More Change

[Chicopee John]

>>Special operations forces, trained for clandestine, small-team missions, have become a more prominent tool in the military's kit since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The Obama administration is expected to announce on Thursday that it will invest even more heavily in that capability in coming years.>>

 

Not too long ago the SEALS and other Special Forces were called, 'Dick Cheney's Hit Squad'. Suddenly they are the best thing since sliced bread.

 

Wonder what General Betray-us thing about this? Oh yea, he did a sudden 180 as well.

[MLD Woody]

puns and name calling = road to political success

[heckofajobbrownie]

Who was calling the Seals Dick Cheney's hit squads? I don't remember that. What I do remember was many of the left proposing this very thing - more targeted special forces operations directed at specific terrorists and terrorist groups instead of full scale land invasions and occupations.

[Westside Steve]

You could always do a google search for:

dick cheney hit squad

 

Of course this wasn't an act of war if were talking about the somali pirates.

Just some scumbags and I hope we kill lots more of them.

WSS

[Chicopee John]

Who was calling the Seals Dick Cheney's hit squads? I don't remember that.

 

Funny how that happens.

 

I'm sure the Special Forces remember, though.

[Mr. T]

Who was calling the Seals Dick Cheney's hit squads? .

 

Alex Jones, Ron Paul?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Funny how that happens.

 

I'm sure the Special Forces remember, though.

 

Name me one person of even minimal importance.

[Chicopee John]

Name me one person of even minimal importance.

 

Seymour Hersh. Ever hear of him?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Sure. So why didn't you say "Seymour Hersh used to call them Dick Cheney's death squads"? You implication was that you were supplying evidence of some sort of grand hypocrisy on the left. You've named one guy who is a journalist, who also doesn't like Obama.

 

Also, what was Hersh alleging? I don't know, but I can be pretty sure he wasn't mad about them being used against Somali pirates or Osama Bin Laden.

[Chicopee John]

Sure. So why didn't you say "Seymour Hersh used to call them Dick Cheney's death squads"? You implication was that you were supplying evidence of some sort of grand hypocrisy on the left. You've named one guy who is a journalist, who also doesn't like Obama.

 

Also, what was Hersh alleging? I don't know, but I can be pretty sure he wasn't mad about them being used against Somali pirates or Osama Bin Laden.

 

I gave you what you asked for. Now you are dismissing what I said because I provided evidence of exactly what you asked for.

 

Oh well, the back-to-work bell just rang.

[heckofajobbrownie]

You're right. I am dismissing what you said. But not because you came up with the name "Seymour Hersh." Because you insinuated that Democrats called these units "Dick Cheney's death squads", and are now all for them because Obama is president, but couldn't name a single one who'd said this.

 

So yes, John, you failed to make your case.

[Chicopee John]

>>So yes, John, you failed to make your case.>>

 

 

But you did make the case for me, Heck. You, like all of us, are a hypocrite - but on steroids.

 

I am not going to copy and paste articles for you like you like to do for others.

 

Hersh might have only been the match that started the forest fire but the likes of the NYT, MSNBC, Major Network TV all amplified that flame.

 

Somebody who claims to be so up to date with things CANNOT be in the dark on this. You know about it but refuse to be honest - probably, even with yourself.

 

I thought we got rid of X and thought Y was a bit different. Maybe most of the time but clearly not all of the time.

 

At least I can admit that I can - even on the rarest of occasions - make a mistake. You are lying. How can you claim to know the finite detail of every bit of minutae about the likes of Gingrich, Bush, et al - total recall - but you are completely in the dark in terms of Seymour Hersh - who, I'm sure - has always been a hero of yours.

 

 

You're Dismissed. Take 10 points of your credibility score.

[calfoxwc]

Bush's Global 'Dirty War' - Consortiumnews.com Oct 1, 2007 ... George W. Bush has transformed elite units of the U.S. military – including Special Forces and highly trained sniper teams – into “death squads” ... www.consortiumnews.com/2007/100107.html ************

I remember it being lambasted about on this board often.

[heckofajobbrownie]

>>So yes, John, you failed to make your case.>>

 

 

But you did make the case for me, Heck. You, like all of us, are a hypocrite - but on steroids.

 

I am not going to copy and paste articles for you like you like to do for others.

 

Hersh might have only been the match that started the forest fire but the likes of the NYT, MSNBC, Major Network TV all amplified that flame.

 

Somebody who claims to be so up to date with things CANNOT be in the dark on this. You know about it but refuse to be honest - probably, even with yourself.

 

I thought we got rid of X and thought Y was a bit different. Maybe most of the time but clearly not all of the time.

 

At least I can admit that I can - even on the rarest of occasions - make a mistake. You are lying. How can you claim to know the finite detail of every bit of minutae about the likes of Gingrich, Bush, et al - total recall - but you are completely in the dark in terms of Seymour Hersh - who, I'm sure - has always been a hero of yours.

 

 

You're Dismissed. Take 10 points of your credibility score.

 

John, what the ....? You've gone completely off the rails.

 

You're now claiming that Seymour Hersh is a big hero of mine. How you know this I have no idea. Because I'm not a fan. I haven't even read most of his stuff. But you're sure he's a hero of mine. This is Cal behavior. Don't be that guy.

 

You made a claim - that the Democrats or the left claimed that Dick Cheney turned the special forces and the SEALs into death squads, and that we're hypocrites now because we like them. This is not an accurate characterization, and is all sorts of wrong. You're comparing apples and oranges and getting everything in a mess.

 

This is a claim that was made by Seymour Hersh. It's not the left or the Democrats casting aspersions on the special forces, as you would have us believe. It was an allegation by Hersh. And yes, I had to go back and remind myself what his story was. The reason I'm not a big Hersh fan, by the way, is because he's known for this - letting his reporting get ahead of his facts. This is the man, after all, who disgraced himself with the fake diaries in the Kennedy book.

 

So yes, other than not reading him, and not thinking much of his work, I'm a huge fan. And you're sure of this! Because we know each other and talk about this stuff all the time, or something.

 

But your point is also ridiculous in a larger sense: you're equating what Hersh alleged - which, if true, would be a real story of illegality and would fit the definition of a "death squad" - and equating it with something almost nobody is troubled with - assassinating Somali pirates who have taken American hostages, and killing Osama Bin Laden. You're saying the left got all upset about one, but isn't upset about another. This isn't evidence of hypocrisy even if you could name names. And you can't. And you even admit that you won't try to.

 

What you also seem to be missing is that Seymour Hersh's allegations would obviously be picked up by other news outlets, who would begin trying to verify the story, and working it themselves. So of course the NYT and news networks would pick up on it. That's what news organizations do. So pointing out that other news organizations looked into his story isn't evidence of some liberal plot either. It's evidence of journalism.

 

I mean, come on. Are you serious?

 

Then you call me a liar. Because why? Because I think you're saying something that is wildly off the mark, and in a number of ways? That makes me a liar and a hypocrite?

 

This is just pathetic.

[heckofajobbrownie]

And oh, look, John. Look what Google has found. From the New York Times:

 

Since 2001, the Central Intelligence Agency has developed plans to dispatch small teams overseas to kill senior Qaeda terrorists, according to current and former government officials.

 

(CIA Director Leon) Panetta scuttled the program, which would have relied on paramilitary teams, shortly after the C.I.A.'s counterterrorism center recently informed him of its existence. The next day, June 24, he told the two Congressional Intelligence Committees that the plan had been hidden from lawmakers, initially at the instruction of former Vice President Dick Cheney.

 

Current and former officials said that the program was designed as a more "surgical" solution to eliminating terrorists than missile strikes with armed Predator drones, which cannot be used in cities and have occasionally resulted in dozens of civilian casualties.

 

 

Read the whole thing. The part that Hersh seems to have gotten right? The existence of surgical strike teams. What he seems to have gotten wrong:

 

- That it was run out of the Vice President's office without the CIA's knowledge. It was run out of the CIA with the White House's approval.

- That it had been used to assassinate people on Cheney's secret list. Turns out it never seems to have been used at all because of logistical problems.

 

Those seem like pretty big whiffs to me. Maybe I should stop being such a huge fan!

 

PS - I guess it's good the New York Times looked into this story on its own, huh?

[Westside Steve]

Still you have to admit that "dick cheney hit squad" got a lot of hits.

 

You may also grudgingly admit that there is that sentiment from the far left who are very opposed to that type of operation.

Maybe not even all that far left.....

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I do remember it now that I went back and looked. But again, I don't recall any Democrats making this assertion. (Probably because Hersh has a history of being wrong.)

 

But let's get real: saying "someone made news by alleging that Dick Cheney has a secret group of soldiers that assassinates people on his list that circumvents the Congress and the entire intelligence community and reports only to him" and now "liberals don't seem to mind that Obama ordered the SEALs to kill those Somali pirates" isn't exactly a point that makes sense. It's not even remotely related. They're two totally different things.

 

And going back, I do also see where he got it - right-wing websites are making this connection.

 

Here's a better contrast, one Steve has mentioned: the left seems to have been a lot more concerned about the collateral damage involved with the drone campaign when Bush was president than they are now that Obama is president.

 

That's an actual point that is consistent.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Still you have to admit that "dick cheney hit squad" got a lot of hits.

 

You may also grudgingly admit that there is that sentiment from the far left who are very opposed to that type of operation.

Maybe not even all that far left.....

WSS

 

Which operation are you referring to? I don't hear people upset about rescuing hostages at all. Are you talking about something else?

 

Also, I don't have to "grudgingly admit" something if it's true. So much of what you guys write in here simply isn't, or is a huge oversimplification, and that's why I don't admit it is true.

[Westside Steve]

Which operation are you referring to? I don't hear people upset about rescuing hostages at all. Are you talking about something else?

 

Also, I don't have to "grudgingly admit" something if it's true. So much of what you guys write in here simply isn't, or is a huge oversimplification, and that's why I don't admit it is true.

The assassination of bin Laden particular.

But I don't suppose I have a problem with taking out bad guys no matter where they might be.

It's a slippery slope though.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh, I don't think it's true that there was a lot of resistance to that on the left. There really wasn't. And how is killing Bin Laden a slippery slope? I don't get it.

 

I think you're thinking about the Al-Awlaki, where you're assassinating an American citizen. That made the civil libertarian/ACLU types upset, and you could make the "slippery slope" case there if you wanted to. I'm not sure I'd agree, but at least that's something different - the president ordering the killing of an American citizen without due process.

 

Killing the head of the organization you're at war with is hardly controversial, and I don't think anyone is making that case.

[Westside Steve]

Oh, I don't think it's true that there was a lot of resistance to that on the left. There really wasn't. And how is killing Bin Laden a slippery slope? I don't get it.

 

I think you're thinking about the Al-Awlaki, where you're assassinating an American citizen. That made the civil libertarian/ACLU types upset, and you could make the "slippery slope" case there if you wanted to. I'm not sure I'd agree, but at least that's something different - the president ordering the killing of an American citizen without due process.

 

Killing the head of the organization you're at war with is hardly controversial, and I don't think anyone is making that case.

 

Isn't there something in the Geneva convention about assassinations?

(I don't know)

 

Also the slippery slope is that since we forget not everyone hated OBL not everyone loves BHO.

So how might the enemies of the US feel it's cool to assassinate him?

Just asking.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Sure, killing Bin Laden could provoke some retaliation. That's always part of the calculation. But I don't imagine anyone thought it wasn't worth taking out the head of Al Qaeda, the person most responsible for 9/11, Kenya, the Cole, etc.

 

I find the Al-Awlaki assassination (and we also killed his son) far more troubling. Or should I say, I wasn't troubled by the Bin Laden operation at all.

[calfoxwc]

I remember libs on this board, and elsewhere ridiculing Bush for trying to find bin laden, because he was

 

just a figurehead, and somebody would just take his place anyways, meaning Bush was stupid"

 

But, let Obamao go after him, and it's a great,wonderful thing.

 

As usual.

[sadbrownsfan]

I remember libs on this board, and elsewhere ridiculing Bush for trying to find bin laden, because he was

 

just a figurehead, and somebody would just take his place anyways, meaning Bush was stupid"

 

But, let Obamao go after him, and it's a great,wonderful thing.

 

As usual.

 

I remember ridiculing Bush for spending 7yrs searching for Osama..... really hard to ridicule Obama for the samething when the guy is dead. Also people have likely taken his place, and hopefully either Obama or next guy will get them before anything happens within the states.

[heckofajobbrownie]

By just about any metric, the Obama administration's war on Al Qaeda has been far more effective in three years than the Bush administration was in seven. This is something someone like Cal or T are never going to acknowledge, because they'll never acknowledge that he's anything but pure evil, but it happens to be a fact.

 

Al Qaeda has virtually been eliminated as an operational terrorist group. Of course, you only need a few guys to pull off a major terrorist attack, and the threat will always remain. But if you want to look at a list of the high ranking people in Al Qaeda and their affiliates when he took office and how many of them are now dead or have been arrested, it's a pretty thorough beat down.

 

It's not just Bin Laden.

[Mr. T]

In Hecks eyes Obama won the war on terror when seal team 6 killed Oasama. To give him all the credit would be like giving a field goal kicker in the super bowl all the credit for everybodys efforts.

 

Go figure.

[calfoxwc]

Obamao's war on terror better than... LOL.

 

That's just stupid, Heck. That is more bogus than I can say in words.

 

I figure you work for somebody and your job is to figure out

 

effective bs that works to marginalize the conservative status quo.

 

You are an exellent example of what I'll saying now:

 

Libs emotionally lie, because an emotional lie has more impact than a thousand truths.

 

Emotional lies work to influence the liberal agenda, because truths and principles don't fit the leftist agenda.