes more secrets.

As the military privatizes wars, and, in effect, goes underground, there is a recognition that, despite the size of our forces and the power of our technology, we have, in effect, been losing to peasants with suicide belts and unconventional tactics we continually underestimate.

Writes former Assistant Treasury Secretary Paul Craig Roberts,

“Americans are too busy celebrating to think, a capability that seems to have been taken out of their education.

“Americans are so enthralled over the death of bin Laden that they do not wonder why information gleamed years ago would take so long to locate a person who was allegedly living in a million-dollar building equipped with all the latest communication equipment next to the Pakistani Military Academy. Allegedly, the “most wanted criminal” was not moving from hide-out to hide-out in desolate mountains, but ensconced in luxury quarters in broad daylight. Nevertheless, despite his obvious location, it took the CIA years to find him after claiming to have gained information of his whereabouts out of captives in secret prisons. This is the image of the CIA as the new Keystone Cops.”

Like the Canadian Mounties, in the end, Navy Seal Unit 6, armed with lethal weapons and an attack dog, got their man—with not inconsiderable collateral damage—in what the New York Times called an “extremely one-sided encounter.”

It was, let’s admit, a liquidation, right out of the KGB playbook.

Politically— and yes, there was a political agenda here too: the bin Laden operation was part of a chain of calculated presidential promoting exercises including the announcement of his re-election campaign and massive fund-raising effort, his deals with the Repugs on the budget, the release of his birth certificate, his interview with Oprah, his shakeup of sorts of the Pentagon, his bringing the CEO of GE and William Daley into the White House, on and on.

The “new” Obama wants to be seen as a warrior, not a wuss, as long as he is not forced to go after Wall Street. Right now, his victory is viewed widely for what it is; vengeance. Or in the words of the street, “payback.”

Nailing Bin-Laden has to be seen in the context of his Spring offensive grounded in symbolic advances, to get his poll numbers up and his campaign rolling, to make him look invincible, and to “triangulate,” by moving to the center and pre-empting/co-opting the right.  He now has Bush and Cheney praising him.

Concludes Roberts,

“Obama needed closure of the Afghan war and occupation in order to deal with the US budget deficit. Subsequent statements from Obama regime officials suggest that the agenda might be to give Americans a piece of war victory in order to boost their lagging enthusiasm. The military/security complex will become richer and more powerful, and Americans will be rewarded with vicarious pleasure in victory over enemies.”

Adds Tom Engelhardt,

“Consider it an insult to irony, but the world bin Laden really changed forever wasn’t in the Greater Middle East. It was here. Cheer his death, bury him at sea, don’t release any photos, and he’ll still carry on as a ghost as long as Washington continues to fight its deadly, disastrous wars in his old neighborhood.”

Disclosure: In case you wonder, I am not now nor have I ever been a supporter, sympathizer or rationalizer of Usama bin Laden’s violent Jihad. The fact that I feel I have to even write this should give readers insight into the climate of permissible discussion. I am not unhappy to see UBL moving on to the next world, even as some believe he really died long ago. I agree: Good Riddance, but we need to analyze this event more closely. Will it help end the war or will “our success” convince the Pentagon it needs to be expanded? The issues of the raid’s legality need to be discussed.

Filmmaker and News Dissector Danny Schechter edits Mediachannel.org.
For more on his film Plunder: The Crime of Our Time and companion book The Crime Of Our Time: Why Wall Street Is Not Too Big To Jail, visit plunderthecrimeofourtime.com.

, ,

  • Gnikelyk

    “You have to assume”…really? And what does a former Treasury Secretary know about anti-terrorism? And what about the fact that knowing about “a house” does not confirm that UBL lived there? And what about the Wikileaks documents that outed UBL’s courier, which made the raid far more urgent, lest AQ move UBL upon learning that the courier was compromised?

    Obviously military action is part theater…they even call it that. But it is also done to accomplish a mission. After Abu Ghraib, the rendition stories, our “Black sites”, what is the harm in making a well-planned and executed mission something for us to be proud of? And why does it mystify that…after so many missed opportunities…that we might be very cautious to confirm UBL’s presence?

    Conspiracy theorists rightly receive skeptical treatment. Is it your goal to be counted amongst them?

    I’m no conservative, or neo-con, but stories written like this, with little reflection of reality, and designed ONLY to incite suspicion, do little to advance the story, and do much to impugn the writer.

    • Simiantongue

      “‘You have to assume’…really? And what does a former Treasury Secretary know about anti-terrorism?”

      Mentioning that Roberts is former Treasury Secretary is an offshoot of the idea of credentialism, some people put a lot of credence into what others have to say if they have any sort of credential bona fides. In this case, as I often find, it is not meant to say that a Treasury Secretary is uniquely qualified to comment on these affairs because having been a Treasury Secretary gives one deeper introspection or insight into such matters. In this sense it is supposed to say that because of his credentials he is a person of good standing and responsibility at the least. The point in mentioning that he was the former Treasury Secretary was to
      establish that he is not just some know nothing schmuck off the street.

      I’m not a big fan of this type of offshoot from credentialism myself. When credentialism is used in this way, when claimed credentials are not directly pertinent to the subject at hand, that we should take the persons word for what they are saying merely because they are of a “higher quality” in the eyes of some establishment credential system. That smacks of a nasty sort of classist elitism to me, a gentleman’s claims carries more weight because he is of “higher quality”.

      When credentialism is used in this way it is called an “argument from authority”- A
      fallacy of defective induction
      , where it is argued that a statement is correct
      because

      Source A says that p is true.Source A is authoritative.Therefore, p is true.

      I rather subscribe to the notion that rational arguments, claims or statements stand one their own merits, rather than on whom is making them. I could care less if some statement was made by a homeless guy on the street or the President. A fine credential may indeed give one the ability to make a rational argument but that carries no water in the argument made. Socrates for instance. Many of his philosophical arguments stand not because Socrates made them, but because the rationality of his philosophy stands on its own merits. My idea is that working for some sort of credentials may have given someone the ability to make an argument, but that has no bearing on whether the argument is actually true or not.

      So, being the former Treasury Secretary, in my opinion, has no bearing whatsoever in what Roberts has to say.

      “And what about the fact that knowing about “a house” does not confirm that UBL lived there?”

      Ah well you see that’s not a “fact”, it is an absence of facts, you left out a very large portion of the information about why that particular house has been a place of interest.

      “And what about the Wikileaks documents that outed UBL’s courier, which
      made the raid far more urgent, lest AQ move UBL upon learning that the
      courier was compromised?”

      I’m not quite sure what to make of this as it does not really follow what you just stated, kind of a non-sequitur. What about the wiki documents? Another reason that house was a place of interest as the place where Bin Laden lived. Those wikileaks revelations could mean quite a few different things. The publication of that might have forced the hand of the US to act on information that they have possessed for some time, i’m interested to know why it wasn’t acted upon before now if that’s the case.

      “Obviously military action is part theater…they even call it that. But
      it is also done to accomplish a mission. After Abu Ghraib, the rendition
      stories, our “Black sites”, what is the harm in making a well-planned
      and executed mission something for us to be proud of?”

      What you are describing is essentially a psyop, white psyop of a kind. Though not directed at foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective
      reasoning, and ultimately the behaviour of foreign governments,
      organisations, groups, and individuals. But directed at ourselves. That’s ironic considering you are throwing around pejoratives like conspiracy theorist.

      “And why does it mystify that…after so many missed opportunities…that we might be very cautious to confirm UBL’s presence?”

      I didn’t see anything in the article that said otherwise. Perhaps you can clarify?

      “I’m no conservative, or neo-con, but stories written like this, with
      little reflection of reality, and designed ONLY to incite suspicion, do
      little to advance the story, and do much to impugn the writer.”

      A story is a common term for the recounting of a sequence of events. What you mean really is that asking these types of questions does little to advance the official narrative. Which historically has little to do with reality and accurately recounting events. Official narrative is more akin to storytelling, which is the conveying of events in word, images and sounds

      , often by improvisation or embellishment to instill specific and desirable value concepts.

      He is asking questions, that in and of itself is the most important thing and is conducive to getting to the bottom of actual events. Official narratives on the other hand means to go no further than what one is told. Being impugned for asking questions is not such a bad thing in my opinion. If asking pertinent questions that go beyond the official narrative is not keeping one in lock step, that is of little consequence. If by that you mean to say that people shouldn’t ask questions of this sort because doing such means you will be assailed as not well adjusted to society, remember that it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

      As far as inciting suspicion, one wonders why do many advocate more democratic forms of government? Is it because we implicitly trust, or is it because we are well aware of the corruptibility of human nature in positions of authority and power? Suspicion is the rational position for anyone who lives in a democratic society. Well, that is for those of us who think we still might live in one. I have to say that I find your sentiment of wanting to keep from inciting suspicion of official narrative just a little disconcerting. That type of authoritarian thinking is more at home in dictatorships than democracies. But I do find that way of thinking about things becoming much more prevalent these days. That is the disconcerting part of it. Historically such popular thought has often preceded some of the most horribly treacherous events and leaders. Given the right incubative circumstances. No, I’ll have to disagree, I think it is our duty to be suspicious of those other humans we entrust with authority. I’m sure some really smart dead guys have talked about this sort of thing in the past, the cost of liberty being eternal vigilance, or some happy crappy like that.

      • Simiantongue

        Wow what happened to my comment the spacing didn’t look like that when I wrote it. Also it was strange because the type had a hard time keeping up with me too. I would type something and I would have to wait for it to catch up to me. I can only do 50 or 60 words per minute too so I’m not that fast. Weird, oh well.

      • Simiantongue

        I’ll add also that asking questions not in line with an official narrative and a position of suspicion was the job and the automatic default position of the “fourth estate” at one time in this country. I observe that is not so today, there appears to be a clear demarcation coming about between “mainstream” media and “alternative” media. In that what is considered “mainstream”, or at least generally acceptable, is that media which parrots official narratives. That which asks questions not in lock step with official narrative is considered “alternative” media, for the most part. What a funny sort dichotomy that is.

  • Gnikelyk

    “You have to assume”…really? And what does a former Treasury Secretary know about anti-terrorism? And what about the fact that knowing about “a house” does not confirm that UBL lived there? And what about the Wikileaks documents that outed UBL’s courier, which made the raid far more urgent, lest AQ move UBL upon learning that the courier was compromised?

    Obviously military action is part theater…they even call it that. But it is also done to accomplish a mission. After Abu Ghraib, the rendition stories, our “Black sites”, what is the harm in making a well-planned and executed mission something for us to be proud of? And why does it mystify that…after so many missed opportunities…that we might be very cautious to confirm UBL’s presence?

    Conspiracy theorists rightly receive skeptical treatment. Is it your goal to be counted amongst them?

    I’m no conservative, or neo-con, but stories written like this, with little reflection of reality, and designed ONLY to incite suspicion, do little to advance the story, and do much to impugn the writer.

  • ArgosyJones

    Looks like a case of loggorrhoea.

    Paul Craig Roberts, economist from the Reagan years, gives his 2cents on international manhunts and terrorist tracking. Next we should get the opinion of the guys at petco (they’ve had to track down a loose gerbil or two in their time).

    Get a coherent thesis.

  • ArgosyJones

    Looks like a case of loggorrhoea.

    Paul Craig Roberts, economist from the Reagan years, gives his 2cents on international manhunts and terrorist tracking. Next we should get the opinion of the guys at petco (they’ve had to track down a loose gerbil or two in their time).

    Get a coherent thesis.

  • Simiantongue

    “‘You have to assume’…really? And what does a former Treasury Secretary know about anti-terrorism?”

    Mentioning that Roberts is former Treasury Secretary is an offshoot of the idea of credentialism, some people put a lot of credence into what others have to say if they have any sort of credential bona fides. In this case, as I often find, it is not meant to say that a Treasury Secretary is uniquely qualified to comment on these affairs because having been a Treasury Secretary gives one deeper introspection or insight into such matters. In this sense it is supposed to say that because of his credentials he is a person of good standing and responsibility at the least. The point in mentioning that he was the former Treasury Secretary was to
    establish that he is not just some know nothing schmuck off the street.

    I’m not a big fan of this type of offshoot from credentialism myself. When credentialism is used in this way, when claimed credentials are not directly pertinent to the subject at hand, that we should take the persons word for what they are saying merely because they are of a “higher quality” in the eyes of some establishment credential system. That smacks of a nasty sort of classist elitism to me, a gentleman’s claims carries more weight because he is of “higher quality”.

    When credentialism is used in this way it is called an “argument from authority”- A
    fallacy of defective induction
    , where it is argued that a statement is correct
    because

    Source A says that p is true.Source A is authoritative.Therefore, p is true.

    I rather subscribe to the notion that rational arguments, claims or statements stand one their own merits, rather than on whom is making them. I could care less if some statement was made by a homeless guy on the street or the President. A fine credential may indeed give one the ability to make a rational argument but that carries no water in the argument made. Socrates for instance. Many of his philosophical arguments stand not because Socrates made them, but because the rationality of his philosophy stands on its own merits. My idea is that working for some sort of credentials may have given someone the ability to make an argument, but that has no bearing on whether the argument is actually true or not.

    So, being the former Treasury Secretary, in my opinion, has no bearing whatsoever in what Roberts has to say.

    “And what about the fact that knowing about “a house” does not confirm that UBL lived there?”

    Ah well you see that’s not a “fact”, it is an absence of facts, you left out a very large portion of the information about why that particular house has been a place of interest.

    “And what about the Wikileaks documents that outed UBL’s courier, which
    made the raid far more urgent, lest AQ move UBL upon learning that the
    courier was compromised?”

    I’m not quite sure what to make of this as it does not really follow what you just stated, kind of a non-sequitur. What about the wiki documents? Another reason that house was a place of interest as the place where Bin Laden lived. Those wikileaks revelations could mean quite a few different things. The publication of that might have forced the hand of the US to act on information that they have possessed for some time, i’m interested to know why it wasn’t acted upon before now if that’s the case.

    “Obviously military action is part theater…they even call it that. But
    it is also done to accomplish a mission. After Abu Ghraib, the rendition
    stories, our “Black sites”, what is the harm in making a well-planned
    and executed mission something for us to be proud of?”

    What you are describing is essentially a psyop, white psyop of a kind. Though not directed at foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective
    reasoning, and ultimately the behaviour of foreign governments,
    organisations, groups, and individuals. But directed at ourselves. That’s ironic considering you are throwing around pejoratives like conspiracy theorist.

    “And why does it mystify that…after so many missed opportunities…that we might be very cautious to confirm UBL’s presence?”

    I didn’t see anything in the article that said otherwise. Perhaps you can clarify?

    “I’m no conservative, or neo-con, but stories written like this, with
    little reflection of reality, and designed ONLY to incite suspicion, do
    little to advance the story, and do much to impugn the writer.”

    A story is a common term for the recounting of a sequence of events. What you mean really is that asking these types of questions does little to advance the official narrative. Which historically has little to do with reality and accurately recounting events. Official narrative is more akin to storytelling, which is the conveying of events in word, images and sounds

    , often by improvisation or embellishment to instill specific and desirable value concepts.

    He is asking questions, that in and of itself is the most important thing and is conducive to getting to the bottom of actual events. Official narratives on the other hand means to go no further than what one is told. Being impugned for asking questions is not such a bad thing in my opinion. If asking pertinent questions that go beyond the official narrative is not keeping one in lock step, that is of little consequence. If by that you mean to say that people shouldn’t ask questions of this sort because doing such means you will be assailed as not well adjusted to society, remember that it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

    As far as inciting suspicion, one wonders why do many advocate more democratic forms of government? Is it because we implicitly trust, or is it because we are well aware of the corruptibility of human nature in positions of authority and power? Suspicion is the rational position for anyone who lives in a democratic society. Well, that is for those of us who think we still might live in one. I have to say that I find your sentiment of wanting to keep from inciting suspicion of official narrative just a little disconcerting. That type of authoritarian thinking is more at home in dictatorships than democracies. But I do find that way of thinking about things becoming much more prevalent these days. That is the disconcerting part of it. Historically such popular thought has often preceded some of the most horribly treacherous events and leaders. Given the right incubative circumstances. No, I’ll have to disagree, I think it is our duty to be suspicious of those other humans we entrust with authority. I’m sure some really smart dead guys have talked about this sort of thing in the past, the cost of liberty being eternal vigilance, or some happy crappy like that.

  • Simiantongue

    Wow what happened to my comment the spacing didn’t look like that when I wrote it. Also it was strange because the type had a hard time keeping up with me too. I would type something and I would have to wait for it to catch up to me. I can only do 50 or 60 words per minute too so I’m not that fast. Weird, oh well.

  • Simiantongue

    I’ll add also that asking questions not in line with an official narrative and a position of suspicion was the job and the automatic default position of the “fourth estate” at one time in this country. I observe that is not so today, there appears to be a clear demarcation coming about between “mainstream” media and “alternative” media. In that what is considered “mainstream”, or at least generally acceptable, is that media which parrots official narratives. That which asks questions not in lock step with official narrative is considered “alternative” media, for the most part. What a funny sort dichotomy that is.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1294874875 Kent Goertzen

    “The point in mentioning that he was the former Treasury Secretary was to

    Except he is a know nothing schmuck off the street on this particular topic. If we were discussing economics his credentials would mean something. Here they don’t.

    I don’t disagree with the general thought of the article, which is to essentially take a closer look at the event. But I’m question the who it talks to to try to support its other conclusions.

    • Simiantongue

      What exactly are you arguing against there Kent? If you’re not going to bother reading the whole post then what is the point of quoting mining and and making a pointless argument against something I was not saying? I clearly laid out what argument was being made and stated why I felt it was not a good one. I don’t see your point.

      The argument you are trying to make also here;

      “Except he is a know nothing schmuck off the street on this particular
      topic. If we were discussing economics his credentials would mean
      something. Here they don’t. ”

      Is also a plea to credentialism. Which I absolutely refuted as incoherent rationality in my post. It is still the same type of logical fallacy. Where

      Source A says that p is true. Source A is not authoritative. Therefore, p is not true.

      As I laid out in my first post. Whether source A has credentials or not has no bearing on whether p is true or not. The endeavor of earning credentials may actually enable one to make a rational or true statement, but that has no bearing on whether the argument is actually true. What is said must stand on its own rationality.

      When you make the argument that you don’t think what Roberts is saying is correct simply because he does not have the proper credentials, says to me that you simply have no refutation of his statement and are pleading the logical fallacy of an argument from authority.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1294874875 Kent Goertzen

        “Source A says that p is true. Source A is not authoritative. Therefore, p is not true.”

        That is dishonest on your part.  I only said he isn’t authoritative.  I never said therefore, p is not true.  Can’t refute my point that he isn’t an authority on the topic, so you have to build up something I didn’t say to defeat I see.

        Especially when I specifically said, “I don’t disagree with the general thought of the article, which is to essentially take a closer look at the event. But I’m question the who it talks to to try to support its other conclusions.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1294874875 Kent Goertzen

    “The point in mentioning that he was the former Treasury Secretary was to

    Except he is a know nothing schmuck off the street on this particular topic. If we were discussing economics his credentials would mean something. Here they don’t.

    I don’t disagree with the general thought of the article, which is to essentially take a closer look at the event. But I’m question the who it talks to to try to support its other conclusions.

  • edrem

    let the conspiracy theories begin…just enough uncertainty to provide endless fodder for conspiracy theorists et al. Trump you need to send your people to Pakistan to investigate pronto.

  • Anonymous

    let the conspiracy theories begin…just enough uncertainty to provide endless fodder for conspiracy theorists et al. Trump you need to send your people to Pakistan to investigate pronto.

  • Nacion de Aztlan

    Media or Military operation?

    Answer: Media 1000%

  • Nacion de Aztlan

    Media or Military operation?

    Answer: Media 1000%

  • Haystack


    The CIA wanted a more controlled high profile and dramatic intervention for public consumption, for what, in the end, was a marketing campaign”

    Is that necessarily a bad thing?

    Consider the Doolittle Raid, where Roosevelt organized a bombing of Japanese home islands in the immediate wake of Pearl Harbor. In a strictly military sense, this wasn’t worthwhile. Roosevelt did it to lift national morale in a time of crisis because that sort of thing matters in the big picture. What one person may diminish as “marketing,” others would describe as “effective leadership.”

  • Haystack


    The CIA wanted a more controlled high profile and dramatic intervention for public consumption, for what, in the end, was a marketing campaign”

    Is that necessarily a bad thing?

    Consider the Doolittle Raid, where Roosevelt organized a bombing of Japanese home islands in the immediate wake of Pearl Harbor. In a strictly military sense, this wasn’t worthwhile. Roosevelt did it to lift national morale in a time of crisis because that sort of thing matters in the big picture. What one person may diminish as “marketing,” others would describe as “effective leadership.”

  • Nigelrl


    Both Afghan agents and Pakistani intelligence now say they told the US about the house as early as 2001.”, Wasn’t the house built in 2004?

  • Nigelrl


    Both Afghan agents and Pakistani intelligence now say they told the US about the house as early as 2001.”, Wasn’t the house built in 2004?

  • Greg Sisk

    If the CIA had info in 2001, why not act on it? I have my own opinion about Bin Laden being a blank check for Bush and his boys, but that is about where this artical and I start to take far differing paths. Obama cought a lot of flack when he was a candidate when he stated that he would, unilateraly conduct operations into Pakistan to get Bin Ladin were he there. He did it! Bush did not! Obama did not ask permission and give the Pakistani government opertunity to warn Bin Ladin. Obama acted and killed the man. They did not take risks to capture him, they killed him! There was no conspiring. Bush put twenty members of the Bin Ladin famely on planes out of the country within twenty four hours of 9/11 when no americans were allowed to fly. Bush sent less troops into Afganistan than Manhatten has police. Bin Ladin was allowed to escape until Obama had the chance to kill him and that is what the man did. End of story the bank account is closed, the “war on terror” is over! The real conspiring here was by Bush and Haliburton. Every time Bush needed a diversion, the terror alert went higher along with the stress level of the population, and the states budgits paid for it. That was the real terror, Bush!

  • Greg Sisk

    If the CIA had info in 2001, why not act on it? I have my own opinion about Bin Laden being a blank check for Bush and his boys, but that is about where this artical and I start to take far differing paths. Obama cought a lot of flack when he was a candidate when he stated that he would, unilateraly conduct operations into Pakistan to get Bin Ladin were he there. He did it! Bush did not! Obama did not ask permission and give the Pakistani government opertunity to warn Bin Ladin. Obama acted and killed the man. They did not take risks to capture him, they killed him! There was no conspiring. Bush put twenty members of the Bin Ladin famely on planes out of the country within twenty four hours of 9/11 when no americans were allowed to fly. Bush sent less troops into Afganistan than Manhatten has police. Bin Ladin was allowed to escape until Obama had the chance to kill him and that is what the man did. End of story the bank account is closed, the “war on terror” is over! The real conspiring here was by Bush and Haliburton. Every time Bush needed a diversion, the terror alert went higher along with the stress level of the population, and the states budgits paid for it. That was the real terror, Bush!

  • Toggle

    Am I the only person here that is aware of another interesting side effect of this latest media frenzy about the forces of good vanquishing the ultimate bad guy? Am I imagining that the spotlight is now away from Obama’s criminal behaviors with regards to his bogus birth certificate and his illegal sending of american troops to Libya? Let’s not cloud the issues with facts, gentlemen. If we told the truth about any of this heads would begin to roll and would not stop for some time.

    But hey….don’t try to cloud the issue with facts. Bin Laden is dead…again.

    America 1
    Bad Guys 0

    We win!

  • Toggle

    Am I the only person here that is aware of another interesting side effect of this latest media frenzy about the forces of good vanquishing the ultimate bad guy? Am I imagining that the spotlight is now away from Obama’s criminal behaviors with regards to his bogus birth certificate and his illegal sending of american troops to Libya? Let’s not cloud the issues with facts, gentlemen. If we told the truth about any of this heads would begin to roll and would not stop for some time.

    But hey….don’t try to cloud the issue with facts. Bin Laden is dead…again.

    America 1
    Bad Guys 0

    We win!

  • Simiantongue

    What exactly are you arguing against there Kent? If you’re not going to bother reading the whole post then what is the point of quoting mining and and making a pointless argument against something I was not saying? I clearly laid out what argument was being made and stated why I felt it was not a good one. I don’t see your point.

    The argument you are trying to make also here;

    “Except he is a know nothing schmuck off the street on this particular
    topic. If we were discussing economics his credentials would mean
    something. Here they don’t. ”

    Is also a plea to credentialism. Which I absolutely refuted as incoherent rationality in my post. It is still the same type of logical fallacy. Where

    Source A says that p is true. Source A is not authoritative. Therefore, p is not true.

    As I laid out in my first post. Whether source A has credentials or not has no bearing on whether p is true or not. The endeavor of earning credentials may actually enable one to make a rational or true statement, but that has no bearing on whether the argument is actually true. What is said must stand on its own rationality.

    When you make the argument that you don’t think what Roberts is saying is correct simply because he does not have the proper credentials, says to me that you simply have no refutation of his statement and are pleading the logical fallacy of an argument from authority.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1294874875 Kent Goertzen

    “Source A says that p is true. Source A is not authoritative. Therefore, p is not true.”

    That is dishonest on your part.  I only said he isn’t authoritative.  I never said therefore, p is not true.  Can’t refute my point that he isn’t an authority on the topic, so you have to build up something I didn’t say to defeat I see.

    Especially when I specifically said, “I don’t disagree with the general thought of the article, which is to essentially take a closer look at the event. But I’m question the who it talks to to try to support its other conclusions.”

21