They must feel small inside when a community organizer and college professor has killed more terrorists in 3 years than they did in 8.

The article said it was for a meeting of top Al Qaeda people, but they don't mention that Bin Laden was one of theim. Also, they say the mission ballooned from a small number of elite special forces to a few hundred military personell.

Rumsfeld gets a pass from me on this, sorry to say.

Lionel Mandrake: Mark Ratner: The article said it was for a meeting of top Al Qaeda people, but they don't mention that Bin Laden was one of theim. Also, they say the mission ballooned from a small number of elite special forces to a few hundred military personell.

Rumsfeld gets a pass from me on this, sorry to say.

Why did Rummy allow it to balloon?

I always thought he was in favor of a smaller, leaner fighting force in general, but I doubt he was in charge of the actual logistics of the mission.

Yes, he's the defense secretary, but the mission's details would be planned by top military officials.

From what I've read and seen on TV, the Bin Laden raid was basically a 50/50 call, but involved 60 navy seals (some as backups that weren't actually there).

I'm just glad he's dead. Justice, baby. Sweet justice.

Donald Rumsfeld is a genuinely despicable human being. He was one of the largest enablers of a pointless waste of lives that served only to fatten the wallets of his friends. He has done nothing but bring misery and death into the world. And there are people who think this bag of shiat is a hero.

He should be in f*cking jail, not polluting the discourse with yet more idiocy.

NewportBarGuy: Mark Ratner: Also, they say the mission ballooned from a small number of elite special forces to a few hundred military personell.

You mean overwatch? Actually having cover when doing a mission? 75th Ranger Regiment stands ready to pull security for SFOD-A and D teams and SEALs now have a Force Recon Team to call upon. They can be a pretty large force in comparison to individual teams. If the military leadership determines the best course of action is to have support, depending on the mission, you can't dismiss that out of hand without knowing the facts.

Too many lives at risk? I'd want to see the OPORD before making that determination. Old Rumbag f*cked up so many things I'd doubt the sky was blue if he told me so, or any of his enablers.

The veracity of the argument is that f*ckstick has the temerity to say that anyone would have done what Obama did when Rummy couldn't find his ass with both hands, a map and a 12-digit grid.

Good points that I'm not qualified to dispute, but wasn't this before the expanded use of drone strikes in Pakistan?

WTF Indeed: They must feel small inside when a community organizer and college professor has killed more terrorists in 3 years than they did in 8.

They would if killing terrorists was the goal instead of enriching cronies.

him and cheney still being alive is proof enough for me that god is not real

violentsalvation: I think that was back when we were trying to build some trust with Pakistan and Musharraf, back before we realized just how futile that was. But at the time, it might have actually been a tough call.

I like Rummy, and I also hate him. I like how he handled the media, but he really helped fark things up in Iraq, he wasn't thinking to win a war, he was constantly playing the longshot crap that was used to sell the war in the first place, and I'm glad Bush swapped him out.

In the end, I am really glad Obama was able to make that call and fark you, Pakistan.

... I think I've learned something today? ;)

So not only is Rummy incompetent, but he's also a liar.

You know how during WWII we could say that we had (ex. Eisenhower) better Germans than the Germans?
Well, with Rumsfeld, we had an honorary Italian.

Adding Rumsfeld to the "kill on sight" list and sending the SEALs out to execute him is also an easy call. Ditto for Bush (both of them) and all of their war criminal buddies.

WizardofToast: "You mentioned there was a tough decision," Rumsfeld said on Tuesday night on Fox News. "I don't think it was a tough decision. We've seen a lot of instances where presidents over the years have had to make decisions like that."

Yes. And there was the risk of failing. Remember Jimmy Carter's Operation Eagle Claw? Carter tried to save American captives in Iran and the crew got lost and crashed one of the helicopters. Obama was farking lucky it went off perfectly.

Point of fact: The Iranian rescue "Eagle Claw" needed six helicopters, they provided eight; two got damaged/disoriented in a haboob and had to turn back; several others were marginal at the first waypoint, one was declared inoperational; an abort was declared, then during the evac, a helo collided with a C-130 and both were destroyed. Eight Americans died.

WizardofToast: "You mentioned there was a tough decision," Rumsfeld said on Tuesday night on Fox News. "I don't think it was a tough decision. We've seen a lot of instances where presidents over the years have had to make decisions like that."

Yes. And there was the risk of failing. Remember Jimmy Carter's Operation Eagle Claw? Carter tried to save American captives in Iran and the crew got lost and crashed one of the helicopters. Obama was farking lucky it went off perfectly.

P.S. The Abbottabad operation didn't go off perfectly. One helo crashed and was scuttled/.

WizardofToast: "You mentioned there was a tough decision," Rumsfeld said on Tuesday night on Fox News. "I don't think it was a tough decision. We've seen a lot of instances where presidents over the years have had to make decisions like that."

Yes. And there was the risk of failing. Remember Jimmy Carter's Operation Eagle Claw? Carter tried to save American captives in Iran and the crew got lost and crashed one of the helicopters. Obama was farking lucky it went off perfectly.

Well it didn't go off perfectly. Remember that little fender bender in the yard with one of the helicopters? Still the farkup on the mission was not a killer one fortunately and the rest of the mission went about as well as could be expected.

Rumsfeld is an asshole and a farkup, we can all agree on that. It is a slightly different set of circumstances to compare why one mission was greenlighted and the earlier mission was nixed. Different political climate in Afghanistan where the state was seen as improving toward what we wanted them to do compared with the more recent Pakistan where the civilian and military branches of government are basically operating seperately with no hope of improved relations. Mission size is important as the numbers at risk and casualties potentially available were dramatically different. You don't know what was necessary, but it is a little easier to approve the smaller raid of 60 on a couple of helicopters vs several hundred with multiple aircraft and supporting elements. Rumjsfeld shouldn't say its an easy call on the Bin Ladin raid and I don't think we can necessarily condemn canceling the earlier raid given the available facts and political climate at that time.

This really is the stupidest argument they have.

/And they got Rummy saying it too now, imagine my surprise.

Everyone is on record opposing Obama's ultimately successful plan to get Bin Laden.

Every one of them.

Hellz, even Hills called it 'naive' at the time.

I said then and I'll state again here.

Saying what you're gonna do and then doing what you say is how you earn respect IRL.

He meant what he said and he said what he meant and Obama (like Horton) was correct.

100%.

As opposed to unindicted war criminal and serial liar Donald "I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that" Rumsfeld.

His inability to ever be right about anything is what some people call "a known known".

Once again, a vote for McCain in 2008 was a vote to let Osama keep breathing indefinitely.

/See also: a vote for Bush in 2004.

I'm surprised he didn't just try to redefine words to make it sound like he did it.

/Slog

Aar1012: WTF Indeed: They must feel small inside when a community organizer and college professor has killed more terrorists in 3 years than they did in 8.

I wonder what the reaction would be if the current GOP was in Congress and in power during World War II. How they would react when Pearl Harbor was bombed, D-Day happened, Truman dropped the bomb, etc?

Same thing that would have happened if the Republicans then were in power. They would have sided with the Nazis.

NewportBarGuy: So was sending 1/3 of the force you needed to secure a nation the size of California. That was an easy call, right asshole?

Well, to be fair to him, he was ordering a raid on a country he once said "shared many common interests" with the United States.

/That was the same trip where the famed "shaking hands with Saddam" pic came from.

Rumsfeld always reminded me visually of Frank Booth, and it's not hard to believe that he acted like Frank either.

Well thank GOD you will never be president then Rummy. You obviously don't have the balls to do what needed to be done. You are respoinsible for bringing Cheney down on us so that is two strikes (at least) against you. Now go and play with an armed cruise missle.

WizardofToast: "You mentioned there was a tough decision," Rumsfeld said on Tuesday night on Fox News. "I don't think it was a tough decision. We've seen a lot of instances where presidents over the years have had to make decisions like that."

Yes. And there was the risk of failing. Remember Jimmy Carter's Operation Eagle Claw? Carter tried to save American captives in Iran and the crew got lost and crashed one of the helicopters. Obama was farking lucky it went off perfectly.

No. Obama personally demanded backups for the copters originally scheduled. When one failed, the backups were ready. Obama 's idea and order. It's called planning, and frequently, planning is a big help.

The Democrats have bungled the last few days as usual. The talking point shouldn't be Obama making the tough decision, it should be Obama having the drive to make finding bin Laden a priority. It's too easy for Republicans to say, "anyone would have made that call" once he had been located. But Obama focused on finding bin Laden from day one, as he said he would during his campaign, while the Republicans mocked him and said there were more important things to do. Now, the Republicans are free to trot that debate out again and say that while getting bin Laden was good, other things should have taken priority, but of course that would be a futile argument.

No one can say whether or not Romney, or any other person on Earth, would have made the same decisions once bin Laden was found, though reports indicate that the majority of Obama's advisers suggested bombing rather than a raid, but you can use his words and the words of others from 2004-2008 to assert that he would not have directed intelligence agencies to search so doggedly for bin Laden like Obama did.

republicans wanted to keep Bin laden alive as a Bogeyman for as long as possible. As long as he was still kickin', the recruiters made their quotas, and the money to the Military-Industrial Complex kept rollin' in.

Aar1012: WTF Indeed: They must feel small inside when a community organizer and college professor has killed more terrorists in 3 years than they did in 8.

I wonder what the reaction would be if the current GOP was in Congress and in power during World War II. How they would react when Pearl Harbor was bombed, D-Day happened, Truman dropped the bomb, etc?

Seeing as how the republicans were in support of the Third Reich (even AFTER Pearl Harbor), it's no speculation.

In fact, Wiki up "Business Plot" and see how close we came to becoming a bona-fide member nation of the Axis.

Apparently the american media has to rely on abject failures like Ronald McDumsfeld for comments on current events. Small wonder intelligent people avoid mainstream american media (PBS / NPR and the Christian Science Monitor excepted). The only comments this clown should make would be from the court in the Hague. Somebody find me a tree or a rope and I can supply the other.

*sigh* It wasnt' Bin Laden. Anyone would have made the call to get Bin Laden.

You guys are embarrassing... if Bush or McCain had did this and publicized it for cheap politics like this, the same cheerleaders would be the first critics, but because Obama is on our team you just let it pass. This partisan shiat is gonna destroy our country.

Descartes: *sigh* It wasnt' Bin Laden. Anyone would have made the call to get Bin Laden.

You guys are embarrassing... if Bush or McCain had did this and publicized it for cheap politics like this, the same cheerleaders would be the first critics, but because Obama is on our team you just let it pass. This partisan shiat is gonna destroy our country.

BSABSVR

/noticing that Rumsfeld was incompetent is factual, not partisan.

NobleHam: The Democrats have bungled the last few days as usual. The talking point shouldn't be Obama making the tough decision, it should be Obama having the drive to make finding bin Laden a priority. It's too easy for Republicans to say, "anyone would have made that call" once he had been located. But Obama focused on finding bin Laden from day one, as he said he would during his campaign, while the Republicans mocked him and said there were more important things to do. Now, the Republicans are free to trot that debate out again and say that while getting bin Laden was good, other things should have taken priority, but of course that would be a futile argument.

A futile argument because they would have to try to say that going after bin Laden meant not doing something else, that by spending the time to find him, we weren't spending enough time and resources elsewhere. They'd pretty much have to flat out say that if Obama hadn't decided to find bin Laden, then he could have handled Afghanistan or Iraq better.

Of course, that's where their ad will end and they'll never give specifics on what Obama could have done to handle those two wars better given his starting point. Unless they flat out say that we should still be fighting there through this presidency and by implication for at least another four years.

War criminal says what?

Descartes: *sigh* It wasnt' Bin Laden. Anyone would have made the call to get Bin Laden.

You guys are embarrassing... if Bush or McCain had did this and publicized it for cheap politics like this, the same cheerleaders would be the first critics, but because Obama is on our team you just let it pass. This partisan shiat is gonna destroy our country.

Bush and McCain DID politicize Bin Laden, and 9/11, without even finding him, for a decade. Obama has nothing to be ashamed of.

Descartes: had did

Fantastic.

Descartes: *sigh* It wasnt' Bin Laden. Anyone would have made the call to get Bin Laden.

You guys are embarrassing... if Bush or McCain had did this and publicized it for cheap politics like this, the same cheerleaders would be the first critics, but because Obama is on our team you just let it pass. This partisan shiat is gonna destroy our country.

The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group's operations.

Are you farking kidding me? Al-Zawahri was and is at least as an important target as OBL, And who knows how many other top al Qaeda leaders there could have been there, 2? 4? Catching al -Zawahri and two or three of al Qarda's top men at the same time is an even easier decision to make than even the OBL raid. Furthermore, if the military raid was "too risky" why not use a drone strike? Why leave them all alive at all? And where the hell was Bush when all these decisions were being made? How the hell does Rumsfeld get to make the call? No, this lack of balls is inexcusable, and the Republican side having to come up with excuses every time a Republican farks up monumentally is ridiculous and what is really hurting this country.