<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: John Yoo&#8217;s faulty Bin Laden conspiracy theory</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mediabugs.org/blog/2011/05/10/john-yoo-wsj/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mediabugs.org/blog/2011/05/10/john-yoo-wsj/</link>
	<description>Fix the news</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2014 03:33:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Yoo&#8217;s faulty Bin Laden conspiracy theory &#171; Mark Follman</title>
		<link>http://mediabugs.org/blog/2011/05/10/john-yoo-wsj/comment-page-1/#comment-485</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Yoo&#8217;s faulty Bin Laden conspiracy theory &#171; Mark Follman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2011 18:17:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediabugs.org/blog/?p=477#comment-485</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] A couple of interesting comments over at the MediaBugs blog, including: &#8220;This is only speculation, but my guess is that the [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] A couple of interesting comments over at the MediaBugs blog, including: &#8220;This is only speculation, but my guess is that the [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hooah</title>
		<link>http://mediabugs.org/blog/2011/05/10/john-yoo-wsj/comment-page-1/#comment-484</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hooah]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2011 16:39:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediabugs.org/blog/?p=477#comment-484</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Navy Seal does more badass shit everyday before John Yoo wakes up in the morning. Specifically, they are trained to make cold blooded decisions in chaotic environments. I&#039;d like to see Yoo&#039;s logic in the fires of Pakistan.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A Navy Seal does more badass shit everyday before John Yoo wakes up in the morning. Specifically, they are trained to make cold blooded decisions in chaotic environments. I&#8217;d like to see Yoo&#8217;s logic in the fires of Pakistan.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zorro for the Common Good</title>
		<link>http://mediabugs.org/blog/2011/05/10/john-yoo-wsj/comment-page-1/#comment-483</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Zorro for the Common Good]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2011 15:28:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediabugs.org/blog/?p=477#comment-483</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is only speculation, but my guess is that the SEALs&#039; directive was not to kill OBL in cold blood if he surrendered, but to make sure that, whatever else happened, he didn&#039;t escape. So if, according to the official story, he turned and ran back into his room when he saw them, possibly to grab a weapon, the SEALs were taking no chances as long as they had a clean shot at him.

In that narrow sense, then, Yoo is correct that Obama didn&#039;t see taking bin Laden alive as a top priority. And I will admit breathing a sigh of relief that we had avoided the political circus that would have resulted had we captured him. But especially given the evidence haul that we took from his compound (which Yoo curiously doesn&#039;t mention), I have to say things worked out about as well as anyone could have hoped. Osama&#039;s death is in itself an important symbolic victory (just as his escape would have been a disaster).

Also, as much as I hate the right-wing trope that criticizing the government is &quot;maligning the troops&quot;, I couldn&#039;t help but notice that implicit in Yoo&#039;s critique is a refusal to give any credit to the judgment of the SEALs. Unless I hear evidence to the contrary, I&#039;m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt that they took the appropriate action to a) achieve their strategic objective and b) minimize the potential for harm to themselves and any innocent people at the scene.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is only speculation, but my guess is that the SEALs&#8217; directive was not to kill OBL in cold blood if he surrendered, but to make sure that, whatever else happened, he didn&#8217;t escape. So if, according to the official story, he turned and ran back into his room when he saw them, possibly to grab a weapon, the SEALs were taking no chances as long as they had a clean shot at him.</p>
<p>In that narrow sense, then, Yoo is correct that Obama didn&#8217;t see taking bin Laden alive as a top priority. And I will admit breathing a sigh of relief that we had avoided the political circus that would have resulted had we captured him. But especially given the evidence haul that we took from his compound (which Yoo curiously doesn&#8217;t mention), I have to say things worked out about as well as anyone could have hoped. Osama&#8217;s death is in itself an important symbolic victory (just as his escape would have been a disaster).</p>
<p>Also, as much as I hate the right-wing trope that criticizing the government is &#8220;maligning the troops&#8221;, I couldn&#8217;t help but notice that implicit in Yoo&#8217;s critique is a refusal to give any credit to the judgment of the SEALs. Unless I hear evidence to the contrary, I&#8217;m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt that they took the appropriate action to a) achieve their strategic objective and b) minimize the potential for harm to themselves and any innocent people at the scene.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nora</title>
		<link>http://mediabugs.org/blog/2011/05/10/john-yoo-wsj/comment-page-1/#comment-482</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nora]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2011 15:27:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediabugs.org/blog/?p=477#comment-482</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;If someone wants to interpret this to mean that the CIA was â€œcertainâ€, I wouldnâ€™t argue the point.&quot;

Bullshit.

&quot;Certainty is a fuzzy enough concept&quot;

More bullshit. Certainty means being 100% sure.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;If someone wants to interpret this to mean that the CIA was â€œcertainâ€, I wouldnâ€™t argue the point.&#8221;</p>
<p>Bullshit.</p>
<p>&#8220;Certainty is a fuzzy enough concept&#8221;</p>
<p>More bullshit. Certainty means being 100% sure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: eric</title>
		<link>http://mediabugs.org/blog/2011/05/10/john-yoo-wsj/comment-page-1/#comment-481</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[eric]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2011 01:20:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediabugs.org/blog/?p=477#comment-481</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&gt; According to CIA director Leon Panetta, analysts were only 60 to 80 percent confident bin Laden would be found in the compound

If someone wants to interpret this to mean that the CIA was &quot;certain&quot;, I wouldn&#039;t argue the point. Certainty is a fuzzy enough concept that it&#039;s not worth arguing 20 imaginary per cent of certainty. (100% certainty could be reserved for God or Bin Laden himself.)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt; According to CIA director Leon Panetta, analysts were only 60 to 80 percent confident bin Laden would be found in the compound</p>
<p>If someone wants to interpret this to mean that the CIA was &#8220;certain&#8221;, I wouldn&#8217;t argue the point. Certainty is a fuzzy enough concept that it&#8217;s not worth arguing 20 imaginary per cent of certainty. (100% certainty could be reserved for God or Bin Laden himself.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
