Sounds Like The Sexual Predator Screwed Up His First Covert Military Raid..

The U.S. military said on Wednesday it was looking into whether more civilians were killed in a raid on al Qaeda in Yemen on the weekend, in the first operation authorized by President Donald Trump as commander in chief.

U.S. Navy SEAL William “Ryan” Owens was killed in the raid on a branch of al Qaeda, also known as AQAP, in al Bayda province, which the Pentagon said also killed 14 militants. However, medics at the scene said about 30 people, including 10 women and children, were killed.

U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.

Caution: Mainstream Media Link

here is the Navy SEAL who died in the raid.. the raid in which military officials say was botched by Trump.



RIP to a brave American who deserved better.

when do the Benghazi-like hearings begin?

You're such an ass. Somehow I don't remember posts like this when people died during Obama approved raids.

But if you can make a fake point on his body, you're willing.

LooseGoose wrote:You're such an ass. Somehow I don't remember posts like this when people died during Obama approved raids.

But if you can make a fake point on his body, you're willing.

I'm sorry that you're upset at me.

I suppose that's easier for you than being upset at the president.

LooseGoose wrote:You're such an ass.   Somehow I don't remember posts like this when people died during Obama approved raids.

But if you can make a fake point on his body, you're willing.

Ignoring Bob for a minute, if it is indeed the case that Trump authorized this raid on less than sufficient intelligence and it resulted in some avoidable deaths, what consequences, if any, would you deem appropriate?

Cameron wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:You're such an ass.   Somehow I don't remember posts like this when people died during Obama approved raids.

But if you can make a fake point on his body, you're willing.

Ignoring Bob for a minute, if it is indeed the case that Trump authorized this raid on less than sufficient intelligence and it resulted in some avoidable deaths, what consequences, if any, would you deem appropriate?

Well Cameron I know this will draw the normal shit but the information I read on this today - you know an actual factual history unlike Bob's bullshit.....

Stated this was brought to the President/SecDef on 11/7/16 - they approved. It was continued to be worked on and refined then was again approved in early January. The only requirement was a moonless night. Once it was determined that this would only happen after the inauguration then Mattis/Trump were brought into the loop. They both approved the raid too. So this raid was approved by 2 SecDefs and 2 Presidents. But the buck stops with the sitting President and I don't know that there have EVER been "consequences" for a President over a botched military operation, after all he wasn't leading it. Do you think we should start with that now?

IF you want to lay fault then let's find out who made the decision to continue with the raid AFTER it was known that they had been discovered. The Al Queda members knew they were coming while they were still in the air. That seems to have been the bad decision here and I've not seen if that decision was made on the raid team, locally or in DC. IF that was a military decision I'll bet the officer that made it will see his career suffer. Also an investigation into the leak might be productive.

The strike was planned before Trump was sworn in.

Its too bad the US suffered a casualty but that's always a risk recognized by those who all volunteer for those type missions.

LooseGoose wrote:

Cameron wrote:
Ignoring Bob for a minute, if it is indeed the case that Trump authorized this raid on less than sufficient intelligence and it resulted in some avoidable deaths, what consequences, if any, would you deem appropriate?

Well Cameron I know this will draw the normal shit but the information I read on this today - you know an actual factual history unlike Bob's bullshit.....

Stated this was brought to the President/SecDef on 11/7/16 - they approved. It was continued to be worked on and refined then was again approved in early January. The only requirement was a moonless night. Once it was determined that this would only happen after the inauguration then Mattis/Trump were brought into the loop. They both approved the raid too. So this raid was approved by 2 SecDefs and 2 Presidents. But the buck stops with the sitting President and I don't know that there have EVER been "consequences" for a President over a botched military operation, after all he wasn't leading it. Do you think we should start with that now?

IF you want to lay fault then let's find out who made the decision to continue with the raid AFTER it was known that they had been discovered. The Al Queda members knew they were coming while they were still in the air. That seems to have been the bad decision here and I've not seen if that decision was made on the raid team, locally or in DC. IF that was a military decision I'll bet the officer that made it will see his career suffer. Also an investigation into the leak might be productive.

"But the buck stops with the sitting President and I don't know that there have EVER been 'consequences' for a President over a botched military operation, after all he wasn't leading it. Do you think we should start with that now?"

So "no consequences?" Because I think you're right, and I think I agree with you. There shouldn't have to be consequences, it should weigh heavily on the President any time he is ultimately responsible for deaths. Whether or not Trump has any sort of conscience is still a bit unclear to me, but I think that for virtually every other President we've ever had or ever will have, the weight of the decision is enough that it is its own consequence. Hopefully Trump feels the weight of his decisions, time will tell.

Here's a fairly balanced back and forth on the raid with some new information at least to me....

Military sources try to blame Trump for botched Yemen raid that left one Navy SEAL dead

Per the Times, Obama held off on ordering the mission himself because the SEALs wanted to wait for a moonless night and the next one didn’t roll around until after his term was over. Otherwise, though, it sounds like due diligence had been done and Ash Carter had approved of the raid; the only specific intimation of wrongdoing by the Trump White House in the Reuters piece is the claim that “on-the-ground surveillance of the compound was ‘minimal, at best'” — but whose responsibility was that? Did the Navy ask for more surveillance and was denied by the White House, perhaps wishing to expedite the mission in hopes of securing a glorious counterterror victory for the new president? Or did the Navy simply fail to provide enough surveillance itself? The story suggests that Trump was rash to approve the raid but never makes clear why, or why it was brought to him for approval if it wasn’t ready. And on top of that, probably the single most able officer in his cabinet, Jim Mattis, is serving at the Defense Department. Mattis surely has the operational background to know if a raid is half-baked or ready to go. If he told Trump they were ready — and presumably he did — why on earth would Trump have doubted him?

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Here's a fairly balanced back and forth on the raid with some new information at least to me....

Military sources try to blame Trump for botched Yemen raid that left one Navy SEAL dead

Without reading it, Obamas fault?

Nope, but why bother actually reading anything when you can come here and with Bob about how bad Trump is.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Nope, but why bother actually reading anything when you can come here and with Bob about how bad Trump is.

Seriously, it was Ash?  What an asshat.  Ash?  man.   Then.... If he told Trump they were ready — and presumably he did — why on earth would Trump have doubted him?

Hey goose, did you hear a girl got assaulted cause she was wearing something?  Fucking unbelievable.   Was that Obama's fault?

Nope. I blame it on Soros, after he's paying the jackass protesters. Glad to see you so happy to see them in the streets.

When its not Fake News or distorted news its George Soros' fault.

Always somebody's fault who's politics don't line up with Goose's

Real world Goose.

Shit happens and in this case the target was hiding among innocents. I have no issue with death of civilians if the target is hiding among them.

Americans want to think everything is a video game.

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:


Without reading it, Obamas fault?

Nope, but why bother actually reading anything when you can come here and with Bob about how bad Trump is.

Goose, you claim to hate Trump, not vote for him, and think he or Hillary would be a disaster for the country. Yet all you do is come in here and defend him or try to deflect any criticism of him from anyone. I gotta say that your blind partisanship towards the right has cornered you into defending him because you dispose the left and more to the point.....Bob. It seems as though since Bob hates him you've allowed him to masterfully paint you into a corner where your in opposition to Bob and by proxy pro Trump. It's quite the message board soap opera.

As I've said on here, as long as Trump governs as a Conservative I'll support him.


That could last for his entire term or could end tomorrow.

I read that the guy who lied about Hillary being in bed during Benghazi was actually asleep during the Yemen raid?

LooseGoose wrote:As I've said on here, as long as Trump governs as a Conservative I'll support him.


That could last for his entire term or could end tomorrow.

But your defending him on stuff that's politically nuetral

kingstonlake wrote:I read that the guy who lied about Hillary being in bed during Benghazi was actually asleep during the Yemen raid?

Got a link? Spicer today said he was being updated live....

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Got a link? Spicer today said he was being updated live....

From the guy who used alternative facts about crowd size? Seems legit.

So no link.


OK

On a scale of 1 to 5 Benghazis where does this one rank?

If you hang up on an ally at 5pm due to fatigue. You really think he was awake in the wee hours of the morning? Hell even Spice guy says he wasn't in the situation room. But was kept updated. Wink..Wink...

NigelUno wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Nope, but why bother actually reading anything when you can come here and with Bob about how bad Trump is.

Just curious...is HotAir.com a straight news site?  Or does it lean a little...let me guess...to the right?  

Thanks in advance for an honest answer.

God you're a stupidly snide fuck. HotAir leans right, the difference is that they don't hide it. And if you read my post to Wags it said this: "Here's a fairly balanced back and forth on the raid with some new information at least to me...." - Most people with any level of reading comprehension would take that as a warning that the article had some lean to it.

I'm glad that you've now shown everyone here your otherworldly detective skills......jeezus.

David French ‏@DavidAFrench 46m46 minutes ago
In the latest NYT story about Yemen, this is key. Mattis reviewed and recommended the raid. I take his judgment over armchair Twitter:

David French ‏@DavidAFrench 1h1 hour ago
I'm disturbed by the raid in Yemen. I'm disturbed al Qaeda used human shields and women picked up AK-47s. Jihadist war crimes are disturbing

NigelUno wrote:Oh.  You were being sarcastic.  Seems like you're being a little snide in your response.  

Are you admitting that the article you linked could be considered a propaganda piece then?  Or am I reading too much into your admission that you posted an article with an obvious tilt (that I missed when you said it was fairly balanced)?  

Did you go read it or are you just being your normal asshole self?   Admission?   God you're a dumb fuck.

Anyway, once again I'm done answering your stupid shit.   It's the double standard around here.   I link to an article, mention it has a lean and now I'm getting called out by a jackass that never adds anything to a discussion.

I never see anyone do with with Bobby or any of the lefties here because most of them don't ever post links to verify or back up anything they post.   They post shit that is debunked over and over as fake news and never have to explain themselves.

I still think the HotAir break down of how the raid was planned was pretty damned straightforward and balanced, if you had bothered to read it you might too.   See you on ignore.

Maybe this tipped Nigel HOLMES off:

From the article in question - 1st paragraph.

I’ve read the NYT, WaPo, and Reuters accounts of what happened but I can’t recall a single piece of hard evidence alleged that would suggest the White House, rather than military planners, screwed this up. You can blame Trump from a “buck stops here” standpoint (which is surely what we on the right would have done with Obama had the Bin Laden raid gone sideways), but otherwise I’m with streiff. The balance of information we have right now is that the SEALs were victims of bad operational planning and bad luck (and perhaps, a tip-off to Al Qaeda that they were coming). How is that the White House’s fault?

LooseGoose wrote:As I've said on here, as long as Trump governs as a Conservative I'll support him.


That could last for his entire term or could end tomorrow.

Spoken like a member of the Krupp family in 1935.

so... republicans aren't calling for Benghazi-like hearings?

that would seem to suggest that their concern for the 4 brave Americans who died in Benghazi was purely political.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:so... republicans aren't calling for Benghazi-like hearings?

that would seem to suggest that their concern for the 4 brave Americans who died in Benghazi was purely political.

I think the term "conservative" chicken-hawks use is expendable asset

GRR Spartan wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:As I've said on here, as long as Trump governs as a Conservative I'll support him.


That could last for his entire term or could end tomorrow.

Spoken like a member of the Krupp family in 1935.

One again, you know someone is losing on the facts when they begin to compare you to a Nazi. But thanks GRR, I appreciate it.

OK goose I gotta ask ya.

When Hillary and Trump got their nominations you said both were disasters and we were fucked. Trump wins and you claim if he governs like a conservative you'll support him. Well, all he's done so far is what he pretty much said he would and you're on the support wagon from jump Street after two weeks. Why do you support him now but not six months ago. He's doing what he said he would from six months ago. Why was he a disaster then but has your support so far now?

kingstonlake wrote:OK goose I gotta ask ya.

When Hillary and Trump got their nominations you said both were disasters and we were fucked. Trump wins and you claim if he governs like a conservative you'll support him. Well, all he's done so far is what he pretty much said he would and you're on the support wagon from jump Street after two weeks. Why do you support him now but not six months ago. He's doing what he said he would from six months ago. Why was he a disaster then but has your support so far now?

I didn't think he'd actually do it. I still can barely believe it and am waiting for the nearly inevitable flip.

looks like the sexual predator's ego got some folks killed..

(caution: mainstream media article below)

Sexual Predator Launches Raid After Being Told That Obama Wasn't Bold Enough To Do It