(05-05-2011 04:49 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  They are right and I've said since the beginning he deserves credit. Will you admit that most Republican (and Dem btw) leaders would have done the same thing?

Hard to say. You have had a president from each party pass up on an a previous opportunity to take out bin Laden when there was sufficient intelligence telling them they knew where he was.

(05-05-2011 04:35 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  

(05-05-2011 04:22 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-05-2011 03:39 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  

(05-05-2011 01:16 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-05-2011 08:06 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  ...telling the guy who just made an incredibly gutsy call...

Obama is the CIC so he deserves his credit for the capture of UBL. But can we stop this nonsense about what an "incredibly gutsy call" he made in a sad attempt to boost him politically? The Seals who conducted the operation were incredibly gutsy. Obama made a completely noncontroversial decision as President that well over 90% of the American public would have made had they been in his shoes. I'm not being political here - of course Bush or Cheney would have done it - but so would have Biden and both Clintons etc. It shouldn't be R v D. Obama wasn't in personal, political or professional danger with the decision. Let's save phrases like "incredibly gutsy" for those who do something incredibly gutsy so that it can retain some meaning.

Hawk the reason people are calling it "gutsy" is because of manner in which decision was made. Obviously everybody agreed getting OBL was a priority once intelligence indicated his location. Obama consulted with his National Security staff and top aides and reportedly it was a 50/50 split about what to do. Some wanted an aerial strike which would have put no americans in danger but could have made ID'ing body difficult. Others wanted more time to gather more intelligence on whether Bin Laden was even there. Obama was reportedly told there was a 50-80% chance that Bin Laden was there. Obama then made the incredibly gutsy call to send in Navy Seals, which is what CIA director Leon Panetta wanted as well. This was maximum risk because Americans could have died, but also because if bungled or if he wasnt there we would basically have sent our forces in to "invade" a country for no reason and caused an international nightmare that would have been a huge embarrassment for administration and provided plenty of ammo for his critics. It was of course also the right decision and he deserves credit for making it. Definitely gutsy in my book

What's your source for these "50/50" "50-80%" figures? Assuming you have them, I'll make you a wager without seeing them: I'll bet none of those who disagreed with the President are named - unlike Panetta who agreed of course. I don't doubt that the issues were raised, but I also strongly suspect the percentages who disagreed are made up. 50% really wanted to bomb instead knowing we'd likely never know for sure if we got Obama and destroy the expected "treasure trove" of information? I don't believe it without names on the record.

How would you have described the decision to bomb (had Obama done it) given the downside you cite? Would you have described it more as "cowardly" or "incredibly gutsy"? For Republicans in the MSM, it's usually "damned if you do; damned if you don't". For Obama, I'm guessing it's "praised if you do; praised if you don't" for you and the MSM.

Bottom line, answer me this: Do you think Bush would have made the same call? Bush Sr.?, Cheney? Rumsfeld? Bill Clinton? Hillary Clinton? Joe Biden? Ronald Reagan? I can go on: hell, Sarah Palin? You? Me? ...

In your opinion, who specifically wouldn't and why? If you think they all would, as I do, would you and others in the MSM have been so busy praising the decision-maker specifically for such an "incredibly gutsy call". Be honest.

Source:

"Minutes later, more word came over the transom. “Visual on Geronimo,” said a disembodied voice, using the agreed-upon code name for America’s most wanted enemy, Osama bin Laden. Word then came that Geronimo had been killed. Only when the last helicopter lifted off some minutes later did the President know that his forces had sustained no casualties.

The decision to attack had been made days earlier by the President. He gathered his senior intelligence, military and diplomatic team together in the Situation Room on Thursday afternoon to hear his options. There were already concerns about operational security. At that point, hundreds of people had already been read into the potential whereabouts of bin Laden. Any leak would have ruined the entire mission.

The intelligence professionals said they did not know for sure that bin Laden was in the compound. The case was good, but circumstantial. The likelihood, officials told the President, was between 50% and 80%. No slam dunk. Obama went around the table asking everyone to state their opinion. He quizzed his staff about worst case scenarios–the possibility of civilian casualties, a hostage situation, a diplomatic blow-up with Pakistan, a downed helicopter. He was presented with three options: Wait to gather more intelligence, attack with targeted bombs from the air, or go in on the ground with troops. The room was divided about 50-50, said a person in the room. John Brennan, the President’s senior counter-terrorism adviser, supported a ground strike, as did the operational people, including Leon Panetta at the CIA. Others called for more time. In the end, about half of the senior aides supported a helicopter assault. The other half said either wait, or strike from above.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/02/ins...z1LW045WEM

Its quite obvious that the names of those who disagreed will not be released.

What do you know - I'd have won the bet! Supporters are named, those who disagree are nameless but deliberately and clearly noted in an attempt to prove the President's "incredible guts". Even the 50% figure comes from a person with the unlikely name of "in the room". Glory for everyone! Accountability for nobody! Does this honestly not seem a little dubious to you?

Quote:If Obama had bombed Osama I would describe that decision as being neither cowardly nor gutsy but simply a fairly prudent decision balancing risk/reward to take out our #1 target without risking American lives and having several relatives who are active duty thats very important to me. Downsides of making that

American lives are very important to all of us - no need for condescension. Such are the responsibilities of President. So in other words, according to you, whatever he did would have been a good decision. I'll refine my summary: "praised greatly if you do; praised normally if you don't". Again I wonder if Bush would get the same consideration from you...

Quote:Finally I obviously would consider anyone who makes that decision as having made a gutsy call considering the situation and fact that CIC has final say, a great responsibility. Its ridiculous for me to assert my opinion on what other individuals would have done. I have no idea what the decision making process is within an individual like Bill Clinton or Sarah Palin. I can only speak for myself and can say that it would be a very, very tough decision and that I would want to see all the information available to President before I could tell you what I would have done in the same situation. I'm sure that there would've been at least a few others who if put in CIC chair would have either asked for more time to make sure Bin Laden was there or used a missile/bomb strike.

I'll take it at face value that you'd praise anyone who made the decision although your other comments give me doubt. As far as the rest of your response, obviously none of us knows what another would do for a fact. I was asking for your somewhat educated opinion on others from both parties who I suspect you freely commented and speculated about in many other situations. I think your reluctance to answer honestly and candidly pretty much makes my point.

(05-05-2011 05:13 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-05-2011 04:35 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  

(05-05-2011 04:22 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-05-2011 03:39 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  

(05-05-2011 01:16 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  Obama is the CIC so he deserves his credit for the capture of UBL. But can we stop this nonsense about what an "incredibly gutsy call" he made in a sad attempt to boost him politically? The Seals who conducted the operation were incredibly gutsy. Obama made a completely noncontroversial decision as President that well over 90% of the American public would have made had they been in his shoes. I'm not being political here - of course Bush or Cheney would have done it - but so would have Biden and both Clintons etc. It shouldn't be R v D. Obama wasn't in personal, political or professional danger with the decision. Let's save phrases like "incredibly gutsy" for those who do something incredibly gutsy so that it can retain some meaning.

Hawk the reason people are calling it "gutsy" is because of manner in which decision was made. Obviously everybody agreed getting OBL was a priority once intelligence indicated his location. Obama consulted with his National Security staff and top aides and reportedly it was a 50/50 split about what to do. Some wanted an aerial strike which would have put no americans in danger but could have made ID'ing body difficult. Others wanted more time to gather more intelligence on whether Bin Laden was even there. Obama was reportedly told there was a 50-80% chance that Bin Laden was there. Obama then made the incredibly gutsy call to send in Navy Seals, which is what CIA director Leon Panetta wanted as well. This was maximum risk because Americans could have died, but also because if bungled or if he wasnt there we would basically have sent our forces in to "invade" a country for no reason and caused an international nightmare that would have been a huge embarrassment for administration and provided plenty of ammo for his critics. It was of course also the right decision and he deserves credit for making it. Definitely gutsy in my book

What's your source for these "50/50" "50-80%" figures? Assuming you have them, I'll make you a wager without seeing them: I'll bet none of those who disagreed with the President are named - unlike Panetta who agreed of course. I don't doubt that the issues were raised, but I also strongly suspect the percentages who disagreed are made up. 50% really wanted to bomb instead knowing we'd likely never know for sure if we got Obama and destroy the expected "treasure trove" of information? I don't believe it without names on the record.

How would you have described the decision to bomb (had Obama done it) given the downside you cite? Would you have described it more as "cowardly" or "incredibly gutsy"? For Republicans in the MSM, it's usually "damned if you do; damned if you don't". For Obama, I'm guessing it's "praised if you do; praised if you don't" for you and the MSM.

Bottom line, answer me this: Do you think Bush would have made the same call? Bush Sr.?, Cheney? Rumsfeld? Bill Clinton? Hillary Clinton? Joe Biden? Ronald Reagan? I can go on: hell, Sarah Palin? You? Me? ...

In your opinion, who specifically wouldn't and why? If you think they all would, as I do, would you and others in the MSM have been so busy praising the decision-maker specifically for such an "incredibly gutsy call". Be honest.

Source:

"Minutes later, more word came over the transom. “Visual on Geronimo,” said a disembodied voice, using the agreed-upon code name for America’s most wanted enemy, Osama bin Laden. Word then came that Geronimo had been killed. Only when the last helicopter lifted off some minutes later did the President know that his forces had sustained no casualties.

The decision to attack had been made days earlier by the President. He gathered his senior intelligence, military and diplomatic team together in the Situation Room on Thursday afternoon to hear his options. There were already concerns about operational security. At that point, hundreds of people had already been read into the potential whereabouts of bin Laden. Any leak would have ruined the entire mission.

The intelligence professionals said they did not know for sure that bin Laden was in the compound. The case was good, but circumstantial. The likelihood, officials told the President, was between 50% and 80%. No slam dunk. Obama went around the table asking everyone to state their opinion. He quizzed his staff about worst case scenarios–the possibility of civilian casualties, a hostage situation, a diplomatic blow-up with Pakistan, a downed helicopter. He was presented with three options: Wait to gather more intelligence, attack with targeted bombs from the air, or go in on the ground with troops. The room was divided about 50-50, said a person in the room. John Brennan, the President’s senior counter-terrorism adviser, supported a ground strike, as did the operational people, including Leon Panetta at the CIA. Others called for more time. In the end, about half of the senior aides supported a helicopter assault. The other half said either wait, or strike from above.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/02/ins...z1LW045WEM

Its quite obvious that the names of those who disagreed will not be released.

What do you know - I'd have won the bet! Supporters are named, those who disagree are nameless but clearly noted in an attempt to prove the President's "incredible guts". Even the 50% figure comes from a person with the unlikely name of "in the room". Glory for everyone! Accountability for nobody! Does this honestly not seem a little dubious to you?

Quote:If Obama had bombed Osama I would describe that decision as being neither cowardly nor gutsy but simply a fairly prudent decision balancing risk/reward to take out our #1 target without risking American lives and having several relatives who are active duty thats very important to me. Downsides of making that

American lives are very important to all of us - no need for condescension. Such are the responsibilities of President. So in other words, according to you, whatever he did would have been a good decision. I'll refine my summary: "praised greatly if you do; praised normally if you don't". Again I wonder if Bush would get the same consideration from you...

Quote:Finally I obviously would consider anyone who makes that decision as having made a gutsy call considering the situation and fact that CIC has final say, a great responsibility. Its ridiculous for me to assert my opinion on what other individuals would have done. I have no idea what the decision making process is within an individual like Bill Clinton or Sarah Palin. I can only speak for myself and can say that it would be a very, very tough decision and that I would want to see all the information available to President before I could tell you what I would have done in the same situation. I'm sure that there would've been at least a few others who if put in CIC chair would have either asked for more time to make sure Bin Laden was there or used a missile/bomb strike.

I'll take it at face value that you'd praise anyone who made the decision although your other comments give me doubt. As far as the rest of your response, obviously none of us knows what another would do for a fact. I was asking for your somewhat educated opinion on others from both parties who I suspect you freely commented and speculated about in many other situations. I think your reluctance to answer honestly and candidly pretty much makes my point.

"American lives are very important to all of us - no need for condescension."

I wasnt being condescending I was mentioning my heartfelt thoughts. Not only do I have several active duty relatives but my best friend was a SEAL who died in Afghanistan. Obviously important to everyone but recently seems to stick out more to me.

"I was asking for your somewhat educated opinion on others from both parties who I suspect you freely commented and speculated about in many other situations. I think your reluctance to answer honestly and candidly pretty much makes my point."

My reluctance to answer doesnt prove your point in any way. I can freely speculate about whether Clinton or Palin might support XYZ policy etc but for a decision of this magnitude and without information President had in front of him its impossible to speculate.

(05-05-2011 05:11 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(05-05-2011 04:49 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  They are right and I've said since the beginning he deserves credit. Will you admit that most Republican (and Dem btw) leaders would have done the same thing?

Hard to say. You have had a president from each party pass up on an a previous opportunity to take out bin Laden when there was sufficient intelligence telling them they knew where he was.

It's not hard at all. Ignoring the details, do those decisions receive praise or scorn now? Taking a pass on bin Laden in this environment would be incomprehensible by most of the electorate. If you don't think the American public is/was currently near 100% in favor of taking out bin Laden, then I question your perception or honesty. The reaction we are seeing to his capture and death is a surprise to NOBODY.

(05-05-2011 05:19 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  

(05-05-2011 05:13 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-05-2011 04:35 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  

(05-05-2011 04:22 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-05-2011 03:39 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  Hawk the reason people are calling it "gutsy" is because of manner in which decision was made. Obviously everybody agreed getting OBL was a priority once intelligence indicated his location. Obama consulted with his National Security staff and top aides and reportedly it was a 50/50 split about what to do. Some wanted an aerial strike which would have put no americans in danger but could have made ID'ing body difficult. Others wanted more time to gather more intelligence on whether Bin Laden was even there. Obama was reportedly told there was a 50-80% chance that Bin Laden was there. Obama then made the incredibly gutsy call to send in Navy Seals, which is what CIA director Leon Panetta wanted as well. This was maximum risk because Americans could have died, but also because if bungled or if he wasnt there we would basically have sent our forces in to "invade" a country for no reason and caused an international nightmare that would have been a huge embarrassment for administration and provided plenty of ammo for his critics. It was of course also the right decision and he deserves credit for making it. Definitely gutsy in my book

What's your source for these "50/50" "50-80%" figures? Assuming you have them, I'll make you a wager without seeing them: I'll bet none of those who disagreed with the President are named - unlike Panetta who agreed of course. I don't doubt that the issues were raised, but I also strongly suspect the percentages who disagreed are made up. 50% really wanted to bomb instead knowing we'd likely never know for sure if we got Obama and destroy the expected "treasure trove" of information? I don't believe it without names on the record.

How would you have described the decision to bomb (had Obama done it) given the downside you cite? Would you have described it more as "cowardly" or "incredibly gutsy"? For Republicans in the MSM, it's usually "damned if you do; damned if you don't". For Obama, I'm guessing it's "praised if you do; praised if you don't" for you and the MSM.

Bottom line, answer me this: Do you think Bush would have made the same call? Bush Sr.?, Cheney? Rumsfeld? Bill Clinton? Hillary Clinton? Joe Biden? Ronald Reagan? I can go on: hell, Sarah Palin? You? Me? ...

In your opinion, who specifically wouldn't and why? If you think they all would, as I do, would you and others in the MSM have been so busy praising the decision-maker specifically for such an "incredibly gutsy call". Be honest.

Source:

"Minutes later, more word came over the transom. “Visual on Geronimo,” said a disembodied voice, using the agreed-upon code name for America’s most wanted enemy, Osama bin Laden. Word then came that Geronimo had been killed. Only when the last helicopter lifted off some minutes later did the President know that his forces had sustained no casualties.

The decision to attack had been made days earlier by the President. He gathered his senior intelligence, military and diplomatic team together in the Situation Room on Thursday afternoon to hear his options. There were already concerns about operational security. At that point, hundreds of people had already been read into the potential whereabouts of bin Laden. Any leak would have ruined the entire mission.

The intelligence professionals said they did not know for sure that bin Laden was in the compound. The case was good, but circumstantial. The likelihood, officials told the President, was between 50% and 80%. No slam dunk. Obama went around the table asking everyone to state their opinion. He quizzed his staff about worst case scenarios–the possibility of civilian casualties, a hostage situation, a diplomatic blow-up with Pakistan, a downed helicopter. He was presented with three options: Wait to gather more intelligence, attack with targeted bombs from the air, or go in on the ground with troops. The room was divided about 50-50, said a person in the room. John Brennan, the President’s senior counter-terrorism adviser, supported a ground strike, as did the operational people, including Leon Panetta at the CIA. Others called for more time. In the end, about half of the senior aides supported a helicopter assault. The other half said either wait, or strike from above.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/02/ins...z1LW045WEM

Its quite obvious that the names of those who disagreed will not be released.

What do you know - I'd have won the bet! Supporters are named, those who disagree are nameless but clearly noted in an attempt to prove the President's "incredible guts". Even the 50% figure comes from a person with the unlikely name of "in the room". Glory for everyone! Accountability for nobody! Does this honestly not seem a little dubious to you?

Quote:If Obama had bombed Osama I would describe that decision as being neither cowardly nor gutsy but simply a fairly prudent decision balancing risk/reward to take out our #1 target without risking American lives and having several relatives who are active duty thats very important to me. Downsides of making that

American lives are very important to all of us - no need for condescension. Such are the responsibilities of President. So in other words, according to you, whatever he did would have been a good decision. I'll refine my summary: "praised greatly if you do; praised normally if you don't". Again I wonder if Bush would get the same consideration from you...

Quote:Finally I obviously would consider anyone who makes that decision as having made a gutsy call considering the situation and fact that CIC has final say, a great responsibility. Its ridiculous for me to assert my opinion on what other individuals would have done. I have no idea what the decision making process is within an individual like Bill Clinton or Sarah Palin. I can only speak for myself and can say that it would be a very, very tough decision and that I would want to see all the information available to President before I could tell you what I would have done in the same situation. I'm sure that there would've been at least a few others who if put in CIC chair would have either asked for more time to make sure Bin Laden was there or used a missile/bomb strike.

I'll take it at face value that you'd praise anyone who made the decision although your other comments give me doubt. As far as the rest of your response, obviously none of us knows what another would do for a fact. I was asking for your somewhat educated opinion on others from both parties who I suspect you freely commented and speculated about in many other situations. I think your reluctance to answer honestly and candidly pretty much makes my point.

"American lives are very important to all of us - no need for condescension."

I wasnt being condescending I was mentioning my heartfelt thoughts. Not only do I have several active duty relatives but my best friend was a SEAL who died in Afghanistan. Obviously important to everyone but recently seems to stick out more to me.

Fair enough. Perhaps I took out my frustration with those type of lectures from liberals out on you. I apologize and retract the characterization.

Quote:"I was asking for your somewhat educated opinion on others from both parties who I suspect you freely commented and speculated about in many other situations. I think your reluctance to answer honestly and candidly pretty much makes my point."

My reluctance to answer doesnt prove your point in any way. I can freely speculate about whether Clinton or Palin might support XYZ policy etc but for a decision of this magnitude and without information President had in front of him its impossible to speculate.

??? But you summarized AND quoted the information pretty clearly above when it came to Obama. And you seem to fully support those who characterize his decision based upon that as "incredibly gutsy". Why wasn't that "impossible to speculate"? I don't understand the reluctance to speculate about others on this issue other than the likely event you don't like the answers you'd have to give if you were being fully honest.

(05-05-2011 04:57 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  

(05-05-2011 04:49 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-05-2011 04:33 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(05-05-2011 01:16 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-05-2011 08:06 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  ...telling the guy who just made an incredibly gutsy call...

Obama is the CIC so he deserves his credit for the capture of UBL. But can we stop this nonsense about what an "incredibly gutsy call" he made in a sad attempt to boost him politically? The Seals who conducted the operation were incredibly gutsy. Obama made a completely noncontroversial decision as President that well over 90% of the American public would have made had they been in his shoes. I'm not being political here - of course Bush or Cheney would have done it - but so would have Biden and both Clintons etc. It shouldn't be R v D. Obama wasn't in personal, political or professional danger with the decision. Let's save phrases like "incredibly gutsy" for those who do something incredibly gutsy so that it can retain some meaning.

This was a high risk mission. It could just as easily have been a "Blackhawk Down" or Iranian hostage type debacle. It required going into the suburbs of another nation's capitol and acting with precision.

From Obama's standpoint, the downside was easily greater than the upside. The mission succeeded - the euphoria is already wearing off. If the mission failed, it would have been a deathblow to the Obama presidency, and a huge wound to the nation's psyche. Doing nothing would have been the easy thing, but that's not the direction Obama took. He deserves credit.

When people like Cheney and Limbaugh are offering praise to Obama...you know this is something out of the ordinary.

They are right and I've said since the beginning he deserves credit. Will you admit that most Republican (and Dem btw) leaders would have done the same thing? Would you be singing the same praise if Bush had ordered it?

Crazy question. Of course everybody would be singing same praise if Bush had done this. The killing of Americas #1 enemy transcends party lines. Every liberal I know would be happy and proud. And as I noted in post above its impossible to know and ridiculous to assert that "most" leaders would have done same thing. For starters, were not even privy to all information that Obama was given regarding situation. Theres no way to tell which option any other leader might have chosen.

I agree few Americans would be upset about bin Laden being caught and killed during Bush's term. Perhaps you misunderstood or I poorly phrased my question: I was asking whether Bush himself would receive the same glorifying praise from the same folks under the same circumstances.

You can't have it both ways. You can't praise Obama's decision making and "incredible guts" while also claiming we don't know enough about the situation. Nobody asked you to "know" what other leaders would do; the question was to speculate based upon what you know about the person and utilizing the same facts/information that you do when praising Obama. It IS telling that you can see all types of speculation and criticism of these leaders, particularly Republicans, but you steadfastly avoid it here. Methinks there's a reason beyond the "lack of information" farce.

(05-05-2011 04:49 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-05-2011 04:33 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(05-05-2011 01:16 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-05-2011 08:06 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  ...telling the guy who just made an incredibly gutsy call...

Obama is the CIC so he deserves his credit for the capture of UBL. But can we stop this nonsense about what an "incredibly gutsy call" he made in a sad attempt to boost him politically? The Seals who conducted the operation were incredibly gutsy. Obama made a completely noncontroversial decision as President that well over 90% of the American public would have made had they been in his shoes. I'm not being political here - of course Bush or Cheney would have done it - but so would have Biden and both Clintons etc. It shouldn't be R v D. Obama wasn't in personal, political or professional danger with the decision. Let's save phrases like "incredibly gutsy" for those who do something incredibly gutsy so that it can retain some meaning.

This was a high risk mission. It could just as easily have been a "Blackhawk Down" or Iranian hostage type debacle. It required going into the suburbs of another nation's capitol and acting with precision.

From Obama's standpoint, the downside was easily greater than the upside. The mission succeeded - the euphoria is already wearing off. If the mission failed, it would have been a deathblow to the Obama presidency, and a huge wound to the nation's psyche. Doing nothing would have been the easy thing, but that's not the direction Obama took. He deserves credit.

When people like Cheney and Limbaugh are offering praise to Obama...you know this is something out of the ordinary.

They are right and I've said since the beginning he deserves credit. Will you admit that most Republican (and Dem btw) leaders would have done the same thing? Would you be singing the same praise if Bush had ordered it?

I definitely would have praised Bush if he had done the same thing. No question.

I'm not sure that everyone else put in that same position would have done the same thing, primarily because of where bin Ladan was located - just outside the capitol of an unstable nation, about a half a mile from that country's top military school.

In the interest of full disclosure - while I try to stay away from conspiracy theories, I'm wrestling with the notion that bin Laden's hideaway was such a secret and that the knowledge of his whereabouts rested solely upon a trusted courier.

Pakistan knew he was there, I'm guessing with the involvement of the military. Bin Laden doesn't just slip into the 'burbs of Islamabad and park himself there for years without anyone knowing.

I'm having problems with the official story.

(05-06-2011 10:15 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(05-05-2011 04:49 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-05-2011 04:33 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(05-05-2011 01:16 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-05-2011 08:06 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  ...telling the guy who just made an incredibly gutsy call...

Obama is the CIC so he deserves his credit for the capture of UBL. But can we stop this nonsense about what an "incredibly gutsy call" he made in a sad attempt to boost him politically? The Seals who conducted the operation were incredibly gutsy. Obama made a completely noncontroversial decision as President that well over 90% of the American public would have made had they been in his shoes. I'm not being political here - of course Bush or Cheney would have done it - but so would have Biden and both Clintons etc. It shouldn't be R v D. Obama wasn't in personal, political or professional danger with the decision. Let's save phrases like "incredibly gutsy" for those who do something incredibly gutsy so that it can retain some meaning.

This was a high risk mission. It could just as easily have been a "Blackhawk Down" or Iranian hostage type debacle. It required going into the suburbs of another nation's capitol and acting with precision.

From Obama's standpoint, the downside was easily greater than the upside. The mission succeeded - the euphoria is already wearing off. If the mission failed, it would have been a deathblow to the Obama presidency, and a huge wound to the nation's psyche. Doing nothing would have been the easy thing, but that's not the direction Obama took. He deserves credit.

When people like Cheney and Limbaugh are offering praise to Obama...you know this is something out of the ordinary.

They are right and I've said since the beginning he deserves credit. Will you admit that most Republican (and Dem btw) leaders would have done the same thing? Would you be singing the same praise if Bush had ordered it?

I definitely would have praised Bush if he had done the same thing. No question.

I'm not sure that everyone else put in that same position would have done the same thing, primarily because of where bin Ladan was located - just outside the capitol of an unstable nation, about a half a mile from that country's top military school.

I'm not sure I get the significance of the location? Are you suggesting we'd do an aerial strike there instead? If anything the location is one more reason to send in the Seals. What if our aerial strike missed and hit the military academy or a few retired generals' homes? How does the location change the issue? Those seem to be the two main options. I guess there's a 3rd - wait for some unknown time/event aka do nothing. Do you really think an American President could sell that to the public if they found out?

The bottom line is most everyone agrees it was the right decision and most Americans of both parties would have done the same thing if it was their call under the circumstances. Obama made a good and correct decision, but let's not get it confused as personally heroic or courageous and save that for the Seals who actually put themselves on the line.

Quote:In the interest of full disclosure - while I try to stay away from conspiracy theories, I'm wrestling with the notion that bin Laden's hideaway was such a secret and that the knowledge of his whereabouts rested solely upon a trusted courier.

Pakistan knew he was there, I'm guessing with the involvement of the military. Bin Laden doesn't just slip into the 'burbs of Islamabad and park himself there for years without anyone knowing.

I'm having problems with the official story.

There are unfortunately problems with the official story from both Pakistan and the US (which is inexcusable imo and a significant failure on the part of this Administration). With regard to Pakistan, I agree it seems very likely that some knew he was there, but it's conceivable not everyone knew he was there up to and including the President. In any event I'd demand answers and wouldn't hesitate to pull aid to them if I didn't like what I heard or didn't get an adequate response.

(05-06-2011 09:00 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  I'm not sure I get the significance of the location? Are you suggesting we'd do an aerial strike there instead? If anything the location is one more reason to send in the Seals. What if our aerial strike missed and hit the military academy or a few retired generals' homes? How does the location change the issue? Those seem to be the two main options. I guess there's a 3rd - wait for some unknown time/event aka do nothing. Do you really think an American President could sell that to the public if they found out?

The issue of whether to enter Pakistan to take out bin Laden was brought up in the campaign. McCain said he wouldn't do it because Pakistan is a sovereign nation. Obama was called "naive" for saying he'd do what he just did.

Quote:There are unfortunately problems with the official story from both Pakistan and the US (which is inexcusable imo and a significant failure on the part of this Administration). With regard to Pakistan, I agree it seems very likely that some knew he was there, but it's conceivable not everyone knew he was there up to and including the President. In any event I'd demand answers and wouldn't hesitate to pull aid to them if I didn't like what I heard or didn't get an adequate response.

I was watching Bill Maher last night and he showed a clip from one of his shows from 2008. I'm not sure of her name - Christine Amanpour??? - from CNN???? - was shown saying that bin Laden was not in a cave but housed in a villa. She didn't say where the villa was, but the implication is that he was holed up in a comfortable place.

(05-09-2011 08:09 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(05-06-2011 09:00 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  I'm not sure I get the significance of the location? Are you suggesting we'd do an aerial strike there instead? If anything the location is one more reason to send in the Seals. What if our aerial strike missed and hit the military academy or a few retired generals' homes? How does the location change the issue? Those seem to be the two main options. I guess there's a 3rd - wait for some unknown time/event aka do nothing. Do you really think an American President could sell that to the public if they found out?

The issue of whether to enter Pakistan to take out bin Laden was brought up in the campaign. McCain said he wouldn't do it because Pakistan is a sovereign nation. Obama was called "naive" for saying he'd do what he just did.

Fair point and kudos to Obama. It's one campaign issue he was right about and ultimately followed through on - although there might have been quite a bit of luck involved as the link below indicates. But first, it is worth noting that our suspicion about Pakistan's actual versus claimed cooperation has increased quite a bit in the past 2 years+ which changed the dynamics quite a bit from the debate.

And then there's the following from The Guardian, which if true, gave Obama a free pass to make the so-called "incredibly gutsy call" even if he didn't know about it at the time of the debates.

Pakistan authorized US to conduct UBL Mission 10 years ago

It's also worth noting that MSM's reaction and description to actions by Obama is very different than their reaction/description to actions by a Republican President. Perhaps it was McCain who was most naive when he assumed the MSM would evaluate the actions independent of whether they were ordered by a Republican or Democat. Let's compare:
- Obama orders the killing, executed via a shot in the face, of an unarmed (suspected?) terrorist, UBL, without a trial to avoid the complications of taking him alive. Obama is credited for an "incredibly gutsy call" by most MSM.
- Bush orders enhanced interrogation of a (suspected?) terrorist, KSM, and holds him under humane conditions until he eventually gets a military trial in order to gather intelligence and potentially prevent future incidents. Bush is portrayed as being "just like a terrorist" by many in the media and very possibly criminal by Obama and his administration.

Here's another update you probably don't want to hear about: on 60 Minutes, Kroft asked Obama specifically about reports that some advisers "disagreed" with the decision. Obama's replies never mentioned anyone disagreeing with the decision, instead the term he used was some "expressed doubts" - which is very similar to my speculation earlier in this thread. He then called the doubts "invaluable", before humbly noting all the "doubts" expressed were of course "already running through his head".

There is absolutely no way you can justify killing a defenseless OBL while criticizing the Bush administration for water boarding KSM.

To criticize one and accept the other is simply not consistent. Chris Wallace brought that point up to a senior official on his Sunday morning show, but the response was clearly weak before moving on.

(05-10-2011 08:05 AM)Overrated Wrote:  There is absolutely no way you can justify killing a defenseless OBL while criticizing the Bush administration for water boarding KSM.

To criticize one and accept the other is simply not consistent. Mike Wallace brought that point up to a senior official on his Sunday morning show, but the response was clearly weak before moving on.

I am surprised Mike Wallace even brought it up. This is pass #5898 the media has given this administration.

Abu Ghraib photos
Coffin photos
Dead soldier photos

But that was back when Bush was in office and the courageous media felt obligated to give us daily reality reminders of the horror and brutality of war.

Now that they have their leftist hero. Nothing to see here.

Unarmed OBL shot in the head and chest in front of his unarmed wife? Maybe, "fog of war" and all. It would rude to question much further.

(05-10-2011 09:29 AM)Eastside_J Wrote:  

(05-10-2011 08:05 AM)Overrated Wrote:  There is absolutely no way you can justify killing a defenseless OBL while criticizing the Bush administration for water boarding KSM.

To criticize one and accept the other is simply not consistent. Mike Wallace brought that point up to a senior official on his Sunday morning show, but the response was clearly weak before moving on.

I am surprised Mike Wallace even brought it up. This is pass #5898 the media has given this administration.

Abu Ghraib photos
Coffin photos
Dead soldier photos

But that was back when Bush was in office and the courageous media felt obligated to give us daily reality reminders of the horror and brutality of war.

Now that they have their leftist hero. Nothing to see here.

Unarmed OBL shot in the head and chest in front of his unarmed wife? Maybe, "fog of war" and all. It would rude to question much further.

Although I hadn't seen it when I originally brought up the subject, I think Overrated is referring to Chris Wallace's interview of National Security Adviser Tom Donilon whose response is embarrassingly incoherent.

Wallace To Donilon: If Shooting Bin Laden Is OK, 'Why Can't You Do Waterboarding?' (video and transcript)

Yes my bad. I will edit the post.

Whether to show the photo or not is one of the most overrated political topics I've heard in quite some time.