erynthered Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Nozzlenut returns She just forgot to log in under her current alais MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 She just forgot to log in under her current alais MARCELL DAREUS POWER Nah I think she's BiggieScooby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 As someone stated, they disappeared when Obama came to power. Does their return mean that Obama is on his way out? (Please, Please Please) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted May 31, 2012 Author 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. I've mentioned why that is not necessarily the case. And what of the failed attempts and innaction by former presidents? If Bush would have acted quickly on obl in Tora Bora, would he have been doing what any president would have done? So what does it do to your thesis that he didn't act? Is that what any president would do too? And, most importantly, how do you reconcile those two diametric opposities that your contention is forced to confront? Or are you going to acknowledge that presidents face huge judgement calls with outcomes the extent to which your insiginificant ass can hardly fathom and surely can't appreciate as you wax poetically on a 16 x 4 1/2 inch keyboard. Some make the right call. Historically, and in instances similar to what Obama confronted, more presidents have made the wrong call. So chill with the "anyone would have done....." bs. No. You're wrong. That **** is easy to say after-the-fact. We hope that they would but historically they haven't. Next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I've mentioned why that is not necessarily the case. And what of the failed attempts and innaction by former presidents? If Bush would have acted quickly on obl in Tora Bora, would he have been doing what any president would have done? So what does it do to your thesis that he didn't act? Is that what any president would do too? And, most importantly, how do you reconcile those two diametric opposities that your contention is forced to confront? Or are you going to acknowledge that presidents face huge judgement calls with outcomes the extent to which your insiginificant ass can hardly fathom and surely can't appreciate as you wax poetically on a 16 x 4 1/2 inch keyboard. Some make the right call. Historically, and in instances similar to what Obama confronted, more presidents have made the wrong call. So chill with the "anyone would have done....." bs. No. You're wrong. That **** is easy to say after-the-fact. We hope that they would but historically they haven't. Next. Not to mention, you can make the right call and sometimes get the wrong outcome. It is a difficult job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 As someone stated, they disappeared when Obama came to power. Does their return mean that Obama is on his way out? (Please, Please Please) Can you imagine a Palin presidency? It would cause a reaction that would make the exorcist look like a sneeze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Unquestionably- YES! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted May 31, 2012 Author Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) 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. There are topics devoted to the economy to discuss his handling of the economy. That is not the purpose of this thread. This is not about obl as subterfuge. It's about the decision-making behind that effort. I don't agree with how he is using it politically but at this moment when my finger is tapping this "K"ey, I don't give a ****. And as I mentioned to Dante, chill with the "anyone would have done..." bs. No, they wouldn't have. You're wrong. Obama did the right thing and it took courage. Other idiots, democrats and republicans, !@#$ed schit up. And what of the McCain comments that suggest that such a course of action wouldn't have transpired during a McCain presidency? Let me guess, you're going to provide an interpretation better than his exact words. I'm sure he appreciates that. It's slightly revisionist and ahistorical but it goes down easier than cooked carrots and moonshine. But those who are not hanging on the nuts of irrationality understand that right is right and wrong is wrong - no matter how much you detest the current economic condition. And in the event that you missed my response to Dante: I've mentioned why that is not necessarily the case. And what of the failed attempts and innaction by former presidents? If Bush would have acted quickly on obl in Tora Bora, would he have been doing what any president would have done? So what does it do to your thesis that he didn't act? Is that what any president would do too? And, most importantly, how do you reconcile those two diametric opposities that your contention is forced to confront? Or are you going to acknowledge that presidents face huge judgement calls with outcomes the extent to which your insiginificant ass can hardly fathom and surely can't appreciate as you wax poetically on a 16 x 4 1/2 inch keyboard. Some make the right call. Historically, and in instances similar to what Obama confronted, more presidents have made the wrong call. So chill with the "anyone would have done....." bs. No. You're wrong. That **** is easy to say after-the-fact. We hope that they would but historically they haven't. Next. Edited May 31, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Yeah were all so much better under Bush. Stupid Obama screwed all that up. It lives?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Next. You are using rather odd logic. You start the thread........................and when several responses (and quotes) say that most presidents would have done the same thing, we are summarily dismissed with a "you can't know that" and given examples from past history to (supposedly) back up this conclusion. But none of that matters. The question is would any other president have come down with the "get Osama" decision IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE ? Given the same military intelligence, the same options in April of 2010 (no hypothetical BS) Would Bush, or Clinton, or Carter, or Warren G. Harding come to the same decision and most cogent people would say YES. You keep referring to the "purpose" of the thread. No one has said that President does not deserve political credit, but you seem to be blind to any other qualifier that comes after that. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Yeah were all so much better under Bush. Stupid Obama screwed all that up. Yeah, I see you've got the new Obama '12 campaign slogan: It's Not My Fault. It Could've Been Worse. That's a winner right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 There are topics devoted to the economy to discuss his handling of the economy. That is not the purpose of this thread. This is not about obl as subterfuge. It's about the decision-making behind that effort. I don't agree with how he is using it politically but at this moment when my finger is tapping this "K"ey, I don't give a ****. And as I mentioned to Dante, chill with the "anyone would have done..." bs. No, they wouldn't have. You're wrong. Obama did the right thing and it took courage. Other idiots, democrats and republicans, !@#$ed schit up. And what of the McCain comments that suggest that such a course of action wouldn't have transpired during a McCain presidency? Let me guess, you're going to provide an interpretation better than his exact words. I'm sure he appreciates that. It's slightly revisionist and ahistorical but it goes down easier than cooked carrots and moonshine. But those who are not hanging on the nuts of irrationality understand that right is right and wrong is wrong - no matter how much you detest the current economic condition. And in the event that you missed my response to Dante: I've mentioned why that is not necessarily the case. And what of the failed attempts and innaction by former presidents? If Bush would have acted quickly on obl in Tora Bora, would he have been doing what any president would have done? So what does it do to your thesis that he didn't act? Is that what any president would do too? And, most importantly, how do you reconcile those two diametric opposities that your contention is forced to confront? Or are you going to acknowledge that presidents face huge judgement calls with outcomes the extent to which your insiginificant ass can hardly fathom and surely can't appreciate as you wax poetically on a 16 x 4 1/2 inch keyboard. Some make the right call. Historically, and in instances similar to what Obama confronted, more presidents have made the wrong call. So chill with the "anyone would have done....." bs. No. You're wrong. That **** is easy to say after-the-fact. We hope that they would but historically they haven't. Next. Boy you use a lot of big words to describe a baloney sandwich. subterfuge? Does any one but a ivory tower academic use that word? Please explain how saying "yes" to taking out the most hated man in America is a huge judgement call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 There are topics devoted to the economy to discuss his handling of the economy. That is not the purpose of this thread. This is not about obl as subterfuge. It's about the decision-making behind that effort. I don't agree with how he is using it politically but at this moment when my finger is tapping this "K"ey, I don't give a ****. And as I mentioned to Dante, chill with the "anyone would have done..." bs. No, they wouldn't have. You're wrong. Obama did the right thing and it took courage. Other idiots, democrats and republicans, !@#$ed schit up. And what of the McCain comments that suggest that such a course of action wouldn't have transpired during a McCain presidency? Let me guess, you're going to provide an interpretation better than his exact words. I'm sure he appreciates that. It's slightly revisionist and ahistorical but it goes down easier than cooked carrots and moonshine. But those who are not hanging on the nuts of irrationality understand that right is right and wrong is wrong - no matter how much you detest the current economic condition. And in the event that you missed my response to Dante: I've mentioned why that is not necessarily the case. And what of the failed attempts and innaction by former presidents? If Bush would have acted quickly on obl in Tora Bora, would he have been doing what any president would have done? So what does it do to your thesis that he didn't act? Is that what any president would do too? And, most importantly, how do you reconcile those two diametric opposities that your contention is forced to confront? Or are you going to acknowledge that presidents face huge judgement calls with outcomes the extent to which your insiginificant ass can hardly fathom and surely can't appreciate as you wax poetically on a 16 x 4 1/2 inch keyboard. Some make the right call. Historically, and in instances similar to what Obama confronted, more presidents have made the wrong call. So chill with the "anyone would have done....." bs. No. You're wrong. That **** is easy to say after-the-fact. We hope that they would but historically they haven't. Next. The President deserves credit for Bin Laden getting offed on his watch. Though he also deserves the flack he's gotten for releasing as much info about the raid as happened and releasing the info as quickly as it happened. Those who are saying that 'anyone would have done the same thing' are correct assuming the same set of circumstances. (Provided the set 'anyone' does NOT include Joe Biden. ) It's possible somebody else would have made different decisions that would have led to the same circumstances not setting up though I don't expect that would have been the case with this one. As for McCain specifically, As I recall, his comments were more in the context of whether he'd consider bombing Pakistan as more of a larger scale campaign. I don't expect that his views on handling relations with Pakistan would have carried over to this one, especially after having had over 2 years of dealing with the Pakistani's 'help' on other matters were it to have been his decision to make. Though the guys that deserve the real credit are the ones that gathered the intel, planned, and executed the mission; and the President will get more than his fair share; he does deserve credit for it. Kind of like how without the O-linemen, the D, and the gameplanning the QB can't win the SB; he's still going to be the one that gets the credit for it. Just because you get more credit than you deserve, doesn't mean you don't deserve any credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 The President deserves credit for Bin Laden getting offed on his watch. Though he also deserves the flack he's gotten for releasing as much info about the raid as happened and releasing the info as quickly as it happened. Those who are saying that 'anyone would have done the same thing' are correct assuming the same set of circumstances. (Provided the set 'anyone' does NOT include Joe Biden. ) It's possible somebody else would have made different decisions that would have led to the same circumstances not setting up though I don't expect that would have been the case with this one. As for McCain specifically, As I recall, his comments were more in the context of whether he'd consider bombing Pakistan as more of a larger scale campaign. I don't expect that his views on handling relations with Pakistan would have carried over to this one, especially after having had over 2 years of dealing with the Pakistani's 'help' on other matters were it to have been his decision to make. Though the guys that deserve the real credit are the ones that gathered the intel, planned, and executed the mission; and the President will get more than his fair share; he does deserve credit for it. Kind of like how without the O-linemen, the D, and the gameplanning the QB can't win the SB; he's still going to be the one that gets the credit for it. Just because you get more credit than you deserve, doesn't mean you don't deserve any credit. His role was saying "OK" Wow. Brass nuts only compared to Clinton[read dereliction of duty to see what I mean.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted May 31, 2012 Author Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) You are using rather odd logic. You start the thread........................and when several responses (and quotes) say that most presidents would have done the same thing, we are summarily dismissed with a "you can't know that" and given examples from past history to (supposedly) back up this conclusion. But none of that matters. The question is would any other president have come down with the "get Osama" decision IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE ? Given the same military intelligence, the same options in April of 2010 (no hypothetical BS) Would Bush, or Clinton, or Carter, or Warren G. Harding come to the same decision and most cogent people would say YES. You keep referring to the "purpose" of the thread. No one has said that President does not deserve political credit, but you seem to be blind to any other qualifier that comes after that. . No, I think that you're conflating two points. There are two separate and distinct matters: 1. Does the President deserve some level of credit for the obl get? Most say yes. 2. Was his decision unique in that other president's, under similar circumstances, would have made a different call? 1 is established. We can move on from that. 2 gives breadth and depth to 1. My point is that we can't know what was known, the intelliegence that was available, etc. beyond that which Leon Pannetta and others see fit to divulge in news articles and interviews. Based on that, and the extent to which the layperson can understand the logistics of such a mission, we're left with the knowledge that obl was accessible (within a 40%-70% certainty) a handful of times. 1. Tora Bora: http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Tora_Bora_Report.pdf http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14190032 Bush didn't get him (goes against the "anyone would have...." crowd). 2. Afghanistan (2000): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6283580/ns/nbcnightlynews-nbc_news_investigates/t/spy-plane-captured-video-bin-laden/ Clinton didn't get him (goes against the "anyone would have..." crowd) 3. Pakistan (2005): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/washington/08intel.html?pagewanted=all "A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials." Though it was not definite in 2005 that he was there, there was still top leadership and their decision for innaction was in order to continue playing nice with Pakistan. Fu((k Pakistan and these punk-ass politicians who can't make a call and stand by it. Try, and try, and try as you might to make Obama's call a pedestrian one, it wasn't. All the points and literature and evidence is circumstantial but the inference is strong. He was the only one who made the call when faced with similar circumstances. Others didn't. I respect Bush for going right into Afghanistan in '01 but he was blah with obl. Clinton was too. Obama showed leadership and strength on that issue. Now please, challenge the supporting documentation and not just the inferences drawn from them. My contention is that not just any one else would have made that call, right then, under those circumstances, only knowing to a 50-70% certainty that obl was there. Apparently that percentage (and greater) was present in other circumstances with resulting innaction. I firmly believe that Bush would have been too concerned about relations with Pakistan. H. Clinton too. McCain as well. Diplomatic relations, sovereignty, international discord, etc. is a very compelling for some. I'm glad that the current WH looked beyond that schit to effectuate a good. Edited May 31, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 The President deserves credit for Bin Laden getting offed on his watch. Though he also deserves the flack he's gotten for releasing as much info about the raid as happened and releasing the info as quickly as it happened. Those who are saying that 'anyone would have done the same thing' are correct assuming the same set of circumstances. (Provided the set 'anyone' does NOT include Joe Biden. ) It's possible somebody else would have made different decisions that would have led to the same circumstances not setting up though I don't expect that would have been the case with this one. As for McCain specifically, As I recall, his comments were more in the context of whether he'd consider bombing Pakistan as more of a larger scale campaign. I don't expect that his views on handling relations with Pakistan would have carried over to this one, especially after having had over 2 years of dealing with the Pakistani's 'help' on other matters were it to have been his decision to make. Though the guys that deserve the real credit are the ones that gathered the intel, planned, and executed the mission; and the President will get more than his fair share; he does deserve credit for it. Kind of like how without the O-linemen, the D, and the gameplanning the QB can't win the SB; he's still going to be the one that gets the credit for it. Just because you get more credit than you deserve, doesn't mean you don't deserve any credit. He did have two basic decisions other than not doing anything. To go in like they did or a smart bomb. The drawback to the smart bomb approach is that we would never know if we really got him. He really didn't have the choice to do nothing. If word ever got out he would be demonized. His premature release of information about us getting Osama and the talk about the intelligence we gathered, had no other value than politics. So in other words, he did harm to our future security for his own political reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 No, I think that you're conflating two points. There are two separate and distinct matters: 1. Does the President deserve some level of credit for the obl get? Most say yes. 2. Was his decision unique in that other president's, under similar circumstances, would have made a different call? 1 is established. We can move on from that. 2 gives breadth and depth to 1. My point is that we can't know what was known, the intelliegence that was available, etc. beyond that which Leon Pannetta and others see fit to divulge in news articles and interviews. Based on that, and the extent to which the layperson can understand the logistics of such a mission, we're left with the knowledge that obl was accessible (within a 40%-70% certainty) a handful of times. 1. Tora Bora: http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Tora_Bora_Report.pdf http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14190032 Bush didn't get him (goes against the "anyone would have...." crowd). 2. Afghanistan (2000): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6283580/ns/nbcnightlynews-nbc_news_investigates/t/spy-plane-captured-video-bin-laden/ Clinton didn't get him (goes against the "anyone would have..." crowd) 3. Pakistan (2005): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/washington/08intel.html?pagewanted=all "A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials." Though it was not definite in 2005 that he was there, there was still top leadership and their decision for innaction was in order to continue playing nice with Pakistan. Fu((k Pakistan and these punk-ass politicians who can't make a call and stand by it. Try, and try, and try as you might to make Obama's call a pedestrian one, it wasn't. All the points and literature and evidence is circumstantial but the inference is strong. He was the only one who made the call when faced with similar circumstances. Others didn't. I respect Bush for going right into Afghanistan in '01 but he was blah with obl. Clinton was too. Obama showed leadership and strength on that issue. Now please, challenge the supporting documentation and not just the inferences drawn from them. My contention is that not just any one else would have made that call, right then, under those circumstances, only knowing to a 50-70% certainty that obl was there. Apparently that percentage (and greater) was present in other circumstances with resulting innaction. I firmly believe that Bush would have been too concerned about relations with Pakistan. H. Clinton too. McCain as well. Diplomatic relations, sovereignty, international discord, etc. is a very compelling for some. I'm glad that the current WH looked beyond that schit to effectuate a good. You quoted John Kerry's committee (in 2009) and an article from the NYT. Fine, don't cherry pick though. From the NYT article: "Spokesmen for the Pentagon, the C.I.A. and the White House declined to comment. It is unclear whether President Bush was informed about the planned operation." That 2005 operation involved hundreds of our people on the ground and it would have been evident that we were there. What if for his own political reasons Musharif sent Pakistani troops after them? They had and still have small groups on the ground there doing surveillance. It was completely different circumstances than when they got Osama, and neither you nor I have the information to make a definitive judgement. As far as McCain not making the same decision as Obama then I'll remind you of what type of character he has. When he was a POW he was offerred the opportunity to be sent home. You see, his father was very high up in the military and the North Vietnamese had some convoluted reasoning that it would be good propaganda for them. McCain refused and said he wasn't leaving until they all left. So, I think McCain was up to the task of making the tough decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 We're... Hey, I'm tired of you Canadians flaunting your education thingy all over. No one likes a show off! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 You quoted John Kerry's committee (in 2009) and an article from the NYT. Fine, don't cherry pick though. From the NYT article: "Spokesmen for the Pentagon, the C.I.A. and the White House declined to comment. It is unclear whether President Bush was informed about the planned operation." That 2005 operation involved hundreds of our people on the ground and it would have been evident that we were there. What if for his own political reasons Musharif sent Pakistani troops after them? They had and still have small groups on the ground there doing surveillance. It was completely different circumstances than when they got Osama, and neither you nor I have the information to make a definitive judgement. As far as McCain not making the same decision as Obama then I'll remind you of what type of character he has. When he was a POW he was offerred the opportunity to be sent home. You see, his father was very high up in the military and the North Vietnamese had some convoluted reasoning that it would be good propaganda for them. McCain refused and said he wasn't leaving until they all left. So, I think McCain was up to the task of making the tough decisions. I, for one, don't question Senator McCain's character in most circumstances- but I will say that he tends to be more public about some issues than he should be. I wish we had more like him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) I've mentioned why that is not necessarily the case. And what of the failed attempts and innaction by former presidents? If Bush would have acted quickly on obl in Tora Bora, would he have been doing what any president would have done? So what does it do to your thesis that he didn't act? Is that what any president would do too? And, most importantly, how do you reconcile those two diametric opposities that your contention is forced to confront? Or are you going to acknowledge that presidents face huge judgement calls with outcomes the extent to which your insiginificant ass can hardly fathom and surely can't appreciate as you wax poetically on a 16 x 4 1/2 inch keyboard. Some make the right call. Historically, and in instances similar to what Obama confronted, more presidents have made the wrong call. So chill with the "anyone would have done....." bs. No. You're wrong. That **** is easy to say after-the-fact. We hope that they would but historically they haven't. Next. Should have qualified that any decent prez would have done it. Unfortunately we haven't had one of those in over 20 years. Your right. My bad. It was not a difficult decision and bringing up the failure s of other presidents is no argument. I don't know the circumstances of the Bush situation and either does your insignificant ass. So don't pretend like you do. It was a easy decision and even a schmuck like yourself would be capable of making the correct one. Barry isn't capable of making any tough decisions. He hasn't had to make any all his life. A student. Then a "community organizer" aka instigator. Then a senator. Never had to turn a buck himself. Never ran a business where making difficult decisions is as daily occurrence. Hasn't done shite so to give this idiot credit for anything that requires balls or knowledge is laughable. Edited May 31, 2012 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts