SEALs call out Obama for trying to politicize their killing of Bin Laden

We've been going in with drones. I don't recall missions with foot soldiers into Pakistan that weren't known to the Pakistani govt.

For you to claim that any president would have done the same is your guess, and it goes completely against all available evidence of what happened and what the options were, and statements made by other Presidents, and past actions made by other presidents.

But you are entitled to your guess. Just don't be surprised when people who look at the evidence with more of an open mind disagree.

 

You only believe in military defensive action? Are you serious? You also think we should have asked Pakistans permission/ notified them that we were tracking Bin Laden?

 

Thanks to the sniper for his service... but as of the beginning of this year, he's been making his rounds on conservative/tea party talk radio. First for his sniper skills and now to bash Obama.

From an editorial review of his book (http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/american-sniper-chris-kyle/1103601416):

"Kyle is unapologetic about his own conservative persona, and perhaps not the ideal spokesman for military public relations."

Attacking Obama on the OBL kill is a poor choice by the GOP. I'm not sure which voters they are trying to get here. They are only making themselves look like jealous toddlers who didn't get the toy that Barrack is playing with.

Obama is right to trumpet his success. He looks good on national security when he says he will kill/capture OBL and he finishes the job.

 

Yes.

And I think we should have communicated with the government over the issue.

Would we storm into London if he was hiding out there? Of course not.

 

Communicate with a government that we can't trust to keep any operation a secret. OBL would have been long gone had we approached the Pakistanis first.

 

But London doesn't have a possible history of collaborating and protecting Al-Qaeda with members of the MI 6 sympathetic and possibly involved with them.

 

Yes, yes we would. Without a shadow of a doubt, guns blazin'. Why do you assume we wouldn't?

 

So you would be alright with a nation doing the same to us?

 

We would never send troops into a developed country without the its approval. It's an act of war. Pakistan can't do anything about it.

 

It depends on the circumstances. If we were harboring somebody that had attacked that nation, and we weren't trustworthy to remove that person, then I would expect something like that to happen.

 

You are joking, right?

 

Agreed they have been reaching for awhile now looking for any angle they can find none have worked so far.

 

The British are civilized. The Pakistanis aren't. That's the difference.

 

Oops, meant to reply to Ccorn.

 

Seriously, trying to argue any sort of morality here on the part of US is pointless. There's no moral standing here on the US part to do this. I don't care if Pakistan is made of hunters and gatherers where their leader is some tribal chief. If they are a country, from a "moral" standpoint, the US should respect their sovereignty and not just go killing people openly in their country.

From a practical standpoint, I have no problem with Obama's decision. We are the biggest country in the world and Pakistan is puny and insignificant in comparison. What's the point of being a powerful country if you can't throw your weight around? But let's not make it seem like this is anything but a "Might makes Right" situation.

 

Mr. Obama could and did order the SEALs to get Bin Laden.
Mr. Obama cannot order anyone to influence gasoline prices.

-not equivalent responsibility-

But why bother in a Basso thread? The only people the cut and paste Rove talking points influence are the people who already think Obama is the Muslim socialist anti-christ anyway. It's just "hooray for our side". There will be a new one everyday from now until November.

 

A President never does anything all by himself and never quite deserves the entire credit or blame for the outcome of events (arguably, he has more of a direct impact on some matters (military/foreign policy) than others (the economy). However, the reality of things and the political perception of these things are two different matters.

Whether it's fair or not, when bad things happen, voters tend to blame it on the incumbent and when good things happen, voters tend to give credit to the incumbent. (It's not so different from basketball coaches and players, actually.) It is hard for an incumbent to argue there are causes other than me when stuff goes wrong. A corollary of this is that it is a fool's errant for a challenger to point to a success and try to argue that the POTUS doesn't deserve credit-- it may or may not be true, but you just sound like a b**** Debbie Downer who is rooting for the country to fail.

Romney should just stick to attacking Obama on the economy (April jobs # ain't so great, that's something to talk about) rather than fighting a losing battle. I know he doesn't like the Bill Clinton ad talking quoting Romney in 2007, it may be fair, it may be a cheap shot, but retaliation would only get your ass T-ed up and possibly thrown out of the game.

 

It seems a bit hypocritical for Republicans to blame every negative thing on Obama and then complain when he wants to take credit for something positive.

 

Obama earned the right to tout Osama Bin Laden raid

By Richard A. Clarke

Clarke was a senior White House counterterrorism adviser in the Clinton and Bush administrations. He is the author of “Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror” and other books.

Detractors are taking a page from Karl Rove's playbook

Rather than joining the rest of the country in remembering with respect President Obama’s gutsy decision to launch the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden, some of his opponents have engaged in mock outrage that the administration dares to claim credit for the terrorist’s death.

President George W. Bush certainly touted his counterterrorism record, however faulty it may have been. Yet by criticizing this administration for what his predecessor and every other President has done (taking credit for his accomplishments), some are politicizing the issue of terrorism again.

The tactic being used today is familiar to those who have followed the activities of Karl Rove: Go directly after the other side’s strengths. Do not accept the truth or the obvious. Instead, make claims that cloud the issue. Some will believe you. Others will be confused. Your opponent’s strong point will be neutralized.

For example, in 2004, rather than just accepting the fact that Sen. John Kerry was a war hero, get people to say that he is not. Make such claims even if your own side is notoriously weak on the issue, even if your candidate worked hard not to go to Vietnam and spent months absent from his unit.

A variant of the tactic is also used when your own candidate has a glaring weakness: Insist that he has a record of great success in the field. For example, even though Bush held not a single National Security Council meeting on Al Qaeda until late on the actual day of 9/11, claim that he is the epitome of a President focused on fighting terrorism.

Should the Obama White House remain silent about its accomplishments in the field of counterterrorism, even though the Bush administration constantly promoted its less successful counterterrorism efforts?

The issue of fighting terrorism is still an important one for Americans. It is one of many valid issues on which voters should make their judgment about the future leadership of the United States.

What would be best for the country on the issue of counterterrorism is if we could somehow manage to return it to a nonpartisan matter. Unfortunately, this early in the election year, that seems unlikely. Therefore, voters should be advised to look carefully at claims that are made by both sides, and stick to the facts.

Ten facts that tell the true story:

First, the Bush administration moved assets to Iraq away from the search for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Second, in 2006, the Bush administration closed the Bin Laden unit at the CIA in a reorganization.

Third, Bush changed his rhetoric from wanting Bin Laden “dead or alive” to publicly minimizing his importance. (Mitt Romney followed this pattern, saying in 2007, “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.”)

Fourth, in 2007, candidate Obama said he would send troops into Pakistan to get Bin Laden, unilaterally if necessary, and was criticized by leading Republicans (Romney included) for saying so.

Fifth, after he took office, Obama directed an increased priority be given to getting Bin Laden.

Sixth, the President personally participated in repeated high-level meetings on his aggressive new strategy for getting Al Qaeda and its leaders in Pakistan.

Seventh, Obama ordered a dramatic increase in drone attacks in Pakistan, wiping out Al Qaeda leaders and making it almost impossible for Bin Laden’s senior commanders to operate there.

Eighth, the President rejected cabinet members’ advice and ordered the raid that killed Bin Laden to go ahead.

Ninth, it was the commander-in-chief who ordered that additional helicopters be made part of the operation, a decision that turned out to be crucial.

Tenth, Bin Laden is dead.