Judge Napolitano POUNDS Obama For Killing Tim Osman

[EndDaFed]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGexershHu8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGexershHu8

[heavenlyboy34]

linky?

[Chester Copperpot]

link?

[heavenlyboy34]

edit: n/m

[anaconda]

linky?

"Tim Osman" was CIA code for Osama Bin Laden.

[EndDaFed]

"Tim Osman" was CIA code for Osama Bin Laden.

Oh sorry about that. I have a script that replaces names of people and nations with silly names.

[heavenlyboy34]

he errs when he says that OBL is behind the 9/11 attacks, though.

[anaconda]

he errs when he says that OBL is behind the 9/11 attacks, though.

You are correct, sir.

[ValidusCustodiae]

The Judge loses me when he's nice to Beck and Kristol. They're slime.

[puppetmaster]

But it will be unpopular to the scared little people

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Media Matters is already trying to turn this into political hay by saying that Napolitano accused the President of lying to the American public about Osama's death.

[The Moravian]

Napolitano doesn't say that OBL was behind 9/11. People watching this will definitely think so, but his exact words are "fast-forward to 9/11 and we find near universal western condemnation of him as the mastermind of the tragedy that struck America that day..."

Am I being too picky or does Napolitano word this in a very careful way to avoid saying that OBL was behind 9/11 without provoking suspicion for denying it.

[Mini-Me]

Napolitano doesn't say that OBL was behind 9/11. People watching this will definitely think so, but his exact words are "fast-forward to 9/11 and we find near universal western condemnation of him as the mastermind of the tragedy that struck America that day..."

Am I being too picky or does Napolitano word this in a very careful way to avoid saying that OBL was behind 9/11 without provoking suspicion for denying it.

That's pretty perceptive. This is the kind of thing people say when they don't want to be seen as taking a position on something or when they don't want to alienate others over it. He could be a closet truther, or he could just be smart enough to realize the stupidity of corroborating someone else's claim without any concrete knowledge of its truth. I can definitely get on board with that approach: Unless you have examined the facts of any event yourself (especially a controversial one), it's pretty silly to pick a side and make the bandwagon even bigger and more imposing. The world could use a few more cautious people and a few less know-it-all parrots.

[robert68]

Napolitano doesn't say that OBL was behind 9/11. People watching this will definitely think so, but his exact words are "fast-forward to 9/11 and we find near universal western condemnation of him as the mastermind of the tragedy that struck America that day..."

Am I being too picky or does Napolitano word this in a very careful way to avoid saying that OBL was behind 9/11 without provoking suspicion for denying it.

He implies he was behind 9/11 by referrring to him as a "monster", and doing so at least twice.

[BamaAla]

He implies he was behind 9/11 by referrring to him as a "monster", and doing so at least twice.

9/11 isn't the only thing that OBL ever got his hands dirty on. Even assuming that he had nothing to do with it, he still took many lives a number of which were American. In short, he was indeed a monster.

Edit to add: the judge was awesome in this segment. He really articulated his position well and made a fantastic point. I don't think many people (outside of this forum) have stopped to think about it that way.

[rp08orbust]

He implies he was behind 9/11 by referrring to him as a "monster", and doing so at least twice.

I suppose he could merely be assuming that OBL was behind the first WTC attack and a few other smaller terrorist attacks in the 90s.

[robert68]

9/11 isn't the only thing that OBL ever got his hands dirty on. Even assuming that he had nothing to do with it, he still took many lives a number of which were American. In short, he was indeed a monster.

American soldiers lives or American civilians lives?


Edit to add: the judge was awesome in this segment. He really articulated his position well and made a fantastic point. I don't think many people (outside of this forum) have stopped to think about it that way.
I wasn't trying to criticize the segment overall.

[BamaAla]

American soldiers lives or American civilians lives?

Both along with countless other victims of several nationalities; he wasn't exactly a good guy.

[jmdrake]

Since people are nitpicking, the Judge implied that Ronald Reagan first armed the mujihadeen and did so in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Actually it was Jimmy Carter's national security adviser Zbignev Brzezenski who armed the jihadists and he did so in order to get the Soviets to invade.

See: http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhFleLinwEM

This raises the question. How much truth can people handle at one time? Questioning the legality of a presidential action that likely has 80 to 90% approval is hard enough. Sure the judge questions WTC 7, but this wasn't the context to bring that up. I don't know if he's aware of the Carter mujahideen issue, but I wish he had brought that up as it further drives home how misguided our policy was. Afghanistan was a stable and peaceful country before we started meddling. Still I give props to Judge Napalitano for taking this on. I think the other side will argue that OBL was planning an imminent attack and will soon release a new OBL video and/or info from computer to "prove" that point. The other side will also claim the original 9/11 AUMF (authorization for use of military force) counts for a "declaration of war" against Osama Bin Laden and his organization. What is indefensible IMO is purposefully destroying a source intelligence. (Obama gave a kill order. Not a capture or kill order). Despite what some people claim (including Michael Scheuer apparently) intelligence could have been gathered from Osama Bin Laden without torture and without he cooperation using modern brain scanning technology. But then again, maybe part of the reason for killing him (if he wasn't dead already) was to shut him up.

[The Moravian]

Sorry to miss your responses, (made some breakfast and then was watching silver prices) but thanks to jmdrake for that great video about Carter and Brzezenski involvement. I did not know the specifics about the beginning of CIA/mujihadeen collaboration.

[jct74]

Media Matters is already trying to turn this into political hay by saying that Napolitano accused the President of lying to the American public about Osama's death.

Yep. Judge Nap front and center on Media Matters once again.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201105030001
http://mediamatters.org/

http://i56.tinypic.com/2d7itmf.jpg

[Matt Collins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95xo9Indh2Q



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nlvm3VhOqek

[Matt Collins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGexershHu8

HOLY CRAP!!!!

I think that may have been one of the Judge's most powerful monologues EVER!

[libertarian4321]

I don't think you are going to find a lot of people weeping for Bin Laden- even on these forums.

This may be an interesting debate point, and he may be technically correct about Bin Laden, but this is NOT a winning issue.

Or to put it another way, don't take this up as a "cause" and mention it along with Ron Paul- it's one of those things that will make us look extreme/crazy and will drive away potential voters.

[jackers]

Yep. Judge Nap front and center on Media Matters once again.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201105030001
http://mediamatters.org/

http://i56.tinypic.com/2d7itmf.jpg

I can't believe the comments. How quickly they forget what side they are on.

[Peace&Freedom]

I don't think you are going to find a lot of people weeping for Bin Laden- even on these forums.

This may be an interesting debate point, and he may be technically correct about Bin Laden, but this is NOT a winning issue.

Or to put it another way, don't take this up as a "cause" and mention it along with Ron Paul- it's one of those things that will make us look extreme/crazy and will drive away potential voters.

The truth is always a winning issue. Ron Paul could have taken the same timid approach to blowback, and backed down when Giuliani tried to make him look extreme/crazy for making the argument for it in the debates. He did not, and the rest is history. Let's attract voters with the truth, or let the heavens fall.

[Matt Collins]

I don't think you are going to find a lot of people weeping for Bin Laden- even on these forums.

This may be an interesting debate point, and he may be technically correct about Bin Laden, but this is NOT a winning issue.

Or to put it another way, don't take this up as a "cause" and mention it along with Ron Paul- it's one of those things that will make us look extreme/crazy and will drive away potential voters.On the Lou Dobbs show the Judge acknowledges the fact that it is a popularly supported decision and thus it will never be opposed mainstream. But he also says that the President broke the law.

[JVParkour]

Dude. The Judge Nap - Lou Dobbs interview Collins put up was amazing. Judge Nap SCHOOLED Dobbs. WOW. Now that is a man that knows the ins and out of the law. Haha, that is the best i've seen Judge Nap ever. A great display of his intellect.

[Humanae Libertas]

Media Matters tards' make me laugh. They remind me of the website - Land Over Baptist Church, a bit.

[doodle]

Wow, he asks could Obama order killing of Beck next?

[Seraphim]

I believe that was a philosophical statement that can be applied to any "monster" - insofar that the President cannot simply kill a monster - even if the public approves.


He implies he was behind 9/11 by referrring to him as a "monster", and doing so at least twice.