I think part of the goal was also to sell continuing operations to the American public. In other words, if they DIDN'T let out that they had information (without giving specifics), would we have a "bring them home - the job's done" opinion swelling here.

I mean, aren't you the same people who say that Obama is coldly calculating things to get his desired effects - supposedly in Marxist styles?

So why suddenly be 'careless'. No, I think it was VERY calculated to let the fact out that it wasn't JUST the death of bin Laden that we got from the raid.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

We definitely need some explaining from their government on this matter. It's probably not feasible to demand much payback because we depend on their hospitality to coordinate anti-terrorist affairs in their country, and we get it despite the animosity of much of their population. Also we need their government remain as stable as possible in order to keep some control on their nuclear capabilities. It's a logistical "pickle" we're in over there.

Just one more observation on the "home videos" that everyone is talking about, but that I wasn't. I don't think much of bin Laden's "fans" over there are going to be too disheartened in seeing his living conditions, as some have indicated. I don't think too many are living as well as he did.

You continue the same old thing: Rail from the rooftops about the Administration without a single scrap of any factual data to back up your sweeping criticisms. On the bin Laden matter I challenged you to find anything divulged by anyone thus far which you can SHOW is detrimental to national security. You keep answering posts but you continue to ignore the challenge. I think the the old adage applies here -"put up , or shut up".

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

You continue the same old thing: Rail from the rooftops about the Administration without a single scrap of any factual data to back up your sweeping criticisms. On the bin Laden matter I challenged you to find anything divulged by anyone thus far which you can SHOW is detrimental to national security. You keep answering posts but you continue to ignore the challenge. I think the the old adage applies here -"put up , or shut up".

You have no understanding on what I am saying here and the evidence is your post.

Originally Posted by djplong

I think part of the goal was also to sell continuing operations to the American public. In other words, if they DIDN'T let out that they had information (without giving specifics), would we have a "bring them home - the job's done" opinion swelling here.

I mean, aren't you the same people who say that Obama is coldly calculating things to get his desired effects - supposedly in Marxist styles?

So why suddenly be 'careless'. No, I think it was VERY calculated to let the fact out that it wasn't JUST the death of bin Laden that we got from the raid.

Lots of surmising. I'm only relating what's happened, and that is that intel was released to the public. I guess you're entitled to your assumptions about the why's and wherefores.

Even from a cynical point of view, I could come up with more reasons.. For example, trying to justify their actions (keeping Guantanamo open) that angered their base over the last 18 months.

From a purely selfish standpoint, it DOES score points for them (the Administration).

I repeat. Perhaps Richie should volunteer as a national security advisor.

Originally Posted by DaleMN

I repeat. Perhaps Richie should volunteer as a national security advisor.

Let me try to put my reasoning on this in a way that may be more easily understood by you and the others who just like to yell at me.

My football team is competing with your football team. I have come into possession of your playbook. You don't know this. You have a suspicion that I might because I was in a place where one might be kept.

Is it in my best interests, if I'd like to keep and exploit my advantage, to let you know that "Yeah, I found it!!".

If my team executes the playbook properly I really don't care if you have it. But I don't see that the analogy works. Even though you won't agree, I doubt that the Obama administration would be dumb enough to do as you suggest.

Does it really matter?

Rep. Chuck Schumer just showed how he can't read. (He wants to make a 'no ride' list for Amtrak like the 'no-fly' list)

The intel coming back from Pakistan said that bin Laden was thinking about trying something on 9/11/11. One idea was to sabotage a train to make it fall off a bridge and, presumably, kill everyone on board.

Now, let's put our thinking caps on.

Does it make sense to repeat the mistakes of the past and try to smuggle a bomber on a train? It hasn't worked well. In addition, a bomb that is 'smuggle-able' would most likely take out one car and cause a derailment of the others.

I think the Bad Guy would have emulated a VERY successful sabotage of a train line out west where some rails were pried partially apart so that they were misaligned. Train goes over, derails, plunges into a small ravine.

Do that on a large bridge for a train that is scheduled to pass over in the middle of the night and you have a terror-inducing attack.

That's right. Attack the TRACK, not the train and you can do it when nobody is around. Sure, there's a lot of track out there that is geared towards signaling an alert if someone starts tampering with it, but I know more than one railroad that does NOT employ that technology.

What does a "no-ride" list for Amtrak accomplish? Nothing. It's more Security Theater to make you thing they are Doing Something so that they can justify their ever-increasing budgets.

Perhaps legislooters should have to take an IQ-test before being sworn in.

Originally Posted by DaleMN

If my team executes the playbook properly I really don't care if you have it. But I don't see that the analogy works. Even though you won't agree, I doubt that the Obama administration would be dumb enough to do as you suggest.

Then you would be wrong.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/osama-...ry?id=13544154

Originally Posted by RichieLion

You have no understanding on what I am saying here and the evidence is your post.

My original post was a counter to your relentless search for any conceivable way to blast the Administration for anything you can dream up. This time you picked the "leaking" of supposed secret information by what you called "frickin' amateurs".
I said you could not cite a single piece of data which has been discussed in the media and is by it's release a problem for anyone loyal to this country. You've made a few feeble attempts to refer to specifics, but the above answers to those references have made a better case for releasing the data than not.
The fact is that YOU do not know what you are talking about in this matter, and using it as a vehicle to bash the Administration again is ample evidence of how anxious you are to advance your beliefs, regardless of what facts get in the way.

Richie,there will be many opportunities for you to bash Obama and some of them might even be within reason. However in this case you are just showing your utter disdain for Obama and it really makes you and your viewpoints very petty. I cant believe I'm even responding to this thread,I must be bored.

I can't make myself any clearer. It just has to be that you would argue the point no matter how simply I present it. It's really not complicated. Cie la vie.