Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

GETTING BIN LADEN: What happened that night in Abbottabad

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
KeepItReal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 01:02 AM
Original message
GETTING BIN LADEN: What happened that night in Abbottabad
One month before the 2008 Presidential election, Obama, then a senator from Illinois, squared off in a debate against John McCain in an arena at Belmont University, in Nashville. A woman in the audience asked Obama if he would be willing to pursue Al Qaeda leaders inside Pakistan, even if that meant invading an ally nation. He replied, “If we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable, or unwilling, to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden. We will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national-security priority.” McCain, who often criticized Obama for his naïveté on foreign-policy matters, characterized the promise as foolish, saying, “I’m not going to telegraph my punches.

...

On March 29th, McRaven brought the plan to Obama. The President’s military advisers were divided. Some supported a raid, some an airstrike, and others wanted to hold off until the intelligence improved. Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense, was one of the most outspoken opponents of a helicopter assault. Gates reminded his colleagues that he had been in the Situation Room of the Carter White House when military officials presented Eagle Claw—the 1980 Delta Force operation that aimed at rescuing American hostages in Tehran but resulted in a disastrous collision in the Iranian desert, killing eight American soldiers. “They said that was a pretty good idea, too,” Gates warned. He and General James Cartwright, the vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs, favored an airstrike by B-2 Spirit bombers. That option would avoid the risk of having American boots on the ground in Pakistan. But the Air Force then calculated that a payload of thirty-two smart bombs, each weighing two thousand pounds, would be required to penetrate thirty feet below ground, insuring that any bunkers would collapse. “That much ordnance going off would be the equivalent of an earthquake,” Cartwright told me. The prospect of flattening a Pakistani city made Obama pause. He shelved the B-2 option and directed McRaven to start rehearsing the raid.

...

Before the mission commenced, the SEALs had created a checklist of code words that had a Native American theme. Each code word represented a different stage of the mission: leaving Jalalabad, entering Pakistan, approaching the compound, and so on. “Geronimo” was to signify that bin Laden had been found.

...

A second SEAL stepped into the room and trained the infrared laser of his M4 on bin Laden’s chest. The Al Qaeda chief, who was wearing a tan shalwar kameez and a prayer cap on his head, froze; he was unarmed. “There was never any question of detaining or capturing him—it wasn’t a split-second decision. No one wanted detainees,” the special-operations officer told me. (The Administration maintains that had bin Laden immediately surrendered he could have been taken alive.) Nine years, seven months, and twenty days after September 11th, an American was a trigger pull from ending bin Laden’s life. The first round, a 5.56-mm. bullet, struck bin Laden in the chest. As he fell backward, the SEAL fired a second round into his head, just above his left eye. On his radio, he reported, “For God and country—Geronimo, Geronimo, Geronimo.” After a pause, he added, “Geronimo E.K.I.A.”—“enemy killed in action.”

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_schmidle?currentPage=all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 01:06 AM
Response to Original message
1. It's like reading an action novel. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 02:19 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Watch Wag the Dog
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. You know, I really should. I think I'm the only person I know,
and beyond!, who never saw it.

Don't know how much more anger and frustration I can harbor at this time, though, but I'll definitely check it out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. bottom line: if it looks like something from a movie, it's fake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 01:08 AM
Response to Original message
2. Our proudest moment in years.
2 dozen special ops, trillions of dollars and thousands of lives spent on 2 wars to kill what amounted to a pathetic pervert recluse. And it still goes on.

It's going to make one hell of a HBO special.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 01:11 AM
Response to Original message
3. Blatantly, a false narrative but, goody goody, bi-partisan.
POTUS Obama killed OBL. Yahoo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 02:12 AM
Response to Original message
4. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 03:03 AM
Response to Original message
6. So the whole objective was to dump his body in the sea?
I have yet to hear an answer to this question...

And no, I would have opposed killing the leader of the attacks from 50,000 feet for the same reason. The time to do that was BEFORE the 9/11 attacks, which Clinton failed to do. NOW, we will never know who helped bin Laden plan the attacks. It is apparent they don't want us to know. It's not like we weren't saying he was hiding out with his ISI friends all along. They called us conspiracy theorists for saying that. I've been called a conspiracy theorist for pointing out that I READ ABOUT bin Laden's threats to fly planes into buildings in the paper a year before it happened. Officials certainly knew about the threat.

How do you kill him in action if he is unarmed and you're taking no detainees (is prisoners not allowed to be used?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 03:04 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. And why did they make up a story about him being armed?
What purpose?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kennah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 04:24 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Navy SEALs are not the military's SWAT team
They don't rush in with NAVY SEALS printed in 6 inch high letters on ballistic shields yelling, "Federal officers! We have a warrant!"

They are soldiers--OK, sailors--and they train to neutralize threats. That means kill them.

They do engage in hostage rescue stuff, yes. However, Bin Laden wasn't designated a hostage and occasionally military hostage rescue teams kill hostages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 07:03 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Navy SEALS don't know how to follow simple rules of engagement?
Edited on Tue Aug-02-11 07:04 AM by eomer
ROE that comply with the laws of war? Get real. They killed him because that's what they were ordered to do and the reasons were political. And it was a war crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kennah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. If the ROE designates someone as a hostile, they are toast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Yes, but it says K.I.A. Action requires engagement of the enemy. Even if they are Hitler.
If you want to assassinate them, do it quietly and don't announce it after the fact unless you habeo corpum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kennah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 02:13 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Military ops are messy. Hostage rescue teams go in knowing they might have to shoot friendlies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC