>>>>Yeah right...
>>>
>>>IMO he handles disengagement from Iraq while droning on the Taliban nicely balanced.
>>>Also he did not fumble Osama - and actually I like the way he presents that.
>>>Not basking in glory that Osama was found during his tenure but having guts and luck for the operation.
>>
>>Yeah. 'Droning' became almost signature of (his) presidency.
>
>But ending involvement in Iraq as well. Which many outside the US and GB criticized when it started WMD and all.
>
>>As for Osama, they murdered crime suspect without trial and buried evidence deep in the see.
>
>not tried before US court: true.
>Would a US court be the right arena ?
>How to prove involvement in 9/11 beyond earlier sent statements ?
>
>I happen to believe the earlier Osama communiquees, but in view of current technology that might be wrong -
>and even worse, set bad precedence for later when such things can be faked with more ease. Point for you.

There is no proof Osama was involved in 9/11. He was just conveniently used as plausible bogeyman. Not only that his 'confession' tape was (obvious!) fake, but whole (24hrs?) 'investigation' (press finger was actually pointed at OBL within few hours) and subsequent official reports were totally bogus. Even his killing was very likely fake. Guy probably died 5-6 years ago. But who really care nowadays ?

Serving big lies to the public became so common that nobody even care what the truth really is. They said so, so it must be so.
You don't have to believe it, just don't talk about it. If you do dare to rise any questions, you are conspiracy theorist even potential
terrorist. I am actually surprised that there is no law already against publicly denying official 9/11 story.
I believe that at this point good 80% of people world-wide question official 9/11 story. Now who is ready to talk about it in public is different matter all together. Probably less then 10% would talk about it. This is what we call 'freedom'.

>
>Do you think 9/11 warrants military action instead of police and extradition queries ?
>I do. "War on Terror" IMO is the correct response for killing such numbers.

Well I do not. Neither did any international law.
But we live in lawless times where biggest gun owner gets to be judge, the juror & executioner.
Laws are there to be written if they are missing, broken or repealed if they exist. Depends on what purpose/interest they are suppose to serve.


>>I really struggle to see glory in any of that.
>War should not be glorified - that is done to get teens to fight where personal interest is not involved.
>And sometimes to win elections - refraining to do so I think is a good trait in a commander.
>Charles believes Obama would have made a political issue of his own practices if such were done by Bush.
>Quite possible - similarly I believe Bush would have tried to milk killing Osama via the media more.

Well Obama is a bit more decent person, but that is about only diff between him and Bush. Policies are more or less the same.