3rdnlng Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 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. I'm not going to argue with you about a hypothetical. McCains statements were made in '08 when we viewed Pakistan to be at least trying to work with us. Obama deserves credit for doing the right thing. He had choices of doing what he did, sending a smart bomb down the chimney or do nothing. He wanted proof that they got him and we also gained one hell of a lot of intelligence. I believe that McCain, Hillary or Romney would have done the same thing. They may have kept the fact that we garnered a lot of intelligence secret though, and not try to use it politically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted May 31, 2012 Author 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. Agreed - 99.9999% of the credit goes to the troops. With respect to foreign policy: My concern is that puss ass, over-thinking, beholden to international ally, politicians would have taken away the opportunity for the best military in the world to conduct its business. That's why the McCains and Dodds and Clintons of the world would have put us at a competitive disadvantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Agreed - 99.9999% of the credit goes to the troops. With respect to foreign policy: My concern is that puss ass, over-thinking, beholden to international ally, politicians would have taken away the opportunity for the best military in the world to conduct its business. That's why the McCains and Dodds and Clintons of the world would have put us at a competitive disadvantage. I'm not so sure- candidate Obama is vastly different than President Obama, for obvious reasons. In all fairness, Senator McCain probably would have been different as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted May 31, 2012 Author Share Posted May 31, 2012 I'm not going to argue with you about a hypothetical. McCains statements were made in '08 when we viewed Pakistan to be at least trying to work with us. Obama deserves credit for doing the right thing. He had choices of doing what he did, sending a smart bomb down the chimney or do nothing. He wanted proof that they got him and we also gained one hell of a lot of intelligence. I believe that McCain, Hillary or Romney would have done the same thing. They may have kept the fact that we garnered a lot of intelligence secret though, and not try to use it politically. Obama using it politically is classless and weaksauce. I agree. An objective was accomplished, that should be its own reward. To include that on a resume for re-election is to profoundly trivialize a momentous occassion. And I know that one can't prove a negative. Who knows what Hillary or Romney or McCain would have done in that moment. One would hope that they would have acted similarly. I'm picking out statements in a vaccuum and that is not necessarily fair to them but I don't have anything else to go on to make a determination. More than anything, this is an indictment of politicians who put international politics and allyism ahead of our national agenda and priorities. It has been happening too often lately. It seems like every other country has their domestic best interest as a priority except for us (look at Asian and Western European nations). Fu(((k "kumbaya." "Kumbaya" is not going to keep us safe or stop the inequity in the global trade economy. I don't understand why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 He made the decision and took the risk, credit where credit is due. That said I know several military folks who are of the opinion that you don't go to McDonalds and give credit to Ronald McDonald for your cheeseburger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I blame Bush for it's success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Obama using it politically is classless and weaksauce. I agree. An objective was accomplished, that should be its own reward. To include that on a resume for re-election is to profoundly trivialize a momentous occassion. And I know that one can't prove a negative. Who knows what Hillary or Romney or McCain would have done in that moment. One would hope that they would have acted similarly. I'm picking out statements in a vaccuum and that is not necessarily fair to them but I don't have anything else to go on to make a determination. More than anything, this is an indictment of politicians who put international politics and allyism ahead of our national agenda and priorities. It has been happening too often lately. It seems like every other country has their domestic best interest as a priority except for us (look at Asian and Western European nations). Fu(((k "kumbaya." "Kumbaya" is not going to keep us safe or stop the inequity in the global trade economy. I don't understand why. We can agree then. I'm saying that from my perspective Obama did the right thing up to the point of Osama's death. After that too much was made public. There is a Navy Seal's name who was involved with the operation that was somehow made public. F'n movie producers/directors were given access to top secret info. They bragged about the intelligence found at the compound. What they should have done is keep his killing quiet for as long as they could and used the intelligence to get as many other bad guys as they could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted May 31, 2012 Author Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) I'm not so sure- candidate Obama is vastly different than President Obama, for obvious reasons. In all fairness, Senator McCain probably would have been different as well. That's for sure. One reason that he didn't get my vote was because of the neo-Wilsonian liberalist view of foreign policy and international relations that he espoused during the campaign. I don't really care about working with other nations (but realize that is absolutely necessary). In fact, I think we should be inherently skeptical of other nations except for the UK, Canada, France and Israel. If we help nations financially, it gets corrupted. If we help nations by investing in grassroots movements to coup d' etat, we ended up creating the monster that we originally sought to defeat. If we end up protecting their people from that new menace, we're now subsidizing the opposite ideological group - incidentally, the same one that we toppled the first time around. If we don't help, they think we're flaunting and hate us for being rich. If we do help, we're trying to take the spotlight and favoring nations. If we're silent, we're indifferent. If we speak, we're meddling in international affairs and favoring. If we don't trade, we're being punitive. If we do trade, we're subsidizing a burgeoning nuclear weapons program.... We need to take care of business at home and stop looking at every decision in the prizm of its ultimate impact on international relations. Frankly, I don't give a !@#$ what some Dutchman thinks about our policy on trade with _______. Edited May 31, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 France? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted May 31, 2012 Author Share Posted May 31, 2012 France? Well they're a cantankerous bunch and somewhat effeminate as a group but they have demonstrably had our backs except for some hiccups during the W years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Well they're a cantankerous bunch and somewhat effeminate as a group but they have demonstrably had our backs except for some hiccups during the W years. Had our backs? That's a good one. The only reason they've had our backs is because they run that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Well they're a cantankerous bunch and somewhat effeminate as a group but they have demonstrably had our backs except for some hiccups during the W years. Afraid I will always associate France with the Vichy "goverment" What cowards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Afraid I will always associate France with the Vichy "goverment" What cowards. People in Vichy feel the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 He made the decision and took the risk, credit where credit is due. That said I know several military folks who are of the opinion that you don't go to McDonalds and give credit to Ronald McDonald for your cheeseburger Obama had as much to do with getting Bin Laden as Chan Gailey does with a smooth running beer vendor at Ralph Wilson Stadium. Anyone would have given that go ahead and btw wasn't there a memo that illustrated how Barry covered his ass if something went wrong? If the commander perceived any additional risk he was to inform Barry before proceeding with the mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Obama had as much to do with getting Bin Laden as Chan Gailey does with a smooth running beer vendor at Ralph Wilson Stadium. Anyone would have given that go ahead and btw wasn't there a memo that illustrated how Barry covered his ass if something went wrong? If the commander perceived any additional risk he was to inform Barry before proceeding with the mission. In other words, we had no reason to go after Osama Bin Laden in the first place........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) 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. Oh, please. This is precisely why you hear countless people puking when they think of Obama and Bin Laden. He made a decision probably any other person in his position would have made. And it's not that "one day in time" that people will remember but rather all the other embarrassing days surrounding that one amazing day in time. Give him a political credit? Sure, whatever that is. But stop with the hyperbole, please. In case you haven't noticed, this country is messed up pretty badly right now, and we have Obama imitating Michael Keaton in "Gung Ho" standing around a bunch of cars that don't work saying "Did I ever tell you about the time I threw a touchdown in that big game when I was in high school?" Obama could have slit Bin Laden's throat with his own steak knife on a live feed and it won't matter one bit if we wake up tomorrow and find out we've only added another 150,000 jobs heading Summer of Recovery V 3.2. Edited May 31, 2012 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Oh, please. This is precisely why you hear countless people puking when they think of Obama and Bin Laden. He made a decision probably any other person in his position would have made. And it's not that "one day in time" that people will remember but rather all the other embarrassing days surrounding that one amazing day in time. Give him a political credit? Sure, whatever that is. But stop with the hyperbole, please. In case you haven't noticed, this country is messed up pretty badly right now, and we have Obama imitating Michael Keaton in "Gung Ho" standing around a bunch of cars that don't work saying "Did I ever tell you about the time I threw a touchdown in that big game when I was in high school?" Obama could have slit Bin Laden's throat with his own steak knife on a live feed and it won't matter one bit if we wake up tomorrow and find out we've only added another 150,000 jobs heading Summer of Recovery V 3.2. Yeah were all so much better under Bush. Stupid Obama screwed all that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Yeah were all so much better under Bush. Stupid Obama screwed all that up. We're... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Yeah were all so much better under Bush. Stupid Obama screwed all that up. Nozzlenut returns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Oh no, first MDP and this is back? I suppose Hedd is next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts