Wait...what?

On the flip side, a live OBL would have been a gold mine of information.

With Obie in the White House, we could have kept him hanging by his thumbs over a slow fire at Gitmo and never heard a single squeak of protest from the Left.

Speaking of gold mines, is anyone here naive enough to think that the "treasure trove of information" they scarfed up on the raid was worth a plugged nickel two seconds after Teh Won announced we'd grabbed it?

I don't know about any gold mine...what with all those ACLU lawyers lining up to defend him from interrogation and the AG making sure no one laid a finger on him, it is better he's dead. Just one big splash for Barry and then back to unemployment. If OBL was housed down in Gitmo, we'd be hearing all kinds of great decisions the President was making. This way we have a better chance of keeping Barry to one term.

And we will mine the info for second and third tier people. The fat lady hasn't sung yet on those people yet. A lot of rats are scurrying right now and may have been flushed out.

Ron Paul is an isolationist who would ignore threats until they directly threatened or attacked us.  By that point, the threat would have grown too large, and dealing with it would be costlier in terms of lives and treasure. And we'd probably have to fight on our own soil, in our own cities, jeopardizing our own civilian population.

I'd prefer to deal with these threats before they grow too large, on THEIR soil, with our military and intelligence resources.

If that makes me a fascist neo-con, I accept the label.

At least one hopes there's SOME kind of larger strategy behind the public release of some of this information.

The only strategy behind it was to give Obie's numbers a bump and give him something to point to as a positive accomplishment during his re-election bid.

Call me cynical, but there's no other logical reason to have done it.

Sound bite journalism rarely tells the whole story.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4693802/rep-paul-americas-in-a-mess/?playlist_id=86858

But of course, telling the whole story wasn't the point, was it?

For BillT:
Why would THAT surprise anyone?

I have mixed feelers about Paul.

Much of what he stands for is what's supposed to be stood for by all of us. I don't like his old school isolationism, since that lost any competence with the first oceanic flight. But... there is a need to seperate what we do for our national security abroad, armed or otherwise, and the great big unending boondoggle of corrupt and incompetent global socialism we fund with our international give-away programs.

His position on welfare is dead on accurate. You can find the foundation for his reading of the Constitution if you use some google fu. The "... provide for the common welfare.." statement was " a bit of poetic flourish carried over from the Articles of Confederation" and not meant as supporting any rob Peter to pay Paul's daily bread. This was made clear by founding fathers speaking on the issue way back when when numbnuts tried to start a "welfare program" for French refugees from, iirc, Martinique when a volcano spewed up and made em flee to the US. According to one FF, who's name I can't recall atm, "if we had known to what nefarious purposes those words would be put, we'd have left them out all together." There's your penumbra.

But, seriously, there's no way in hell that things are going to be put back to functional in any real long term manner without a lot of bloodshed first. Folks love to live in denial of that, but it is what it is. No particular POTUS is gonna fix it. The best we can hope for is a string of POTUS's that slow the degradation down somewhat.

The congress would have more impact than a POTUS long term. Same with federal judges and SCOTUS. If blood is to be avoided, that's where the focus needs to be, imo. A properly functioning congress shed of the intellectually inbred leftards, and a SCOTUS that actually honors its collective oaths, and any sort of destructive POTUS can be contained and marginalized.