Panetta Writes McCain: CIA Interrogation Did Not Reveal Osama's Courier

By Jeralyn, Section War on Terror
Posted on Mon May 16, 2011 at 03:33:03 PM EST
Tags: Osama bin Laden, Pakistan (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Glenn Sargent at The Plum Line obtained a copy of the May 9th letter CIA Chief Leon Panetta wrote John McCain. He quotes three paragraphs:

Nearly 10 years of intensive intelligence work led the CIA to conclude that Bin Ladin was likely hiding at the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. there was no one “essential and indispensible” key piece of information that led us to this conclusion. Rather, the intelligence picture was developed via painstaking collection and analysis. Multiple streams of intelligence — including from detainees, but also from multiple other sources — led CIA analysts to conclude that Bin Ladin was at this compound. Some of the detainees who provided useful information about the facilitator/courier’s role had been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. Whether those techniques were the “only timely and effective way” to obtain such information is a matter of debate and cannot be established definitively. What is definitive is that that information was only a part of multiple streams of intelligence that led us to Bin Ladin.

[More...]

Let me further point out that we first learned about the facilitator/courier’s nom de guerre from a detainee not in CIA custody in 2002. It is also important to note that some detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques attempted to provide false or misleading information about the facilitator/courier. These attempts to falsify the facilitator/courier’s role were alerting.

In the end, no detainee in CIA custody revealed the facilitator/courier’s full true name or specific whereabouts. This information was discovered through other intelligence means.

Marcy at Empty Wheel provides further analysis.

Lt-Gen Ahmad Shuja Pasha, Pakistan's ISI Chief, told Parliament just days ago that it provided the crucial information to the CIA about the courier.

Citing an example of the CIA’s withholding of information, he said the ISI had provided complete information about Abu Ahmad Al Kuwaiti, the courier in the Osama saga, but when the CIA, acting on the lead, arrested one of his friends in Kuwait, it did not share the development with the ISI.

More from the Telegraph which says Pakistan is furious and won't continue sharing information.

"They are furious. They handed over telephone intercepts in 2009 that were crucial in leading to bin Laden's courier – the key breakthrough in the hunt," said a source briefed on relations between the two countries.

"Then four months ago they were told there was nothing in it, it was what the Americans called a 'cold lead'. Since then they have been left out completely out of the loop."

< Jury Selection Begins in Tahawwur Rana Terrorism Trial | Discrepancies, a Potential Alibi and Early Tweets in Dominique Strauss-Khan Case >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Panetta Writes McCain: CIA Interrogation Did Not Reveal Osama's Courier | 49 comments (49 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I don't believe anything Pakistan says (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by Militarytracy on Mon May 16, 2011 at 04:38:14 PM EST

on any of this :)

Too bad the U.S. govt (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by shoephone on Mon May 16, 2011 at 04:54:59 PM EST

isn't willing to state that torture doesn't work when it comes to the rendition flights and subsequent torture of innocents at the hands of our global "allies." The SCOTUS upheld the govternment's b.s. "state secrets" privileges by denying Binyam Mohammed the right to hold Jeppensen Data Plan accountable for its role in committing crimes against humanity. I guess there really is a reason Obama isn't pushing Syria to behave morally and responsibly towards its own citizens. We needed them to torture innocent people during the Bush/Cheney years. Accountability? Not so much.

Excuse me if I don't give a cr@p what Panetta says today about torture not being necessary or effective. This administration's refusal to hold Bush, Cheney, Jeppesen, and its parent company, Boeing, accountable makes Pannetta's words meaningless. This administration now has the blood of innocents on its hands.

How are we to believe anything, really? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Anne on Mon May 16, 2011 at 05:46:53 PM EST

It's say whatever you have to when you have to, but do what you want because there are no repercussions: "state secrets" is now the official big middle finger to the rule of law.

Aren't we all just so proud?


It sickens me (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by shoephone on Mon May 16, 2011 at 06:09:36 PM EST

Not actively holding Bush and Cheney accountable for the torture is bad enough, but the curent DOJ going to the SCOTUS to defend the heinous excuse of the state secrets privilege makes the Obama administration fully complicit in the torture of innocents.

Same as it ever was. They all become corrupted by silence and complicity. And to think, I met Panetta when he was my congressman thirty years ago, and I was proud to say that ... back then.


: My (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by lentinel on Mon May 16, 2011 at 07:36:01 PM EST

stomach churns when I see a representative of the present administration, a Democratic one, use the phrase, "enhanced interrogation techniques" when referring to torture.
Of course, a previous Democratic administration, Clinton's, gave us the euphemism, "collateral damage", to refer to the deaths of civilians who happened to be in the way of our bombs.
It just seems that each successive administration, whether it be republican or democrat, moves us farther and farther away from our ability to actually feel anything.

"Multiple Streams" (none / 0) (#1)
by Gerald USN Ret on Mon May 16, 2011 at 04:31:31 PM EST

I like that.

As a Navy guy, "Multiple" Streams (or currents) rings well with me.

Of course that is the case, so/but what does that prove or disprove?

Probably whatever you are hoping for.

: You can't put (5.00 / 0) (#4)
by lilburro on Mon May 16, 2011 at 05:31:32 PM EST

toothpaste back in the tube. Once tortured, how can you say the torture didn't affect a detainee? There's no way to know unless we're going to have an indepth public commission. I won't be holding my breath. It does seem clear that specific acts of torture were unable to produce true information. Instead, these interrogations produced false information. Waterboarding specifically produced nothing. The only information related to torture I've read is along these lines - "I punched a guy a week ago. Today he told me" etc. Can you really say that's cause and effect?
It's not a toss up, "believe what you will" situation. The fact is that torture, if it works at all, is incredibly ineffective and best at producing false information. And if it is that ineffective I don't know why we do it at all. Esp. as no "immediate plots" or "ticking time bombs" are being affected.

: Shorter me: (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by lilburro on Mon May 16, 2011 at 05:34:19 PM EST

I don't know that we'll ever get the whole truth or that we should 100% trust any intelligence official but it is misleading to suggest that the evidence doesn't point in one direction or another, when it clearly does point in one direction - that torture doesn't work.

Who watched "The Event" tonight? (none / 0) (#9)
by Gerald USN Ret on Mon May 16, 2011 at 09:35:19 PM EST

First they proved (on the show) that torture works by getting the Password to the computer. (In this case it could easily be ascertained as to whether the doctor was telling the truth, so ... what is the password!)

Second they gave a kudo to the idea that torture doesn't work well if you need information that can't be checked easily. e.g. the questioned person can delay, disassemble.

Two sides. Each showing a different and quite believable result.
To state as an axiom that "torture doesn't work" or perhaps better to say that "torture never works" can easily be dis-proven and is done every day on most every playground in the world.

Now comes the more germane question "is torture moral, legal, Christian, nice, good?" Most would say NO.
On the other hand was it moral, legal, Christian, nice, good to shoot bin Laden dead?

If we accept the latter, that the killing was good, then why all the fuss about using torture as a means to find the person to kill.

This is not a binary world 0's and 1's, of black and whites, so we can argue incessantly about it. What should be remembered is that when it is believed that it is absolutely necessary to get results, then people will do what it takes.

I think that it is a better strategy to say that torture is immoral and nice people don't do it rather than to declare that it never works.

You're basing your thesis (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by shoephone on Mon May 16, 2011 at 10:52:34 PM EST

on a silly television show?

Fer chrissakes.


And Kids on a Playground... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by ScottW714 on Tue May 17, 2011 at 12:00:22 AM EST

... prove torture works.

Please tell me that was a really lame attempt at parody.


: Kids on the playground (2.00 / 1) (#14)
by Gerald USN Ret on Tue May 17, 2011 at 02:26:44 AM EST

are bullied. Their money, lunch, etc. is stolen.
Kids have all sorts of things happen to them.
This is no parody, and I am surprised with all the reports of bullying in the media lately and the terrible consequences that result that you would think of a parody.
Do you not think that these kids, young kids, gay kids, foreign students, to bring up a few that have been in the paper recently, fall under the heading of having been "tortured" in school or on the internet?
You need to really think about that. There is an obvious connection.
The point that I am making is that schoolyard torture or even internet torture goes on all the time and the victims suffer and lose many things both material and spiritual, and the perpetrators exult in their power and learn real lessons about force, coercion, and power. These lessons are not the kinds of lessons we wish our young people to learn, but they are real lessons. To make it worse, many times it is the original victims that later become the cruelest.
These same lessons are put to use by grown men that torture prisoners.
None of this makes torture/force/bullying good or nice and I don't represent it that way, but it does explain why those elements have always been present in man.

What is your basis Shoephone. (none / 0) (#11)
by Gerald USN Ret on Mon May 16, 2011 at 11:33:36 PM EST

Why not?

Doesn't art imitate life?

And you could have also said "a silly science fiction TV Show that probably won't be renewed." But so what?
Writers, directors, and actors never say, "well that is so silly! To think that a fist in the groin or face, or a threat to a man's wife and child, or setting his feet on fire will get him to give you the combination to the safe." What kind of idiot would believe that crazy a story? I won't write such a stupid script, or direct such an inane film, or act so mean or vicious."

Now the question is Shoephone, what do you base your own thesis on?

Wishful thinking? What TV show is that?


You sound like someone (none / 0) (#13)
by shoephone on Tue May 17, 2011 at 12:26:59 AM EST

who has just gone over the deep end. I have no interest in engaging your sickness any further.


There is a bird that (none / 0) (#15)
by Gerald USN Ret on Tue May 17, 2011 at 02:29:38 AM EST

hides by putting his head in the sand.


Nobody is putting their head in the sand (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Militarytracy on Tue May 17, 2011 at 07:08:17 AM EST

And torture has not been what is breaking up the Haqqani network (a network that remained largely untouched, hidden, and building itself stronger and larger the whole time we thought we could torture for meaningful useable intel, nor did torture find Osama Bin Laden. Torture prevented Bush from finding Bin Laden. He thought he could be lazy, blow all of the nation's treasure on nothing tangible, and torture his way to the solution. How did that go? Torturing Bush couldn't find Osama in 7 years, Obama found him in 2.


Uh Tracy (none / 0) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 17, 2011 at 11:02:21 AM EST

BDS is okay.... but lazy????

Bush was the President who, according to Clinton's NSA, Clarke, who Bush held over, increased resources for the CIA in its battle with al Qaida 500% within days of his inauguration in January 2001.

That sounds like he was vigorous to me.

Plus, you can't ignore this.

Only three terrorists were waterboarded.

And Panetta says:

Some of the detainees who provided useful information about the facilitator/courier's role had been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques.

But you know, I read somewhere on the 'Net that claiming Obama was responsible for catching OBL is like claiming Ronald is responsible for the good burgers at MacDonald's. I would change that to "claiming Bush and Obama were responsible...."

The people who worked for both Presidents did the job and it is not proper for either to claim credit beyond noting "they worked for me."


Half the story (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Yman on Tue May 17, 2011 at 11:35:09 AM EST

Bush was the President who, according to Clinton's NSA, Clarke, who Bush held over, increased resources for the CIA in its battle with al Qaida 500% within days of his inauguration in January 2001.
That sounds like he was vigorous to me.

If we're using Clarke to verify the vigor of the Bush admin's pursuit of AQ, maybe we should look at the totality of his statements on the subject:

Clarke wrote in Against All Enemies that in the summer of 2001, the intelligence community was convinced of an imminent attack by al Qaeda, but could not get the attention of the highest levels of the Bush administration ...
Clarke charged that before and during the 9/11 crisis, many in the administration were distracted from efforts against Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda organization by a pre-occupation with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Clarke had written that on September 12, 2001, President Bush pulled him and a couple of aides aside and "testily" asked him to try to find evidence that Saddam was connected to the terrorist attacks. In response he wrote a report stating there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement and got it signed by all relevant agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the CIA. The paper was quickly returned by a deputy with a note saying "Please update and resubmit"...
Clarke made the statement: "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda, ever."
Clarke had made clear in his book that this conclusion was understood by the intelligence community at the time of 9/11 and the ensuing months, but top Bush administration officials were pre-occupied with finding a link between Iraq and 9/11 in the months that followed the attack, and thus, Clarke argued, the Iraq war distracted attention and resources from the war in Afghanistan and hunt for Osama bin Laden.

BTW - Clarke was asked about his "500% increase statement" at the 9/11 hearings. He said: "I was asked to make that case to the press. I was a special assistant to the President, and I made the case I was asked to make... I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done."

IOW - It was a CYA statement for the Bush admin.


And increasing resources (none / 0) (#22)
by Militarytracy on Tue May 17, 2011 at 11:47:29 AM EST

within the CIA to invade Iraq didn't do a damned thing to dismantle and disrupt Al Qaeda, it only created a new branch of Al Qaeda that killed people :)


So you are saying that Clarke was lying (none / 0) (#24)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 17, 2011 at 12:27:47 PM EST

Then the question is, when was he lying????

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

BTW - That has nothing to do with Iraq.


I am saying precisely what Clarke ... (none / 0) (#30)
by Yman on Tue May 17, 2011 at 02:25:12 PM EST

... himself said. When he made the statement you referred to, he was spinning and acting as an advocate. He was acting in his capacity as a special assistant to the President, not speaking for himself. Furthermore, when you look at all of his statements on the Bush admin's pursuit of AQ, he clearly disagrees with your opinion, which is why I thought it was funny (and deceptive) that you chose him to try to support your theory.

Not a difficult concept.


Uh the problem is once you start to (none / 0) (#33)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 17, 2011 at 05:09:31 PM EST

lie the question is always there. I think he was lying when he was trying to weedle his way back on the DC "A" list and sell his book. You think he was lying when he said Bush increased CIA resources 500%.


Is that why he wanted Bush's testimony (5.00 / 0) (#35)
by Harry Saxon on Tue May 17, 2011 at 06:53:50 PM EST

before the 9/11 Commission?

I think he was lying when he was trying to weedle his way back on the DC "A" list and sell his book.

But you still quote him even though you think he's a liar.

That makes a lot of sense.

Not.


Not if I think he was telling the truth (none / 0) (#37)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 17, 2011 at 09:03:34 PM EST

re the CIA enhancement.


: As I said (none / 0) (#39)
by Harry Saxon on Tue May 17, 2011 at 09:43:37 PM EST

you think he's lying when he's out of office, but that he was "telling the truth" when he was working for GWB re "CIA enhancement".
"When you're in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging."

He wasn't "lying" at all (none / 0) (#38)
by Yman on Tue May 17, 2011 at 09:12:21 PM EST

When did I say he was lying? He was spinning while acting as a Special Assistant to Bush - that was his job.

I'm just pointing out that you're using just one of Clarke's many statement on the subject (the Bush admin's pursuit - or lack thereof - of AQ) made on behalf of the Bush WH, while ignoring his many statements made while he was free to speak his own opinion.

It's almost like you're trying to mislead.

BTW - Clarke's account of the post-9/11 period was corroborated by Marine Lieutenant General Greg Newbold, former director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and by Army General John Batiste, former commander of the First Infantry Division, who in 2001 and 2002 had been the Senior Military Advisor to Wolfowitz.

Strange, huh?

They weren't just trying to "sell a book" ...


From the Wiki (none / 0) (#41)
by Harry Saxon on Tue May 17, 2011 at 10:19:48 PM EST

At the next day's hearing, 9/11 Commission member James Thompson challenged Clarke with the 2002 account, and Clarke explained: "I was asked to make that case to the press. I was a special assistant to the President, and I made the case I was asked to make... I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done. And as a special assistant to the President, one is frequently asked to do that kind of thing. I've done it for several Presidents."

Wiki Richard A Clarke Not for Academic Research


Thanks (none / 0) (#42)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 17, 2011 at 11:12:21 PM EST

I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done

Well, he said Bush had increased the CIA resources 500%... that was a positive aspect.

And I agree. That was positive. He was telling he truth.


You're welcome (none / 0) (#45)
by Yman on Wed May 18, 2011 at 08:10:21 AM EST

I agree - although without more facts as to what was increased, why, how, etc., it's hard to apply any significance to that statement. He stated the increase was for covert ops and used AQ as an example, but he did not say that the "five fold" increase was used to pursue AQ. How much of the increase was used to go after AQ as opposed to other covert ops (i.e. Iraq)? Kind'uv an important detail to your theory.

More importantly, it's hard to ignore his many corroborated statements where he pointed out that the Bush admin had little focus on AQ before 9-11, but chose instead to focus on Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Plus, there's the fact that the Bush admin downgraded the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism, - "No longer would Clarke's memos go to the President; instead they had to pass though a chain of command of National Security Advisor Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley, who bounced every one of them back." So the administration that was so vigorously pursuing AQ demotes the National Counterterrorism Coordinator, declines requests to allow him to brief the President, focuses on Iraq and imaginary threats of WMD rather than AQ, and a claim of a "fivefold increase" in covert ops generally is supposed to show their "vigor" in pursuit of AQ?

Not even a good try ...


He said what he said (none / 0) (#46)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 18, 2011 at 08:40:18 AM EST

So, point five, ...... add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

And he also said (none / 0) (#47)
by Harry Saxon on Wed May 18, 2011 at 08:43:25 AM EST

I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done

And the question is, go after AQ where?.


Selective tales?? (none / 0) (#48)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 18, 2011 at 10:35:20 AM EST

If I understand correctly you opine that he was telling the truth when he said that he was emphasizing positive actions but lying when said increase the CIA's resources 500% for covert action to go after Al Qaeda.

As to where?

Wherever they where.


: Uh, No (none / 0) (#49)
by Harry Saxon on Wed May 18, 2011 at 10:40:59 AM EST

If I understand correctly you opine that he was telling the truth when he said that he was emphasizing positive actions but lying when said increase the CIA's resources 500% for covert action to go after Al Qaeda.
Nope, you're the one who says he was lying when he wasn't in governmental service, but that he was telling the complete truth when working for the Bush Administration.
Jeralyn said she wanted no fighting or insulting, so I'm going to let you have the last word as to why we should believe everything Mr. Clarke said except when he left the Bush Administration and wrote his book criticizing them.

I know it hurts Jim (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Militarytracy on Tue May 17, 2011 at 11:52:46 AM EST

But President Obama is the only President thusfar who has addressed Al Qaeda head on. Bush just used the threat to start a war with someone he thought his father failed to remove who had a bunch of oil, and he accomplished nothing of worth other than destroying our economy, killing a bunch of innocent civilians who never did anything to anyone and killing and permanently maiming thousands and thousands of soldiers. Bush is scarcely more than a POS when it comes to protecting and guiding our nation in one of its darkest hours.


Oh really?? (2.00 / 1) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 17, 2011 at 12:32:46 PM EST

Tracy, blow out your candles at the Obama shrine. You know very well that Bush attacked and subdued AQ in Afghanistan before he moved on to Iraq.

Obama, OTOH, couldn't even decide to send the troops requested for months and months and then he sent only half of what was requested and announced a withdrawal date.

Nothing like telling your enemies to just wait and you will leave.

Look, I like what Obama did with OBL and I like his push with drones, etc., re Pakistan. But this all things bad Bush and all things great Obama flies in the face of reality.


I have no Obama shrine Jim (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Militarytracy on Tue May 17, 2011 at 12:45:58 PM EST

If anything he risks pi$$ing me off even further because I've seen what he's capable of when he really means something. He had already sort of lost his easy cover for me because I was already seeing what his insistance on things could change up in combat zones, he just dug his hole deeper in that department by getting Bin Laden. Sorry though Jim, Obama the war President makes Bush the war President look like a damned fool. He had been doing it quite well for a year and a half, but the month of May 2011 put a great big bow on top of that old crap, and blowing through treasure with torture sauce sandwich :)


: Tracy, it is okay to love Obama (none / 0) (#31)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 17, 2011 at 05:06:08 PM EST

so you don't have to deny.
As for doing great... let me see... We have po'd an allie in Pakistan, Egypt may go radical Muslim and attack Israel.. Iran is proceeding to go nuke... Pakistan is speeding up their nuke capabilities.. Libya is in flames driving gasoline prices to near record levels.. Syria is killing people and trying to flood the border with Israel...Afghanistan is not secure..... and Iraq.... oh, wait. That is Bush's war.
Oh, did I mention England is talking about pulling troops from Afghanistan??? Maybe Obama not getting an invite to the wedding was a clue.
If it gets any better I'm gonna get a bomb shelter and plant a survival garden.
;-)

what exactly does (5.00 / 0) (#28)
by jondee on Tue May 17, 2011 at 01:01:58 PM EST

"Bush subdued AQ in Afghanistan before he moved on to Iraq" have to do with historical reality; on Planet Teabag or elsewhere?


: What you need to do (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Harry Saxon on Tue May 17, 2011 at 01:48:40 PM EST

Trust Fox News

Today's Republicans are LAZY (none / 0) (#50)
by Militarytracy on Wed May 18, 2011 at 12:01:23 PM EST

They are distilled privileged lazy. They want us to elect them to run the government, then they bleat that government doesn't work. Government doesn't work when they run it because they don't work :)


: When I was but a wee lad (none / 0) (#51)
by Harry Saxon on Wed May 18, 2011 at 12:24:38 PM EST

one of my elementary school teachers pointed out that LBJ, knowing he was going to be succeeded by Nixon after the election in 1968, nevertheless worked hard so that by his last day in office it was as prepared for his successor as he could make it.

It is fictional entertainment that (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Militarytracy on Tue May 17, 2011 at 07:03:02 AM EST

is the basis of your theory that you are willing to destroy your soul with. That's pretty insane IMO. Because of the problems our nation must currently deal with in real life, I never watched an episode of 24. We have enough real life problems and too many Americans can't distinguish meaningful between fantasy and reality.


Come on (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by lilburro on Tue May 17, 2011 at 07:55:27 AM EST

organized networks of terrorists are different than kids on a playground. They come to interrogation ready for brutal treatment, and our soldiers are trained to do the same.

The reporting so far on how we captured bin Laden doesn't justify your position.


The nature of fiction, whether it is (none / 0) (#19)
by Anne on Tue May 17, 2011 at 08:50:01 AM EST

a book or a movie or a TV show, is that however "real" and believable it seems, it is still the product of someone's imagination and the writer controls the whole thing from beginning to end; real life, on the other hand, is not controllable. We can do as much as we can to steer things in the direction we want things to go, but in the end, we can't control the behavior and actions of others and reach nice, tidy endings like fiction writers tie up the loose endings of a novel's plot.

Whether it's "The Event" or "24" or Tom Clancy or Robert Ludlum, art only imitates life, it doesn't substitute for it, however plausible it seems, or entertaining and exciting it is.


Poor PPJ (none / 0) (#34)
by Harry Saxon on Tue May 17, 2011 at 06:52:55 PM EST

As you can see above, many people who have ODS think anyone around them not similarly infected have an irrational desire to worship Obama.

Libya is in flames driving gasoline prices to near record levels..

Energy analysts are convinced that gasoline prices are going to start coming down soon because of rapidly falling crude oil prices.
That seems hard to believe, given that gas prices dropped a mere half-cent from the week before. Americans are now spending about $3.955 a gallon on average, 14 cents more than we were forking over a month ago.
However, analysts believe that the worst is over for now and that we won't be seeing $4 or more per gallon this summer, thanks in large part to less consumer demand.
Matt Smith at Summit Energy believes, "We should see the change at the pump soon. We should see prices down at $3.50 a gallon on average."
However, it could be as long as six weeks before that happens because of flooding down South that could slow deliveries from 11 refineries.

Gasoline Prices Will Fall

Syria is killing people and trying to flood the border with Israel.

Yes, because a disaffected regime wants to stir up their highly armed and defensive neighbor.

Afghanistan is not secure.....

From earlier in the thread.

You know very well that Bush attacked and subdued AQ in Afghanistan

This is your brain on Fox News.

Any other questions?

Harry stop the (none / 0) (#36)
by Jeralyn on Tue May 17, 2011 at 08:52:35 PM EST

personal attacks and reprinting multi-paragraph sections of works printed elsewhere.


I'm sorry, (none / 0) (#40)
by Harry Saxon on Tue May 17, 2011 at 09:49:36 PM EST

2 paragraphs should be enough to get my point across in the future.

I'm sorry that I misrepresented PPJ by quoting him and it won't happen again.


: I'm tired of playing (none / 0) (#43)
by Jeralyn on Wed May 18, 2011 at 02:05:08 AM EST

comment cop with you. Next time, you are going into time out. Respond to the arguments made by other posters, don't insult them or make snide retorts to them.

Like PPJ doesn't do any (none / 0) (#44)
by Harry Saxon on Wed May 18, 2011 at 06:34:07 AM EST

snide remarks?

I'd say something else, but then you'd have an excuse to ban me.