Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Free email alerts!

NewsBusters logo
May 26, 2013
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Take Action
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • Obama Targets Fox News
  • IRS Targets Tea Party
  • Censoring the News
Home » Blogs » Matthew Sheffield's blog
  • Scientist Corrects Gullible Reporter: ‘Climate Change’ Not Causing More Tornadoes
  • Taranto: ‘Obama Presidency Has Given Liberal Media Bias a New and Dangerous Form’
  • Fox's Ed Henry: Colleagues Cheered Me On When I Grilled Bush Administration - They Don't Now
  • Bozell Column: The 'Assassinate Wall Street' Movie
  • Paul Krugman’s Flagrant ‘Austerity’ Double Standard
  • WashPost's Milbank Mocks Nikki Haley, 'Reached Out to' 'White Supremacists'
  • Networks Give Three Times More Quotes to Supporters of Gay Scout Admittance Than Opponents
  • State Dept. Official Who Altered Benghazi Talking Points Promoted; Only Fox Covered

Congressman Calls for Investigation Into White House Aid to Bin Laden Raid Film

By Matthew Sheffield | August 10, 2011 | 16:05

A  A
Matthew Sheffield's picture

Is the Obama Administration inappropriately disclosing classified data to movie producers in the hopes of getting a film about the killing of terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden released before the 2012 election? That is the question that Congressman Peter King (R-NY) is asking after word got out that the White House is giving inside information about the military raid that killed bin Laden earlier this year to the creators of the Oscar-winning film "Hurt Locker."

"This alleged collaboration belies a desire of transparency in favor of a cinematographic view of history," King wrote in a letter addressed to officials at the CIA and the Department of Defense which asked for full details on the government's involvement with the film. The Defense Department acknowledged the collaboration in an interview with the Wall Street Journal:

Col. David Lapan, the Pentagon spokesman, said that the Defense Department was providing assistance to director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal, the team leading the bin Laden project for Sony Pictures. But Col. Lapan said that no classified information would be provided to the filmmakers.

“It is the violation of the law to provide classified information” to people not cleared to receive it, Col. Lapan said.

Getting an accurate view of history is not the motivation of the White House, according to liberal New York Times reporter Maureen Dowd who broke the news earlier this week, saying that it is part of an Obama campaign "proxy" strategy to make the president look tough:

The White House is also counting on the Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal big-screen version of the killing of Bin Laden to counter Obama’s growing reputation as ineffectual. The Sony film by the Oscar-winning pair who made “The Hurt Locker” will no doubt reflect the president’s cool, gutsy decision against shaky odds. Just as Obamaland was hoping, the movie is scheduled to open on Oct. 12, 2012 — perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost to a campaign that has grown tougher.

The moviemakers are getting top-level access to the most classified mission in history from an administration that has tried to throw more people in jail for leaking classified information than the Bush administration.

It was clear that the White House had outsourced the job of manning up the president’s image to Hollywood when Boal got welcomed to the upper echelons of the White House and the Pentagon and showed up recently — to the surprise of some military officers — at a C.I.A. ceremony celebrating the hero Seals.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Now that the film has been confirmed officially by the Defense Department, it's worth recalling NBer Tom Blumer's previous post which made the point that the same White House that was reluctant to offend Muslims back when Osama was killed seems to have no problem now with a "cinematic end-zone dance in front of the entire world."

Full text of the King letter is below:

The Honorable Gordon S. Heddell
Inspector General
Department of Defense
400 Army Navy Drive
Arlington, VA 22202-4704

The Honorable David Buckley
Inspector General
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, DC 20505

Dear Inspectors General Heddell and Buckley:

I write to express concern regarding ongoing leaks of classified information regarding sensitive military operations. As reported in a New York Times column on August 6, 2011, Administration officials may have provided filmmakers with details of the raid that successfully killed Usama bin Laden (UBL). According to that report, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. and movie director Kathryn Bigelow received “top-level access to the most classified mission in history” to produce a movie about the raid, due for release in October 2012. Reportedly, a Hollywood filmmaker also attended a CIA ceremony in honor of the team that carried out the raid.

The Administration’s first duty in declassifying material is to provide full reporting to Congress and the American people, in an effort to build public trust through transparency of government. In contrast, this alleged collaboration belies a desire of transparency in favor of a cinematographic view of history.

Special Operations Command’s Admiral Eric Olson stated that the May 1st raid “was successful because nobody talked about it before, and if we want to preserve this capability nobody better talk about it after,” and that his operators’ “15 minutes of fame lasted about 14 minutes too long. They want to get back in the shadows.” Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen stated that “It is time to stop talking,” as “We have gotten to a point where we are close to jeopardizing the precision capability that we have, and we can’t afford to do that. This fight isn’t over.” Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated that “Too many people in too many places are talking too much about this operation, and when so much detail is available it makes that both more difficult and riskier” for such missions in the future.

Leaks of classified information regarding the bin Laden raid have already resulted, according to a June 15, 2011 article in the Washington Post, in the arrests of Pakistanis who were believed by local authorities to have assisted the CIA with the May 1st raid. Further participation by JSOC and the Agency in making a film about the raid is bound to increase such leaks, and undermine these organizations’ hard-won reputations as “quiet professionals” − reputations important for their continued operational success. And, the success of these organizations is vital to our continued homeland security.

Therefore, I request an investigation and classified briefing regarding this matter from the Defense Department’s and CIA’s Inspectors General, including but not limited to the following:

  • What consultations, if any, occurred between members of the Executive Office of the President, and Department of Defense and/or CIA officials, regarding the advisability of providing Hollywood executives with access to covert military operators and clandestine CIA officers to discuss the UBL raid?
  • Will a copy of this film be submitted to the military and CIA for pre-publication review, to determine if special operations tactics, techniques and procedures, or Agency intelligence sources and methods, would be revealed by its release?
  • How was the attendance of filmmakers at a meeting with special operators and Agency officers at CIA Headquarters balanced against those officers’ duties to maintain their covers? How will cover concerns be addressed going forward?
  • What steps did the Administration take to ensure that no special operations tactics, techniques, and procedures were compromised during those meetings?
  • To the extent possible to determine, how many human intelligence sources and how many Agency intelligence methods have been compromised due to leaks about the May 1st raid? What effects have these compromises had on the CIA’s collection capabilities? Will Agency participation in a film about the bin Laden raid add to or exacerbate the effects of these compromises?
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Matthew McCabe, Senior Counsel for the Committee on Homeland Security, at (202) 226-8417. Thank you for your time and consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

PETER T. KING
Chairman

About the Author

Matthew Sheffield is the creator of NewsBusters and president of Dialog New Media, an internet marketing and design firm. Click here to follow Matthew Sheffield on Twitter.
  • War on Terrorism
  • Military
  • Kathryn Bigelow
  • Mark Boal
  • Osama bin Laden
  • Media Business
  • Movies
  • Matthew Sheffield's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Comments

"The Hunt for Bin Laden" Vs "The Surge"

Submitted by Gary Hall on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 4:36pm.

Seems I don't recall Hollywood being so interested in expending any effort in bringing us anything with a positive ending during the George W Bush administration - not even one about how "The Surge" saved the effort, in Iraq.

Did I hear someplace that Kathryn Bigelow was already working on a movie based on Robin Moore's (now deceased, I believe) book, "The Hunt for Bin Laden?" The book was out in late 2002 - and although I have not read it, I'd have to assume that you'd come across more than disappointed that we didn't get Bin Laden at the time.

Since Bigelow was working on this movie before the recent successful ops to get Bin Laden, this will certainly take on a different look than I'd bet she and her team were headed before.

What I am sure of, however, is that if she was working on a movie to glorify how we were unsuccessful in this specific effort under Bush, the national media would have loved that finished product as well.

On the other hand, if we had got Bin Laden back, in say 2003 or so, and some one else (it'd have to be someone else, right?) was making such a movie and the Bush WH - administration - was helping as the Obama admin is here, the Democrats and the national media would be be out in force slamming em for making a political movie for the purpose of shaping an upcoming election.

All too easy to figure. Perhaps they might consider a new title for the movie, "Bush couldn't - we did."

(;~> gary

  • Login to post comments

I don't recall any

Submitted by Rover on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 4:51pm.

I don't recall any blockbuster film where they glorified the search that turned up Saddam Hussein. They were not willing to protray any military successes during the Bush administration.

  • Login to post comments

Rover - yep, no rolling over for Bush/Reagan, etc

Submitted by Gary Hall on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 7:05pm.

Indeed. All those great moving films about how Reagan inherited such a crisis from the Carter years, and turned it into a super period of rebuilding economic prosperity - and how his leadership led to the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Even if we'd got lucky, and Iraq would have magically turned into a utopia society in 2003, or so, I don't imagine that Hollywood would have been inclined to make a movie about it.

They prefer this, when it comes to R's:  Clip from Bush Assassination Film

(;~> gary

  • Login to post comments

Channeling Richard Nixon....

Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 5:00pm.

If the president authorizes it, it's not illegal!!

These people pi$$ me off to no end.

All they care about is what's good for Chicago Jesus.  The country comes in a light-year's distant second.

Maureen Dowd hit the nail on the head:

The White House is counting on the Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal big-screen version of the killing of Bin Laden to counter Obama’s growing reputation as ineffectual. The Sony film by the Oscar-winning pair who made “The Hurt Locker” will no doubt reflect the president’s cool, gutsy decision against shaky odds. Just as Obamaland was hoping, the movie is scheduled to open on Oct. 12, 2012 — perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost

  • Login to post comments

It should only take 2 or 3 years to get the answers.

Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 4:44pm.

Of course, the movie will make a fabulous attraction in the Bin Laden Exhibit at the Obama Presidential Library. (Gak, I can't believe there actually will be an Obama Library)

  • Login to post comments

Maybe we can get it built in

Submitted by Rover on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 4:53pm.

Maybe we can get it built in Indonesia. Or maybe Europe, where they still worship the man. Or in one of the 57 states he campaigned in that nobody else knows about.

  • Login to post comments

What's going to be in it?

Submitted by HockeyKid on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 8:29pm.

Two poorly written poems, one highly pedestrian book, an iPod full of campaign speeches, and a set of movies on Zone 1 DVDs? The Weakling in Chief hasn't written anything else. Not even a budget.

"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me

  • Login to post comments

Matthew

Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 4:46pm.

I think it was Jennifer Griffin who reported on this today on Megyn's show. Apparently this Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal team did some really screwed up stuff with the script and more during the filming of the Hurt Locker that really put off the Pentagon. For them to allow unfettered access now means this had to b on orders from above. If you can find the FNC video, it would be a great follow up to this post.

This also gives me another excuse to link to my movie poster for the film. I'm sure it'll be an homage to the great and powerful Oz, I mean Obama.

  • Login to post comments

OMO!

Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 5:04pm.

I am BEYOND SICK of Obama using this country's military, and it's members, as some kind of campaign prop.

This story, if true, rises to an impeachable offense, furthermore, BiteMe's big mouth blabbing about Seal Team Six after the UBL "raid" (I have my doubts whether he was really there at all) also should see him removed from office. Golly gee, I could live with President Boehner until January 2013.

I have not the words to express how truly agitated I am over this whole thing....up to and including the loss of the Chinook and the precious cargo it was carrying. I'm having a hard time believing one RPG brought down that bird, and then we miraculously found THE guy who shot it and capped him with an F-16 and a smart bomb. I want to see THAT whole thing investigated as well. Releasing the composition of those on board, their units, as well as their names is just not done! Something is rotten in Denmark. Very, very rotten.

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

Good evening Blonde

Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 5:11pm.

My sentiments exactly.

From the Carter Family song "Chewing Gum".
I wouldn't marry a lawyer
tell you the reason why
every time he opens his mouth
he tells a great big lie.

 

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

  • Login to post comments

J, It just might even be worse than you think

Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 8:41pm.

Click here.

Given what we are learning about Operation Fast and Furious, this is not as implausible as some might think.

-Dave

Vote for the American in November

  • Login to post comments

I'll tell ya,

Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 12:29am.

I'll tell ya, Dave.........this whole thing has mystified me from Day 1, especially since my older son was a SEAL, and he still has contacts in the unit. I haven't heard a good explanation of anything, and the 'facts' seem to be revolving whenever something does come out. And I'm STILL trying to figure out why CNN could hit the airwaves, in short order, with this story and TELL THE WORLD that is was the SEALS from team 6 that were killed!!! Talk about giving aid and comfort to our enemies and the Mooooooooooooooooslem world!!!

And this movie situation is sick, sick, sick........but NOTHING that this REGIME does, or the whacked-out, anti-American libs who follow them do..........can suprise me anymore, because I can't think of ONE DAMN DAY, since Boy Barry was inagurated, that my little peabrain hasn't been BLOWN by what these guys do, want to do, and continue to do!!!!

I'm at a point now where, if I run into a lib that I KNOW was an Obama supporter, I just lay it out to them.........and see where they go with it!!! Believe it or not, some of them have actually 'seen the light', and asked me how I knew what I knew, when I knew it!!!
Then I have to try and be polite, and NOT tell them what total idiots they were for believing the hoax and chains...............

  • Login to post comments

killa, I haven't talked to my retired SEAL cousin as yet...

Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 8:19pm.

...as his father, a former naval aviator who flew Skyraiders in Korea, and who I was named after, is about to lose his battle with cancer as I write this.

What I have been hearing, through other sources, is that many SEAL parents - particularly those who were SEALs themselves, are getting very worried that the SEALs are being set up - perhaps in a way that Obama may be planning to ultimately disband them.

Obama is a Marxist, after all, as are many in his inner circle, and when scared they are at their most dangerous, and thus capable of just about anything.

And remember, he has already tried to prosecute some of them.

I believe Obama truly loathes, and perhaps more importantly, fears the SEALs.

Seriously, none of this 'Obama killed Osama' crap makes any sense. And this alleged helo shoot-down makes it even stranger.

I mean, what the Hell were 22 SEALs doing on the same helo, anyway?

Have any witnesses come forward who saw the helo go down?

And if it was shot down, and the person who allegedly did it has now been reportedly killed, just exactly how did they know who it was? Did they have a photo of the guy? What?

And there are many other unanswered questions surrounding this, too, and they are being asked by people in a position to know a Hell of a lot more about this stuff than I do.

To this point, none of this is passing my smell test.

-Dave

Vote for the American in November

  • Login to post comments

Nothing new here in terms of collaboration

Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 4:46pm.

The studio that produced the film PT 109 -- the story of LTJG Jack Kennedy, USN and PT boat crew in the Blackett Strait, 1943 -- allowed JFK to select the actor to portray him. Kennedy picked Cliff Robertson, who even then was a bit too old for the part, butdid a respectable job.  Some Hollywood embellishment of the combat action in the film didn't hurt, either.

The PT 109 legacy was very important to the Camelot image.

  • Login to post comments

PT 109. Well, at least

Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 5:23pm.

PT 109. Well, at least Kennedy served this great country. He did not try to drag it down to be on par with a third world country.

 

Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!

  • Login to post comments

Great point, Bass

Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 5:44pm.

I remember seeing that as a tween, so I thought it was produced in the late 60's, early 70's. But you're right, I looked it up, and it was produced in 1963 with full White House approval.

The "Bin Laden" raid is a horse of an entirely different color, however.

BK's "movie poster" says about all that I choose to say....I am beyond mad about this whole disgraceful Obama-loving media spin.

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

You can bet that the WH will have creative control . . .

Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 9:44pm.

. . . over this one.

Who will play Obama? Morgan Freeman? Cuba Gooding Jr.? Eddie Murphy? Alec Baldwin?

  • Login to post comments

Shawn Penn, : ]

Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 9:58pm.

I hear Seans hate that? Harry B, Glover, or that dude on the commie network, Lemon? Tim Bobbins, Opra, Whooppie, Michell Obama, Georg Soros, Al Frankin, but my vote is Dave Chappelle

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
  • Login to post comments

Good evening Boudin

Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 11:37pm.

Was it intentional that you left out Curious George?

 

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

  • Login to post comments

Careful, coco..........I got

Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 12:33am.

Careful, coco..........I got my rear end torn apart and re-upholstered for saying something like that a while ago........to the point that some do-gooder wanted to ban me. But...........I didn't apologize, and I'm still here. But beware..........

  • Login to post comments

Do gooder reporting for duty...

Submitted by Jer on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 12:48am.

It went beyond just a reference to Curious George. I didn't try to get you banned. I thought we both apologized to each other. I said I was willing to put it behind us and not criticize your commentary in the future. And I haven't.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Jeez, Jer................was

Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 12:53am.

Jeez, Jer................was it you?? I forgot...........and it wasn't that important anyway. I was just telling coco that it could be construed as provaoative, you know?? I haven't had any issues with you lately, and I wasn't even sure who was involved back then anyway...........i don't dwell on that type of stuff too much.

So anyway........I wasn't trying to insult you or agitate you on this one..........definitly not, OK??

Aloha from an outer island of Hawaii............on my birthday!!!

Killa

  • Login to post comments

Actually,I was a little

Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 12:54am.

Actually,I was a little miffed that coco used that riff........before I came home........becuase it was right on the tip of my typing fingers!!! Hahahahaha!!!

  • Login to post comments

Well, happy birthday, killa...

Submitted by Jer on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 1:15am.

and Aloha from sweltering Hotlanta in the main 48.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Mahalo, Jer............no

Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 1:22am.

Mahalo, Jer............no harm, no foul, I hope...............too bad it's still sweltering over there, but it IS summer, right??? Maybe the heat was getting to ALGORE and that caused him to go off the deep end on his latest self-induced CO 2 rant, huh???

Yep...............I'm still in my 30's!!! Or what it my 40's??? Or.......................

  • Login to post comments

Happy Birthday, you!

Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 1:26am.

Cheers!

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

Thanks Blonde...........what

Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 1:32am.

Thanks Blonde...........what the hell are you doing up so late??? My #2 son has a new assignment, after his year in the Persian Gulf.......he's going to have a brand new 165' Coast Guard cutter out of Miami, starting in September...........I think he's renting a place in South Beach. You know, the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree !!!! But I haven't seen him in over a year, so if you're in the area, tell him to come back sometime in the fall or winter so that we can go surfing together!!!

Oh........I'm on my FIRST black cherry/vodka drink...........I still have my work clothes on........yes, it's true, I actually have some gainful employment over here in Barackistan!!!

  • Login to post comments

Happy birthday, killa---

Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 1:40am.

Can't believe you have been posting here for a little over a year and a half.

Where has the time gone?

Many happy returns, as well.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

These are the hours I keep, K.

Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 1:44am.

He'll have lots of fun chasing the druggies around in that big cutter. Maybe turn back some refugees. Tell him to check out the Keys, Fort Jefferson, etc. Great stuff here. Glades are fun, too.

Send him the DVD's of Burn Notice (we just got the first four seasons). He's going to love it here. I don't know how warm the water is in Hawaii, but it is nice and toasty here. Almost all year.

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

Thanks, gang.........I showed

Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 2:01am.

Thanks, gang.........I showed up here just after I finally figured out how to use a computer........and I don't need to tell anyone that I'm NOT young........although I like to fool myself sometimes!!! But I've had a lot of fun here at NB since I've finally figured out how to do this............and I've always been a pretty conservative guy, although my lifestyle may not appear to be that way. And I have met a lot of people here who are in the same ballpark as I am..........and these are the types of people that I have a lot of faith and confidence in.......especially in these 'dark days'..............with Boy Barry and the REGIME and the rest of the usurpers trying to scam our country from us!!!

Of course, I know that I have irritated a few people along the way because of my animated personality and my 'unfiltered' (MSM type of word) comments.............but I'm NOT going to try and be somebody else, so that is just the way it's going to have to be.
To paraphrase Gordon Lightfoot, in his song 'Rainy Day People'..........'take it or leave it, you'd better believe it'...............

I"m sure that my son will figure out what is going on...........he's allready spent two years in Tampa Bay before this.

Thanks MD.............you're one of my BOYS!!!!

  • Login to post comments

Happy Birthday, killa

Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 9:25am.

And many more.

  • Login to post comments

Ditto, Killa

Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 8:22pm.

.

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

Nah, one of the Wayans Bro's.

Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 12:34am.

.

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

I'm not sure if Kennedy could

Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 12:34am.

I'm not sure if Kennedy could cut it in the modern Democrat party.........

  • Login to post comments

At the very least this movie

Submitted by Reaver on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 5:21pm.

At the very least this movie should be listed as a campaign contribution from Sony Pictures.

“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
  • Login to post comments

strange

Submitted by grammajane on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 5:27pm.

This whole movie production is extremely strange. Hope Peter King stays on top of it and will do as much as possible to find out the classified info these movie producers got. This whole situation needs attention from the top, down.

  • Login to post comments

Matt, your first

Submitted by WarEagle66 on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 5:43pm.

Matt, your first sentence...that was a rhetorical question, right?

  • Login to post comments

Why is that picture of the "WAR ROOM" still being used?

Submitted by djwolf12 on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 6:28pm.

This "WAR ROOM" photo was discredited as a fraud. THEY WERE NOT watching the raid on the big screen.

"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets". - Robert DeNiro, Taxi Driver (1976).
  • Login to post comments

Who gave their permission for this?

Submitted by scout on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 6:48pm.

As a veteran, I have to wonder?

Apparently the White House gave it's permission, and I suppose the men who took part in the Bin Laden raid gave their permission.

But I wonder, did anyone in the White House or Hollywood bother to ask the people who are left behind by the 30 SEAL team members who recently lost their lives in Afghanistan?

Did anyone ask the current SEAL team members, who's lives are going to be placed at risk, by the White House and the Hollywood movie moguls who obviously seem to have no regard for keeping the SEAL teams operations and tactics secret?

Revealing anything of SEAL operations places future operations at risk, but then I noticed that Obama nor the movie makers actually go on these operations for real.

  • Login to post comments

SEAL approval is not necessary

Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 7:24pm.

For one thing, the Navy asked that the media not reveal the names of the SEAL Team Six members on the raid to deter retaliation against them or their families. Therefore, the SEAL characters in the film will not be identified by their actual names.

The precise methods/tactics used to locate and take down bin Laden will likely be fudged a bit.

As for DoD cooperation on the film, both the Department and White House have good reasons to have the story told. Expect full cooperation.

The SEAL story will get millions through the theater doors to witness the cool, stoic decisiveness of our Commander in Chief.

  • Login to post comments

"Asked that the media not

Submitted by JPTSO3 on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 8:30pm.

"Asked that the media not reveal" Is this a joke? You appear to be mixing missions, because if you are writing about last week's mission, how does one retaliate against "them". They all died. It's up to the families if they want to reveal identities, but the media isn't "asked" to hold names back - names will not be revealed unless the President decides it would help his reelection. Equally if the "media" actually had the identities (of the Bin Laden raiders) do you really think they would play ball? That information will remain classified for generations. And that information is never revealed to anyone without need to know clearance. And, that does not include the wanks in the White House photo-op, save for our Commander & Chief.

The methods/tactics won't be "fudged a bit", what they show will be invented by the advisors.

I expect Obama to pin himself with a Budweiser at the end of the film...

  • Login to post comments

Some answers

Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 10:10pm.

"Asked that the media not reveal" Is this a joke? You appear to be mixing missions, because if you are writing about last week's mission, how does one retaliate against "them".  They all died.

Who said anything about last week's mission?  I was talking about the bin Laden raid.  According to DoD, none of the SEALS lost on the Chinook were members of the bin Laden raid.

It's up to the families if they want to reveal identities, but the media isn't "asked" to hold names back - names will not be revealed unless the President decides it would help his reelection.

Any family member is free to release the name of their SEAL at their own risk.   The SEALS won't talk.  And Obama won't reveal their names because (a) it gains him nothing, and (b) he'd be humiliated if any of those SEALS or family were harmed by terrorists.

The media was asked not to reveal the names of the OBL raiders or their methods should the media somehow come across them.  This presumably lays down a warning in advance should someone leak the info to them (DoD is still stinging from Wikileaks).

Equally if the "media" actually had the identities (of the Bin Laden raiders) do you really think they would play ball?

For the Obama Administration, yes.  For a GOP Administration, maybe.

I have personal knowledge of a CIA station chief kidnapped and killed in Lebanon in the '80s whose job was not revealed by the MSM until after his murder was confirmed.  I was surprised that the ID was not revealed for so long, although the terrorists certainly knew whom they had in their custody.

But in the age of Wikileaks, Daily Kos, et al,  it's certainly harder to conceal.

That information will remain classified for generations. And that information is never revealed to anyone without need to know clearance. And, that does not include the wanks in the White House photo-op, save for our Commander & Chief.

I never disagreed with that.   Barring a leak in the government, I don't see the names being deliberately revealed by the Obama Administration because there's nothing to be gained and only much to lose.

The methods/tactics won't be "fudged a bit", what they show will be invented by the advisors.

Same difference.

  • Login to post comments

CIA station chief? Would you

Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 9:58am.

CIA station chief? Would you be speaking of LTC William Buckley?

I knew him. He was a really dedicated guy.

 

Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!

  • Login to post comments

He's the guy

Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 7:16pm.

I had occasional contact with him while I was temporarily attached to the intelligence staff of the 24th Marine Amphibious Unit in Beirut, 1983. When he was kidnapped, the MSM reported him as a "political officer at the US Embassy" -- a common State Department description of "non-State Dept" personnel that the MSM understands.

After his murder was confirmed, the MSM revealed his true status.

  • Login to post comments

In your dreams, galvanic.

Submitted by HockeyKid on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 8:57pm.

Even in the least educated corners of America, they know "hero" doesn't start with z.

Obviously, your vocabulary still needs expanding.  Keep trolling--someday you might learn something.

"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me

  • Login to post comments

I think you missed a bit of

Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 9:05pm.

sarcasm there,

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
  • Login to post comments

Good Grief, JTP & HK

Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 9:02pm.

Galvanic has been posting here forever, and is one of our best members.

He had his sarcasm metre dialed up to 47 there!

Seriously.....what's up w/you thinking he was trolling?

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

Galvanic is definitly on the

Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 12:36am.

Galvanic is definitly on the A-list around here............and he's the real deal. I'm suprised that you guys didn't pick up on his whole approach there in his post.

  • Login to post comments

Galvanic is good---

Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 1:02am.

for info; with insight; and at demonstrating a knowledge of intelligence as it relates to the workings of clandestine ops, and intelligence as it relates to what he carries around for personal use.

As killa said, A-list.

Mos def.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Blonde, killa37, and MatthewDean --

Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 9:20am.

Thanks for those very kind words. The reason that I frequent NB almost to the exclusion of other sites is because I enjoy our exchanges. You all enhance my knowledge of the issues.

  • Login to post comments

In what parlance did I acuse

Submitted by JPTSO3 on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 12:17pm.

In what parlance did I acuse him of trolling? Yeah, I get that I am not part of the clique. I commented only on what I read and what I perceived, not who he apparently is or what gravitas he has. I have something invested in this story - which is clear to those who have bothered to look...

I'll stay out of the sandbox.

  • Login to post comments

Ahhhh....don't get snitty,

Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 12:49pm.

Ahhhh....don't get snitty, JP.........it ain't no thang. Keep at it.............this is an information and opinion exchange network.

  • Login to post comments

No harm, no foul

Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 3:34pm.

No offense taken, JPTSO3. As you can see by my background, I, too, have a vested interest in the handling of our service men and women. I've personally witnessed politicians using military members and events as props for their own celebrity, and it angers me.

WH collaboration is going to happen, and while we know that they will wrap Obama in an American flag and fictionalize his role, others have done it and it's inevitable.

I estimate that the filmmaker will make sure that the SEALs -- the real heroes -- will be well-dramatized, because the public is skeptical of Hollywood's anti-war sentiments, and also because they want to dispel critics from claiming that it was all about Obama.

I may be wrong, but as long as security isn't violated, I have to accept that it is going to be what it is going to be, even it turns out to be a nightmare.

Please don't leave this forum, and don't feel like we're a clique. It's very egalitarian around here, and that's why I participate.

  • Login to post comments

Thanks

Submitted by JPTSO3 on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 8:26pm.

Thank you sir. We are, after all, on the same side. Go Navy.

  • Login to post comments

And our best wishes to your SEAL & his comrades

Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 9:35am.

The wonderful men and women who unselfishly serve us today are the best we have ever fielded. I think I can speak for veterans everywhere when I say, They do us proud.

We tend to be very protective of our comrades in arms. Though I have never met your son, I've served with him since he before he was born.

If these filmmakers in any way misrepresent or endanger him, you can be sure that the White House will hear from us.

  • Login to post comments

JPT

Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:11am.

YOU didn't accuse him of trolling, HK did.

Sorry, I didn't intend to insult you....or HK for that matter.

My apologies.

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

One more poster on the Obamaganda movie

Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 8:32pm.

It occurred to me, revisiting the famous photo of the group gathered in the White House during the raid that killed bin Laden, that one person was missing. What we'll see the October before election day, is the true story of how Janet Got bin Laden.

  • Login to post comments

Nice

Submitted by HockeyKid on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 8:51pm.

but didn't you mean "Janet Does bin Laden"?

"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me

  • Login to post comments

No no no,

Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 12:39am.

No no no, Hockey..............didn't you hear Boy Brave telling us that he was busy 'doin' bin Laden'??? And given some of his purported escapades in the Chicago gay clubs, I'm sure that he knows what he's talking about. And Osama was reportedly hanging around in his Mooooooooooooooooooooslem underwear watching a lot of porn, so the whole thing isn't too unbelievable!!!

  • Login to post comments

I'm thinking the Dems

Submitted by HockeyKid on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 8:45pm.

have no frickin' clue how much their little movie is going to tick off and motivate the friends, families and neighbors of our real fighting heroes--and make sure that Obysmal's defeat is a resounding 50-state landslide.

I for one will make sure the 3 weeks between October 12 and election day are a hellish embarrassment for anyone who still dares support the Great Pretender at that point.

After all, as I recall, "Hurt Locker" won an Oscar, but lost big at the box office--it placed 116th.  Not of all time--just of 2009.  What a winner.

"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me

  • Login to post comments

Spin

Submitted by IrateNate on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 9:22pm.

I'm all for the resounding, 50-state, landslide defeat you mention. Regardless, Obama will still claim victory in the other 7...

  • Login to post comments

LOL

Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:39pm.

You spiked it, Nate!

  • Login to post comments

Obama's 7 extra states are....

Submitted by Jack Bauer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:55pm.

The state of CONFUSION

LaLa Land

Narnia

Mordor

NeverNever Land

North Mecca

South Mecca


All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
  • Login to post comments

This should be a riot

Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 8:54pm.

Cant wait to see this scene 

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
  • Login to post comments

Obama is the smallest and

Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 12:43am.

Obama is the smallest and wimpiest and least authorative or qualified figure in the whole room..........but that's not out of character for him.

  • Login to post comments

NO doubt, killa.

Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 12:54am.

Does anyone buy the idea that he wouldn't command the tallest chair, or high chair, for himself, if that pic were legit?

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

Another movie poster

Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 12:41am.

Since Sony is the production company, I needed to create one that indicated that. So, without further ado, here's 5.1.11, The Movie starring Barack Obama as the hitman. I thought you Libs would love the "Mission Accomplished".

  • Login to post comments

You better copyright that,

Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 12:44am.

You better copyright that, Keyser...........along with your other SEAL Team Barama photo...........these guys might want to use it, and you don't want to miss out on the hundreds of dollars that will be owed to you after this thing flops.

  • Login to post comments

LOL

Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 12:45am.

killa

  • Login to post comments

Anyone see the picture

Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 10:07am.

of Comrade Zero at Dover AFB?  The place where families of the fallen had requested no pictures be taken?  This POS of a so-called president is beyond contempt.  This was done to show his gravitas, his commanding presence.  Anyone doubt that this pic will somehow end up, either on a poster for this movie, or in the movie? 

B5 and One Marine's View and This Ain't Hell have posts up, I linked to Blackfive. 

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

ODSrs have been busily expressing their anticipatory outrage for

Submitted by Jer on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 7:22pm.

the past couple of days over the predicted failure of Obama to appear at Dover to pay his respects to the fallen heroes of Seal Team 6. To their dismay he attends--recorded by a tasteful and poignant photo--and the President is slammed as a contemptible piece of sh!t engaging in a disgusting campaign stunt.

UpNorth, were you similarly sputtering with rage when Reagan greeted the families of the Marines who lost their lives in Beirut in 1983. Was a photo of Ron and Nancy at that event likewise beyond contempt?

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Jer, you did read that a majority of

Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 7:26pm.

the families did not want photos taken, correct? 

And, I would have been quite happy that he didn't appear.  W never made a point of it, because he didn't think that one, or a group of service members deaths were more or less important than another's death.  If you can't be there for every one, just stay away.  And, yes, I do know that a president can't be there for every arrival.   

And, no that photo was neither poignant or tasteful.  It was a photo op, the WH told the service chiefs and Panetta that they could NOT bring photogs with them.  So, why didn't he tell the WH photog to stay on AF1?  And, secondly, if it was just to pose for a "tasteful and poignant" photo, why post it on White House dot gov?  But, I expect no less from a person who can't tell the difference between a living and dead Medal of Honor recipient. 

So, it does, indeed, appear to be, in your words, "a disgusting campaign stunt".  I wasn't going there, but thank you so much for defining this for everyone. 

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

UpNorth...

Submitted by Jer on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 7:58pm.

--The reason W never went was reportedly because it was believed it would underscore negative public opinion about the war and the administration wanted to project positive images--and they may have had a legitimate point.

--Do you know for a fact the families did not want a single photo of Obama at Dover? I don't doubt that they didn't want a horde of reporters and photographers invading Dover AFB.

--A disgusting campaign stunt were not your words nor were they mine. They were and are, however, the words of commenters on right-wing blogs. The type who, had there not been at least one photo, would have insisted Obama wasn't there.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Good evening Jer

Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 8:14pm.

Present Obabble had a hand in causing these seal deaths by his grandstanding taking credit for Bin laden's death. President Bush and Laura go to the airport in Texas to welcome home the military returning home whenever they can. The press dutifully ignores them.

 

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

  • Login to post comments

Good evening, cocodrie...

Submitted by Jer on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 8:18pm.

Then who took and published all of those pictures of George and Laura welcoming returning troops?

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Hi Jer

Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 8:26pm.

The women's club that made the pillows and the local station. I hope you don't hold your breath until you see them on the media for all to see.

 

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

  • Login to post comments

19 of the families, I heard,

Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 8:16pm.

didn't want photographs taken. Good enough for me. If even one family had said no, still good enough for me.  Personally, I think it's crass and disgusting that they even have to ask the families.  And, again, why post it on White House dot gov?  Unless it's to play to whatever base he thinks he has in the military.

Also, I read that W actually met with the families in private, not photo ops.  I have no reason to disbelieve that, in fact, watching W and reading what families of the fallen have said, I believe the reason given.  Who, reportedly, said he didn't go so he wouldn't project negative images?

And, I see that you have, yet again, managed to mind-meld and find out that everyone on any right leaning blog would immediately deny that 0 was there if a photo hadn't been taken. 

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

UpNorth

Submitted by Jer on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 8:28pm.

What if every family except one had said they would welcome a photo of the President being in attendance when the remains of their loved ones were returned home?

After reading the comments at Weasel Zippers claiming bin Laden had either not been killed or had been killed at some earlier date and had his body frozen--and insisting on photographic proof in any event--I wouldn't be surprised by anything.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

See my "if only one family" sentence, Jer.

Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 8:33pm.

.

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

I did, UpNorth...thus the question.

Submitted by Jer on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 9:02pm.

So you would let the wishes of one family override the wishes of dozens of families. Understood.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Well, Jer,

Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:40am.

Oblahma set the rules, when he decided to lift the ban on photo ops at Dover AFB. So, yes, if one family doesn't want the vultures there, good enough for me. But, I understand that you don't understand.

And what do the comments at Weasel Zippers about bin Laden have to do with Dover AFB? 

And, yet again, why post the photo at White House dot gov, or don't  you want to go there? 

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

UpNorth...

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:08pm.

Show me the evidence that a family objected to a photo of the President at Dover. There were no caskets in the picture that I saw. Not even family members. Show me your source and help me "understand".

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Sure, Jer,

Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 3:55pm.

right after you explain, in a lucid manner, why it was necessary to post the photo of Oblahma on White House dot gov.  I asked twice, and got no response.  I answered your dodges and attempts to make this about W or Reagan.  Even though this wasn't about W or Reagan.   A majority of the families were asked and replied that they didn't want photos taken.  Like I said in another post, good enough for me, and it should have been good enough for any sympathetic human being.   And you were wrong about W and Dover,  you eventually admitted you were wrong.   

And then, explain why the service chiefs and the Sec Def were told they could not bring a photog with them but Oblahma could.

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

You seem to be confused, UpNorth...

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 4:29pm.

First, I don't know that it was "necessary" to post the photo of Obama on White House dot. gov. But, I don't know that it was inappropriate or objectionable to post it, either. By the way, why do you find it necessary to refer to the President as "Oblahma"? I don't purposely mangle the names of Presidents Reagan or Bush.

Now, I have asked you twice if you have any evidence that any of the families specifically objected to a photo of the President at Dover? This is not the same thing as a mob of media vultures invading the AFB and taking pictures of caskets, family members, etc. So, will you please stop dodging and answer the question? I would appreciate it.

As far as the reasons for restrictions on the service chiefs and Defense Secretary, I don't know the answer to your question. Again, if you have some objective reports which I can review, maybe they will clarify the issue. I will be happy to take a look at them.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

OK, one last time, Jer.

Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 9:15pm.

The pic was posted at WH dot gov because, IMO, Oblahma is trying to find something, anything at all, to enhance his cred with somebody.  He might still think it'll work with the military, but, by and large, it won't. 

As for "Oblahma", it's because he's blah, as far as I can see.  And, like the masochist I am, I listened to his campaign speech he gave in Holland, Mi.  And all he did was blah blah, I'm great, blah, blah. 

Evidence?  Sorry, I'm not on the stand, and you don't get to cross-examine me.  It was reported that 19 of the families wanted no, that is none, zip, nada, photos taken.  Like I said, good enough for me.  President, caskets, chiefs of staff, or corporals and sergeants, regardless of who was there,  they said no photos. 

Again, if you have some objective reports that anyone wanted Obama to have his pic taken on the flight line, or in the latrine, at Dover, I'd be happy to look at them. 

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

I'm not putting you on the stand, UpNorth...

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 9:33pm.

I'm asking you to cite authority for your claim, something I am asked to do quite often and I do so if possible. If you can't or won't or just don't feel like researching it, that's fine. But since you said it was reported that 19 of the families completely nixed photos, it doesn't seem an unreasonable request to ask you to provide a link to that report.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Just to move things along

Submitted by 26CX on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 9:41pm.

Here is the AP story saying the information about the request by the 19 families came from the Pentagon.

"But my advice to you can be summed up in two words: Thicker skin." - Jer
  • Login to post comments

26

Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 9:43pm.

You'd think he could do his own research...

  • Login to post comments

BK

Submitted by 26CX on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 9:48pm.

Are you talking about Jer doing his own research?

"But my advice to you can be summed up in two words: Thicker skin." - Jer
  • Login to post comments

Yep

Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 9:49pm.

.

  • Login to post comments

Not likely, BK

Submitted by 26CX on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 9:54pm.

Jer's a pretty fair-minded guy but I don't think he'd go that far to prove his antagonist's side of the argument.

"But my advice to you can be summed up in two words: Thicker skin." - Jer
  • Login to post comments

Thanks, CX...

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:01pm.

That does shed a lot of light on the issue.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Here Jer

Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 9:43pm.

AP.

  • Login to post comments

Thanks for the link, bk...

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:05pm.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

And, one more, Jer.

Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:16pm.

Right here, from Yahoo, no less. 

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

Thank you, UpNorth...

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:28pm.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

*

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:28pm.

delete double

  • Login to post comments

Jay Carney says the picture was taken---

Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:37pm.

carefully to avoid showing the cases containing remains.

Obama was clearly silhouetted, saluting.

But this was not political posturing?

Cut me a fookin' break.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

MD

Submitted by MrShy on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:53pm.

Every. Single. Fricking. Thing. About. (okay, no more word-period stuff, but I'm so incensed) about this POS is vomit-inducing.

HOW DID HE BECOME OUR PRESIDENT ????? SERIOUS???????????? Anyone?

A top-to-bottom lying, skunk, punk, Muslim (a serious possibility), non-American (yes, another serious possibility), socialist/commie POS nightmare... that we have to wake up to every day.

- Shy Vinyl

Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent

 
  • Login to post comments

Shy---

Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:07pm.

I absolutely can NOT improve on what you said.

The fact that liberals, Democrats, and the media sniff the charlatan Obama's farts and declare them the vaporous Nectar of the Gods is bad enough; that they actively push to make him out to be the bestest everything to everyone EVAH, is unconscionable (not that they are equipped with a conscience), but I gotta tell ya, the opportunity to call Obama names and observe Jer launch into his prissy tizzy mode and get his panties in a bunch, almost makes the whole LIb-Dim caused mess tolerable.    :o)

Almost.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Hi, Jer.

Submitted by 26CX on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 9:03pm.

Can you share the source of your information about W not going to Dover AFB because the administration wanted to project positive images?

I have read in a number of places that the reason was that President Bush thought it better to meet with the families individually and pay his respects in that manner.

Thanks. 

"But my advice to you can be summed up in two words: Thicker skin." - Jer
  • Login to post comments

26CX

Submitted by Jer on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 9:43pm.

I should have framed the issue--not in terms of reasons for GWB's non-attendance--but rather why the administration refused to lift restrictions on media coverage of returning war dead.

http://Oct. 30, 2003 -- Months after the Bush administration declared an end to major combat in Iraq, flag-draped caskets continue to arrive at military airbases while the Pentagon continues to restrict the media from showing it. In March, the Pentagon issued a directive to U.S. military bases announcing that its policy against allowing media coverage of the unloading of military caskets was to be enforced, according to an article in The Washington Post last week. The military-wide policy dates back to November 2000, when the Pentagon announced on the eve of the Gulf War that other military bases were to adopt Dover (Del.) Air Force Base's policy. Dover, the main arrival point for caskets and the airbase with the biggest military mortuary, has had restrictions against media coverage of the unloading of caskets since 1991.

Doug Clawson, managing editor of Stars and Stripes, says the Bush administration doesn't want reporters to write about or film the return of dead U.S. soldiers out of fear it will generate public opposition to the war and ongoing military presence in Iraq. "I think that they think it may be damaging for the public to see what the residue of war can be," said Clawson, whose independent daily newspaper is funded by the Department of Defense and read by military personnel and their families.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Jer

Submitted by 26CX on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 10:08pm.

I'm pretty sure your comment was a response to a specific statement that UpNorth made:

UpNorth wrote:  "And, I would have been quite happy that he didn't appear.  W never made a point of it, because he didn't think that one, or a group of service members deaths were more or less important than another's death.  If you can't be there for every one, just stay away.  And, yes, I do know that a president can't be there for every arrival."

To which you responded: "--The reason W never went was reportedly because it was believed it would underscore negative public opinion about the war and the administration wanted to project positive images--and they may have had a legitimate point."

Are you saying you didn't mean to respond to UpNorth's comment about why President Bush never went to Dover AFB?

"But my advice to you can be summed up in two words: Thicker skin." - Jer
  • Login to post comments

26CX..

Submitted by Jer on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 10:18pm.

I said I misframed the issue, CX. My statement about the report that the administration believed the publicity would underscore negative public opinion about the war was correct. But it appears to have been the rationale for not lifting media restrictions--not the reason for Bush's non-attendance.

I'm pretty sure I clearly stated that in my response to you. Are you saying you remain confused anyway? If you would like a formal apology for my having misframed the issue, I'll gladly tender one to you.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

No formal apology necessary, Jer.

Submitted by 26CX on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 10:33pm.

And I'm not confused.  Your original statement could have left readers with the cynical impression that President Bush was more concerned about appearances for his administration than he was about the bereaved families when, in fact, the President was meeting personally with the families to express his condolences.

Since that's apparently not what you intended to say, I assume you retract your original statement and the matter is closed.

"But my advice to you can be summed up in two words: Thicker skin." - Jer
  • Login to post comments

Only if they were really cynical...

Submitted by Jer on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 10:57pm.

Because that certainly wasn't my intention. But otherwise, fair enough.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

~*smooch*

Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 10:32pm.

Long time no see, darling. Don't be such a stranger!

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"
  • Login to post comments

One other thought, Jer.

Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 8:06pm.

He's been there twice, several photos.  Need I say more?

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

Yeah...

Submitted by Jer on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 8:18pm.

Did you and the conservative blogosphere object the other time, too?. And, you forgot to give me your opinion about Ron and Nancy photographed greeting the families of the Marines killed in Beirut.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

The other time?

Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 8:40pm.

Yes, I did, vociferously.

Ron and Nancy?  Emphasis added, different time, different rules in place at the time.  And, not at war at the time.  So, it wasn't the same set of circumstances, was it?

edit:we didn't know we were at war at the time.

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

Shameless

Submitted by Jerry Mack on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 9:28pm.

Say what you want! Believe what you want! The picture and information release says that the Messiah and democrats will do and say anything to stay in power. Those that defend and/or try to change the topic such as Reagan and/or Bush did it are shameless. What happened to respect?

  • Login to post comments

I don't follow your line of thought, Jerry Mack...

Submitted by Jer on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 9:51pm.

Photos of Reagan greeting family members of slain Marines in Beirut: respectful or shameful?

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Obama sucks, Jer,---

Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 10:37pm.

professionally, politically, and personally.

Big time.

I could let that situation ride, indefinitely, forever, even, without comment, but for the fact that someone has to balance out your perpetual fawning, liberal defense of a definite, perpetual pos.

Defense attorney, were you?

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Only for members of my immediate family.

Submitted by Jer on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 11:01pm.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Come on Jer

Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 9:52am.

Beirut was a terrorist attack that killed 241 Americans when we were not at war. Not acknowledging the dead would be like not acknowledging the Murrah Building victims.

The problem -in my view- with Obama going to Dover in the first place is the timing. He's been rightfully beaten up over his performance during the debt debate and his polling numbers have been dropping like a stone. The other element is the SEAL Team itself. He's trying to show some personal connection between himself and this heroic group that took down bin Laden. This is coattail riding. This is shameful.

Furthermore, this whole operation stinks to high Heaven. There's something operationally wrong going on here and Obama might actually be somewhat culpable given his authorized strategy of greater reliance of SpecOps over overt force. This reeks of politics. This is beginning to mirror the prosecution of the last war a Progressive inherited. And it's costing many more American lives than it should.

  • Login to post comments

Well said, BK.

Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:33am.

If we have the capability to take out a group of goat-lovers with a 250 or 500 lb smart bomb, why does it become necessary to load 30 or so special ops warriors onto a low and slow Chinook to go try to do the same thing?This is the reliance on the Joe Biden, Ninja Warrior, robot drone style of warfare, or more along the lines of the "let's give medals out for NOT shooting" mindset that apparently has taken root in this White House.

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

So I assume you didn't notice any comment denouncing

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:40am.

the piece of shit beforehand based on the absolute certitude he wouldn't show the fallen Seals the proper respect by being there when the bodies were returned. I'm sure you would have scolded the commenter and set him straight if you had. What is shameful is reflexively attaching cynical motives to whatever the President does. If he doesn't go to Dover he's a callous bastard who doesn't give a damn about the deaths of the brave warriors. If he goes, it's shameful coattail riding in an effort to wash the blood off his hands and to boost his sagging poll numbers.

ODS is alive and well at NewsBusters.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

He should have gone to Dover, Jer

Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:45am.

And allowed absolutely NO cameras, of himself, or anything else, merely a statement after the fact that he went. Notice the only thing that wasn't blacked out (oops, is that racist?) for the press was Obama himself, which is just typical.

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

So now we have a third view.

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:57am.

He should have gone. He shouldn't have gone. He should have gone but not had a photo taken. Anyone for "he should have gone but apologized for causing their deaths and for his mishandling of the debt ceiling crisis"?

Jer

  • Login to post comments

~We have a winner!

Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:44pm.

.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"
  • Login to post comments

*

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:41am.

delete

  • Login to post comments

By the way, differentiating

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:53am.

By the way, differentiating the circumstances because several hundred Marines at extreme risk based in war-torn Beruit were technically not engaged in war is an extraordinarily weak distinction to draw in connection with the current tragedy, and to liken it more to the Murrah victims is absurd. The former are battle ready troops in a foreign war zone. The latter are innocent civilians in Oklahoma.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Geeze Jer

Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 4:24pm.

Get a little sand in your ______ today? Awfully fired up using profanity and everything.

So, is Obama going to Dover to meet the 5 that were killed yesterday? Or his he going on a bus tour paid for by you and I and then to Martha's Vineyard?

No, in my opinion he should not have gone, pictures or no pictures. He could have gotten in contact with the families of the fallen in private. Two trips to Dover in 31 months signals either there was something particularly special about these returning warriors, or he was looking to divert attention/change the narrative/political opportunism from what has been a disastrous several months for him and his policies. Plane and simple- there can be no other logical reasoning behind the visit.

Were these guys or this mission extra special? We know the mission wasn't and we're told these were not the guys that got Osama- that, by the way, would have been a reason to visit.

As for the comparison between the three incidents - the 30 deaths among SEALs, Army Reservists and Air Force SpecOps / Marine Barracks Beirut / and Murrah Building. The comparison was in the number of deaths an expectation of safety. The 35 guys taking off in a phrog to track down an escaping Mullah and a few bodyguards in the midst of a firefight knew what they were getting in to. The 241 1/8 Marines were a peace-keeping force, not actively engaged in combat operations and were not prepared for a truck bomb to burst into their building. Same for the 168 civilians in the Murrah building, they didn't get up that morning and expect to have to face the possibility of a massive truck bomb exploding the building in which they work.

So, being that you're all worked up over this, maybe you can provide the logical reason I missed for Obama choosing this past Tuesday to visit fallen soldiers and why he went 650 days between similar honors. I've been wrong before...

  • Login to post comments

Don't tell me you're startled by my mirroring the

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 7:14pm.

disparaging and disrespectful and descriptive jargon typically utilized with regard to this President by a great many NB commenters. I tried to tone it down a bit.

I agree in principle that the life of any one member of our armed forces is inherently no more valuable or worthwhile or noble than the life of any other soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine. But there were special circumstances associated with this loss--the number killed and the particular unit affected--which made it especially tragic. As such, unless the families objected, I don't begrudge the special attention it received from the CIC.

And I would add that those of you who are determined to smear the blood of these brave young warriors on the hands of the current President are playing a sorry game and holding very few high cards.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

No Jer, I wasn't startled

Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 7:34pm.

I've actually heard the word before- I had to look it up, but I had definitely heard it.

Whether you begrudge the president the ability to fly to Dover and pay his respects to the fallen or not, is immaterial; unless of course, you've lost a son or daughter under Obama's leadership and he didn't show that same respect to your kid. Then again, this guy's not much for tradition.

As for the loss to the unit- yes, of course, it was tragic. Probably devastating in the short term. And therein lies the problems with the whole situation; complete operational failure. The question is: Why? And when there is complete operational failure, the blame usually lies much further up the chain than the local commander. Is it Barry's fault directly? Well, who knows? I doubt it. But if we're overusing SpecOps troops because the politics of this war demand it, and that played a roll, than it could very well -indirectly- be attributable to this poser CiC.

And don't try to reframe this argument with the blood-smearing garbage- Obama has shown very little overall success in Afghanistan since putting his policy in place. Iraq is deteriorating under his leadership and Libya- well, do we need to talk about Libya? Relying on a decade's worth of hard work and the existence of GITMO, Obama was, under his watch, able to end the life of ObL. But other than that, can you name one military success he's engineered or even overseen? He's LBJ incarnate.

  • Login to post comments

Jer is floundering, as are all libs,---

Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 7:51pm.

currently, given Obama's worthlessness in ALL areas of responsibility pertaining to the Oval Office.

Jer sees all criticism of Obama as disparaging, etc. etc., but then, as an Obama apologist, apparently only hosannas and ass-kissing interviews are acceptable in his eyes.

Jer is merely attempting to be a counter- puncher.

He is both flailing, and failing.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

It must be incredibly frustrating

Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 8:30pm.

being an Obama supporter in 2011.

I wonder if Jer can name on real success story other than ObL. Something that Obama put into place that has turned out to be both significant and beneficial for the country as a whole. I can't think of anything...

  • Login to post comments

He saved us from McCain!

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 9:16pm.

Case closed.

Jer

But thanks for the nod re ObL. Most of your fellow conservatives refuse even that.

  • Login to post comments

Jer, Obama merely said "Do it"---

Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:14pm.

reference Bin Laden.

The only other course was to say what - "Don't do it"?

Even Obama isn't stupid enough to make that kind of political blunder, so even giving him credit for "doing the right thing" is laughable, and most certainly shouldn't have amounted to the overwhelming plaudits he received from the liberal media lapdogs.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Well, bk...

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 9:13pm.

Unless you can show that Obama's predecessor CICs paid equal respect to all returning military personnel as well as to the families of those who were casualties of war, then your argument is fatally flawed and revealed for what it is: ginned up partisan charges masquerading as honest policy critiques.

Most of the first four years of the Iraq war was a complete operational failure: Extraordinary political miscalculations compounded by a demonstrably misguided and badly implemented strategy which wasted time, money and lives. And that must be attributed to the man who sat in the Oval Office. Since you so eagerly assign blame, I trust it won't be compromised by selective finger-pointing.

The debacle in Iraq was accompanied by squandered opportunity and critical neglect in Afghanistan bequeathing a Gordian knot which at this point may be completely resistant to slashing by the sword or deft political handiwork. But, as much as it rankles, the political, and social and economic realities--and the insistence of Karzai [installed by the previous administration]--have forced the controversial ROEs. This is after all very much an ideological contest for hearts and minds rather than a Napoleonic tableau of set piece battles between conventional armies. And frankly the game may not be worth the candle.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Jer

Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 9:38pm.

As far as Bush and visiting fallen troops, there's this from an interview by Lawrence O'Donnell of Liz Chaney, after the last time Barry went to Dover for a photo op:

O'DONNELL: "As we mentioned yesterday, President Bush never went to Dover Air Force Base to honor dead American soldiers on their final journey. And Vice President Cheney... never did either.

[...]

"President Bush did meet with grieving military families in private, and he went to military hospitals to visit the wounded. As for Ms. Cheney's reference to cameras, the policy of banning media coverage of coffins continued unaltered throughout the Bush administration.

[...]

"As for Dick Cheney, when he was Vice President, he sometimes met with the war wounded, but like President Bush, he never went to Dover, either. Never."

Now, like it or not, agree with it or not, Bush was consistent in that regard; HE NEVER POLITICIZED OUR WAR DEAD. Obama, though, can't help himself. He's the one that lifted the media ban- all so he could ge his picture taken with real men. He has to try and show someone -anyone who might be watching- that there might possibly be some reason to re-elect the second coming of Jimmy Carter.

As for the prosecution of the Iraq war under Bush: it was most definitely flawed. It took a long time to finally remove politics from the operational strategy and over a great deal of protest from outside- and within the administration, Bush ordered the surge that ultimately won that war; at least until Obama took it over and is doing his best to lose it afterall. Put politics in war is an unfortunate reality- the depths by which they drive the outcome, however, are ultimately up to the CiC. Bush learned from his mistakes. Obama has not. Obama rescinded the lessons learned and tried to run the war himself. How many times have we heard it was Obama's decision on troop strength? On a withdrawal timetable? That he did not take the advice of the generals in the field? For all that Bush did wrong in Iraq, he at least let the Generals run the war.

So go on with your high-falutin sissy talk Jer- you don't impress me. Put on a GD uniform, strap an M16 around your punk ass chest and face down the enemy. That POS you so admire is -without a doubt- making victory more difficult. He probably does have blood on his hands- and instead of honoring his office and his position as CiC, he's denegrating it by creating photo ops with coffins. On top of that, the excuse put out by the WH was they didn't know Pete Souza was in the travelling party. I guess he was slung under Marine One.

I wouldn't salute that scumbag with my left hand.

Now, come back with Booooosh again. When all else fails...

  • Login to post comments

So, bk...

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 9:50pm.

It IS rank partisanship that motivates you, girly man. I've already worn a uniform, so stuff it kid. If you refuse to salute your CIC, you don't deserve to be in the military. You're a complete fraud.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Its a figure of speech,

Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 9:56pm.

dumbass. You might know that if you actually served. And I'm the fraud?

I don't hide from anybody, least of all an old POS wannabe. You don't know jack.

  • Login to post comments

Keep disgracing the uniform you wore.

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:40pm.

It's pathetic.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

WTF

Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:43pm.

are you talking about? What did I say in that comment that would disgrace my uniform?

  • Login to post comments

Thank you for your service, Jer.

Submitted by 26CX on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:12pm.

Which branch?

"But my advice to you can be summed up in two words: Thicker skin." - Jer
  • Login to post comments

Army Reserves, CX...

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:26pm.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Jer, then I'm guessing

Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 8:30am.

that you're not really looking forward to this year's Army-Navy game? ;)

"But my advice to you can be summed up in two words: Thicker skin." - Jer
  • Login to post comments

What's the figure of speech?

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:14pm.

That you wouldn't salute the scumbag CIC with your left hand?

Not when I served. Under Nixon. Whom I didn't particularly care for. But I would never have even considered using the language which you regularly spew about this President.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

That's because you are a liberal democrat, Jer---

Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:26pm.

and cannot find it in you to face up to the reality that this phony piece of shit Obama truly represents.

Best you can do is knock someone, anyone, who calls him names he has earned of his own accord; whether through misrepresentation, lack of action, pure political posturing, or outright lying.  

Your resolute ideology is commendable.

Your continued defense of a turd, meh.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

He can knock Obama all he wants....

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:43pm.

He has no right to make those comments about me, and when he does I'm naturally going to push back.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Looks to me, Jer---

Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:53pm.

like you got a tad personal and are not liking catching return fire.

Just my sense of it.

"Protect yourself at all times while in the ring" , was, is, and will always be, good advice.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

It means

Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:28pm.

you don't have respect for the man. Is that so hard to figure out?

And I'm not active so he's not my CiC.

By the way I'll not forget the fraud comment. IF you served, and it was something other than the Peace Corps, then you know how f'd up that comment was. As such, I wouldn't salute you with my left hand either.

  • Login to post comments

I didn't ask what the figure of speech meant...

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:37pm.

I was asking what phrase you were referring to which you indicated was a figure of speech. Was that so hard to understand?

I won't forget your launching the gratuitous insults either. I've probably thrown more compliments your way than I have to any other member of NB. I didn't deserve the personal attack.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Jer - you made it personal

Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:45pm.

by saying this:

And I would add that those of you who are determined to smear the blood of these brave young warriors on the hands of the current President are playing a sorry game and holding very few high cards.

Jer

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2011/08/10/congresman-pet...

You questioned my honor in that statement- you changed to entire tone and tenor of this discussion.

  • Login to post comments

Then what was the purpose of this accusation?

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:04pm.

"...Furthermore, this whole operation stinks to high Heaven. There's something operationally wrong going on here and Obama might actually be somewhat culpable given his authorized strategy of greater reliance of SpecOps over overt force. This reeks of politics. This is beginning to mirror the prosecution of the last war a Progressive inherited. And it's costing many more American lives than it should...."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2011/08/10/congresman-pet...

Jer

  • Login to post comments

So, argue "it"

Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:12pm.

The topic

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
  • Login to post comments

I was, Boudin...

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:30pm.

and got this in return:

"So go on with your high-falutin sissy talk Jer- you don't impress me. Put on a GD uniform, strap an M16 around your punk ass chest and face down the enemy."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2011/08/10/congresman-pet...

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Again

Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:48pm.

you inferred I was politicizing the death of these brave men.

Before that, I warned you about rephrasing the argument- not that the warning necessarly meant anything but I did call you out on it. Then you try to wax poetic with this crap. But even to that I showed you exactly what you thought I couldn't.

  • Login to post comments

Given the excerpt of your earlier comment which I posted, and

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:57pm.

this one from another thread, what inferences do you think it would be fair to draw?

Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 6:51pm.

One, GWB didn't start this war, the Taliban did. That error on your part says a great deal about how little you know about the war we're fighting, and how politicized you've made it in your own mind.

Two, if these deaths are, as I suspect, a result of ROE, they are driven entirely by politics. ROE has been modified under this president; whether the same operation would have been conducted under the previous one is unknown; what we do know is that the strategy employed by this president relies much more heavily on SpecOps than firepower. And the use of SEALs for this mission seems highly questionable.

Another thing just came to mind- this president made a special, unannounced trip to Dover today to [apologize?] to the fallen as they arrived home from the AfPak Theater. Seems odd. He's only done this twice. This was either a stunt to distract from his current problems or was a result of some personal issues surrounding this mission. SEALs are an elite unit and deserve to be honored for their service, but no more than any other fallen soldier, sailor, airman or Marine - and Obama pays them very little attention.

*

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/chuck-norris/2011/08/09/tragic-time-america...

Jer

  • Login to post comments

I'm not sure what you're asking me here

Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 12:06am.

I've been entirely consistent on my position regarding this operation and Obama showing up in Dover. Ask Blonde, I was emailing with her details that didn't come out until later. I knew what happened, instinctively. Not the details, obviously, but I asked the exact questions asked by other Spec Ops forces regarding this mission, before they were printed.

I don't know what else to say- you're jumping all over this thread and I don't know what more you want me to explain. My quasi-apology is below.

  • Login to post comments

Well, I'll make mine a full apology.

Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 1:52am.

I'm sorry I lost my temper and said things which I truly regret. It was very inappropriate of me to question the integrity and honor of one who served his country with the pride and dedication which you continually exhibit at this website.

Please accept my deepest apology.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

That's a reference

Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:36pm.

to this.

What, do you think I just make stuff up?

It makes sense Jer- Obama's base is decidedly anti-war. But the man gets in office and actually gets the intell on what we're really facing out there and has escalated, not drawn down, the Afghan theater. To his credit, initially. But no doubt his handlers ave advised him that the closer he gets to November 2012, the quieter he's got to be about all this "war" nonsense- if he has any hope of getting those punk-ass Harvard sissys to vote for him. So he adds troops but little in the way of equipment, and then overuses the Spec Ops guys. This raid, when 22 SEALs, 3 Army Reservists and 5 Rescue Airmen were tragically KIA, was clearly the result of either poor operational planning by the commanders on the ground, or the result of overused troops and equipment stemming from this quiet war Obama is running.

See, I have this information (the linked piece) and a fairly extensive knowledge of military tactics. Even the simple use of SMEAC would tell you that something much graver than an RPG was behind the deaths of these 30 brave men. In fact, that picture of me was during a period when the Marine Corps was working up a new SOC (Special Operations Capable) plan for all combat troops; we were one of the first SOC units deployed.

So, it's entirely possible that the E part of the 5-paragraph order was limited, resulting in a SEAL Team pulling backup for a Ranger unit. And an over-reaction or an unwillingness to send in close air support when the Rangers notified that the target was escaping could be the result of the Obama policy of excessive protection for civilian casualties or reports of use of American air power. Maybe. I don't know, obviously, but it makes logical sense.

Then he goes to Dover. And by the time this discussion came up tonight, I already knew what you apparently did not -that 19 SEAL Team families specifically requested no media, no pictures. Obama violated that. He knew and yet he still violated that. That is inexcusable. And then, the posting of the picture was beyond despicable. So why then did they do it? They did it for the same reason they're relying too heavily on SpecOps -politics. From the most overtly political partisan president since LBJ, why, oh why would you suspect anything less? He disrespected the wishes of those dead warriors' families for a photo op. There could be no better example of a POS than that.

While I do give him credit for ObL, I cannot stand by quietly while he disrespects fallen warriors. Call me a partisan all you want, but I'll never stop being a Marine at heart. It ain't about you, Jer, it's about the man you so vehemently, and unwittingly defend.

  • Login to post comments

Then you should be aware that near identical

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:44pm.

complaints were made during the previous administration--only more intensely--when our forces were stretched even more thinly.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

I am aware of that

Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:59pm.

in fact, I acknowledged that above. But the discussion was initially about why Obama went to Dover not Bush's execution of the Iraq War. It's exactly what so many Obama defenders do- whine that Bush did it first. Well, that might be a fair argument IF your guy didn't proclaim to the world that he was the one they were waiting for. That he was going to stop the rise of the seas. That Bush was a warmonger, a cowboy. And that he was going to close GITMO, end Iraq, and end the War on Terror. In the end, all he did was rename the War on Terror.

Jer, you're a clever man- you speak eloquently when you want to, and for the most part I like you, and like debating you. But you have a propensity to try and subtly change the frame of the debate and think you can do it without us dumb conservatives being able to pick up on it. That's fine, I don't care. But the subtle attempts to insult on a personal level won't go unpunished when you try that crap on me. I've called you out for being condescending before -and it seemed to bother you- but maybe you don't realize you're doing it. You questioned my honor regarding dead warriors- I smacked you back for it. You want to escalate - I'm not afraid of heights my friend. So maybe you'll keep that in mind and just be prepared to get as good as you give. I'm not saying you won't ever out-intellect me- I'm not all that smart. But I rarely spout off about something without at least having something to back it up.

  • Login to post comments

bk...

Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 12:46am.

You are the one who indicated Obama may be culpable for the loss of life. To me, that is suggesting he may have blood on his hands. How is my later making a reference to that claim "reframing the argument"? You framed that argument yourself, my friend. And when you react by taking cheap, disgusting personal shots at me, be prepared for return fire. I don't launch gratuitous attacks. This isn't the first time you have done so. Telling me out of the blue to get fucked wasn't cool or an example of your vaunted tolerance and politeness. If you're going to dish it out, it's going to come right back at you.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

So what, Jer---

Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 12:04am.

does that statement magically lift Obama to some higher, gifted plane?

Liberal complaints against the Bush Administration are more commendable than conservative complaints against Obama why?

Because they were more "intense"?

Probably so.

If you are a liberal.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Wow, Jer, compliments to bk---

Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:47pm.

smackdowns to libs and Dems with regularity - you are a Renaissance Man.

Shoot some more nasty my way - I am used to our interplay.

bk's, or most any conservative's ire and disgust with the charlatan Obama may elicit claims of surprise from you, but with me you know implicitly how I feel and you can narrow the scope of your shot pattern in order to avoid getting overstressed.   :o)

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Matthew...

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:07pm.

The disgust with Obama doesn't surprise me. The personal attack on me did surprise me.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

It will do absolutely no good, I suppose, Jer---

Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:27pm.

to point out that when you, for whatever purpose, continually defend someone as roundly disliked as Obama -  disliked for myriad reasons - that you put yourself inside the ten ring with the charlatan.

You will, on occasion, end up as collateral damage.

To blame others, when you voluntarily place yourself in the line of fire, whether because of your ideology or your desire to appear as a voice of balance, is ridiculous.

bk is THE most tolerant poster at NB's (maybe with the exception of K.C. Mulville); the man goes OUT OF HIS WAY to be polite, cut the opposition slack, and always gives credit to opposing views - so long as they are within the ballpark - and while I am sure bk will admit immediately to presenting his views as just that, his views;  if you stung him, you might want to consider his responses in that light.

Takes two to tango, so I hear.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

So this is a sample of tolerance and politeness, Matthew?

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:34pm.

"So go on with your high-falutin sissy talk Jer- you don't impress me. Put on a GD uniform, strap an M16 around your punk ass chest and face down the enemy."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2011/08/10/congresman-pet...

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Jer

Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:49pm.

I have dust ups with some current and former military on NB as well However it is never called for to tell somebody they are a disgrace to the uniform or a fraud. These folks were willing to risk their lives for our country.

Taking a shot at their military service is over the line.

  • Login to post comments

Look Shawn...

Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 12:04am.

I've praised bk's military service--as well as his artistic talents--more times than I can count up. You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm not going to allow anyone to attack me with the "sissy" language and the "put on a uniform...punk ass" talk and just roll over and take it.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Jer

Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 12:17am.

I get In some pretty heated debates too and my comments can be over the line when i lose my temper. I am simply saying attacking somebody's military service is not just over the line, it is something that should not be used

  • Login to post comments

But his attacking my service first is perfectly OK?

Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 12:29am.

Got it.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

He did not say you were a

Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 12:51am.

......fraud or a disgrace to the uniform. Sorry Jer it's just my 2 cents. Take my advice or don't. It's up to you.

  • Login to post comments

"It will do absoluely no good, I suppose, Jer"---

Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:53pm.

Day-um.

Am I  prescient, or what.

You got your feelings hurt, and you pick one line out of thousands bk has posted here to in order to credit yourself as a victim.

Yeah, it was personal, but as I said before, liberals remind me of a guy hiking in the woods who stops to pet a bear cub, and then is all aghast because mama bear proceeds to get up his ass sideways.

They just never see it coming.

Do you not accept, that if there is blame to be assessed, that if bk is to be considered culpable, you are equally so?

I guess not, huh?

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

I'll concede my words were over the top, and I really don't

Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 12:10am.

believe bk is a fraud, and I still respect his service. But he initiated a cheap personal attack and I don't like that. Remember how you reacted when I merely suggested we discuss Scarborough on another occasion? You went ballistic.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Damn, Jer---

Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 12:27am.

Is your given middle name deflection, reflection, or rejection?

Not that I recall, but if I 'went ballistic" over Scarborough, it was undoubtedly because some lib was trying to convince conservatives at NB's that the Scab is one of us.

As far as bk, don't give in, whatever you do,

Maintain until hell freezes over that he attacked you, unnecessarily and vociferously, questioned your manhood, killed your dog and molested your cat, each and every action with malice aforethought because, we know, absolutely, that you never, ever, in any way would post anything that could 'fairly' bring you in line for criticism.

Jesus' Cristo.

It's like talking to a brick wall.

Let this one die, man, so you can continue on as an unabashed Obama apologizer when he screws up again.

Likely tomorrow, even if he is on vacation.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

matthew...

Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 12:30am.

You jump in constantly and drag these things out more than anyone I know. Follow your own advice.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Yep, I seem to be the only poster at NB's, Jer---

Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 12:39am.

with whom you have EVER had an extended head butting contest.

And what is the common denominator in all those contests, Jer?

That would be:

You.

Did you get picked at, and on, incessantly, as a youngster?

Good thing that doesn't happen to a righteous liberal Democrat braving the dangers of a conservative site, eh?

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

No, you are not the only one Matthew, but the number is

Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 12:51am.

relatively few.

I tell you what. I'll repost the Scarborough exchange and I'm willing to abide by a vote of NB conservatives regarding which one of us overreacted. Deal?

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Waste of time, Jer---

Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 1:03am.

as I don't recall you ever giving in gracefully.

That said, set up a forum, or whatever you want and call for a vote from any who are interested.

While you may name the penalty to the loser, I would caution you to remember that just because people show you friendship, and just because a poster was summarily banned for insulting you; that not everyone appreciates your liberal bullshit.

Amity, comity, yes those are commendable traits when practiced 24-7. 

You do not do so.

In fairness, few do.

Despite ALL your reminders of just how often you go after libs and Dems, it does not alter the fact that you bring a ton of apologetic miasma for Obama and reams of liberal BS along with it to these threads.

The results of the poll you desire may well reflect that more readily than which of us overreacted regarding Scarborough..

Your call.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Matthew...Check the thread. I not only gave in gracefully.

Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 1:13am.

I didn't even respond to your flaming.

**********************************************

I believe Boren and Politico's description is the subject

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 4:36pm.

of this thread, Matthew. Why not stick to it. I'm sure Scarborough will come up again in about a hundred other threads over the next few months.

Jer

* reply

Why don't you take your suggestions, Jer,---

Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 10:37pm.

fold 'em five ways, and stick 'em where the sun don't shine.

And I'm sure your unhappy liberal ass will be right there over the next few months, defending Scarborough, a pluperfect ass.

A match made in heaven.

I doubt seriously that thread protocol is absolute law, but even if it were, rest assured, you ain't got the weight, spiritually, intellectually, morally, or legally, to keep me from posting what I choose, where I choose.

Quit trying to act the pushy protagonist for all things proper.

You're a liberal.

You ain't got the chops for it.

MD
"Never trust a man with purple lips."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2011/06/09/politico-dubiously-...

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Oh my god, Jer---

Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 1:25am.

YOU gave in gracefully, and didn't even respond to MY flaming.

And thus it ever was, is, and ever will be.

In "Jer's World."

You funny guy.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

One thing I've learned, Matthew...

Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 1:38am.

When your only comeback is "You funny guy", I know you've conceded defeat.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Editors' Picks

  • Obama/Holder DOJ's radical departure on press freedom is chilling (Boutrous @ WSJ)
  • Oops: Obama fails to salute Marine, went back to shake hand (Weekly Standard)
  • Deputy kills PBS NewsHour staffer (Washington Examiner)
  • Oklahoma disaster was tragic, but larger ones have occurred (USA Today)
  • Mainstream Media Scream: Today’s Savannah Guthrie questions GOP ‘overreach’ (Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner)
  • Desperate Carney complains asking about scandals like asking about birth certificate (RCP)
  • Look at NYT's partisan-hack rewrite of the IRS hearing (Draw and STRIKE!)
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter Column: When Did We Vote to Become Mexico?
Chuck Norris's picture
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris Column: Why Tim Tebow Is an Ultimate Clutch Player
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: Hating America
Michelle Malkin's picture
Michelle Malkin
Malkin Column: Obama's Emptiest Benghazi Talking Point
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Coulter Column: Sorry, Sen. Rubio, But Your Immigration Plan Is Still Problematic
More >

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Stop Censoring The News!

Gosnell's Just the Tip of the Iceberg
more cartoons
  • Leno: Obama Can Close Gitmo By Making it a Government-Funded Solar Company
  • Charlie Sheen Changes Name to Carlos Estevez for Upcoming 'Machete Kills' Film
  • HUH? Slate Editor: Kaitlyn Hunt Case 'Is About Gay Rights. But It’s Not About That'
  • Weekend Open Thread
  • Leno: ‘Not Looking Good for Obama - Today His Teleprompter Took the Fifth’
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use