I won’t politicize if you won’t, Mr. President.
President Obama does deserve credit as it happened on his watch. He’s made good on his campaign promise (really, it was only a matter of time before justice would catch up to al Qaeda’s #1 figurehead, a culmination of the last 9 years, not just the last 9 months). But it’s irksome that his narcissism can’t help but inject himself into this:
“Last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground,” President Obama told the nation in a speech Sunday night.
“Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body,” he said.
Or maybe as a partisan, I’m far too sensitive and am reading more into it than is warranted. Of course President Obama had to green light the operation; but I seem to always feel like this president has a way of always making it all about him; of taking undue credit for things he had little to do with (yes, he gave the order; but what sitting president wouldn’t have? Actually, Clinton had opportunities and did not take them, so nix that). Even when he says, “it’s never been about me”, he inadvertently seems to make it otherwise.
President Obama deserves credit, whether he wants to claim it (and he does) or not. And I am glad he called his two predecessors to give them the news. The hunt did not begin on his watch but President Obama has seen it to through to its conclusion.
The real winners, of course, are the American people.
Finally setting aside partisan politics at the end of this partisan post, I’d like to say, thank you President Obama and congratulations for a job well done!
Josh Rogins offers a timeline (beginning with Obama’s decision-making for what led directly to this operation).
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
Mata You are being extremely dismissive of BHO’s political risk in making this call. If this went the way of the Beckwith/Carter desert debacle OBAMA IS FINISHED.
Note If Beckwith succeeded The Gipper probably loses to Jimmy.
rich and
IvanTom (note… sorry… Ivan’s on Drj’s thread, upset about not enough applause for Obama), you bet your bippie that I am dismissive of the Zero’s “political risk”. Our military is not a political football, who’s deployment and commitment should be weighed against political factors. National security and foreign policy repercussions, yes. But domestic politics? Absolutely not. I’m appalled either of you even give that a a moment’s thought.And if you want to consider foreign policy… if Obama decided on “door #1”, and indeed invaded a sovereign nation for an assassination without a tacit approval from that nation… I’d say he wasn’t wisely considering the foreign policy repercussions either. Overt hit squads are not taken to kindly in the int’l community, even if aimed at a bad guy (in western world’s eyes, that is). Nor is operating such an illegal operation in another nation without their cooperation. Like I’ve repeatedly said, I sure hope they really had a tacit nod of approval from Pakistan (as happened often with Musharraf), and that this was a “dead or alive” mission in reality. Nothing more foolhardy than to admit it was an independently concocted hit squad on foreign soil. Lord have mercy…. will the ICC have a field day with that.
As I said, Clinton’s deplorable leadership and decisions in 1993 Somalia didn’t stop his re’election in 1996. His pass on UBL does not affect his legendary status with the lib/prog community to this day. Needless to say, many POTUS have used our military for what they believed was the best for this nation… whether you agree with it or not… that went against the public opinion polls. Any POTUS that ponders it’s political effect on himself doesn’t deserve the office.
Oh… I see. You mean like when you said:
Don’t you like it when people play the same games by your rules? For heavens sake, the man was elected to do just this job. And because he does it, he’s the cat’s meow and a hero?
Here’s the rub, Tom. You are annoyed that we are perturbed that this POTUS managed to make a statement that focused it on himself, and not those that made this mission possible from beginning to end. You then get more perturbed that I carve up “credit” with a “scientific formula”… LOL… and suggest I’m demeaning your hero to elevate others. You can thank Larry for that “scientific formula”, with his accusation that I was 99% negative. Or that Bush also was a “me me me” kind of person.
Does it never once occur to you that Obama elevated himself to a lofty position that he did not deserve, and did not give due credit to others that made this mission possible? Or that it was years in the making, and achieved by policies he fought kicking, screaming, biting and fighting?
Frankly, had the man had the grace to acknowledge all the elements and events involved, and not place the spotlight on his own mug for political reasons, you’d be finding me giving him accolades for his humility and seeing the light from here to no end. Then again, it’s not surprising that Obama could never do that.
No, I’m not debasing Obama. I’m just knocking his pedestal he set himself on down to the proper size. And to you both, who think our military should be deployed or not because of a political agenda, I suggest you stay the heck away from running from public office. Obviously we already have too much of that in our government now.
@rich wheeler:
Then, what you are saying is that we should give Obama credit for getting the hell out of the way after deciding on the green light?
But really, what you are saying is that the political implications should always take precedence over whatever action is being discussed, even when what is being discussed is the right thing to do? And really, what you are stating, is that if Obama had decided otherwise, and to let the opportunity go at this time, because the political ramifications of a failed mission outweighed the benefits, that you would have supported Obama’s decision? Simply put, you are stating that politics outweighs doing the right thing. Not a piece of ground I’d think a former Marine would be standing on.
J.G. You have a tendancy to always tell me what I am saying. You’re worse than my lovely wife and decidedly more long winded.PLEASE stop. Thanks
@rich wheeler:
I apologize if it offends you, Rich. However, it wasn’t meant as simply telling you what you are saying. You did notice the question marks, didn’t you? I merely mean to try to understand your points, and the way that I try to do that is by restating your words and meanings. If you don’t like that, then fine, I’ll simply ask you to restate your words in another way, so as to understand what you are saying, as long as that’s ok with you.
@MataHarley:
You’re appalled that we recognize something that’s almost certainly true of all elected officials in democracies: they weigh how their policies and decisions will be received by the public that voted them into office? Perhaps since you’re so concerned with pedestals you should climb down off of yours. You’re not going to make me feel bad for trying to understand what happened and taking into consideration all factors, even the more prosaic ones.
And why is it that both you and John insist on misinterpreting this not very controversial consideration thusly (in John’s words from post 118) But really, what you are saying is that the political implications should always take precedence over whatever action is being discussed, even when what is being discussed is the right thing to do. Huh? No one is saying that and it’s a ridiculous and insulting accusation. But to ignore that politicians are cognizant of political risk and reward seems pretty silly to me.
Most military actions have been undertaken without the support of the public at large. So what’s your point?
Do you have a problem recognizing two different cyber names… MataHarley and johngalt? If you have a problem with what johngalt says, then talk to johngalt. And oh, BTW, johngalt’s response was not even directed at you.
Classy, Tom. Running out of ideas on how to defend the indefensible? You’ve moved yourself from the “I’m appalled you give “political risk” validity for using our military” category, into the “you’re a partisan political ass” category. Congrats.
For Mata Harley #110 I knew I liked you for a reason. It’s 9:10 my time and just got done watching some news about bin’s compound. Not to far in the distance is a high hill formation-a good SHOOTER could get him right between the eyes (or maybe one side of his head) Two pirates shot dead-one lives and the hostage untouched (SNIPERS IN BOBBING WATERS) Don’t ever say it can not be done. (SHOW ME THE BODY) I’ve seen WAG THE DOG afew times
What’s the distance from the hill to the target, and the accuracy factor from the hill, jerseyflash? Those hills looked pretty far to me. But I didn’t use the Google Earth linear measure to check.
Then again, we do come down to that pesky illegality of an assassin mission, and it’s defense on the ICC/world stage. Not to mention the confiscation of the hard drives and any potential intel. A sniper may be able to take out UBL. But unlikely he or support troops could then enter the compound to abscond with the hard drives or evidence. The sniper still leaves others alive, and alerted to a breach of security.
@Mata
Don’t know that i agree with that, but i had to laugh when I came across this, which chalks the difference between Clinton and Obama’s approach to a new post-9/11 environment which is more amenable to, you guessed it, political risk.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/05/02/reflections-on-the-death-of-bin-laden/
As I said, oh offensive one, any POTUS who uses personal political risk to mobilize, or not, our military doesn’t deserve the office. Our military is not poll results fodder. Anyone who believes that it is… ahem, you… is scum in my book.
J.G. and Mata Obama made a studied (16 hrs or more) decision that turned out well.As Mata routinely points out we really don’t know what was inside his head.Strictly conjecture and at this time doesn’t matter.Give credit as you see fit.Much to go around including W who btw turned down WTC invite.
Most here are behind the decision made.Agree his victory lap could have been more muted.Let’s move on as a Nation to fight the struggles and challenges together.
Can’t disagree with anything in your comment, Rich.
BTW, rich… considering Obama’s political tricks with Ryan and the GOP with his budget speech invite, just how confident should Bush have been about Obama’s intents with the GZ invitation? Afterall, Obama is on record for years, castigating Dubya for “neglecting” UBL and Afghanistan. Ironic… all that “neglect” he was doing was the very foundation of the mission.
I had this argument with Ivan on another thread. Here’s what I have to say…. let’s see how gracious Obama is for giving credit to those deserving of credit with his GZ speech. Will he acknowledge the Bush admin, the policies he opposed, and spend more time on those that researched, planned an executed the mission? Or will it be a grand campaign stop?
As I said to Ivan… I’d be pleased with a gracious and bipartisan Obama… even if it were just for a long winded speech at a photo op.
Rich, you and others unhappy with the amount of praise missed my posts on other threads giving him credit for approving the mission- a kill mission no less. Jeez, I feel like I’m posting to Massive Head Wound Harry…
Since you left out some of my post
Repost of my #18
“I don’t have a problem giving obama some of the credit. He did avoid blowing it (unlike Carter who tried to micromanage). I agree somewhat with Word that “directed” is a bit much. He authorized the mission, but directed it? Don’t think so.”
Anyone who says we shouldn’t have done it, or says we should have tried to capture him and bring him to trial, will find me defending obama’s decisions.
He made the right call and let the experts do their job. That cannot be taken away from him.
@ Mata
I’m looking at the site on Google Earth as I write this:
Latitude: 34°10’9.17″N
Longitude: 73°14’32.76″E
There is only one very small area to the South-East with a copse of trees that a sniper “might” be able to climb to get a shot off, but with the large expanses of open flattish terrain with nearby buildings I doubt that he would be unseen entering the copse, as there is hardly any cover. Those hills mentioned by JerseyFlash are much farther away than they look. (The more distant something in the background of a photo is, the lighter it will appear. Photos “flatten” distant objects making them seem closer than they are. Stereoscopic photos would give a better depth of vision and make it easier to judge such things.) Considering that the intelligence states that Obama was never seen on the grounds, the sniper might have to be in his barely covered perch for some time to “maybe” get a shot through one of the windows.
I am still concerned about fall out from the supposed “unilateral” decision to go in but not to clear the boarder crossing raid with Pakistan’s leaders (assuming their Foreign Ministy is speaking the truth). Many Pakistani are seeing this as an invasion of their nation’s sovereign airspace (as do some in Afganistan,) Zardari says that the raid was not a joint US – Pakistan mission, that it was “unauthorized and unilateral”
“U.S. officials have admitted that they had not informed Pakistan of the operation until after it was over and all the U.S. Special Operations Forces involved in the raid had left Pakistani airspace.”
White House says it will not apologize.
Heck, I’m in support of the mission to go in and get Osama bin Laden, but I am very concerned that The Obama administration did not even bother to contact Pakistan’s leaders until after the mission. Obama has added an imperialistic-elitist attitude to his foreign policies (much like the left attributed to Bush). It is interesting that the press is staying rather silent about this aspect of the Libya & Pakistan military actions.
I like comments # 124 and 125. And so “voted.” Restores my sometimes-seeming illusion that, if reasonable people persist in trying, they can actually get to the point of understanding each other’s point of view and and finding at least a modicum of common ground.
I extend this kumbaya moment to congratulate Mata for her astute observation (comments # 111 and #116) that the “lib/prog movement” comprises 65% of American voters 🙂
P.S. And the second of the “Whitewater Twins” is not doing so bad herself (ostensibly with the exact same “lib/prog crowd,” as her numbers are virtually identical with those of Twin #1).
http://www.gallup.com/poll/146891/Hillary-Clinton-Favorable-Near-Time-High.aspx
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@rich wheeler:
I agree, and have given Obama credit where he deserves it. The only point I was trying to make, which you rejected as me having “told you what you are saying”, is that decisions about doing what is right should never be weighed from a political standpoint, and because of that, I didn’t agree with your post #113, that Obama’s political risk should have entered anywhere into the picture, and I won’t give him credit for any focus on that point.
J.G. There was political risk.We don’t know to what extent it influenced BHO IMO RIGHT DECISION WAS MADE.KUDOS TO ALL INCLUDING W.Conspiracy theories to follow.
Buy a SEAL a drink week. With great respect Semper Fi
rich, why did you shift the “political risk” argument to something different? May I remind you that the reason I found it distasteful was that both you and Tom gave it such high import, and considered it such an act of courage that it deserved heaps of praise. Personally, I don’t care if the Zero did, or did not, consider his political risk. Generally, from what we see in this POTUS, it’s likely he did. But that was never the argument.
The debate was why you two thought so much”credit” was due for a POTUS for that death defying “political risk”… all of which is part of his job. The offensive part of that is it relegates the military, in the hands of a CiC, as part of a campaign tool. No POTUS, of any political stripe, should be allowed to use our military for political favors and campaign fodder.
@MataHarley:
Obama and many of his supporters must be disappointed by the lack of a bounce in his poll numbers over this.
I mean it was a major good thing!
Everyone agrees.
But, still Obama is polling at a -13% (strong disapproves at 37%…..strong approves at only 24% of likely voters). Rasmussen May 4th.
@rich wheeler:
As to buying a SEAL a drink…..do you know where you find most of the nation’s ex-SEALs?
At watering holes on weekends.
~80% of all men you meet claim to have been SEALs.
(JOKE!!!!)
I wonder if there was a bunch of talk and concern about political risk when Roosevelt decided to give the go ahead to invade Normandy or if he did it because it was the right and necessary thing to do. Despite all this concern about how if the operation had failed it would have doomed Obama’s presidency, there is no concern about how it would have doomed the lives of SEAL Team 6. Apparently they are just an afterthought.
Just a little note for Mata Harley 122 & Ditto 128 It’s now 10:13 my time and I have once again have seen the hill range near bin’s compound. A “GOOD” SHOOTER kill shot is in the 2 thousand yard plus area. Yes Ditto there are some high buildings in the distance (how far ???) FLASH****Holder say’s the kill was in self defense ?????? (You break into my house and I will kill you in self-defense………) This whole thing is turning out to be ONE BIG JOKE. FLASH****Barry says that NO PHOTOS OF THE KILL. (No body-no photo’s-no cam movies) Does anyone know what time of the night of the raid-money sewn into his PJ’s
A 45 min firefight, a sick chopper that had to land in the compound ???????-bin doesn’t have an escape route when the first shot was fired??????-HOLDER just says that the killing was justified because bin resisted. NO WEAPON – A FLASH/STUN GRANADE (Picture of the war room-were is Leon, who is the little girl in the back of the room with dark hair***need to know-top secret clearance ????? Barry sitting in a little chair and some Air Force guy in the big chair playing with his computer?????) The WAR ROOM looks like my little office in my garage. America-GO RENT “WAG THE DOG” with Dustin Hoffman
Barry to his 3 female bitch advisiors “How do I stop my slide-I NEED the “POUNCE”. Answer**let’s bitch slap TRUMP, produce a long form and let’s go kill bin WAKE UP AMERICA IF YOU WILL NOT SHOW ME THE KILL PHOTO’S THEN SHOW ME & AMERICA THE LIVE PHOTO’S (THE SATELLITE PHOTO’S OF BIN WALKING AROUND IN THE COMPOUND-SHOW ME THE PICTURES !!!!) WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU HAVE SEEN A PHOTO OF BIN ALIVE ???????????
mata Let me be clear.I don’t think politics and polls should be in play when any POTUS makes a decision that involves putting our troops in harms way.The fact is there was political risk.As you suggest we don’t know the extent to which this may or may not have influenced Obama.In an ideal world it would not matter.Your criticism that I gave BHO Credit for a gutsy Political decision is acknowledged and accepted.
“Luck favors the prepared” Pasteur
@rich wheeler:
I don’t care if there was political risk to Obama, or not. That should never, ever, be a consideration in a question of right and wrong. That is my point. Right and wrong questions deserve no such consideration. Only if it is the right thing to do, or not. Because of that, I give him no credit, whatsoever, concerning that aspect.
John The SEAL raid was not simply a question of right and wrong. Other possible scenarios existed including bombing of the compound to reduce potential American casualties.
I don’t believe all things in life can be reduced to a simple right and wrong.We can discuss that another time.I need to tell my wife to wear the green dress rather than the blue she prefers because it’s right for her hair color. Carpe Diem
@MataHarley:
So another complete misrepresentation of what I wrote, which is available for all to see above. Okay, I’m being too kind: it’s a flat-out lie, because I’ve helpfully corrected Mata several times on the point that nowhere have I written that I consider political risk to be comparable to risk of life of limb, which is an asinine concept in the first place – I merely pointed out it exists; and certainly nowhere did I write it was of “such high import”. But because Mata is the kind of person more interested in winning an argument than getting to the truth, her first instinct upon realizing her point of attack is going nowhere is to redouble her efforts. This typically takes the form of her expressing great personal umbrage that you dare to disagree with her. Once the melodramatic emoting begins, like toddler’s crying fit, you’re just left to wonder whether it will ever run out of steam. It would be funny, if it wasn’t so pathetic, to see someone become rhetorically incontinent right before your eyes. Okay, it’s still funny.
You’ve gotta be joking me, Tom. You defended Obama’s self focused speech with the below response to OT.. not once, but twice:
So, according to your reasoning, using your own words, Obama’s credit is earned for assuming political risk. Big brave CiC…. /sarc
You still miss the point we’ve said over and over. We’re pleased that Obama carried on with the same quest as the Bush admin, used intel obtained in ways he railed against, and I’ll even give him the points Larry wants for him being able to choose between doors #1, 2 or 3.
What we’re not pleased with is sucking up most of the credit in a poor constructed and delivered speech, putting very little emphasis on those that planned and executed the mission, and totally ignoring the years of work that transpired prior to his gracing the Oval Office.
So, if it’s a personification of “pathetic” you need, you need only look in the mirror at a man who believes the CiC’s credit is earned by doing the job he was elected to do, and assuming “political risk”. Our military is not to be used as any CiC’s political football.
Nan #133 Real clear politics compilation which includes RASM. has BHO 51% app.-45% dis. up from 45 up 49 down 3 days ago.
Pew Research has it 56%-38% A HUGE BUMP UP
You don’t want to know what Palin and Trump are polling.
@another vet:
Operation Tiger was the Pre-June 1944 Invasion Practice for the Normandy Invasion.
During the practice, on April 28th, 1944, the Allies were attacked by German E. Boats, and torpedoed. As a result 749 men were killed (official count) in the training exercise.
Can you imagine someone like Obama being in charge back then???
Sources about Operation tiger:
http://www.qmmuseum.lee.army.mil/historyweek/22-28apr.htm
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq20-2.htm
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq20-1.htm
________________
________________
OH!
And PS:
The president has decided not to release death photos of Osama bin Laden.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/04/bin.laden.photo.release/index.html
Right now a REAL political risk on Obama’s part is being missed:
FEMA Denies Disaster Status for Texas Wildfires
It would take a big man to rise above partisanship and do the right thing.
Obviously Obama is a little man.
@Nan G, #141:
Another sound decision by the Obama administration, in my opinion, for reasons cited in another thread.
@MataHarley:
I haven’t missed that point and I’m glad you feel that way and commend you on giving credit where credit is due. That isn’t going to stop me, however, from calling you out when you misrepresent over and over something that I wrote. Again, where in the paragraph you quoted am I giving any indication of how I weigh Obama’s political risk/reward against all other factors? I even write that it’s besides the fact to the credit given to those who did the mission (“It isn’t taking credit away from those who performed the mission to be grateful that the President gave the go-ahead”). I merely point out this factor exists and you’re free to dismiss it. But that’s not enough for you. You keep trying to spin what I wrote as if I’m saying political risk exists above or to the exclusion of all other factors. You take what I wrote and spin it in this disgusting fashion: ““political risk” seems to equal military’s lives on the line when it comes to “credit”. Since I’ve pointed out the disconnect between my words and your interpretation multiple times, and since you have yet to bring any new evidence forward, I have no choice but to assume you’re intentionally misrepresenting what I’ve written (i.e., lying) So I ask you once again, please show me where I’ve compared political risk favorably with our military’s lives.
Here is the all the polling data from Real Clear Politics. As can be seen the CBS/NYT and Wash Post polls have a huge spread. In addition their approval numbers aren’t close to the other 5 polls. I would be highly suspect of their results. I was actually anticipating a much higher initial bounce than this. Perhaps it’s just taking longer to register.
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample Approve Disapprove Spread
RCP Average 5/1 – 5/3 — 51.0 43.1 +7.9
CBS News/NY Times 5/2 – 5/3 57 37 +20
Newsweek/Daily Beast 5/2 – 5/3 48 49 -1
Gallup 5/1 – 5/3 1500 A 50 42 +8
Rasmussen Reports 5/1 – 5/3 48 51 -3
CNN/Opinion Research 2 – 5/2 52 43 +9
SurveyUSA 5/2 – 5/2 46 42 +4
Wash Post/Pew/SRBI 5/2 – 5/2 56 38 +18
The killing occurred during Obama’s watch. Big deal! Giving him credit for it is like giving Truman credit for VE Day after Churchill, FDR, Stalin, and their troops had done all the dirty work against Hitler.
If BO deserves credit for this kill, then Andrew Johnson deserves credit for saving the Union and destroying slavery. The day Lincoln died, General Johnston’s Confederate Army of Tennessee was still in the field, as were General Kirby Smith’s Trans-Missssippi forces. Pitched battles continued through July 1865, and the 13th Amendment wasn’t passed until Reconstruction, during JOHNSON’s presidency.
@another vet:
That’s a very real possibility.
Other big moves after watershed events took 10 days to register.
One might have thought in an internet and instant news age that gap would shorten, but perhaps not.
@MataHarley:
I think what’s sticking in a lot of craws is the simple fact that the Obama administration has brought to successful completion a mission that the previous administration set out on, but didn’t complete after 7 years of trying. Obama’s critics are making far more of that simple fact than his supporters.
I didn’t take Obama’s announcement speech as an effort to “suck up most of the credit”. I took it as a fairly straightforward statement by the President of the United States to the American people. I thought the tone was appropriately solemn, formal, and dignified. There was nothing celebratory about it, nor anything particularly self-congratulatory. There was certainly nothing overtly partisan. Rereading the transcript a few days later, I still have the same opinion.
Who’s actually doing most of the politicizing?
@Greg:
Not a partisan speech. Simply drawing some unnecessary spotlight onto himself.
Nope. I actually believed it was quite possible the kill or capture, if it didn’t happen under Bush, it would eventually happen and could in all likelihood happen under Obama’s. But this is only because it was simply a matter of time.
This is a culmination of a hunt that began 9 yrs ago, with a continuity of American CIA, FBI, military, DoD, government effort.
@Nan G: When the troops (not Bush) captured Hussein, Bush supposedly got a 7 point bump (I was in Balad when it happened so I’m going on recent news reports). I was anticipating at least that big of a bump when the SEALS and their support personnel(CIA, Army chopper pilots, USAF air support personnel, and anyone else I may have missed, not Obama) took out UBL.
As for #141 (don’t know how I could have missed that the first time) you brought up a good point. This is far from the first time a CiC has had to make a decision like this. The Israelis must be amused at the political jockeying going on as they are no strangers from doing these types of operations.
The bottom line is I could care less about “political risks”, be it Obama AUTHORIZING this mission or Bush deciding to invade Afghanistan in the first place, both of which were wise and necessary decisions on the part of both presidents. My main concern is doing what is necessary and being concerned about the success and welfare of those putting their lives on the line. The patriots and their mission were in support of GWOT. Neither they nor their mission were “political risks”. To emphasize the “political risks” rather than the mission and those involved, is rather demeaning as they are heroes not “political risks”. I know I’m preaching to the choir on this!
@another vet: I Concur.
Obama LIES (Over 150 documented times) Do you think if anything went wrong-Barry was going to take the fall. Look at that WAR ROOM ??? picture again-there’s a half a dozen people in that room that would HAVE TO fall on there sword for any mistake that happen. Barry’s sitting on a little chair-hunched over while some Air Force guy is in the BIG CHAIR. Doesn’t something look phoney about that picture. All went well so were is my BUMP ????? It’s now 5:17 my time-there are now 5 news stations giving conflicting stories. SHOW ME THE PRE-OP PHOTO’S OF BIN WALKING THE COMPOUND GROUNDS
Here’s my take on this: Obama gets the axe in 2012 and goes to HOLLYWOOD to make this picture with Steven Spielberg-Barry writes a book first-NO Bill writes it for him. TITLE OF THE MOVIE ?????????? By the way-didn’t this guy get a PIECE PRIZE. Isn’t that something you get when you DON’T give “KILL ORDERS” (Libya-bin who’s next ?????????)
@rich wheeler:
And that is where we differ, Rich, and it is essential to the philosophy that I hold. But your right, we can discuss that another time.
First of all, I will admit that certain phrases and announcements almost have to include the singular personal pronouns, however what I think is being argued by Mata and others here at FA is that Obama’s narcissistic nature impels him to take a different view, and therefore puts him in a different frame of mind when he makes these announcements to America.
@blast: You said:
And @openid.aol.com/runnswim: You said:
Okay, lets do that. I chose to view the video of President Bush when he announced our invasion of Iraq.
He used the word “I” twice.
Here are the two sentences for full context:
“I want all Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm.”
“And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures.”
He used the word “My” once.
” On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein’s ability to wage war.”
Now let’s look at Obama’s announcement of the death of Bin Laden.
He used the word “I” 10 times.
He used the word “My” once.
He used the word “Me” twice.
“Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani counterparts.”
“Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was.”
“Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.”
“…I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden.”
“I met repeatedly with my national security team…”
“And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence…”
“These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief, have to sign a letter to a family that has lost a loved one, or look into the eyes of a service member who’s been gravely wounded.”
That is thirteen references to himself versus Bush’s three times. And so in contrast, you can clearly see that one President does indeed interject himself into the fabric of his speeches much more than the other.
.
.
@Old Trooper 2: Some of us must look at things differently. Ever see or use a decision matrix where one of the criteria for deciding on a COA was “impact on career”? I was almost tempted to copy and paste a matrix from 101-5 to show how decisions are made in the military but I don’t want to beat this dead horse anymore.
@another vet: Nor do I. It has been Politicized into the dirt. The COA is 100% based upon Risks involved and Force Protection/Economy of Force. I never traded Lives for “career impact” and never respected those Who did. We always knew Who the Politicians in Boots were and I was able to get Missions accomplished with minimal losses even if I had to catch the heat for it. I always sent what was necessary to do the deal and never worried about the heat.
No One but a Fool argues with Success. Only a Fool proceeds with less than what is required. Troops will not follow Fools or do anything less than what their Commander is willing to do Himself. Taking Credit for the Courage of Others is quite frankly what is referred to as Stolen Valor. I reckon that I have made my point. If You can look Your Troops in the Eye or ever have, that is understood.
@Old Trooper 2:
In other words, it sounds like your motto is “Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way so that I can do my job!”.
Thoughts on the impact on a career never got the job done. And all decisions, despite the protests of Rich, can be boiled down to a simple ‘right or wrong’.
@johngalt: Looks like most of us here are in agreement.
@johngalt: AMEN.
That is why I’m Retiring as an O-6, am known as being abrasive when someone wants “more done with less” but on My last Deployment My Group and Teams knew that Failure was Never an Option and the Team Leader gave Direction and if the Plan hit the weeds, I would personally lead the QRF in Support and give Credit in Public and Criticism in Private.
My Superiors gave Authorization but No One Directed Actions on Objective but the Team Leader. That is Leadership, My Style. Taking Credit for success if Your Boots are not “on the ground” is quite frankly Stolen Valor. Anyone Who believes anything else is too much Full of Him/Herself or has never risked anything less than a reputation. Period. If a Mission failed, I had failed in Their Training. That is My POV. Old School. I was Trained by the Best.
@another vet: Roger that.
J.G. Who decides if Obama’s decision not to release photos is right or wrong? Does hindsight ever play in? Is there a clear right or wrong on kill vs capture? I vote Clinton,you Bush,Mata Perot??
@rich wheeler:
I wasn’t aware that the decision to not release photos was being discussed here.
All decisions boil down to the right one and the wrong one, and stem from morally grounded principles on what is right and what is wrong. One must use the lessons of history, or hindsight, of similar decisions, to determine which decision is the right one to make. Politics, and the concern for one’s own career, should never come into play, yet I will admit that it does, no matter which political philosophy one adheres to. I, though, will NEVER give someone credit for making a politically driven decision, even if I consider the decision the right one to make. That is why I have given Obama credit for continuing the policies, regarding terrorism, that Bush started. Because it was the right one to make. And because of that, he was presented with the opportunity to make a decision on whether to get UBL, which he did, and which I believe, again, was the right decision to make.
The choices presented to him, of how to get UBL, weren’t a matter of political thought, but simply how best to go about the goal, of getting UBL, dead or alive. In order to make that decision, one is presented not with political effects in mind, but with probability for success of each, which boils down, again, to what is right and what is wrong.
One should go through life using the basic premise of doing what is right, and shunning that which is wrong, no matter the implications, or effects, on oneself. That is an honorable, and admirable, life. When one goes through life deciding only what is the expediency of the moment, regardless of right or wrong, it is a dishonorable way to live, particularly towards one’s fellow man. I don’t believe that you live your life that way, but you support and admire someone who does, and give them credit for it as well. Not all decisions made on the expediency of the moment are wrong, for even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then, but the overall life is tainted by dishonor amongst their fellow man. I will not live my life that way, nor admire and support anyone who does.
@Old Trooper 2:
That explains it!
Obama wanted to de-criminalize stealing valor* and I couldn’t, at the time, understand why.
Now it is clear.
HE intended to steal some.
*Wearing medals not earned, falsely claiming to have attained a rank or status not earned.
John G. All decisions are being discussed here,not just one’s you chose to deal with.You didn’t answer my questions.You get tired of patting yourself on the back for your moralistic certitude? Are you right for being a self proclaimed Christian or was Rand right as an atheist.I hope you’re not saying your well thought out decisions are always correct.Are you?
Perhaps with over 150 comments on this thread, you’ve lost track of the subject matter, Tom. The original post was about the Obama statement, politicizing the event with far too much emphasis on self, and little focus on those that did all the ground work… from both past admins to today’s and the planners/executors of the plans.
From the beginning, everyone agreed that Obama deserves credit as a CiC, approving the mission. We disagreed with the balance of his statement, and less than acceptable gracious acknowledgement of those involved other than himself. A pathetic pittance of a few paragraphs, mid or at the end of his statement.
Also, from the beginning, you have refused to acknowledge the improper balance of that statement, and have simply gone full bore with the argument that Obama deserves credit for “political risk”. Indeed, you can’t even see how Obama getting credit reflects on credit for the intel teams for years, the strategists and military.
But that was never the original argument… which was that the imbalance of the statement was politicizing the event, and placing himself high on a pedestal for involvement. Something you have not argued to the contrary.
Considering your lack of input on Obama’s short sheeting the real heros in this endeavor, and your focus only on how much credit he *is* due for his “political risk”, there is only one conclusion this reader can have. That you consider his involvement and credit warranted his ungracious statement – which placed the events and actions from past years to the storming of the compound – little more than an afterthought. Therefore, your silence indicates you don’t think there was an imbalance of accolades at all.
If you think differently, it’s about time for you to speak up. ‘cus you sure ain’t done it yet. And there is no way for you to reverse your opinion that a CiC, doing the job he was elected to do by approving or disapproving a mission, deserves praise because he has “political risk”. Such a statement makes my former military family blood run cold.
What the heck are you talking about, rich? Not sure where Clinton, Bush or “Perot” even fit into this conversation, but whatever.
If you want an opinion about the release of photos, I’ll be brief. I don’t care if they do, or if they don’t. I believe it was Bin Laden for sundry reasons…. I believe our Seals, and Bin Laden’s daughter, in the custody of the Pakistani’s, also confirms it. I don’t believe there will be any more or less retaliation with, or without their release. Cockroches need little provocation to infest. In fact, they will use the lack of pictures to their press advantage the same way they would use any release.
This is a WH decision. To show what a babe in the woods, this POTUS is on the political scene, when Abu Gharaib hit, he was a jr IL Senator, and at the later times in 2006, campaigning for the US Senate. Not even around long enought to have a record in that era.
It wasn’t until 2009 that we learned of his opinion when the ACLU was using the FOIA to get additional photos released. At first Obama decided he would not fight the ACLU, but then changed his mind and did indeed fight their release with an appeal. So when it comes to releasing photos of possibly offensive nature, he is consistent. No complaints. Like I said, I dont’ need them.
And I’m wondering when we can leave the UBL 24/7 news cycle, and start paying attention to more dire looming events… like the debt ceiling debate/vote, Mexico’s dumping dollars for gold, the housing double dip, and the US dollar value being flushed down the toilet.
Here is Your Photo…
http://curmudgeonlyskeptical.blogspot.com/2011/05/burial-at-sea-proof.html
Got it? Cool, Lets move along now, nothing to see here. I concur on not releasing any photos. Good call.
As Mata has stated the Budget, the Deficit, the Borders, the Economy and Unemployment are the Clear and Present Danger. Add rising Energy costs and Food costs while You are at it. The OBL Mission is completed.
OT… Hilarious! I’m sold on that photo proof!
Mata I was questioning Galt’s assertion there is always a right and wrong to every decision made.Much too simplistic (or complex?)Let him explain.
I note he doesn’t like Pink Floyd. Now that’s Wrong.
Ot2 #167 CONCUR I’ve been saying move on but watch for conspiracy theories for 2 days.
rich, while you directed that “clear right or wrong on kill vs capture?” comment to johngalt, I will respond that there is indeed. State assassinations are illegal. So is invading another country’s sovereignty without their permission.. especially to carry out an illegal assassination. That is a clear wrong. Also, shooting an unarmed man who may have been surrendering or not resisting would also be a clear wrong. Our military isn’t meant to be used for illegal executions.
At least overtly so in policy.
My desire is, if it’s an assassination, stop telling us it’s that and just do exactly what the Seals are doing… hey, he resisted. Self defense. And puleeeeze, stop telling us that you didn’t let the Pakistani’s know you were doing this, and that they had no involvement. And for heaven’s sake, stop saying dumb things to the media like “we didn’t trust them”…. not exactly a pathway to great diplomatic relations with a former enemy, and now a nuke empowered quasi-ally.
Whether this mission was executed via a “right or wrong” method will be revealed in time… ala whether Pakistan again reverts to being an enemy, or the ICC attempts to haul our Seals in on charges for illegal assassinations. The only people who really know whether this was a capture or kill mission, with legal incursion into Pakistan, do not reside on this forum.
@MataHarley:
You are so right!
Proof?
Angry Muslims don’t need any proof!
Muslims are already calling the site (in the North Arabian Sea) of Osama bin Laden’s ocean burial the ‘Martyr’s Sea’, according to one of Britain’s leading Islamic scholars.
__________________________
Bin Laden Shrine Forms As Tourists Flock To Death Compound
US efforts to prevent a shrine to Osama bin Laden were under threat Thursday as several hundred sightseers flocked to the house where the world’s most notorious terrorist met his death.
Pakistan officials said the compound in Abbottabad where bin Laden was shot dead Sunday already became a tourist attraction and that there were no plans to destroy the building.
“I can tell you for a fact that it will become a place of tourism,” said Dr. Muhammad Azfar Nisar, the deputy civil chief of the city. “People are already coming here from as far away as Lahore to see the house, so why should we destroy the building? The more revenue, the better.”
Nisar said the city might even expand to accommodate tourist demand. “I am sure some hotels will be constructed nearby the house if the military allow it,” he added.
“I’ve come here today to see a piece of our history,” said Ahmed, 24, who brought his 11-month-old daughter with him. “Osama was a good Muslim who fought for Islam. He was a hero to us. I expect in time to see all sorts of tourists here, even Japanese and Americans.”
“I had thought he would be living in a cave like a proper rebel outlaw,” said 25-year-old Zulqurnain. “But instead they say he was hiding here, in a nice residential area. I’m a bit disappointed and can’t believe it. Even so, I will come to visit again. Osama was our lion.”
@Old Trooper 2:
ROFLAMO! Especially one comment: “Now when you go to the beach you can piss on his grave!”