Pres. Obama DOES deserve a great deal of credit...

[Drunken Irishman]

This was his call. He staked his presidency on this decision last night and it proved successful. That alone tells me he deserves much credit. This was not a slam dunk mission. This was not a mission that had an easy outcome. It wasn't simple. It wasn't one that needed only a moment's thought.

It was a decision that very well could have turned out horribly. A lot could have gone wrong and, as we've been told, some things did go wrong. This could have been akin to Operation Eagle Claw in 1980 or the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993. This was really threading the needle and Pres. Obama made the difficult decision to go ahead with it.

That takes guts. Had this failed, Pres. Obama would have essentially lost his presidency last night.

He knew that. He didn't care. He acted, it proved successful and because of it, Pres. Obama kept his promise. He killed bin Laden.

[babylonsister]

1. The decision was made a long time ago by the President; he had

all his ducks in a row and implemented it yesterday. Sounds like a very precise, driven man. I'm so grateful!

[SlimJimmy]

8. Grateful for what? That he acted unilateralyy to kill an enemy in a foreign land without the

permission of the host country? My, how things have changed here at DU in the last two years. I'm beyond pleased that Bin Laden is gone, but I'm not very happy about this unilateral decision.

[TTUBatfan2008]

10. Pakistan got exactly what they deserved...

Two-faced bastards. In fact, they deserve to be kicked out of the U.N. for harboring the most wanted man on the planet.

[Drunken Irishman]

11. Maybe, but Obama has said this since 2007...

He said in August 2007 that if bin Laden was in Pakistan and the U.S. felt they needed to go in, they would without Pakistan's approval.

It needed to be done.

[SlimJimmy]

12. I never said it didn't need to be done. But I think we

*conveniently* forget the comments Bush* got when he acted in this same manner. Does the political party of the President make such a difference for DU? I would hope not, but it sure looks that way to me.

[TTUBatfan2008]

14. Wait, what?

Bush went in and bombed the hell out of another country, then proceeded to occupy it. How is that the same as a special ops mission involving around 40 SEALs? There were no bombs dropped. They got in and got out quickly.

[SlimJimmy]

19. So, like I said - because it was a special ops team that acted on the President's orders, that

suddenly makes a huge difference? I think not. You can make all the excuses you want, that's fine. But I'm not buying the sudden change of heart here at DU. Either we are against unilateral action by our government, or we aren't. I don't see a lot of middle ground on this one.

[TTUBatfan2008]

20. Speak for yourself.

I'm against unilateral bombing and "nation-building." But a special ops mission to take out one terrorist? Pretty big difference.

[SlimJimmy]

21. No.it.is.not. (nt)

[damonm]

58. Yes. It. Is.

See? I too can make single word sentences.

[stevenleser]

27. Is anyone else in the international community complaining about our 'unilateral' decision? That is

the test.

[SlimJimmy]

48. So, if we go into Venezuela and kill Chavez and no one complains, it's okay?

I just don't follow the logic at all. Acting unilaterally was wrong under Bush* and it's wrong under President Obama.

[stevenleser]

50. That would be one indication, yes. But you and I both know that there would be complaints so your

example fails.

[SlimJimmy]

52. Complaints?

I guess my example is still valid considering that Pakistan has made an official complaint. Example does not fail.

[stevenleser]

55. Link? Because when you provide one, I will provide one that says they were on board with it. n/t

FAIL

[SlimJimmy]

56. Listen at the link - complaints will continue.

Musharraf: Raid violated Pakistani sovereignty‎

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/musharraf_raid_violated_pakistani_sovereignty/2011/05/03/AFObwagF_video.html

[stevenleser]

57. Musharraf does not represent Pakistan anymore. Your link is a FAIL. n/t

[SlimJimmy]

60. Pakistan did not know and did not give their permission for the raid

I've now provided two links. All you have been able to do is wave your hands above your head and run in circles yelling FAIL. It seems to me that you are the one failing here.

In his first interview since commanding the mission to kill Osama bin Laden, CIA chief Leon Panetta tells TIME that U.S. officials feared that Pakistan could have undermined the operation by leaking word to its targets. Long before Panetta ordered Vice Admiral William McRaven, head of the Joint Special Forces Command, to undertake the mission at 1:22 p.m. on Friday, the CIA had been gaming out how to structure the raid. Months prior, the U.S. had considered expanding the assault to include coordination with other countries, notably Pakistan. But the CIA ruled out participating with its nominal South Asian ally early on because “it was decided that any effort to work with the Pakistanis could jeopardize the mission. They might alert the targets,” Panetta says.

http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/03/cia-chief-breaks-silence-u-s-ruled-out-involving-pakistan-in-bin-laden-raid-early-on/

[stevenleser]

62. Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani termed the killing of Osama bin Laden "a Great Victory"

http://www.ptinews.com/news/1563774_Gilani-in-France--says-bin-Laden-s-killing-great-victory

"I am relieved bin Laden is no more," - Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to the United States
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/04/us.pakistan.relations/index.html?hpt=T1

Your links have no data from anyone who is in any position of authority in Pakistan. Mine do. You are full of crap and yes, YOU FAIL

[SlimJimmy]

66. So, the Director if the CIA is not a good source? Laughable.

[stevenleser]

67. For what the government of Pakistan thinks? No. It is not a good source. Certainly not better than

the Prime Minister of Pakistan! :rofl:

[SlimJimmy]

68. Okay then, how about the Pakistani Army Chief? He's none too

pleased. I guess it's not so f'ing funny now, huh?

In his first public reaction to the American raid four days ago that left many Pakistanis questioning the capacities of the nation’s army, General Kayani did not appear in person, choosing instead to convey his angry message through a statement by his press office and in a closed meeting with selected Pakistani reporters.

The statement by the army’s press office said, “Any similar action violating the sovereignty of Pakistan will warrant a review on the level of military/intelligence cooperation with the United States.”

General Kayani had decided that the number of American military personnel in Pakistan were to be reduced “to the minimum essential,” the statement said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/world/asia/06react.html

[damonm]

59. And how many people died on US soil because of Chavez?

Your false equivalencies are getting more batshit by the minute.

You "don't follow the logic" because you're not CAPABLE of logic.
You prove this by your ludicrous insistence that somehow one in-and-out raid by 40 SEALs aimed at ONE non-head of state is equal to bombing the shit out of a politically stable nation, toppling its government, and occupying it for years.

That's some weapons-grade stupid.

[SlimJimmy]

61. What is stupid is the massive change in position by the majority of DU when we

have a Democratic President. In all the years I've been at DU, I haven't changed my position on this - and I'm not going to now. So, I guess we are all HAWKS with a massive blood lust and no problem with unilateral action? It's bullshit in the extreme.

[stevenleser]

63. I agree about the weapons grade stuff and now that person moves the goalposts & changes the subject

They post batshit stuff and claim we have changed with the occupant of the White House.

That person would know we havent changed if their mind was up to making a coherent argument and logical thinking.

[alcibiades_mystery]

34. Obama stated multiple times during the campaign he would do just this

He said it in one of the debates. He caught flak for it from Romney. It was one of his key foreign policy ideas that I voted for.

To pretend now that Obama hadn't said all along that this is exactly how he would handle Pakistan is just ignorant beyond reasonableness.

He said he'd do it. And he did it.

[SlimJimmy]

53. So, because President Obama said he would do something as a campaign promise makes it just

fine? It's still a unilateral action, and something he railed against Bush* for doing. I just don't see your logic on this one.

[babylonsister]

15. Do you actually think, when the opportunity presented itself,

he/we shouldn't have acted? Now we know/are realizing how complicit Pakistan was in hiding him.

Had he not acted, would he not have been emulating idiot son?

My, how things change and yet remain the same for some mindsets on DU.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[babylonsister]

23. Pardon me? WHO should we have gotten permission from?

To 'get' bin Laden? Who would have made this decision any different? And what do you mean by change of heart? That was always the mission; idiot son couldn't accomplish it, and then stopped trying.

[SlimJimmy]

28. You're right. We should just go into any country we want to when we want to

and kill anyone we please. No coordination or cooperation necessary.

[msanthrope]

47. Well, we tried coordination and cooperation. When that didn't work---

we got the job done.

Yemen's next.

[SlimJimmy]

49. Wow, we sure have a lot of hawks at DU all of a sudden. (nt)

[stevenleser]

51. LOL, so wanting to get bin Laden makes someone a hawk in your eyes? LMAO n/t

[SlimJimmy]

54. Actually, I was referring the "Yemen next" comment. Did you happen to read that?

[fujiyama]

16. Waaaaaahhhhh!

Fuck 'em. If they knew ahead of time, the mission would have been compromised. Untrustworthy bastards.

[JoePhilly]

30. Obama said he'd do EXACTLY this as a candidate.

He said that if we had the intel to get bin Ladin, and the Pakistan government was unwilling or unable to act, that he, as President would take OBL out.

He said this as a candidate. No one on DU (people who at least claim to follow politics) should be acting surprised by these events.

If you voted for Obama, THIS is exactly what he said he'd do. Promise kept.

btw ... OBL is not a Pakistani citizen. He is (scratch that) WAS a fugitive and an international terrorist.

[Ikonoklast]

45. Ohhh, the poor, treacherous ISI and corrupt to the core Pakistani military

and government officials all looking the other way while the most famous internationall-wanted mass-murderer was camping out for at least six years in THEIR FREAKIN' BACK YARD has a defender.


Pakistan was given warnings, not one time, but many times through many different channels that this is exactly what was going to happen if they were unwilling to stop taking money from bin Laden to have amnesia as to his whereabouts.

[DFab420]

2. But .. but.. but..

Aren't you upset that

a) There is no body therefore it can't be true

2) Killing is mean, and mean people suck

c) Some other BS complaint about what happend.

:sarcasm:

Oh my favorite "Osama bin Laden was only an "alleged" criminal..."

Like seriously, give me a break...


K+R.

[pacalo]

3. I was particularly proud of Obama's adult, classy demeanor in announcing it.

It was to the point, there was no smirk with a twinkle in his eyes, & no John Wayne cowboy platitudes.

[tekisui]

9. Contrast the Class that President Obama Showed to this Crass:

Remember Bremer? We got 'em.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S02BHmWPZNs

edit: I meant this as an OP. But, I'll leave it here, too.

[pacalo]

13. That *should* be an OP!

[RandomThoughts]

4. That would comment on the data.

But within that perspective, I agree he should get the credit within that context.

Gutsy yet calculated move, with a purpose, and that can help correct many issues, and even release some problems that were being caused in many minds.

[vi5]

5. Agreed.

I'm a fairly big critic of the president with regard to Domestic policy and economic policy which I think are 2 massive, massive issues. But on foreign policy even though I disagree with a lot of his approach I do trust him to be making the right decisions in that area since he has much more information than I do or that I would even come close to having access to (much different than economic policy which we can all see the impact of decisions either to act or not act, and also have historical data to support our second guessing).

And he proved it with this. He made a decision and it was the right one. He deserves every bit of credit in the world on this one.

[uponit7771]

6. Bush "....I just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you."

[CakeGrrl]

7. In today's WH presser, John Brennan called this decision

the gutsiest move made by any president in recent memory.

[Stuart G]

18. I remember another decision, exactly the same type.. that failed..

Jimmy Carter sent troops in to try to rescue the hostages.
Someone forgot to plan for the sand storms the copters were to encounter in the desert and the mission failed.
if the rescue had been successful, then much might have changed.
Perhaps Regan would not have been elected.

[TheKentuckian]

22. He certainly deserves credit but I don't see the Presidency on the line angle.

It wouldn't be the first failed operation. We are talking squad level action here. A Presidency killer was not a likely consequence. Perhaps possible but way down the chain of probability of outcomes.

[JoePhilly]

31. ... give Jimmy Carter a call. See what he thinks.

The failed rescue of the American hostages gave the GOP the ability to claim that Democrats are weak and incompetent when it comes to military action. They hung that around Carter's neck, and then used that meme against ever Dem candidate for Prez since.

The right already made those claims about Obama. If this failed, we'd hear about nothing else until the 2012 election.

[TuxedoKat]

33. Exactly

It would have been the main thing they spoke about daily. The MSM would have encouraged them and promulgated all their inane talking points like they do now too.

[TheKentuckian]

35. This would not be a botched rescue. I don't see the risk and neither do you.

You threw up a very different situation and advised I call President Carter.

How would we even know what happened? What outcome would have been a Presidency killer.

Hey, I'm just asking because I don't see the risk the same way as described. Even if the entire squad was lost, it would be just another handful lost in the adventure. The entire mission could be classified and buried. We are in a hot war.

[JoePhilly]

46. It would be a botched military decision made DIRECTLY by Obama.

Obama is usually not involved in specific military actions day to day.

Obama made the call on this plan and its execution personally. Just as Carter did with the failed hostage rescue.

Obama sat in the room and watched it live.

And if it went bad, they'd hang him with it. They'd be on TV now using it to declare that he was an incompetent CIC, just like Carter.

[bhikkhu]

64. The worst was very possible -

which would have been a Pakistan Army response before the mission were complete. Apparently jets were being scrambled as the team was leaving, and perhaps its likely (though we probably won't ever know) that someone in the compound had an army contact and made a call. In any case, they could have forced the copters down, or prevented them from taking off (and brought in ground troops), or forced the team to fight its way out, or shot them down, all of which would be nightmare scenarios.

Basically then you would have any number of avenues for serious deterioration in Pakistani/US relations, serious internal problems for the Pakistani government, leading to serious problems in our ability to conclude the Afghan war in any organized fashion, a collapse of influence in the region, and a "failed presidency" moment.

[Drunken Irishman]

65. It's quite simple, really...

Had this gone badly and say our troops were killed in a firefight, that would be released to the public. Then Pres. Obama has to explain WHY we were in Pakistan without their authority and it spirals from there.

It's not difficult to see the worst case scenarios here.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bigwillq]

24. Indeed.

:thumbsup: K and R

[ailsagirl]

25. Oh yeah-- wasn't W supposed to do that? "dead or alive?"

Tough talk without an iota of ANYTHING behind it. Remember "mission accomplished"???? What a dud. :crazy:

[Union Scribe]

26. Yes. Yes he does.

I hadn't been very happy with this administration, but this was a mega-balls move.

[TTUBatfan2008]

29. Indeed.

So much crap could have gone wrong with this thing. When you look at it, he actually risked his Presidency on this operation. If it turned out to be an embarrassment where Bin Laden escaped, Obama would never hear the end of it from his critics. This country has had a sketchy history with helicopter special ops missions. Seems like the helicopters malfunction at the worst possible moment. This time around, the malfunction was minor and the SEALs were able to finish their mission with no problem.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raffi Ella]

42. He did just that, and came out victorious-

Deal with it.

[TTUBatfan2008]

43. That's exactly the point...

He took a political risk in order to do what he felt was CORRECT for the mission at hand and the country's national security. There were a number of serious factors here that he was concerned about:

1. If we bomb the building, we keep our soldiers out of harm's way.

2. We weren't even sure if Bin Laden was in the building. One security expert in the CIA put the percentage as low as 60% that Bin Laden was actually there. Obviously other experts were more confident. But the fact is we did not have 100% visual evidence that he was there. Bombing the crap out of the building would potentially ruin Bin Laden's body to the point that we couldn't even identity it, thus undermining the entire point of the mission. If you're not even sure that you killed your target, was the mission even worth it?

3. Bombing the crap out of the building would have destroyed any potential Al Qaeda evidence (computers and so forth).

4. Bombing the crap out of the building would have potentially led to a bunch of civilian casualties.

5. The special ops helicopters have been sketchy during our military's history. If a major malfunction occurred, our soldiers could be killed by it and Bin Laden would have a good chance of escaping.

6. Our SEALs could be walking into an ambush against 1,000 armed guards.

7. We were breaching the sovereignty of Pakistan. If they found out quick enough, the shit could hit the fan and we're staring at a crisis -- possibly World War III depending on how each side handles it.


Now all of these things could have political implications, but each of them are legitimate concerns about the mission itself -- the safety of the soldiers, civilians, and the uncertainty of where we were going and what we were targeting.

[SkyDaddy7]

32. This President said if it meant he would only serve 4 years...

He was going to do what he thought was right...Health Care & killing Bin Laden to name two huge decisions. He could have played it safe but he chose to push forward.

I just wish he had not been left with an economic situation that was so bad there was only a limited amount he could do (Of course, what did the Bush Administration leave to him that was not in a HUGE MESS?)...Not to mention the Republicans have done EVERYTHING they can to discredit Obama personally & stop needed reforms & economic programs all for politics despite how much it hurts this nation. I just hope enough of America understand this come November 2012.

[Peacetrain]

36. Yes He Does!

[Raffi Ella]

37. He deserves all the credit.

By his direction on his orders this mission was carried out. He said during his campaign that it would be a priority- He opened the case back up when the former administration had closed it. Through HIS determination Osama Bin Laden is Dead.

I am will forever be grateful to him for that.

That we have the greatest military in the world able,willing and READY to carry out Our Presidents orders is a pretty damn awesome thing as well.

Long Live America, Long Live President Obama.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raffi Ella]

40. rofl

President Obama Got Osama, Deal with it.

[EstimatedProphet]

44. But only a REAL idiot would doubt that leadership plays any kind of role

OBAMA planned the mission. OBAMA gave the go-ahead to do it. BUSH disbanded all the troops looking for Bin Laden and sent them to Afghanistan. BUSH let OBL go at Tora Bora. BUSH sent all of OBLs family home with escorts.

OBAMA kept his promise to the American people. BUSH kept his promise to Osama Bin Laden. YOU are keeping your promise to Andrew Breitbart and Fox News with this shit.

[JaneQPublic]

69. NPR: Obama insisted on the backup helicopters

And good thing he did, since the one had mechanical problems.

Obama insisted on the backups because he wanted to make sure the SEALs had an exit capability and he certainly didn't want the mission to end the way Carter's Iran Hostage mission did.