SEALs Attack Obama For Politicizing Osama Raid, Leaking Intel

A group of former special operations and intelligence officers are criticizing President Obama for "Dishonorable Disclosures."

A group of former special operations and intelligence officers are criticizing President Obama for “Dishonorable Disclosures.”

Reuters (“Special ops group attacks Obama over bin Laden bragging, leaks“):

A group of former U.S. intelligence and Special Forces operatives is set to launch a media campaign, including TV ads, that scolds President Barack Obama for taking credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden and argues that high-level leaks are endangering American lives.

Leaders of the group, the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc, say it is nonpartisan and unconnected to any political party or presidential campaign. It is registered as a so-called social welfare group, which means its primary purpose is to further the common good and its political activities should be secondary.

In the past, military exploits have been turned against presidential candidates by outside groups, most famously the Swift Boat ads in 2004 that questioned Democratic nominee John Kerry’s Vietnam War service.

The OPSEC group says it is not political and aims to save American lives. Its first public salvo is a 22-minute film that includes criticism of Obama and his administration. The film, to be released on Wednesday, was seen in advance by Reuters.

“Mr. President, you did not kill Osama bin Laden, America did. The work that the American military has done killed Osama bin Laden. You did not,” Ben Smith, identified as a Navy SEAL, says in the film.

“As a citizen, it is my civic duty to tell the president to stop leaking information to the enemy,” Smith continues. “It will get Americans killed.”

An Obama campaign official said: “No one in this group is in a position to speak with any authority on these issues and on what impact these leaks might have, and it’s clear they’ve resorted to making things up for purely political reasons.”

[…]

OPSEC spokesmen said the group has about $1 million at its disposal and hopes to raise more after the release of its mini-documentary, entitled “Dishonorable Disclosures,” which aims, in spy-movie style, to document a recent spate of leaks regarding sensitive intelligence and military operations.

Following the film’s release, OPSEC’s spokesmen said, the group expects to produce TV spots on the anti-leak theme that will air in a number of states, including Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Colorado, North Carolina and Nevada – key battleground states.

Fred Rustmann, a former undercover case officer for the CIA who is a spokesman for the group, insisted its focus on leaks was “not a partisan concern.” But he said the current administration had been leaking secrets “to help this guy get re-elected, at the expense of peoples’ lives…. We want to see that they don’t do this again.”

Chad Kolton, a former spokesman for the office of Director of National Intelligence during the George W. Bush administration who now represents OPSEC, also said the group’s message and make-up are nonpolitical.

“You’ll see throughout the film that concern about protecting the lives of intelligence and Special Forces officers takes precedence over partisanship,” he said.

Responding to criticism about the president taking credit for the bin Laden raid, an Obama campaign official pointed to an interview with CNN last month in which Admiral Bill McRaven, commander of the raid, said: “At the end of the day, make no mistake about it, it was the president of the United States that shouldered the burden for this operation, that made the hard decisions, that was instrumental in the planning process, because I pitched every plan to him.”

“I think Admiral McRaven knows more about the President’s role in the bin Laden operation than this group,” the campaign official said.

Stephen Green leads off his post on the subject with the quip, ”Osama bin Laden is dead? You didn’t kill him. Somebody else did that.” That’s his coinage but surely the message of the 22 minute video production:

Here’s a 30 second “trailer” version:

The obvious comparison is with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the shady 527 organization that published a book and put out a series of attack ads against Senator John Kerry in 2004.  Thus far, the comparison is thin. The Swifties put out some outrageous claims about Kerry, accusing him of war crimes and claiming honors he didn’t deserve, that were easily debunked and widely denounced even as some of the softer charges stuck.

The film is very slick n terms of production values, looking very much like something produced by one of the major television networks. But the pacing and message are rather weak, compounded by overwrought dialog and Shatneresque delivery.

The links between the importance of good intelligence of military operations, the sacrifices made by those who serve in the armed forces, and the Obama administration’s leaks of classified information are, at best, tenuous. Nor, frankly, are they unique; politically motivated leaks have been standard operating procedure in Washington for decades.

It’s true that some credible folks, including Obama’s then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, have gone ballistic over some of the leaks about the “Seal Team 6” mission to get bin Laden. Further, the central claim that the American military and intelligence community—not the commander-in-chief—deserve almost all of the credit for that raid is not in question.

The film charges that Team Obama gave away too much information about the mission and that, in any case, they should have waited several days before announcing that Osama was dead, in order to allow the exploitation of any intelligence gained on the raid and to allow our forces to capitalize on the confusion in al Qaeda while they scrambled to figure out what happened.

From an operational standpoint, that’s probably true. I could imagine President George H.W. Bush actually heeding that advice if, say, Brent Scowcroft or Colin Powell had given it to him. But most presidents, certainly Bill Clinton or George W. Bush, would almost certainly have done exactly what Obama did: give a speech to the nation as soon as possible announcing the good news that they’d waited to long to hear.

Presidents wear many hats. In addition to being commander-in-chief of the armed forces, they’re our head of state, national spokesman, and emoter-in-chief. Despite whatever tactical advantage that might have been gained by waiting to share the news, Obama would doubtless have come under heavy fire for not sharing the news as soon as feasible.

Judging from this first effort, OPSEC’s effort here appears to be much better intentioned and honorably executed that that of the Swift Boaters.  But I can’t imagine it having much of an impact on the race.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2012, Military Affairs, Terrorism, US Politics
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Security Studies professor at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Mark Ivey says:

    SEAL boat! Yeah, that´s the ticket..

    :-))

  2. I’m far more bothered by the presumption of a handful of people presuming to speak for the entire special operations and intelligence community.

  3. MattT says:

    The Pakistanis captured an entire helicopter, part of it intact. How long could Obama have kept the secret? He was supposed to sit mum and leave the PR initiative to the global anti-American outrage machine so they could frame the action as “an illegal raid that killed innocent women and civilians?”

  4. wr says:

    So on the same day Romney goes on CBS to whine about how that mean president is “talking about me” instead of being all full of noble goodness and only talking about the issues, one of his so-called unaffiliated groups all but charges the president with treason.

    Good timing there.

  5. Nikki says:

    Judging from this first effort, OPSEC’s effort here appears to be much better intentioned and honorably executed that that of the Swift Boaters.

    Nope, it’s still a bunch of partisans hiding behind their military backgrounds to damage a political opponent. And it is still just as disgusting.

  6. Gromitt Gunn says:

    I’ll wait patiently while this group provides documentation of their nonpartisan videos decrying the expsosure of Valerie Plame for political purposes.

  7. David M says:

    Keeping this quiet sounded like a good idea until I remembered this wasn’t the 18th century and there was a guy that live-tweeted about the attack. And isn’t it understood that the Pakistani military knew Bin Laden was living there? I just don’t see keeping this a secret as a remotely viable option.

  8. Anderson says:

    The Pakistanis captured an entire helicopter, part of it intact. How long could Obama have kept the secret?

    This. Plus David about the live-tweeting. The capture was no secret to Pakistan or to al-Qaeda. Apparently, the only people who weren’t supposed to be informed are the American public.

    As for the CINC’s credit, guess what? No order, no raid.

  9. MBunge says:

    It’s hard not to see something like this and ask “Where the BLEEP were you guys for the 8 years prior to Obama?”

    Mike

  10. legion says:

    @MBunge: Exactly. As great as the SEALs and other Spec-Ops folks are, they don’t do anything without orders. Bush and the Republicans didn’t cut them loose and send them actively against OBL. Obama did. These guys can pound sand.

  11. Loviatar says:

    Am I the only one who noticed how James just main-streeted a bunch of innuendos, half-truths and outright lies with nothing more than a passing reference to the fact that he was publicizing mostly innuendos, half-truths and lies. Good Job James, you earned your wingnut welfare today.

    As we get closer and closer to the election there is becoming less and less to differentiate this site from the Red States of the world.

  12. Rafer Janders says:

    The film charges that Team Obama gave away too much information about the mission and that, in any case, they should have waited several days before announcing that Osama was dead, in order to allow the exploitation of any intelligence gained on the raid and to allow our forces to capitalize on the confusion in al Qaeda while they scrambled to figure out what happened.

    Yeah, because the fact that there was a huge firefight in the middle of Pakistan’s enclave for its elite military officers wouldn’t have tipped anyone off. It’s not like all of al Qaeda’s sympathizers in the Pakistani military and intelligence would have said anything….

  13. David M says:

    I’m pretty sure we can safely assume the intentions for this group are exactly the same as the intentions of the Swift Boaters back in 2004, given they were both airing ads against the Democratic candidate for President.

  14. James Joyner says:

    @Loviatar: Are you really this big an idiot? Notice the source of the story? Reuters. Along with the AP, the biggest wire on the planet. The story has been picked up by such right wing rags as Huffington Post. Seriously, dude, the story is out there.

    Further, the basics of this have been out there for quite some time. As noted in the post, Obama’s own SECDEF was furious about the leaks, as was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. See, for example, Jake Tapper’s report “Secretary Gates’s STFU Policy” from June 6.

    After the raid, Pakistani military officers “got even more pissed as the Americans, who had been so disciplined in the months leading up to the raid, made the situation even worse with a series of triumphalist-sounding comments. There was a huge and understandable hunger among the media for a play-by-play of the hunt for, and demise of, the world’s most wanted man. As day broke in a stunned Washington, John Brennan was rolled out in the White House press room to describe events that he only understood in fragmentary detail – much of it, as it turned out, suffered from the inevitable wild inaccuracy of first reports…

    “At the Pentagon, top officers fumed at Brennan’s blow-by-blow description of how the SEALs operated; they believed that the former CIA officer had given away operational secrets never shared outside the tribe. (In fact, it appears no real secrets were divulged.) No one was angrier than Mullen himself, who still fumed about that news conference nearly a year later…

    “By Wednesday of that week, Gates went to see Donilon, offering up a barbed assessment of how the White House had handled the aftermath of the raid.

    “‘I have a new strategic communications approach to recommend,’ Gates said in his trademark droll tones, according to an account later provided by his colleagues.
    “What was that, Donilon asked?
    “‘Shut the f@*k up,’ the defense secretary said.”

  15. C. Clavin says:

    So a couple of retired Seals with no direct connection or direct knowledge of the specifics of the case are making some tenuous, at best, remarks. It’s a shame that (because of Citizens United???) we’ll probably never know who is funding them.
    22 minute network quality productions are not cheap. .
    By the way 22 minutes is the running time of a half-hour show with commercials. Obviously they are hoping someone picks this up…Fox maybe????
    Anyway…when someone with the equal authority of Admiral Bill McRaven starts saying it get back to me.
    Can someone send me an alert when Indiana Jones and his girlfriend Jan start ranting about this? Thx.

  16. Not Likely says:

    Pretty sure Loviator was referring to the actual leaks, eg the drone story, that have in no way been proven to have been ordered by the Obama admin. This SEAL group asserts without evidence that they have.

  17. al-Ameda says:

    Just as with the Swift Boat. Morons , none of those guys have direct knowledge of any of this. We’ve been through this sleaziness before – only 8 years ago. I hop Obama and his team torch those guys.

  18. Barry says:

    @MattT: “He was supposed to sit mum and leave the PR initiative to the global anti-American outrage machine so they could frame the action as “an illegal raid that killed innocent women and civilians?” ”

    No, he was supposed to sit mum while the right took credit.

    And I’ll bet money that not a single wh*reson in those videos has made one criticizing Bush/Cheney by name.

  19. Barry says:

    @James Joyner: “At the Pentagon, top officers fumed at Brennan’s blow-by-blow description of how the SEALs operated; they believed that the former CIA officer had given away operational secrets never shared outside the tribe. (In fact, it appears no real secrets were divulged.) No one was angrier than Mullen himself, who still fumed about that news conference nearly a year later…”

    Oh, garbage. I didn’t see anything in any paper or website which wasn’t a genuine surprise except for the stealthed helicopter – the one which the Pakistanis had in their possession.

  20. danimal says:

    Sorry, but all the Monday morning quarterbacking in the world by this group will not obscure the video of Romney telling the world that Obama was “naive” in his determination to get Bin Laden in Pakistan, if that was where he was sheltered. Romney (by his own words!) would not have gotten Bin Laden; Obama did.

  21. wr says:

    @al-Ameda: ” We’ve been through this sleaziness before – only 8 years ago”

    And before that with the Secret Service agent and his “tell-all” book about how rotten the Clintons were.

  22. John Cole says:

    Judging from this first effort, OPSEC’s effort here appears to be much better intentioned and honorably executed that that of the Swift Boaters.

    Oh, hogwash. It’s a wingnut who ran for office as a Republican, lost, and now he is just smearing Obama to help the team.

    I’ve finally figured out how you are still a Republican, James- you have unparalleled powers of self delusion and are able to convince yourself of the honorable intentions of awful people no matter how much evidence to the contrary you are provided.

  23. James Joyner says:

    @John Cole: As noted, I think the ad is overwrought and clearly motivated by partisan politics. But it’s not, as the Swift Boat ads were, a stream of lies and fabrications. I denounced the Swifties as crazies from Day 1 when they broke on Drudge; so far, I’m just rolling my eyes a little at these guys.

  24. Loviatar says:

    @James Joyner:

    Are you really this big an idiot?

    Must have hit a nerve.

    James, you are the quintessential, “see even moderate Republican’s…” stereotype, you put a bland non-threatening face on very radical and cruel policies. Your site and others like it are the link bait to get those radical and cruel policies discussed and introduced to a wider audience. Most people who call themselves moderates wouldn’t read or link to a Red State, but they will read and link to you and more important have faith in your judgement in what to discuss or not discuss.

    ===============

    Can you honestly not see the difference between your analysis of the story and a more forthright analysis by one of your commenters.

    James’ analysis of the story

    Judging from this first effort, OPSEC’s effort here appears to be much better intentioned and honorably executed that that of the Swift Boaters.

    Nikki’s analysis of the story

    Nope, it’s still a bunch of partisans hiding behind their military backgrounds to damage a political opponent. And it is still just as disgusting.

    ===============

    Your analysis was written for a Red State audience more than a supposedly moderate Republican audience, don’t get angry at me for calling you on it.

  25. EddieInCA says:

    @James Joyner:

    I denounced the Swifties as crazies from Day 1 when they broke on Drudge; so far, I’m just rolling my eyes a little at these guys.

    With all due respect, Dr. Joyner, I don’t think this makes you look as good as you think it does. It’s another smear tactic by right-wing whackjobs that don’t like the current occupant of the White House. It has nothing to do with anything else other than hitting Obama.

    Bottom line is that Bush said OBL didn’t matter. Romney said Obama was naive for going after him.

    Obama ordered the raid, against the advice of many, including Joe Biden, so he should get the credit. As Mike so eloquently said it, “These guys can go pound sand.”

  26. John Cole says:

    so far, I’m just rolling my eyes a little at these guys.

    James- you know how this works. They just dropped this thing- it will take a few days for it to get worked into the public discourse. First we need the online right wing echo chamber to pick it up. Hot Air has a piece up, which means Malkin and the rest of the frothers can’t be far behind. Then we’ll get treated to umpteen pieces by that idiot at Red State (whose name I can’t remember) who spent a couple years in the Air Force and has now decided he is a national security expert, at which point the radio blabbermouths will pick it up an run with it, and before you know it, some wingnut from the deep south will be denouncing Obama from the floor of the House (and comically will probably accidentally release more info than was ever released in the alleged leaks), at which point Darrell Issa will launch yet another politically motivated witch hunt. At this point Bob Schieffer will hold a panel discussing whether this is fair game in a campaign while David Gregory will have Newt Gingrich and John McCain on to debate whether it is true or not.

    And then we will bring it all home, and Doug Mataconis can author a piece right here bemoaning the lack of civility in the campaign, noting that while all these new swiftboat smears are awful, let’s not forget that Harry Reid asked Romney about his taxes and BOTH SIDES DO IT ZOMG WHICH IS WHY I AM ABOVE IT ALL AS A LIBERTARIAN.

  27. Nikki says:

    @John Cole: You go, boy!

  28. EddieInCA says:

    @John Cole:

    What he said….

  29. Alanmt says:

    Romney’s a much better choice. He just gives away Great Britain’s secrets.

    Seriously, though, what Nikki said. The idea that this effort, released now, is nonpartisan is ridiculous.

  30. C. Clavin says:

    @ John Cole…
    Well played, sir, well played.

  31. John D'Geek says:

    @wr:

    … all but charges the president with treason.”

    Negative — he was charged (by what I’ve read; haven’t had a chance to see the film) with bad judgement. By definition, POTUS has the final word on what is and is not classified, and so cannot give out improperly classified information. It may not be too bright, but it’s never treason.

  32. Stonetools says:

    @John Cole:

    +4 for Cole! I think this thread is done in all but name.

    JJ, do you seriously think its honorable and.nonpartisan of them to release this slickly produced hit piece less than 90 days before the election? Please say you aren’t THAT naive! Sheesh!

  33. James Joyner says:

    @John Cole:

    They just dropped this thing- it will take a few days for it to get worked into the public discourse. First we need the online right wing echo chamber to pick it up.

    As noted earlier in the thread, the posting is based on a lengthy REUTERS wire report.

    …and before you know it, some wingnut from the deep south will be denouncing Obama from the floor of the House (and comically will probably accidentally release more info than was ever released in the alleged leaks), at which point Darrell Issa will launch yet another politically motivated witch hunt.

    As already noted in the post itself and upthread, the likes of Obama’s SECDEF and Obama’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have already raised these concerns, which have been widely reported in such places as the New York Times. I happen to think, as noted in the post and various previous posts on the matter before I’d ever heard of this group, that there’s some minor merit to the concerns but, as also noted in the post, I hardly blame Obama for doing what Bush and others would have surely done.

    @Stonetools: I claim nowhere that this is non-partisan. Moreover, it’s overwrought and in some instances downright laughable. But I do believe that the people making the charges here actually believe them to be true, which I didn’t believe even at the time was true of the Swifties.

  34. Kinky Beats says:

    @John Cole:

    Well said, JC.
    It’s nice to see you here since Balloon Juice is blocked at my work.

  35. wr says:

    @John Cole: Hey, that was a great post. You should start a blog of your own!

    And maybe put some dog and cat pictures on it. People love those.

  36. wr says:

    @John D’Geek: Hence the “all but.”

  37. Nikki says:

    I hardly blame Obama for doing what Bush and others would have surely done didn’t do.

    Come on, James, you can say it.

  38. Nikki says:

    But I do believe that the people making the charges here actually believe them to be true, which I didn’t believe even at the time was true of the Swifties.

    Not naive. Partisan.

  39. Rafer Janders says:

    @James Joyner:

    But I do believe that the people making the charges here actually believe them to be true, which I didn’t believe even at the time was true of the Swifties.

    Lots of crazy, malicious people actually believe crazy, malicious things. I don’t think the sincerity of their belief, whether true or not, excuses them.

  40. jukeboxgrad says:

    all the Monday morning quarterbacking in the world by this group will not obscure the video of Romney telling the world that Obama was “naive” in his determination to get Bin Laden in Pakistan

    Yup. This is a good time to recall that a long list of Republican leaders made statements mocking Obama years ago, when he declared his intention to go after OBL inside Pakistan. See here for a collection of such statements.

    The GOP is still really pissed that Obama has embarrassed them in this manner. Hence the new attack we’re discussing.

  41. legion says:

    @Rafer Janders: Yup.

    Lots of crazy, malicious people actually believe crazy, malicious things. I don’t think the sincerity of their belief, whether true or not, excuses them.

    I am quite certain Orly Taitz sincerely believes Obama wasn’t born in the US. That doesn’t make her position any less idiotic or her actions any less clinically insane.

  42. Lit3Bolt says:

    @John Cole:

    Don’t be so hard on Dr. Joyner. He’s just linking Reuters after all, and innocently legitimizing and adding credence to a political hit piece and then just goes “Aw shucks, who can you believe in this crazy world? Amirite?” in paragraph four. He’s just an innocent messenger, and is in no way amplifying or trumpeting this political hit piece that was just dropped into his email inbox by a whimsical apolitical gnome with a red hat and white beard. He has no powers of logic or analysis or critical thinking to judge news by its political impact or its political sourcing or its political messaging or its political history or its political effectiveness.

    He’s just providing links. That’s all.

  43. jukeboxgrad says:

    He’s just linking Reuters

    By the way, this is the same concept GWB exploited when his famous 16 words referenced “The British Government.” English translation: ‘Don’t hold me responsible; I’m only repeating something I heard somewhere. If it’s true, I’ll take credit for telling you, and if it’s false I’ll blame them.’

  44. dennis says:

    @John Cole:

    Seen this movie before, eh, John?

  45. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    The sheer dishonesty in this thread by the Obama sycophants is appalling.

    OK, that might be unfair. They really could be that stupid.

    The SEALs are very specific in their charges: Obama (either directly or through his agents) released specific details that compromised OPSEC, or Operational Security. This isn’t details like “there was a big fight in Abbottabad,” but details that put US troops’ lives at risk and complicated future operations. Details like:

    — SEAL Team Six, commanded by Admiral McRaven, carried out the raid.

    — The SEALs went in with orders to kill Bin Laden, not take him prisoner.

    — Bin Laden was killed, not captured for interrogation.

    — Considerable material and intelligence was collected from the scene, including computers and flash drives.

    — Bin Laden’s presence was verified by a Pakistani doctor, who took DNA samples of residents and we matched them to Bin Laden. Said doctor is now facing execution for helping us.

    — How we identified the couriers to led us to Bin Laden, and how we tracked them to Abbottabad.

    — How we put Bin Laden’s compound under surveillance, and what intelligence we gathered.

    All of this is very useful information to our enemies, and all of it was leaked by the Obama administration. And yes, a lot of it could have been surmised by people, but there was absolutely no effing reason to confirm it all.

    And as noted, Obama didn’t get Bin Laden. He didn’t “build” that success. A lot of other people had to prepare the infrastructure and lay the groundwork for the raid. Obama’s smart and worked hard, but a lot of other people are smarter and worked harder than him. Obama was just fortunate enough to be in the right place and the right time to benefit from a lot of hard work by other people.

  46. jukeboxgrad says:

    Obama was just fortunate enough to be in the right place and the right time

    In your usual style of ignoring all inconvenient facts, you are pretending to not notice all the Republican leaders who mocked him when he told us what he planned to do.

  47. David M says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:
    If I understand correctly, you think that we could have kept his death a secret, Al-Qaeda would have assumed we left evidence at the scene and that Obama both took too much credit and gave too much credit to Seal Team 6. Good to know.

  48. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @David M: What I meant was, if we had simply not said anything at all about the raid, then Al Qaeda would not have known if Bin Laden was alive or dead — and if alive, if he had or would give up any intelligence. Their reactions would have been a huge intelligence treasure trove for us. Our intelligence agencies would have been looking to see who found out he was gone, how fast, and from who they found out — all of which would have been tremendously helpful in further pursuit of Al Qaeda and their allies.

    Instead, Obama had to have his Sunday night moment of glory, where he referred to himself incessantly. His statement had more “I’s” than Argus.

  49. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    And as noted, Obama didn’t get Bin Laden. He didn’t “build” that success. A lot of other people had to prepare the infrastructure and lay the groundwork for the raid. Obama’s smart and worked hard, but a lot of other people are smarter and worked harder than him. Obama was just fortunate enough to be in the right place and the right time to benefit from a lot of hard work by other people.

    I’m calling you and other conservatives on that bulls***.

    So when President Carter’s mission to rescue the hostages in Iran failed, the public and people like you didn’t blame the military, you blamed the President, right? Of course you did.

    Now, if the mission that Obama ordered had failed, you would have blamed the SEAL Team, right? Of course you would have.

    As I said – complete and totally dishonest bulls***.

  50. jukeboxgrad says:

    jenos:

    if we had simply not said anything at all about the raid

    If news of the raid hadn’t emerged until after some delay, there would have been a million questions about the reason for the delay, and lots of speculation that it was a sign that there was something bogus about the claim. And your crowd would have led that speculation, and would have come up with all sorts of reasons how the delay was harmful to our interests.

  51. Nikki says:

    …all of which would have been tremendously helpful in further pursuit of Al Qaeda and their allies.

    How large was al-Qaeda prior to Bin Laden’s death? How many of its leaders have been dispatched since? How do you personally know what and where intelligence gleaned from the Bin Laden raid has been used in the pursuit of Al-Qaeda and its allies?

  52. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @al-Ameda: Christ, do I have to draw you a picture? I was paraphrasing Obama’s infamous “you didn’t build that” speech. Are you that obtuse?

  53. spindle789 says:

    @John Cole: I wish I hadn’t quit smoking, because after reading this, I really want a cigarette.

  54. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: If news of the raid hadn’t emerged until after some delay, there would have been a million questions about the reason for the delay, and lots of speculation that it was a sign that there was something bogus about the claim. And your crowd would have led that speculation, and would have come up with all sorts of reasons how the delay was harmful to our interests.

    Unlike unregenerate lackwits like you and Joe Biden and Obama, some of us understand such concepts as “Operational Security” and have a slight grasp about national security.

    What’s really funny is, if Obama had simply sat on things for even a few days, he could have had even more to brag about.

    As far as your last fantasy… whatever gets you through the night, chump.

  55. An Interested Party says:

    I must say that I am totally disgusted that the President would politicize something like this…I mean, landing on an aircraft carrier while wearing a flight suit with a sign in the background declaring “Mission Accomplished” and…oh, wait…

  56. jukeboxgrad says:

    some of us understand such concepts as “Operational Security” and have a slight grasp about national security

    Yes, you and the rest of your party have only a “slight grasp” of national security, which is why Obama beats Mitt on that measure in most polls.

  57. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: Pardon me, folks, I shouldn’t have had that Mexican food for dinner. My apologies.

    Whoops, that wasn’t me passing gas, it was juke speaking. Sorry; the sound and smell are so similar. And it was really, really good Mexican.

  58. jukeboxgrad says:

    jenos, you have a long trail of falsehoods you need to clean up. I reminded you about some of them here. When you ignore those problems and instead put your energy into puerile insults you’re telling us everything we need to know about you. So thanks for the inadvertent candor.

  59. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: When you say something meaningless, don’t expect me to say something meaningful back.

    And as you never ever bring anything to the conversation to discuss, just attempt to shut people down, I don’t see the point in trying to discuss anything with you.

    Sounds like we have a good basis to just ignore each other. I’m game…

  60. jukeboxgrad says:

    Sounds like we have a good basis to just ignore each other.

    Promises, promises. I think you’ve made that threat before.

    It’s like my friend who is so good at quitting smoking because he has lots of practice doing it over and over again.

  61. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: It’s like my friend who is so good at quitting smoking because he has lots of practice doing it over and over again. Your friend, Mark Twain?

    I shall now add “plagiarist” to your list of ignoble traits.

  62. David M says:

    Trying to hide the fact we killed Bin Laden is dumb even for you Jenos. So congrats, you managed to take your nonsense to a whole new level of stupidity.

  63. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @David M: Lemme spell it out for you, Davie. I’ll even use small words.

    We take out Bin Laden. Then we say nothing, but listen very carefully. The first few people who we overhear saying “oh, crap, that’s where Bin Laden was!” knew where he was, and are now good targets for killing, catching, or watching very closely. And they lead us to more people who are such good targets.

    Total time? A day or two, a week at most.

    OK, that was a bunch of one- and two-syllable words, with a single three-syllable word in there that shouldn’t be too hard for you to figure out. Get it now?

    Or do you need Dora The Explorer to hold your hand?

  64. jukeboxgrad says:

    Mark Twain

    It’s been said many times in various forms without being credited to him (example, example). I just thought it was an old joke. Did he say it first? I didn’t know. Thanks for the tip.

    The first few people who we overhear saying “oh, crap, that’s where Bin Laden was!”

    I’m pretty sure Mitt is planning to hire you to run the CIA.

  65. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: Sorry, couldn’t take the pay cut. But thanks for the recommendation.

    You know, it just occurred to me — are you one of those interns/slaves at Media Matters? You have the right kind of attitude to succeed there. Hyper-snotty attitude, insistence on ruthlessly fact-checking only one side of the spectrum, lapses of sheer stupidity (what state is Harry Reid from, anyway), zero interest in wrongdoing by the left (Bret Kimberlin), and no ability to actually have a conversation.

    So, is David Brock as nutty as they say? Does he really have armed bodyguards with him? Did he use his Media Matters money to buy off the ex-boyfriend? And does Soros ever stop by to personally hand out the checks? Enquiring minds want to know…

  66. jukeboxgrad says:

    Sorry, couldn’t take the pay cut.

    I think you mean you would prefer not to leave your mom’s basement. It’s nice and comfy down there with your toy soldiers.

    zero interest in wrongdoing by the left (Bret Kimberlin)

    Yeah, that must be why I said “there is no doubt whatsoever that Kimberlin is a highly accomplished liar and a dangerous sociopath.”

  67. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: Let’s look at that full quote you’re so proud of, shall we?

    There is no doubt whatsoever that Kimberlin is a highly accomplished liar and a dangerous sociopath. The problem is that most of the people currently attacking him also have a history of serious credibility problems, and they are intent on using Kimberlin to broadly attack the left. That’s why it’s going to be exceptionally difficult to untangle this mess. As I explained here. This is a classic boy-who-cried-wolf situation.

    And you linked back to another comment of yours on Kimberlin:

    This gives rise to the following question: were the various liberals who got into bed with him victims, because they were conned by him, or are they accomplices, because they should have known better? I suspect that there is not a single, simple answer to this question. This is one reason the story is complicated and is going to be hard to figure out.

    Here’s the other reason: the conservatives who are making a fuss about this are going to try to use this story to broadly smear the left. This is a shame, because it discredits an important part of their message that is true: that Kimberlin is a highly accomplished and dangerous sociopath. The irony here is that Kimberlin is skilled at generating misinformation, and the people attacking him are also skilled at generating misinformation. That’s why it’s such a mess, and that’s why it will remain a mess.

    So, according to you, the biggest problem with Kimberlin is not those who’ve been supporting and defending and enabling him, but those who’ve been opposing him? And because you don’t like them, they’re just as likely to be fabricating their entire stories as the convicted terrorist and perjurer?

    But back on track… these are Navy Seals who literally live or die by such things as OpSec. They tend to take such things somewhat seriously. And if they’re this bothered, I’m inclined to listen to them.

  68. jukeboxgrad says:

    So, according to you, the biggest problem with Kimberlin is not those who’ve been supporting and defending and enabling him, but those who’ve been opposing him?

    That’s not what I said, and what I said speaks for itself, and if you have something to say on the subject you should get a blog and write about it. That’s not what this thread is about. But you can always be counted on to try to change the subject to something completely irrelevant.

    And I notice you’ve already broken your promise to ignore me. It took about as long as I expected.

  69. Andrew Greenberg says:

    The arguments and particularly the emotional outbursts of the speakers came across as desperately weak. Many of the particular complaints: Stuxnet (well documented long before administration discussions), use of drones (after drone captures made national news), kill lists (it was in a law passed by Congress for gosh sake), while they may make for good copy, really are weak.

    How about disclosing a CIA operative by name for political payback Valerie Plame’s (GWBush) or playing audio tapes of Russian Pilots during the KAL episode (Reagan), giving up the enitrety of our Kamchatka listening post during the HEIGHT of the cold war?

    Frankly, these people may be retired experts at intelligence, or elite soldiers. However, none of them are expert in foreign policy, and NONE of them make intelligence classification decisions at the highest level. The President *is* the commander in chief, and the decision when and how to disclose Bin Laden’s death is for him to make. It involves considerations well beyond intelligence, but it also involves intelligence decisions. We do not know if the timing was calculated to provoke communication while listening resulting from information found at the site. We do not know if the calculation of putting the WORLD on notice of our success outweighed the amount of information lost. And we do not know if our political obligations to disclose to Pakistan made prompt disclosure a priority.

    Neither do they. (By the way, Reagan, too, may have calculated that compromising a multi-billion dollar listening post was worth the political benefit of exposing a Russian lie.) We just don’t know, and neither do they.

    What we do know, is that this is not a patriotic piece, but a hit piece on one President. Lack of discusion of prior administrations choices (lots of them throughout history) were not raised even once. Accordingly, isn’t this entire piece a discussion of alleged security and practices by former officials not involved in these particular decisions PRECISELY what that for which they now accuse the President? and for political purposes…. hmmm…

    I conclude:

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

  70. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: Lying dumbass, I didn’t PROMISE to ignore you, I PROPOSED a mutual ignoring — which you refused to accept. Is there any universe where those two are interchangeable?

    However, you did manage to ignore my attempt to end your little diversions and go back on topic… yet another example of how amazingly selective you are in your attentions.

    But yes, what you said speaks for itself. And your appalling selective morality and attention and curiosity shines through.

  71. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Andrew Greenberg: How about disclosing a CIA operative by name for political payback Valerie Plame’s (GWBush) or playing audio tapes of Russian Pilots during the KAL episode (Reagan), giving up the enitrety of our Kamchatka listening post during the HEIGHT of the cold war?

    So, what was the political fallout of Richard Armitage outing Valerie Plame — who had been exposed to the Russians/Soviets by the traitor Aldrich Ames in 1994? Did she end up arrested and threatened with execution, like the Pakistani doctor?

  72. jukeboxgrad says:

    I didn’t PROMISE to ignore you, I PROPOSED a mutual ignoring

    This is what you said:

    Sounds like we have a good basis to just ignore each other. I’m game…

    No, you’re not “game” if you immediately demonstrate that you’re unwilling and/or unable to do the thing you’re supposedly interested in doing. And what you said is just a variation on what you’ve said lots of times before, like here:

    It’s a waste of time to try to discuss things with you

    That was another way of expressing the same thing: your intention to ignore me. But of course these statements of yours are not to be taken seriously, because none of your statements are to be taken seriously.

    my attempt to end your little diversions and go back on topic

    Given that you’ve mentioned Brett Kimberlin in numerous threads that have nothing to do with Brett Kimblerin, that’s hilarious. And you should show where I posted “diversions.” I didn’t. As usual, you’re making shit up. Which is what you do all the time. More examples are here.

  73. jukeboxgrad says:

    Richard Armitage

    A sure sign of an incorrigible bullshitter is someone who repeats the same bullshit even after they’ve been shown that it’s bullshit. We’ve already been through this (link, link).

    who had been exposed to the Russians/Soviets by the traitor Aldrich Ames

    More bullshit. See here.

  74. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: You seem to think that you have a monopoly on authoritative sources, and you keep meticulous notes — on a professional level — on what nearly everyone else sees as casual conversation and hobbies. And you take yourself so seriously, it’s almost toxic. Which is what reminds me of those assclowns at Media Matters.

    The CIA believed that Plame was at risk overseas thanks to Ames, and recalled her. Armitage did blow her cover.

    But you don’t want to address the real issue here — Obama’s leaks have gotten people killed and imprisoned. People who helped us and trusted us. The Plame leaks got her and her lying husband fame, fortune, and the acclaim of millions of liberals. Exactly how are these two equivalent?

  75. jukeboxgrad says:

    You seem to think that you have a monopoly on authoritative sources

    If you can demonstrate a problem with any of my sources, that would be great. Until you do so, you’re blowing smoke, as usual. Meanwhile, this is how many sources you’ve presented to back up the various claims you’re making: zero. Your sources are worse than non-authoritative. They’re non-existent.

    you keep meticulous notes

    No, I don’t. I just know how to use google. You should try it sometime.

    Armitage did blow her cover.

    Here’s an idea: try to pick one story and stick with it. Before you were implying that there was no cover to blow, because it had already been blown.

    And repeating your dishonest focus on Armitage doesn’t make it less dishonest.

    Exactly how are these two equivalent?

    They’re not. Outing Plame was far worse, because it was done intentionally, and for political reasons, and it involved lots of lying to the public, and it involved proven criminal acts.

    her lying husband

    Wilson didn’t lie. Let me know if you really need to be educated about that.

  76. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad:Tell you what: you discuss how damaging the Plame affair was (i’ve brought it up at least twice) compared to the Obama leaks, and I’ll give a link showing how Wilson was telling two stories after his trip to Africa. Deal?

  77. Barry says:

    @Nikki: “Nope, it’s still a bunch of partisans hiding behind their military backgrounds to damage a political opponent. And it is still just as disgusting. ”

    A bunch of Republican veterans who didn’t have the slightest problem with Bush/Cheney, and wouldn’t have any with whatever sh*t Romney would get us into.

  78. Barry says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: “Christ, do I have to draw you a picture? I was paraphrasing Obama’s infamous “you didn’t build that” speech. Are you that obtuse? ”

    We noticed that Bush and the entire GOP crew wasn’t capable of building anything other than a disaster.

  79. jukeboxgrad says:

    jenos:

    you discuss how damaging the Plame affair was (i’ve brought it up at least twice) compared to the Obama leaks

    I already told you why the Plame situation is far worse. And anyone with common sense understands the obvious damage:

    Unquestionably, leaking Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity hurt national security in a couple of ways. One is that she was an NOC — a non-official cover — and anybody who had had contact with her in her role as an energy analyst was therefore jeopardized. We don’t know exactly who those people are in other countries, but everybody in that network was in jeopardy. More important, her cover was an energy company that had to be closed down. That cover couldn’t be used for anybody else, and it costs a lot of money to set up a fake identity for somebody. It costs much more to have an NOC than to have somebody who’s under official cover, which is much more customary.

    But when you blow an NOC, you’re also just sending a message to the intelligence community that you don’t value these people. The NOCs are the ones who take all the risks and get none of the credit in the intelligence community. They are the people we should be cherishing most. And to blow Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity that calmly and then to make light of it afterward seemed tremendously damaging to national security.

    That’s so simple it shouldn’t need to be explained.

    I’ll give a link showing how Wilson was telling two stories after his trip to Africa.

    I’ve been through this before with people who are a lot smarter and more knowledgable than you, so I have a pretty good idea of what you plan to say, and I’m pretty sure I’ve already posted (somewhere) an explanation of why you’re wrong. So you should go ahead and post your pathetic accusation and in short order I will link to (or repost) what I’ve already written.

    It’s an old story, but it’s important and relevant, and a lot of people are still misinformed. So I’m glad you’re asking. As usual, you provide an inadvertent public service.

  80. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: I’m sure that Pakistani doctor who trusted us and helped us agrees.

    From his Pakistani cell. Where he could face execution.

    And I’m sure he’d be glad to tell anyone else who might be tempted to help the US that it’s totally worth the risk.

    And funny how, after the Plame case, the CIA still managed to not only survive, but prosper, and found Bin Laden.

  81. jukeboxgrad says:

    that Pakistani doctor

    He was offered a chance to leave (link).

    after the Plame case, the CIA still managed to not only survive, but prosper, and found Bin Laden.

    It took Obama to make that happen, since Bush “closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden.” Which made sense, in a way, since Bush famously said “I really just don’t spend that much time on him.”

    And I wonder what happened to this: “I’ll give a link showing how Wilson was telling two stories after his trip to Africa.”

  82. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: “Thanks for helping us out, Doc. In return, we’ll help you flee your ancestral homeland and nearly all your family and friends.”

    “No, thanks, just doing my job. But please keep it quiet, OK?”

    “Sure, Doc. We’ll keep your role secret — unless Barry needs to assert his manhood or score some poll points or something.”

    As far as the Wilson link… I’m still waiting for you to live up to your end. I said “compared to the Obama leaks,” and you — much like Obama — are willing to throw people like Dr. Afridi and Admiral McRaven to the wolves (or under the bus) for political gain. You talked about theoretical harm the Plame leak might have caused, but that’s where you stopped.

    Much like my earlier offer of a mutual-ignore pact, you seemed to fabricate some kind of meeting of the minds between us that never existed.

    Besides, the fact that Wilson’s “confidential” report to the CIA conflicted with his New York Times op-ed is public record. And when someone tells two conflicting stories, it’s pretty clear that they’re lying in one of them. Hell, sometimes both.

  83. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: And let’s make it official: I made an offer, you refused it, so it’s off the table. You had a chance to take it, but instead you deliberately chose not to and then lied that you had. So no soup for you.

  84. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: “But back on track… these are Navy Seals who literally live or die by such things as OpSec. ”

    Uh-huh. Now they live and die by millions of dollars shovelled at them by donors they won’t reveal. But that has nothing to do with what they’re saying now.

  85. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @wr: Please, gnat: go and say that to their faces, when you’re not hiding behind initials that probably stand for “Worthless Rectum.”

    These are men who served the nation honorably, who were not only were willing to lay down their lives for our country, but fought like hell for the privilege to do so. They are part of a brotherhood so strong, that the only ones who ever leave it are those who choose to turn their backs and dishonor their code. Dead, living, active, retired, they are all brothers. And these who have left the field are doing what their brothers still on active duty can’t do — speak out about what they see as a grave threat to their brethren.

    And then you come along and try to piss on their legs.

    Their message is simple: these kinds of leaks make our job far, far more difficult. Not quite as importantly, they could also get us killed. Stop it.

    But Barry needs his bump in the polls, and they weren’t probably gonna vote for him anyway, so screw them.

  86. jukeboxgrad says:

    jenos:

    We’ll keep your role secret

    A small detail that you’re missing: “the Pakistanis found Dr. Afridi on their own.”

    As far as the Wilson link… I’m still waiting for you to live up to your end.

    I answered what you asked. And aside from that, the burden is on you to prove your claim. This is something simple and important that you still don’t get even though I’ve explained it several times. You accused Wilson of “lying.” Therefore the burden is on you to prove that claim. If you weren’t a coward you would show your so-called ‘evidence.’ You won’t show it because you know I’ll immediately rip it to shreds.

    And saying ‘I’m going to hide my proof because you’re not jumping through some hoops I invented’ is pathetic and lame. Typical Jenos, in other words.

    the fact that Wilson’s “confidential” report to the CIA conflicted with his New York Times op-ed is public record

    No, it’s not. This is another lie that you will refuse to substantiate.

    when someone tells two conflicting stories

    Except that he didn’t.

    “When someone” repeatedly makes claims they refuse to substantiate, they are reminding everyone that they are a worthless partisan hack.

  87. Nikki says:

    James says:

    Judging from this first effort, OPSEC’s effort here appears to be much better intentioned and honorably executed that that of the Swift Boaters.

    From the article at the NYT:

    In an effort to portray Mr. Obama as a braggart taking credit for the accomplishments of special forces and intelligence operatives, the video omits some of his remarks in announcing Bin Laden’s killing. In that late-night televised address, Mr. Obama credited 10 years of “tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals,” but that is edited out.

    Yes, these guys are so much more honorable and well-intentioned.

  88. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: I specifically challenged you to argue how the Plame case was worse than the Obama leaks. You won’t even talk about them.

    Go pester someone else. You bore me.

  89. Barry says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: “These are men who served the nation honorably, who were not only were willing to lay down their lives for our country, but fought like hell for the privilege to do so. They are part of a brotherhood so strong, that the only ones who ever leave it are those who choose to turn their backs and dishonor their code. Dead, living, active, retired, they are all brothers. And these who have left the field are doing what their brothers still on active duty can’t do — speak out about what they see as a grave threat to their brethren. ”

    I’ve watched over the last decade as right-winger after right-winger spits on any soldier (or mother of a dead soldier) who doesn’t toe the political line.

    So GFY.

  90. jukeboxgrad says:

    jenos:

    I specifically challenged you to argue how the Plame case was worse than the Obama leaks.

    And I specifically did precisely that, here and here. In your usual and utterly predictable style, you are ignoring all facts and arguments that you find inconvenient.

    Meanwhile, you have shown no evidence whatsoever to support your claims about Wilson. That’s because you know that your bogus wingnut talking points have already been demolished, years ago, by lots of people including me. So I wouldn’t even have to write a response. I could just paste in a response I wrote years ago, and it would prove that your claims about Wilson are pure baloney, just like your claims about almost everything.

    You’re a coward.

    Go pester someone else. You bore me.

    Another utterly simple thing that you fail to understand. Is there someone holding a gun to your head forcing you to read my comments? If there is, we can call 911 for you. You’re free to ignore my comments, and I wouldn’t lose a wink of sleep if you did. So if you find that I “pester” or “bore” you, then why do you read my comments? It’s quite typical of your style to pretend that someone else is responsible for something that you’re actually responsible for yourself.

  91. @Jenos Idanian #13:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    These are men who served the nation honorably, who were not only were willing to lay down their lives for our country, but fought like hell for the privilege to do so. They are part of a brotherhood so strong, that the only ones who ever leave it are those who choose to turn their backs and dishonor their code. Dead, living, active, retired, they are all brothers.

    And anyone who knows me and my brother knows we hardly agree about anything. For one of us to step up and present our own personal opinions as being the views of our entire family would be the height of arrogance. So it is for a handful of SO soldiers to assume that because they don’t like Obama, every other SO soldier must not like him either and that they can presume to be speaking for the entire group.

    Their message is simple: these kinds of leaks make our job far, far more difficult. Not quite as importantly, they could also get us killed. Stop it.

    “Our” job? Get “us” killed?

  92. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: “These are men who served the nation honorably, who were not only were willing to lay down their lives for our country, but fought like hell for the privilege to do so. They are part of a brotherhood so strong, that the only ones who ever leave it are those who choose to turn their backs and dishonor their code.”

    And now they’re whores, sucking up the secret cash to smear a president.

    And if they were coming out in favor of Obama, you’d be screaming that they weren’t really SEALS, or that they didn’t count for some BS reason, just like Rush called any member of the Armed Forces who didn’t kiss his bloated, disgusting ass “phony soldiers.”

    You are a slimy little toad, and it’s clear to everyone that your fake worship of these men exists exactly as far as they’re useful in your trolling. It’s lovely to see you getting so worked up about something, but since every word you type is fraudulent, pardon me if I don’t salute your patriotism.

  93. wr says:

    @Stormy Dragon: ““Our” job? Get “us” killed? ”

    Hey, Jenos is practically a SEAL himself. Don’t you realize how much time it took him to write that sycophantic ode to military men who agree with him politically? He could have used that time arguing whether Tasha Yar was hotter than Janice Rand, but he nobly sacrificed himself to this cause.

  94. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @wr: That’s known as “paraphrasing” their message, you worthless sack. Tell me, did you say the same sorts of things about Kerry’s “Band of Brothers” in 2004?

    These are the men who risked their lives for us. Standing up for them against your despicable bile is a privilege. Not that the wannabe-venomous frothings you put forth would do anything but amuse them, but the principle is there.

    And the thought of you actually calling these men those terms to their faces… I’ll sleep well on that image.

  95. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @wr: Actually, I should thank you. You’re a perfect example of what’s wrong with today’s left. You’re unleashing your venom on these men who repeatedly volunteered to offer their lives in service to our nation, who are speaking strictly on matters that bear most directly on them and their brothers, simply because they aren’t showing sufficient personal loyalty to Dear Leader. I don’t need to talk about how disgusting you are; you make that exceptionally self-evident.

  96. David M says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:
    The military is not above criticism, especially when they are retired and enter politics. Treating their political beliefs with the respect their service deserves is not required.

    I don’t respect their actions here and I believe their motivation is to elect a Republican rather than to serve their country.

  97. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @David M: Criticism is one thing. The stool sample that calls itself “wr” is calling them “whores” for exercising the Constitutional rights they were willing to die for to defend.

    Someone needs to tell that piece of crap that service members are NOT slaves or personal property of the Commander in Chief, but actual citizens with all the rights that he has — and far more justification to exercise them than he has. Especially on matters where they are, by necessity, the experts.

    I wouldn’t put much weight in a Navy SEAL lecturing on social issues or discussing economics. But when it comes to Operational Security and covert operations, they know what the hell they’re talking about. There’s a good chance that if they didn’t, they wouldn’t be alive.

  98. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: You poisonous fraud. How dare you wrap your sorry ass around these people. “Us.” “We.” You’re a cowardly little troll pretending to greatness by sucking up to soldiers. You want to say “us” about anyone who’s seen combat? Great, go do it. Until then, piss off.

  99. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: I salute them for their service and despise them for taking millions from anonymous contributors to lie, slander and smear in pursuit of their political goals and probably personal gain. (At least one has already run for congress.)

    I like firemen too, and salute them for their service. But I’m not such a puling worm that if one of them pissed all over your sister, I wouldn’t condemn him for it.

    What they did in battle — admirable. What they’re doing now — beneath contempt.

    You — just pathetic.

    PS — You’re not a SEAL. You’re not a soldier. And no matter how many hours you spend playing computer games and reading Star Wars novels doesn’t make you one. And I’ll tell you what — I’ll happily step up to one of these men and tell them what I think about what they’re doing, as long as you step up and make claim that you are their equal because you pretend to slobber over them on your computer.

  100. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: “The stool sample that calls itself “wr” is calling them “whores” for exercising the Constitutional rights they were willing to die for to defend. ”

    Sorry, taking money to use the name you got fightig for the US to spread lies for anonymous interests who want to take over the country makes you a whore, no matter what you did before you started whoring. If they were giving BJs in truck stop bathrooms, they’d still be whores even if they’d fought across the entire Middle East.

    You spread lies for free, and there isn’t a human being on the planet who would give you a nickel to speak for them, so I guess you don’t understand.

  101. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: Oh, one more thing. Prove me wrong. Show me the messages where you praised the Iraq war vets who came out and said that war was a terrible mistake. Show me the posts where you praised John Kerry for his service.

    Until then, crawl off into mommy’s basement, you miserable little worm. Your pretensions to any kind of knowledge are embarassing enough, but when you wrap yourself in the flag of my country, it makes me want to throw up.

  102. jukeboxgrad says:

    Sorry, taking money to use the name you got fighting for the US to spread lies for anonymous interests who want to take over the country makes you a whore, no matter what you did before you started whoring. If they were giving BJs in truck stop bathrooms, they’d still be whores even if they’d fought across the entire Middle East.

    Excellent, thank you.

  103. The Magic M says:

    “Nonpartisan”? But they’re only criticizing Obama. Right. Sounds very “nonpartisan” to me…