Al Qaeda confirmed the death of Osama bin Laden Friday in an Internet message that vowed revenge on the United States and its allies, including Pakistan…

Five days after President Barack Obama announced bin Laden’s death in a U.S. raid in Pakistan, al Qaeda vowed not to deviate from the path of armed struggle and said bin Laden’s blood “is more precious to us and to every Muslim than to be wasted in vain.”

“It (bin Laden’s blood) will remain, with permission from Allah the Almighty, a curse that chases the Americans and their agents, and goes after them inside and outside their countries,” the militant network said in a statement released on Islamist Internet forums and translated by SITE.

al Qaeda had to confirm or deny Bin Laden’s death. If they’re to have credibility among the fools who follow their jihad, they must identify a new fearless leader. If they are to call for revenge, they must admit to the reason for that rabid outcry.

In related news, Andrew Napolitano and Michael Scheuer maintain “the government might not be ‘telling us the truth or pulling a fast one to save Obama’s…presidency’” and Washington Times editor Emily Miller tweeted “no photo of the body. That’s what we need for proof.”

The looneybirds of the world are way too important in American politics.




  1. smartalix says:

    The Obama-bashers will never achnowledge him doing anything worthwhile. He could rescue a small child in front of a crowd and these (hyperpartisan and/or racist and/or idiot) asshats would say he did it for the publicity, or some other venal reason. Actions speak louder thn words, however, and these idiots are on the wrong side of history.

  2. msbpodcast says:

    In #117 Mr, Ed – the Original (with comma) said: Its almost like they WANT to give the wingnuts some crazy food.

    If you want to make the opposition as unpalatable as possible, give them some bat shit crazy theory to hold on to as if their very lives depended on it, like the wing-nut proponents of a Flat Earth, or Creationism or Communism*.

    You want these people to hang onto something that is clearly unpalatable.

    *Okay, Communism is working fine in China where they have some justification for it.

  3. ray says:

    once again usa screws up. why kill him when we could have taken him hostage. If that happened, we would have al-queda by the balls. instead we sent 2 dozen of our finest to kill less than a handful of people, all the while needing to blow up our own chopper, lmao.

    meanwhile, whack jobs in the usa, think the government is lying about obl’s death, and want proof of photos. oh boy………. i blame our eventually decline from the terrible education system.

  4. MikeN says:

    >Smart lady but she should go back to playing the piano and appreciate how adults are now in office.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=TCOMX5OCFwQ

  5. Thomas says:

    #140

    #139, keep trying. We have one suspect located because he made a call that was wiretapped, another kept at a black site, another was one of the 3 who were waterboarded.

    You are proving my point. Waterboarding had nothing to do with getting the information. Tapping their communication did. The onus is on you to convince us that torture was the reason for getting the information and nothing else nor was there any other means than torture (not that this matters from an ethical standpoint).

    But hey, if the guy being waterboarded doesn’t immediately tell you where Bin Laden is, and wear a wire to help you out, the operation was a failure.

    If waterboarding doesn’t tell you what you wanted then waterboarding isn’t effective. However, capturing, interrogating and tapping their communication is most definitely not a failure and not in question.

  6. pedro says:

    #145 You’re quite dense, aren’t you?

  7. MikeN says:

    >capturing, interrogating and tapping their communication is most definitely not a failure and not in question.

    Actually all of those things are in question for liberals. In this case, the communications were with someone in the US. ‘Spying on Americans’ allowed this operation to happen. One person interrogated at a black site, so rendition allowed this operation to happen. One person apprehended in Iraq, so in this case capturing is also a problem.

    You are also just being desperate in saying waterboarding isn’t effective if you don’t get all the information you wanted. If you got some information you wanted, you have come out ahead. In this case, if you take away the information gleaned from waterboarding, you are missing some links in the chain that led to this kill.

  8. smartalix says:

    MikeN,

    Fact: Bush had three times as long to get Bin Laden and couldn’t.

  9. Ralph, the Bus Driver says:

    #108, Alphie,

    #105 “foobar” is a good handle for you.

    Panetta said waterboarding did materially aid his capture, so did others who know what they are talking about.

    Go ahead, believe the bull Rush is spouting. Panetta NEVER said anything of the kind. He is on record as saying he is firmly against any form of torture.

    So Tea Bagerish to make up your own facts. That partially explains why you’re such a dickhead.

  10. pedro says:

    #149 Right. Enhanced interrogation never gave anything useful. Guantanamo is as useless and that’s why it was closed; so is the TSA and that’s why Obama shut it down. Panetta was awful in the CIA and that’s why he was changed only after he got Bin Laden and was promoted to that black hole of a public position that is the Pentagon so he doesn’t screw things anymore.

    Keep your bus driver job.

  11. smartalix says:

    Pedro,

    Actually information from torture was marginal at best. The best intel came from SIGINT (my old field, BTW) and intelligence analysis of logistics, phone traffice, and other information not obtained by people getting tortured.

    Torture is useless. It is unreliable, as pain is not an indicator of truth, it is an indicator of how much pain a person is in. Torture is also counter-productive, as it only gives our enemies recruitment aguments as well as justification to act as they do because we are no better. Torture serves nobody but sadists and revenge junkies. Look at the Gitmo Wikileaks stuff for ample evidence that our efforts in that direction have been more than useless.

    We are the good guys, and if we do not act as such we are as bad as those we wish to thwart.

  12. MikeN says:

    >Fact: Bush had three times as long to get Bin Laden and couldn’t.

    Yup. He needed a little longer for the right person to make a phone call, and lucky for him he still had the authority, partly because Senator Obama had flipflopped on the issue by then and voted in favor of wiretapping.

    >Torture is useless.

    Simple minded analysis. We already know useful information came from waterboarding and other ‘harsh interrogation tactics’.

  13. Thomas says:

    #147
    First, your labels are misplaced. As most who have seen my posts would attest, I am not liberal. Second, one does not have to be/not be liberal to see that waterboarding is torture and therefore against US and international law. If black ops guys are going to get the green light to commit torture, it better be absolutely and unquestionably effective beyond any doubt whatsoever otherwise the risk does not equal the rewards. Third, Pennetta himself has said that waterboarding is torture and not effective.

    If you got some information you wanted, you have come out ahead.

    No sir. The ends do not justify the means.

    In this case, if you take away the information gleaned from waterboarding, you are missing some links in the chain that led to this kill.

    You are overlooking what Pennetta said about the op. We had many sources that gave us the information and the information from detainees was only one small part. Furthermore, since we have been told that it is not the case that all detainees were waterboarded and that it is logical to assume that some information we gleaned from detainees was due to other interrogation techniques, we also have to conclude that the information we got as a direct result of waterboarding was even smaller.

    Beyond being immoral and reprehensible, trying to defend waterboarding as the reason we nailed Bin Laden is ludicrous.

  14. Thomas says:

    #152
    >Torture is useless.
    >>Simple minded analysis. We already know useful information
    >>came from waterboarding and other ‘harsh interrogation tactics’.

    I’ll take simple-minded over delusional and psychotic any day. What tangible and unequivocal evidence do you have for that claim? Since multiple experts have come out and stated that the information derived under torture is often wrong and at best questionable, I find your claim empty.

    Let’s look at this another way, if you think that waterboarding is acceptable and effective, why not electro-shock therapy? Why not vivisection? Do the ends justify the method in order to get information?

  15. MikeN says:

    >Do the ends justify the method in order to get information?

    Well now that is a very different statement from ‘torture never works.’

  16. Thomas says:

    #155
    Not really. I never suggested those techniques were effective. I’m merely curious if any boundary may be crossed in your Quixotic quest for information?

  17. MikeN says:

    >Since multiple experts have come out and stated that the information derived under torture is often wrong and at best questionable, I find your claim empty.

    Actually, plenty of experts have come out the other way. Like the people who looked at what information was learned due to these methods. After looking at the actual results rather than lefty talking points, they concluded that they did not want this tool removed from their arsenal. You would think the people at the CIA would have realized it if their questioning wasn’t achieving anything. But instead, they think it can yield good info. Will you get bad info? Sure. That’s not the same as saying it never works.

    >I’m merely curious if any boundary may be crossed in your Quixotic quest for information?

    Maybe. Waterboarding probably crosses that boundary as well. Then again, if I thought someone knew something important, I would probably change my mind on the spot and support torture to get the info I needed. Preference would be towards other means. By the way, this is what happened. No one was waterboarded or tortured at Gitmo, and Rumsfeld never approved of any such tactics, only harsh interrogation methods.

  18. MikeN says:

    John McCain says torture is not effective, but former attorney general Mukasey disagrees:

    Khalid Sheik Mohammed broke under harsh interrogation that included waterboarding, and disclosed a torrent of information that included the nickname of Osama bin Laden’s courier. He strongly implied in the remainder of his column in the Washington Post that this harsh interrogation was not only useless but also illegal. He is simply incorrect on all three counts.

    KSM disclosed the nickname — al Kuwaiti — along with a wealth of other information, some of which was used to stop terror plots then in progress. He did so after refusing to answer questions and, when asked if further plots were afoot, said that his interrogators would eventually find out. Another detainee, captured in Iraq, disclosed that al Kuwaiti was a trusted operative of KSM’s successor, abu Faraj al-Libbi. When al-Libbi went so far as to deny even knowing the man, his importance became obvious.
    Both former CIA Director Michael Hayden and former Director of National Intelligence Admiral Michael McConnell have acknowledged repeatedly that up to 2006, many of the valuable leads pursued by the intelligence community came from the three prisoners who were subjected to harsh techniques that included waterboarding in order to secure their cooperation.

  19. Thomas says:

    #157
    Then again, if I thought someone knew something important, I would probably change my mind on the spot and support torture to get the info I needed.

    Then you have no boundary. Vivsection, dismemberment, electro-shock. Basically, anything is fair game is you think someone has information you need (What about “want”?). Going back at least as far as WWI, it was agreed by most nations to be unacceptable to use whatever any means you wish just because you feel threatened. There are limits.

    #158
    IIRC, the claim that KSM provided useful information is actually false. It was a claim made by the administration which was later determined to be untrue. I’ll have to dig up where I read that.