Are you seriously going to contend that the Pakistani government isn't going to read the labels/"CSI" examine the "detritus" left behind? This is basic stuff we're talking about here.Of course they will. Then there are glow sticks (for illumination) and there are glow sticks (not for illumination,) after you snap one it burns, then goes dark. Maybe they look the same afterwards,cut are different in usage. Doesn't matter now,csince we've told them exactly what they're used for. Of course you're getting hung up in "glow sticks" when there are a half dozen other examples I could use.You keep not answering why he didn't let the Pentagon vet the book. It isn't abut "glow sticks" it's about several things.Also, are you going to seriously contend that al-Qaeda is going to keep a stash of glow sticks around all their HQ's to be tossed out doors when they think there's an attack underway.Nope. Sure would be a dandy trick to take into an offensive operation, however. Have you no imagination?As I (and No Easy Day) pointed out the OBL raid was little different from hundreds the special ops troops have carried out in the area since 9/11 so I kind'a think they knew all we're talking about here.Then I ask - for the third time - WHY NOT LET THE PENTAGON VET THE BOOK? If you can't answer that, you prove my point.And that would have damaged our relationship with Pakistan more than taking out OBL did; how?This is a serious question? Let's see: outcome one. We fly in, Kill Bin Laden as we have put them and the world on notice that we will do if we find him, we succeed, Bin Laden is dead, all other casualties are connected in some way, directly or indirectly with Al Qaeda. Outcome two: we fly in, land in the roof of a wealthy businessman who owns a couple shopping centers, we kill him, his brother, a couple wives, and depart. They have no connection to terrorism, they simply like their privacy, right up until they are murdered by US Special Forcea mile away from Pakistan's military academy.You really think those have the same geopolitical implications? Remind me not to no nominate you for Secretary of State.Neither I nor "Mark" faulted the President for that.Um, Mark didn't even mention it. He acknowledged that there were two other helos, he didn't say where they came from. Ever. Of course he didn't "fault" Obama for that! He didn't credit him for it either. The President isn't an issue why do you feel the need to keep defending him?I didn't make it an issue, you did. The amount of "credit" is swamped by the snarky comments in several places about "how we just got him re-elected" and "how we didn't get invited for a beer', and "that's the change we got' and so on.As I say, he's certainly entitled to his opinion, but I will not allow your ridiculous characterization that gives the impression of a positive attitude toward the President. With grudging tone, he says "We finally got the go ahead" (paraphrase), which I din't think anyone would say is high "credit."Go back and read my first post here. No mention of "credit". No mention of animus. I only responded to your positive characterization of his attitude, which is out of synch with the actual book. I don't know why you chose to mischaracterize his tone, but I set the record straight. People looking for a pro-Obama spin won't find it. People looking for a heavy anti-Obama spin won't find it. They will find a snarky thirty year old, generally anti-everything Washington guy telling the story, and he takes a few swipes at government in general and Obama in particular. This was not a big surprise to me, not did it detract from the book in any way. That's all.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra