Bin Laden is dead

[LogGrad98]

Also, to anyone whining that President Bush isn't getting enough credit: Do you know why he's not getting much praise?

Because he failed to capture Osama bin Laden. You don't get credit if you fail. Barack Obama succeeded where George Bush FAILED.

Do you seriously think that the effort to catch Bin Laden just barely got started because Obama told them to? You really think they were all walking around with their thumbs up their asses for almost a decade waiting for Almighty Obama to lead them to the promised land? You really think all the work the special forces were doing for the past 10 years had absolutely nothing to do with taking out OBL, but Obama did? Wow is that ever selling our military short, regardless of who is in the White House.

Tell me, what exactly did Obama do to make this happen?

Quite frankly a president deserves only as much credit as it took for him to sign off on starting or continuing the operation, and that is about it. Both of them (Obama and Bush) read the intel and signed off on the proposed plans of action. That's about it.

So yes, Bush deserves as much credit as Obama since he started it all off. If Bush had let the whole thing go fallow for 8 years and Obama started it all of his own accord then sure, give him the Golden Feather award all by himself for signing his signature on the paper that allowed the people who REALLY deserve the credit to go to work.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

LOL! You can't be serious.

What should they have done differently?

 

[Scat]

Yes, but I did see pictures of the Pakistani military picking up the pieces and trucking them somewhere.

Yup. Right to the Chinese embassy. These modified Blackhawks are so quiet that you can't hear them until they are directly above you. They are covered in a special sound deadening material that also absorbs radar and have specially modified rotors that quiet the typical chopping noise that copter rotor make. The Chinese now have, at the very least, the tail rotor as well as the special material that covers the craft.

The original story that there was a mechanical failure appears to be bogus. The pilot apparently clipped the top of the wall surrounding the compound with the tail as he was landing, snapping it off. Looking at the pics that makes sense as the tail was definitely on top of the wall with the tail rotor on the other side. The SEALS are lucky they didn't all die.

 

[PearlWatson]

Do you seriously think that the effort to catch Bin Laden just barely got started because Obama told them to? You really think they were all walking around with their thumbs up their asses for almost a decade waiting for Almighty Obama to lead them to the promised land? You really think all the work the special forces were doing for the past 10 years had absolutely nothing to do with taking out OBL, but Obama did? Wow is that ever selling our military short, regardless of who is in the White House.

Tell me, what exactly did Obama do to make this happen?

Quite frankly a president deserves only as much credit as it took for him to sign off on starting or continuing the operation, and that is about it. Both of them (Obama and Bush) read the intel and signed off on the proposed plans of action. That's about it.

So yes, Bush deserves as much credit as Obama since he started it all off. If Bush had let the whole thing go fallow for 8 years and Obama started it all of his own accord then sure, give him the Golden Feather award all by himself for signing his signature on the paper that allowed the people who REALLY deserve the credit to go to work.

Obama gets to reap the rewards of Bush-era terrorism policies -- policies that he, his fellow Democrats hysterically denounced at the time

 

[Deleted member 365]

I don't get it, what's Bush's anti-terrorist policies?

I don't think the Democrats have a different anti-terrorist policy as the Republicans. Or anyone else for that matter. Find and bring terrorists to justice.

The difference is, Bush decided to invade a country that had nothing to do with terrorism under lies about WMDs.

 

[Scat]

I don't get it, what's Bush's anti-terrorist policies?

I don't think the Democrats have a different anti-terrorist policy as the Republicans. Or anyone else for that matter. Find and bring terrorists to justice.

The difference is, Bush decided to invade a country that had nothing to do with terrorism under lies about WMDs.

There is a lot about the way this was handled that Obama and the left criticized prior to being elected president. Remember when the JSOC team that killed bin Laden was referred to as "Cheney's Death Squad"? There were those that wanted SEAL Team 6 disbanded as they were viewed as nothing more than an assassin team. There was criticism that the Bush administration was targeting individuals for assassination. There was also a lot of criticism about detainees not being read their Miranda rights and then being locked away in secret prisons. I'm pretty sure the SEAL that tapped bin Laden didn't read him his Miranda rights before relieving him of his brains. And let's be very clear here. Osama bin Laden was assassinated under the authority of the President of the United States of America.

It's also a pretty safe bet that bin Laden's son which the SEAL team took with them is on his way to Guantanamo, which the president promised to close immediately upon being elected. I'm also pretty sure he wasn't read his rights and won't be afforded a lawyer.

This was a unilateral operation. Obama didn't go to the United Nations Security Council. He didn't consult NATO allies. He took care not to inform the government of Pakistan. For years, we heard the left excoriate Bush for torture, lawlessness, unilateralism -- the list goes on and on. Now the president has used the very tactics and methods he bemoaned to get bin Laden.

And if you think that there aren't going to be a few warrant-less wiretaps as a result of the intel gathered at the compound in Pakistan...

Don't get me wrong, good for Obama. I have no problem with the way that Obama handled the situation and this whole ordeal has raised my esteem for him. I'd have done the same thing but for you to pretend that Obama and the left did not have a totally different mindset prior to being in the White House is disingenuous. To get bin Laden, Obama relied on policies and tactics that he and the left decried prior to his being elected. Now they are cheering him.

Feel free to celebrate the victory. It was a long time coming and a great moment. That said, drop the self-righteous indignation trying to justify your new paradigm vs. what it was when Bush was in office. Just enjoy the moment.

 

[Deleted member 365]

There is a lot about the way this was handled that Obama and the left criticized prior to being elected president. Remember when the JSOC team that killed bin Laden was referred to as "Cheney's Death Squad"? There were those that wanted SEAL Team 6 disbanded as they were viewed as nothing more than an assassin team. There was criticism that the Bush administration was targeting individuals for assassination. There was also a lot of criticism about detainees not being read their Miranda rights and then being locked away in secret prisons. I'm pretty sure the SEAL that tapped bin Laden didn't read him his Miranda rights before relieving him of his brains. And let's be very clear here. Osama bin Laden was assassinated under the authority of the President of the United States of America.

It's also a pretty safe bet that bin Laden's son which the SEAL team took with them is on his way to Guantanamo, which the president promised to close immediately upon being elected. I'm also pretty sure he wasn't read his rights and won't be afforded a lawyer.

This was a unilateral operation. Obama didn't go to the United Nations Security Council. He didn't consult NATO allies. He took care not to inform the government of Pakistan. For years, we heard the left excoriate Bush for torture, lawlessness, unilateralism -- the list goes on and on. Now the president has used the very tactics and methods he bemoaned to get bin Laden.

And if you think that there aren't going to be a few warrant-less wiretaps as a result of the intel gathered at the compound in Pakistan...

Don't get me wrong, good for Obama. I have no problem with the way that Obama handled the situation and this whole ordeal has raised my esteem for him. I'd have done the same thing but for you to pretend that Obama and the left did not have a totally different mindset prior to being in the White House is disingenuous. To get bin Laden, Obama relied on policies and tactics that he and the left decried prior to his being elected. Now they are cheering him.

Feel free to celebrate the victory. It was a long time coming and a great moment. That said, drop the self-righteous indignation trying to justify your new paradigm vs. what it was when Bush was in office. Just enjoy the moment.

I actually don't remember any of this crap.

There's a huge difference between a few nutcake left bloggers blasting Bush over his "death squad" and "fair and balanced" channels that supposedly report the news that spew conspiracies.

Just because the minority cried foul doesn't mean that the majority of a political party or ideology believes in it. In fact, I tried to look up exact what you were suggesting. I googled, "Obama cries for disband of team 6." Didn't find a thing.

Once again, just because a few nutcake left bloggers wanted it disbanded doesn't mean that the majority believed so. Or that the President wanted it disbanded.

 

[LogGrad98]

I don't get it, what's Bush's anti-terrorist policies?

I don't think the Democrats have a different anti-terrorist policy as the Republicans. Or anyone else for that matter. Find and bring terrorists to justice.

The difference is, Bush decided to invade a country that had nothing to do with terrorism under lies about WMDs.

This has been beaten to death, but what the hell.

You don't actually believe this do you? I would like you to provide the exact intelligence that Bush had proving he KNEW WITHOUT DOUBT they had no WMD's that would make it possible for him to LIE about it.

There is a difference between lying and being wrong. Dems seem to forget that conveniently when Obama promised he would negotiate before ever attacking another foreign power "I don't care who it is" I believe were his exact words, then he went after Ghadaffi without ever talking to him or the rebels, or without ever consulting congress, so he lied, but it's ok, because Obama is awesome. Bush was wrong about WMD's (as was all of congress, since they had the exact same intelligence to review that Bush did when they voted one vote short of unanimously to invade Iraq), but of course that was a lie since, well, since dems don't like him. I guess since Bush lied about the WMD's so did congress, since they were all working from the same intelligence, as was the EU, particularly Great Brittan whose own independent intelligence sources provided them with corroborating information.

Or you have to believe that the dumbest president ever was smart enough to trump up fake intelligence convincing enough to get all of congress to believe it was accurate in order to force us into a war. So in essence you have to admit that Bush was smarter than every democrat in congress at that time.

Good hell have you ever read the history of relations with Iraq, going back to the 70's and before? It was hardly some new thing Bush trumped up for fun.

Seriously, educate yourselves people before spouting off the latest crap the media and your political pundits push at you.

[/rant]

 

[Deleted member 365]

This has been beaten to death, but what the hell.

You don't actually believe this do you? I would like you to provide the exact intelligence that Bush had proving he KNEW WITHOUT DOUBT they had no WMD's that would make it possible for him to LIE about it.

There is a difference between lying and being wrong. Dems seem to forget that conveniently when Obama promised he would negotiate before ever attacking another foreign power "I don't care who it is" I believe were his exact words, then he went after Ghadaffi without ever talking to him or the rebels, or without ever consulting congress, so he lied, but it's ok, because Obama is awesome. Bush was wrong about WMD's (as was all of congress, since they had the exact same intelligence to review that Bush did when they voted one vote short of unanimously to invade Iraq), but of course that was a lie since, well, since dems don't like him. I guess since Bush lied about the WMD's so did congress, since they were all working from the same intelligence, as was the EU, particularly Great Brittan whose own independent intelligence sources provided them with corroborating information.

Or you have to believe that the dumbest president ever was smart enough to trump up fake intelligence convincing enough to get all of congress to believe it was accurate in order to force us into a war. So in essence you have to admit that Bush was smarter than every democrat in congress at that time.

Good hell have you ever read the history of relations with Iraq, going back to the 70's and before? It was hardly some new thing Bush trumped up for fun.

Seriously, educate yourselves people before spouting off the latest crap the media and your political pundits push at you.

[/rant]

Ever read the book Fiasco?

Bush's administration lied. Sorry folks, they did. Who cooked up the intelligence? Couldn't intelligence contrary to what the WH wanted just be discounted? Ooooppsss! Then, you bring in the subject of Bush's intelligence. You act as if he would have to work alone. You act as if Paul Wolfowitz had nothing to do with this. Or that Ahmed Chalabi had nothing to gain by the invasion. Pathetic.

Iraq has been prime real estate for thousands of years. People have fought over it for a long time. Why would today be any different? You had an overzealous administration wanting to spread "Democracy" and "free market" with connections to big oil... You had an American people angry at radicalism and afraid of the "next attack." They could then be easily manipulated. You had Iraqi refugees who were acting as our allies who would have loved nothing more to knock out Saddam and become leaders of the new Iraq. And you had a Congress scared to speak up for fear of being labeled anti-American.

It became a perfect storm. But of course, you wouldn't want to read a book written by an insider since *gasp* Obama sucks and Bush ruled.

Take accountability for what your Repub administration did and stop making excuses for them. What's funny is the crowd that preaches loudest about accountability refuses to take upon any.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Dems seem to forget that conveniently when Obama promised he would negotiate before ever attacking another foreign power "I don't care who it is" I believe were his exact words, then he went after Ghadaffi without ever talking to him or the rebels, or without ever consulting congress, so he lied, but it's ok, because Obama is awesome.

What was the context? What does "attack" mean? It easily could mean invade. As I remember, the context was about invading a foreign power and destroying its government ex Iraq.

Weren't the NATO negotiations and the cries for Gadhafhi to stop killing his own people enough talk for you? I think preventing the mass destruction of rebels is fine. But I guess people like you hate that because black Obama Democrat sucks no matter what.

/rant

 

[TheDude]

This has been beaten to death, but what the hell.

You don't actually believe this do you? I would like you to provide the exact intelligence that Bush had proving he KNEW WITHOUT DOUBT they had no WMD's that would make it possible for him to LIE about it.

There is a difference between lying and being wrong. Dems seem to forget that conveniently when Obama promised he would negotiate before ever attacking another foreign power "I don't care who it is" I believe were his exact words, then he went after Ghadaffi without ever talking to him or the rebels, or without ever consulting congress, so he lied, but it's ok, because Obama is awesome. Bush was wrong about WMD's (as was all of congress, since they had the exact same intelligence to review that Bush did when they voted one vote short of unanimously to invade Iraq), but of course that was a lie since, well, since dems don't like him. I guess since Bush lied about the WMD's so did congress, since they were all working from the same intelligence, as was the EU, particularly Great Brittan whose own independent intelligence sources provided them with corroborating information.

Or you have to believe that the dumbest president ever was smart enough to trump up fake intelligence convincing enough to get all of congress to believe it was accurate in order to force us into a war. So in essence you have to admit that Bush was smarter than every democrat in congress at that time.

Good hell have you ever read the history of relations with Iraq, going back to the 70's and before? It was hardly some new thing Bush trumped up for fun.

Seriously, educate yourselves people before spouting off the latest crap the media and your political pundits push at you.

[/rant]

Old man approves!

 

[LogGrad98]

What was the context? What does "attack" mean? It easily could mean invade. As I remember, the context was about invading a foreign power and destroying its government ex Iraq.

Weren't the NATO negotiations and the cries for Gadhafhi to stop killing his own people enough talk for you? I think preventing the mass destruction of rebels is fine. But I guess people like you hate that because black Obama Democrat sucks no matter what.

/rant

You do realize that the very second you play the race card it shows you have no real argument right? What in any of what I said implied I have a problem with Obama being black.

Also, what in any of what I said implied that I agreed with the way the war was carried out? I pointed out that being wrong is different than lying. I gave you an example of Bush being wrong and you weave a vast right-wing conspiracy out of it using a book with some serious omissions and logic based in opinion and conjecture, which actually does not make a very convincing case in and of itself that Bush lied, but rather is a condemnation of the planning and carrying out of the war in general - much of which I agree with. Then I point out a blatant and easily researchable lie by Obama and you split hairs. Oh I am sure he meant to say he will sit down with anyone unless it didn't fit his agenda, in which case he would just move pre-emptively. We definitley don't want to take him at his word, it might make him look bad.

By the way, you stuck to the democratic indoctrination talking points regarding the war in iraq perfectly. Bravo.





And again kudos pulling out that race card to bolster your position. Stay classy.