Zip It

The killing of Osama bin Laden by U.S. Navy SEALs was a spectacular achievement: for the United States, for the SEALs and the rest of the United States military, for the intelligence community, for President Obama, for President Bush, and for countless others who have sacrificed so much in order to take out the al Qaeda kingpin.

In the euphoria over his elimination, however, a few grievous blunders have been made: first, the White House repeatedly screwed up the narrative and timeline of the commando raid. This caused undue confusion and made a White House that had just ordered one of the most daring raids in recent history look bumbling. They took a great victory and muddied it up.

Secondly and more importantly, the administration has released WAY too much information about the mission and its aftermath. They understandably wanted to bask in the glory of its success, but they took things that should have remained classified and made them public. No one should have known about which particular helicopters were used, which Afghan base they flew out of, or the fact that the CIA used a safehouse nearby to monitor the bin Laden compound. We should also know nothing about the apparently huge cache of intelligence the SEALs found on site: computers, hard drives, thumb drives, maps, detailed plot information, cell phones and numbers.

Why all of the blabbing? Two words: politics, and re-election. The administration is far too eager to demonstrate that Barack Obama is not Jimmy Carter. Carter presided over a poor economy, with high inflation, gas prices, and interest rates, and a disastrous failed mission to rescue the U.S. hostages in Iran. The analogies to Carter were coming into the Obama White House fast and furious. They needed to stop. What better way than to thank their lucky starts----publicly---that THEIR high-risk military operation yielded such big rewards.

In their rapture to show what a huge success this mission was, however, the administration may have compromised the next one. Jihadists of all stripes now know what we know. They immediately ditched their cell phones, numbers, and contacts. They immediately moved. They immediately began taking defensive measures to protect their organization, their plots, and their own lives. They're not going to get smoked like bin Laden if they can help it. And we just helped it.

During World War II, there was a popular slogan: "Loose Lips Sink Ships." The enemy is always listening and learning, so keep it zipped. In today's world, loose lips may not only sink ships, but lead to a mass casualty attack. We all know how extraordinary the bin Laden mission was. The White House should stop yapping and let us all savor it without simultaneously helping the enemy.

Comments

[thebuckstopshere]

http://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/Clinton-US-see-China-threat-afpsg-1547691274.html?x=0

well hubby did sign that little piece of legislation that Jay maintains was done as a mere courtesy to Bush....

YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP

CHOICE 2012

[jay]

"Jay maintains was done as a mere courtesy to Bush...."
Presidents have done it for years. Whenever 1 is voted out of office. Before legislature is finalized.

"Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada"

the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994"

[thebuckstopshere]

do not presume to tell me how I would feel about whomever sold the envy of the world industrialized nation down the toilet, CLINTON (the democrat & friend of labor) DID IT PERIOD END OF FACTUAL STATEMENT.

PS I did vote for choice & my conscience, both times for Perot. One thing for sure if the mindless entities called straight ticket voters had done the same NAFTA/GATT NEVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED & imo we would not be in the mess we are in NOW. I also believe more people are coming round to seeing the political situation the way I see it & not quite how you do. A "third" may not happen but if the jackoffs in DC think independents won't do a repeat of the midterm clean house, they are DELUSIONAL. I believe guys like Scott Brown are going to find themselves one termers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42965771/ns/politics-capitol_hill/?gt1=43001

I'll believe it when I see it...

FIGHTERS 2012

[thebuckstopshere]

he very well could have VETOED it too...

do you by chance have ADD?

just because that's how things have worked, I thought wunderkin in the Peoples House was going to CHANGE the way Washington "works, ushering in HOPE & TRANSPARENCY....so much for campaign jargon eh

NO MORE BS 2012

[jay]

"CLINTON (the democrat & friend of labor) DID IT PERIOD END OF FACTUAL STATEMENT"
Still blame the "otherside" Not the fact that Reagan started it. Bush had it implemented. But, Blame the one who signed it. Because the other 2 were Republicans. Clinton was the Democrat.
See politics the way I do? Voted for the Republican governor in the last primary election.
Just don't feed on the lies that ALL parties spout. Believe in what Twain said about Politicians.

[thebuckstopshere]

yep ADD for sho, re-read my posts S-L-O-W-L-Y

nuff said

nighty night, I think it is past your bedtime.

CHOICE 2012

[jay]

Boehner wants trillions cut to lower the debt. But, don't raise the taxes on the rich.
Forget the fact that the LAST Republican who had a balanced budget was Eisenhower. Who had 91% tax rates. Started the national highway system. (forgot that it's better to have dirt roads and 2 lane streets.
Highway 66 was established in 1926.Good enough for my great grandad. Good enough for me.
But, the point is that Clinton did it as a favor to Bush. Why is that so hard to understand? And, why blame him. Oh, yes. Forgot the He's the Democrat, that's why.

[jay]

the hope and transparency? remember when you are a politician that is trying to enact new legislation. The otherside will fight you every step of the way. The tea party won't find things any different.

[jay]

yep ADD for sho, re-read my posts S-L-O-W-L-Y

nuff said

nighty night, I think it is past your bedtime.

CHOICE 2012

Posted by: thebuckstopshere | May 10, 2011 at 01:54 AM
You should read mine.
Think it's wayyy past your bedtime.

[thebuckstopshere]

let me try this another way (& for the last time btw)
if the two are fundementally different, why would the working mans friend & elected by labor, Clinton, stick it to them so detrimentally as a favor to Bush, friend of the corporation?

& for the last time ADD, I am an independent & don't cotton to either one party.

VOTERS WITH QUESTIONING MINDS 2012

[xbjllb]

"Yeah...me too. Unfortunately, now we have Patraeus (?) running the CIA; a proven loser. Maybe Panetta was too smart...lol" - longrifle

The "guy" "running" the CIA is never the "guy" "running" the CIA; he's a figurehead.

I'm not even sure he sits at the table.

[xbjllb]

"I keep making the same pint in so many ways." - UG

How lucky for the planet only four people on here listen to you at all.

[LongRifle]

Meanwhile, the war keeps draining our economy, the rich pay no taxes while services are cut for the less fortunate in America. Unemployment is up, housing is down, the Southern invasion proceeds un-abated (with guns supplied by the BATFE) and we argue about who to blame for what happened ten years ago. We stay behind the curve and the corruption of virtually all politicians continues.
DOES IT MATTER 2012?

[DJ]

Lawrence Auster writes:

Newspaper describes Muslim terrorist as a generic "man" with "no clear or known ties to terrorism"

LA: Continuing on the same subject as the previous entry, here's the opening of the Chicago Sun-Times story on the terrorist act--i.e., an act the purpose of which is "to strike terror, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies"--that took place aboard an American Airlines plane approaching San Francisco on Sunday evening:

////SAN FRANCISCO--"Police say a man who pounded on the cockpit door as an American Airlines flight approached San Francisco from Chicago has no clear or known ties to terrorism.
San Francisco police Sgt. Michael Rodriguez tells the San Francisco Chronicle that authorities have not yet established a motive for why 28-year-old Rageit Almurisi got up from his seat and went toward the cockpit door 10 minutes before the flight was supposed to land Sunday evening. {snip}////

LA: Police say he had a Yemeni passport and was yelling unintelligibly as he brushed past a flight attendant.

Unlike CBS, which in the opening paragraphs of its story doesn't tell us anything about the man except that he lives in Vallejo, California, the Sun-Times helpfully informs us in the first paragraph that the man has no known ties to terrorism, and in the second paragraph that he has no known motive for doing what he did. As though the fact that he's a Yemeni Muslim yelling "Allahu Akbar" and trying to force his way into the cockpit of an American commercial passenger plane doesn't establish his terrorist credentials--and thus his motive. No. Unless the man has an al Qaeda membership card in his wallet, he has nothing to do with terrorism.
Of course the problem is much larger than explicit terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. The simple truth the media never tells us is that all believing Muslims belong to a terrorist organization. The name of the organization is Islam.

more >>

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/019304.html

[DJ]

Correct link to my above post:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/019305.html

[Ummahgummah]

.

DJ, I know how frustrating it is to argue with fools. You can shove fact after fact after fact in the faces of libs and they will either blither at you unintelligibly whilst playing the race/bigot/intolerance card or they simply won't answer because they prefer to duck.

As they did in the case of your above post.

I only wonder how this guy was able to exit that plane alive.

.

[thebuckstopshere]

DOES IT MATTER 2012?

not according to the Mayan calander....

let's all live it up till then eh?

[xbjllb]

"I only wonder how this guy was able to exit that plane alive." - UG

Because YOU were in first class.

[Blueshoes]

The policy of Interrogating, Water Boarding and "Torture", which continues to be severely criticized, has proved invaluable, being instrumental in capturing AND KILLING OSAMA BIN LADEN, the mastermind of Terrorism, Suicide Bombing and Terrorist Plots.

What was the information that we were trying to get from the lowly Terrorists we captured? Was it what they had for breakfast the day we captured them? Wasn’t the purpose of extracting information from these terrorist, to learn critical information about their terrorist plots, their chain of command, their upper echelon, where to locate OSAMA BIN LADEN, the mastermind, etc.?

Why then did BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA order the MASTERMIND OF TERRORISM, OSAMA BIN LADEN killed? Wouldn’t the information OSAMA BIN LADEN have, what are/were his plans, what was in HIS head, more important than what his lowly subordinates individually were privy to? Wasn’t having the "JEWEL OF TERROR" in our hands worth much more ALIVE, than any of his pawns, his most expendable followers. Why was it necessary to issue an order for his death?

I’ve been checking the news from the papers, radio, TV and the web but have NOT heard one newscaster, reporter, correspondent, news analyst or ANYONE, raise this question. I realize it might be considered far fetched and "out of order" to mention, but I believe that our Muslim in charge BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, the PODUS did NOT want any information to be extracted from OSAMA BIN LADEN. All his actions are indicative of a cover-up.

[jay]

"
let me try this another way (& for the last time btw)
if the two are fundementally different, why would the working mans friend & elected by labor, Clinton, stick it to them so detrimentally as a favor to Bush, friend of the corporation?

& for the last time ADD, I am an independent & don't cotton to either one party.

VOTERS WITH QUESTIONING MINDS 2012

Posted by: thebuckstopshere | May 10, 2011 at 02:08 AM

As i say that's all part of politics.
nuff said.

"DJ, I know how frustrating it is to argue with fools. You can shove fact after fact after fact in the faces of libs,(conservatives) and they will either blither at you unintelligibly whilst playing the race/bigot/intolerance card or they simply won't answer because they prefer to duck"

[jay]

Why then did BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA order the MASTERMIND OF TERRORISM, OSAMA BIN LADEN killed? Wouldn’t the information OSAMA BIN LADEN have, what are/were his plans, what was in HIS head, more important than what his lowly subordinates individually were privy to? Wasn’t having the "JEWEL OF TERROR" in our hands worth much more ALIVE, than any of his pawns, his most expendable followers. Why was it necessary to issue an order for his death?"

then, why do many Democrats AND Republicans feel that killing OBL was a good idea?

[cialis to buy]

Http://www.maxipharmacy.com/ viagra versus cialis directions for taking cialis soft tabs.

[cialis to buy]

http://www.maxipharmacy.com/ commercials cialis whistling song best cialis prices cialis diuretics generic cialis pills drug.