yes, and we all could have invested in Microsoft when it first went public. But we didn't. That's not really a point, and doesn't really detract from the person that did do it.
What is so hard about saying "YES" to "getting" the most wanted man in the world? The political fallout should the mission fail? Covered. According to the piece I cited and, by implication, Time Magazine and the note from Panetta they published; Obama's role was pretty much reduced to saying "YES." I do give the man credit for saying "YES" but you want to blow it up to more than that...
Are you really as dense and obsequious as you come across? If the order had not been given by Obama, would Osama be dead? It could not happen without his order. Very simple, no matter how you try to obfuscate.
Obtuse would be saying he didn't say YES. Who's obfuscating? Some are seeking to glamorize BO's role in this whereas the truth as revealed in the communications reduce him to saying YES or NO. The risk he took was a political one. How brave! Even then he left himself an out with the details. The opportunity he had to "get" bin Laden were much greater in a domestic compound than in a nest of mountain caves. As I recall, they had weeks or months of intel that would confirm how many were in that compound. "... only one Commander in Chief had what it took to do it..." Laughable. Only one commander in chief was there at decision time. Yes, he could have said "NO" but he had the courage to say "YES" at great risk to his political career. He didn't create the plan. HE didn't go on the mission. He didn't set the time. He just said "YES." I'm clarifying. Tell me which part of my telling is un-true...
Simple "yes" or "no" response: Would Osama have been killed if President Obama did not give the order?
Almost your entire scenario is untrue. It was not as if they just came and said "we know where he is, do you want to get him... yes or no?" That's what you're trying to act like happened. The fact is that Obama pursued him. He did it differently than past administrations had, and once they were pretty sure they had him, there were numerous different plans and options to consider. A. There was the option of launching missile strikes to wipe out the compound. This was the option many including the sec. of defense, and chief military officer involved wanted to do. There was no risk of US casualties if this option was chosen. Also no US troops would have had to go into Pakistani territory. (It takes a great deal of leadership and backbone to go against the chief military officer and Sec. of Defense in a situation like that... yet you blow that off) B. There was the option of giving the intel the Pakistani leadership and pressuring them to go get Bin Laden. That way their sovereignty isn't violated at all, there is no risk to U.S. troops. C. There is the option of doing a joint mission with Pakistani and US personnel. This method in no way violates Pakistani sovereignty and would still have US boots on the ground to get intel. D. There is the option of using the SEAL team. This way involves a huge amount of risk. It could be seen by the Pakistanis as a violation of their sovereignty. They could end up with a Blackhawk Down situation, or something like what happened when the military team went in after the Iranian hostages and it was a failure. There is also the risk of US troops dying in a foreign land of people who are supposedly our allies. The risks were large, and it wasn't just a "yes we want to get him" or "no, we'll wait for a different chance" type of situation, that you obviously wish it was. Sorry, giddy, but Obama had the balls and leadership to make the right choice despite huge risks which could have jeopardized our operation in the area if the Pakistanis were pissed off enough. In the end Obama was the one in charge who made the right call, and the SEAL team carried out the orders admirably.
No. Stupid question. Didn't they end up concluding that bin Laden had been in that compound for a couple of years? Some hot pursuit. I heard that Michael Phelps' coach wanted him to anchor the 4x200 Meter Freestyle Relay. After some consideration, the President of the US Olympic committee said "YES." Yay.... greatest President of the US Olympic committee EVER.
I give Obama more credit than that. He took him down on his watch and was rightfully applauded. But thinking Bush or McCain would have done differently is foolish.
WORD... with one caveat. Obama had the opportunity that Neither Bush (Tora Bora) nor McCain (never President) ever had. I've said it a couple of times, so I don't mind saying it again: Obama did the right thing but the lionization of his participation is extreme.
This is reality. Obama did what any Commander in Chief would and should have done. Most would be a little less self-aggrandizing but it is what it is. I liken it to the coach running onto the field after a touchdown and spiking the ball for the running back. No, it would be more like the GM of the team spiking the ball.
Apparently, at least some Seal Team 6 members/former members aren't thrilled with the manner in which the Obama administration handled the identifying of the unit that carried out his order. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-07-18/seal-obama-pac-ads/56322128/1
Well, we know you're not referring to Chimpy McFlightsuit. I liken it to the coach hoisting the trophy after they won the Super Bowl against the team directly responsible for killing thousands of Americans in one single day.
I don't like the way it was 'politicized' either, but you'd be naive to think Osama's death wouldn't be used given the status quo. In a hyper-partisan climate, in an election year with two very different visions for our country's future, given how much America has changed for the worse since the late 70s largely (but not only) because of one of the political parties, then you use whatever ammunition you can find to win. According to Zinke, However, when asked in an interview whether or not GWB would have used Osama's death in political ads against Kerry in 2004, Zinke dodged the question. My gut tells me Zinke isn't sincere when he criticizes Obama. From personal experience, most members of the military are Republican, and quite a few of the people I met in the defense industry were veterans for political hire, who used their military background for political gain (guess which party ). Even if Zinke is honest with zero ties to powerful interests aimed at taking down Obama, where was he when 9/11 was being used by the GWB admin to get re-elected? I stumbled on this comment, sums it up well:
Try what again? This isn't my Super Pac. Its headed up by a guy who was a former Seal Team 6 member who claims there are many more both former and current operators who agree with him. Whether that's true or not remains to be seen. Laugh at him, not me. I'm just the messenger.
And then this was the Owner of the team calling timeout to parachute onto the field and spiking the ball and setting off fireworks after the first play, and then having the other team come back and the game end in a tie 7 years later.
