In killing bin Laden, justice has been done

Cal Thomas's picture

“Ding dong the witch is dead!”

As crowds gathered outside the White House, at the site of Ground Zero, and in other public places to cheer news of the death of Osama bin Laden, President Obama said in a late Sunday night address from the White House, “Justice has been done.”

To one man justice has been done, but not to the terrorist movement itself, which is bigger than any one man and whose franchise headquarters appears to have moved now to Yemen.

At the end, bin Laden died a coward, hiding in a fortified mansion in Abbottabad, Pakistan. This was no Hitler-in-his-bunker moment in which the Nazi dictator expired by his own hand. Adolf Hitler’s death came as Allied troops swept into Berlin and by then the German war machine had been crushed.

While Nazism was based on the flawed premise of racial superiority, al-Qaidaism is based on the equally flawed notion of the superiority of a particularly radical form of Islam and the innate inferiority of all other religious beliefs.

Media reports in the aftermath of the president’s announcement said the key for the American forces hunting bin Laden was one of his most trusted couriers, identified by men captured shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. If this is true, and if those captured were taken to Guantanamo and gave up information after “enhanced” interrogation techniques, denounced by then-Senator Obama and his Democratic colleagues, this would be a vindication for the policies of Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush.

The political implications of this successful operation are already being debated. President Obama will probably get a bump in his sagging poll numbers, which is fine; after all bin Laden was killed on his watch. But this operation was a team effort fanned out over three administrations. The war isn’t over, though, as President Obama said.

Since Osama bin Laden dropped out of sight, with only the occasional message filtered through al-Jazeera, his effectiveness in planning new terror attacks has always been problematic. Surely he trained and inspired a new generation of terrorists who will now take up his mantle and seek to use whatever “martyrdom” they can sell to new recruits to encourage others to join the war against the “Great Satan.”

It is good that bin Laden was killed in Pakistan and not captured and brought to America to stand trial, where Attorney General Eric Holder has suggested he would receive full constitutional rights. Imagine the circus that would have been with lawyers using the American system of justice to try to free him, citing supposed violations of his constitutional “rights.”

The killing of bin Laden might have erased a symbol, but it doesn’t end the conflict. The president made his obligatory statement, also made by his two predecessors, that the U.S. “is not — and never will be — at war with Islam.” But it cannot be denied that a particularly virulent strain of religious disease has invaded virtually all of those who have killed or wounded so many Americans, including those of the Muslim faith.

If our policy is to hunt down these terrorists and exact justice, it is a good policy that should be pursued with the rest of the al-Qaida leadership wherever we find them. Let’s celebrate this American victory — it’s needed in this ongoing war — but then let’s keep the pressure on and not give these terrorists a moment’s rest.

There is plenty more that can be done, not only in Europe, but also in this country where too many terrorists reside, plotting to kill even more innocent men, women and children.

[Cal Thomas is America’s most widely syndicated op-ed columnist, appearing in more than 600 national newspapers. He is the author of more than 10 books and is a FOX News political contributor since 1997. Email Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.] ©2011 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Cal Thomas, Torture OK

Torture has just been vindicated according to Thomas. He says maybe the torture our government authorized (Bush), was the key 10 years later to finding Bin Laden! Therefore it was justifiable to torture scores of people to find out a courier's name. All of this scenario is very unlikely, but even if it happened, torture is still wrong--that is why we have truth serums and humane fear to use.

I see torture of someone, anyone of the so-called enemy, (Arab-Islam), as wrong.

To back up ten years and say Bush started a war on terrorism and therefore should have the credit for getting Bin Laden, is an obvious ploy to beatify the Bush legacy to those who hate liberalism.

He can have the credit for Afghanistan and also for Iraq and all of it's consequences, just to eventually have those countries back just as they were before 9-11.

Thomas even purports to say in one of his last paragraphs that he doubts those who say we aren't at war with Islam--not just terrorism!

Didn't we fight two long and bloody Crusades in the most uncivil age of man just for those reasons?

REVISION
I wasn't trying to say Thomas was advocating Iron Maidens, Crucifixtion, fingernail removal, etc., but he might say that if it had been used--he seems to have no limits.

911inside
911inside's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/03/2010
Bin Laden's Been Dead

I am sorry so many people fell for the stunt pulled by the Obama Administration. The dude's been dead and we didn't kill him. He was a very close friend to the Clinton's and the Bushes. Can't tell you about his ties to Obama as no one know about Obama's past.

Dude's been dead.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
911inside

Awesome dog picture! Very sweet. Stop listening to him though.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
The Dog Listener

Great video of him having a conversation with his dog: LINK

9/11 truthers are the best!

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
LOL

That's a WIN.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
911: of course it is all untrue!

Just as untrue that we are bombing Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen right now, and soon Syria, North Korea, and that little island where we have a fleet!

All of this occurs from a play station console in Nebraska somewhere, reading the views from satellites and drones and bombing with joy sticks.

These people are called "drone pilots."

I think we better start worrying about our poisoned water supplies, our high bridges with a train on them, downtown Philadelphia, crop dusters on our food--nobody would pay attention to that, and mountain top snipers over major highways!

As DM says be alert and not drunk!

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
It's official! Cal Thomas is the WORST...

Somebody has to be the worst...and that "somebody" is Cal Thomas.

Hamilton university analyzed 472 predictions made by 26 columnists over a 16 month period.

In first place for prediction accuracy: Paul Krugman.

In 26th place, with a stunning 14 out of 15 inaccurate predictions: the Citizen's favorite columnist Cal Thomas.

You could make a lot of money reading Cal Thomas' column and betting on the opposite to occur!

Here's the research in pdf format LINK

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
5 students and they decided

who was truthful or not.

"In 2004, Hamilton College hired Susan Rosenberg, onetime member of the Weather Underground, to teach a writing course called “Resistance Memoirs.” She was available because President Clinton, during his final minutes in office, had granted her clemency: Rosenberg had been serving a 58-year sentence for weapons possession and conspiracy. She was also the getaway driver in a 1981 armored-car robbery that left a security guard and two police officers dead. Eventually she pulled out of her Hamilton appointment, blaming “organized right-wing intimidation,” according to the Chronicle of Higher Education."

Gary Wyckoff the professor who headed the project is a hard left professor who teaches Government policies. The one glaring error is they confused Punditry with predictions in this "scientific" study.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ranking-the-pundits/

Cherry picking again bacon?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Let's see-pundit predictions

1. Healthcare reform will not pass

2. Obama will be found ineligible to hold the office because of his Kenyan birth.

3. Obama is a weak and indecisive Commander - in - Chief

4. Obama will be a one-term President.

We know the outcome of predictions 1-3. November 2012 will give us the answer to 4.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Not surprising

He can't fault the research, so Observerofjews goes after the authors of the study, the professor who authorized the study, and the college itself. How typical.

Now what does he use to refudiate the study? AN EDITORIAL.

An EDITORIAL that whines that pundits shouldn't be held responsible for their predictions. Direct quote here from Observerofjews' editorial "They’re propagandists by design, not analysts."

The EDITORIAL also whines that the time period (16 months!) was "too small".

The EDITORIAL also segues into "what if" territory, hypothesizing (unprovable) "better" results for conservatives if only, uh, Bush hadn't been president and uh, the financial meltdown hadn't occurred as a result of Republican policies....yeah, right.

The only "cherry picking" done here, Observerofjews, was done by you and your linked EDITORIAL.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Can't fault the Research?? WHAT research?

5 students doing a survey for their leftwinged liberal talk show hosting Political Science teacher and you want to call it research?

If this passes for legitimate research in your world no wonder you're points are so easily dismissed.

I suppose it just another whacky poll just like the last one sered up where another hard liberal "research" found Republicans in Louisiana thought Obama was born in Kenya but somehow forgot to give us the Democrat results.

You falsify stats, make them up, misquote others and take almost everyone out of context use hard left liberal data all the while eviscerating others that do the same.

You are simply not an honest conversationalist. You may have noticed I have stopped trying to debate you. I will however keep correcting your intentional "faulty memories".

btw-attacking your source is a perfectly legitimate tactics in debates. If you had of spent some time out of your vaunted Secondary education in Socialogy you might know that.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Poor poor pitiful oofu

Little DERP boy doesn't like the conclusions reached by the research so he's going after the authors of the study, the professor who authorized the study and the university where the research occurred.

It's been a tough week for the wingnuts: Osama's dead, Health care reform repeal is dead, the Ryan Medicare phase-out is stillborn.

Republicans were supposed to be the party of manly men, yet it was under a Democratic president that America bombed Gaddafi's house and put a bullet in Osama's skull.

Republicans are in full retreat, so we see the fringe elements lashing out in all directions: Observerofu, Robert W. Morgan, etc.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Bacon if you don't know what a debate is, here it is defined

de·bate (d-b t) v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates. v. intr. 1. To consider something; deliberate. 2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.

Now I would love to "discuss" your viewpoint, however if using fruit from a poisoned tree the fruit is no less poisoned.

You consistently use wacko left websites or wacko blogs as a major source of your "points" all the while attacking anyone that you consider is doing the same on the right.

Bacon if you can't defend your arguments then why post? Instead of getting all indignant getting your butt on your shoulders slinging insults why don't you show us all how intelligent you are by defending the survey. If you can't then why did you use it?

This is why you are a pseudo-intellectual. You just can't handle a real debate.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Awww...oofu got a bad case of butthurt!

Ah, the irony of bein' lectured on the niceties of debate by the biggest congenital liar on this board.

Take a look at the flow of posts, folks. I posted a synopsis of a study showing the lack of accuracy in Cal Thomas' editorials, and observerofu didn't like the study so he threw the online equivalent of a tantrum.

Waaah, he didn't like the college where the study was done.
Waaah, he didn't like the professor who authorized the study.
Waaah, he didn't like another faculty member on the university staff (non-sequitur, anyone?).
Waaah, he didn't like the fact that the students who did the study were undergraduates.

He sure did complain an awful lot. He even found a highly slanted cherry-picking editorial to support his preconceived notions, so in his mind the study was refudiated!

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Bacon show us that vaunted secondary education of yours

Ok let's play. Using your study let's list the points and see if you can actually debate the merits of them. I bet you can't.

1. Now in any study methodology is important. This maps out the structure of how you are going to get results and insures accuracy.

Now what was the methodology of the study?

Well we don't really know because they don't list any, just the raw data from which they and us are to draw a conclusion. So absent the methodology one must assume some things.

So here are the assumptions:
1. The Professor is a talk-show host himself who has admittedly hard left progressive leanings. Not really an assumption this is fact. The assumption is he wants to corroborate his own ideology.

2. The College (Hamilton College) is a hard left progressive College that once tried to hire a known and CONVICTED TERRORIST for a position on it's staff. Also a fact not an assumption

3. The study was conducted by 5 students in the Author's class.
a. Since the students are beholden to the teacher for their grades and knowing the ideological leanings of said teacher then one can assume that the study would be biased towards a favorable outcome one that the Professor would approve of.

4. Since they don't reveal their methodology and did not choose any other time frames in which to corroborate their findings then again one must assume that the time frame chosen had a particular benefit to the studies obvious bias. Note that the study was not the last 2 years of this administration BUT 17 months of the Bush administration. The assumption here is they could not get the results using current data so they "fit" the time frame to cook the results they wanted.

5. The study did not differentiate from actual predictions verses political commentary/punditry. Thus the actual study fails to focus on its own stated outcome. Predictions and their accuracy.

6. The number of people studied were statistically insignificant that a true Scientific and reliable outcome is virtually non-existent.
The 26 people "studied" were so dissimilar that a Statistical Anomaly was however assured. Many were not even "pundits" but political operatives or politicians themselves.

7. Lastly this is for you Bacon. I assume you are at least intelligent enough to know how to debate even if you are lacking the skills necessary to make a good showing of it but give it the old college try why don't you.

Now I have made multiple points against the study that you quoted. It is now up to you to refute each and defend your points.

But rest assured I will be here with the counter points. It will be interesting to see just how long it will take for you to start hurling insults.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Debatin' observerofu..
Observerofu wrote:

Ok let's play. Using your study let's list the points and see if you can actually debate the merits of them. I bet you can't.

1. Now in any study methodology is important. This maps out the structure of how you are going to get results and insures accuracy.

Now what was the methodology of the study?

Well we don't really know because they don't list any, just the raw data from which they and us are to draw a conclusion. So absent the methodology one must assume some things.

So here are the assumptions:

Yes, let's play. Your claim that the study authors did not list their methodology is not factually correct. Had you actually READ the study....which you obviously did NOT...you would have noticed that the study's methodology is documented in detail on pages 8 through 16 inclusive of the study.

Now then, if you have any specific points you wish to discuss about purported flaws in the study's methodology, please list them (Hint: the authors themselves document potential methodology flaws in their study on page 16).

Your "debate points" are predicated on a "missing methodology", as I have shown you that the methodology DOES in fact exist, your conjecture is both specious and premature.

I eagerly await your response.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Didn't think you could debate it bacon.

I made specific charges to several points in reference to the study that YOU sited. I challenged you to defend them. Don't worry that you can not the study is pretty much indefensible.

btw-Let me make myself clear. When I said the study did not give it's methodology I meant a recognized form of survey methodology. I have participated in many surveys and worked on same. Your study does NOT give it's methodology at least a recognized one. It gives an outline of the structure of the survey. It's what they "call" their Methodology but it is not a recognized form of surveying techniques. Sort of like calling an Apple an orange. You can call it an orange but it isn't.

Here is a simplified version of what I mean:

"The survey is a non-experimental, descriptive research method."
http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~palmquis/courses/survey.html

Clearly their method was and is "experimental".

This is an example of Methodology:

First one must decide one of several types of survey methods. In other words are you looking for a True/False or a graduated scale survey. Your study chose the latter.
The scale in this case was 1-5 were 1 represented the lowest of the scale and 5 represented the highest.

Now part of the methodology is to determine type of survey method.
There are panel studies, cohort studies, trending studies etc.. This to is part of the methodology.

This is clearly defined in the methodology.

Your sited study used a False "Representative" sampling method.(1)
Now part of that Representative method is to use a large enough sampling group to give a statistical average. A small selective sample will therefore give you a statistical bias and will falsify the results.(2)

You must use a sample that is representative and must be an accurate proportional representation of the population under study. In this case "Pundits". This to is part of the methodology.

If you want to get an accurate survey result you can not say pick 1 out of every 100 who answered the phone or in this case "picked" by the students.(3) That technique would only guarantee the results of the pundits selectively chosen by the students for an intended result. This is established in the Methodology.

Additionally the time frame for the survey must have been randomly chosen(4) and should cover a general time frame and not a specific one.
This is called randomization. All of this is in the methodology.

Now bacon just where in pages 8-16 does the study show any of the techniques used as to style, randomness, statistical randomness or shows a large enough survey group to establish a true representative sampling?

I understand bacon they stated what they call "their" methodology but they also stated:
"Although our study is similar to Tetlock’s in that ours also examines the accuracy of experts, our study differs
both in its methodology and in the type of experts it samples"

Another clue in your sited study"
"Rather than consciously participating in our study, our prognosticators became subjects by way of random selection"

Finally there is this:
"we feel that it was accurate enough to measure whether or not a prognosticator leans in a positive or negative direction"(5)

and this:

"If a prognosticator “leaned” in the correct direction (predicted
that an event would happen when it did, or correctly expected it would not happen), he or she is assigned a
point. If a prognosticator hedged, he or she received no points."
(6)

Now here is the analysis that you can argue against.

1. Clearly the sampling technique created a "False Representative sample" by failing in the most basic of survey methods. They failed to use a representative sample. There were NO PARTICIPATES in this survey. It was strictly statistical and it's outcome based method was subjective at best at worse skewed to represent the bias of the results intended.

2. A representative sampling must be obtained by using a large enough sampling group as to obtain a statistical random sample. Clearly choosing a small sampling of "commentators" and using "comments" as a predictor is not valid samplings stats. 22 is not a statistically random sample. There are hundreds of Political commentators to choose 22 specifically also violates every accepted sampling technique methodology established and recognized today.

3. Part of number 2. Again methodology predictive results must be through a randomized sampling. Using comments made on TV shows or Radio shows is not indicative of predictions. Here is an example. A pundit says: "Obama is going to win in 2008". Now if you use that comment/statement alone as a predictor then a statical result can be gathered, however, if that comment was used in a larger context of "if this then thats" (if the College crowd votes/then Obama will win) is not a predictor of a true sample result.

4. The time frame was not specified as to why only comments were sampled during that specific time frame. Again to get a statistically accurate result one must have a statistical random sample. The Time frame was selected by the group and no explanation was given. A more representative sample should have included multiple administrations.

5. Again we see where standardized survey methodology is not observed. They admitted to an bias error but felt "it was close enough" for their survey. Now all surveys have a +/- error percentage but statistically speaking they are within 1-3 percentage points. How does one define close enough.

6. Finally this entire survey was based in a subjective environment. All points of the surveys true/false methodology was clearly decided by the students themselves. Since they failed to take into consideration the entirety of the comments rather in or out of context forces a bias in the survey itself. A computer compilation and statistical analysis by none random predictors in and of itself gives a false statistical result.

Bacon there are 6 specific points. Now your turn.

Babbie, Earl R. Survey Research Methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub. Co., 1973.
Exhaustive description of the purposes, methods, and techniques of surveying. If you are going to conduct a survey, you need to read this book first.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Squealin' like a pig!

I live for moments when I get you to squeal like a pig, oofu!

You claimed the study did not specify its survey methodology. I proved your claim was wrong.

Now you want to claim that the study did not use a "proper" survey methodology. The study took great claims to explain their grading methodology, assigning a score of 1 to 5 for each prediction based on how it was hedged.

I don't know what a PARTICIPATE is but you are correct, the subjects being analyzed were not aware of their being analyzed. This has nothing to do with the outcome. You lose.

You've complained about the small sample size of 22 commentators, claiming that there are "hundreds" of pundits nationwide. The sample clearly shows that the pundits analyzed were nationally known, which cuts the pool of candidates down dramatically. You lose.

You whined once again about the length of the study. The study was not specified as "longitudinal", therefore the onus is on you to provide evidence of a "correct" timeframe. You did not. A non-longitudinal study lasting over a year would pass muster with most statisticians. You lose.

What are we left with? The fact that your poor little feelings were hurt by the results of the study.

You've chosen to stomp your feet and whine, wanting to "debate" (but only "debate" items where you have the singular ability to redefine terms so that they favor your position). In essence, you are challenging people to debate your hurt feelings.

The study was conducted, analyzed and published using an accepted survey methodology, your whining to the contrary notwithstanding. Your lack of maturity precludes you from accepting the results of the study.

Next up: Observerofu explains how Barack Obama is not the legally elected President of the United States, due to methodology flaws in the Electoral College!

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Bacon knew it would not take long for you to devolve

into the insult stage.

You still have not offered any counterpoints to the points made just arguments and not very good ones at that.

Done here I think. Proved my point that as a factual debater you are lacking sorely in the process.

The issue is and will forever be you bacon. I could not care less what an study group came up with that makes Cal Thomas and others look bad. I have no vested interest in any of them. So for you to try and obfuscate the issue by claiming it upset me is ludicris at best.

The issue is your seeming inability to actually have a conversation with someone who is diametrically opposed ideologically. You will use false stats, biased surveys, fictional news story's or simply mis-quote or take out of context, all to "prove" that somehow you are intellectually superior to us all. Suffice it to say you are not.

Keep blaming your "mistakes" on your "faulty" memory bacon. I will keep pointing them out.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Whine on, Observerofu!

The only "point" you've made in this entire discussion is you absolutely positively cannot abide by the results of that study.

So you've spun and spun and slung mud and attempted to redefine words to fit your own preconceived positions.

Keep coming up with these "debate" topic, little man, I'm enjoyin' them immensely.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Hugs right back at cha bacon

thanks for the fun it was indeed enlightening to see your vaunted secondary education in action.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Bacon - "Study"

Bacon did you read the study? They mention 5 prognosticators that had negative PVS, meaning wrong predictions more than right ones. Cal was not the worst, but among the worst. The other four were: Sam Donaldson, Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, and your favorite Lindsey Graham. They also said the sample size was too small to make their finding predictive on these five.

All and all a nice college study by some students at Hamilton College, a liberal arts school focused on grooming those for “communications”.

Clearly a senior project of some sort, quite an authority. I would give them an "A" though.

No, I don't care about Cal Thomas or the other four either.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Nope Petey C, you're 100% wrong
PTC Observer wrote:

Bacon did you read the study? They mention 5 prognosticators that had negative PVS, meaning wrong predictions more than right ones. Cal was not the worst, but among the worst. The other four were: Sam Donaldson, Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, and your favorite Lindsey Graham. They also said the sample size was too small to make their finding predictive on these five.

You make me laugh. I not only read the study, but I comprehended it as well! Can YOU make the same claim?

The study clearly points out that Cal Thomas was the worst of the worst. His PVS score was the absolute lowest of all the pundits rated. He was wrong on 14 of 15 predictions.

I double dog dare you to show me someone in that study with a lower score. *grin*

BTW, with regard to "predictives", all the study was trying to say is that the sample size of 5 was too small to determine a common denominator of DERPiness.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Bacon - I didn't

say that ole Cal didn't have the lowest score, I said that the sample size of this senior class project was in their opinion too small to be meaningful.

I guess you didn't have to take statistics in your liberal arts school for writers?

Remind me again about this DERP thing, your insult is completely lost on me. I know it has something to do with popular TV programming a commmunications tool that you are most qualified to watch along with other school age children.

But let's talk about something far more interesting, let's talk about your ideas. Got any?

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Thomas makes a living saying.......

....what some want to hear.

Just like most of the conservative pretending columnists and speakers.
It is printed here for the same reason!

Recent Comments