E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNow what -- for U.S.-Pakistan relations, the Afghanistan war, relations in Congress, the GOP presidential field, and Obama’s political capital?... The next few weeks will be a test if poll bounces still exist in today’s media environment… What will the U.S. government release to further confirm bin Laden’s death?... Republicans look to end the “silly season”… Filling the void in the GOP race… A free-for-all in NV’s special election… And Seattle’s finest -- Dennis Kucinich?
*** Now what? If there’s a theme to the second day after Osama bin Laden’s death, it’s this: Now what? Now what for U.S.-Pakistan relations? (Congress isn’t taking too kindly to the fact that bin Laden was residing in a relatively affluent part of the country, so expect some hearings in the days and weeks ahead.) Now what for the war in Afghanistan? (Speaker Boehner made a statement yesterday that the U.S. engagement there is now even more important.) Now what for relations in Congress? (“It is my fervent hope that we can harness some of that unity and some of that pride to confront the many challenges that we still face,” President Obama said at a bipartisan dinner he hosted last night.) Now what for the GOP presidential field? (The first debate -- minus Romney, Bachmann, and Gingrich -- takes place on Thursday.) And now what for Obama’s political capital? (On the same day of that GOP debate, he heads to Ground Zero.)
*** Where’s the bounce? Speaking of Obama’s political capital, our friends at the GOP polling firm Public Opinion Strategies yesterday released historical data showing that, outside of 9/11, a president’s approval rating jumps an average of 13 points and lasts an average of 22 weeks after a big national-security story. But do bumps like this exist anymore with the facts that the public is more informed and more defined in their political views, that news travels so fast, and that news cycles end so quickly? Frankly, this event will be the test of that.
*** Where’s the further evidence? Here’s another question worth pondering: What will the U.S. government release -- and when -- to further confirm bin Laden’s death? There is video and photographic evidence of both the capture/kill of bin Laden and of the burial at sea. Administration officials haven't made a decision on whether to release anything just yet; in fact, they note the reaction among bin Laden's cohorts indicates THEY know he's dead. That said, conspiracy theories take hold in some parts of the world rather easily, so expect something more to be released. The question is when. Perhaps in concert with the Thursday presidential visit to Ground Zero makes the most sense?
*** Victory always has 100 fathers: Nearly two and a half years after leaving office, it’s striking to see all of the Bush administration aides and officials popping up on TV. And it’s even more striking how Republicans are clinging to the news that the hunt to bin Laden’s compound originated from enhanced interrogation techniques six years ago. It’s more proof that victory has 100 fathers, while defeat is always an orphan. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that somehow this debate about interrogations has popped up again, but it seems a bit of a reach to somehow directly connect the successful Sunday operation with a string of intelligence gathered six years earlier. Is it not possible that this intelligence would not have been discovered at all? It seems pains are being taken here to make a case for something that no one can prove definitively.
*** An end to the silly season? As for the Republican presidential field, Politico’s Martin writes that U.S. forces killing bin Laden is a wake-up call for the entire party. “In the span of 100 hours, the spectacle of a national discussion over President Obama’s long-form birth certificate—sparked by the pronouncements of a real estate developer who doubles as a reality show celebrity—gave way to a moment of utmost seriousness, defined by the president’s somber delivery of history-making news. The hope among establishment Republicans is that the succession of events will trigger an end to what they see as the silly season – that party activists will sober up and end their flirtation with the fringe.”
*** Filling the void: It was one of the big punch lines at Saturday’s White House Correspondents Dinner; it was the front-page subject of Sunday’s New York Times; and it’s the biggest story (so far) of the early race for the GOP presidential nomination -- Republicans aren’t happy with their field. That means two things: 1) some early GOP handwringing, and 2) candidates will inevitably try to fill the void. As Hotline recently observed, nature -- as well as politics -- abhors a vacuum. So just two days before the first GOP presidential debate, Jon Huntsman has returned from China and is set to deliver a commencement address in South Carolina on Saturday. And Mitch Daniels, after saying he will sign an anti-Planned Parenthood bill into law, seems closer to a run than he did a week ago. On Friday, Daniels allies emailed national political reporters about his accomplishments in Indiana this year (they wouldn’t do that if Daniels wasn’t at least eyeing a bid), and he delivers an education speech on Wednesday in DC.
*** A free-for-all in Nevada’s special: Yesterday, Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller (D) announced that the special congressional election to fill Dean Heller's (R) House seat will be a free-for-all contest without a primary. The C.W. is that either this helps Sharron Angle (R) if she runs (because she would be the most recognizable candidate) or it could help the Democrats win (because the GOP vote gets split up). The NRCC wasn't too happy with news: “This blatantly partisan ruling from Harry Reid’s political machine is only the beginning of what will surely be a long and drawn out process,” an NRCC spokesman said. The special takes place on Sept. 13.
*** Seattle, here I come? The Daily Caller reports that Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich is thinking of moving -- to Washington state. "According to Kucinich’s communications director Nathan White, 'After people found out that Congressman Kucinich’s district could be eliminated or substantially altered in congressional redistricting by the Ohio Legislature’s Republican majority, Congressman Kucinich received requests from people in twenty states, including Washington State, encouraging him to move and run in their area.'" More from White: "'As he has repeatedly said, he fully intends to remain in Congress; he just doesn’t know in what district he will run. In the meantime, he is devoted to serving Ohio’s 10th district as it currently stands.'"
Countdown to NY-26 special election: 21 days
Countdown to Iowa GOP straw poll: 101 days
Countdown to NV-2 special election: 133 days
Countdown to Election Day 2011: 189 days
Countdown to the Iowa caucuses: 279 days
* Note: When the IA caucuses take place depends on whether other states move up
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter.
Leave a Comment:
Yesterday was an interesting day on “First Thoughts” on the discussion of the Killing of OBL by our Navy Seals. First let us remember that it was our intelligence department and our Military that really deserve the lions share of the credit for a job well done. These brave men and women have proven to the world and put all terrorists on notice that we are not a Nation to mess with. Not only do we have the backbone for a fight but we have the courage, resolve and muscle to win as well. If you do mess with us, you will be hunted down and destroyed. Our President also deserves the credit for his composure, intellect and LEADERSHIP in this exercise. Without his LEADERSHIP and understanding of the situation the outcome could have been very different, if it even took place at all.
Our conflict with OBL goes all the way back to the Clinton Era where he was the first President to put OBL on the hit list. Remember the USS Cole? President Clinton was the first to vow to kill OBL.
The big blow to this country came in 9/11/2001 where OBL directed the destruction of the Twin Towers in NYC. We all know the history of this despicable and cowardly act on our own soil and the lives that were lost. For the second time a US President puts OBL on the endangered Species List, not to be preserved but to be destroyed.
In Dec of 2001 OBL is corned in the Moutains of Afghan (TORA BORA). The Bush administration backs off with a half hearted attempt. When the commanders asked for troops and supplies to go in and take OBL out, the Bush Administration denies ALL requests for anything and everything they needed for a successful campaign that would have stopped OBL right there and then. OBL was so certain that he was going to meet his maker that he even wrote his last will and testament. Google Tora Bora and read for yourself how this was a failed mission from the get go. Not a Military failure but a failure of the Administration to provide what was needed to make it successful.
Many yesterday want to give President Bush the Credit for taking out OBL. Their rhetoric typically claims that it was the Bush Doctrine that led to this outcome, that his pursuit of OBL was relentless and sustained. This is crap period. Nothing could be farther from the truth. President Bush even admits that NOT getting OBL was his greatest failure. He just ignores the fact that he had an outstanding chance and blew it, and his following management of the situation was lackluster.
Yes, President Bush did go into Afghan shortly after 9/11, but shortly after that he looses interest in the conflict as proven by the Tora Bora exercise. He even appears on TV claiming he does not know where OBL is nor does he care. He even says that OBL is no longer important to the security of this country. The videos are out there, listen to them. This is not exactly the type of behavior from a President that many are trying to paint as being resolved to take down OBL. Definitely not relentless and sustained.
The Bush Administration then invades Iraq and moves the resource away from Afghan putting over 150,000 boots on the ground in Iraq and basically leaving Afghan to fend for itself. Again this is not exactly the type of behavior from a President that many are trying to paint as being resolved to take down OBL. Definitely not relentless and sustained.
In 2005 the CIA closes down the department that was in charged of tracking OBL. Again this is not exactly the type of behavior from a President that many are trying to paint as being resolved to take down OBL. Definitely not relentless and sustained.
During the campaign season the GOP attack President Obama as being weak on terrorists pointing to his lack of experience. McCain was relentless in his attacks on President Obama along with the part time Governor of Alaska.
He countered by threatening preemptive strikes against Pakistan for harboring terrorists and vowed to wage fierce war in Afghanistan against terrorism and Al Qaeda. During the campaign, he promised to launch preemptive strikes against terrorists wherever they were, including search-and-destroy missions to ferret out bin Laden. He even quipped that he'd put his own life on the line to stop another 9/11.
Our President was as good as his word. He refused to soften any of the provisions of the Patriot Act, promptly issued a shoot-to-kill order against Somali pirates who had seized American hostages, stepped up the drone attacks on the Taliban in Pakistan, and approved the massive expansion of troops, bases, and spending on the Afghan war. Remember all the flack he got from both sides of the aisle when he did this. But most importantly, he issued tough (and secret) orders to the CIA to continue to do everything to destroy and disrupt Al Qaeda and to take out the one man that Americans most wanted dead: Osama bin Laden. Now this is relentless and sustained. President Obama gave the order to the CIA and military counter-terror teams hunting OBL “Dead or Alive”.
In my opinion the hero’s here are out intelligence community and our Military followed by the demonstrated leadership of our President. Yes, Bush did play a part in getting the ball rolling, but he then took his eye off the ball and did not see it through. He did lay some of the ground work (policy) but then he did nothing with it. He had his golden opportunity, and had most of the same intelligence reports, he just did not get the job done and he most certainly was not relentless and sustained. President Clinton was the first US President to speak out against OBL and make him the enemy of the United States. President Bush does not deserve the credit for the successful mission of President Obama that took out OBL and not one American life was forfeited. NOT ONE. There is a big difference in rhetoric and deeds. One President had a lot of rhetoric the other did the deeds. Those that perform the deeds deserve the credit not those that just talk.
This is a time for our Nation to heal and come together as “Our Leader” said. But instead some on the right used this as a political stomping ground the last few days to try and take the credit away from those that deserved it. We have seen this tactic before. When we speak out against this we are labeled as the ones who are playing politics with this. This is the same old same old tactic of blaming the other side for what it is that they are doing. Right out of the Karl Rove playbook.
Once again residents of ConservatiVille, can't manage to get their stories straight!
Then came this BOMBSHELL:
Whether it transpired or NOT – can we call it what it is and STOP with this PC bullsh!t?
According to the Geneva Convention waterboarding constitutes; TORTURE!
Even the Canadians get it. The lefty liberals were promising Canadians all sorts of goodies like increased spending ("investments" in Washington-speak) on health care and social security, and higher taxes on corporations and yet the voters rejected them soundly. The victorious Conservatives have lowered taxes, rejected Al Bore's global warming nonsense, and increased military spending. Sounds like Canada might be becoming a place I could retire to,eh?
From MSDNC.com:
TORONTO — Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper won his coveted majority government in elections that changed Canada's political landscape, with the opposition Liberals and Quebec separatists suffering a shattering defeat.
Harper, who took office in 2006, has won two elections legislation but until Monday's vote had never held a majority of Parliament's 308 seats, forcing him to rely on the opposition to pass legislation.
While Harper's hold on Parliament has been tenuous during his five-year tenure, he has managed to nudge an instinctively center-left country to the right. He has gradually lowered sales and corporate taxes, avoided climate change legislation , promoted Arctic sovereignty, upped military spending and extended Canada's military mission in Afghanistan.
Elections Canada reported results on its website, giving the Conservatives 167 seats, which will give Harper four years of uninterrupted government.
"We are grateful, deeply honored, in fact humbled by the decisive endorsement of so many Canadians," Harper told elated supporters at the Telus Convention Centre in Calgary, Alberta.
Good find feisty.... it seems that the republicans are trying to get the weight of their chest by claiming that water-boarding helped in the killing of Bin Laden... I guess they have to carry that weight longer, since there's no there there.
I think this is a good day for America....now that the number one P.O.S is dead. Thanks to Obama, Bush and the military. I know everyone's happy and all... but watching the footage of Bush saying that he doesnt care where Bin Laden is or does not think about it much... and that he's hiding in a cave somewhere just makes him seem so out of touch. Bin Laden was living in a mansion....while we were blowing up Iraq... I think him for his efforts and I think we wouldn't have caught Bin Laden without it, but boy did he take his eye off the ball.
In any event, like I said, we wouldn't have caught Binn Laden without the Bush admins effort, I just think we would have caught him 6 or 7 years earlier if he hadn't taking his eyes of the ball (Bin Laden).
FR: And now what for Obama’s political capital? (On the same day of that GOP debate, he heads to Ground Zero.)
Hey Anna Molly, do you still think that Obama didn't weigh the Political upside of this event? Going to Ground Zero? For what purpose other than to milk this event as long as he can.
Go ahead now, start comparing him to Bush. Seems like he is becoming more and more like Bush every day, eh?
A Little History .... A Little Perspective for US Navy / Libs
Terrorists bombed the World Trade Towers in 1993 killing 6 Americans and wounding 1,042. President Clinton made a speech and stated that those responsible would be brought to justice. He treated it as a criminal event.
From that event to the 1995 bombing in Riyadh which killed 5 Americans, to the 1996 bombing of the Khubar Towers which killed 19 Americans and wounded another 515 including 240 Americans, to the 1998 bombings of the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania which killed 13 Americans among the 301 killed and wounded over 5,000. to the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen that killed 17 sailors and injured 39 - the American response each time by a liberal president was to give a good speech, state that those reponsible would be brought to justice and in effect treat each event as a criminal event.
Then 9/11.
This time the President grabbed the bullhorn ......
President Bush: .....The nation stands with the good people of New York City and New Jersey and Connecticut as we mourn the loss of thousands of our citizens
Rescue Worker: I can't hear you!
President Bush: I can hear you! I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people -- and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!
And they did hear from us. No more treating attacks as criminal events.
Bush treated Bin Laden not as a criminal to be dealt with by the FBI, but as a military leader to be dealt with by the military.
We went in and removed the Taliban and al-Qaeda from Afghanistan. They were hunted down, killed and captured - scattered. Al-Qaeda, as it been, was destroyed. It devolved to a decentralized shell of itself, a network that consisted of franchises around the world. Bin Laden was now more of a symbolic figure than operational head and would never again kill Americans in a terror attack. Who imagined that on 9/12?
So now, 10 years later, we have SEAL Team Six or DevGru, the highly evolved NSWDG of the highly evolved JSOC in highly modified MH-60s eluding the Pakistani air defense network, no doubt with the help TAPO and ATEP. hi-tech tactical signals, intelligence collectors and navigators using the newest highly classified hyperspectral imagers ...... The kinetic CIA spook group. Coordination/help from NSA and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. The Targeting and Analysis Center's big role. All just a part of the effort. Years of development, refinement.....the rebuilding of our intelligence community ....... Our JSOC capabilities have tripled since 9/11.
It was Bush's policies from detainment to GITMO to rebuilding the intelligence community that paved the way for May 1, 2011? There was no liberal multilateralism, sharing information, sharing the responsibility - nope, pretty much cowboy Obama.
Credit for once, goes to Obama, he didn't send the FBI - he sent the SEALs.
Obama says "Justice has been done."
No search warrants, no court authorizations ..... just a 5.56mm double tap to the left side of Bin Laden's head.
Does that sound like Clinton's liberal model, or Bush's reality based model?
Just a different perspective and something to keep in mind, especially when you liberals inevitably start calling for military cuts and singing Kumbaya.
Obama said "America can do whatever we set our mind to." Obama didn't give Bush credit in his speech, Obama doesn't the class or self security to do that.
But he did give Bush credit ultimately - he did it Bush's way.
Feisty:
How true. It is amazing yesterday the number of people that are trying to pump up President Bush as the one who should get the credit for killing OBL. This was the President that denied the troops in Tora Bora the man power and equipment to get OBL. This is the President that took needed resources out of Afghan and put them into Iraq. This is not exactly the kind of actions you would expect from a President that many claim was relentless in chasing OBL.
He even goes on National TV and declares that OBL was no longer important to National Security.
You cannot have that track record and then turn around and try to claim the credit. It is BS from the right.
“It is easier to believe a lie that one has heard a thousand times than to believe a fact that no one has heard before”.
I would have thought it obvious to everyone that President Obama was not following the Bush Administration’s tactics as far as bin Laden is concerned. But such is not the case. Yet again, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O’Donnell, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann have to come out with the real facts. The real history. The history some in the media have forgotten.
I would have thought it obvious to everyone that when it came to bin Laden, the Bush Administration was incompetent. They literally turned their backs on trying to locate him and instead concentrated on Iraq. Why? I have no idea.
I have not for one minute regretted voting for Barack Obama. What I am deeply sorry about is people voting for Bush/Cheney in 2000 & 2004. I never understood why people voted for them. Millions of people again voted for McCain/Palin in 2008. Why?
I always thought it was lack of information, lack of education. But we know that isn’t the case. Educated people voted for Bush/Cheney. Educated people worked with and served under that Administration. Why would they have wanted to serve in that Administration at all? Why wouldn’t they tell President Bush and Vice President Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld – no, we have no right to go into Iraq. Why didn’t they DEMAND that the Administration stick to finding bin Laden?
Why do people continue defending that Administration? Don’t these people know how many hundreds of thousands of innocent people died in Iraq because of lies?
Why do people continue to vote for lies, for incompetence, for cowboy hollow talking points? Why do people continue to believe lies, incompetence, excuses? Why do people continue to pretend to believe lies they know to be untrue. I have no idea.
I am sorry that people will continue voting for the Republican Party. Why will they continue voting for Republicans? I have no idea. I really don’t.
But it’s heartbreaking and hurting all of us.
Except that President Obama made good on his promise of "Justice for America". Bush did not, he took his eye off the ball and failed big time. He even admits this is his book.
Don't make me laugh. bobby. Show me one place where Bush practiced his supposed "model." You can't because there is no such example, other than in your Tom Clancy fantasy world. If that was Bush's model, he would have done it at Tora Bora.
If anything, Bush was all about perpetuating the bogey-man because that served his interests and those of his friends.
Rather, I'd make this out to be Barack Obama's "reality based model."
UNreality suited Bush best.
The credit belongs to those that planned this mission, and those who undertook this mission. Those people would be our President Obama, his team and the military. It forever destroys the myth that the Republicans have tried to create about this party and this President, such as "weak on protecting America", "suspect loyalty to this country", "undercutting the military" and my personal favorite mantra from the ignorant "leading from behind". The right wing cannot understand the difference between quiet competence and "cowboy bluster". Just because you don't brag on yourself, doesn't mean that you can't do the job. Each of you who have tried to destroy the credibility of this President, this good man, owe the nation an apology. In fact, this mission was carried out with the same expertise as was the Israeli raid on Entebbe in 1976. It is time all of you, so quick to attach blame where none is deserved, own up to that.
Bush did not do this. President Obama, and our military did. The line for mea culpas is on the right. You may begin...NOW!
I'm already laughing Anna Molly...
One of the LEAST credible posters on this board wants to give US a 'history' lesson! ;o)))
'Torture apologists' - if that isn't a fitting label!
Bob Numbers:
You are just full of BS today as usual.
Bush was an utter failure when it came to Afghan. Oh his rhetoric, like yours, is right up there at the top. Bush was Mr. Photo Op but his deeds failed way short. He moved what little resources there were out of Afghan and into Iraq leaving a token presence that was allowed to fend for themselves. When his commanders in the field at Tora Bora requested more man power and equipment, it was denied. He declares OBL as not important and invades Iraq based on a bevy of lies.
That is the real History lesson. President Bush totally mismanaged Afghan and people died because of him, PERIOD.
You go right ahead and keep praising that. We know what you are.
I totally agree...and this morning, I was puzzled at why no one on the panel reminded Rudi that waterboarding, if it produced information, did nothing to encourage Bush/Cheney to use the information to find Osama. This man was supposedly hiding in plain sight for 6 years - 4 of which were on Bush's watch, and yet Rudi goes on this show and declares that Bush/Cheney were the originators of finding this man. Really? Seriously? And the panel just and nods in agreement? Total credit needs to go to the Navy Seals, the CIA, who were finally given free reins to do what they do best, and President Obama who had the guts to make the hard call. The Navy Seals and CIA folks should be allowed to split the $25 million, and Rudi, his investigative business and all the rest of the yahoos should just shut up.
Think Progress:
Less than 24 hours after the killing of Osama bin Laden, commemorative t-shirts were already being sold online and in the streets of Washington, D.C., including one popular one reading,
“It took Obama to catch Osama.”
LoL Feisty. A couple of additional thoughts to go with that.
bobby's Bush model, in addition to letting Bin Laden escape at Tora Bora, also resulted in the protracted and embarrassing detention and trial of Saddam Hussein. How was the supposed "Bush model" of quick dispatch in play there?
And then again, when seeking clarity with regard to Bush's approach to Osama bin Laden, there are always these words, straight from the horse's mouth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o
"...he did it Bush's way."
Again and always...
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Anna Molly:
You may be talking to the president of the local right-wing conspiracy theory club. When they have no facts, they make them up. Bobby Junior just hates it when our President succeeds. So spin, distort, and rewrite history is the conservative way. I've encouraged him to read a book, but the best he can do is watch Fox News.
Old Navy,
You really have no clue about the White Mountains in Tore Bora? Took troops out of Afghanistan and sent them to Iraq?
Tora Bora was December 2001. When did we go into Iraq?
Your iberal ignorance is astonishing.
About Bush saying OBL was no longer a security threat ...... did he ever kill another American in a terror attack after Bush ran him out of Afghanistan?
Nope. And how big an operation did he have when the SEALs got him. A handfull of guys that took 5 minutes to dispatch? Bush was right - he was no security threat anymore.
White Collar Auto. Former President Bush went to ground zero after 9/11. That was not political but a show of respect and support. President Obama will go to ground zero to show respect, provide closure for those who died because justice has been served on the master mind who caused such destruction of innocent life. That's not political, that is being President and a leader. Bravo, President Obama just as I said bravo for President Bush in 2001.
Mixed Bag
"...he did it Bush's way."
He ignored him? Neat tirck!
As I have heard it said before and it looks like this quote would apply to Bob and others on the right who don’t care much for our GREAT President Obama.
“You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.”
Right on Navy.
He did not do it the Bush way. The Bush way would have been to bomb the hell out of the compound, destroying evidence and any other documents that could be used to further ID the enemy.
President Obama on the other hand decided to do a surgical strike taking out the enemy and collecting evidence and more important vital data on computers, hard drives, documents etc.
No comparison here at all.
US Navy: Except that President Obama made good on his promise of "Justice for America". Bush did not, he took his eye off the ball and failed big time. He even admits this is his book.
He said no such thing. Read the book not just the Left wing excerpts. He regretted not getting Bin-Laden. I would bet Clinton has the same regret. No more Terrorist attacks in Bush's time in office. Hardly "Taking his eye off the ball" Bin-Laden is dead. Al-Quieda is not.
ALL acts of terror are criminal events. The terrorists are murderers, thugs, bullies and just because they slap a faux religious label on it does not change the fact that terrorists are criminals.
guys, let the republicans keep spinning. they've got nothing. i mean, nothing.
bush gave searching long time ago. he'd no clue whatsoever of his where about and he admitted to it. please watch
seen is believing.
Where was the attempt to follow the rule of law? No trial, no tribunal, no fact finding. Just a death squad unilaterally dispatched to kill.
And Bush was the "cowboy."
Can the president order a hit on anybody he chooses? No oversight? That is more than a little scary, and against standard democrat talking points.
I very clearly remember in 2009 Olbermann decrying "CIA death squads." It seems that now those are perfectly acceptable. How strange.
It also looks like everyone is ok with the torture techniques and secret prisons. What an odd time this is indeed.
Navy, Fesity, outstanding posts and points.
We have an outstanding President who demonstrates competence at every turn.
He followed an incompetent buffoon who had alienated our longstanding friends and allies, led the U.S. into an unjustified and immoral war by lying to the nation, repeatedly (over a period of several years) fumbled relief efforts after major natural disasters, instituted policies that maintained serious pollution of our air and water, drained the national treasury, and ultimately led the world into economic collapse.
The war in Afghanistan would have been long over if Bumbler Bush had not decided to go into Iraq, following a Neocon game plan drawn up before the 2000 elections. Thousands of lives NOT lost, billions NOT spent, and a stabilized Afghanistan rather than the mess there now.
Iraq would have been taken care of properly, too, had Bush the Bumbler listened to his commanders before he went in. But no. I was in a bar and grill in Tampa the night the invasion started, talking with the officer responsible for civil affairs at CentCom. I recalled the many stories told by friends who had served the same duties in Europe in WWII, and asked the guy if there were similar teams following the combat troops in Iraq.
He gave me a puzzled look, so I told him a bit of detail about how pacification and administration in conquered areas had been handled. He jumped up and said he had to get back to base immediaely - there was absolutely NO planning of that kind for Iraq. As a direct result, the country collapsed into chaos after April 9, 2003 and we're still there.
For the right-wing Obama haters to now make ANY claim that any portion of the recent events owes at least some credit to the Bumbler Bush is absurd beyond description.
Just politely eat your crow dinners and go to bed, righties.
C'mon, Navy-
The President used what Keith Olbermann referred to as Vice President Dick Cheney's "assassination ring"...the same JSOC that First Readers are offering effusive praise for.
It is what it is.
While the liberal idealists may not understand that reality trumps idealism every time, it appears OBAMA does
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/reminder-group-killed-bin-laden-smeared-dick-cheneys-assasination-ring_558593.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
And. . .
However much you want to deny it, we got the code name of that courier from KSM- after he was water boarded.
War is not pretty, nor is it nice. However, when you get in it, you had better win it.
I only hope Obama's newfound sense of reality carries over to Libya.
John
Great post you said it better than I. Poor little bobby has got his diaper in a bunch today. President Bush even said his greatest failure was not taking out OBL. His own words. What he does not willingly confess is that he had every chance to take OBL out early and did nothing.
Little Bobby is just trying to grasp at some very thin strings to defend what cannot be defended. If nothing else he provides entertainment. A lot of made up lies but then again that is what he does.
Ignore them they have nothing to say anymore. They have been exposed.
bob:
Bush didn't do it at all. He bungled the war on terror because of his war of aggression against Iraq, which had nothing to do with Al Qaeda until after Bush occupied the country.
Obama got Osama. Deal with it.
This is getting better as the day goes on...
Did you hear that folks - you should believe the NJ nut job over the Secretary of Defense!!!
LMFAO!
Time for some *popcorn*
Big Balls Obama. Great Job Sir.
Is it true that Bush is still looking for Dick Cheney?
If the info came from torture and Bush was a "war criminal" for ordering the torture, isn't Obama now a conspirator with Bush in using the torture to send a CIA death squad to kill without a finding of guilt by a trier of fact?
Feisty: the most amazing thing of all? The same people, bobby, no jo, JS1, and the Republican party in general that are INCENSED when we remind people of the damage that Bush and Co. did to the economy and our world standing, those same people who tell us, QUIT BLAMING BUSH AND DON'T YOU DARE BRING UP HIS PRESIDENCY, are now demanding that HE GET THE CREDIT! It doesn't get crazier than that, right?
From what I've read, Bush probably does deserve some credit for beefing up human intelligence in Pakistan around 2005. The CIA presence was important in tracking Bin Laden to his lair. Credit where credit is due. That's fine with me. But what I find really disgusting is that the torture enthusiasts are now claiming that water boarding had something to do with it when there is zero evidence it.
Torture gets people to say what the torturers want them to say regardless of whether it's true. That's how the Iranian government gets all those televised "confessions" from anti-government protesters that they are Israeli agents. Torture is effective in controlling the populace, not for gathering reliable intelligence.
Navy and the other cluess libs,
It is a simple fact that Tora Bora was December 2001. The operation was the CIA SAD and Special forces ODA teams. Iraq was 2003.
You guys simply are oblivious to the reality of OEF. (That's Operation Enduring Freedom for you and Feisty and other libs)
Maybe you all should at least crawl out of the thiinkprogress dumpster and click on Wiki for a few minutes.
For me one of the most riveting things about this event is the pictures released yesterday taken in the Situation Room as the events unfolded. The pictures are of a team who were as engaged by video as they would be had their lives been personally on the line. When Americans are in harms way these are the sorts of people I want calling the shots. People who have a personal engagement in the action, an obvious concern for those whom their decisions impacted.
As for those in this very thread who are demonstrating the very point highlighted by the FR staff, that many people are trying to tie this event DIRECTLY to George W Bush--they look as ridiculous as the Birthers. OF COURSE everyone knows that President Bush first sent troops to Afghanistan, that he first popularized the phrase "Global War On Terror."
Everyone also knows that it was a lengthy chain of evidence that finally led to the actual hiding place of Osama bin Laden, confirmed only a few months ago. Everyone who's given it any thought knows that right decisions had to be made to the very minute Navy SEALs lifted off the deck in their helicopters and the fate of the mission rested entirely in their hands. Those decisions were made, they were made well, and as a result the team was placed in a position to succeed. They did what American soldiers do better than anyone, and they walked out with a wealth of information that will benefit the fight against terrorists.
Thanks once again to members of the Armed Services.
Are you in way serious? LOL!
The United States and much of the rest of the world can breathe a sigh of relief. Osama bin Laden is dead.
So, I tuned in to First Read yesterday, and by gum, most of the posters - even the right wingers - were complimentary and offered credit where credit was due. Most of us were ready to offer a thank-you to our President and the soldiers under his command. (I even took JoAnna Smith off "ignore" to see what she had to say. Ever submerged in dogma, ideologue Smith urges a period of quiet reflection, as though one reflects on dogma. Even when the Commander-in-Chief's incredible SEAL Team 6 ends a manhunt with stunning success, she can't bring herself to give him credit.)
In any case, most posters think the President did a fine job. What's this? Are we beginning to see that we have a common interest, like I don't know - the future of America?
Well, it's Tuesday. Back to the lefty libbies, rethuglicans, ad nauseum. As Americans we have discovered we can come together with virtual unanimity. We can see eye-to-eye when it comes to killing someone. But when it comes to saving the life of our nation, well dammit, working together is just too much to ask.
We can be assured that the right wing will tell us the left-wing is 100%, absolutely, completely wrong on EVERYTHING! They don't work, they're lazy, they want a handout, and they hate the rich. The left-wing tells us that the right wing is 100%, absolutely, completely wrong on EVERYTHING! They hate the poor and wish they would die, they want the dirty rich to be filthy rich, and they love war. You can't escape the feeling that if these groups met on a battlefield, one side would yell, "It's Bush's fault," and the other side would scream back, "Oh yeah, it's Obama's fault.
Well folks, the fact is both right and left have something to bring to the table. Neither side is always right and neither is always wrong. Imagine working TOGETHER, imagine coming TOGETHER, imagine meeting some where in the middle because we truly want America to succeed.
NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
The right is out of ammo and now they are just throwing spit balls. Ignore them they do not have anything to say just more tries to write the history to their liking. The fact is Bush failed and President Obama was a success. Enough said, that is the bottom line no matter how they try and spin it. And not one American Life lost in the exercise at all.
When you belong to a party that has no real plans to improve this country this is the kind of rhetoric you can expect. They jump on any coat tail trying to grab some of the credit. They forget that they did nothing to warrant any credit at all.
Thank you InsidiousProphet/Think Progress:
The Bush Legacy:
* Record debt.
* Record deficit.
* Worst domestic job creation since President Hoover.
* Record number of American jobs lost overseas.
* Failed New Orleans after Katrina.
* Failed the American people on 9/11.
* Sub prime mortgage meltdown.
* Oversaw the greatest theft known to mankind on Wall Street.
* Two costly and failed wars.
* Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, during a time of war.
* Deregulation.
* Politicizing the Justice Dept.
* Torture.
* Rendition.
* The Patriot Acts I & II.
* The John Warner Defense Act of 2007.
* Abu Graib.
* Choked on Jeff Gannon's pretzel.
* Groped German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
* Drunk at the Olympics.
* Joked about a blind journalist.
* Joked about a journalist in a wheel chair..
* Laughingly looked for WMD's under a rug while our soldiers were dying in Iraq.
* Selected President.
* Called the constitution a G** damn piece of paper.
* Broke the FISA law.
* Gutted the FDA and SEC.
* Lost billions of dollars in Iraq.
* Lost $2.3 trillion in the Pentagon.
* Cost the US Treasury $3.1 trillion in revenue.
* Cost the tax payers $250 billion for the unfunded medicaid part D bill.
* Focused solely on Iraq instead of Afghanistan or Bin Laden.
* Allowed Bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora.
* Didn't admit to a recession until his final weeks in office.
* Hired unqualified cronies to key positions.
* Allowed the oil industry to write the energy bill.
* Biggest income inequality since 1928.
And on and on and on and on
Looks like Bush's CIA "death Squads" are now Obama's heroes. Pure politics.
I wonder when Olbermann will issue his apology.
Uh NOPE!
I am SO LMAO this morning, it's been awhile since I've seen the baggers & birthers this 'twisted'!
Their panties sure are in a bunch today! ;o))
@ Pat - THANK YOU for the reminder of the bumbling IDIOT's accomplishments...
@ Booby - YEAH! Now there's a reliable source... ;o)))
newdayDAWNING10
Funny how Bush deserves all the credit for positive things that happened over two years after he left office, but we're not supposed to blame him for the budget deficit he ran up, his two disastrous wars, and the economic collapse that happened while he was president, not years later. That's the Republicans' version of the old "Heads I win, Tails you lose" rules for the games they play.
bob-1805084
A Little History .... A Little Perspective for US Navy / Libs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmmm, guess you missed George Wills column today.....
During the 2004 presidential campaign, John Kerry received much derision for his belief (as expressed in a Jan. 29 debate in South Carolina) that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world." Kerry, as paraphrased by The New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, thought "many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror." True then; even more obviously true now.
Again: Granted, the distinction between military and law enforcement facets is not a bright line. But neither is it a distinction without a difference. And the more we couch our thinking in military categories, the more we open ourselves to misadventures like the absurd and deepening one in Libya.
Pat - I didn't see Gitmo, the secret prisons, or enhance interrogations on that list. Those must all be positive aspects from Bush now.
The times they are certainly changing in some regard.
The Pentagon has said definitively that neither waterboarding nor any other "enhanced" interrogation techniques yielded the names of the couriers that was dug up in 2004. In fact, the person who talked was probably bin Laden's driver - they said at the time he sang like a canary. Many of those captured talked openly once they were in custody.
It is, in fact, irrelevant where the prisoners were when they were interrogated. The information would have been collected, regardless. Recent events do not add any more substance to having opened or retained Gitmo as a terrorist prisoner site.
However, not only did Bush/Cheney abandon the search for OBL, they did nothing with this intelligence. It was left to the Obama Administration to act.
The Bush Regime was immediately and perpetually incompetent. The Obama Administration, by contrast, has been outstandingly competent even from before the inauguration, when Bush handed to our President the task of implementing immediate relief projects to save what he could of a shattered economy.
The only credit Bush deserves is whatever change he's due after paying for his tacos in Crawford.
Simple math.
President Bush time in office after 9/11
7 years and 130 Day.
09-11-01
01-20-09
Time elapsed after bush left office 2 years and 102 days
------------------------------------------------
President Obama got bin Laden
2 years and 102 days
The time line just doesn’t line up well for President Bush
It looks like President Obama used his own intelligence facts received.
I understand that there's a great deal of importance and consequence concerning what every American administration says or does going back however many years any of us wish to count - but that doesn't change the fact that watching a lot of the posts on FR (and many other newsblogs) is like watching kids fighting over lines in the sand on the same playground.
I get the impression that a great many of the regulars here are, at the very least, twice my age - but the infantile accusations and apparent personal grudges that are levied even in the face of valuable arguments from both sides is disconcerting, in the least.
That isn't to suggest there aren't some posters and many, many comments that aren't worth a hill of spit, but I really think better judgment should be used when it comes to making those snap decisions to completely and totally write off differing opinions.
Nothing on the list posted above is inaccurate.
So the question remains: why continue to defend that Administration? What is it about people who are so willing to look past all the damage and incompetence?
It's like they unlearn all they have learned once a sort of dictatatorship takes over our country. Which is what happened under the Bush Admin.
President Obama doesn't have nor need nor want a Cheney or Rumsfeld in his Administration.
Why wouldn't people welcome this fact?
He listens to all sides, he includes everybody. And then makes the best decision he can.
That's the kind of leaders we need. The GOP has always looked back back back. When are they going to shake out of their comfort zone and start looking forward?
btw, we got our country back Sunday night. I'm glad President Obama is going to NYC this week. They were so quick to put their lives back together after September 11th, but the scars were forever there in their soul.
This will be a great moment for New Yorkers I think.
Feisty,
@ Booby - YEAH! Now there's a reliable source... ;o)))
Yea, someone sticks their head out of the dumpster behind McDonalds and yells at someone going in - YEAH! Now there's a really good restaurant ...;o)))
True - but I thought you children might want to start with a simple happy meal. Regardless, it is an improvement over the garbage you guys dig in.
(My apologies Exodite ....)
Pat, Boston, MA
Bush Groped German Chancellor Angela Merkel? omg.....so is he sex offender or a groper?
Mixed - they just are not getting it. I give them 2 weeks and it'll sink in. It already has over at Firedog - the real liberals are figuring out that Obama's Cowboy act and use of a EEEVVIIILL "CIA Death Squad" is a bad thing for their cause.
The libbi lites around here, not so much.
Obamas policies: unilateral military action in nations we are not at war with; not giving lawyers to terrorists; pursuing aggressive intel acquisition; ordering special covet ops under the cover of darkness.
Yep, looking less like a democrat and more like a Bush disciple/Cowboy.
Is he shooting for just the "wing nut" vote? Or is this the change "we" can believe in?
Good times are a' coming.
Pat in Bos - Yes - it will be a GREAT day in NY on Thursday - it will be a pleasure to welcome a President who does what he says he will irrespective of the Nay sayers out there. Having worked for one of the airlines involved in 9/11 (and losing my job 10 days later) and now working near Ground Zero - it will be an exciting day.
I will never forget all those first responders from all over the country who came to our aid at that horrific time. (and to think how long it took to get the Zagroba bill passed to help those who suffered).
Thanks to all of our brave service people active and retired who have given of themselves to allow us to speak here in both agreement and disagreement.
The USA is still the greatest country in the World!
Paul - Please check in and give us the scoop on the ground if you get a chance!
I'm unable to be there in person but will be in spirit!
I thought Cheney showed unusual integrity by coming out of his house to talk to reporters and praising the Obama administration for killing Bin Laden.
Come on Amy - think what you said through. Why do you think Cheney did that, and what exactly was he praising.
Remember when you all we calling him a war criminal for torture. He said they got good intel, but you all called him a big fat liar.
Looks like those techniques kinda paid off, no?
Pat, Boston MA
Bush - Laughingly looked for WMD's under a rug while our soldiers were dying in Iraq.
Although it was done during the journalism awards speech where jest is the norm, this alone not counting the other Bush offenses and blunders, was one of the most tasteless.
David Walker - We can see eye-to-eye when it comes to killing someone.
Actually Mr. Walker the populace is pretty keen to keeping any and all tax cuts. However I do get your main point. Some on the left and right refuse outright a good post or ridicule it or its author rather than attempt to debate.
Good post Exodite Dragon - from a fellow generation Xer?
A bit off topic but I wonder how this will play into negotiations for cuts to the defense department as the debt ceiling budget issue debates continue. Will both sides feel afraid to cut defense?
After all we need to continue developing the next generation of stealth radar evading fighter jets or the latest smart bunker buster bomb because they played a huge role in getting OBL and are used daily in our ground operations in Iraq/Afgan - snark.
Again, the media is complicit in the narrative being driven by the Republicans. This time it is about how George Bush and Dick Cheney should get credit for taking out UBL because of their implementation of enhanced interrogation, specifically of KSM. Never mind that it happened in 2003 and Bush did not use the intel or that the intel was not specific. Although this morning I heard a “righty” say KSM provided the name of the courier during waterboarding!
These lies began percolating and circulating by midday yesterday and by last night Sean Hannity his and right-leaning guest experts were all but certain that is why UBL was captured.
It was outrageous that Joe Scarborough and his other guests allowed Rudy Guiliani to assert that this morning without at least suggesting he wait until post-mortem to begin this nonsense.
Where are the Network journalists whose job it is to present the facts? They present the talking points of the Republican Party and the public is none the wiser.
Thank God for Lawrence O’Donnell who actually searches for the truth.
The Republicans are so good at manufacturing lies and convincing the public that it is the truth! By sundown today they will have the gun that killed UBL in George Bush’s hands.
Stunning!
Pat, Boston
The one about Jeff Gannon's pretzel made me spray my diet dr. pepper.
That one might be speculation. The rest are PURE D FACT!
Younger even than that, I think, Yellowdog.
Full disclosure: I was still in high school when 9/11 took place - standing with my debate team, to be precise, watching everything unfold on TV.
Feisty or anyone else for that matter - can you please explain to me why you condone killing a man point-blank but think waterboarding, harsh interrogation or torture is wrong? For the life of me, I cannot understand that logic.
Considering the Intel we received on several terrorist plots and training camps, not to mention the possibility of gaining Intel on the courier that lead to Bin Laden per the NY Times, I believe these interrogation techniques helped our country. As much as I wish we could have gained this information through other means, I believe the reality is KSM and other suspected terrorists would never have given us this information otherwise.
Sorry Spanky, Your rhetoric is completely off base.
Anyone who didn't know he was goign to do this if he had the chance was simply sticking their head in the sand. As an Obama supporter, I very clearly heard him say that if he had Actionable Intelligence on ObLs location, he would take action, and take out ObL.
He said this in 2007, and again during the campaign in 2008. You are lying, as usual. We knew what he was going to do this if he had a chance, so this is a false comparison.
What we decryed with Bush and Cheney, was the unilateral invasion of Iraq. The invasionof Afgahnastan was consdiered warranted even by the Liberals. IRAQ was where we consider Bush to have committed War Crimes. ANd the use of torture. Keep looking for straws to grasph that props up your view that Obama can do no right. You might find a few more.
ITDDY. The two do not equate.
The capture or kill order on ObL was just that , Capture or Kill if Capture not possible. Capture was not possible, so they killled him. That is how it worked out.
DO you really understand what Torture is? Do you understand that Torture is the direct infliction of Pain to force someone to reveal something you wish them to reveal, true or not? Do some research in to Torture. It is not a punishment, it is an attempt to dehumanize a person. Read 1984 sometime, see what is it really used for. THAT is why I can justify Killing ObL but be against torture.
Obamas policies: unilateral military action in nations we are not at war with; not giving lawyers to terrorists; pursuing aggressive intel acquisition; ordering special covet ops under the cover of darkness.
Spanky, why would any American, liberal or otherwise, see something wrong with the Commander and Chief ordering a special operation covert op? As those on the right seem to clamor daily, the US does not need authorization from anyone.
Perhaps you refer to his going forward without the consent of Pakistan? After 9/11 Congress, Dems and Repubs, War powers act gave power to use any and all measures to hold those responsible for the attacks and bring them to justice. Also the constitution gives the right for the president to protect the american people, something IMO that gave credence to the OBL killing. Perhaps we agree that the Libya action was not a good idea but he certainly had the military authorization to conduct the supposed continuing humanitarian actions.
Obama chose to do this Pakistan action and I believe it was justifiable. That said he will have to feel the consequences diplomatic or otherwise from Pakistan but IMO Pak officials will stand down. With OBL living within an arms throw of Pak intelligence chiefs and a military academy do you think the pakistanis didn't know he was there. They know they have little to stand on, if they want to keep getting their ill deserved foreign aid they will keep quiet.
Aggressive intelligence acquistion your word for torture has been proven to not provide reliable information. Perhaps something different between you and me but I believe going "Jack Bauer" on someone does more harm then good. We are the US and we should not torture. I have noted along with others that Obama has failed to stop renditions.
Even if we obtained the name of the courier through torture techniques years ago, (has not been proven); do you actually think that years old info was more beneficial then the spy/plant that pointed out the OBL house/complex in August of 2010? Perhaps it was a Pakistani military guy who wanted that $25 million bounty and gave them the tip and his location.
In your narrative, the courier name supposedly wrestled from the gurgling lips of detainees during water boarding would not have told the CIA where the house was or where OBL was unless he was a psychic. The OBL house was constructed in 2005 and waterboarding was not conducted after a certain timeline.
Don't take my word for it ask Donald Rumsfeld - numerous sources say torture was not used to get the courier's name. I think even Fox is covering it. Normal interrogation, good intelligence gathering, espionage and informants allowed for a textbook successful operation.
It's now being reported that, in fact, Osama bin Laden was not armed when he was killed.
I'm quite certain that two dozen U.S. Navy Seals could have overpowered an unarmed man and taken him alive, had that been their inclination.
This appears to have been an execution.
I'll allow those on the left to agonize over this revelation that bin Laden's civil rights (lol) may have been seriously compromised.
I believe the entire matter was handled perfectly, actually.
MB:
Link?
I have no agonization over any rights of ObL. He was a wanted fugative, a muderer, and an enemy combatant. We do not know the details of the situation, just because he was not armed, does not mean that his guards were not firing, and dragging a live prisoner out might have comprimsed the safety of the Seals Team.
It seems operational rules required him to only be brought in alive, if it would not put the team members lives in jeapordy, which I wholey codone.
I find it funny that the same people screaming about budgets, deficits, teachers, and Medicare are also perpetuating going to war with Libya and suggesting the war on terror has only just begun.
CJUS2473 makes a great point. Osama was hiding in plain sight for 6 years but it was the torture policies of the Bush administration that brought him down. My head is spinning from the spin.
Ok, come on! Scarborough is not a journalist. Stop tarring and feathering "the media" because of the rantings of commentators hired specifically for their partisanship.
Mixed Bag - I believe the entire matter was handled perfectly, actually.
So do I. The military never gives out miranda rights. Their job when ordered is to kill their target or destroy their objective in order to protect US citizens or allies.
Granted, there can be some retrospective thinking about involving the US in a civil war and question how a "humanitarian" bomb can take out a portion of Khaddafi's bunker.
Our military is meant to kill and destroy and are provided funding to do just that. Hmm. While foregoing our infrastructure, tell me again why our military is building schools in Afganistan and roads in Iraq? Why are they and have they been providing security/police services for the same?
Brian – capture was not possible, why not?
From everything I have read it was possible. If they were close enough to shoot him point-blank, I’d say capture was definitely possible. They also could have not mortally wounded him to ensure capture. Still, I believe the best possible outcome for the American public occurred and I commend our SEALS and the President.
I understand what torture is and I understand the specific techniques that have been reportedly used at Gitmo. Some of the techniques I would consider torture, others I would not. If you read the reports on these techniques and what occurred, you would know that the terrorists were unwilling to offer any information even after harsh interrogations took place. For many of them, including KSM, it was only after waterboarding that we were able to gain ANY valuable Intel. What is indisputable is that the Intel we gained was by in large accurate and led to several terrorist plots being foiled.
Saying they don’t equate is a cop out. They most certainly do equate. All are suspected terrorists that have NOT been convicted and all have important Intel that they can provide. We waterboarded some and received Intel on the courier system and possibly on the specific courier that led to Bin Laden. We killed some (including Bin Laden) and received Intel on Sunday that will most likely lead to a better understanding of how Bin Laden and his cohorts were operating for the past 10 years on the run.
There are so many erroneous facts just flying out from the right. Then they make conclusions from said facts.
"Information was attained through Enhanced Interrogation." -When, where? What official or actual source (other than newsies, talking heads, or political opponents with no way to get this information) does this come from?
"OBL was Unarmed." Source? Are you saying our SEAL team went in, told Obama that he was unarmed and Obama told them to kill him? Are you saying Obama gave a shoot to kill order no matter what? That the head of the top SEAL team of the USA used none of his own knowledge and abilities to determine what their actions should be and instead followed Obama to the letter no matter his own judgement? Don't @!$%# on these SEAL heroes. And in the end, if any of this BS is true, I abhor killing, but what do you think would have been done with OBL? I doubt it would be nearly as quick.
And the best comment today trying to justify their own viewpoints:
He didn't matter. And that elite group of probably one of the BEST military groups in the world, was just a "handful of guys". If we had predicted this success I think we'd be able to see this coming from a mile away:
L:"Obama Succeeded"
R:"No he didn't, Our Guys did"
L:"Your guy quit"
R:"Well he did the majority of the work"
L:"Again he quit"
R:"The whole thing doesn't matter."
L:"Then why did we start wars over it?"
R:"We've got more important things to do, and Obama didn't succeed look at my points you disproved above"
Going to echo the sentiment that Osama bin Laden deserving civil rights, as we understand them, is at best laughable.
I can't imagine any but a handful of the people most detached from reality in this country that would seriously argue for anything other than gunning him down on sight. More than that, this wasn't a police action - are we not at war? Since when have we had to confer due process upon enemy soldiers? Even if he was, in fact, unarmed, I very much doubt he was looking to surrender.
ITDDY: Neither you nor I were in that room. We do not know the circumstances behind the specific timing of it, we do not know how many of his guards were still alive at that moment. YOU are armchair generalling. Assuming a lot of information that is entirely unknown. It has come out that he was un-armed, that is fine, we don't know the rest of the circumstances. How many guards were still active in the compound? what were the risks to pulling him out alive?
Considering the operation took 40 minutes.. neither of us can say for sure what hapened in that room. I TRUST the Seals team to know if it was to dangerous to pull him out alive, why don't you? They certainly have FAR more experience in such situations then either of us.
Exodite Dragon:
To answer your question: No, we are not at war. The "War on Terror" is no more a war than was the "War on Poverty". Osama bin Laden is/was not a soldier. He was a punk terrorist. Period. We haven't really developed a set of laws to deal with his sort. So, for the time being, killing these guys is going to have to be a satisfactory solution. (For what it's worth, it works for me.)
In war time, and I mean the real thing - a Congressionally-declared war - there are protocols, there are rules of engagement, a due process of sorts, and so on. Hell, we even have war criminals.
Actually, the whole thing seems insane. Of course, that's because it is.
@David Walker:
While I understand the intent behind your argument, I find the analogy stretches a bit too thin for my liking. If you'll forgive me being rather crass, I do not recall history textbooks depicting the US military unleashing a campaign of 'shock and awe' upon every soup kitchen in Detroit; I do not remember the homeless being mercilessly gunned down in the streets and nor can I, for the life of me, reflect on any instance when debtors of the latter 20th century were herded into containment centers deep beneath the vaults of Zurich.
That said, I really must refute the notion that the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq don't qualify as actual war. Do we not have men and materiél on the ground? Do we not have thousands of combat casualties? Are we not in occupation of enemy territory? To the best of my knowledge, Congress has not formally issued a declaration of war against an enemy nation since World War II - insofar as I understand things, Korea nor Vietnam nor Grenada nor Haiti nor Iraq nor Yugoslavia were given an official stamp of approval by our legislature.
Were these not wars? What were they then, if anything? Sunday excursions?
Bear in mind, however, that I do not disagree in the slightest that armed conflict can at best be considered an insanity. But the application of rules within a thing such as war (Geneva Conventions notwithstanding) seems a non-sequitor, insane even in equal measure to war itself.
David Walker,
Nice post about both sides (left and right) needing to come together for the good of the country. Unfortunately, that points seems to be incomprehensible to some of the key posters on this board. It's really a shame...I think we could have some good, productive discussions if people could stop looking at everything through party-line glasses.
Brian – As I stated, I believe it was the best outcome and I trust the SEALS 100%. I’m not armchair generalizing, you were the one who said that if he could have been captured, he would have but it was not possible.
I disagree based on the facts
1) Bin Laden was unarmed
2) Only 3 other men and 1 woman were killed as well as Bin Laden
3) They were able to retrieve the body and not lose any SEALS in the process during the raid
If they can retrieve the body and only had 4 other people killed, it’s reasonable to assume they could have taken Bin Laden alive. If Bin Laden’s security team would have stopped them taking Bin Laden alive, wouldn’t they also have tried to stop the SEALS taking his body? And if this security team was such a threat that they had to kill Bin Laden unarmed, why was only 4 other people killed? With that said, I’m glad they killed Bin Laden and glad the order was to kill, not capture. It was the right call by the President and SEAL team.
But your argument above regarding torture vs. killing was completely based on your premise that Bin Laden would have been captured if that was at all possible. Your entire premise above is based on an untruth.
I appreciate your civil response in trying to explain your justification for one and not the other. It’s a complicated issue and I’m torn on certain aspects myself. I don't like torture nor killing an unarmed man but I'm elated at the events of the past 48 hours. Sometimes I really do believe the end justifies the means.
Again,
There is a vast difference between dragging a dead man around, (I.e. you can toss it out a window) and dragging a prisoner around (You have to pull them down stairs, and try and keep them from getting wounded if the fighting is still going on.
At least one of your team must safe guard that prisoner, at the risk to their own life, and the evaluation of whose life is worth more is pretty obvious to me. I, for one, would rather they risk their lives as little as humanly possible, for that monster.
Pulling out a dead body, does not mean there was an opportunity to pull him out alive. The two porcesses are entirely different. Close Quarter Combat is dangerous to begin with. It's fairly obvious to me you have never even tried simluating a CQB event, and since I don't think either of us have been in one, I don't think you or I are qualified to evaluate the situation and it's danger level. The closest I've come is various war games and FPS, and I can tell ya, getting a solid kill in those situations is hard enough, in the real world it must be monumental.
As the full details of the extraction come out, we'll learn if there was any possibilty of extracting him alive.
ITDDY:
Further information on this:
Reading through this, they took what prisoners they could, the decision to kill bin Laden was taken by the Seals on Site, not by an order from the President, which agrees with my assestment of the situation.
Nice trybut wrong. KSM was water boarded in 2003. He did not give up any name until 2007 and that was under traditional investigation methods. Water boarding did not give up the name. The GOP/TP since they cannot make a case to give Bush the credit are now trying to elevate OBL to some sort of hero that had his rights denied him and the water boarding is justified.
Brian - if they can take some prisoners, it is reasonable to assume the could have taken Bin Laden alive if that was their ultimate goal. As I say in my posts "reasonable" because I don't know all the details or facts. Based on the ones I do know though, I can make assumptions. I trust the SEALs did the right thing in the situation. Maybe the official order was capture or kill but I definitely believe the unofficial order from the President and the SEAL commanders was to kill. Perhaps that's harsh but I personally don't have any problems with that order. Good riddance.
Bottom line, if your argument for justifying the killing of Bin Laden while being against torture is because Bin Laden could have been captured, your argument is deeply flawed. That's my main point.
ITDDY,
It is obvious to me that you have never been in combat, nor know anything about a combat situation. During a 40 minute fire fight, when there is almost constant gun chatter, EVERY situation and room is a seperate scenario that has to be taken as it comes. Your continued denial of this, is part of why you can't see the differences. It is very black and white to you, while to me, I see a myriad of scenarios where in one room a person can be taken alive, while in the room next door, fifteen seconds later, the scnerio has changed entirely and the only option is a kill shot.
There is no inconsistency in my stance, only your inability to see changing scenarios and lack of experience or study, in to close quarter combat operations.
Exodite Dragon:
I fear you missed my point. I don't care what anyone calls our invasions, whether a "war", or an "oatmeal cookie", or "Sunday excursions". The fact is our Constitution clearly states that only Congress may declare war. That is not about stretching analogies, that is about providing a foundation for a rule of law.
How does a government conduct a war that is not a war? You make light of "shock and awe", attacks on soup kitchens, and the like. Clearly you fancy yourself a bright youngster. Are you unable to understand that we cannot prosecute a war that is some sort of amorphous action without any goals? We do not have a legal framework. We have no direction. Does this "war" end with a "victory" that cannot be defined?
Take a look at the results from Korea until today. Show me a success. You cannot, of course. That is because these invasions/incursions are launched and conducted in what is essentially a vacuum. No one is accountable and we just make stuff up as we go along.
Has the Constitution become that much of a problem that we should just discard it?
As a female and proud former U.S. Army National Guard Staff Sergeant, I was restricted from direct combat situations, however I have seen my share of indirect combat, hostile environments and been trained for such possible scenarios. What I do know for sure is that the SEALs practiced for this mission and every possible scenario for months and knew exactly what to do given what they faced when they got into the compound. They probably already knew how many people where there, where Bin Laden was specifically and generally from where to expect the most resistance. I do not pretend to know what the SEALs faced once they got in but it has been widely reported that Bin Laden was found in a room with his wife and several underage children (presumably his). Because he was the only one killed in the room and was unarmed (as was his wife), I assume he could have been captured at least at that point. Maybe there was a reason we couldn’t capture him, but don’t you think the government would have informed us about that since they have already confirmed he was unarmed? Killing Bin Laden point-blank while unarmed isn’t going to sit well with the Muslim world and I would think if we were forced to because of the circumstances, this Administration would already have conveyed that publicly. Situations in other areas of the compound and removing him safely is another story but we put a bullet through his head so I highly doubt that took place when we were trying to remove him from the compound as a live captive. Let’s be honest, the mission was to kill him and we succeeded.
Again, if your argument for justifying the killing of Bin Laden while being against torture is because Bin Laden could have been captured, your argument is deeply flawed.
@David Walker:
It seems I did miss your point - perhaps next time it might be wiser to more clearly define what distinction you're trying to draw between a war on the ground and a war on the ground that came pre-packaged with a certificate of authenticity? ;)
But I digress. Regardless of whether or not a declaration was given, the reality is that these 'amorphous actions' (which is actually a rather handy, if somewhat PC, term...) are being prosecuted and, as you made mention of in your first & second posts, entirely without the traditional legal framework because none exists that can deal with the situation.
I do not disagree that simply killing our foes works - for now. But attrition is a very poor way to win a fight, whether in the Middle East, Indochina or the Korean peninsula.
My question here is whether or not Congress officially declaring the intent to aggrieve matters one whit in the context of the kinds of conflicts we find ourselves embroiled in of late. Did we not go into Afghanistan with clearly-stated (if somewhat broad and, all things considered, naive) objectives? How would that have changed by officiating the process? Would it have made the Taliban don official uniforms and identifiable emblems? Would it have made civilian insurgents loudly declare their presence before attacking our troops? Might it have forced every terror cell operating within the Afghan countryside to suddenly abide by Geneva?
These wars (and I maintain that they are that, regardless) are, as you stated, insane and extremely stupid. But what sort of response ought to have been given after 9/11? What else could've been done? In the question of how we conduct ourselves in war, I think we are at the same sort of crossroads concerning tactics and strategy that both America and Europe found itself in World War I, hurling lines of troops and mass cavalry at tanks and machine gun nests. Before you think me wandering off on a tangent, it's my opinion that how we can conduct a war will ultimately decide the legal framework behind the type of war we must fight. I am certain minds more suited to that particular task than yours or mine have already been committed to the problem for a great many years, and possibly will be committed to it for many years to come.
Now, concerning whether or not the Constitution is being flatly ignored, mistreated, skirted about or altogether avoided like the chaperons at a Mormon day camp, Christ, how far back do you want to take that conversation? Twenty years? Fifty? A century? The Louisiana Purchase?
David Walker-
Your logic escapes me.
Compared to North Korea...
Why isn't South Korea a "success"?
Would you hestitate even one minute when confronted with the choice of living in South Korea or of living in North Korea?
I'll bet South Koreans regard the Korean War as a success.
"Dear Leader"...?
He probably agrees with you, David.
itddy.....Feisty or anyone else for that matter - can you please explain to me why you condone killing a man point-blank but think water boarding, harsh interrogation or torture is wrong? For the life of me, I cannot understand that logic.
Let me explain. OBL killed 3000 people, he deserved death. Had we tried him, he would become a martyr for his people. Torture is indefensible. During Vietnam they nailed bamboo under finger nails and so on. The Geneva convention abolished torture. Just think about how we would react if our enemy picked up one of our kids and tortured them? Can you imagine a 18-25 year old being tortured the way we did KSM? Now that the Bush administration used torture, it's open season on all our troops and we cannot cry foul when they do it to us.
Nojo.....However much you want to deny it, we got the code name of that courier from KSM- after he was water boarded.
Bull.......they had the name before they tortured KSM. They asked him if he knew the name or person and he said he did not. According to Rumsfeld, the name was not given during torture, just regular interrogation.
Osama was hiding in plain sight for 6 years but it was the torture policies of the Bush administration that brought him down. My head is spinning from the spin.
I am with you on this. Bush abandoned the search. It was not important. It only mattered when he wanted to scare everyone and raise the terror level. Remember when we were attacked on 911, the Bin Laden family were flown out of this country the same day. If they had information from 2003, why didn't they use it like our President did? They called our POTUS crazy because he said if he found him in Pakistan, he would go there to get him without authorization. They all called him naive and said he said that it shows his lack of experience and he knows nothing about national security. Now what?
When Bush had him cornered in Tora Bora, he called off the agents and would not even let them block the roads that led in and out of the caves..WOW..
The killing squad that Dick had was made up of CIA agents, not seals. Our President followed up on a name the Bush administration did not think was important. He accomplished his goal without fanfare or trying to scare us.
The far right loons are so used to lying, they just don't know how and when to stop. Giving Bush credit is like giving credit to a tea cup poodle for attacking a burglar, while he was hiding under the bed shivering, when the pit bull attacked.
Once again they were hoping and praying that this President failed, like Bush did.
Job well done President Obama. You have guts.
Flecth2 - you MY friend are on FIRE tonight!
Thanks! ;o)
Had to be . The righty loons have lost what little gray matter they had and I have the time.
Always......
I LOVE you - stealth & silent until the time is right! ;o)
These right wing nitwits don't know whether to sh!t or go blind!
I'm paraphrasing my late great Grama! lol
Fletch - You said “Let me explain. OBL killed 3000 people, he deserved death. Had we tried him, he would become a martyr for his people.”
So you believe Bin Laden deserves to die point-blank without a trial because of 9/11 but find it inhumane to torture, interrogate and hold captive KSM? You do realize we have more evidence of KSM’s direct involvement in 9/11 than Bin Laden, right?
“Just think about how we would react if our enemy picked up one of our kids and tortured them? Can you imagine a 18-25 year old being tortured the way we did KSM?” I’m not sure what world you are living in to think our Armed Forces haven’t been tortured but for starters the 507th convoy was tortured more so than anything the U.S. has been even accused of at Gitmo. Numerous POWs in Iraq and Afghanistan have been tortured as well as journalists, civilians and contract workers.
“Now that the Bush administration used torture, it's open season on all our troops and we cannot cry foul when they do it to us.”
Couldn’t the same be said for President Obama allowing the assassination of an unarmed man?
I’m not saying Obama was wrong, I fully support his decision and our actions. I just think that anything we do will be fodder for those who hate us and hate our way of life. Torture, killing an unarmed man, going into a sovereign country without informing them of a military action – all can be construed by our enemies badly. It doesn’t mean that they are always the wrong decision for the best interests of our country.
Exodite Dragon and Mixed Bag:
E.D. - It is not up to me to define wars any more than it is up to Rush Limbaugh to define "liberals". The Constitution bestows authority on Congress and Congress alone to declare war. Through the War Powers Act and other CS abdication drills, Congress has completely upset the balance of power. While I am not a Constitutional expert, I think it is safe to say that the foundation of our government is the checks and balances arrangement we have.
The Executive was never meant to have the authority to wage war.
Additionally, I would point out that the action against bin Laden was far more a police action than anything approximating a war. Consider the number of countries involved. Not one. Not a single army, not a single nation. Iraq was held up as a harbor for terrorists. So too was Afghanistan. Now we find it is true of Pakistan. Yet in no case was an army involved. We are fighting criminal syndicates - not armies.
I find it impossible to make the case that we are involved in a war.
M.B. - The answer to your question: "Why isn't South Korea a success?" is to be found in North Korea. There is still a DMZ. We still maintain a substantial troop presence. The insane leader of North Korea, Muj Cow Dung, is busy assisting with nuclear proliferation, and perfecting delivery systems for nuclear weaponry.
More than 33,000 Americans died there. I don't consider that a success.
I have no problem answering your questions. There are several points I would make however. First, I don't have my own brand of logic. Logic is logic. Period. Secondly, coming from a long line of veterans, I take this "war" stuff seriously. I can do without your "Dear Leader....?" BS.
Itddy......So you believe Bin Laden deserves to die point-blank without a trial because of 9/11 but find it inhumane to torture, interrogate and hold captive KSM? You do realize we have more evidence of KSM’s direct involvement in 9/11 than Bin Laden, right?
I said "Torture is indefensible". Period. It is true.The rest I did not say. Bin Laden deserved what he got. He bragged and took credit for 9/11. Why spend more money for a trial. Obama did what he said he would do.
I’m not sure what world you are living in to think our Armed Forces haven’t been tortured but for starters the 507th convoy was tortured more so than anything the U.S. has been even accused of at Gitmo. Numerous POWs in Iraq and Afghanistan have been tortured as well as journalists, civilians and contract workers.
So America is now in the tit for tat business. Yet hear you are complaining about killing one person. I thought we would respect the Geneva convention. I thought America stood for something, but I guess you think we are no better than our enemies. We should lose our morals and become like the lowest of the lows. I suppose you think we should now fly airplanes into buildings.
Couldn’t the same be said for President Obama allowing the assassination of an unarmed man?
An unarmed killer, who confessed to killing of thousands of people. There are precedents set in this country for bringing in a horrible criminal, dead or alive. He did not go against Americas values.
I’m not saying Obama was wrong, I fully support his decision and our actions. I just think that anything we do will be fodder for those who hate us and hate our way of life. Torture, killing an unarmed man, going into a sovereign country without informing them of a military action – all can be construed by our enemies badly. It doesn’t mean that they are always the wrong decision for the best interests of our country.
Everything is fodder, but America always stand on certain principles. Going into a sovereign country to get a criminal, without informing them of a military action, is nowhere as bad as bombing, destroying and killing thousands of innocent people, in a sovereign country, based on lies. When they killed obl, there was no loss of innocent lives.
Feisty, you got me...I just love your direct approach. It's rather funny how they are always coming at you. They are very afraid or envious.......all you can get from these loons are whining and lies. They think it is so cool to disrespect the office of the POTUS, because it makes them feel like they have balls. I suppose they have to do a vigorous search to find and hold them. :>).....
Fletch - I have no idea how you got to this conclusion. First, I never said since they torture us, we can torture them. I was simply pointing out the inaccuracy of your statement that our troops are not tortured and gave you examples to prove you wrong.
I wasn’t complaining about killing Bin Laden, if you read my statements above I clearly state that I believe it was the best outcome possible and support the mission. My problem is the mixed message that killing one person point-blank is good, while torturing another to gain Intel is bad. I wanted to get someone’s perspective on why they hold both beliefs because I think they contradict each other. For you to assert that “I suppose you think we should now fly airplanes into buildings.” is outrageous and proves that you cannot back up your position so you just throw grenades.
My apologizes, I thought you were interested in a true discussion.
To Everyone who find contradiction about waterboarding.
The DoD didn't do waterboarding the CIA did that. So find someone from the CIA that said waterboarding didn't produce the info.
David Walker-
How many Americans soldiers died in the Second World War?
Does the sheer numbers reflected in their sacrifice suggest that the endeavor was a failure?
Me...?
I'm a Vietnam veteran, but I don't come from a long line of veterans as you do. Does you mean that you yourself are actually a veteran?
In any event, I'm sure that your bonafides trump my own in this area.
Whatever...
I'd still prefer to live in South Korea rather than North Korea, but if you make no such distinctions...
Enjoy "Dear Leader"'s version of paradise on earth.
My problem is the mixed message that killing one person point-blank is good, while torturing another to gain Intel is bad. I wanted to get someone’s perspective on why they hold both beliefs because I think they contradict each other. For you to assert that “I suppose you think we should now fly airplanes into buildings.” is outrageous and proves that you cannot back up your position so you just throw grenades.
What position did I not back up? What you were suggesting is that we should do to others what they did to us. I do not believe torture. It's has been proven to get only the information that we want to hear rather than the truth. The CIA, FBI and armed forces have said torture doesn't work. Torture and killing in this case are two different things. Everyone (the world) knew that we would take OBL anyway we could get him "dead or alive". Had we taken him alive, there would still be someone who would think we should have done something different. I appreciate what these great men did, it's just a pity we are unable to give them a thank you parade.
There are no mixed message. Shooting and killing someone who is responsible for the deaths of thousands is not comparable to torture. We execute people in this country for grave crimes, but we do not torture them. There is no contradiction. How can America ever be a beacon anymore, when we have stooped to the level of our enemies?
If you consider what I said grenade throwing, then I suppose you would rather converse with a person who doesn't think for themselves or say what they think. If you think it's okay to go against Americas values and torture because we were tortured, it's safe to say we should use airplanes as weapons, because that's what they did to us. No grenades, just being real.
A hearty congratulations to all of our men and women in uniform whose years of work and sacrifice made our victory over Bin LAden possible. And yes, thank you to people in both the Bush and Obama admins for their roles in this as well - there's plenty of credit to go around.
As for Mitch Daniels, a typical rookie mistake - do something to throw red meat to the fringe, but from which he won't be able to back-pedal fast enough when faced with the moderates/independents in America that actually decide elections.
Now what?!
That's what.
Anna Molly:
Looks like we traded some of my idealism for your realism. Good trade for both of us.
Indeed, Ron. Even-up. As it should be.
Now what - now we have unilateral death squads, use of information from torture and continuation of secret prisons.
Now that a death squad was used to kill OBL, why can't we simply execute KSM? What is the difference? OBL got not trial, or tribunal, just two bullets to the head.
So let's get on with it and execute KSM and the others. KSM is just as responsible for 9/11 as OBL.
Muffintop, please look at my post #1.50 above.
@muffintop1:
The last I checked, Osama bin Laden had issued a declaration of war against the United States and had, in at least one interview I can recall, stated something to the effect that he'd draw no distinction between Americans in or out of military uniform.
I do not rightly believe restrictions or limitations should exist in our response to someone like that, especially someone with an organization akin to al Qaeda.
Muffintop, you dumBa$$, Osama opened fire! All bets are off at that point!
Anna Molly, thank you.
A great song, an even greater sentiment. Particularly appropriate at this moment. I'm going to go listen...
Auntie - hows about KSM? No need for a trial or tribunal. We are all clear to execute - he was as responsible for 9/11 as anyone else.
I like the way you all are thinking now. Very hard core. Also a lot cheaper to execute than to provide a lawyer and trial. But that sure was not the position you all took just a few weeks ago.
Now it's "by any means necessary."
Great dreamers are thoes who made a difference in this world.....Courageous,determined,and application.
Spanky,
Last I heard KSM was getting a tribunal. Show me where he isn't.
Let's all vote
No Surprise. It is no surprise that conservativesare now pushing the idea that it was President Bush's efforts that allowed President Obama to rid the world of Osama bin Laden. While I give former Presidents Bush and Clinton both some credit, I will not give Bush--who stood before a press briefing in 2002 and said that he really didn't care where bin Laden was, that it didn't matter, he didn't give much thought to him--credit for anything beyond his initial effort in Afghanistan. Bush had bigger fish to fry and by 2002, had already set his sites on Iraq. In 2005, the CIA no longer had a unit dedicated to finding Osama bin Laden, and it was in 2005, bin laden built a huge compound in Pakistan.
In 2009, President Obama ordered his CIA head, Leon Panetta, to prepare a plan and focus on finding bin Laden. In other words, our President renewed the commitment to find, capture or kill Osama bin Laden. President Obama's team and the military's special ops group succeeded.
Then we have the GOP spin that the enhanced interrogation of KSM provided clues as to his whereabouts--once again an attempt to convince everyone that torture is good and works. Despite the fact that intelligence officers and interrogators have said the torture of KSM produced nothing of consequence. Now KSM has been at Gitmo for a long time and the illogical spin that he knew where bin Laden was and could provide information all these years later is ludicrous at best. Apparently KSM said bin Laden used couriers--something the CIA already knew. Finding bin Laden goes back to the Clinton administration and that means the CIA knew a great deal about him and his habits; about those around him, about couriers and methods of communicating but finding him was no easy task.
Unlike former President Bush, it appears that many in the GOP simply cannot accept the idea that President Obama in the early part of his administration purposely renewed U.S. efforts to get bin Laden and that it was the Obama administration, his team of leaders, the military and the men of JSOC who succeeded.
Great post, Jody. I guess it is better to know that the CIA had downgraded the capture of OBL than to think them incompetent but I'm still shocked that they would do that. Kudos to President Obama for making this a priority.
And thanks again to our military for all that they do.
In the big picture you have Obama adopting and now furthering the policies of Bush. I am surprised you all seem to be cheering that development.
Too bad Olbermann is gone - he did shows on the CIA death squads, the torture and interrogation, and the secret prisons.
Now they are all good things?
muffintop. No one ever disputed going after terrorists. Bush dropped the ball and headed to Iraq to fight a war based on lies. I guess you've forgotten that the Obama administration and DOJ stopped torture, stopped sending prisoners to Gitmo, etc. As for death squads or CIA involvement, they existed long before Bush ever took office.
Aww Jody, are you also now a big fan of CIA death Squads?
You did see Olby's show on the subject in 2009? He was not in support.
And really Jody do you recall think they have dropped torture? Right, cause they closed GITMO and the other secret prisons [where they certainly do not torture].
When one team has all of the information and does nothing with it, and a second team picks up the same information, does something with it and is successful, how can one credit the first team?
I don't see that Obama adopted and furthered Bush policies at all. If credit is due to Bush, then why didn't HE and HIS team get bin Laden? It's because more than his information was required. As was the commitment to act on any information.
The history thread here is tenuous. And none of it excuses torture. Torture makes us the same animals we claim to be fighting against.
You may be right fielden. Guess Obama know what he was doing in keeping the secret prisons and Gitmo open.
Say, you think the CIA really stopped the enhanced interrogations? I mean, if you have death squads, why wouldn't you?
But I am glad to see you realized Obama continued Bush's policies and obtained more information.
Say fielden - Obama just unilaterally and without a finding of fact, executed Osama. Osama did similar in the attacks, so how is it that you distinguish between what Obama just did and Osama?
Slippery slope, eh?
Obama was against FISA and the Patriot Act before he voted for it. He has done nothing to stop rendition. Has expanded the use of Bagram Airbase. Has expanded the use predator drones. Unilaterally violated Pakistan sovereign territory. The recent NATO attack that killed 3 of Gadafi's grandchildren all under 3 years-old. The UN resolution authorized the use of military force “to protect civilians and civilian populated areas.” It did not authorize regime change.
Change you can believe in or just more of the same?
Unlike his adoring supporters, Obama has come to realize a few facts in the world, mostly, sometimes you have to do what needs to be done. Remember that little speaking tour in the middle-east? The one where he was "reaching out" and being "conciliatory"? How Obama was "building bridges" and being "less antagonistic than that Cowboy Bush! Oh, the press and the liberals just loved it!! How do you think that speech is perceived now in the middle-east? Now it's clear that the Obama Doctrine is "Carry a big stick and swing it like you own it".
Those are the facts. That is the reality.
But the Obama fans around here will now construct walls of denial around their hero. "It's different" they'll say. No. No it's not. Obama did what needed to be done, and he has stepped on more than a few toes. These were the same things Obama and his ilk said "instigated hatred towards the US". Well, Obama may have been right about that, but somethings you just have to deal with it.
A terrorist by definition chooses to operate outside the law. Do the benefits of the law still apply to him? A terrorist does not pledge allegiance to a country, he pledges allegiance to a cause. Do the laws and rights of being a national still apply?
Why is it that suddenly conservatives are acquiring a conscience?
I'm not a conservative and I support fully what the President has done over the last couple of days. However, I will point out the inconsistencies in what he says compared to what he does. The President has repeatedly said that terrorist should be tried in the criminal justice system examples being the Christmas Day Bomber and the attempt to have the trial of KSM in New York. On the other hand he has no problem in authorizing operations such as the one that got OBL or the use of predator drones. It's just as if he is the [only] decider.
Hi Alan,
I think the disconnect you see is a matter of perception. A captured terrorist, who is alive and in custody, deserves a trial and approprioate action taken by the law. An enemey combatant, who dies in an operation, who also happens to be a terrorist, is just dead, so there are no civil rights to violate.
Essentially, this is like raiding a drug cartels mansion in columbia, and the target of the raid is killed during the raid. The intent was capture, but the result was death. While not the best outcome, it is still an acceptable outcome.
Exactly so, Brian. The same thing happens right here on the streets of America. When it becomes necessary for the police to storm a house while under attack it's entirely possible for someone without a weapon to be killed.
Why are Conservatives embarking on this witch hunt which serves no purpose except to accuse a US serviceman of unnecessary force and perhaps murder?
Clearly lost on the brilliant libs who apparently think giving the order to kill the world's most wanted man was a "gutsy" decision.
Enhanced interrogation initiated the successful operation and Navy Seals completed it. Obama did come off the golf course long enough to approve of measures Pres. Bush set in motion. he did not "Direct" the operation; he just didn't block it, as he has with economic recovery or effective health care reform.
Let's just all forget that it took Obama 2 years of stalling and backpedaling to finally admit that he essentially agreed with every major point of Bush's war strategy. Obama was wrong on every single point, from the surge in Iraq, to Gitmo, to appeasing Iran, to military tribunals. We lost 2 good years to Obama's naiveté and steep learning curve. After bowing to foreign leaders and trying his darndest to dismantle our national defense, he got one softball decision right. Let's erect a monument in his honor!
Wrong Thetotas. Rumsefield admited that "Enhanced" interegation techniques did not generate the name. KSM gave it up during "Legal Interegation".
And OBama has not accepted every aspect about Bush's war strategy. You just like to think he has. At the time the Surge did not seem an appropriate action, Many disagreed with the action and the rant from the right was "listen to the generals". The generals (And Bush) were saying stay in IRAQ with nearly the full surge force, Obama disagreed, and pulled the troops mostly out.
Afgahnastan is a different war, and similar tactis have been initiated, but only because the situation on the ground say they do. Gitmo is still open, not because Obama doesn't want to close it, but because Congress would not let him close it, (Voted down the finances).
Tell me, what woudl McCain have done differently? Invaded Iran? We'd be in an even worse situation now, and probably have missed ObL yet again.
Wrong Brian, did you see the CIA director's remarks on Brian Williams show (NBC) the other night! He was asked 'directly' if these techniques, 'including waterboarding'!, were used to gather this information and he said 'YES'. IF anyone knows 'anything' about this issue, it is probably this guy! So we can have this debate about 'where' the information started from, that's fine. From my view, the death of OBL was initiated by WBD immediately after 911, continued over the years by our intel and military people, and completed on the orders of President Obama. I congratulate all of them, especially our military. Why we have to have this 'debate' as to 'who' get credit is nonsense. Give credit to all of them and let's move on to find the rest of these killers and terrorists whereever they are and eliminate them as well!
Rumsfield changed his story after the fact. He'll likely change it again before it's over. I'm Reserving judgement till the entire process comes out at this point, as it is a complete mess.
It's come out that the name might not have even come from KSM. So debating this is pointless.
Recent events seem to take me back to the basic question that we need to deal with both on a National and World level.
Is Terrorism an Act of War or is it Crime against Humanity?
Both.
How so Joe?
I agree, Joe----both. The rise of terrorism since World War II and the price the rest of the world pays---in human terms, in financial terms, in the disruption of life---is a sad story. It impacts all of our lives every day.
My name's not Joe, but: For starters- it's an act of cowardice.
An act of war is an action by one country against another with an intention to provoke a war or an action that occurs during a declared war or armed conflict between military forces of any origin. The loss or damage caused due to such conflicts are excluded from insurance coverage except for life assurances
What country did Osama Bin Laden or does Al Qaeda or even Timothy McViegh for that matter represent and what legislative body did they go through for their Declaration of War?
It appears that if one is a terrorist are not entitled to be tried, just executed without any attempt to prove guilt.
I hope the leaders of other countries don't send their death squads against Americans.
IR: Looks like you knew the answer all along. I happen to agree. Nations engage in wars with other nations. Individuals, operating on their own behalf or within some ideology, are committing a crime against humanity.
As I commented previously, an act of terrorism is a criminal act. Terrorists are murderers, thugs, bullies and just because they slap a religious label on it does not make their terrorism anything less than a criminal act of mass murder of innocents. Terrorists should be treated as the criminals they are.
MuffinTop:
They did it was called 9/11
OBL was the head of a country?
I know these are big concepts but if that is your understanding you will be very limited in your understanding.
Kind of semi sorta Ron.
I think that this Question is at the heart of what we have seen for the last 15 or twenty years even before 911 and is the major difference between governing philosophies.
The Bush administration for one declared it an act of war and used it for the justification to invade other countries and P.O.W. camps and such like with the result that we have somewhat overstepped our original purpose much to our chagrin.
The Obama Administration on the other hand seems to be treating it as a crime and then doing to work and forming coalitions with other world entities to bring the perpetrators to Justice. Hence our actions in Pakistan were not considered by that country as an act of war even though technically it was an invasion of a sovereign nation
"An act of war is an action by one country against another"
______________________________________________
Yeah, in the good ole days when the world was a less complicated place you might be able to make those kind of absolute judgments. In today's world, organized terrorist groups can and do declare war on countries, and to pretend otherwise is foolish and naive. War and crimes against humanity are not mutually exclusive. I'm pretty sure the Nuremberg Trials settled that issue.
I believe we do ourselves no favors by trying to oversimplify the situation. In the past we've been attempting to stuff all "Islamic terrorism" in the same box, but it's rather like that junk drawer in the kitchen.
Much of the terrorism in the Middle East is purely local, aimed at some real or imagined slight against the people and in that way mirrors the Catholic/Protestant terrorism of Northern Ireland in decades past.
Some of it is sectarian, or generated by tribal/ethnic divisions. Shia/Sunni/Kurd in Iraq is a fine example, and don't forget that much of the Arab world is at odds with Iran because they're Persian, not Arab.
The reason I mention this is to make the point that it isn't necessarily an either/or thing. Al Qaeda became effectively a state-sponsored terrorist organization when they allied with and became sheltered by the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Obviously they're still getting some level of support from actors within the Pakistani government (though no official or overt support, and I don't know that the governmental leaders intend to do so). In these cases it's "more like" war.
In other cases, where the organization in question isn't tied directly to a government or is totally autonomous the concept of war is useless and even hurts the effort to control. The 1993 WTC bombing, or OKC bombing fall to the "crime control" end of the spectrum.
In the sense that it applies to criminal terrorism on our soil I believe "crime" is nearly always the correct approach. That doesn't change my opinion that the real answer is that universally unsatisfying "it depends."
Okay Joe then by extension then I'm assuming that you would support the reconstitution of the Nueremberg Tribunals to prosecute crimes against humanity rather than invasion as a means of acheiving Justice for said Victims.
John B., thanks for that informative and useful post.
In the military, the type of warfare now underway in iraq and Afghanistan is called "asymmetrical." That is, it is entirely enlike the kind of events against formed military units, as in the First/Second Gulf Wars, or WWII.
Terrorism is the enemy in both locations, although in Afghanistan we are facing guerrilla bands as often as lone actors.
The kind of terrorism we face has a rather long history. In the contemporary era, it dates to at least the consequences of the suppression of the Paris Commune in 1870. After that period, and with the decline of international militant socialism in the West through the 1920's, radical anarchism arose as a model for terrorist deeds.
In fact, the First World War began after a terrorist's attack. The background of all this is told quite well in Barbara Tuchman's excellent history, The Proud Tower.
With the failure of Great Britain to fulfill its promises about Palestine, given in Lloyd George's infamous "white paper" of 1917, a militant arm of Zionism arose in the Middle East. As we know, this culminated in formation of Israel in May, 1948. But those who led the Irgun, Stern Gang, others used terrorism because they followed the way of the weak against the strong. It was a pattern that is replicated widely now.
In the meantime, in both World Wars, Britain engaged and encouraged both guerrilla bands and irregular forces across North Africa to take on the Germans. This provided training and foundation for some groups. Displacement of Arab Palestinians after Israel's founding and the shameful neglect by the whole world of that still-festering issue (some can also say the shameful exploitation of the Palestinians, too) is pretty much the parent of today's jihadist movement.
The Middle East, after the failure of the Ottoman Empire and carving up of its lands after WWI, is largely an artificail creation of sstates. British colonialism there, into the 1950's, fueled resentment against the secular West. French colonialism didn't help matters much, either - the 1962 Algerian crisis showed that. And their policies were opposed at first by terrorism, and finally in 1962 by uprisings similar to that now underway in Libya. The revolt of the French Parachute regiments over plans to set Algeria free just made things bloodier.
Since the, there has been a permanent, simmering level of terrorism across the Middle East.
Eventually, if "success" is achieved, we'll see somewhat stable states emerge in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other nations in turmoil - and, as John B. pointed out, surviving terrorist movements will b largely focused on long-standing local feuds of different kinds.
I could continue for several more paragraphs relating this. The real point is one made earlier: Terrorism is the weapon of the weak against the strong.
Apart from religiously-motivated terrorists, which both the Taliban and al Quaeda certainly are, other movements have more tangible purposes. There is a possibility that determined effort can resolve those conflicts and bring their actions to an end. Ultimately, the "war on terror" must include both vigilant and strong military action when and where suitable, and renewed efforts to find means of conflict resolution without violence. Those who would rather die than quit fighting will of course eventually get their wishes fulfilled.
Muffintop, Did Osama bin Laden or any of those terrorists that participated in the Sept 11 attacks give a rip about any of the 3000 inncocent lives lost that day? No, all they cared about was their idealogy. Why should we value the lives of criminal terrorist murderers any more than the value they afforded the victims? If we had taken Bin Laden alive, do you not think that his followers would have maybe done something along the lines of taking hostages in order to gain his release?
IR - actually, there is a permanent tribunal now, charged with prosecutions for crimes against humanity. The World Court in The Hague, Netherlands, is that body. Slobodan Milosevich died in custody while undergoing a lengthy trial for his misdeeds, and there are others from the Balkans in that system now.
More than a few of us called for G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleeza Rice to be brought before that court on allegations of crimes against humanity and making a war of aggression. Paul Wolfowitz should also be in that band of miscreants.
Jody dear - terrorists are criminals that get to be tried or just executed?
And who gets to make the call? The was a judge in Spain that called Bush a terrorist. Does he get to send in a death squad?
You good with that, or would you rather apply the rule of law.
Pick.
You are over-simplifying.
A terrorist by definition chooses to operate outside the law. Do the benefits of the law still apply to him? A terrorist does not pledge allegiance to a country, he pledges allegiance to a cause. Do the laws and rights of being a national still apply?
Okay Joe then by extension then I'm assuming that you would support the reconstitution of the Nueremberg Tribunals to prosecute crimes against humanity rather than invasion as a means of acheiving Justice for said Victims.
________________________________________________
I'm not sure how you get that assumption when my point was that war (invasion) and crimes against humanity are NOT mutually exclusive?? You are making the assumption that acts of terrorism are an either/or issue. My point is that acts of terrorism are both.
So Fielden common criminal operate within the law?
Seriously how far are you willing to spin buddy?
So if I break the law and kill you, the police can kill me - cause I after all operated outside the law in killing you.
But GREAT argument for illegal aleins - guess we can just off the bastards, right?
Silly stuff, even for you.
First of all thank you’ll for stopping by today and giving me a little of you time and attention especially you Joe. You remind me that once you drop all the “libtard” baiting we can exchange some ideas to move us all forward a little
I'm not sure how you get that assumption when my point was that war (invasion) and crimes against humanity are NOT mutually exclusive?? You are making the assumption that acts of terrorism are an either/or issue. My point is that acts of terrorism are both
Perhaps I did and did not realize it. No offense intended on this end for sure. I do understand your point that it is possible for a state sponsored act of terrorism (such as Kaddafi and Pan Am 103) to also be an act of war. That being said then my original point is that without a state sponsor then it is not an act of war but rather a crime against humanity that could be handled properly by a different process than loading up the troopies and blowing the offending party to smithereens. Somewhat more akin to the actions that were taken on Sunday which is really all I expected in the aftermath of 911.
With new information coming out seemingly by the second, this has been a fascinating 36 hours. It looks like a lot of credit can and should be taken here. First of all, it goes without saying that the military and intelligence communities were incredible. The Bush Administration got the ball rolling by gathering the intelligence that led to yesterday's raid. The Obama administration kept the ball rolling by following the lead through and executing an outstanding and bold plan.
I'm going to give the President some props here...I read an article this morning concerning the situation room. The article stated that the Administration faced 3 choices...helicopter / ground troops assault, wait and gather more intel, or aerial bombing. The room was split 50/50. The President slept on it and decided to go with the helicopter / ground troops assault. I think we can all say that he chose wisely. Again, I don't look at this incident as an argument of "We got bin Laden on OUR watch and you didn't" vs. "The intel that helped you get him was gathered on OUR watch". To me, this is a triumph of perseverance and determination across multiple administrations, and the American people should be proud of all involved!
Grimey---the other thing that struck me is that the option chosen was riskier, in terms of possible loss of US lives as well as riskier for the President politically if it had failed. A difficult decision to be sure---makes the President's comments Sat. night about the difficult decisions Donald Trump makes on The Celebrity Apprentice even more ironic.
And what we are learning about this compound sure makes me understand why we kept the Pakistanis in the dark----no different than how they were treating us.
Frank:
I so much want to agree with you, but I just can't. Michael Isikoff, an investigative reporter, has stated that waterboarding at Gitmo and other locations gave no specific information regarding Bin Laden's courier. As stated above in FR, the information came from informants living in Pakastan. After Tora Bora, Bush had no idea where Bin Laden was and publically minimized his importance. Ironically, after Tora Bora, Bin Laden moved to Pakistan.
Grimey. Nice post and I agree with most of it.
However, there is little evidence that what President Bush did intelligence wise can be directly connected to Sunday's events; there is too much evidence to the contrary. I give him credit for getting the ball rolling but that's about all. Why? He took his eye off the ball and headed to Iraq and in early 2002, said he didn't care where OBL was, that he didn't spend time thinking about him. Anyone who was focused on getting OBL would never have made those commments.
Guys...I'm not trying to say that President Bush should get all or even most of the credit. I'm just trying to say that this wasn't something that just happened in the last 2 years...it was something ongoing across administrations. From CNN:
This occurred under former President Bush's watch. Did he make some unfortunate comments in 2002...sure. But clearly, in 2007, we were working on this and US officials confirm that this is where the path to his house began. I'm trying to say that this was a triumph of many, many people...most of all, it was a triumph for all of America. I even went out of my way to tip my cap to President Obama on how he handled this situation. I believe he showed serious leadership skills here!
Grimey,
I don't want to go all Negative Nellie on you; but if only BUSH would have been receptive to the concept of WORKING ACROSS Administrations in the first place,...this whole BS wouldn't have landed in America. Richard Clarke and MANY others have stated countless times that they informed the Bush Administration that Osama bin Laden would be their number one problem and focus and they acted omnipotent and IGNORED the basic facts and realities.
I do agree that it is an American victory; but I take exception to the rewriting of KNOWN historical FACTS.
Steeler Fan...
What on Earth is up with Rashard Mendenhall's tweets about Osama bin Laden?????? Wow!
Too bad Keith Olbermann is no longer on the MSNBC scene.
He could be telling us all how effectively and correctly, with malice aforethought, that President Obama made use of Vice President Cheney's "Assassination Ring".
That would have been special.
To be an Obama Love-fester, you have to gloss over a lot of liberal ideology that he has abandoned. From his clumsy ham-fisted failed attempt to close Gitmo, to his use of Gitmo for the same purpose as Bush created it for, to Obama being against "extreme techniques" of interrogation to use of those same techniques as a tool to collect information, from Obama's steadfast vote against raising the Debt Ceiling, to him now having 100% support for doing the same, from Obama's minions screaming for Bush/Cheney to be charged as war-criminals, to those same minions in total support of Obama attacking sovereign countries as he pleases (see Libya and Pakistan). Think the liberals, the ones on these very pages, wouldn't have been screaming their little lungs out about War Crimes if Bush had attacked Libya without Congressional approval?
The lovefest of the Libs to Obama will never end, well, as long as those Libs completely ignore "certain things", and lots of them.
JoAnnaSmith1, I have taken you to task before for your use of "libs" and have asked what you mean by it. If it is shorthand for "liberals" then I again asked which definition of "liberal" you used....generous? bountiful? Or perhaps you could tell us which word is the opposite of liberal in your vocabulary. If it is "Con," then I would agree, some people have been pulling a Con job on Americans for a long time.
Well done, kate!
Ah, but JoAnna...
Hypocrisy aside, where the rubber hits the road, on national security matters...
For whatever reasons, President Obama has handled most national defense issues in a manner that I approve of...much different than what I expected or believed possible.
More specifically, its hard for me to imagine this President, or any President, handling the bin Laden operation more effectively, or with a better outcome, than President Obama did.
I remain in disagreement with President Obama on a whole array of policy issues, but no way I'm going to look a gift horse in the mouth.
And besides...the reaction of the "usual suspects" here at First Read to the news of bin Laden's death was completely predictable.
I'm enjoying it, myself.
Well said, kate 1855079!
kate 1855079
Your're very spot on regarding JoAnnaSmith1. she always lack facts and statistics.
don't waste too much time on her.
Certainly the bin Laden problem was handled well. But at the same time, isn't this the same "Cowboy Justice" the Left hated Bush for? So now all of a sudden they seem to have changed their tune.
So true. It's an un-ending lovefest for them. They are a simple and easy crew to read and predict.
lol, JoAnna-
Don't let the hypocrisy here get under your skin.
It's so outrageously blatant, and its purveyors are so blissfully oblivious to the irony involved...
Just enjoy it.
Barack Obama...bad-ass, take-no-prisoners, cowboy exterminator.
Only slightly different than first advertised.
Who knew?
I love it.
The left has no problem with justice for those who committed crimes against this country. The left supported President Bush in heading to Afghanistan but not Iraq, not torture, not Gitmo. Tough cowboy talk and the cowboy strutting that came from the Bush oval office was too often empty talk and cowboy swagger.
Kate - how about "liberal" - looking to spend other people's money.
I used to think you libbies also were all into the rule of law - you know trials and lawyers and such. But now, it would appear that is no longer the case.
So Kate can we now just execute KSM? If not why not?
JAS1 on "the libs": "They are a simple and easy crew to read and predict."
As opposed to JAS1, NoJoe, RVZ, the Bobbies, Spanky, etc - all of whom are just sooooo spontaneous and unpredictable. Why, you just never know when they'll choose "worship" over "swooning" or "epic fail" over "worst president ever" or "plaid sky" over "unicorns". Will they mention Kool-aide today? Golf? Love-fest? Hypocrisy? I mean, the suspense most days just has my heart racing in anticipation! It's getting so I can't sleep at night! OMG, what if I don't check in one day and I miss them finally making some grudging admission that their President actualy did some tiny thing right?
Okay.....I know.....I got a little carried away there. Sometimes all this excitement just gets a bit much for someone my age.....
Yep JaAnne now that Obama is walking and talking like a hardcore, trigger pulling, conservative I'm all good.
1. tax cuts. Check;
2. Wars. going strong.
3. Death Squads. Oh Yeah.
4. Supporting the unions [comfortible shoes]. Not so much.
He hangs with his corporate, tax evading buds at GE, so he's all about big business and taxes not so much.
Come to think of it JoAnne - why do you libbies still dig the dude?
The campaign to discredit the Obama administration, no matter what, continues.
First, the right complains that not enough is being done about terrorism. That we are being too cautious and too ordered. Then they complain that we are acting in a too cavalier fashion.
First they complain about inaction. Then they complain about action.
First they complain about being soft, Then they complain about being too hard.
Meanwhile the Administration is getting things done.
Spanky-
"how about "liberal" - looking to spend other people's money"
nope.......ask bush about the healthy check book clinton gave him. there your answer lies. got it?
JoAnne, PA
You forgot teleprompter; but otherwise, a SOLID post!
Yare right Pius, but his ass is gone.
But still even on his worst day... Say we ever get the deficit totals for March '11?
Spanky-
hey, do know that biggest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind happened under bush?
do you also know that americans are more prosperous under dems governance than republicans? you doubt that? let me know pal.
Summed up nicely. I was going to speak to Keynesian economics, re-distribution of wealth, failed stimulus plans, and the like. This sums it up quite well. Simple. Easy for the Libs to understand.
Spanky:
After the cheering has simmered down, these are the realities that the Liberals will need to believe about their hero. To the more low-level fans of his, it won't matter, it's somehow different, their undying love will be, . . . undying. For the ones that think about it though, . . . , how do you think they'll vote?
2012 Obama Campaign Bumper Sticker: "I Am Bush!"
xxx
Clara -
Oops, I forgot "cheering" and "undying love" too. Not to mention basketball brackets. Hey, did you hear about THAT new bumper sticker yet? It's got the final two brackets as Obama vs. Osama. Then strangely enough, the final winner is Obama - not Bush! Oh, well, maybe next year.....
This has gotten absurd -- I assume that Spanky and JoannaSmith1 will now be voting for Obama(=Bush). My original question was actually serious: what do you mean by liberal? Spanky says liberals spend other people's money....so that makes Karl Rove a liberal (all that Global Crossroads money) and Sarah Palin a liberal (SarahPac donations). But Gov. Romney and Gov. Huntsman, who spend their own fortune to get re-elected would be conservative? Of do you mean that Conservatives KEEP other people's money (Bernie Madoff?)
President Obama represents so many firsts:
-the first Presidential candidate criticized for not wearing a flag pin
-the first Presidential candidate to be held responsible for everything any person he has met since he was born has ever said or wrote
-the first Presidential candidate labeled "presumptuous" for putting forth policy positions
-the first President required to produce an extra birth certificate
-the first President denied an honorary degree at a Commencement address
-the first President to be called a liar during a Congressional Address
-the first President where it became okay to bring loaded fire arms to Presidential rallies
Mark me as skeptical about the end of "silly season".
Nash: Sad isn't it? Really really sad.
First Black President Elected to the United States of America, yet in your warped minds, somehow we are all racists.
Poor Obama. He is a victim.
Amen, Nash. Let's not forget the first President not given the respect of his chosen religion.
I guess when they don't have anything serious to say, they fill up the void with silly.
Please tell me where in Nashville Fan's thought-provoking comment did she accuse anyone of racism? She made comments on how the President has been treated by his opponents.
White Collar Auto:
I did not see the word "racist" in my post . . . wonder why you brought it up? Freudian slip?
JoAnna:
Actually, you are the victim. You prove that daily.
What's the matter Nashers? Someone interfere with your victim-fest for Obama?
Gee guys, I don't know. Maybe the omission of the Obama's most important first and the screams from you all on this board every day calling anyone who disagrees with him a racist is where I formed my reponse to Nash's little list. You libs are a lot of things. Smart ain't one of 'em.
The last word I would ever use to describe our President is victim.
President Obama is a good man and a great President and he has earned better than he gotten.
JoAnna:
You are a very small person in a very small comment section repeating a very small message of ignorace and hatred. Like I said, you are the victim. . . although I don't expect you to have the capacity to comprehend that. "Nashers" pities you.
White Collar Auto:
If you think the problem is racism, fine with me. I don't really care what the motivation is, I think it is a damn shame.
So true, Nashville. I think listing the "silly" list of firsts says it all; this is the only way conservatives can think these days. They have no new ideas, all they have are flag pin mentality and the politics of character attacks.
White Collar. You missed the point entirely. This is not a list of accomplishment firsts, it is a list of Conservative silly crap firsts.
Jody, I did not the miss the point in the least. This was a whiny list of reasons of why we should all feel sorry for Obama.
Actually, White Collar, it is a list of why I feel sorry for you and folks who think as you do.
WCA. Yes, you did miss the point. It was not a list of why we should feel sorry for our President but a list of the absolutely stupid and silly things that have been part of politics the past three years. The ones I feel sorry for are those like you who cannot look at the absurd list with all the problems we face and wonder why wearing a flag pin has any relevance to political debate for the future.
White
What is a Collar Auto?
PS. Nash, SF et al - do you guys remember when then Candidate Obama was lampooned for mentioning that proper tire inflation would help with rising fuel costs? He sure wasn't a 'victim' the day he told them "It's like they take pride in being IGNORANT!"
We see it here EVERYDAY. Proud Ignorance. A choice? Nature versus Nurture? Who knows? But PROUD, oh so PROUD!
Clara . . . I had actually forgotten that one . . . proud and ignorant is certainly an epidemic these days, that is for sure!
More than halfway through this first term of Obama's I must admit he did not prove to be what I hoped for when I cast my vote. I am still waiting to see if the Republicans can produce a candidate for 2012 that is devoid of the particular brand of crazy that's latched onto the conservative wing of this country in recent memory.
Time and again I've stated here and elsewhere that I am not a fan of the GOP declaring themselves the champions of hands-off, small government while they willfully mash their hands into social affairs that do not need the piercing gaze of Dr. T.J. Eckleburg boring into them.
That, however, is a rant for another time. More to the point, in spite of my vast disagreements with the President, like MB, I have no qualm whatsoever with the handling of Osama bin Laden. Obama deserves our accolades for this accomplishment and the fervor with which so many - Republicans, Democrats and independents alike - have politicized this event smacks of bad form, bad taste and bad judgment.
In response to Nash's initial post in this thread, all of it rings true. I do not recall Clinton or Bush being asked to provide multiple copies of their birth certificate, nor do I remember either of them suffering a loss of decorum during a State of the Union address - odd considering liberals, as a rule, assume Bush was lying whenever his mouth was moving and Clinton held the all-too-appropriate moniker of 'Slick Willy' that conservatives doubtless guffaw over thanks to that title's double entendre.
I think it is extremely unfair to paint all critics of President Obama as racists, much as it was extremely unfair to paint all critics of President Bush as traitors. But we must be honest and admit that the heaping of additional quantifiers upon Obama does carry a racist tinge to it, if only because there is no other reasonable cause for them - unless, of course, we plan to ask every candidate from 2012 forward to provide the long form of their birth certificate when registering to campaign and continue on with the intense scrutiny of minutiæ as a brave, new American tradition.
Well said Exodite Dragon, thanks for adding your perspective.
President Obama should be able to take the same level of credit for the success of this operation that eliminated Bin Laden, equally proportionate to the same level of blame he would have gotten had this operation failed.
Gee Pat, when you put it that way seems the answer would be "all of it."
Everyone forgot what happens when a President fails. Carter and Reagan were both burned at the stake for Desert One and the Beirut Marine Corps Barracks bombing. Obama would have taken 100% of the blame and by the way he made the decision, would have deserved it.
That's very true. This was probably the most politically dangerous course the President could have taken...and the right one.
As a man that went looking for Bin Laden I could not believe the news we got him. I would have greatfully put the bullet in his head, and I know my other friends in the spec ops community would have too. But why not the green berets or delta, but that is just ego and friendly rivalry.
I hate aghanistan being there left me feeling impotent about the military and how we diverted ourselves to iraq. We should have killed this man almost 10 years ago and now that I am fat and old we get him. so not fair.
To the SEALs I commend them for thier bravery and hard training the sacrifices that most americans will rarely appreciate and never understand.
Justice was done, and we in a America the greatest country on the planet deserve this.
I can't remember which poster always calls President Obama Barry, but even former VP Dick Cheny praised the president and was sincere, maybe you can too for a little while at least.
Keith22:
Kudos to you and very well written. Thank you for your sacrifice and service. I feel your feelings on how you felt in the battle field. Many of us felt the same way many many years ago in a different country.
Thanks agin for a well written post.
Keeth:
First of all: Thank you for your service. Servicemen and women have protected the right of free speech for both Republicans and Democrats. For that you all deserve a special blessing. I don't know special ops teams are selected, but I do believe that the Green Berets and Delta force teams are equally qualified.
I also agree that Americans who respect the Office of the President should use demeaning names.
Well said, keeth 22, and to add to others: Thank you for your service.
Frank:
I agree with most of what you said. Where I disagree is with those that are trying to give President Bush the credit. He just does not deserve it. While he did lay down some of the ground work and he did have much of the same intelligence that people are talking about, he did nothing with it. He let OBL get out of Tora Bora, he pulls resources out of Afghan to fight a war in Iraq that was based on lies, etc.
I will not ackowldge any credit to President Bush other than he did get the ball rolling to an extent then ignored it and did not see it through. In my book that does not get any vote from me.
Our President acted and got the job done. There is NO comparison to Bush at all. One did the job with no lost of American Life and the enemy was destroyed. The other was impotent and failed.
Enough said.
Under President Bush the White didn’t follow the advice of the intelligent community. Instead, they the White House under President Bush created the intelligence as they saw fit for the intelligent community.
Navy. It did not take the media long to give the Bush crowd the credit for this, they claim that someone Bush tortured seven years ago is responsible for ridding the world of Osama. What a crock.
Hey Navy...
Not trying to give President Bush all the credit...not by a long shot. I'm saying that the intelligence trail that led us to OBL began under the Bush administration. From everything I've read so far, it sounds like the courier's name was discovered four years ago and from there, we proceded slowly across 2 administrations to make sure that we got it right. I can't even act like I know what was going on in the intelligence community in the time in between.
All I'm saying is that this was the cumulation of a lot of hard work across two administrations.
Always good to chat with you my friend!
Frank:
Thank you, I can agree with that. Be well my friend.
Agree with Frank. Isn't it enough that we as a country eliminated this person who did and given the chance would again inflict serious harm on our country? History will never be able to say with certainty that 76% of the credit goes to Obama and 24% to Bush, it just doesn't work that way.
We got the guy, we won this particular battle. Why not take the victory lap together, thank everyone from the current President who green lighted the mission to the brave soldiers who executed it to the taxpayer who helped fund it.
roybokhade:
I would be honored to take that victory lap with ya.
USN,
Unfortunately my friend we've already returned to our regularly scheduled hate, blame and political vittriol. I read most of what people post here, though I rarely comment as it seems like such a waste of time.
It's Bush's fault, he's a war criminal, he got us into this financial mess, read this article, look at this number etc. The other side says the same thing about Obama, socialist, Muslim, x trillion in debt etc. Ok, fine, impeach Obama and try, convict and sentence both him and Bush for treason. Then what? Nothing changes, we're still in the same mess, but then we can go after Biden and then probably Clinton and Bush 41 for the same things. Personally, I blame Taft and I have the numbers to prove it.
Pat, i agree... what people are over looking is the balls it took to send American troops into an unoccupied country, less then a mile from a military academy and a few military installations, to engage in a firefight and kill the number one most wanted man in the world. He took a great risk and deserves a great reward. Not many people would have the fortitude to make such a gutsy call. Had something gone wrong he would have been crucified by the press and by politicians on both sides. He weighed the risk and went for it. The praise he should get for this successful mission should be equal in amplitude to the beating he would have taken if the mission had been botched.
Unbeleivible!! First Read and the Daily Rundown along with the rest of the "liberal media" has gone into overdrive to minimise the incredible acheivment of President Obama and his team in ridding the world of Osama.
Funny, I didn't see Bush or any of his team in the photos released of the situation room during the raid on OBL's compound. Maybe Bush was on vacation.
Tom. But they sure have been all over cable taking credit for other peoples work.
Tom, Yreka
Well, you should maybe count Robert Gates, but what an incredible photo! Someone should get a Pulitzer for it!
Naw, just out on the ranch clearing brush, as usual...
One for the Toads:
Could not have said it better. Touche'
As one comedian said on TV yesterday the environment has taken another hit. We had the oil spill polluting the Gulf, then the radiation form Japan in the Sea and now OBL in the Ocean.
You slay me USN. First, the most succinct retelling of the happenings of the last 24 hours of head spinning history rewriting by the Buscheny peanut gallery. Now this morbid wit that forces a grin.
I like your style...Thank you for your service.
Missy TX:
You have a great day stay safe and be well. I saw that little quip last night and in spite of what was going on I got a little chuckle from it. Just passing it on.
You keep posting you have a lot to contribute.
Yesterday MSNBC ran an article with this headline:
Across New York City, joy that 'Obama got Osama'
Judging from the comments in response to the article, the same sort of people who liked to show their contempt for the president by playing on the similarity of his last name to Bin Laden's first name didn't appreciate THAT particular rhyme of the two names. But "Obama got Osama" is the only rhyme that's true. So much for Palin's "Palling around with terrorists" lie.
You cut off all aid to anyone outside the USA and you level Pakistan for lying to us ..but first you freeze any assets they hold in the USA and add it to the general fund !
Sure, that way Pakistan's nuclear weapons are sure to land in the hands of terrorists. Our relationship with Pakistan is complicated. Pakistan sees India as their enemy not al Qaeda or the Taliban; it will take years to convince them their enemy is within. Throwing them under the bus would cause more harm than the satisfaction gleaned in doing so. The very fact that the U.S. took this action could actually help Pakistan realize they must do even more to cooperate in the fight against terrorism; Pakistan is proud and they now must explain why they failed to report that OBL was there.
Kudos to our President. I am elated to see that we finally put this witch hunt behind us. Good riddance.
It would be insane to not be pleased by the death of bin Laden. But one must wonder at the implications. Back about two thousand years ago, it has been considered that The Jews killed Jesus, an absurdity perhaps, but a belief that determined the persecution of The Jews ever since, mainly by Christians. The result of the death if this desert wandering "prophet" is that more than one billion people now consider him a deified martyr and the things they have done in his name have been beyond imagining. Beyond that, the declaration by our commandos at the killing of bin Laden, "For God and Country, Geronimo, Geronimo, Geronimo." bears the eerie echo of Mohammed Atta who yelled "God is Great" just as he plowed a plane in The World Trade Center.All this along with the recent statements that the water-boardings at Guantanamo might have been justified afterall. We should most fear that terrorism has begun to turn us into the thing we most detest.
While they're debating the release of any of the 'death' photos - I hope they give Gaddafi a good long look at them!
Ursula: Gaddafi has to be a wee bit nervous by now!
Ursula-- And when Gaddafi is gone it would logically follow that G.W. Bush deserves the credit. Bush is probably hitting the sauce over all this.
Tom,Yreka - you might be right about Bush hitting the bottle. I truly wish Gaddafi would take his cue and exit but I suspect he's insane and incapable of drawing the appropriate conclusions.
hitting the bottle? What kind of petty loser are you?
John M, I was commenting on Tom, Yreka's post, but if you're a Bush fan, you might get your feathers ruffled here.
Sadly, it seems a number of folks on the Right have issues giving President Obama any credit. Seriously, is he or is he not Commander-In-Chief?
No...instead, I've read too much from too many people who seem to think that President Obama was merely along for the ride and was just lucky to be there. Sorry, I'm not buying it.
Does President Obama deserve the lion's share of the credit? Of course not.
But, ponder this...
Who would be blamed if the mission failed? The answer is simple...President Obama would be the only one blamed and is political opponents would be using words like RESIGNATION and IMPEACHMENT.
If he gets all the blame if it goes wrong it seems to me you can't make his participation as CIC an afterthought when giving credit for a job well done.
Da Noid
But that would be a fair and reasonable standard. Republicans will never stand for that sort of thing.
First of all don't Thank Obama he had nothing to do with this. All the credit should be given to OUR UNITED STATE MILITARY. Obama was the biggest mistake the liberals made, he tells the general public what they want to hear and yet has done nothing. Good ridden to Bin Laden, now go after the rest of these usless pieces of ----!
Drivel.
Derrr
Not - If you've followed the events closely, he does get the credit. He made the decision to send the Seals. Granted they did the work, and a great job, but the onus was on Obama to make the right choices. Give credit where credit is due. If it hadn't worked out, you sure as hell would have blamed him. The screaming from the Republican party would be endless.
Its amazing how these right winged nut jobs refuse to give The President credit for this historical moment, which took place on his watch. These same ignorant, bigoted yokels were all too quick to pin the recession, debt and bail-outs on The President, even though it began on George Duh-bya's watch! The hypocrisy is so apparent and the Rethuglicans and tea baggers are losing creditability with every Obama victory. While they spew hate and use vitriol and fear mongering for political gain, the President just keeps working and digging us out of one Republican made mess after another.
Destroying Medicare, de-funding education and social programs, and tax cuts and subsidies for the rich and big business continues to be their sole focus. Under this Reaganomics thinking carried on by the Rethuglican administrations, America's debt went from 90 million under Reagan to almost 11 Trillion by the time Obama took office (5 trillion under GW alone). So much for the debt and spending platform they like to stand on. Clinton left office with a surplus so let the record reflect the Rethuglican's desire to rape this country and redistribute the wealth, thus eliminating the middle class. Bottom line, Obama will win in 2012 because the American people are on to you "party of no" ingrates! Great job, President Obama... now on to fixing the next problem and your re-election on 2012!
The party of the right cannot stand to give Obama any credit for killing Osama. They didn't see it coming because they were to busy killing off the USA.
Kudos to the Comander in Chief, our Intelligence community and as always, our Military!