Juror#8 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Just finished a very developed conversation with a colleague about this. I know that this topic was discussed last year but I want to introduce a new spin on it... Does he deserve political credit and/or did he demonstrate political courage? Short answer: Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Just finished a very developed conversation with a colleague about this. I know that this topic was discussed last year but I want to introduce a new spin on it... Does he deserve political credit and/or did he demonstrate political courage? Short answer: Yes. If he'd have ordered the hit and failed, he would have been grilled for it. It's the rest that most people have an issue with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted May 31, 2012 Author Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) If he'd have ordered the hit and failed, he would have been grilled for it. It's the rest that most people have an issue with. Some other forums that I frequent don't feel he deserves credit (some feel that he deserves all the credit) but he seems to have been the only one (amongst the '08 options) with the fortitude, willingness, and focus to do it realistically (well...besides maybe Duncan Hunter). Kudos to him. Edited May 31, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) I am a critic. He is a community organizer with no executive skills and the sooner that we are rid of him the better off the country will be. However, he was the President when this occurred, he took the intelligence and expertise that was offered and (after a several month delay) did give the go-ahead for this very successful mission, and for that he should get all the credit he deserves. It grates on me when they bring it up in his re-election campaign, but seriously................................... what else have they got to point to?..........................................lol . Edited May 31, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted May 31, 2012 Author Share Posted May 31, 2012 I am a critic. He is a community organizer with no executive skills and the sooner that we are rid of him the better off the country will be. However, he was the President when this occurred, he took the intelligence and expertise that was offered and (after a several month delay) did give the go-ahead for this very successful mission, and for that he should get all the credit he deserves. It grates on me when they bring it up in his re-election campaign, but seriously................................... what else have they got to point to?..........................................lol . Slightly more than that, the decision suggests a keen discernment and strong personal constitution that unfortunately few other politicians have/had. That doesn't supplement for lacking policy skills though. I just think that McCain would have botched it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Just finished a very developed conversation with a colleague about this. I know that this topic was discussed last year but I want to introduce a new spin on it... Does he deserve political credit and/or did he demonstrate political courage? Short answer: Yes. I was going to say "no"...but the idea of "political credit" bugs me to begin with. Credit in this particular context amounts to "had his ass in the big chair at the time"...which is pretty much the definition of "political credit" as far as I can tell, so...yes, I guess he does. The problem I have with that whole line of thinking, though, is that it devolves the work of thousands of other people into the decision of one guy who ultimately had very little to do with the work of the thousands of other people. It's the "Great Man" theory of historical events, which I have very strong disagreement with. You'd be hard-pressed to find ANY situation where a leader took credit for something that I couldn't describe as a culmination of events he had very little to do with. Did he demonstrate political courage? In my opinion, no...but I do recognize the argument that he did because he'd have taken the heat if the raid failed. But then, I don't think he'd have deserved the heat for failure any more than he deserves the credit for success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Slightly more than that, the decision suggests a keen discernment and strong personal constitution that unfortunately few other politicians have/had. That doesn't supplement for lacking policy skills though. I just think that McCain would have botched it. That's not good enough. Tell us why you think a former military person who appears to act in a reasoned manner, would have botched it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Slightly more than that, the decision suggests a keen discernment and strong personal constitution that unfortunately few other politicians have/had. That doesn't supplement for lacking policy skills though. I just think that McCain would have botched it. What discernment? He didn't plan the mission. He gave the okay. If anything, from all I've heard, he demonstrated a lack of discernment in not even considering the effect it would have on Pakistan. Bush demonstrated as much personal constitution, with better discernment, throughout most of his administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I just think that McCain would have botched it. Senator McCain disagrees......................lol “I say any president, Jimmy Carter, anybody, any president would have obviously under those circumstances done the same thing,” McCain said. When host Bill O’Reilly pointed out that Biden would not have, McCain’s response was basically, “eh, anybody but Biden”: Think Progress . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 As a Civilian holding the elected office, never having had miltary training, you are giving the order for deliberate taking of another human beings life... now that particular human being is dirt, but that is beside the point.... going in the Pak and making that call was solid.... I have no issue with the campaign citing this. National Security, one of the few enumerated powers of the Federal Government, is an issue the Presdient should be strong on, be able to be decicive about.... full kudos. I have to wonder once BHO got into the national security breifings, he rethought just for a minute all the gruff Bush took for Gitmo and other defense issues... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) Tell me it's not all about politics all the time with him. David Axelrod, his campaign manager attends highly sensitive security briefings? Can you imagine the howling from everyone if George Bush had Carl Rove attend those? http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/closest-political-adviser-attends-obamas-kill-list-meetings_646256.html Edited May 31, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Tell me it's not all about politics all the time with him. David Axelrod, his campaign manager attends highly sensitive security briefings? Can you imagine the howling from everyone if George Bush had Carl Rove attend those? http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/closest-political-adviser-attends-obamas-kill-list-meetings_646256.html Um, he's a politician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted May 31, 2012 Author Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) B-Man, DC, and 3rd, this is why I'm making that points that I'm making - Here is the rub...Obama took so much heat for saying in 2008 that he would strike Al Queda in Pakistan. Clinton, Biden, and McCain pilloried his statements. In fact he was just about the lone voice saying "this is what would be done in this instance..." The rest of them equivocated...and postured...and spoke in platitudes.... And Obama did what he said he'd do. The decision was even more laudable when you consider the political calculation and what the various criticisms during the campaign. Remember this gem from McCain: "Will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan?" asked the Arizona senator. Even after the Wisconsin speech, McCain reiterated his criticism. The next day, he said, “You make plans and you work with the other country that is your ally and friend, which Pakistan is.” “You don’t broadcast and say that you’re going to bomb a country without their permission.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/02/obama-pakistan-policy_n_856321.html According to all indications post-mission, though, coordinating with Pakistan would have been a nightmare: http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/03/cia-chief-breaks-silence-u-s-ruled-out-involving-pakistan-in-bin-laden-raid-early-on/ So based on his own articulated sentiments, I feel that McCain would have botched it. Clinton too. Biden too. They were all equivocating 'do nothings' who were too afraid to take a position and stand on it. Bush wasn't; Obama wasn't. I respect them both for that constitution. Edited May 31, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) One of the things I LIKED about Obama was, from the get-go, he said he was going to go after bin Laden hard. And he delivered on that. He stated it was one of his objectives when he was elected. He accomplished the objective. Credit is his. Edited May 31, 2012 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 B-Man, DC, and 3rd, this is why I'm making that points that I'm making - youtube.com/watch?v=mYefHfokP44 Here is the rub...Obama took so much heat for saying in 2008 that he would strike Al Queda in Pakistan. Clinton, Biden, and McCain pilloried his statements. In fact he was just about the lone voice saying "this is what would be done in this instance..." The rest of them equivocated...and postured...and spoke in platitudes.... And Obama did what he said he'd do. The decision was even more laudable when you consider the political calculation and what the various criticisms during the campaign. Remember this gem from McCain: "Will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan?" asked the Arizona senator. Even after the Wisconsin speech, McCain reiterated his criticism. The next day, he said, “You make plans and you work with the other country that is your ally and friend, which Pakistan is.” “You don’t broadcast and say that you’re going to bomb a country without their permission.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/02/obama-pakistan-policy_n_856321.html According to all indications post-mission, though, coordinating with Pakistan would have been a nightmare: http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/03/cia-chief-breaks-silence-u-s-ruled-out-involving-pakistan-in-bin-laden-raid-early-on/ So based on his own articulated sentiments, I feel that McCain would have botched it. Clinton too. Biden too. They were all equivocating 'do nothings' who were too afraid to take a position and stand on it. Bush wasn't; Obama wasn't. I respect them both for that constitution. The first clip of Obama had him saying he would bomb Pakistan. It sounded like he would be willing to invade that country. Besides it was edited and possibly taken out of context. McCain focused mostly on not telegraphing what you were going to do. Obama's second clip said that he would go into Pakistan if Pakistan wouldn't go after Osama. Regardless showing a bunch of clips out of context and not knowing what was said and in what chronological order, is pretty weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Regardless showing a bunch of clips out of context and not knowing what was said and in what chronological order, is pretty weak. Thats SOP for pretty much everything in politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted May 31, 2012 Author Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) The first clip of Obama had him saying he would bomb Pakistan. It sounded like he would be willing to invade that country. Besides it was edited and possibly taken out of context. McCain focused mostly on not telegraphing what you were going to do. Obama's second clip said that he would go into Pakistan if Pakistan wouldn't go after Osama. Regardless showing a bunch of clips out of context and not knowing what was said and in what chronological order, is pretty weak. I'm gonna stand by my points on this one. Whatever you think of the edited youtube clip, there is also documented history of their statements - in context - in articles, newspapers, and other print media. Obama said: "They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." McCain said: “You make plans and you work with the other country that is your ally and friend, which Pakistan is.” You'll be hard-pressed to find any context that diminishes those sentiments as expressed during the 2008 campaign. At the end of the day, McCain suggested that we coordinate with allies first and avoid the surgical strike/unilateral approach to going into Pakistan for terrorist targets. Obama said, "I presume that you knew he was there and you didn't do schit about it so fu((k it, let's roll!" I prefer the latter approach. It aligns more closely with my view of foreign policy. Obama deserves A LOT of credit for taking it on the chin when it was hypothetical, but still doing exactly what he said he was going to do 2 years later - though the stakes and ramifications would have been considerably higher than on the debate circuit. Edited May 31, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 He gets credit for the mission being carried out. The troops get credit for its success. By the same logic that gives him credit, it is a mere pointless assassination, if you don't give him credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted May 31, 2012 Author Share Posted May 31, 2012 For that one day in time, I'm glad that we had a commander-in-chief who was willing to take decisive action and not be swayed by every permutation and geo-political calculation. And we can't say that ANY president would have acted similarly and not weighed all the different cost benefit calculations...Clinton !@#$ed it up, Bush !@#$ed it up when there was actionable intelligence of OBL in Tora Bora. It could have been another "what if" scenario that everyone postulates for years afterwards. We could have had to endure more talking heads and "in-the-know" reporters on the Sunday talk shows discussing the intelligence source that claims that Bin Laden was there in the compound but the executive decision was made to wait and see. If McCain were in office, he would have played the coordination game with the Pakistanis. He would have showed his hand and the Pakistani government would have shuttled OBL off to some cave somewhere. The only one gettng played would have been him. Fu((k that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 For that one day in time, I'm glad that we had a commander-in-chief who was willing to take decisive action and not be swayed by every permutation and geo-political calculation. And we can't say that ANY president would have acted similarly and not weighed all the different cost benefit calculations...Clinton !@#$ed it up, Bush !@#$ed it up when there was actionable intelligence of OBL in Tora Bora. It could have been another "what if" scenario that everyone postulates for years afterwards. We could have had to endure more talking heads and "in-the-know" reporters on the Sunday talk shows discussing the intelligence source that claims that Bin Laden was there in the compound but the executive decision was made to wait and see. If McCain were in office, he would have played the coordination game with the Pakistanis. He would have showed his hand and the Pakistani government would have shuttled OBL off to some cave somewhere. The only one gettng played would have been him. Fu((k that. The New Pakistani Relations Strategy: Special Ops and Drones enough !@#$ing around, and lets bank that foreign aide money as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts