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.
@blast, nope… I don’t have amnesia. The thrust of Wordsmith’s post is that Obama tends to make others’ accomplishments his personal successes. Larry dissed that, saying Bush did it.
I asked because I knew you two would both pick out a couple of phrases and words…. but a couple of phrases and words does not a speech make.
I suggest you take up my challenge and read both Obama’s and Bush’s speeches linked above. Consider yourself a military man who participated in the operation, sitting in the audience. Just who makes you feel like it’s all about you and the military accomplishments, and who throws in a token few “atta boys” halfway and at the end of the speech? Who makes it more about the military and America, and who makes it about him for the bulk of the speech?
It’s quite obvious. But not to those who like to read two words at a time, and not get the whole flavor and thrust of the speech. It’s a good thing I read it before seeing a replay…. the stuttering and misreading from TOTUS was damned embarrassing….
@mata: If I were to do what you are doing, and analyze everything you’ve written concerning Bin Laden’s killing, it would probably come out as 99% negative and a single sentence or two of grudging recognition that POTUS did something very good for the country.
If, at a time like this, you can’t demonstrate a little bit of gracious, we are all in this together as Americans and three cheers for the troops and the President spirit, then I just feel sad, that’s all.
Talk about burying the lede…
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Apparently, your parsing skills need work, Larry.
Mission to kill UBL accomplished? Check
Allowing our military to take a bold capture or kill approach as opposed to an air bombing? Check
Having the wisdom to continue the Bush admin’s quest and use that intel retrieved under circumstances this POTUS disagrees with? Check
Three credits.
Was it wise to go into Pakistan without their tacit nod? Guess we’ll find out if there was a tacit nod, or not, based on future relations. Kudos withheld until further events weigh it out.
Happily utilizing information that begat the ultimate demise of UBL, while dodging the birth of that intel as being controversial? Cowardly.
That’s a 3 to 2, which is only 40% negative… and that’s even assuming a “withheld” is a “negative”… which it really isn’t yet. So I guess your math needs work, too.
Forgot to add this:
Perhaps you really don’t get my feelings about this at all, Larry. I don’t “rejoice” in UBL’s death. I said that above when talking with Nan G, in case you missed it. In fact, I haven’t been concerned about UBL for quite some time. Since intel was on him, thick as flies, he’s been neutered, and relegated to just an ugly legend to the global Islamic terrorists movements. As far as I was concerned, they could keep the intel going on him for his lifetime. If they were active, we may have learned more about how far the connected threads went.
For quite some time I’ve repeatedly pointed out that the enemy is not UBL and AQ, and to limit that definition to them is extremely dangerous.
Glad he’s gone? Sure. But not to the point of rejoicing. Will it make an iota of difference in our national security, and protection from the GIJM? Not a bit.
Frankly the only difference it will make is to Obama’s 2012 POTUS campaign talking points. He finally has “a bipartisan accomplishment” in which to tout. Other than that, my initial reactions last night were: 1: Curiousity as to how the mission went down, and did the Pakistani’s know, and 2: being somewhat appalled at the crowds, cheering in the streets.
Now, if my gut is correct, Obama will use this as the excuse to pull out and abandon Afghanistan. It’s an unpopular war, extremely difficult to win the way it’s being conducted by NATO, and serves as a drain on Obama’s approval ratings for his base. I’m guessing he will do a “Mission Accomplished”, and draw down while continuing to label Libya a “non war”.
@Aqua (#39): re: Rush. You are correct. I should have read the whole article (re: “facetious”). When something seems too good to be true, it usually is.
@mata: By word count (the way you did it), it’s still close to 99% negative. Can you imagine any of this, had this happened in 2008 and had the exact quotes been by Bush? That you’d be virtually ignoring the substance of what happened to get picky picky picky with style points?
I’m personally going to take of the rest of the day to simply savor the moment.
P.S. Just read your last. The Bin Laden kill is a big deal. Combined with the “Arab Spring,” it’s the best thing that’s happened in the War on Terror, in terms of convincing the next generation on the Arab street that their talents and energies can be spent on better things than Jihad, which is really what “winning” the war on terror is all about.
P.P.S.S. With regard to Libya, Obama has played that one just perfectly. “Leading from behind” might not make for such a great slogan, but getting the Brits and Frogs and Italians to take the lead role and have it be their quagmire (if that’s what it turns out to be, which it probably and hopefully won’t) was fantastic statesmanship. As far as Afghanistan goes, the stars may just line up and allow us to leave. That would be just terrific. The sooner we get standing armies out of greater Islamistan, the better.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
I believe the point is, Larry, Bush would never give a speech with the same focus on self as Obama.
Savor away. I never believe I debate with you to affect any rational views. I do the same with you as I did Billy Bob… respond merely for lurkers. If you wish to feel my “credit” for an event that actually doesn’t mean that much to me is “99% negative”, whatever floats your boat. That you believe that’s true is nothing but amusing to me.
Old trooper (are you airborne) mata harley thanks for the help. Now to you BLAST****Study the compound since Aug 2010 and no KILL SHOT ????-they knew when he took a sh@t. You want the KILL confirmed, the SPOTTER takes photo’s. Within 24 hours they bury the body-our SATELLITES can take the word Penn off of the tennis ball while in play. I wonder if the satellite will show us the kill-removal and dumping of the body at sea ?????????? If you were never in the game-keep your mouth shut !!!!!!!!
Umm…Larry….since the Pakistani’s would not do the deed of taking bin Laden, plainly offering him refuge, and Obama saw no problem with going in and doing the deed, why cannot Arizona, seeing the Federal government will not do the deed of stopping illegals from walking brazenly across the border, takes matters into their own hands and do it themselves, and Obama is screaming bloody murder and suing Arizona in the courts.
See some hypocrisy there?
Maybe we did get bin Laden, but he is so far out of the mainstream protests going on in the Mideast at present that his death likely will have no impact upon terrorism, other than an excuse to step it up…
AS for #56, only on the left can it walk like a duck, quack like a duck, look like a duck, yet assuredly not be a duck…..and tomorrow be something entirely different than what it is today…
Ya know, Larry… you had me curious. So I took @my comment in response to your accusation and ran the same. If you notice, in that comment, I said it was about 40% negative.
Yet you say it comes out as “99%” negative.
Let’s see…eliminating the “three credits” phrase, and the opening “parsing” statement to you, and the last paragraph of summation, there’s 101 words.
45 of them are the positive. The more indepth qualification of the “withholding” and negative then becomes 56 words… or 55% negative, and 45% positive.
Hummmm… you are deplorable in math.
Now let’s put the “withheld judgement” where it belongs… in a separate category.
That makes 45 words positive
21 words negative and
35 words kudos withheld until we see what happens with Pakistan.
That now makes my opinion 44% positive, 21% negative and 35% “wait and see”. If Pakistan did give them usual Musharraf type “approval”, that will be 80% positive.
Still a far cry from 99% negative no matter how you look at it. But “savor” away…. you must need it desperately.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry, with regard your:
That sounds like you believe Muslims are in charge of where their energies and talents go, Larry.
They are not.
The Koran tells them that one of the five pillars of Islam is Zakat.
Zakat is mandatory Islamic charity.
1/8th of that MANDATORY charity MUST go toward those Muslims who fight for Allah, thus cannot support themselves, i.e., jihadists.
When Obama gave his Cairo speech he spoke about how America would have to change our laws so American Muslims could perform their Zakat.
Really?
Only one thing was standing in the way of American Muslims donating their 2&1/2% gross income to Zakat: that 1/8th of it that went to outlawed terror organizations!
Obama wanted to fix that so American Muslims could give to support jihad.
To educate yourself about this, start here.
Larry, the Iraq war, and the overt brutality of AQ and their associates on fellow Muslims already did that. The death of UBL is more likely to inspire new recruits for martrydom… especially since the “evil” US encroached on Pakistan territory… theoretically without their permission… to do the op. All good talking points to reignite the glorify of jihad against the west.
Sorry… gotta disagree with your more rosy vision.
Larry, when the POTUS “leads” with rhetoric of “Gaddafi’s gotta go” and horse manure about humanitarianism, then carefully backs away from any involvement to back up his mouth, it’s not fantastic “statesmanship” by any definition I know. In fact, it’s the bully who incites a fight, then let’s his flunky do the fist fighting for him.
Apparently you have a lower standard of “statesmanship” than I do. I call that cowardice, along with bad judgment with the original rhetoric.
My opinion on Afghanistan? Either get fully in and do it right… the first step being to wrest control from NATO… or get out. Obama’s guaranteed departure will be an embarrassing blemish on his CiC capability. It’s the only war he’s actually agreed to prosecute, or supported to begin with. Iraq’s wrap up is Bush’s SOFA. Obama’s absolved himself of anything to do with Libya, leaving Afghanstan as his sole experience as a war POTUS. A big zero for The Zero. He will leave it in disarray.
If, heaven forbid, Pakistan – located right next door – does indeed become a hostile US enemy, Obama has simultaneously abandoned Afghanistan.. for the second time in US history… and allowed a next door quasi ally to become an enemy again. And for what? To get the head of one has-been terrorist.
I pray that is not what is going to happen, and hope to hell we had a quiet nod of approval from the Pakistani govt.
The value of UBL’s death is purely psychological for the US citizens and gives them a feeling of some justice. Certainly that has it’s own “feel good” moments that’s valuable for a nation so divided on political futures.
However I’m not one of those. I don’t need feel good moments. I need actionable and tangible results. UBL has long been replaced by a younger, more hep leader… Anwar al Awlaki. You know him… the guy who tutors others like the Ft. Hood terrorist? An American born terrorist who now hangs around in Yemen, where they’ve tossed that quasi-US ally leader too… The same American born terrorist who was invited to Obama’s WH “Muslim Outreach” feedbag.
Killing UBL doesn’t bring back life, nor negate the effects of the three Sept 11 attacks. And it has little to no effect on the actual threat from the global Islamic terrorist movement… who long since left UBL behind for their own local and younger leadership.
If obama stops suddenly, Larry’s head will disapear up his butt.
A little refresher on Larry’s views of BO
Thinks he’s a political genius (in part simply because he got elected)
Thinks he’s a moderate
Thinks he governs from the center
Thinks the majority of his admin picks are moderates
Has said he is not a socialist and has not pushed any socialist policies
Need I say more about Larry’s man crush on BHO?
I excuse Hard Right. It’s been a tough 24 hrs for Obama haters and it will get worse.Acceptance and graciousness are qualities he doesn’t possess.
All kudos to the SEALS.In out 45 minutes no friendly casualties,Bin laden to the fishes.BEAUTIFUL
Well, rich… I guess you answered Wordsmith’s post in a single two-sentence post. It’s politics for you, and nothing else other than the POTUS at the Resolute Desk matters. Low… even by your standards. But expected.
Old Trooper…
@jerseyflash: Yes, I am Airborne among other qualifications. I have spent the majority of my adult life in the Army. 12 Years in the Middle East, assignments with the 82nd, the 75th Ranger Regiment, 10th, 3rd and 5th SF Groups, a Grad of the War College. I have a Post Grad Degree in International Relations as well. I was recalled from Retirement twice. In a couple of weeks I will return to my spread and leave the Military for good.
I have Served under several CiCs and have more Deployments than I care to recall. When Diplomacy, Economic Sanctions and Foreign Policy fails, the Military Option is the court of last resort. I have cast more absentee ballots over the years than ones at my home of record polling place. That’s all the resume that I care to post here. Thanks for asking. I also despise Career Politicians.
@rich wheeler: Hard Right or Obama?
Mata Navy wife Obama is the ship’s Captain.Credit to him and extra ration of grog to the crew.Job very well done.
I’ll mention again I think you got it wrong with your constant TOTUS refs.I believe we have a VERY smart CIC.
Then maybe you better have a second look at the POTUS, reading off the TOTUS during this… and still stuttering. As I said, I read the statement first. Couldn’t believe the “statement/stuttering” when I saw it later. I mean, how tuff is this?
As for credit, I gave Obama his due credit. I did not, however, give him undue credit.
Hopefully, the seals gathered enough intel to give us an inside view of the little organization. I am waiting for those clean cut American Al Qaeda boys to get their round between the running lights, courtesy of some fancy American shooting.
Obama will be amazed at his bump in the polls and be anxious to “capitalize” on his new rep as a terrorist killing pres. He could have scored more points by being low key and letting others recognize his contribution of giving the OK, but he will be killing high profile terrorists now and it may be enough to put him over. Give credit where credit is due, Clintoon refused to take out Osama three times. He could have prevented 9/11, but he was too busy getting his knob polished and committing perjury. Why do New Yorkers love the Clintoons so much? I don’t have a clue
@Old Trooper 2:
I agree 100%. But you of all people I imagine would know the weight of sending men into a situation where they might not come back and all that entails. Obama stated the mission was at his direction for a a simple reason: it was. If these copters were shot down, or OBL escaped, if American soldiers were killed, if civilians were killed, if Americans were taken hostage – who would have been blamed? In my opinion, it’s completely disingenuous of you to downplay his part in this because he wasn’t the one taking the head shot. It isn’t taking credit away from those who performed the mission to be grateful that the President gave the go-ahead.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim #25:
I haven’t read up on the articles yet pertaining to Gitmo and the courier in question; but I believe in Mark Thiessen‘s book, Courting Disaster, he mentioned CIA officials who claim so much of what we learned about al Qaeda was a direct result of enhanced interrogations (which did not amount to torture, as he describes it). I’ll have to go back through the book. Through KSM, other plots and other operatives leading to other plots and other operatives and so on, were gleaned…..after he was subjected to enhanced interrogations, including waterboarding. That broke him. And remember that Zubaydah THANKED his interrogators for waterboarding him.
@Tom #33: I understand what you are saying; but that example is not quite a right fit for the context of what’s being questioned. In your quote, Bush isn’t claiming credit for anything but iterating what the role of a commander-in-chief is.
@Aqua #35: Thanks for doing the legwork.
The thing is, Obama gets credit automatically by default: He’s the sitting president. So there’s no need for him to put emphasis on the role he played- and that’s exactly what I read into his statements.
What I did like is his acknowledgment of Bush’s part as well as his having the class to call up his predecessors with the news.
@MataHarley:
Mata, I’m with you. I’m glad he’s gone, but I don’t need to be out there dancing in the streets chanting, “USA! USA!” to know I was anti-Osama when being anti-Osama was cool.
It’s comments like Nan’s #29 that would irk me if I were an anti-Osama Muslim.
The anti-Americanism being expressed isn’t confined to just a religious ideology. It isn’t simply “the koran says…”
@Nan G:
And I believe Obama in his speech even pointed out that Bush also made a huge point of such things.
@blast:
blast,
I think Mata is right on in regards to context and substance of the speech comparisons. There is definitely a difference, and it goes beyond word counting the number of times “I” or “me” are used, but in how they are used. Maybe we should check in/blame the speech writing team for the impression?
There is simply an arrogance and narcissism about Obama that I don’t get in regards to Bush. It goes back to the criticism during his 1st year into his presidency, how he always seems to be in campaign mode.
@Nan G #46: I like this comment better than the earlier one.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I believe Mata did just that. She’s merely responding to the nature of this post and the subsequent comments.
Hey Larry, I’m not entirely sure what you read on a regular basis but a book that was a real eye opener, as far as the role presidents play in Special Ops military situations was “Delta Force” by Col Charlie Beckwith. Charlie Beckwith was responsible for the rescue mission in Iran, the one that he resigned over…. He and his team planed the whole mission from top to bottom and let me say; they knew everything.. Even the types of doors they would have to breach. They had a plan B, C, D, E. The whole mission was planed out long before the guys had any executive decision from Carter. I have no doubt that if it had not been for technical failure, they would have had a successful mission. One of the problems Charlie was worried about was that the CIA agents and marines would pick up a weapon and the Delta boys are trained to shoot anyone with a weapon, he was more worried about a casualty of a solder being held than he was of his own men, they are that good! My point is that Carter had literally nothing to do with the mission being executed. He shook Charlie Beckwiths hand and told him to bring back the bodies of any solders/hostages that the Delta boys may accidentally shoot. In the Iran case; the whole thing went to hell and it was not Carters fault, had it been a success; it would not have been Carters success. Carter risked nothing, planed nothing and did absolutely nothing… Same goes for BHO.
No president deserves credit for a military mission he played no part in….
@MataHarley #55:
Perhaps it was a mistake to “elevate” bin Laden into terrorist #1, when KSM or Zawahiri might have just as well fulfilled the role. Operationally, bin Laden’s probably been all but neutered following OEF and has merely existed as a symbolic figurehead with little control over splinter groups who want to attach themselves to the al Qaeda namebrand and ride the reputation of reknown they enjoyed before having their asses kicked all over the globe.
Exactly, Wordsmith. He was yesterday’s news as a terrorist in reality. But there is a sense of “closure” (lawdy I hate that term) that many need, and may get from this event. But when it comes to the import of UBL in today’s threats, it’s embarrassing to think a HuffPo blogger actually gets it. Go no…
Actually, this HuffPo article has some interesting data to add about the intel, the mission, the training, and a full scale replica of UBL’s compound built in a remote section of the U.S. air base at Bagram, Afghanistan for training.
@Wordsmith, Larry’s idea of “gracious”… at least when it comes to me… is a complete surrender to his ideology. This despite the fact he never reads either my comments or positions correctly.
I said it on another thread, and I’ll say it here. I give Obama his due credit. I will not give him undue credit.
An interesting epiphany that struck me about Obama: Regarding the hit on the Osama Bin Laden’s compound, Attacks on Libya, and the illegal immigrant situation. The one ideological thing that they have in common is that in Obama’s policies, his administration shows a total disregard for the traditional sanctity of national borders. When you take in consideration the Soros touted “New world order” social engineering leftist point of view, it makes perfect since why Obama does not recognize the sovereignty importance of national borders. This is a very dangerous p-o-v to be held by a Commander in Chief, and especially in one who has no regard whatsoever for the Constitutional separation of powers.
During the next two years we should consider the following hypothetical: Should Obama actually win re-election, what could such a narcissistic “lame duck” ideologue be capable of, when there is no longer a need for him to show any pretense of political cooperation, nor to any notice to polls or voters? The one thing worse than a political ideologue in high office power, is one who can run amok with his ideologies while lacking any sense of limits to his power.
Zac, you can find some excellent contributions.
Beware
Beware the man who likes killing
He likes to be briefed on drone success
Tis reported he is giddy and willing
Of cold blooded murder so anonymous
Impassioned death is the soldier’s job
not a sport’s fan or politician’s hobby
Beware the one who feels not inner sob
Results be not worthy of public’s lobby
Our soldiers so professional in the trade
Learn to cope with blood they have made
Heroes in silence, wash the blood tis said
Beware the one who takes unnatural pride
Who like madmen revel in the rising red tide
I notice this AM that the ”official” story has changed quite a bit…..
No female human shields.
Osama’s wife, while shot, survived, another woman died.
Osama was gunned down while unarmed.
A different son of Osama was killed than the one named yesterday.
Hamza is dead, not Khalid.
Who’d have thunk the 24-hour-rule would have to apply when our briefers yesterday had the benefit of both a live feed as well as a debrief from the SEAL team.
@ Tom, Obviously Your experience with the Military is extremely limited and Your knowledge of Planning and Training and Preparation for a Military Operation is not worth consideration. If an Operation does not Merit the Risk it is not going to happen. If the confidence of Success is not present it does not happen.
I will not take My Time to give You an education here on that subject. What You presume/assume is ridiculous as well. No Commander at any level will send off Troops on any Mission that has not been thoroughly thought out and every contingency has not been considered. I have scratched Plans that put Troops at risk and taken the heat for that.
You obviously read too much fiction or watch too much TV. You assume a whole lot as far as Command Relationships and like others, underestimate the Judgement of Professional Military Officers. I will not send troops on Fools Errands. Professional Politicians will. Get it?
Disingenuous indeed on Your end. I am an OCS Graduate and served as enlisted for Four Years before Commissioning. I did not get a seat back in the Operations Center until I had performed in the Field and Led Troops with a degree of competence and success. There are complexities in Planning and Training for an OP that You take for granted or have never considered. That is why I am a Professional and the Folks that watch Satellite feeds from Situation Rooms have Your point of view.
When Missions appeared to be going “South” I have personally led the QRF to the Objective to insure success. I look Troops in the Eye daily. They expect those Who sent them to do that. Folks in Situation Rooms that have never served do not do that. OK? There lies the difference. Does “We leave No Man Behind” have a reference point for You? Of course not. You risk nothing. Commenting on things that You know nothing about speaks volumes on Your end.
The Credit here goes to JSOC and SEAL Team Six. Others who claim it are stealing their Honor. Get it?
Based on what has come out so far and the reactions to it I can’t help but notice that: the intel that sent this event into motion was obtained from high level AQ operatives captured in a country (Iraq) the left said we had no business being in, under interrogation at a facility they wanted closed (GITMO), possibly obtaining the intel using tactics and techniques they disapproved of, leading to an operation made possible by obtaining further intel in a country (Afghanistan) that they wanted out of, resulting in an operation conducted by a military they’ve condemned and criticized for the last 9 years. And now they are the ones thumping their chests acting macho. Interesting to say the least.
@another vet: To quote our Military Expert,Tom…Disingenuous to say the least…
@Old Trooper 2: The only poll I’ve seen so far asking who deserved credit was by Reuters. 37% said Obama. 13% said Bush. 50% said neither. At least half get it. I’m guessing if the military was listed as an option, specifically SEAL Team 6, the 50% number would be even higher.
@Old Trooper 2:
I love the pomposity of your “what do you know about THIS, this is my narrow area of expertise!” bluster, particularly because it’s not like you don’t have an opinion on everything under the sun, right? No, you just weigh in on military and cattle matters. Meanwhile, your response, which is essentially just an excuse for you to blow your own horn and post your long-form resume again (fourth time this week, is it?) completely fails to address my two principle points, neither of which has anything to do with military strategy or tactics: 1) The President had to give the go-ahead on this mission; and 2) if something went wrong, he would have borne the brunt of the blame. These points are wrong how?
Oh, forget I asked. It’s inconsiderate of me to trouble you for an explanation that will necessitate your lifting of a finger on my behalf to your keyboard to remind me again of what a great man you are, and how I don’t get an opinion in this life, because the only one that matters is the one in your head. I get it. My only thought is this: real giants don’t feel the need to constantly remind insects of their greatness. As John Updike famously wrote of Ted Williams, who wouldn’t even tip his cap to fans after his last at bat, “Gods do not answer letters”. Apparently, Gods of War aren’t above answering message board posts though.
@ Tom, you continue to expound on issues that You personally know nothing about. Wear out Your keyboard and know that You are not wearing out My sense of Humor. But quite frankly what You do truly know about the Military would fit quite nicely as a suppository for a Gnats Ass.
You are a political clown that inhabits a very small part of my world in general and Thank God do not make any meaningful decision on anything that is relevant to Me specifically. Whoever paid for Your Education should demand Their money back.
OMG! I had *no* idea the POTUS was in such DIRE JEOPARDY! You mean he’d for once, actually have to take responsibility after being able to dodge all such since his coronation???
Yup… no way to offload CiC decisions…..
… oh wait! He just showed us how to do that with the “non war” in Libya… just give it to NATO… they’ll be happy to lose any conflict, using American might and on America’s dime.
Here’s the point, Tom. All of us give credit to Obama for giving the green light. We just don’t glorify that action… which is part and parcel of being a CiC… like you do.
@Old Trooper 2:
Great line. and quite true. the next time I opine on the military tactics of the OBL mission will be the first, but I’m glad you keep ignoring that inconvenient fact lest it stand in the way of comedy.
@MataHarley:
Now how exactly is expressing incredulity at how some people have decided that Obama had nothing to do with this is glorifying Obama?
I suppose I was confused. I just found it odd that the current CiC didn’t even know about the OBL mission until GWB called him up Sunday to explain what had happened. Thank you to OT2 and others for setting me straight.
The ability to read is a quality little dickie doesn’t possess. Post 18 for you literate, non-troll types.
H.R.in #18 gives Obama “some credit” “at least he did avoid blowing it’. Hell H.O. even Beck and Hannity,to theircredit, were more gracious in their praise of BHO.
I heard on NPR this morning that it is politically wise to observe the late GOP political strategist Lee Atwater’s admonition to “never kick a man when he’s up.”
– LW/HB
Embellish much? I don’t see anyone that said Obama had “nothing” to do with this. We just don’t agree that this is all about Obama, as the POTUS comes across as believing.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Lee Atwater would have learned a thing or two from the Democratic smear machine that has gone after Palin and her family especially her little boy, but that’s another topic.
Yes there is no doubt that Obama deserves credit for going through with this. You’ll have to remember that it was the “righties” who backed his decision to continue the fight in Afghanistan and continue the policies that have worked and not cut and run as advocated by the left which would have not made Sunday’s operation possible. I think part of what is being disputed is the fact that there are some who are giving him ALL the credit. SEAL Team 6 and the others who pulled this off deserve the bulk of the credit. Others deserve credit as well including the one the left loves to hate that being Bush. And if you recall the left did their best to kick him when he was up too but no one seemed to care back then. Eventually we may get away from “you did it to me now I’m going to do it to you” but I wouldn’t get my hopes up.
So sorry I missed addressing this in prior responses, Larry.
First of all, I never said the intel was obtained by using “waterboarding” because they will not identify the sundry detainees who contributed to the intel. And wisely so. However since most detainees were subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques” that were classified as torture by the lib/prog movement… including such things as sleep deprivation and loud music… it’s likely that some of these detainees were “tortured” by that definition.
As to your disbelief that detainees… both in Gitmo and perhaps those that were sent to other places for “interrogation” (likely rougher than loud music and sleep deprivation)… maybe you’ll believe the liberal McClatchey’s.
Knowing the general slant and politics of McClatchey’s, that must have been a hard article to release with their masthead.
@MataHarley:
Not true. Recap: OT2 has said multiple times that 100% of the credit should goes to SOCOM and JSOC. As laudable as that sentiment is, I think it’s fair to ask why he thinks the President deserves none. So I asked him if the fact that Obama had to authorize the mission, and that the blame would have been his if things went awry, warranted any credit going his way. He responded with insults. Then you jumped in and said my question had no basis in fact, while ignoring whence it came.
I don’t really have a huge issue with not liking the man’s style, or his speech for that matter, but why should that minimize what happened? It’s really odd to me how many people here will only give Obama conditional credit. Like, okay, he can have some credit, but only if we carve out 60% of his credit and give it to George Bush. What is that crap? I didn’t realize credit was in such short supply that it’s necessary to degrade one man’s achievement to recognize another. Since when has saying “good job” been turned into a scientific formula, and all for the sake of minimizing the compliment to the greatest possible degree. To me, that renders the sentiment empty. At this point, for many of you, it’s “He did a good job, BUT….” and all it really means is, “I have to say this to sound like I’m not crazy, but I don’t have to like it”.
Well, perhaps if you had a modicum of comprehensive reading skills, you would realize the folly of your misinterpretations. And keep in mind that you just accused OT of saying Obama had “nothing” to do with it… as if a Commander in Chief could be bypassed completely.
I shall quote OT directly, and play translator for you, since you obviously need it.
As OT correctly points out, a decision to give a go ahead for any planned missions is the job of the CiC. No where does OT complain that the Zero shirked his duties. However just how much “credit” is Obama due for performing the task to which he was elected?
Which is why I continually say, I shall give Obama his due, but I will not give him undue credit. OT’s comment about humility and leadership is also spot on. Somthing that both Wordsmith and I pointed out INRE the contrast between the text and focus of Bush’s carrier speech and Obama’s UBL statement. I guess we should be eternally grateful that Obama at least devoted 8% of his statement to those who performed the operation, and risked their lives… /sarc
As far as the 100% “credit” you claim, you are missing his exact words. He correctly pointed out that the *success* of the mission is due to the stellar performance of our military. I do believe that s-u-c-c-e-s-s is spelled differently from c-r-e-d-i-t.
That cannot be argued. Even had the military run into the same tragic result as Clinton’s troops in Somalia… another front row seat had by our OT, as well as demonstrated ineptitude by another lackluster CiC… our military would still deserve “credit” for their mission attempts. I happen to see those two words completely different in meaning and intent.
It wasn’t the community organizer on the ground… it was our military. Nor did the community organizer plan the mission, or the back up plans. The community organizer didn’t gather the intel. In fact, the community organizer didn’t even lay down the rules, or create the holding facility, for gathering that intel. And for sure, the community organizer wasn’t aboard that chopper. In fact, I wonder if this CiC has ever had weapons training. This CiC had the benefit of previous decisions and actions – all of which he opposed and demeaned – from others.
Obama cannot take credit for the performance of the troops on the ground. He can only be credited with performing the tasks that a CiC is charged with doing…. listening to the advisors on intel, suggested mission plans, and saying yeah or nay…. all of which was made possible by policies he did not put into place, and opposed.
I will also say he gets the extra bonus of kudos from me because he did so, despite the fact he was doing exactly what he had campaigned against, using information from a facility he wanted to close down and from techniques he publicly opposed. Accepting that he was wrong on so many counts, and would yield the feel good press of such a large prize politically, could not have been easy for this POTUS.
… but you won’t see him admitting the errors of his prior judgment either. I would have loved to hear the conversation with Dubya. Both men know what was in place, how it was obtained, and each’s political position on all of it. Obama has been learning that life looks different from behind the Resolute Desk.
I think you’re missing the point that many of us are making here, Tom. What is offensive is first Obama’s putting self over the performance of the military by the entire nature of delivery of his speech. Secondly, it’s offensive that he presents this as basically an achievement of his administration. It becomes the height of irony that most of us can see that none of this could have transpired without the controversial events of the prior administration.
A leader doesn’t focus on self. A leader doesn’t send other contributors to the back of the bus. And a real leader would have probably noted that he was in error for some of his prior political stances, being that they have been the foundation for this moment in time.
We’re not tearing him down to build up another. We’re trying to take him off his self described pedestal and give him… and people like you… a reality check.
@MataHarley:
you are correct on my reading skills, Mata. Atrocious. Please help me parse this.
So OT2 states Obama isn’t “relevant” in this because it was someone else’s “XO” that he was just “following”, but you believe I’m way off base in questioning his interpretation of Obama’s involvement and the credit due to him? Interesting.
What is the meaning of “relevant”, as opposed to “doing nothing”, Tom? I believe that OT has been quite clear that he states Obama’s role in this as a CiC was that he performed his duty to approve, or not approve, a mission. That is not “doing nothing”, as you accused. He just happens to put less glory on his role in this event than you O’devotees do.
You may have gotten away with it all had you not chosen your specfic phrase… accusing OT of saying “Obama had nothing to do with it”. Obama had “something” to do with it because the mission required the approval of the CiC. And that is not what OT said.
Obama is not relevant to the mission’s success, because Obama wasn’t involved in any part of the mission’s planning or execution. OT is not in error.
@mata: It is my understanding that he did more than “approve or not approve a mission.” He was allegedly presented three options: drone strike, manned bomber strike, and special forces mission. Additionally, he was presented with the intelligence, which wasn’t a slam dunk that Obama was even there, at the time.
What all of this is about is a bunch of picky, picky, picky complaints about style, which seems to have become much more important than substance.
Yes, Obama probably didn’t use the precise words in explaining the mission that GW Bush would have used.
Grounds for impeachment, for sure.
Success by one’s political opponents is seldom suffered in silence — by anyone. It’s just human nature.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Okay, Larry… in addition to doing the duty of the CiC… a job for which he was elected – we’ll give him an atta boy for picking door number 1, 2 or 3. How about that? LOL
Actually, while you O’faithful types are busy building up the scale of CiC decision making to be all encompassing, you actually miss the real kudos I give this POTUS. Sucking it up, and going with the intel that was provided to them via the tools and heinous interrogations and facilities provided by the previous admin when he so adamantly fought it tooth and nail. Must be tough to know, even tacitly, how wrong you are. But then the prize was probably large enough to overcome that discomfort.
BTW, no one leaped to “impeachment” save you. What we are objecting to is the glory lavished on Obama, which he set himself up to receive. And that, make no mind, was for political purposes. As his obedient media is doing as of today, and you did earlier, the headline is “who can beat Obama now?”
As I pointed out to Tom above, it’s not to tear down this POTUS. It is merely to knock him off his self set up pedestal and give him… and those like you… a reality check.
@ Tom, let Me assure You that as a Taxpayer, You got Your money’s worth. Other than that You are just attempting to pick a verbal fight with Me. Get off it Skippy. You are not worth My time and Your admiration for the guy that just put pen to paper is Your issue not mine. Had You taken the time to read some of the Archives here You would know where I stand and why.
Get over it or continue to plead a case for Career Politicians. I made My case for the Teeth of Operations. You continue to make a case for the Tail. It must be very sad to be You. Perhaps We should have sent the Dutch Military instead. You learned nothing here but Your Partisanship is only overcome by Your Ignorance.
@MataHarley:
Quite clear you say?
I’m not trying to get away with anything. I understand I used that wording in response to you, so if ‘winning’ on a grammatical technicality makes you happy, so be it. I don’t really care, but at least don’t distort what I asked OT2 about in the first place. In post 88 (a post in response to him, by the way; somewhere along the way this became me having the audacity to question him when he initiated the back and forth) the word I used was “downplay”.
He’s made his position quite clear, which I accept. It’s the assumption on his part that I don’t have a right to ask him about it that bothered me, and his curious and insulting insistence that by asking the question, I’m somehow belitting the men who carried out the mission, trying to take honor from them and give it to the President. Not true at all. They did two different things, two different levels of risk and danger. And they do deserve two different levels of thanks and credit. Most people, including yourself, see that. I was curious if he felt the same way. That’s my point, obviously not very well conveyed. If I could go back and not respond to OT2 in the first place, believe me i would, because this has been the most pointless back and forth I’ve ever engaged in in my life.
How, Tom, could I possibly “distort” what you said about OT? You were quite clear in accusing OT of saying “Obama had nothing to do with it”, when that is not the case at all. As I pointed out to you, we all give kudos to Obama for proceeding (and evidently, now Larry wants extra points for picking between doors #1, 2 or 3) with a mission. Hang, for that matter, I’ll give him kudos for making a decision without running a poll first. How about that?
What OT has said, as well as the rest of us, is that Obama has much credit due for running with intel and giving the green signal. Me? I’ve qualified this before that my biggest concern is how it was done. I’m not willing to get Bin Laden’s head only to have larger ramifications… either with Pakistan, or now possibly with the ICC for running an assassination mission in a sovereign country without their permission.
As for you, I find it amazing you aren’t exceedingly embarrassed for attaching such grand import for Obama assuming that death defying “political risk”. What a pansy arse.
@MataHarley:
You don’t think politicans take stock of the potential impact on public opinion and polls into their decision making process? You don’t think much smaller initiaves haven’t been killed for much less political risk by any all all Presidents? You don’t think Obama couldn’t have taken one look at this, said “too risky”, and we never would have known, let alone be having this most entertaining discussion? Now who is being naive, Mata?
Whoa.. this is your defense of that awesome involvement of the POTUS in this event, Tom? From what I can see, you have just stated this is purely for political purposes. We’ve already figured out that you believe “political risk” seems to equal military’s lives on the line when it comes to “credit”.
And you call me “naive”? LOL
Let’s try this one more time, Tom. I’m happy that Obama gave the go ahead. Hell, I might even be happy he chose door #1 out of the three… depending on how the rest of the story comes out. And I’m ecstatic that Obama… tho without admitting… seems to recognize that he inherited valuable intel and a policy foundation to actually carry out this mission – even tho it goes against everything he personally stood for.
That’s the end of my kudos. The rest belong to the intel folks, the military strategists, and the boots on the ground and in the air. It is their performance that wows me.
I have no clue why you think this is such a huge political risk for him. After all, Clinton royally screwed up Somalia, and he got elected for a second term. Clinton also bypassed nabbing UBL several times, and he’s still idolized by the lib/progs. And as you rightly pointed out, he could have refused, and we would never know about it. If it came out, he could evoke distrust of intel and compare it to Iraq, and the left would would adore him.
Simply said, when you guys decide to put someone up on a pedestal, there are few crimes and truths that shake your blind faith. There is no dearth of accomplishments by others that you aren’t willing to attribute to him. So what “political risk” is there that we have ever seen in history for such a man? Oh wait… That “risk” only applies to Republican presidents, it seems.
I have just witness the biggest pis@ing contest of all time. It’s time for me to get back into the game. I still like you Mata Harley-you seem to have your sh@t together. CREDIT DUE**Only to the men & women who gave there all-day in and day out, one’s that will not rejoyce because they gave there-all and the one’s who got the intel, put the plan into being and the one’s that performed the mission-ONLY THEY GET THE CREDIT (Example-your sitting at the slot machine in Vegas-you drop a large amonut into the machine-nothing happens-your friend comes along has NO money-ask for a dollar-puts it in the slot and wins $$$1,000,000 dollars-gives you back your dollar and leaves with winnings) Doesn’t that sound like a Barry move ?????? “This is war and anything can go wrong at any time……” Barry says it was ME and I. (This plan was as perfect as one could be) Do you think Barry would had put any of his skin in this game???? I DO NOT THINK SO
My resume in brief: 2 tours VN, 67 trips into bush, 19 firefights, shot out of my chopper twice, 15 good men came and went under my command, 4 wounded NO KIA, no names on the wall, etc. etc. The Seals that did this job-have killed before (All of them)
A SNIPER would have kept this clean-after the shot, park a satellite over the compound. Check out every movement made (I’m starting to repeat myself from #37) two men-not 20 or 40 or how many
Well, jerseyflash… if the pis$ match is started by one, I’m not one to back down and will certainly add my contribution to finishing it, if possible.
Glad you were one of those that returned. I was a Naval spouse of the same era. Knew more than did not return than did.
I saw your sniper comment. My only question to you would be – if the maps I’ve seen are an accurate location – where would that sniper in a rural/urban flat terrain neighborhood park himself? Not sure that it was friendly to such, or that the exit point would have been feasible after doing the deed. They did say there was a minimal amount of windows on the floor UBL inhabited. Over 20 some odd occupants. Dunno… that stuff is way above my paygrade, jersey.
@MataHarley:
Sad to see you reduced to an ugly lie.
Let’s see. What if the mission fails? Considering there was a mechanical failure, what if a copter crashed? What if American servicemen are killed or taken hostage? What if innocent Pakistani bystanders are killed? What if this in some way impacts stability in Pakistan? How would any of that played at home? I suppose none of these scenarios were debated and discussed, because this was such a slam dunk. Political risk? What political risk?