Support NeoGAF

[empty vessel]

These are not "summary executions" use all the scary words you want but they're not what you are saying they are.

Of course they are. They are executions without trial.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Of course they are. They are executions without trial.

So is every death in war then. Changing the language to make it sound worse is a silly tactic To make people who disagree with you sound like horrible people

 

[Snake]

Children, do not trifle with the Obaminable snowman.

 

[KtSlime]

So is every death in war then. Changing the language to make it sound worse is a silly tactic To make people who disagree with you sound like horrible people

Yes, but a war does not give the US a free pass to kill it's own citizens without trial.

 

[Chichikov]

So is every death in war then. Changing the language to make it sound worse is a silly tactic To make people who disagree with you sound like horrible people

You don't think there's an important difference between soldiers killing other soldiers and the executive decide to kill a specific person not in a war zone?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You don't think there's an important difference between soldiers killing other soldiers and the executive decide to kill a specific person not in a war zone?

I don't think they're "not in a war zone" and congress has given him this power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Yes, but a war does not give the US a free pass to kill it's own citizens without trial.

Civil war? If they have started an armed insurrection against the country (which terrorism IMO is) than yes it does. This is the same principle as killing a guy with a gun. The difference and debate that we need to be having is what makes someone an "imminent threat". Not that they US doesn't have the authority to kill a threat.


I don't really think I disagree with a lot of policy matters on the "war on terror" with you but I do disagree that the president doesn't have the authority or legal merit to

 

[empty vessel]

So is every death in war then. Changing the language to make it sound worse is a silly tactic To make people who disagree with you sound like horrible people

We're not in a war.

 

[PhoenixDark]

We're not in a war.

What should the US government do about terrorist organizations, in your view?

 

[empty vessel]

What should the US government do about terrorist organizations, in your view?

The same thing it always has, until the last decade. Investigate and, if warranted, arrest and prosecute them for criminal acts.

What do you think the US government should do about urban gangs? The mob? The right-wing militia movement? The anti-abortion movement?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The same thing it always has, until the last decade. Investigate and, if warranted, arrest and prosecute them for criminal acts.

What do you think the US government should do about urban gangs? The mob? The right-wing militia movement? The anti-abortion movement?

In other countries? I thought you were against imperialism? The administration (and I) agree with that when possible, which its not always. Also the war on terror is something in the past decade, maybe in words but reagan, bush 1 and Clinton all had military actions against terrorists.

And yes we are at war. See the link posted. Congress gave permission. It is a war.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The same thing it always has, until the last decade. Investigate and, if warranted, arrest and prosecute them for criminal acts.

What do you think the US government should do about urban gangs? The mob? The right-wing militia movement? The anti-abortion movement?

Arrest people in other countries?

What should have been done about Bin Laden, where the Pakistan government was hiding a wanted man who killed 3,000 Americans? Should we have simply done nothing?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

We're not in a war.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

.

 

[empty vessel]

In other countries? I thought you were against imperialism? The administration (and I) agree with that when possible, which its not always. Also the war on terror is something in the past decade, maybe in words but reagan, bush 1 and Clinton all had military actions against terrorists.

It would be remarkable that a country would not cooperate with terrorism investigations. Rare is the country that would either (1) not cooperate with international investigations; or (2) independently tolerate people plotting terrorist activities against a foreign country on its soil, because of the threat such activity poses to the government's own existence.

And yes we are at war. See the link posted. Congress gave permission. It is a war.

No we're definitely not at war, if we are not to abuse the English language. That is obvious enough. Also, Congress did not declare war. It authorized the use of force, i.e., it authorized a police action (via military means). But even if it did declare war against unnamed individuals who threaten to commit criminal acts, I'd still have to be a fool to believe there was a war. If the criterion you are using for whether there is a war is whether the government calls it that, then you're providing far more justification for Rand Paul's filibuster than I. You're basically saying that the government can do whatever it wants as long as it uses the magic words.

Arrest people in other countries?

What should have been done about Bin Laden, where the Pakistan government was hiding a wanted man who killed 3,000 Americans? Should we have simply done nothing?

We should have (and did) worked with Pakistan to arrest him. I really don't see what is so difficult about this:

President Obama took pains to praise the Pakistani government for its help in fighting al-Qaida in his speech Sunday night.

"It's important to note that our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding," Obama said.

Officials from both the American and Pakistani governments, however, stressed that the operation was a unilateral affair carried out solely by U.S. military and intelligence.

Some experts have noted, however, that Pakistan has a history of turning over important suspects, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of al-Qaida's 2001 attacks on the U.S., at key junctures in the relationship.

"The timing was suspect," says Sumit Ganguly, a professor of political science and Indian culture at Indiana University. "You could see that around the time when Congress was considering aid; they would deliver us another head."

Ganguly says bin Laden was Pakistan's "prime asset" in this regard. And Akbar Ahmed, a former Pakistani high commissioner to the United Kingdom who has served and studied in Abbottabad, insists that some Pakistani officials must have known he was there. He suggests that Pakistan must have decided to turn over bin Laden to repair a relationship that had reached a low ebb.

"Pakistan felt this was the appropriate time to play the Osama card, which is to say, 'Let the Americans go after him,' " says Ahmed, who chairs the Islamic studies program at American University. "The trigger was U.S.-Pakistan relations. If ever there was a time, this was it."

http://www.npr.org/2011/05/02/135925423/did-pakistan-know-where-bin-laden-was-hiding

This is basically what happened except that, instead of arresting him and putting him on trial, the US simply summarily executed him.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I lol'd

 

[NYCmetsfan]

It would be remarkable that a country would not cooperate with terrorism investigations. Rare is the country that would either (1) not cooperate with international investigations; or (2) independently tolerate people plotting terrorist activities against a foreign country on its soil, because of the threat such activity poses to the government's own existence.

I just can't do this...

 

[speculawyer]

In other countries? I thought you were against imperialism? The administration (and I) agree with that when possible, which its not always. Also the war on terror is something in the past decade, maybe in words but reagan, bush 1 and Clinton all had military actions against terrorists.

Yeah, that is the fundamental issue that we have not fully grappled with.

1) If you have domestic terrorists, you use your police, courts, and prisons to get them.

2) If you have a foreign nation enemy, you use war.

But what happens when your enemy is foreign terrorists? What is the procedure? What are the rules? We had none and we've been muddling our way along using bits & pieces from (1) and (2). It has been a bit inconsistent and incoherent.

I guess a former way of doing it was to notify the police of the country where the foreign terrorists are and work with their police to get them. And this works in places like the UK, Germany, etc. But that doesn't work for failed states (Afghanistan, Somalia, etc.), partially failed-states (Pakistan with its uncontrolled northwest area, Yemen, etc.), and unfriendly nations (Iran, North Korea, etc.).


Maybe someone should try to draw up some new rules instead of trying to use an inconsistent mix of the existing paradigms.

It would be remarkable that a country would not cooperate with terrorism investigations. Rare is the country that would either (1) not cooperate with international investigations; or (2) independently tolerate people plotting terrorist activities against a foreign country on its soil, because of the threat such activity poses to the government's own existence.

Dude, that is terribly naive. As I indicated above there are failed states, semi-failed states, and unfriendly states where this just does not work. Pakistan is a vexing one because it is both semi-failed and largely unfriendly (their people hate us so politicians don't like to cooperate). I agree the situation is rare as most nations have control of things and cooperate . . . but those exceptions are the places where the problem resides. The exception swallows the rule.

 

[pigeon]

Civil war? If they have started an armed insurrection against the country (which terrorism IMO is) than yes it does. This is the same principle as killing a guy with a gun. The difference and debate that we need to be having is what makes someone an "imminent threat". Not that they US doesn't have the authority to kill a threat.

I agree -- I think this is worth discussing, because I find the comparison to the Civil War here problematic! There was no debate on whether killing people in the Civil War was acceptable because they were, by and large, shooting guns at us when we killed them. Nor do I think most people would object to drone striking terrorists who were actively trying to kill Americans! But that's not a bar that we're anywhere near, as far as any of the articles on drone strikes have said. That's kind of the whole problem.

 

[mightynine]

So basically Rand Paul pulled a filibuster to get an answer to a question that was already known? I'm pretty sure someone in this thread already said what was in Holder's letter.

 

[empty vessel]

So basically Rand Paul pulled a filibuster to get an answer to a question that was already known? I'm pretty sure someone in this thread already said what was in Holder's letter.

The only legal justification that the public has seen for the use of summary execution of American citizens--the DOJ white paper that was leaked a month or so ago--provides no reasoned basis for limiting its use outside US territory. Holder's letter isn't helpful and frankly is insulting and impetuous.

 

[Black Mamba]

lol, if the Pakistan gov't knew we were going after Bin Laden where he was, we'd have never gotten him.

Dealing with Pakistan is a mess with the factions, ISI, etc going on. Whatever the US may say publicly for show, reality is much different.

Also, taking OBL alive would have been stupid.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I agree -- I think this is worth discussing, because I find the comparison to the Civil War here problematic! There was no debate on whether killing people in the Civil War was acceptable because they were, by and large, shooting guns at us when we killed them. Nor do I think most people would object to drone striking terrorists who were actively trying to kill Americans! But that's not a bar that we're anywhere near, as far as any of the articles on drone strikes have said. That's kind of the whole problem.

This is the problem I had with rands stunt. He conceded this point and focused on a power nobody has claimed to have "power to kill non-combatants" (you can say rand was using not combatants to mean people not actually shooting but from what I gathered we wasn't).

Nobody in Congress is focusing on the problem. Not that the president has the authority for strikes but the lack of accountability and oversight on what is imminent. The nationality doesn't matter Imo. There needs to be questions on what determines a threat rather than "Omg grandma's gonna get killed at Starbucks"


The problem is your not going to get the president to limit his power because he doesn't want to be responsible for an attack on Americans. Congress has ceded a tremendous power. The AUMF says the president determines threats. Congress should put more limits if they ate worried.

 

[empty vessel]

lol, if the Pakistan gov't knew we were going after Bin Laden where he was, we'd have never gotten him.

Dealing with Pakistan is a mess with the factions, ISI, etc going on. Whatever the US may say publicly for show, reality is much different.

I'd say it's more likely that whatever your random thoughts about the matter are, the reality is likely to be much different. It is true that public statements made by governments often do not reflect private reality. But in this case that is likely to cut far more in the direction of Pakistan's having provided substantial assistance than the other way around. In any event, it isn't disputed that the US and Pakistan cooperated with each other. If the US believed Pakistan were willfully protecting bin Laden, a person that the US had probable cause to believe was involved in a conspiracy to commit a criminal act killing thousands of Americans, that could be grounds for (actual!) war.

Also, taking OBL alive would have been stupid.

No, it would have been the responsible, lawful thing to do. There is nothing stupid about a government arresting people it alleges to have committed criminal acts and trying them.

 

[PhoenixDark]

lol, if the Pakistan gov't knew we were going after Bin Laden where he was, we'd have never gotten him.

Dealing with Pakistan is a mess with the factions, ISI, etc going on. Whatever the US may say publicly for show, reality is much different.

Also, taking OBL alive would have been stupid.

Exactly. We have "worked" with Pakistan for a decade yet they never mentioned Bin Laden was living a few blocks from their West Point-esque base? Yeah ok.

I'd rather send SEALs than declare war on Pakistan for withholding him.

 

[kehs]

I'd say it's more likely that whatever your random thoughts about the matter are, the reality is likely to be much different. It is true that public statements made by governments often do not reflect private reality. But in this case that is likely to cut far more in the direction of Pakistan's having provided substantial assistance than the other way around. In any event, it isn't disputed that the US and Pakistan cooperated with each other. If the US believed Pakistan were willfully protecting bin Laden, a person that the US had probable cause to believe was involved in a conspiracy to commit a criminal act killing thousands of Americans, that could be grounds for (actual!) war.



No, it would have been the responsible, lawful thing to do. There is nothing stupid about a government arresting people it alleges to have committed criminal acts and trying them.

Didn't OBL take responsibility for his acts?

 

[Black Mamba]

I'd say it's more likely that whatever your random thoughts about the matter are, the reality is likely to be much different. It is true that public statements made by governments often do not reflect private reality. But in this case that is likely to cut far more in the direction of Pakistan's having provided substantial assistance than the other way around. In any event, it isn't disputed that the US and Pakistan cooperated with each other. If the US believed Pakistan were willfully protecting bin Laden, a person that the US had probable cause to believe was involved in a conspiracy to commit a criminal act killing thousands of Americans, that could be grounds for (actual!) war.

You need to brush up on your modern history of Pakistan and about what the country, from a political and power standpoint, is like. Especially with regards to the ISI. It is very complex and nowhere as straight forward as you naively think it is.

No, it would have been the responsible, lawful thing to do. There is nothing stupid about a government arresting people it alleges to have committed criminal acts and trying them.

The whole thing would have been a debacle. I really don't see the point in debating this since it should be self-evident.

 

[Hitokage]

Oh. I think my brain just tied itself in knots. This stuff is totally confusing me all of a sudden.

Um. Carry on.

I think there's some vile nature in the way Senate rules are constructed to damage the brains of those trying to understand them. As Harry Reid has been in the Senate longer than any Democrat, it's to be expected that his brain is the most rotten.

 

[empty vessel]

You need to brush up on your modern history of Pakistan and about what the country, from a political standpoint, is like. Especially with regards to the ISI. It is very complex and nowhere as straight forward as you naively think it is.

I'm not suggesting Pakistan isn't complex. I'm suggesting it takes some gall to confidently opine about what really happened as if you have any insight at all. What expertise do you have to be able to say something like this, "if the Pakistan gov't knew we were going after Bin Laden where he was, we'd have never gotten him"? You might as well be opining on cable news television with that kind of punditry, given that it is based on no knowledge.

International relationships and cooperation is extremely complex and rather unpredictable until you see the declassified cables some 40 years later. But at the end of the day, the Pakistani government clearly had more to lose by losing its relationship with the US than its relationship with bin Laden. Even if some realpolitik may have been played along the way, there was close cooperation. Internal politics likely required Pakistan not to participate in the raid and to claim surprise by it. I don't think it makes much sense to believe they were really surprised.

The whole thing would have been a debacle. I really don't see the point in debating this since it should be self-evident.

It's not self-evident. We try people that we accuse of criminal acts, we don't summarily execute them.

 

[Black Mamba]

I'm not suggesting Pakistan isn't complex. I'm suggesting it takes some gall to confidently opine about what really happened as if you have any insight at all. What expertise do you have to be able to say something like this, "if the Pakistan gov't knew we were going after Bin Laden where he was, we'd have never gotten him"? You might as well be opining on cable news television with that kind of punditry, given that it is based on no knowledge.

International relationships and cooperation is extremely complex and rather unpredictable until you see the declassified cables some 40 years later. But at the end of the day, the Pakistani government clearly had more to lose by losing its relationship with the US than its relationship with bin Laden. Even if some realpolitik may have been played along the way, there was close cooperation. Internal politics likely required Pakistan not to participate in the raid and to claim surprise by it. I don't think it makes much sense to believe they were really surprised.

lol, you clearly know little about the ISI.

Like I said, you need to read up on the topic of Pakistan a lot.

It's not self-evident. We try people that we accuse of criminal acts, we don't summarily execute them.

Sure we do, where have you been?

 

[RustyNails]

I'm not suggesting Pakistan isn't complex. I'm suggesting it takes some gall to confidently opine about what really happened as if you have any insight at all. What expertise do you have to be able to say something like this, "if the Pakistan gov't knew we were going after Bin Laden where he was, we'd have never gotten him"? You might as well be opining on cable news television with that kind of punditry, given that it is based on no knowledge.

International relationships and cooperation is extremely complex and rather unpredictable until you see the declassified cables some 40 years later. But at the end of the day, the Pakistani government clearly had more to lose by losing its relationship with the US than its relationship with bin Laden. Even if some realpolitik may have been played along the way, there was close cooperation. Internal politics likely required Pakistan not to participate in the raid and to claim surprise by it. I don't think it makes much sense to believe they were really surprised.

...you have no idea how ISI works. BM mentioned it, but I like to emphasize that. Stick to monetary stuff EV, plz.

RDreamer willing, I think I should plug the post I wrote on drone strikes on DHP. I very briefly touched on the ISI subject and how each country can have it's own set of problems.

 

[speculawyer]

lol, if the Pakistan gov't knew we were going after Bin Laden where he was, we'd have never gotten him.

Dealing with Pakistan is a mess with the factions, ISI, etc going on. Whatever the US may say publicly for show, reality is much different.

Also, taking OBL alive would have been stupid.

Seriously.

Pakistan is a mess. Pakistan politicians will meet with the USA, beg for money, make deals, pressure the USA with fees to use their roads, request drone strikes, etc. But then the same politicians will go on Pakistan television and denounce the USA, denounce drone strikes, etc. And they'll support terrorist groups in their disputes with India. It is a corrupt mess with lots of back-stabbing.

 

[empty vessel]

...you have no idea how ISI works. BM mentioned it, but I like to emphasize that. Stick to monetary stuff EV, plz.

Neither do you nor BM. I'm not trying to be rude, but do you two seriously consider yourselves experts about Pakistan? Based on what? A few articles published in Western media?

When we are talking about Pakistan, we are talking about the Pakistan government as such, not rogue elements within its bureaucracy (the US has those, too, incidentally). That elements within Pakistan's intelligence services might have resisted cooperation or even attempted to protect bin Laden does not mean that Pakistan's government was not cooperating with the US.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

The fact that you distiguish the Pakistani government from elements within it is telling. All governments are made up of elements within it. "Rogue" or not. The problem with Pakistan is that those elements are particularly divided, disingenuous, and inconsistent even to the person.

Our actions are in part a consequence of their failure to maintan consistent governance.

 

[speculawyer]

So basically Rand Paul pulled a filibuster to get an answer to a question that was already known? I'm pretty sure someone in this thread already said what was in Holder's letter.

He accomplished more than that. He raised the profile of the issue. Got a lot of discussion going. I'm a big critic of him but I'll give him grudging respect for his actions on this . . . especially as a member of the GOP.

 

[empty vessel]

The fact that you distiguish the Pakistani government from elements within it is telling. All governments are made up of elements within it. "Rogue" or not. The problem with Pakistan is that those elements are particularly divided, disingenuous, and inconsistent even to the person.

Our actions are in part a consequence of their failure to maintan consistent governance.

Our actions were most likely done with Pakistan's knowledge and cooperation.

 

[speculawyer]

Neither do you nor BM. I'm not trying to be rude, but do you two seriously consider yourselves experts about Pakistan? Based on what? A few articles published in Western media?

My favorite source on Pakistan is Ahmed Rashid of Lahore, Pakistan. I'd highly recommend reading his articles, books, and checking out his speeches & interviews.

 

[Black Mamba]

Our actions were most likely done with Pakistan's knowledge and cooperation.

I'd be willing to wager money this is wrong. Too bad we will never know with 100% certainty.

(I'd also wager we were ready to engage Pakistan in the conflict as well if need be)

The fact that you separate the Pakistani gov't from "rogue elements" demonstrates why this conversation really can't go anywhere. You seem to think it operates like any Western gov't like the US, OK, Sweden, etc. we really won't get anywhere. The internal politics of Pakistan are not like ours.

 

[RustyNails]

Neither do you nor BM. I'm not trying to be rude, but do you two seriously consider yourselves experts about Pakistan? Based on what? A few articles published in Western media?

When we are talking about Pakistan, we are talking about the Pakistan government as such, not rogue elements within its bureaucracy (the US has those, too, incidentally). That elements within Pakistan's intelligence services might have resisted cooperation or even attempted to protect bin Laden does not mean that Pakistan's government was not cooperating with the US.

Think I know little more. The government of Pakistan holds only as much power as ISI allows it. It will orchestrate a coup d'etat or a democratic election. It is the largest political institution in the country without any political ambition. ISI's sole purpose is there for the survival of homeland, and that's it..it operates above everything, including the government that houses it. ISI knows that America's relationship with them is temporary, but their main adversary has and always will be India. With this in mind the ISI makes decisions.

 

[The Librarian]

So...Carl Levin won't seek re-election.

 

[PhoenixDark]

So...Carl Levin won't seek re-election.

So we get Pete Hoekstra to kick around again. Hell yes

I've met Levin a couple times, always struck me as a decent senator even if we disagree on some things. Given how extreme the GOP has become here dems should easily hold his seat

 

[speculawyer]

Think I know little more. The government of Pakistan holds only as much power as ISI allows it. It will orchestrate a coup d'etat or a democratic election. It is the largest political institution in the country without any political ambition. ISI's sole purpose is there for the survival of homeland, and that's it..it operates above everything, including the government that houses it. ISI knows that America's relationship with them is temporary, but their main adversary has and always will be India. With this in mind the ISI makes decisions.

Yes, that is how they feel and how they operate. However, at this point it is more of a sad pointless legacy rivalry. India doesn't care that much about Pakistan except as a nuisance and terrorist threat. India has won that rivalry through economic development and has moved on. However, Pakistan remains mired in that bitter rivalry. They should really let it go and move on.

Both of them should just let that rivalry play out on the cricket pitch. Of course, that is kind of ironic in itself because it makes them both look like relics of British Colonialism. But I guess everyone has moved past that now.

 

[speculawyer]

So we get Pete Hoekstra to kick around again. Hell yes

I've met Levin a couple times, always struck me as a decent senator even if we disagree on some things. Given how extreme the GOP has become here dems should easily hold his seat

Look, a PD prediction that might actually be right! ;-)

 

[GhaleonEB]

Our actions were most likely done with Pakistan's knowledge and cooperation.

I hesitate to wade into this, but: how do you know?

 

[The Librarian]

Rick Snyder for Senate.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Our actions were most likely done with Pakistan's knowledge and cooperation.

Now who's assuming?

 

[Black Mamba]

President Obama and his guests ordered from a three-course prix-fixe menu. The White House specifically requested that the staff of Plume restaurant include the Maryland blue crab risotto and filet of prime beef entree among the options. . . soooo, does that mean that’s what the president ordered? The restaurant wouldn’t say.

But we do know that of the 16 people seated in the hotel’s private Parlor Boardroom (including the 12 senators and presumably a handful of staffers), there were six orders of the filet, five of the Colorado lamb açaí, four Lobster Thermidors, and one special-ordered vegetarian plate.

The president had arranged for the $85 per person tab (not including tax or tip) to be billed directly to the White House. The hotel was sworn to secrecy on the question of whether or not wine was ordered or consumed.

CRISIS AVERTED. WE KNOW WHAT THEY ATE. BUT WHO IS THE VEGGIE COMMIE!?!?!?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Look, a PD prediction that might actually be right! ;-)

Which means the Republicans should win and hold both Senate seats in Michigan. Like Konex in basketball, always bet on the opposite of whatever PD predicts.

 

[empty vessel]

I hesitate to wade into this, but: how do you know?

I don't know. I think it's most likely. Experts seem to think so, per the article I quoted above. There have been ISI claims to cooperation. And other evidence of cooperation. See:

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-27/world/35453826_1_qaeda-isi-officials-osama-bin-laden

And: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/...ok-claims-pakistan-played-role-bin-laden-raid

Mostly, though, I find it hard to believe that Pakistan, including the ISI, would find a relationship with bin Laden to be more valuable than a relationship with the US. I also think such cooperation between allies is routine, notwithstanding the public positions of governments, and that if cooperation were not given, Pakistan would be subjected to a lot more trouble than if it gave it. I think the official denials from the US and Pakistan are most likely political cover for Pakistan's government.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Our actions were most likely done with Pakistan's knowledge and cooperation.

We know that's not true though. Hence why we sent two stealth helicopters in for a grab-and-go mission.

 

[Oblivion]

Quinnipiac:

Hillary Clinton (D) 45
Chris Christie (R) 37

Rubio loses 50-34, and Paul Ryan loses 50-38.

 

[Four_Chamber]

Quinnipiac:



Christie's the strongest Republican contender, btw.

I'll be on the ground campaigning for Hillary in 2016 for sure. Please, please run. I'd love to reach my late 30s with Hillary finishing her 2nd term.

In funny GOP news, I love how Rand Paul is being lit up:

“To somehow say that someone who disagrees with American policy and even may demonstrate against it, is somehow a member of an organization which makes that individual an enemy combatant is simply false,” McCain said.

Graham also chided his fellow Republicans on the floor for joining Paul in his filibuster.

“To my Republican colleagues, I don’t remember any of you coming down here suggesting that President Bush was going to kill anybody with a drone, do you?” Graham said. “They had a drone program back then, all of a sudden this drone program has gotten every Republican so spun up. What are we up to here?”

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...blast-rand-paul-filibuster-88564.html?hp=t2_3