...and why is that necessary? are Democrats supposed to defend anything any party member does? right or wrong? it's too weird - acting as if this is some 'reality show'?

if anything, there is little connection between what americans, and what the Rs & Ds, wanted or signed up for.

it's a paradox that in the US we have wanted better systems for education, health, or elections that reflexed our true needs...and the government thought they could do it there...while we are STILL waiting to get it here?!!

dude, the truth is what matters. maybe alternative reality is your gig, but some of us rather deal in the IS and not blind faith.

If...and that is a huge 'if'...you want some real light on the subject...try this;

https://www.yahoo.com/news/served-afghanistan-us-marine-twice-100000389.html


we were there to win hearts and minds, and we had a Republican administration to leave that charge?

see the example of a member of t͟h͟a͟t͟ glee and chess club above ˣ

signed up for rubbing out Bin Laden [and his pals], and after he was 'sleeping w/the fishes', our attention should have turned to the problems at home.

EX: again, see the comments above ˣ

didn't jump on the bandwagon for 'nation building' - especially when our nation is/was in need of repair at all most every level imaginable.

EX: like education...to repeat, referred to the example of the commentator above ˣ

Finally, to quote the author of the article, "What happened last week was inevitable, and anyone saying differently is still lying to you."


[To the others, can anyone explain the 'beijing biden' thing? is it one of those off-right things? like covid not being dangerous? or masks are oppression? would ask him to explain but that's too much like asking a heavy one-legged gal to a slow dance.]


BTW: give some odds on the '22 and '24 races!

* crickets riding tumbleweeds *


ˣᵀᵃⁿᵍˡᵉᵈ ᵀʷᶦˢᵗᵉᵈ ᵃⁿᵈ ᵀᵒʳⁿ ᵀʰᵒʳⁿˢ

I didn't come up with it. It was the conclusion of the 9/11 commission. If you disagree , your beef is with them.

I'm sorry you are so ill informed. Perhaps out might try being less dismissive and insulting about your ignorance....but likely not.

Apparently it wasn't enough time for him to grasp the seriousness. It was barely enough time to staff the NSA. They briefed him a few times, but the "Osama Bin Laden preparing to attack" report went unread or at best unheeded. Again, this is according to the bipartisan Senate commission set up to determine what actually happened.

Edit: Andy Card, Bush's chief of staff - “The 9/11 Commission had said if there had been a longer transition and there had been cooperation, there might have been a better response, or maybe not even any attack,” the former chief of staff said.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/11/former-bush-chief-of-staff-cites-9/11-warns-about-slow-transition.html

The 9/11 Commission Report noted:
"[T]he 36-day delay cut in half the normal transition period. Given that a presidential election in the United States brings wholesale change in personnel, this loss of time hampered the new administration in identifying, recruiting, clearing, and obtaining Senate confirmation of key appointees."
The point is that delaying these processes such as obtaining background checks can create significant later delays in putting new officials into place and in some cases obtaining Senate confirmations. Delays in the transference of information with the incoming team can also obstruct the next administration’s ability to carry out existing and new policies.
Perhaps you're unaware, the Bush administration, like others before it, did not have its full national security team on the job until at least six months after it took office.

Plans like watch for groups of middle eastern men who suddenly have funds to move to America, especially those who want to learn to fly, but not take off or land. Plans like track Bin Laden's money and deny people he funds from entering the country. Plans like focus on his communications to learn what his plans were. Plans like take him out before he attacks. There were many plans, I'm sure most were classified but many just common sense.

Really, you never heard the intelligence community makes plans to deal with threats?! They might not have been successful at stopping an attack, but at least could have tried.

I'm not arguing the merits of either. I don't think Trump is a good man or President.

It's my firm opinion that Obama chose to play the long game, hoping that the anger over Garland not being confirmed would influence the upcoming election. He believed that they might take the Senate back and then either he or Hillary would then be able to get the nominee they wanted. Plus as @newtboy pointed out, there was no way any pick he chose was going to pass muster with the Republican controlled Senate. Picking another person would likely tarnish them and remove a good liberal pick from future selection.

I consider Obama a good person and a mediocre President. I voted for him the first time because I bought into his mantra of change. It didn't happen. He forced through the ACA on party line votes, fucking up my personal situation in regards to doctors and insurance. He further screwed up the situation with the middle east which directly led to the entire Syria/ISIS situation. He did authorize drone strikes that led to many non combatant deaths and some pretty reprehensible situations. That is including the fact that his administration considered any military aged male in strike zones to be enemy combatants UNLESS they could be verified otherwise after their death. So many of those were not counted. There are other issues I have with his Presidency, but those are some of the big ones.

He did kill Bin Laden. I will give him kudos for that. I also think that once he lost control of the Congress in his second term he had no way to get anything accomplished, so I can't say he wouldn't have done something I liked in his second term. He is also an amazing orator.

Today 6 more right wing terrorists were arrested for plotting to kidnap the Governor of Michigan, one of the state's Trump told them to "liberate". They blamed her for closing gyms, and if they can't shower with other men, life isn't worth living for them.

Edit: UPDATE , that's now 11 right wing extremist terrorists caught so far in this latest act of terrorism, and the plans included bombing state government buildings and attacking state police, training included combat training with firearms and explosives. I'm betting there was a set of monkey bars at their clubhouse too.

Just one more group of Trumpsters caught being terrorists intent on attacking America, and taking steps to realise that goal. Trump is Bin Laden 2.0, inciting dozens of terrorist attacks on America. Where's a drone strike when we need it?

I'm guessing there's a non-zero chance that the kind of black-ops missions under Obama(getting bin-laden, drone hits on taliban leaders in Pakistan). Aren't being brought to the commander in chief as regularly these days. I know there's plenty of actions they likely can't take without the President's sign off, but you ahve to imagine that anytime they aren't obligated to do otherwise they are trying to keep their ops off twitter.

Today Trump announced an executive order (unconstitutionally) rewriting the constitution so that babies born in America will no longer be citizens.
One more ignorant attempt to dehumanize any non American....this one totally unconstitutional according to all constitutional law scholars besides Trump and Giuliani, but he doesn't know that, he's never read it and wouldn't care if he did, he's anti constitution.
So much for his oath to support and defend the constitution, he'll wipe his ass with it if it will rile up his base of racists and secessionists. Let's hope this blatant unAmerican and unconstitutional move is enough for impeachment.

At this point, supporting Trump makes you an anti American terrorist just as certainly as supporting Bin Laden, ISIS, or the Taliban. They are all extremist terrorist organizations. Trump's entire platform is and has always been fear and terror and now his followers are trying what he told them to do, take out the liberals before they come take your guns.

Lock him up, lock him up, lock him up, lock him up, lock him up, lock him up, lock him up.....and waterboard him in Guantanamo for the remainder of his short time in earth.....along with his immediate family and entire administration.

Funny, following the law isn't important when it's environmental law, or international law, charity law, fraud law, tax law, etc.....or when it takes effort to follow American law. That's why he spent money on building and running child jails instead of immigration judges, who could solve the problem 100% by making the application process last under 3 weeks.
Democratic politicians have tried to solve this repeatedly, but obstructionist republicans couldn't let any Obama laws pass and kicked it down the road to where we are now, where democratic bills stand zero chance of consideration, much less a vote.

Trump intentionally caused this with his presidential order to move to zero tolerance and arrest asylum seekers in an effort to force the political issue while Republicans only need to stop Democrats from filibustering, but enough Republicans balked at his monsterousness that he actually needs democrats votes now, something he won't get.

Since it's so often American policy and American drug trade that has made their homes terrible places, we owe those who our actions have displaced an opportunity for asylum.

It's like I come to your home, break in, take your valuables, burn the house down looking for more, then deride you for needing help, deny you shelter, and tell you to get your shit together and stabilize your life while my other gang members pick through the rubble of your home, then we dump you in Reno, your wife in Oklahoma, and your kids.....somewhere, not our problem, you find them.

There isn't some sudden rush of immigrants like Trump and oan/faux claim, the rate is still fairly steady.

Also, contrary to the lies you've repeated, no party advocates open borders. That's as true as saying Republicans are advocating the destruction of families and murder of children. Democrats have tried to fund rational immigration controls and have been stymied, but Republicans just want to lock the door and only let in those with connections and money.....like the Bin Ladens.

To think otherwise is just ignorant of the facts.

I member after 9/11 someone calling security for a gym bag left in the men's bathroom of a secured corporate building in Melbourne, FL. Yep, Bin Ladens hit list: 1. World Trade Center, 2. Pentagon, 3. Third floor building C, Melbourne, FL

First thought,

If you find the question interesting, watch the Death Note anime(not the movie), this is more the less the premise of the entire series with a teenage genius gaining said power.

I have to say I find video presenter's approach to the question is interesting. He almost only addresses the crime of passion angle. The more difficult moral question IMO is as MilkmanDan alludes with the trolley problem. If you have essentially a superpower like this, it is not ONLY your use of it that is a dilemma, but also a refusal to use that power to help victims when you could.

Go back 10 years ago, what is morally worse, using your power to kill Osama Bin Laden, or to refuse to use your power when you could end his influence?

Here's a Canadian example:

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/aly-hindy-salaheddin-islamic-centre

A mosque who's former founder has gone off to lead a team of Al Qaeda linked suicide bombers in Iraq. The mosque Ohmar Khadr's father brought their family to before relocating them to fight for Bin Laden in Pakistan. The mosque attended by the leaders of the largest terrorist ring Canada has broken up thus far. Other members have gone off to join terrorists in Somalia and Egypt.

The question of should we be setting up some manner of legal accountability for an organization that is clearly idealogically supporting these things isn't a clear and obvious, nope, nothing can be done. At least not any more than nope, nothing can be done is clearly the answer to the Vegas shootings.

Wait....@bobknight33, why are you posting fake news? I get it, CNN is a reputable source if they are saying something that might support a right wing narrative or excuse some Trump action, but only then, right?

The important question they ignored was, what are the outcomes of this meddling beyond election results. I would say that it has backfired as often as it 'worked', and often when it works, it still backfires, because the candidate we shove through turns out to be horrible for us or the other country in the long run. Is not this the kind of meddling Bin Laden said was a large part of the reason for his attacks?

I do agree, we've been guilty of this repeatedly. That doesn't mean we should ignore it when it's done to us, or that we have no right to complain and investigate, and take action against it. It means maybe we should think twice before doing it again, and feel ashamed for being so outrageously vulnerable to it ourselves.

Huh?

Edit: The 'facts' in this video are misleading and completely ignore the last 70 years as if they never happened in order to claim 'Russia is our friend'. By that logic, so is Osama Bin Laden. JFC!

What is odd is, with the never ending, TRUE, bad for Trump stories since before day one (Flynn), you cannot seem to grasp the probability that he's both incredibly out of his depth and also incredibly corrupt. He's given FAR more evidence of wrong doing in 5 months than Obama and Clinton combined, but you just can't see the mountain of evidence because he told you it's fake news...any negative story about him is fake....and you buy it, from a man who's book explains that you just continue to spout bullshit and lies and enough idiots will believe you and defend your lies to be successful...and he's now proven conclusively that it works.

Arrgh, conflicted.

On one hand, she's the worst. Everything wrong with right wing media neatly tied up in the only kind of pretty blond package that women are allowed to be on these things.

On the other (and I can't believe I'm about to say this), it's a pretty shitty way to treat an employee. If they don't want her anymore, they should release her from her contract.

If the same thing happened to a good journalist, we'd all be annoyed about it.

But, on the other other hand, a) she's an idiot for signing the contract and b) again she's the WORST, so I can't really bring myself to care.

this article sums up my feelings nicely (written about Bin Laden, but still applies)

@enoch,

neo-conservatives
I've said in a couple other threads if I was American I'd have(very sadly mind you) voted for Hillary. Not sure, but that should really lay the neo-con thing to bed right there. Doesn't mean I won't agree with them if they notice the sky looks rather blue...

the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012
I don't base or form my morality around American law, so when and how it's deemed lawful or not for an American president to order something doesn't change my opinion one inch on whether the act is good or bad. Sure, it deducts a lot of points when a President breaks laws so that factors in, but if it's legal for a president to shoot babies we're all still gonna call it immoral anyways, right?

you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.
Between act of war, or peace time legal prosecution with proper due process.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.
and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

Sorry, but regarding Bin Laden that's a lie. The US state department held a trial and convicted Bin Laden already back in the 90s. The Taliban refused to extradite him then, and demanded they be shown evidence. They were shown the evidence and declared that they saw nothing unIslamic in his actions. Clinton spent his entire presidency back and forth with them, even getting a unanimous order from the UN security council demanding Bin Laden's extradition.

Smugly claiming that the US refused to provide any evidence to the Taliban because they were being bullies is ignoring reality. after spending several years getting jerked around by the Taliban claiming each new act of war launched from their territory wasn't their fault nor bin Laden's fault left a less patient president after 9/11...

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.
Can't say I'm very familiar with Hannity because I avoid Fox news at all costs.
Did he praise the killings afterwards and declare the shooter a hero like Anwar?
Did he council before hand in his books that killing those people was moral or just or religiously blessed like Anwar did?
Did he personally meet with and council/mentor the shooter before hand at some point as well, like Anwar did?

I have to ask just so we really are comparing apples to apples and all. If the answers are yes(and from Fox I suppose I can't completely rule that out just out of hand), then yeah, he's as guilty as Anwar.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

If he goes to Yemen we just laugh at our good fortune that he decided to kill himself for us.

To your point, if he finds a similar independent state to continue promoting and coordinating attacks as part of an effective terrorist unit killing new civilians every week then yes, bombs away.

Now if either he or Anwar remained in the US you arrest them and follow all due process. Oh, and to again shake the neo-con cloud you don't get to torture them by calling it enhanced interrogation, it's still a war crime and you should lock yourself up in a cell next door.

My whole thing is that setting up a state within a state and waging war shouldn't just be a get out of jail free card under international law. Either the 'host' state is responsible for the actions or it is not. If responsible, then like in Afghanistan it initiated the war by launching the first attacks. If not responsible, then it's declared the state within a state to be sovereign, and other states should be able to launch a war against the parasitic state, as has been happening with Obama's drones in tribal Pakistan.