Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Hissyspit

(45,788 posts)
Tue May 29, 2012, 08:36 AM May 2012

Report: Obama Personally Oversees Al-Qaeda ‘Kill List’

Source: AFP

Report: Obama personally oversees Al-Qaeda ‘kill list’

By Agence France-Presse
Tuesday, May 29, 2012 7:20 EDT

US President Barack Obama has personally overseen a top-secret process for determining which Al-Qaeda suspects should be placed on a “kill list,” the New York Times reported Tuesday.

The Times, citing dozens of top officials and former advisers, said the administration had developed what it termed the “kill list” as part of a stepped-up drone war against Al-Qaeda and its affiliates inPakistan and Yemen.

“He is determined that he will make these decisions about how far and wide these operations will go,” it quoted National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon as saying.

“His view is that he’s responsible for the position of the United States in the world… He’s determined to keep the tether pretty short.”

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/29/report-obama-personally-oversees-al-qaeda-kill-list/

80 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Report: Obama Personally Oversees Al-Qaeda ‘Kill List’ (Original Post) Hissyspit May 2012 OP
I don't know, people. mahatmakanejeeves May 2012 #1
This story is viral today. n/t EFerrari May 2012 #2
This comment from William Daley in the article is very odd... KoKo May 2012 #3
“At what point are you just filling the bucket with numbers?” frylock May 2012 #16
Well, actually, in a drone attack, the driver, the car, dixiegrrrrl May 2012 #20
An war al-Alack may3rd May 2012 #49
Also made the list....... DeSwiss May 2012 #23
I wonder if Zuckerburg is on the kill list may3rd May 2012 #50
The facebook guy? Mark? boppers May 2012 #63
Well 'duh'! He IS the Commander in Chief (CIC)! NoMittens May 2012 #4
I've been assuming he approves the list Enrique May 2012 #7
It's hard to dismiss this as a RW Attack...this part from the Article: KoKo May 2012 #29
"A colleague" is not an identifiable person... Ohio Joe May 2012 #40
"shunned", "metastasizing", "lawyering", "ferocious".... boppers May 2012 #43
He's not the Don-in-Chief. rug May 2012 #52
No, the news is that there is a Presidential Kill List at all. Occulus May 2012 #56
Where there's a war, there's a list bhikkhu May 2012 #59
America is at war? When did Congress declare war? Neue Regel May 2012 #80
There's always been one, especially during war time. boppers May 2012 #65
there was nothing about a kill list on the Nobel Peace Prize nomination form n/t... IamK May 2012 #5
Well said. dixiegrrrrl May 2012 #19
K&R. nt OnyxCollie May 2012 #6
I don't like that there's a kill list to begin with Lawlbringer May 2012 #8
According to to an NPR newsbroadcast on this earlier today... Demoiselle May 2012 #34
That was mentioned on the radio. The idea of micro managing individuals may3rd May 2012 #47
...as opposed to turning a blind eye bhikkhu May 2012 #9
Don't ever trust a politician rusty fender May 2012 #10
I always consider the older alternative to drones in war bhikkhu May 2012 #11
Really? It's one or the other? Hissyspit May 2012 #14
No, its not one or the other bhikkhu May 2012 #51
dunno about that may3rd May 2012 #48
If you don't trust any of them, then what do you propose we do? treestar May 2012 #17
Congratulations on your dawning enlightenment! whatchamacallit May 2012 #18
Should we trust mollerjay May 2012 #27
You can ALWAYS count on Obama! Poll_Blind May 2012 #12
this is bad how? scheming daemons May 2012 #13
AND BREAKING NEWS Iliyah May 2012 #15
At least it's not Rmoney who oversees it... Amonester May 2012 #21
Silly point of view. rayofreason May 2012 #25
+1000000 FiveGoodMen May 2012 #35
Yeah because it matters to the dead who ordered them killed without trial. n/t EFerrari May 2012 #55
As many said in this thread, that list is nothing new... Amonester May 2012 #70
In your zeal to defend the indefensible, you are overlooking the facts. EFerrari May 2012 #73
Why isn't there anyone challenging the legality of this kill list? The Northerner May 2012 #22
Everyone's afraid. n/t DeSwiss May 2012 #24
Could find yourself on the list. n/t rayofreason May 2012 #26
Sick of the unfair attackeson Obama mollerjay May 2012 #28
How is it unfair? morningfog May 2012 #31
Hopefully Obama or his campaign will respond properly to this NYT article KoKo May 2012 #32
Got a problem with the ''Due Process'' clause in the Bill of Rights, have you? :-/ n/t DeSwiss May 2012 #33
Due process, in this case, means: boppers May 2012 #45
No it doesn't, that's bs. EFerrari May 2012 #54
If you're old enough to fire a weapon, you're old enough to be a target. boppers May 2012 #62
Comparing this to WWII U4ikLefty May 2012 #64
Lets see: boppers May 2012 #66
You really outdid yourself this time. Ash_F May 2012 #69
Exactly. boppers May 2012 #77
Name me the top ten strikes on the US, ranked by fatalities. boppers May 2012 #79
And you think you know that, why? EFerrari May 2012 #72
Well, people told you he was killed, why did you believe that? boppers May 2012 #78
and keeping in mind, congress did legally authorize military force against Al Qaeda bhikkhu May 2012 #57
I don't really see it as a war but a law enforcement issue Ash_F May 2012 #71
I do remember that argument bhikkhu May 2012 #75
Unbelievable! pmorlan1 May 2012 #68
I grew up with this. boppers May 2012 #76
You've been here four days. n/t EFerrari May 2012 #37
now go run tell mommy frylock May 2012 #42
He's dead, Jim. n/t EFerrari May 2012 #44
The only people who have standing are assassinated when they are found. morningfog May 2012 #30
Nope--the DOJ admitted that custody would pre-empt any lethal force..... msanthrope May 2012 #39
ACLU filed and abandoned one case last year. Filed another one in February: EFerrari May 2012 #36
Because those who have standing to do so are terrorists who do not participate in a msanthrope May 2012 #38
oppose it and your on it... Barack is like Tony Soprano n/t IamK May 2012 #41
This is news, how? boppers May 2012 #46
Wrong. EFerrari May 2012 #53
I probably shrugged upon hearing about Bush/Cheney doing it, too. boppers May 2012 #61
Good! tabasco May 2012 #58
They've been reined in. boppers May 2012 #67
It's not awfully top secret if the French are reporting it Rosa Luxemburg May 2012 #60
U.S. military trainers trickle back into Pakistan "Overseer in chief has boots on the ground may3rd May 2012 #74

mahatmakanejeeves

(57,459 posts)
1. I don't know, people.
Tue May 29, 2012, 08:45 AM
May 2012

Things like this make me extremely nervous.

I might take a break sometime later this week to go down to the National Archives and look at the copy of the Magna Carta that David Rubenstein lent to the United States.

Unless it has been removed, on the grounds that it "gives people ideas."

Philanthropy

Rubenstein is among the group of American billionaires who have pledged to donate more than half of their wealth to philanthropic causes or charities as part of The Giving Pledge.

He has made large gifts to Duke University, the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Chicago Law School.

He was elected to the Board of Trustees of the University of Chicago on May 31, 2007.

On December 18, 2007, David Rubenstein purchased the last privately owned copy of the Magna Carta at Sotheby's auction house in New York for $21.3 million. He has lent it to the National Archives in Washington D.C. In 2011, Rubenstein gave $13.5 million to the National Archives for a new gallery and visitor's center.

Rubenstein was elected as the next Chairman of the Board of the Kennedy Center, Washington, DC, starting in May 2010. He is Vice Chairman of the Board of the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, New York, and chairman of its fundraising drive. A new atrium was named for him. He is on the board of regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

In 2012, he donated $7.5 million towards the repair of the Washington Monument.


Thanks, David.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
3. This comment from William Daley in the article is very odd...
Tue May 29, 2012, 09:07 AM
May 2012

from the last of the article:

"Obama personally approves the killing of top suspects, such as Qaeda preacher Anwar al-Awlaqi — a US citizen — who was killed by a US drone strike in Yemen last year.

The Times quoted former White House chief of staff William Daley as saying that Obama called the decision to strike Awlaqi “an easy one,” but Daley said some officials had expressed some qualms about the kill list.

“One guy gets knocked off, and the guy’s driver, who’s No. 21, becomes 20?” the Times quoted Daley as saying. “At what point are you just filling the bucket with numbers?”


dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)
20. Well, actually, in a drone attack, the driver, the car,
Tue May 29, 2012, 12:22 PM
May 2012

and anyone around them ( like innocent bystanders) are pretty well chopped up too.
THAT is the problem with bombing, droning, whatever we want to call it these days.
Well, the 2nd problem.
I am still having trouble with the deliberate outright killing of "suspected Americans" with no trial,
and no outline of what proof is used to make the determination.

 

may3rd

(593 posts)
49. An war al-Alack
Tue May 29, 2012, 08:13 PM
May 2012

You can say Obama had him goggled.
You should google him too
If you don't know who Anwar al-Awlaqi is or what he said and swore to stand by....

google him;

Anwar al-Awlaqi

 

may3rd

(593 posts)
50. I wonder if Zuckerburg is on the kill list
Tue May 29, 2012, 08:17 PM
May 2012

he did renounce his citizenship also in the pursuits of his beliefs

boppers

(16,588 posts)
63. The facebook guy? Mark?
Wed May 30, 2012, 01:39 AM
May 2012

I think you might have your facts confused.

Did you mean Eduardo Saverin?

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
7. I've been assuming he approves the list
Tue May 29, 2012, 09:44 AM
May 2012

I believe it has been reported before. But some people dispute it, saying the decisions are made further down the chain of command.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
29. It's hard to dismiss this as a RW Attack...this part from the Article:
Tue May 29, 2012, 02:17 PM
May 2012

(Yes...the NYT has been known to exaggerate or even lie (in the case of Judith Miller) but still this article does use quote from identifiable people. If it's lies, then assume the Campaign will promptly offer clarification)

--------------------

"They describe a paradoxical leader who shunned the legislative deal-making required to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action without hand-wringing. While he was adamant about narrowing the fight and improving relations with the Muslim world, he has followed the metastasizing enemy into new and dangerous lands. When he applies his lawyering skills to counterterrorism, it is usually to enable, not constrain, his ferocious campaign against Al Qaeda — even when it comes to killing an American cleric in Yemen, a decision that Mr. Obama told colleagues was “an easy one.”

His first term has seen private warnings from top officials about a “Whac-A-Mole” approach to counterterrorism; the invention of a new category of aerial attack following complaints of careless targeting; and presidential acquiescence in a formula for counting civilian deaths that some officials think is skewed to produce low numbers.

The administration’s failure to forge a clear detention policy has created the impression among some members of Congress of a take-no-prisoners policy. And Mr. Obama’s ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron P. Munter, has complained to colleagues that the C.I.A.’s strikes drive American policy there, saying “he didn’t realize his main job was to kill people,” a colleague said."

Ohio Joe

(21,756 posts)
40. "A colleague" is not an identifiable person...
Tue May 29, 2012, 05:06 PM
May 2012

Nor is an anonymous person claiming a specific person said something a way to know that person actually said the thing.

boppers

(16,588 posts)
43. "shunned", "metastasizing", "lawyering", "ferocious"....
Tue May 29, 2012, 07:23 PM
May 2012

Yeah, this isn't journalism, it's editorial opinion slinging.

bhikkhu

(10,718 posts)
59. Where there's a war, there's a list
Tue May 29, 2012, 11:05 PM
May 2012

it would be the same with any president. I expect this one to use more care, prudence and restraint than previous ones.

 

Neue Regel

(221 posts)
80. America is at war? When did Congress declare war?
Thu May 31, 2012, 07:24 PM
May 2012

The Constitution is very clear about which branch of government can declare of war. Here's a hint: it's not the executive branch.

boppers

(16,588 posts)
65. There's always been one, especially during war time.
Wed May 30, 2012, 01:46 AM
May 2012

It's amusing to watch the wool being lifted, the scales falling, (etc.) though.

Of course, it could also just be *shock* and *indignation* for the sake of drama.

Lawlbringer

(550 posts)
8. I don't like that there's a kill list to begin with
Tue May 29, 2012, 10:12 AM
May 2012

but I'm glad it's the head honcho who is really in charge of it.

Unfortunately, we'll have to endure the pelting from the right when it comes to the fact that the list exists (nevermind the fact that it probably existed under Bush) and that the President is sure to use it to target white Ameercuh once he's done, randomly "assassinating" suburbanites who he deems a threat.

Is that what they really think?

Demoiselle

(6,787 posts)
34. According to to an NPR newsbroadcast on this earlier today...
Tue May 29, 2012, 02:43 PM
May 2012

Bush didn't sign off on "kills" during his administration, wasn't much interested, he left the decisions to those lower down. But he did express a lot of interest once the kill had been made....
I agree with you, Lawlbringer. I don't like the idea of the kill list, but if we have one, we need to put the responsibility at the very top.

 

may3rd

(593 posts)
47. That was mentioned on the radio. The idea of micro managing individuals
Tue May 29, 2012, 07:58 PM
May 2012

as opposed to orders of
"carpet bombing swaths of jungles being dispatched from the oval office simply based on photo interpretations",
means the world has shrunk to a simple face book "friend" page system of checks and balances.
I imagine dispatching
simple camera phones into a war zone is like candy or a mirror to the narcissist wanna be follower trying to get noticed in the right circles.


yes,
we will see how it plays out

bhikkhu

(10,718 posts)
9. ...as opposed to turning a blind eye
Tue May 29, 2012, 10:28 AM
May 2012

I would expect him to take all due care and responsibility, and - as they say - keep the program on a very short leash.

 

rusty fender

(3,428 posts)
10. Don't ever trust a politician
Tue May 29, 2012, 10:52 AM
May 2012

to do the right thing. Obama has upped the ante in the droning of "terrorists" and the innocent collateral damage. The next president, likely a Repuke, will undoubtedly have to outdo Obama on this.

bhikkhu

(10,718 posts)
11. I always consider the older alternative to drones in war
Tue May 29, 2012, 11:06 AM
May 2012

...which was carpet bombing. Both are pretty bad, and a kill list is pretty bad as well, but the collateral damage in Cambodia back in the 70's (for instance) was a whole different kind of thing.

bhikkhu

(10,718 posts)
51. No, its not one or the other
Tue May 29, 2012, 08:18 PM
May 2012

but I don't know what I would do better in the last three years if the whole mess was my responsibility. I'd probably say drones are more effective than bombs, and much safer than boots on the ground. But then I'd also have to admit that it looks like the best we can do with them is not nearly good enough to make for a "clean" war (if there is such a thing), and certainly doesn't win any hearts and minds anywhere.

 

may3rd

(593 posts)
48. dunno about that
Tue May 29, 2012, 08:07 PM
May 2012

One drone takes the place of a squad of soldiers and the hundreds of support personnel in the supply chain required to keep them in the field.

Some people are alarmed by a governor wanting to have drones loitering above the ground and used in a police work.
It's better to have one drone overhead when police know a suspect is in the woods, armed and dangerous. If there a reason his family should not have him as well protected a a field soldier , I would like to know it.

If the president can do things to keep soldiers out of harms way, I sure would like to know why that's a bad thing.
jmo.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
17. If you don't trust any of them, then what do you propose we do?
Tue May 29, 2012, 11:51 AM
May 2012

Why not just drop out of politics or any interest in it then? Since we are hopeless of electing anyone trustworthy.

Iliyah

(25,111 posts)
15. AND BREAKING NEWS
Tue May 29, 2012, 11:46 AM
May 2012

the repugs oversees creating wars that actually kill innocent people and puts Amercians in harms waaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy.

Amonester

(11,541 posts)
21. At least it's not Rmoney who oversees it...
Tue May 29, 2012, 12:55 PM
May 2012

yet... Imagine that...

(not that I think he will ever come close)

rayofreason

(2,259 posts)
25. Silly point of view.
Tue May 29, 2012, 02:01 PM
May 2012

First, don't be to cocky about November. It will be closer than you think and Romney can win if Team Obama screws up.

Second, neither Obama nor any Democratic president will be president for ever. There will be Republican presidents in the future. Either you oppose a given presidential power on principle or you admit that all presidents will, by right, have the same power. You cannot retreat to a sophomoric attitude that only certain presidents who have certain beliefs have the right to exercise all the powers of the POTUS.

I, for one, find this power deeply troubling. Especially since drones are now flying in the US. How long before those drones are armed? How long before U.S. citizens can be targeted here as they can be abroad?

Four years ago who wold have thought that anyone would have reason to ask such questions?

Amonester

(11,541 posts)
70. As many said in this thread, that list is nothing new...
Wed May 30, 2012, 01:55 PM
May 2012

JFK had Fidel Castro on that list.

Nixon had Pol Pot on it too, and not just Pol Pot.

And on, and on.

Obama did not invent it, nor did cheney/bush.

That's the way it is.

Now if the matter is that, such a list should not exist to begin with, then I agree, but in the actual real state of affair, that list did, does, and will exist if no change in policy is to ever happen.

EFerrari

(163,986 posts)
73. In your zeal to defend the indefensible, you are overlooking the facts.
Wed May 30, 2012, 04:00 PM
May 2012

There has been no president before Barack Obama that claimed the right publicly to have such a list and to claim that he is not accountable to any court anywhere for it. We would normally call that "impunity".

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
32. Hopefully Obama or his campaign will respond properly to this NYT article
Tue May 29, 2012, 02:20 PM
May 2012

and refute any lies or misquotes or exaggerations.

boppers

(16,588 posts)
45. Due process, in this case, means:
Tue May 29, 2012, 07:41 PM
May 2012

1. Credible sources have offered evidence of an ongoing, lethal threat.
2. A small group has evaluated said evidence, and deemed it reliable.
3. Existing legal avenues, such as peaceful arrest, extradition, and trial, are not available.
4. A battle officer, in this case, the CiC, signs off on action to shut you down.

That's the process.

In short, when you wave a gun at a cop, you don't get a trial, you don't get a lawyer, you get shot at.

EFerrari

(163,986 posts)
54. No it doesn't, that's bs.
Tue May 29, 2012, 09:10 PM
May 2012

We already have the case of a teenager and whoever he was hanging out with that night being blown away because he was his father's son, not because of anything he did.

WHO tries to defend this cr@P, seriously?

boppers

(16,588 posts)
62. If you're old enough to fire a weapon, you're old enough to be a target.
Wed May 30, 2012, 01:35 AM
May 2012

He wasn't blown away because of his father, he was blown away because he was part of an escort to a target.

Hm.

I imagine DU during WWII (if it existed) would be in a tizzy that FDR was ordering the killing of Nazis without a warrant and a trial by jury, even the US citizen Nazis.

boppers

(16,588 posts)
66. Lets see:
Wed May 30, 2012, 01:51 AM
May 2012

Congress declared military action.
Thousands have died.
The war fronts span many nations.
The attacks span many nations.


....So, yes.

Ash_F

(5,861 posts)
69. You really outdid yourself this time.
Wed May 30, 2012, 08:18 AM
May 2012

In WWII there was a country carrying out aggressive military expansion.


Oh wait.



I see the similarities.

bhikkhu

(10,718 posts)
57. and keeping in mind, congress did legally authorize military force against Al Qaeda
Tue May 29, 2012, 11:03 PM
May 2012

...in the Senate Joint Resolution 73, September 14, 2001. Not to beat the drum or anything, but much of this stuff makes sense if you remember that there actually is a war, that had a pretty dramatic and deliberate beginning.

Ash_F

(5,861 posts)
71. I don't really see it as a war but a law enforcement issue
Wed May 30, 2012, 03:44 PM
May 2012

War is about taking over or protecting the sovereignty of a nation. Whether on the offence or defense, it is about establishing who is in charge of some particular plot of land.

The countries that the hijackers were from(Saudi Arabia, The UAE, Egypt, and Lebanon) all already had leaders who were friendly to the US. The US objective has never been to replace the government of any of these nations as the hijackers carried out their attacks without any broad material or organizational support from any of them. They were criminals, not soldiers.

bhikkhu

(10,718 posts)
75. I do remember that argument
Wed May 30, 2012, 08:54 PM
May 2012

and I was on the side of keeping it a law enforcement issue. Its a little late at this point.

pmorlan1

(2,096 posts)
68. Unbelievable!
Wed May 30, 2012, 03:03 AM
May 2012

I sure hope you were being sarcastic with your due process definition. Surely you don't believe this?

By the way even in this horrendous definition of due process you left out that once the cop shoots you there is an investigation to see if he was justified. In the case of the star chamber, kill list there is no investigation. It's all secret. There is zero accountability.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
39. Nope--the DOJ admitted that custody would pre-empt any lethal force.....
Tue May 29, 2012, 04:57 PM
May 2012

See pages 17/18 of the decision Judge Bates rendered on Awlaki--the DOJ admitted that if persons were custodial, then lethal force could not be used. The problem was, for Awlaki, is that he refused the custody of Yemen for his murder conviction, and refused our custody.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1469-31

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
38. Because those who have standing to do so are terrorists who do not participate in a
Tue May 29, 2012, 04:47 PM
May 2012

body politic.

Anwar Awlaki's father tried to challenge, and the court correctly noted that he did not have standing...but Mr. Awlaki did. In fact, Judge Bates noted, if Mr. Awlaki could post to YouTube (which he did, hundreds of times) then he could probably secure legal representation within the US to challenge his placement on a 'kill list.'

Judge Bates correctly notes that failure to participate in the judicial process means you don't get to benefit from it....

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1469-31

boppers

(16,588 posts)
46. This is news, how?
Tue May 29, 2012, 07:46 PM
May 2012

Has everybody but me been living under a rock for the last 200 years?

Capture/Kill orders are nothing new. Those who want to submit to the justice system get their day in court, those who want to run, and keep shooting, get shot.

EFerrari

(163,986 posts)
53. Wrong.
Tue May 29, 2012, 09:06 PM
May 2012

This is not about capture or kill orders. This is about the same Cheney assassination program that DU excoriated from one end of this forum to the other when Dick Cheney was doing it.

This is about the federal government playing judge, jury and executioner and claiming it has no obligation to supply any court anywhere with evidence or rationale for its killing. Clinton issued capture or kill orders but he never claimed he didn't have to account for them. And of course, I won't compare Obama to Dick Cheney, this is an election year.

Maybe you have been living under a rock because no president before Obama has claimed he can order anyone killed at any time any where without having to account for it in a court of law. Even Bush got lawyers to fake an argument for him.

If you want to support that, do it.



boppers

(16,588 posts)
61. I probably shrugged upon hearing about Bush/Cheney doing it, too.
Wed May 30, 2012, 01:23 AM
May 2012

Clinton as well, along with Carter, since it's been a long standing system. When did Clinton "account" for his orders? Carter?

"no president before Obama has claimed he can order anyone killed at any time any where without having to account for it in a court of law" is absolutely absurd, or simply completely ignorant of US history. Sure, various legal cover has been offered over the years, but are you seriously arguing that the US *wan't* trying to kill Fidel Castro, for just one example?

 

may3rd

(593 posts)
74. U.S. military trainers trickle back into Pakistan "Overseer in chief has boots on the ground
Wed May 30, 2012, 07:27 PM
May 2012

to help weed out the false plants


U.S. military trainers trickle back into Pakistan


.....\
Fewer than 10 U.S. special operations soldiers have been sent to a training site near the border city of Peshawar, where they will instruct trainers from Pakistan's Frontier Corps in counter-insurgency warfare, a U.S. official said.

The number of American military instructors in Pakistan dropped to zero after U.S. aircraft killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in late November. NATO labeled the border incident an accident but it enraged Pakistanis and sent already tense ties with the United States into a tailspin.

"I wouldn't call this a watershed moment (but) it's not insignificant that this is happening," the U.S. official said on condition of anonymity.
.......



At a NATO summit in Chicago this month, President Barack Obama snubbed his Pakistani counterpart, Asif Ali Zardari, by refusing to hold a meeting with him because Pakistan had not reopened the supply routes.
......
In the past, there had been some 200 to 300 U.S. military personnel stationed in Pakistan, many of them training Pakistan special forces to confront militants.

But Islamabad sharply reduced the size of the mission after the bin Laden raid.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-military-trainers-trickle-back-pakistan-215610120.html?fb_action_ids=2196528729230%2C2196525609152&fb_action_types=news.reads&fb_ref=type%3Aread%2Cuser%3AxNj2yvQss6cZuFq8jAB9J9R0YWk&fb_source=other_multiline&code=AQAOl7NyLTsoDmEV9eJbVKBYamByIcXspYOCNcppV6mTt7ufV3rZ0JHdzNaQsKyiFcJrHIWEhwFxfehbULd46UN59wI9CcE8PJ8DfuIzp9pwqzfz2Ogv5p3H8SpP8Vn5j1Jxmpcjrt3nrRFd40jF3wNyeM23urGS4UOUt0_1TC-8JIXMLjOjNxBxyG2KW9aC-7kSrwawk2IItC78MMz9HjoL#_=_

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Report: Obama Personally ...