Osama bin Laden Declared Dead

[unofan]

Re: Osama bin Laden Declared Dead

The Obama administration's incredibly amateurish behavior in the hours and days after the raid in Pakistan, in my mind, runs the risk of tarnishing the accomplishment of the SEALs...

Your incredibly boorish behavior on this thread in the hours and days after the raid in Pakistan, in my mind, completely cheapens the accomplishment of the SEALs.

 

[pirate]

Re: Osama bin Laden Declared Dead

all I'd ask Obama to do is not overly politicize the event

if you are a critic, you hope he does over do it...

if you are a supporter, you hope he acts like it wasn't a referendum on his presidency...

it was a challenging call based on years of intelligence and months of preparation (or should I say decades after what we learned with Carter and the hostages)

not one job was created by the killing of OBL, didn't even get a coffin sold...so eventually it will be "the economy, stupid" again

as for answering the phone at 3am, this was more like a planned briefing at 3pm, they had months to plan this and train for this...he gave the decision when doing nothing was an option, I think the 3am call scenario (if one were to put much stock in such a hypothetical) isn't a "let me think about it, keep training for a few months" type of event

 

[Rover]

Re: Osama bin Laden Declared Dead

President Obama has a history of being incredibly vindictive to his political opponents... immature remarks, inappropriate gestures, etc... I know it gets people like you all happy and excited, but at this point Bush is well aware of this behavior. I can understand not wanting to take part in that. I'm sure there would have been at least a few backhanded compliments.

I wonder if yourself and Old Pio can ever partake in good news for the country if a Democrat is in office at the time the good news arrives? Some 20+ years ago, everybody celebrated both the arms limitation treaties Reagan signed with Gorbachev, and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Didn't matter that for both those occasions a Republican was in office. Obama visiting Ground Zero is no different than Bush visiting Walter Reed Hospital to see wounded soldiers. Its not an appropriate event to criticize unless you're a total idiot.

Regarding politics (and apologies to jmh whom I did not get approval from before posting this), all this talk about poll increases and reductions misses the point. For the first time in living memory the GOP will cede the foreign policy issue to the Democratic candidate. Every GOP ticket has had foreign policy chops until this next election (Nixon = former VP, Ford sitting Prez, Reagan took former CIA director Bush as VP, Bush sitting Prez, Bush II took Cheney, McCain decorated Vet, etc). Not only do none of the GOP candidates have that now, I'm not sure there's anybody out there short of Petraeus that they could reasonably take as a VP candidate.

As its been repeated a thousand times since OBL's demise, Bush I did lose in '92 despite Gulf War boost. However, that insightful analysis skips a more recent election and a more relevant one, 2004 where Bush II's main reason for winning was foreign policy concerns. I don't know how this will play out, but the best the GOP can hope for is foreign policy is not a factor. When is the last time we've seen that?

 

[Russell Jaslow]

Re: Osama bin Laden Declared Dead

Your incredibly boorish behavior on this thread in the hours and days after the raid in Pakistan, in my mind, completely cheapens the accomplishment of the SEALs.

Thank you.

 

[motox]

Re: Osama bin Laden Declared Dead

In his nearly 50 minute appearance before the media, Hasso von Obama's national security guy was at great pains to talk about how "tense" things were in the situation room. Tables, chairs, air conditioning, mineral water ("would you like a sandwich, Mr. President?") I believe he managed to mention the brave men of Seal Team 6 once! Much more important for us to understand what a trial it was for Gerd von Obama, waiting there in the "sit" room to find out how the mission turned out. What is beyond dispute here is Erwin Obama placed a higher value on getting brownie points for his approval of this operation, than he did on the contributions of the SEALs--and on making sure we got accurate information about what happened. His TV statement, loaded as is his custom, with personal pronouns, proved the point. The SEALs haven't spun these fairy tales. Sepp Obama and his flunkies have. And it's shameful. Because we're all smart enough to give him the props he deserves for green lighting this mission. And explain to me again how this victory tour he's on isn't "spiking the ball."

Way to politicize the hell out of what happened in less than a week under the banner of a righteous and proud American. After reading posts like this it is clear that those on the fringe (from both sides) are significantly responsible for the divisive politics we see in our society today. It is truly unfortunate.

 

[XYZ]

Re: Osama bin Laden Declared Dead

Your incredibly boorish behavior on this thread in the hours and days after the raid in Pakistan, in my mind, completely cheapens the accomplishment of the SEALs.

I'm pretty sure the standing of the SEALs and their accomplishments are immune from any of Old Pio's tin flak.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Osama bin Laden Declared Dead

Have you no shame?

Because I criticized "the one?" I'm probably racist too, don't forget that.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Osama bin Laden Declared Dead

Your incredibly boorish behavior on this thread in the hours and days after the raid in Pakistan, in my mind, completely cheapens the accomplishment of the SEALs.

Up to your usual standards, which is about a 3 on a scale of ten. Evidently you didn't read my multiple posts complimenting "the one," did you? Or you're establishing some sort of requirement that no criticism is permitted. Why can't you girls argue instead of hurling insults? It's pretty clear that I'm attacking the SEALs, not Field Marshall Obama.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Osama bin Laden Declared Dead

I'm pretty sure the standing of the SEALs and their accomplishments are immune from any of Old Pio's tin flak.

Yeah, it's ME who has changed the story repeatedly. It's ME who can't seem to just tell us what happened. It's ME who had firefights, no firefights, he was armed, he wasn't armed, he was hiding behind his wife, he wasn't hiding behind his wife, he was going for a gun, he wasn't going for a gun and all the rest. I"M the one making the SEALs look bad? Right. Your deliberate inversion of my point doesn't make it so. It does, however, expose your limited understanding of these events. But, under any circumstances, must defend Obama.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Osama bin Laden Declared Dead

Way to politicize the hell out of what happened in less than a week under the banner of a righteous and proud American. After reading posts like this it is clear that those on the fringe (from both sides) are significantly responsible for the divisive politics we see in our society today. It is truly unfortunate.

Yup, anybody who disagrees with "the one" (or you) is on the "fringe." Saves you the time of actually rebutting my argument, doesn't it? We have a president who couldn't find ground zero on 9/11/09 or 9/11/10 or Arlington last Memorial Day. But he had his GPS working yesterday, didn't he? Any bets he'll be at Arlington this year. You weep for America because I criticized "the smartest guy in the room." What twaddle. Most of the people who relexively oppose what I post would not claim I was part of the "fringe." Only the ones intellectually incapable of having an adult discussion. Why don't we carve out a First Amendment exception and make it illegal to criticizse this dude? Would that please you?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Osama bin Laden Declared Dead

I wonder if yourself and Old Pio can ever partake in good news for the country if a Democrat is in office at the time the good news arrives? Some 20+ years ago, everybody celebrated both the arms limitation treaties Reagan signed with Gorbachev, and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Didn't matter that for both those occasions a Republican was in office. Obama visiting Ground Zero is no different than Bush visiting Walter Reed Hospital to see wounded soldiers. Its not an appropriate event to criticize unless you're a total idiot.

Regarding politics (and apologies to jmh whom I did not get approval from before posting this), all this talk about poll increases and reductions misses the point. For the first time in living memory the GOP will cede the foreign policy issue to the Democratic candidate. Every GOP ticket has had foreign policy chops until this next election (Nixon = former VP, Ford sitting Prez, Reagan took former CIA director Bush as VP, Bush sitting Prez, Bush II took Cheney, McCain decorated Vet, etc). Not only do none of the GOP candidates have that now, I'm not sure there's anybody out there short of Petraeus that they could reasonably take as a VP candidate.

As its been repeated a thousand times since OBL's demise, Bush I did lose in '92 despite Gulf War boost. However, that insightful analysis skips a more recent election and a more relevant one, 2004 where Bush II's main reason for winning was foreign policy concerns. I don't know how this will play out, but the best the GOP can hope for is foreign policy is not a factor. When is the last time we've seen that?

I wonder if you wet your pants when Bush put on his little flight suit and landed on a carrier? Presidents try to capitalize on these events. And that's what Obama's doing here. I have repeatedly praised him for making the right decision in authorizing the strike. And repeatedly said he deserves a victory lap. But all of that is for naught BECAUSE I'VE CRITICIZED "THE ONE." My criticism, as I plainly stated, is based on the fact that the administration's ineptness in handling this matter has made it sound like the SEALs are the ones who can't get their stories straight, not that clearly over his head Jay Carney and all the rest of 'em. Obama wanted to make a dramatic announcement on TV, fine, he's entitled to that. But all you whiners evidently think I'm applying too tough a standard to the POTUS by asking him to simply tell us what happend, accurately, the first time. And if we don't yet know what happened, just say so. That's how it looks out here on the "fringe."

BTW, I don't necessarily disagree with your larger point. Public opinion is a funny thing. After the siezure of our embassy in Tehran, Carter's support actually went up, and he had a big name opponant in the Democratic primaries. Again, after the failed rescue mission, again, Carter's support went up. Timing is what counts in these matters. For instance, we've seen a 25 year old DWI conviction, revealed on the Friday night before the voting, have an enormous impact. That same revelation weeks or months before the voting would have had negligable impact. So we'll see if the Field Marshall can ride his newly found foreign policy credentials to victory. The flip side of your "the Democrat is running on foreign policy" observation is that the Republican will almost certainly be running on the economy. "Are you better off now that you were four years ago?" "It's the economy, stupid." We'll see,

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Osama bin Laden Declared Dead

I think you need to get over it, pio.

It's not a victory tour to the 10yr old kid who never knew his father or to the surviving families. If Obama stayed in the White House, conservatives would have been on him like stink on . . . bin Laden's corpse.

GHWB received - and lost - a much bigger bounce after the Gulf War, and that was before contemporary cable news. A year from now, we'll be talking about the economy, that kid might still be inspired by meeting the president, and fish will have crapped out most of bin laden.

Why should I "get over it" when, with just a couple of paragraphs, I can turn sober adults into screaming middle school girls on a roller coaster?

 

[French Rage]

Re: Osama bin Laden Declared Dead

- Yes in a perfect world all of the information would have collected right the first time and we would have gotten one version of the story from the get-go. But given the era of the 24-hour news cycle, and with a story as big as this, people are going to jump the gun on reporting the first thing they hear. As with a story as large as this, you're going to have reporters most likely getting stories from inside sources they have who themselves (the sources that is) are not getting the whole story since it takes time for all of the information to come in. If there are any stories that explicitly blame the SEALs or the intel people for getting the story wrong, I'd like to see them because that definitely sounds like passing the buck. Otherwise, though, this is a big story, with lots of people wanting to be the first to print and lots of different versions floating around, so unfortunately it takes time for the dust to settle. That's my interpretation, yours may differ.

- If Obama had gone to Ground Zero at the front of a huge victory parade and gave an hour-long speech, yes that would be objectionable. But coming to lay a wreath and talk to a few families for a few minutes, to me that's just trying to provide some closure to those most involved. That said, he is the president and so anything he does will attract media attention, so he needs to be mindful of coming off as grandstanding, but to me he did as much as he could to have the even be low-key and not come off as such. That's my interpretation, yours may differ.

- His first name is Barack, not Hasso, not Gerd, not Erwin, not Sepp. You are more than allowed to have your opinions and interpretations of the events, but honestly your not helping people take them objectively and fairly when you resort to name calling. Stuff like that has a habit of eliciting a more emotional than logical reaction out of people so if you don't want what you perceive as unfair reactions to your posts you're really not helping your case by doing so.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Osama bin Laden Declared Dead

- Yes in a perfect world all of the information would have collected right the first time and we would have gotten one version of the story from the get-go. But given the era of the 24-hour news cycle, and with a story as big as this, people are going to jump the gun on reporting the first thing they hear. As with a story as large as this, you're going to have reporters most likely getting stories from inside sources they have who themselves (the sources that is) are not getting the whole story since it takes time for all of the information to come in. If there are any stories that explicitly blame the SEALs or the intel people for getting the story wrong, I'd like to see them because that definitely sounds like passing the buck. Otherwise, though, this is a big story, with lots of people wanting to be the first to print and lots of different versions floating around, so unfortunately it takes time for the dust to settle. That's my interpretation, yours may differ.

- If Obama had gone to Ground Zero at the front of a huge victory parade and gave an hour-long speech, yes that would be objectionable. But coming to lay a wreath and talk to a few families for a few minutes, to me that's just trying to provide some closure to those most involved. That said, he is the president and so anything he does will attract media attention, so he needs to be mindful of coming off as grandstanding, but to me he did as much as he could to have the even be low-key and not come off as such. That's my interpretation, yours may differ.

- His first name is Barack, not Hasso, not Gerd, not Erwin, not Sepp. You are more than allowed to have your opinions and interpretations of the events, but honestly your not helping people take them objectively and fairly when you resort to name calling. Stuff like that has a habit of eliciting a more emotional than logical reaction out of people so if you don't want what you perceive as unfair reactions to your posts you're really not helping your case by doing so.

Perhaps you're right about "name calling," although to me, it's a matter of style. I assume that observation goes for all of the weenies who attacked me, rather that offering an alternative view.

It is an important, complicated story, no doubt. But Obama's rush to get his version on the air Sunday night, before he had all or even most of the facts, convinces me that accuracy wasn't his highest priority. And three days of walking back from his original statements further convinces me that the administraton, at a minimum, handled this matter badly, with misplaced priorities. One thing he could do, is have his Attorney General drop the investigations of interrogators who were merely doing their jobs, and whose efforts may have provided important clues that led to our success on Sunday.

And suggesting (as others have done) that I'm somehow attacking the SEALs is a mean spirited, ignorant fantasy.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Osama bin Laden Declared Dead

Wasn't this the plot of Source Code?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Osama bin Laden Declared Dead

Wasn't this the plot of Source Code?

I haven't seen it yet. Out here on the fringe, distribution is a little slow.

 

[motox]

Re: Osama bin Laden Declared Dead

Yup, anybody who disagrees with "the one" is on the "fringe." Saves you the time of actually rebutting my argument, doesn't it? We have a president who couldn't find ground zero on 9/11/09 or 9/11/10 or Arlington last Memorial Day. But he had his GPS working yesterday. Any bets he'll be at Arlington this year. You weep for America because I criticized "the smartest guy in the room. What twaddle. Most of the people who relexively oppose what I post would not claim I was part of the "fringe." Only the ones intellectually incapable of having an adult discussion. Why don't we carve out a First Amendment exception and make it illegal to criticizse this dude? Would that please you?

Did I make a single comment supporting or defending Obama? Think your obsession is just maybe why you fall into that "fringe" category? The sad thing is if it were a Republican in office you would be rejoicing in the manner the President was paying respects to those that lost loved ones on 9/11. At this stage, it's politics for you. Sorry if you don't see the level of difference in the 8th and 9th anniversaries of the attack compared to capturing and killing the person responsible. Was Obama's visit to those families and Ground Zero positive or negative from a political standpoint? I could literally care less. Was it the right thing to do? Why don't you ask some of those firefighers or family members what they thought. What actions by the President would've you approved of because other than him parading around with a picture of OBL's body I'm not seeing much that would appease you. If he didn't go to Ground Zero there just as easily would've been the outcry that he isn't paying his respects. You say that it was a mistake the administration told the story as quickly as possible and then they have to go back and amend items. Corrections will always have to be made from nearly any event like this and in today's world of media frenzy if they didn't get the story out (with most of it right) someone else would've made up their own version. Sorry if me categorizing you as part of the fringe touched a nerve, but frankly, it really doesn't matter to me how you think others here label you. Your words in this thread are all I have to go from and the way you have chosen to express yourself in some instances speaks volumes.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Osama bin Laden Declared Dead

It is an important, complicated story, no doubt. But Obama's rush to get his version on the air Sunday night, before he had all or even most of the facts, convinces me that accuracy wasn't his highest priority. And three days of walking back from his original statements further convinces me that the administraton, at a minimum, handled this matter badly, with misplaced priorities.

Just for the record, in what Obama said Sunday night (http://punditpress.blogspot.com/2011/05/obama-speech-transcript-may-1st-about.html) he was light on the details of the raid itself. Most of the speech was a recap of 9/11 and bin Laden's atrocities, and really only one paragraph deals with the raid, and all it really says is we assaulted the compound, there was a firefight, and we got his body. If I had to guess, I would assume that the surprising lack of details was specifically due to the fact that events were still fresh and details we still being gathered.

Now granted I only have that one speech handy, I don't know what Obama officially said over the nest few days. And I do believe his counter-terrorism guy (Brennan?) may have bought into the human shield story, but that was quickly corrected the next day (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...ss-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-532011), yet still someone in that capacity should have done a better job getting the facts right.

I guess my larger question is, Brennan aside, how many of these now retracted items came directly from the administration itself versus reporters via "inside sources"? While Obama's speech itself was little more than 10-15 minutes, the news filled another 5 to 6 hours with little concrete details (and the same holds for the next few days), which can conceivably lead to repeating reports that are completely fabricated in the rush to bring viewers and readers more info than the other guy. I mean, at first the story that they bombed the compound was all we heard, and I highly doubt anyone in any official capacity would have said that. So again, what of this was explicitly released by the government, and what is reported through backdoor channels and hidden unknown sources?

In the end, though, with any story of this magnitude this is bound to happen, even though we all agree we would prefer it to happen as little as possible. I can't really work myself up too much over the way the details were released later when the actual event itself was so awesome. You're allowed your level of concern over it, but to me and most others it's like complaining that a quarterback's shoes weren't tied right after he threw for 500 yards and 7 TDs.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Osama bin Laden Declared Dead

Did I make a single comment supporting or defending Obama? Think your obsession is just maybe why you fall into that "fringe" category? The sad thing is if it were a Republican in office you would be rejoicing in the manner the President was paying respects to those that lost loved ones on 9/11. At this stage, it's politics for you. Sorry if you don't see the level of difference in the 8th and 9th anniversaries of the attack compared to capturing and killing the person responsible. Was Obama's visit to those families and Ground Zero positive or negative from a political standpoint? I could literally care less. Was it the right thing to do? Why don't you ask some of those firefighers or family members what they thought. What actions by the President would've you approved of because other than him parading around with a picture of OBL's body I'm not seeing much that would appease you. If he didn't go to Ground Zero there just as easily would've been the outcry that he isn't paying his respects. You say that it was a mistake the administration told the story as quickly as possible and then they have to go back and amend items. Corrections will always have to be made from nearly any event like this and in today's world of media frenzy if they didn't get the story out (with most of it right) someone else would've made up their own version. Sorry if me categorizing you as part of the fringe touched a nerve, but frankly, it really doesn't matter to me how you think others here label you. Your words in this thread are all I have to go from and the way you have chosen to express yourself in some instances speaks volumes.

Another gd amateur shrink! Bottom line for you, anyone who criticizes BHO is either fringe or loonie or obsessed. Got it. Well reasoned, well thought out arguments. And you've clearly proved the point that it was "media frenzy," instead of incompetence, that accounted for the multiple versions of what transpired in Pakistan. My fault. The media's fault. But no blame on the Field Marshall. Right. BTW, did you get the extended warantee on your sarcasm detector?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Osama bin Laden Declared Dead

Just for the record, in what Obama said Sunday night (http://punditpress.blogspot.com/2011/05/obama-speech-transcript-may-1st-about.html) he was light on the details of the raid itself. Most of the speech was a recap of 9/11 and bin Laden's atrocities, and really only one paragraph deals with the raid, and all it really says is we assaulted the compound, there was a firefight, and we got his body. If I had to guess, I would assume that the surprising lack of details was specifically due to the fact that events were still fresh and details we still being gathered.

Now granted I only have that one speech handy, I don't know what Obama officially said over the nest few days. And I do believe his counter-terrorism guy (Brennan?) may have bought into the human shield story, but that was quickly corrected the next day (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...ss-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-532011), yet still someone in that capacity should have done a better job getting the facts right.

I guess my larger question is, Brennan aside, how many of these now retracted items came directly from the administration itself versus reporters via "inside sources"? While Obama's speech itself was little more than 10-15 minutes, the news filled another 5 to 6 hours with little concrete details (and the same holds for the next few days), which can conceivably lead to repeating reports that are completely fabricated in the rush to bring viewers and readers more info than the other guy. I mean, at first the story that they bombed the compound was all we heard, and I highly doubt anyone in any official capacity would have said that. So again, what of this was explicitly released by the government, and what is reported through backdoor channels and hidden unknown sources?

In the end, though, with any story of this magnitude this is bound to happen, even though we all agree we would prefer it to happen as little as possible. I can't really work myself up too much over the way the details were released later when the actual event itself was so awesome. You're allowed your level of concern over it, but to me and most others it's like complaining that a quarterback's shoes weren't tied right after he threw for 500 yards and 7 TDs.

When you stop to think about it, this dispute is really rather simple. You're prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, I'm not.