Charlie Rose

tabs  05/05/2011 07:05 PM Report

The United States was chasing the Pot O Gold at the end of the rainbow for nearly 10 years. Finally we reach the end of the rainbow and have the Pot O Gold in our hands UNARMED. What do we do, but dump the Gold on the ground and take the pot.

What we have lost forever is the intel that could have been gained from soaking UBL like a teabag. What intel was that, things such as who in the shadows is giving AL Qaeda money and support in the world that FUND their operations. Who in Pakistan and Afghan is on their side. This kind of information in the end could have saved not only the lives of Americans but the lives of countless people throughout the world.

Also does one remember the photos of the captured Saddam and KSM...they didn't look anything like the Supermen they were purported to be, but beaten and disheveled men. Bring them out into the light of day and you DESTROY THE ILLUSION.

What have we created with the killing of UBL is the remembrance of him as the Jihad Warrior in all his glorious photo ops with that AK. All the US has created is a marytr who went to his 72 virgins in the cause of Allah.

feedme_ty  05/05/2011 05:27 PM Report

Very interesting comments, not a mention that a drone strike, a very real possibility for any other administration, would have been used instead of a clean surgical operation with great political liability. To answer questions about the "unethical" take down of an unarmed man, He was supposably disabled, and was shot on his bed. Lets see, 40 minute gun battle and he is still in bed? If our troops would have taken him alive, he would have been further glamorized as a martyr and contributed to being a Al Queda morale booster. I'm glad he took a bullet through his eye. All if the official story from beginning were true

JohnGelles  05/05/2011 06:33 AM Report

As to Blair and counter-terrorism, as well as intelligence and all that followed decades of struggle from the Manifesto of 1848 to the recent Arab Spring, let us look on the bright side. America can still lead the revolutions that post feudal enlightenment has brought us. If we count freedom of thought as a blessing, and fiat money as a means to end scarcity, the carping criticism of the Hayekian mind can be forgotten. The road to universal opportunity is open. It travel along optical fibers, wireless towers and satelites on high. It has room for all but naysayers. Their counsel belongs beneath the waves surrounding apostles of doom.

JohnGelles  05/05/2011 06:15 AM Report

Forgive me for interrupting -- but some 4 hours ago I watched Reed Hastings, Salman Khan and Charlie Rose bring the future to life before my very eyes.

Hastings spoke of Netflix and Moore's law applied to content and organization of all we know and more accessable all the time to all the people in need of help to make this a better place -- the univenrse that is.

Khan spoke of helping to make all we know more easily spread from one guru to a million novices who might never become gurus but could become masters of all they needed to learn to be rich and satisfied members of the brave new world being born -- as we all watch training and operational films of every process and structure in the universe -- including all of those necessary to become honest and effective at every profession and skill existing -- or soon to be.

So I immediately joined Netflix. It immediately absorbed more of me than even I owned. I was able to see a film suited to my needs -- and as I watched its magic, it kept track of where I was on a path from ignorance to informed.

So I had to interrjupt this thread to tell you I had seen the fture and Charlie Rose and friends were there with solutions to every problem and problems to be addressed by every person on account of being alive.

See you soon, I hope, if i survive nother night. Killing yesterday's evil has opened up tomorrow's promise of exponential growth of know-how and why we need it to reform all that has grown around us as the sun poured energy our way.

So

BettyB  05/04/2011 10:02 PM Report

I am a Canadian. We are wondering why some Seals couldn't come into our country and just murder someone they had something on or thought they had something on? Also wondering why Americans dance so enthusiastically on graves? We hate the doubting but we can't help but wonder if it is true? You shoot an unarmed man but make sure you respect and bury him in accordance to his religion??! No photos? Something smells bad.

Why don't the Americans realize that they are, all over the world, treading on other people's property and THAT is why they are disliked. They are like England with all those colony/countries engraved in stone on Buckingham Palace! Stay in your own back yard guys!

SharkswithfrikingLazers  05/04/2011 06:37 PM Report

Charlie, here are some questions I would like answered.

Why couldn't Seal Team Six get bin Laden before we spent over a trillion dollars and shed so much blood? Surely he had couriers then.

Why did Hiliary Clinton cover her face in the photograph showing them in the situation room watching the operation?

Why the rush to burial at sea? Please compare to Saddam Hussein--the quickness of his capture, trial and execution.

Why do we lose at least one helicopter in every mission like this?

Pakistan scrambled their jets? Why would we let them get that far before communicating?

tabs  05/04/2011 03:42 PM Report

The official story now is that the wife charged the Seals and they shot her in the leg. UBL didn't have a gun but was "resisting" so the SEALS then shot him twice.

If the SEALS were deliberate enough not to kill the wife by shooting her in the leg why would they then not be as deliberate by killing an unarmed man who did not have lethal capability against them. One SEAL could have either shot him in the leg or restrained him by throttling him. UBL was as great an intel asset as one could want. That is unless the primary goal was to kill him if found.

SEALS are deliberate and are MISSION orientated. If the mission said capture and or if necessary kill that is what they would have done. It doesn't seem exactly necessary to kill an unarmed UBL. Today Al Arybia is reporting that UBL's 12 year old daughter is saying that her father was captured alive and was shot to death in front of the family. Now it seems very possible that he was captured and shot and the rest is a cover story to assuage public opinion.

The Romans used to parade the vanquished leaders of their enemies through the streets of Rome before they would strangle them before the crowd. Did UBL deserve any less of a fate? Well it seems that judge, jury and executioner Obama for political purposes decided a different fate for UBL. A quick bullet in the head after capture tied up all the loose ends of what to do with a captured UBL. Now there is no detention, interrogation nor military tribunal and NO POLITICAL controversy from the Obama base about how mistreated poor UBL is. But no longer can the Progressive claim to have clean hands and cast aspersion on GW being a war criminal. Now the Progressives have blood of their own on their hands.

12Den34  05/04/2011 02:41 PM Report

I, for one, don't believe Bin Laden is dead. The body would have been the only indisputable proof, and they dumped it immediately. To me that literally screams "cover-up". I assume there's political incentive to promote this story, but without proof of any sort, the contention is laughable. I suppose we're supposed to rely on the government's past history of veracity!

How about some objective questioning and fact finding by the press? We've had enough of this spoon-fed pablum.

REMant  05/04/2011 11:35 AM Report

The admin admitted yesterday that Bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot, and not hiding behind anyone. To its credit the Post report termed it backpedaling and was critical of Brennan for it. But I can see where no one wanted the guy around even if there was intelligence to be had, esp about any Pakistanis involved, yet still wanted to be sure they got the job done, which could account for the means chosen. In this respect we were confronted with the same problem as Pakistan. They have every reason not to want to stir up even more trouble than there is already, and complicity with al-Qaeda need not be presumed. No matter what the actuality, they would certainly have wanted to feign surprise and scramble aircraft, and we should not have wanted to have them directly involved. One wonders too why we did not try to keep this secret in order to roll up as much of the organization as possible, unless possibly we already have. But I think far too much effort and materiel have been expended over al-Qaeda, too much fuss made, just serving to heighten their visibility. A curious thing is that no one has mentioned satellite and drone surveillance, which might well have seen into those balconies. IMHO, given his analysis of Bin Laden and Middle Eastern events, it is quite a good thing Blair is no longer in govt.