Off topic – wondering what you'll make of the Bin Laden fiasco? Here's what I think: now it's understandable that there may be certain disparities between the US and Pakistan accounts; however, what I fail to grasp is the palpable contradictions, misstatements and apparent falsities in the US Gov “official” version of events. Some confusion is to be expected with a breaking story, “off the record” briefings to press and misunderstandings by reporters, but the “official” account should readily be able to set these straight and swiftly.
The “fog of war” coverall explanation proffered so far really isn't sufficient: in war, operations are often conducted simultaneously on multiple fronts with multiple chains of command; this was a single covert operation executed by a small group of elite professionals, presumably with a clear chain of command, clear rules of engagement, as well as mission objectives.
Admittedly, there may have been a short window of opportunity between receiving and verifying credible intelligence; then putting a plan of action into motion; however, elite forces, one expects, are on 24hr standby for such eventualities; whose members have trained and operated in multiple theatres.
It is hard to believe that there were not comprehensive presidential and executive briefings (including range of possible outcomes and their various – potentially huge - ramifications) pre, during and post operations, and that a comprehensive account was not produced and signed-off by all relavant parties before releasing the story to the press and public at wide.
I understand that, sometimes, the Gov has to do certain things, things that would otherwise be morally repugnant and even illegal, as they say, extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures. And we hope that people that act and serve on our behalf would only engage in such activities out of force of necessity; having no further alternative option or opportunity. However, I don't understand why they would want to make such events, like the strike on Bin Laden, public so quickly. Sure, they may have had to create a cover story as it was difficult to hide the fact that something happened on foreign sovereign territory, but surely would they want to get Bin Laden on the quiet; extract him alive, if possible, and wring every last bit of actionable intelligence out of him. Even if Bin Laden were to be killed, wouldn't you want to keep the operation quiet in order that it may provide you with the opportunity to trace any networks or connection he may have had to other dangerous groups? Later, when nothing more is useful to be gained, then release news of his capture and/or demise. I don't know, I don't know all the facts. Just seems strange.
Finally, if, indeed, Bin Laden was killed, he only survived this long with a lot help: an extraordinary amount of help beyond the mere fortune furnished upon us by the invisible hand of luck. May be the Bin Laden element is a cover story for some other, deeper, motivation/actions. Again, I don't know. But what I do know is that this story has been cack-handled right from the beginning and I'd have expected a whole lot more professionalism in its presentation, even the “Situation Room” story(!):
Nat...I can't say I'm sad he's takin' a dirt nap (or saltwater nap in this case) but the circumstances of his death seem to change everyday.
I don't think there was any chance of the chairman taking him alive...politically for him it woulda been a real tarbaby. They've made such a stink about giving these people judicial rights but, nobody would stand for that...then the security risk of keepin' him around.
Which begs your question...why not take him somewhere quietly? Afterall...we still have those kinds of places.
More politics...this is being spun as a huge victory for obama (one of the many gross things that have been going on since Sunday) and he's needed some good news...his presidency has been a disaster.
Then there's the issue of how the information was obtained. Is the Justice Dept really going to go through with its plans to prosecute CIA agents?
They are basking and celebrating at the moment but things could go really goofy any minute now.
Al-Qaeda 'confirms Osama Bin Laden dead' is the latest headline. Lot of people commenting on net think this proves the US story; however, it simply begs-the-question: how would Al-Qaeda know? They got sent the DNA test results and commemorative photos?
… which got me to thinking, perhaps they didn’t kill him afterall and spirited him away to some godless hole for an enhanced talky-talk. How would Al-Qaeda know otherwise?
PS first sketch, for me, has that Burroughs cut-up vibe; the second looks like it may be you inner Brando, whom you have been neglecting in recent years.
It's an MS paint job on a sketch that I actually kinda like.
I was neglecting him this week...when them kitchen ladies were givin' me Mexican Wedding cookies and chocolate pie...or when an owner yesterday boxed up an entire Coconut Cake for me. Best part about that...Martha hates coconut.
It's hard to say what they're up to...and it should be really.
Sorry to harp on about the Bin Laden affair, but a few final words: I don't believe it; I have no idea what actually happened apart form a bunch of theories which I have no way of verifying and, as such, amount to idle speculation. The story we have been told resembles a child's ever-shifting excuse as to why they failed to complete their homework. So Obama's lying? No, not necessarily, I have no reason to think so, only, as it's emerged, it's doubtful he's in any better position to set the record straight than the rest of us. He didn't even see the crucial events, along with auntie Hilary, in the "Situation Room" photo-op. Sure, he may have see some "photos" and read a DNA test report, but what qualifies him to make a definitive determination based on these? He relies on the expertise of others. To sum up, something stinks bad. I suspect Obama's been played, like Cheney fiddled W.
No need to apologize...my artworks usually draw a goose egg anyway.
It's impossible to know whats going on...for one thing, we're not suppose to in these situations. Secondly, I would not put lying, especially by omission or vagueness, past the U.S. president. They're a calculating and cynical bunch (see the birth certificate...which he could've produced 3 years but didn't for obvious political reasons)...like that absurd photo of them watching the raid.
For my part I think he's dead...it's safest position to take but, yeah the story's not aging well.
Off topic – wondering what you'll make of the Bin Laden fiasco? Here's what I think: now it's understandable that there may be certain disparities between the US and Pakistan accounts; however, what I fail to grasp is the palpable contradictions, misstatements and apparent falsities in the US Gov “official” version of events. Some confusion is to be expected with a breaking story, “off the record” briefings to press and misunderstandings by reporters, but the “official” account should readily be able to set these straight and swiftly.
ReplyDeleteThe “fog of war” coverall explanation proffered so far really isn't sufficient: in war, operations are often conducted simultaneously on multiple fronts with multiple chains of command; this was a single covert operation executed by a small group of elite professionals, presumably with a clear chain of command, clear rules of engagement, as well as mission objectives.
Admittedly, there may have been a short window of opportunity between receiving and verifying credible intelligence; then putting a plan of action into motion; however, elite forces, one expects, are on 24hr standby for such eventualities; whose members have trained and operated in multiple theatres.
It is hard to believe that there were not comprehensive presidential and executive briefings (including range of possible outcomes and their various – potentially huge - ramifications) pre, during and post operations, and that a comprehensive account was not produced and signed-off by all relavant parties before releasing the story to the press and public at wide.
I understand that, sometimes, the Gov has to do certain things, things that would otherwise be morally repugnant and even illegal, as they say, extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures. And we hope that people that act and serve on our behalf would only engage in such activities out of force of necessity; having no further alternative option or opportunity. However, I don't understand why they would want to make such events, like the strike on Bin Laden, public so quickly. Sure, they may have had to create a cover story as it was difficult to hide the fact that something happened on foreign sovereign territory, but surely would they want to get Bin Laden on the quiet; extract him alive, if possible, and wring every last bit of actionable intelligence out of him. Even if Bin Laden were to be killed, wouldn't you want to keep the operation quiet in order that it may provide you with the opportunity to trace any networks or connection he may have had to other dangerous groups? Later, when nothing more is useful to be gained, then release news of his capture and/or demise. I don't know, I don't know all the facts. Just seems strange.
Finally, if, indeed, Bin Laden was killed, he only survived this long with a lot help: an extraordinary amount of help beyond the mere fortune furnished upon us by the invisible hand of luck. May be the Bin Laden element is a cover story for some other, deeper, motivation/actions. Again, I don't know. But what I do know is that this story has been cack-handled right from the beginning and I'd have expected a whole lot more professionalism in its presentation, even the “Situation Room” story(!):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8493391/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-Blackout-during-raid-on-bin-Laden-compound.html
Rant over now. Normal service resumed.
Does that fat dude have one of those lamp shades on you put on a dog to stop him biting his *ball space* post op?
ReplyDeleteI think Nats comment was more intelligent
It's a prop from his lawyers office.
ReplyDeleteNat...I can't say I'm sad he's takin' a dirt nap (or saltwater nap in this case) but the circumstances of his death seem to change everyday.
I don't think there was any chance of the chairman taking him alive...politically for him it woulda been a real tarbaby. They've made such a stink about giving these people judicial rights but, nobody would stand for that...then the security risk of keepin' him around.
Which begs your question...why not take him somewhere quietly? Afterall...we still have those kinds of places.
More politics...this is being spun as a huge victory for obama (one of the many gross things that have been going on since Sunday) and he's needed some good news...his presidency has been a disaster.
Then there's the issue of how the information was obtained. Is the Justice Dept really going to go through with its plans to prosecute CIA agents?
They are basking and celebrating at the moment but things could go really goofy any minute now.
Al-Qaeda 'confirms Osama Bin Laden dead' is the latest headline. Lot of people commenting on net think this proves the US story; however, it simply begs-the-question: how would Al-Qaeda know? They got sent the DNA test results and commemorative photos?
ReplyDelete… which got me to thinking, perhaps they didn’t kill him afterall and spirited him away to some godless hole for an enhanced talky-talk. How would Al-Qaeda know otherwise?
PS first sketch, for me, has that Burroughs cut-up vibe; the second looks like it may be you inner Brando, whom you have been neglecting in recent years.
It's an MS paint job on a sketch that I actually kinda like.
ReplyDeleteI was neglecting him this week...when them kitchen ladies were givin' me Mexican Wedding cookies and chocolate pie...or when an owner yesterday boxed up an entire Coconut Cake for me. Best part about that...Martha hates coconut.
It's hard to say what they're up to...and it should be really.
I was not neglecting him this week...that's NOT.
ReplyDeleteSorry to harp on about the Bin Laden affair, but a few final words: I don't believe it; I have no idea what actually happened apart form a bunch of theories which I have no way of verifying and, as such, amount to idle speculation. The story we have been told resembles a child's ever-shifting excuse as to why they failed to complete their homework. So Obama's lying? No, not necessarily, I have no reason to think so, only, as it's emerged, it's doubtful he's in any better position to set the record straight than the rest of us. He didn't even see the crucial events, along with auntie Hilary, in the "Situation Room" photo-op. Sure, he may have see some "photos" and read a DNA test report, but what qualifies him to make a definitive determination based on these? He relies on the expertise of others. To sum up, something stinks bad. I suspect Obama's been played, like Cheney fiddled W.
ReplyDeleteNo need to apologize...my artworks usually draw a goose egg anyway.
ReplyDeleteIt's impossible to know whats going on...for one thing, we're not suppose to in these situations. Secondly, I would not put lying, especially by omission or vagueness, past the U.S. president. They're a calculating and cynical bunch (see the birth certificate...which he could've produced 3 years but didn't for obvious political reasons)...like that absurd photo of them watching the raid.
For my part I think he's dead...it's safest position to take but, yeah the story's not aging well.