Obama’s lost opportunity [Reader Post]

Had he extended to Bush the courtesy and kindness of sharing this triumph Obama would have magnified himself as a statesman. He would have made himself- and it’s difficult for me to say this- admirable. All the rancor that currently flows around this event would have been dampened thoroughly, and some of us might have fewer posts to write.

I have to assume from the tearful hysteria and hand-wringing in certain quarters of FA that Presidents sharing retroactive credit across party lines is de rigueur, and that this particular President has therefore committed a mortifying faux pax. So, Dr J., since you’re the crier in chief, I imagine you must have many examples of this precedent broken. Please, do share. Of the dozens of time GWB shared credit with Bill Clinton, which one was your favorite? Was there a particular Reagan speech that stands out as being even more graceful in its praise of Jimmy Carter than all others? I await the deluge of examples. If, for some reason, you can’t respond to this request, I suggest you stop making an ass of yourself and cluttering the web with useless posts, fatally flawed by your compulsive inability to write anything without inserting obviously deliberate misinformation. As hilarious as I find your posts, and their reflection upon those whom you gladly represent on the fringe, there is a point where tedium overtakes humor and I think we’ve arrived at that point with your embarrassing series on the death of OBL.

PS: In your list of Presidential credit-sharing, no using Obama’s sharing of credit for killing OBL with Bush during last Sunday’s 60 Minutes interview. The paradox caused by that inconvenient fact combined with what is stated as ‘fact’ in your post might lead to unpredictable time/space consequences, such as the post collapsing in upon itself into a black hole of its own ridiculousness.

@DrJohn:

In other words, you have nothing.

Dr J, speaking of your favorite subject, “Spiking the football”:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/05/08/2011-05-08_cheney_rumsfeld_other_bush_officials_claim_credit_for_nabbing_bin_laden_talk_up_.html

A parade of former Bush administration officials went on the Sunday political shows to talk up waterboarding and claim a measure of credit for bagging Osama Bin Laden.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said waterboarding – which the Obama administration nixed as torture – “probably” played a role in tracking down Bin Laden and should be brought back.

“It was a good program. It was legal program. It was not torture,” Cheney told Fox News Sunday. “I would strongly recommend we continue it.”

Former Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld called it “a mistake” to rule out waterboarding. “It’s clear that those techniques that the CIA used worked,” he said on CBS.

Officials have said the key to finding Bin Laden was locating his courier. Captured terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave the courier’s nickname in 2003 after being waterboarded 183 times.

Torture opponents say Mohammed never gave up the real name, even under so-called “enhanced interrogation,” and suggest regular questioning might have worked better.

Further, they say torture is a betrayal of American values, whether it works or not.

Rumsfeld said he thought Obama made “the right decision” to gamble on a SEAL raid, but added, “I would have preferred a lot less discussion out of the White House about intelligence, personally.”

Last week, the Daily News reported that former President Bush declined an invitation to visit Ground Zero with President Obama because he thought Obama wasn’t sharing credit for the raid. His loyal aides set out to change the narrative Sunday.

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice praised Obama’s “brave decision,” but stressed that the operation – which she called a “victory across presidencies” – took many years to set up.

“You don’t just stumble upon Osama Bin Laden. It takes a lot of work to get there,” she said on CNN. “These leads developed quite a long time ago.”

Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said on NBC, “Both presidents deserve a lot of credit for maturing the apparatus over 10 years.”

On Saturday, former Bush chief of staff Andrew Card criticized Obama’s visit to Ground Zero as grandstanding.

“I think he has pounded his chest a little too much,” Card told the German newspaper Der Spiegel. “He can take pride in it, but he does not need to show it so much.”

Card oversaw one of history’s worst-conceived presidential victory laps: when his boss donned a flight suit to jet to an aircraft carrier draped with a banner announcing “Mission Accomplished” in 2003, just five weeks into the Iraq war that still rages.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-conservative-media-bias

The Sunday morning talk shows are fully embracing their conservative media bias by celebrating the one week anniversary of the death of Bin Laden with shows chocked full of Republican guests.
….
The Sunday morning talk shows are going to feature, Bush’s former, Sec. of Homeland Security (Chertoff), Bush’s former CIA director (Hayden), Bush’s former vice president (Cheney), Sec. of Defense (Rumsfeld), Bush’s former Sec of State (Rice), and former Deputy Asst. Sec of State (Liz Cheney). Other Republicans on the shows will be Tom Davis, Rudy Giuliani, and Dick Luger.

The current members of the Obama administration featured on the Sunday morning shows total one Obama’s National Security Advisor Tom Donilon.

But that Tom Donolin, although far outnumbered, was far more relentless in his football spiking, and his credit taking for Obama at the expense of GWB:

http://www.nbcumv.com/mediavillage/networks/nbcnews/meetthepress/pressreleases?pr=contents/press-releases/2011/05/08/meetthepresscli1304875142428.xml

DAVID GREGORY:
Did harsh interrogation help in the hunt of bin Laden?

TOM DONILON:
I’m not– I’m not going to comment on specific intelligence except to– except to say the following, that intelligence was gathered from detainees. It was gathered from interrogation. It was gathered from one of the liaison services. It was gathered technically. It was gathered through human sources, right, over time. And it was gathered, by the way, and this is a very important point, I think for your viewers and for Americans generally to understand. This was an effort across two administrations. Indeed, many of the same professionals who worked for President Bush on this project work with us today, right. So it is not a matter of a partisanship. And indeed, one of the messages, I think, that goes out from this is this. That the United States, about its goals, has persistence and determination. That the United States does what it says it’s going to do, and very importantly last Sunday night, the world saw it has the capabilities to do so.

Tom, feel free to comment on Obama’s blatant attempt to take credit for increased Border Patrol on the southern border.

As to man-on-man fallatio, I am sure you are quite expert at it. Or do you just like shoving your head up your own ass?

On What Obama said today in El Paso, Texas; just another straw man fallacy, albeit a snarky one.
Remember how snarkily Obama derided the Bible?
Video here.
Today’s mockery was almost the same thing.
Just who is it that Obama can name who wants alligators in a moat across the length of our border with Mexico?
Maybe Egyptian Crocodiles…..wink.
Alligators can’t make it there.

There needs to be a straw man ad series against Obama.
Let his own mocking and sneering falsehoods sink him.
That would be justice.

Retire05 in #15 calls Obama “our half breed President” I call Retire05 a RACIST.

Semper FI

@Tom:

And it was gathered, by the way, and this is a very important point, I think for your viewers and for Americans generally to understand. This was an effort across two administrations. Indeed, many of the same professionals who worked for President Bush on this project work with us today, right. So it is not a matter of a partisanship. And indeed, one of the messages, I think, that goes out from this is this. That the United States, about its goals, has persistence and determination. That the United States does what it says it’s going to do, and very importantly last Sunday night, the world saw it has the capabilities to do so.

So where’s the “President Bush deserves credit as well thing? And this sounds like the Obama 60 minutes boilerplate. One wonder how long they practiced it.

@Tom:

I will take your inability to respond to my specific points the same way I took Dr. J’s: you lose.

You created a situation and demanded someone else prove it.

That’s pathetic. It’s YOUR conjecture- YOU prove it. YOU set up the argument that it’s “de rigeur” for one President to thank his predecessor.

So, Dr J., since you’re the crier in chief, I imagine you must have many examples of this precedent broken. Please, do share.

I didn’t make that argument. YOU did. Now I am supposed to prove YOUR argument? Really?

You need any more straw, Tom? You’ve used a load here so far.

@Tom: Tom and Rich, if you look at what Dr John is saying, he is providing analysis not criticizm. I know the difference is subtle, but read it as such and see the if there isn’t a different perspective.

@Tom:

One would think you would have learned by now not to treat your readers like they’re imbeciles. If you’re going to try leading them by the nose through dishonest means, you better have more in reserve than sputtering “strawman!” over and over when you’re called on it.

Don’t……make………me……say…….it…………

Demanding that I prove your premises is, well, you know.

This is about opinion, Tom, and last I looked I am entitled to mine regardless of what you think.

@Tom: BTW, Tom

DAVID GREGORY:
Did harsh interrogation help in the hunt of bin Laden?

TOM DONILON:
I’m not– I’m not going to comment on specific intelligence except to– except to say the following, that intelligence was gathered from detainees. It was gathered from interrogation. It was gathered from one of the liaison services. It was gathered technically. It was gathered through human sources, right, over time.

KSM was totally uncooperative until he made acquaintance with a wet rag. It was only then that he cooperated with the more genteel methods of discussion.

And that is why Donilon dodged the question.

From 2009:

After he was subjected to the “waterboard” technique, KSM became cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.

The May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that details what happened in this regard was written by then-Principal Deputy Attorney General Steven G. Bradbury to John A. Rizzo, the senior deputy general counsel for the CIA.

“You have informed us that the interrogation of KSM—once enhanced techniques were employed—led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the ‘Second Wave,’ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles,” says the memo.

“You have informed us that information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discover of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemaah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the ‘Second Wave,’” reads the memo. “More specifically, we understand that KSM admitted that he had [redaction] large sum of money to an al Qaeda associate [redaction] … Khan subsequently identified the associate (Zubair), who was then captured. Zubair, in turn, provided information that led to the arrest of Hambali. The information acquired from these captures allowed CIA interrogators to pose more specific questions to KSM, which led the CIA to Hambali’s brother, al Hadi. Using information obtained from multiple sources, al-Hadi was captured, and he subsequently identified the Garuba cell. With the aid of this additional information, interrogations of Hambali confirmed much of what was learned from KSM.”

A CIA spokesman confirmed to CNSNews.com today that the CIA stands by the factual assertions made here.

In the memo itself, the Justice Department’s Bradbury told the CIA’s Rossi: “Your office has informed us that the CIA believes that ‘the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qa’ida has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.”

@Randy:

I have no bone to pick with someone’s analysis of a given set of facts being different from my own. My issue with Dr J is the way he habitually presents facts in a misleading way. If the “missed opportunity” is confined to the first Sunday night speech where Obama didn’t share credit, why not write that, while acknowledging that Obama did share credit at a later time? Any reader of the post above who is unfamiliar with the 60 minutes interview is going to likely draw the conclusion that Obama has steadfastly refused to share credit with anyone working counter-terrorism prior to the 2008 election. In my opinion, leaving out such an important fact is intentionally misleading the reader. As for his analysis of Obama’s “ego”, I for one don’t go in for armchair pop psychology, but you will notice I didn’t take issue with it because it’s not really fact-based, but pure conjecture, and I’m confident any intelligent reader will take it as such.

@Tom: While I admit my political experience is limited to dealing with Arab leaders, one thing my Mother taught me is “You never get a second chance to make a first impression”. I always thought of that when I met with important people who could affect the agenda Iwas proposing. What I got out of Dr John’s post was that Obama would have increased his bounce if right up front he had been gracious and actually given all of the credit to others. I, for one, would have been surpriced and would have appauded him for this effort. My reasoning here is I know how deeply involved the President would be in an operation like the OBL raid. The country would also know this. It is quite possible that many voters who were considering supporting another candidate other than Obama would take a second look. Instead of reaping this reasponse, Dr John correctly pointed out he missed an very good opportunity. You would not see some one like General Petraeus missing this opportunity.

@Randy:

Good post. Your distillation of the “missed opportunity”, written in a fair-minded manner, seems like a fair point to raise, whether or not one agrees with it. But notice what you’ve added in and filtered out of Dr J’s post: 1) you add in that this is about the first speech; 2) you filter out all the shots at Obama and speculation regarding his alleged ego and narcissism, which are unnecessary baggage to the point made. In other words, you’ve delivered a limited critique of an action on Obama’s part and speculated upon its possible ramifications. Although I personally think the criticism of Obama in this instance is overblown, I can see and acknowledge the point of view that mentioning Bush would have been a gracious touch. The problem with Dr J’s post is that I can’t get past my own ‘first impression’, which is that it’s deliberately dishonest and unnecessarily disrespectful toward the President to no apparent reason other than spite. Dr. J would be wise to read your comment as an alternative approach.

Perhaps Tom would like to compare the number of times that Obama used “I, My, I’ve” in his speech about the killing of ObL to the speech given by President Bush on the capture of Saddam Hussein and tell us how many times Bush used the same personal references?

http://minx.cc/?post=315865