I keep hearing that President Obama made a tough decision somewhere in the process of giving an order to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. What was that tough decision, and why was it tough?
Let's first set aside the utter nonsense of the idea that this reflects on Obama's ability to get things done, as opposed to Bush. It's stupid and no one of moderate intelligence cares. The only thing Obama did that might possibly have had a significant effect on the process -- setting aside the "torture" issue -- is making Leon Panetta the CIA Director, and there's really been no indication that made a significant difference.
Similarly, as to torture: we cannot know, with any level of certainty, whether we'd have been better off -- in terms of intelligence, American deaths, or anything else -- with more torture, or with less. If you think you know, you're wrong. Let's set this aside, too.
So, as to Obama's tough decision, let's first identify Obama's main goals -- in descending order of importance -- going into his decisions, which I presume will be uncontroversial: he wanted to get Bin Laden (dead or alive); if Bin Laden is killed, he wanted verification (i.e., a body); he wanted direct access to any intelligence Bin Laden had.
Let's also identify some the relevant factors involved: we were uncertain if Bin Laden was actually there; and Pakistan -- to be brief, and polite -- is a delicate diplomatic situation for us.
Let's add in the fact that Obama said that he would not resist going in to Pakistan to get Bin Laden (or other high-value terrorist targets), if Pakistan didn't do the job.
This all adds up to a no-brainer to me. We have reasonable suspicion he's there, we can't trust Pakistan to get him (we can't even trust Pakistan to not warn him), we don't want to bomb him (so we can verify his body and gather the intelligence). Where's the tough part of this decision?
Obama and others have characterized the chance that Bin Laden was there as 50-50 or 55-45, apparently as an attempt to imply that this was a tough decision: but I'd say we should go in if there's merely a five percent chance: our intelligence points to the strong liklihood that even if Bin Laden isn't there, someone or something important to Al Qaeda or its allies is there. Where's the tough part of this decision?
They've also pointed out that if we're wrong, there could be significant repercussions. True, but those pale in comparison to the chance that we pass on this opportunity. Can you imagine if we said, "yeah, there was only a 50-50 chance, so we didn't want to risk it," and then an attack was launched and people died and we could've gotten the intelligence to stop that attack if we'd gone in, because we didn't want blowback from the ISI, which has been working against us for years anyway?
Again: I see no tough decision here. Do you? If so, what decision, and how was it tough? Please explain it to me, because I can't see any part of this decision that was, in the least bit, difficult.
(P.S. Last week I said the killing of Bin Laden didn't really change anything, and that's right; however, since then, we've found out more details about the intelligence gathered from the raid, and that could end up being a huge win.)
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at May 10, 2011 07:17 AM | Email ThisJust my opinion and I certainly could be missing something.
Posted by: Chris Madden on May 10, 2011 07:52 AMBut that wasn't even hard because Leftists always have a double-standard. One for themselves and one for their political opponents.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 10, 2011 07:56 AMIt seems like the more typical approach in such situations is to bomb rather than try a complex, dangerous operations like the one we did. Indeed, I've read that several senior advisers recommended exactly that.
Two caveats: No one here knows everything our government did; perhaps there were more or fewer dangers than we think. And anyway, we shouldn't confuse the quality nof Obama's decision with the outcome. Due to luck, a good decision can have a bad outcome and a bad decision can have a good outcome. That's why I give Obama more credit for many other actions in his presidency than this one.
But Obama made the decision to increase the emphasis on finding Bin Laden (who Bush said he didn't care much about), he led a series of planning meetings, and he made the ultimate call. The bucks stops at the top when things go right as well as when they go wrong.
Posted by: Bruce on May 10, 2011 08:20 AMNone of that makes this decision tough, remotely, in any way. You start with the objectives and goals, which say we want to get him, and we want physical evidence it's him, and we want intelligence. We have reasonable suspicion he's there. That means we go in with our SEALs. I can't see any other reasonable course of action.
Yes, it means danger; but since there's no other reasonable option, the decision is easy.
It seems like the more typical approach in such situations is to bomb rather than try a complex, dangerous operations like the one we did. Indeed, I've read that several senior advisers recommended exactly that.
I want names. Frankly, I don't believe it. I am sure it was presented as an option, but unless someone's playing devil's advocate, we've been presented with no reason why they would bomb instead of going in, because bombing doesn't meet our primary objectives.
No one here knows everything our government did; perhaps there were more or fewer dangers than we think.
Such as? I'm asking here. :-) I can't even think of a POTENTIAL danger that makes this a tough decision. Maybe if Pakistan threatened to use nukes against us if we went in ... but short of that unreasonable scenario, I can't think of very much that makes this difficult in any way. I know you don't know, but do you have even an IDEA of what it COULD be?
And anyway, we shouldn't confuse the quality nof Obama's decision with the outcome.
Sure. He could have made a really BAD decision that turned out well. In this case, I think it was a good decision that turned out well ... I just don't see what was tough about it.
But Obama made the decision to increase the emphasis on finding Bin Laden
That's not clear to me. It's clear he talked a little bit more about it in public, but that's not the same thing.
who Bush said he didn't care much about
To his credit, yes. We shouldn't have cared much about Bin Laden himself, as I've said.
he led a series of planning meetings
So did Bush.
and he made the ultimate call.
As would have anyone else. That's my point here.
The bucks stops at the top when things go right as well as when they go wrong.
In political and P.R. terms, sure. I'm looking a little more deeply. :-)
Look, Obama and his people are spinning this as a "tough decision." I'm just trying to find out why they are saying that, and if there's any substance to it. So far no one -- including you -- has given me any reasons to agree that it was remotely tough.
Look folks, we know you don’t like Obama; we get that. But you can’t change the fact that he succeeded where his predecessor failed. And you look a little silly posting this kind of crap.
You're playing word games (surprise!). Getting him was our primary objective; the others were our secondary and tertiary objectives. A mission to accomplish all 3 objectives carried much greater risks than a mission to accomplish the primary objective.
You're really overreaching here, pudge. Maybe Bush, or McCain, or Palin, or Hillary, would have made the same decision. (And maybe Gore would have ignored the intelligence reports in the summer of 2001 that Bin Laden was planning an attack on the US.) Maybe Obama even made a dumb decision and was just lucky. We will never know exactly what happened, let alone what would have happened in alternative universes. Most Americans look at the publicly available information and give Obama some credit for his role here. If you don't want to, fine.
Posted by: Bruce on May 10, 2011 09:01 AMFail. You did not explain why it's tough. I don't see why it's tough, and you gave no reason to think it's tough.
Witz: you can’t change the fact that he succeeded where his predecessor failed
This isn't a fact, in fact. On the contrary, it's a lie: for example, it was four years ago, when Bush was President, that we first got the name of the courier that we eventually traced back to Bin Laden. Without that work, we wouldn't have found Bin Laden (at least, not in the same way, if at all).
Further, to say Bush "failed" and Obama "succeeded" implies they actually DID something of significance: yet, you cannot identify a single significant thing either of them did. It was the work of the people under them, which would have happened regardless of who was President.
And you look a little silly posting this kind of crap.
You're an idiot, Witz: I am simply responding to OBAMA'S claim that this was a tough decision. To say it's "crap" to question whether it was tough is idiotic. I expect exactly this from you, unfortunately.
A TOUGH decision would have been to release the photos and videotape evidence of his demise. Not showing them is the easy way out. Just like killing him on sight rather than capturing him was the easy way out.
Tough? yeah, a bit like the ostrich that stands firm with his head in the sand.
Posted by: Doug on May 10, 2011 09:34 AMYou're lying. I am not, in any way, and I defy you to explain yourself here.
Getting him was our primary objective; the others were our secondary and tertiary objectives.
Yes: this is what I explicitly asserted in my original post.
A mission to accomplish all 3 objectives carried much greater risks than a mission to accomplish the primary objective.
Yes. And? How does this make it a tough decision? You're giving NO reason to think it. You're simply asserting that when there's risk of our people dying, that it makes it a tough decision. That's not an explanation, as I reject the assertion.
Simply put, if there was any reasonable way to accomplish all three goals, then you do it. Period. The risks are unimportant. I am not asserting that you send them on a suicide mission, of course; I am saying that if there is a reasonable chance of success -- success not referring to whether Bin Laden is there, but whether the plan is executed properly -- you do it. If there's not a reasonable chance of success, maybe you don't.
THAT is when it MIGHT become a tough decision: when it's a suicide mission with little chance of success. But no one's implied that in anything I've heard. It was a well-planned mission with a reasonable chance of success. So there's no reason to NOT do it. It's a no-brainer.
You're really overreaching here
If so, then why have you demonstrated NO ability or willingness to explain IN ANY WAY how this was a tough decision?
(And maybe Gore would have ignored the intelligence reports in the summer of 2001 that Bin Laden was planning an attack on the US.)
You are directly implying Bush ignored such reports, which is a damned lie, and you know it, which makes you a damned liar.
Most Americans look at the publicly available information and give Obama some credit for his role here.
And his role was ... what? WHAT TOUGH DECISION WAS MADE? My word ... I am simply asking you to say what decision was tough, and how it was tough, and you attack me for it and say how obvious it is and yet you simply can't or won't answer the simple question.
I agree that would've been a tough decision, but not necessarily the right decision. I don't know that we'd get much value from having him as a prisoner.
A TOUGH decision would have been to release the photos and videotape evidence of his demise. Not showing them is the easy way out. Just like killing him on sight rather than capturing him was the easy way out.
I think it's a tough decision either way. There's no right answer here -- unlike in the mission itself, where ALL signs point to the mission that they executed -- and in fact, even though I was in favor of releasing documentary evidence, the main reason why is so that the extremists couldn't try to claim Bin Laden was still alive. But now that AQ has claimed Bin Laden is dead, I see no real danger there any longer: so this is a decision that, right or wrong, seems to have turned out well in the end (so far).
(Although, even though I think this was a tough decision, it's not part of the mission itself, so this isn't what we're talking about in my post.)
That Obama made a tough decision is pretty obvious to anyone not blinded by ideology, but let me spell it out for you: The SEALs mission had more potential upside (get a body and intelligence) and downside (American troops captured, tortured, killed). We presumably didn't even know if we'd find any intelligence there. Honestly I don't even claim that Obama made the right decision. But it does appear to have been a difficult decision, and it was part of an extended process that Obama was intimately involved in, and it did have an excellent outcome.
Now you may have the last word and tell me I'm an idiot, a liar, and/or banned. I'm bored with this.
Posted by: Bruce on May 10, 2011 10:05 AMIn order to make such a statement, one would have to assume Obama made a decision that Bush wouldn't have made given the same circumstances. Which, of course, I'm pretty certain Bush would've made the same decision.
Face it, Witz. Obama is the beneficiary of good timing. Nothing more. Nothing less.
And it's been pointed out countless times, if President Obama would've followed through on what Sen. Obama and candidate Obama wanted to do, OBL will still be out there watching himself on TV.
The fact you Leftists continue to ignore this makes you look rather silly.
Posted by: jimg on May 10, 2011 11:08 AMThe only thing that made would have made that a tough call was if the Racist in Chief had decided to actually go on the mission himself. There was nothing difficult about it by any stretch of the most fringe-leftist imagination; the intelligence was firm enough to go and we had the assets available.
Sleeping on it and forcing everyone to wait 16 hours for you to get off the dime and say yes?
Now that was tough. Tough on everyone who was actually involved, tough on the men, tough on intelligence.
Anything else?
Typical leftist eyewash.
Well, then you shouldn't be President. :-) Seriously, if it is "tough" for you to say "shoot to kill if there is resistance," you shouldn't be the Commander-in-Chief. That doesn't mean you take the decision lightly -- of course, you shouldn't -- but it's not difficult at all.
16. Pudge, in #5 you said "bombing doesn't meet our primary objectives" but in #13 you said that you had "explicitly asserted" that getting OBL, which bombing would have accomplished better than the SEALs mission, was our primary objective. Which of your posts was a lie, #5 or #13? Or both?
Um, both are true. YOU are the one playing word games. I said "primary objectives," plural. The three I listed, in order of importance, were our primary objectives. This isn't hard, Bruce.
That Obama made a tough decision is pretty obvious
Then spell it out for me.
let me spell it out for you
Please do.
The SEALs mission had more potential upside (get a body and intelligence) and downside (American troops captured, tortured, killed).
That doesn't say how it is a tough decision, at all. You're question-begging: assuming that the risk of harm to American troops makes it a tough decision. It doesn't. You want to accomplish your objectives, and the way to do that is sending in troops, so you send in troops. This is a no-brainer.
We presumably didn't even know if we'd find any intelligence there.
Of course we didn't know. So? That's what I said at the outset: even if there's only a FIVE PERCENT CHANCE that we'd find what we were looking for, to me that's a very easy decision.
But it does appear to have been a difficult decision
OK, then spell it out for me. I'm waiting.
You said you were going to spell it out for me, but you didn't. You merely handwaved at how our soldiers might be harmed, which isn't an argument.
But I can't see how ANY other option was reasonable here. This was the only reasonable option available. So it wasn't a tough decision at all.
See: http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/05/so-much-for-gutsy-call-bush-ordered-seals-into-pakistan-2-different-times/
Posted by: Paddy on May 10, 2011 11:56 AMYes, history will be kind to George W. Bush
Listen to Glenn Greenwald, who made a blogging and writing career out of accusing the Bush Administration of every civil rights violation imaginable, argue that Democrats now owe Bush and Cheney an apology --
... So fellow conservatives, accept these apologies gracefully, because they are the best we are going to get. Just remember to snicker a little the next time you see a faded "Bush Lied" bumper sticker
*Emphasis mine
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on May 10, 2011 12:03 PMOsama got 72 virgins and we get Obama's 72 versions
Why do I sense that, if the mission had failed, Obama would have distanced himself and prosecuted the Navy SEALs? Applying the logic they used to prosecute CIA agents, will Obama and Holder launch a federal trial against those same Navy SEALs?Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on May 10, 2011 12:13 PM
... There is a fundamentally different approach to "evil" between Bush and Obama. Bush said we would track down and kill bin Laden. Obama says we will nuance the laws and get back at political enemies by prosecuting Bush's operatives whose techniques (which were legal) helped us kill bin Laden. Then, of course, we made all this right by giving bin Laden a politically correct and ethnically sensitive funeral at sea.
... We can all be glad bin Laden is dead but the administration turning this into some kind of proof of Obama's toughness is little more than juvenile. The fact is that killing bin Laden, or attempting to kill him, was the only choice that Obama had. The fact that he has dithered over this decision for two months and at the eleventh hour took a 16 hour nap to think on the subject should give every American call for alarm not thanksgiving.
Whether the building had been a Trappist monastery or he'd carpet-bombed Abbottabad the American public would have forgiven action. What we would never have forgiven was him doing nothing. We all know that and the president trying to capitalize from taking a course of action he plainly did not want to take but was forced upon him is simply disreputable.
*Emphasis mine
And by the way, isn't this making 'gutsy calls' the point of having a president, of being President?
I believe the sign was "THE BUCK STOPS HERE', not, 'The buck stops here unless politically expedient'.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on May 10, 2011 12:22 PMI think the basis of whether the mission was "doable" was decided after the Seals practiced it a couple times to make sure they considered all the scenarios.
Posted by: tc on May 10, 2011 12:41 PMI am not talking about timelines; to me that's beside the point here. As I said, if there'd only been a FIVE percent chance that our intel was good, we STILL should have acted much as we did. I don't see any other reasonable option. As important as most people seem to think it was to get Bin Laden, how could you not take a shot if you have "only" a five percent chance he's there? That's better odds than we've had in a long time.
I think the basis of whether the mission was "doable" was decided after the Seals practiced it a couple times to make sure they considered all the scenarios.
Sure. That's their job. It's also why I don't really consider it as part of the equation: I assume that any SEAL plan presented to the President is going to be doable.
Bottom line is: Bush couldn’t get the job done, even with his torture techniques. So he lost interest and punted. Obama decided it was an important task, committed the necessary resources to it, and the result is that Bin Ladin is dead.
All your bluster and lies can’t change that.
W/R to a preference of OBL's capture, better a bullet than that idiot Holder's personally read Miranda rights and insistence of a civilian trial. Even after 16 hours of indecision, Obama made the right choice. On that we agree.
Posted by: yaddacubed on May 10, 2011 01:58 PMThat's simply false. Many of the commenters here were quick to praise Obama for doing something last Monday. He does deserve praise for finally making a decision, and a good one.
But to suggest that this all could have been done earlier by Bush is simply ridiculous. In that case, we could point out that Clinton had OBL in his sights before Bush came along. In the case of Bush, OBL was largely hiding in the aftermath of 9/11. If it was that easy, anyone would have just grabbed him and turned him in. Pakistan, the Taliban and many other government entities and quasi-government entities made it pretty hard to find and capture OBL. Not to mention Obama's own timeline since the CIA first had a line on his whereabouts. Given how long it took, and the extra 16 hour delay, it would have been very easy for OBL to slip away yet again.
Fortunately he did not, congrats to Obama for finally acting.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 10, 2011 02:09 PMBush made it clear OBL was no longer a worth chasing and dismantled the team.
Obama decided he was worth looking for, set it as a priority and now he’s dead.
To me, the "risk" wasn't in the objectives, but in the likelihood of success, meaning the assurance that Bin Laden was actually in the compound. The rest was logistics and operational readiness.
Posted by: tc on May 10, 2011 03:03 PMFirst, let's blast your myth about disbanding the bin Laden unit, why it was disbanded and the priority Bush had on getting OBL.
From the NY Times.
WASHINGTON, July 3 -- The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.
The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.
The decision is a milestone for the agency, which formed the unit before Osama bin Laden became a household name and bolstered its ranks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President Bush pledged to bring Mr. Bin Laden to justice "dead or alive."
The realignment reflects a view that Al Qaeda is no longer as hierarchical as it once was, intelligence officials said, and a growing concern about Qaeda-inspired groups that have begun carrying out attacks independent of Mr. bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals.
"The efforts to find Osama bin Laden are as strong as ever," said Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a C.I.A. spokeswoman. "This is an agile agency, and the decision was made to ensure greater reach and focus."
Got that? Read it again if it's too complicated for you. Thing is, if they hadn't disbanded the unit, OBL was thought to be living in a cave and we were attacked again, jugheads like you would be criticizing Bush for leaving the unit active.
Second, the myth that Obama 'prioritized' getting bin Laden. Obama has said roughly the same thing that Bush is being criticized for - that he wasn't all that concerned about getting OBL. Why? Because - as evidenced over and over and over again - Islamic terrorism isn't confined to just one person. It's a point I agreed on with Bush. It's a point I agreed on with Obama.
Why can't people like you get these things through your effing skulls? Is it because you don't want to? You're too stupid? It would destroy your narrative? All of those things?
Why?
Fraid you are the one with your head up your rump gymgee. Bush made it clear that OBL was no longer a priority for his admin and the results bear that out. Obama made it clear that he was a priority and the results bear that out as well.
All your weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth can’t change the fact that Bush blew it and Obama nailed it. Try getting that through your effing head.
The facts are the CIA worked tirelessly on this subject through the Bush years and Obama years. You can see this in the fact of the other high-level organizational targets were captured during the Bush years. They wouldn't have captured those targets if the effort had been put on the back burner.
Posted by: tc on May 10, 2011 04:05 PMSo based on whatever Bush did, or didn’t do, and whatever he did, or didn’t say, we’re going to give him credit for something that Obama did do, and deny Obama any credit for it regardless of what he said or didn’t say.
Sounds a bit partisan to me, but I’m sure you mean well.
The fact is that this was not something Obama just set out to do, but a long process of intelligence gathering over many years. OBL popped up on the radar under Obama's watch. Kudos to Obama for getting him. But Obama himself acknowledged that this has been a long process. As did Nancy Pelosi and many others who are privy to intelligence briefs that go way beyond anything any of us has ever seen.
I think Witz desperately wants a win for his guy. Because polls show a steady flagging for Obama as more people wake up to the fact that his polices are just not working.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 10, 2011 06:24 PMObama had no choice but to OK the op - it would have been political death not to. Bush was never as close as even Clinton was, but his point was that getting Osama would change nothing: not the war on terror, not the hatred of radical Islam toward the United States, not domestic problems of the economy, joblessness, gridlock: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
The final official version of how Osama Bin Laden was actually killed
The Obummer had the luck to be in the right place at the right time - YEARS of intelligence came to fruition on his watch. No one denies him his glory, but Patton, he's not.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on May 10, 2011 06:37 PMUnder Bush, we collected the intell necessary to actually carry out the mission the SEAL's performed. And the EIT employed were instrumental in gathering that intell from other terrorists- A fact even Obama's CIA chief admits to.
Obama decided it was an important task, committed the necessary resources to it, and the result is that Bin Ladin is dead.
So on one hand you're whining that Bush employed enhanced interrogation techniques where no terrorists were killed, but on the other, applauding that an unarmed terrorist got shot in the chest and head on Obama's orders. Nice consistency nitWitz. Using your logic, what does that make Obama?
Posted by: Rick D. on May 10, 2011 06:46 PMWitz: yawn.
tc: If I follow your response, then, should Obama have acted back in August when they first identified the compound?
No, as I said, the timeline of when Obama did or should have acted is beside any point I am making.
By your response, it would appear that the time spent getting additional intelligence to even get it to above 50% likelhood that Bin Laden was there was questionable.
I don't know much about what the intel was at the time, and what changed in the interim, so I can't answer that.
But let me say clearly: I don't mind taking time, if they don't feel a threat is imminent, and they have the place under surveillance so Osama is unlikely to have been able to leave without them noticing. I am not saying to act as soon as you have some certain confidence threshold: of course, given the risks, you want to be as certain as possible before going in. If you can rule out terrorists before going in, of course you'd want to!
To me, the "risk" wasn't in the objectives, but in the likelihood of success, meaning the assurance that Bin Laden was actually in the compound.
That isn't a significant risk to me. If he isn't there, chances are terrorists and intel ARE there anyway, based on the nature of the intel we had. And even if it's just some paranoid rich guy's house -- who happens to consort with known terrorist affiliates -- so what? The ISI and some Pakistanis get mad at you, boo hoo.
So the country asks, what are you going to do for me now?
It hasn't helped the Obummers poll ratings and it sure hasn't curbed his ugly snarkiness. It hasn't stopped his fundraising ($50,000/couple in Texas, the state whose request for emergency relief he ignored), it hasn't changed his wisdom in White House guests, increased employment, decreased food stamp use, improved education or reduced the exploding debt. It hasn't changed the life of one American.
And, THAT'S where they are: desperate to put the subject back on his one accomplishment.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on May 10, 2011 07:11 PMGood line. I guess they could not take our money or other assistance and go down the path of the other muslim countries.
Posted by: tc on May 10, 2011 08:21 PMThere is an aspect that made this a tough decision, but there was little doubt about the right decision. Seems like any president in that position would have made the call that was tough for him to make. Fortunately, the timing of this event will have minimal influence on the outcome of the 2012 election.
Posted by: KDS on May 10, 2011 09:02 PMI don't know what "path" you refer to. The only real danger from Pakistan is that the relatively moderate government is overthrown by radicals, and something like this won't make that happen.
The very question is how much of an accomplishment it was; it's question-begging of the first order to accuse someone of trying to devalue it. And no one is denying Obama any credit; we're simply pointing out that it wasn't some singular accomplishment that everyone else in recent memory who has been, or even almost was, President also would have made.
Far from being a "tough decision," it was the ONLY reasonable decision. And NO ONE has pointed out any other reasonable decision that could have been made.
That Witz hasn't even attempted to provide an alternate reasonable course of action that would make choosing this one a "tough decision" proves the point: not even WITZ thinks it was a tough decision.
That said, the confusion over Obama's action is due to his public histrionics over enhanced interrogations, calls for civilian trials of enemy combatants, and due process for terrorists.
As Rick D @ 42 pointed out, he skipped all the civil rights for terrorists stuff and went straight for the kill. Was this why his decision was so tough?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on May 11, 2011 05:22 AMI say we help him out...
How a pencil-necked metrosexual got bin Laden
/snicker
...With FACTS.
To our newly born neolib and crazy Uncle Witz and his cousins our pet libs, you have sneered and touted the Bush interview in which YOU claim his point was that capturing/killing Bin Laden was no longer a priority.
You've been oh so easily duped again by your biased and perverted media (watch MSNBC, do you?).
QUESTION: Mr. President, in your speeches now, you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that?
Also, can you can tell the American people if you have any more information -- if you know if he is dead or alive. Deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really want to make...
BUSH: Well, deep in my heart, I know the man's on the run if he's alive at all. And I -- you know, who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not? We hadn't heard from him in a long time.
And the idea of focusing on one person is really -- indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission. Terror's bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who has now been marginalized. His network is -- his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match.
He is -- you know, as I mention in my speeches -- I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death. And he, himself, tries to hide, if, in fact, he's hiding at all.
So I don't know where he is. Nor -- you know, I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well supplied, that the strategy is clear, that the coalition is strong, that when we find enemy bunched up, like we did in Shah-e-Kot mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shah-e-Kot. And I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shah-e-kot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly; we're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped, we have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.
QUESTION: Do you believe the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead of alive?
BUSH: As I say, we hadn't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, you know, again, I don't know where he is.
I'll repeat what I said: I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
But, you know, once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins.
He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it -- either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things that's part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary or training or a place to hide or a place to raise money. And we got more work to do.
See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand -- that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that. I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective.
And I can assure you I am not going to blink, and I'm not going to get tired, because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.
*Emphasis mine - with illustrative pleasure
Rather different than what Matthews showed Tuesday, isn't it?
Remember When Bush Said It No Longer Was Necessary To Kill binLaden?
Considering how people are contrasting Obama's aggressive policy with that of Bush ...
Moreover, I am getting the sense that President Obama has discovered that there is value -- when all of your domestic policies are tanking or proving unpopular, ineffective or just not real -- to being a wartime president, and he seems to see no irony at all in the fact that nabbing bin Laden would not have been possible if he had succeeded in blocking the Bush policies he so ardently fought while in the senate.
I keep wondering what the ego-gratifying "new cowboy/wartime president" suit may escalate down the road.
*Emphasis mine
The Road to Bin Laden Went Through Iraq
Who knew how quickly a little extralegal military assassination done on the watch of a Democrat president could turn the left's resurgent "peace community" into a fist-pumping, flag-waving, patriotic cabal of jingoistic chickenhawks? All of a sudden, for the first time in their adult lives, it seems they are really proud of their country.
... Had Guantanamo been closed, had aggressive interrogation tactics not been used, had government secrets been released, had habeas corpus been extended, had civilian show trials been conducted, had terrorists been provided legal counsel, had "courageous restraint" been employed -- all liberal policy ideas -- Osama bin Laden would still be planning, plotting, and killing. That he's dead serves only as proof that when liberals actually get serious about national security, they jettison their own foolishly naïve arguments and follow a conservative path.
*Emphasis mine
Why the Hurry to Gloat About Bin Laden?
It's a bit like racing to the microphones to announce you've stolen the other team's playbook even before you've had a chance to use the information in the big game.
... The announcement came less than three hours after Obama had been informed that there was a "high probability" bin Laden was dead and that the Navy SEAL helicopters had returned to Afghanistan.
In other words, it seems that the White House planned to crow as soon as possible. Why? Nobody I've talked to can think of a reason that doesn't have to do with politics or hubris.
... Couldn't they have at least tried to give the CIA a week, a day, even a few more hours to look at it all before letting Ayman al-Zawahiri and the rest of al-Qaeda know about it? Why give him the slightest head start to go even further underground?
... Obama says he won't release bin Laden's death photo for fear that American triumphalism might hurt American interests. Would that he had the same concern when it came to White House triumphalism.
*Emphasis mine
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on May 11, 2011 11:35 AMYou just can't make this stuff up.
Posted by: G Jiggy on May 11, 2011 12:06 PMOf course, no lecture from Professor Obama would be complete without a fat stripe of hypocrisy running right through the middle of it.Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on May 11, 2011 12:43 PM
And so after telling all of us ugly Americans not to "spike the ball," he promptly embarked on a week-long dance in the endzone featuring enough ball spikings to have him benched for the rest of the season.
There he was spiking the ball at ground zero and then he was in Kentucky, grinning from ear to ear and spiking the ball. Then he met behind closed doors with the Navy SEALs who actually carried out the operation for a little private ball spiking.
... But what is downright terrifying is not Obama's hypocrisy, disdain for ugly Americans or infantile misunderstandings about American justice.
It is the grave damage he is now doing to our national security. For more than a week, he and his administration have gloated over the huge cache of intelligence taken from bin Laden's compound that they claim is giving us all kinds of leads in the direction of all kinds of bad people.
How dare he compromise these treasures that good men risked their lives to collect. How dare he go blabbing to the world what should be our most guarded state secrets. And how dare he alert our worst enemies that they better run and hide while they can - or hurry and commit their suicidal missions before we get to them.
All this, of course, so President Obama - not us ugly Americans - can spike the ball.
Posted by SouthernRoots at May 11, 2011 05:22 AM
I strongly suggest that it was tough for him, mainly because it could not be shielded by political correctness, as his typical decisions are. He has established a pattern of avoiding any decisions that would be politically difficult or deferring those with political consequences to others, so they are availble to be thrown under the bus. That's the MO for community organizer in-chief.
Posted by: KDS on May 11, 2011 02:08 PMYou are absolutely not correct here.
Clinton did not go after UBL the way Obama did. He attempted to use cruise missiles.
Bush first ignored the threat of UBL in August 2001. Later he hosed up and let UBL escape Torra Borra. Later yet he was not able to find UBL despite all the (now claimed) info obtained about UBL's Pakistan location during the torture, and despite the info we are told that UBL had been in that location for 4 years.
So, no, this was not some common decision or attempt to get UBL.
But it is not a question of whether it was tough of gritty. The issue is was whether it was successful, and how the approach he took compares to that of the 2 other presidents. The ONLY way to evaluate what Obama did to UBL vs. Clinton and Bush is that Obama was far superior - tough or not.
Posted by: Zin Rosenbaum on May 11, 2011 03:29 PMDid you see what the report said. (Bet you didn't)
Like many of these reports that came out. It was very vague.
You can't act when the info is vague.
PS... did it say anything about planes? Hmmm
Posted by: Medic/Vet on May 11, 2011 03:34 PMThe decision to put American soldiers in harm's way will always be tough to any Commander-in-Chief with any sense of his moral responsibilities. It will never be a tough decision to a drunken ignoramus who sees our brave soldiers as mere props for his swaggering across the deck of an aircraft carrier behind an overstuffed codpiece. (We understand your confusion on this point, and we pity you for it.)
Let's first set aside the utter nonsense of the idea that this reflects on Obama's ability to get things done, as opposed to Bush.
Let's first set aside the utter nonsense of the idea that this reflects on the earth's revolution about the sun once per year.
The only thing Obama did that might possibly have had a significant effect on the process...
Was that declaring ObL was a worthwhile target contradicted the statement made by Preznit Global Warren Terra:
"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
Similarly, as to torture: we cannot know, with any level of certainty, whether we'd have been better off -- in terms of intelligence, American deaths, or anything else -- with more torture, or with less. If you think you know, you're wrong.
You're making Rick D. cry. And he does enough of that already!
Where's the tough part of this decision?
Go ask Preznit "Dead Or Alive" Bush. You voted for him, we in Seattle did not.
Posted by: tensor on May 11, 2011 09:51 PMFalse. Again, "tough decision" implies there was another reasonable decision to make, so he had to choose between this decision, and at least one more. Can you think of another possible reasonable decision?
You are confusing easy decisions with light decisions. They aren't the same thing.
If 10,000 Mexicans invade southern Texas, it's a very easy decision to order our troops to repel them, even though you're putting them in harm's way. That is not, in the least bit, a tough decision, because there's no other decision to make.
So stop being stupid, please.
Your job here is to provide some evidence he had another reasonable choice on the table.
You won't.
Let's first set aside the utter nonsense of the idea that this reflects on the earth's revolution about the sun once per year.
See, again, you need to really stop being so stupid. There is no evidence here, of any kind, that Obama did anything that Bush wouldn't have done, in any timeframe differently than Bush could have done it. None whatsoever. You are free to try to make that case, but you can't: you have no evidence to back you up.
Was that declaring ObL was a worthwhile target contradicted the statement made by Preznit Global Warren Terra
You're lying. Bush never said he wasn't a worthwhile target: he said he, personally, didn't spend much time thinking about him. In fact, Bush continued to keep OBL as a top target. That's how we first got the evidence of the courier that later led to finding Bin Laden. But he also didn't make getting OBL the primary objective, choosing instead to focus on the networks of terrorists, which is a strategy that has apparently paid off, and has been continued by Obama.
In fact, we've seen no evidence of any kind that Obama's strategy has changed in any significant way from Bush's. All you have is inferences drawn from vague statements, and you're pretending that these inferences reflect major strategy or policy differences. You're lying, as usual.
Go ask Preznit "Dead Or Alive" Bush.
In other words, you can't answer the question. That is: even Bush's harshest critics, Obama's greatest friends, have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what the hell Obama and his people are talking about when they say this was a "tough decision."
The best they can do is handwave at how it's "tough" to put people in harm's way, even though it's only tough if there's other reasonable choices, which, in this case, there wasn't.
Thank you for clearly demonstrating the point, despite your attempts to obfuscate it.
The Obummer, President 'gutsy' was only so for political expediency: he had already begun campaigning and nothing stands between him and his campaign cash - not even defying his own abhorrence of indicting terrorists. It landed in his lap and the calculator in chief, The Obummer, President 'gutsy' had no choice. Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds an acorn.
A tough decision, one that proved absolutely correct, was the implementation of the surge, which The Obummer, President 'gutsy' opposed before he capitulated.
Obama's Bin Laden Mission 'Gutsy' -- What About Bush's 'Surge'?
The consequences, however, of an unsuccessful surge were catastrophic. The Iraq War would have been lost and abandoned. Terrorists would have been emboldened. The vacuum of a failed Iraq would have likely been filled by Iran, more confident than ever that a humiliated America planned to sit it out as Iran pursued a nuclear bomb. The perception of an America that loses wars then cuts and runs would have undermined the war in Afghanistan. The GOP would have been crippled for years under the avalanche of I-told-you-so's. Bush's political obituary would have been cast.
But Bush stood fast.
Toy Company Unveils Obama SEAL Team 6 Action Figure
Not everyone is happy with the company's latest creation. In an ironic display, the company has a "comment" section under the toy's order page where you can "read what great Americans are saying about this doll." The three "great Americans" shown are not fans
Good grief.
We've gone from a "Shock and Awe" presidency to a preen and pander presidency, a guy who victory laps a decision he once found abhorrent in others, that he had no choice but to make himself.
And they wonder why we mock them.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on May 12, 2011 10:38 AMNot only did George W Bush not claim the war on terror "Mission Accomplished", he said, in fact, precisely the opposite.
"Mr obama, killing bin Laden was not the most significant milestone in the war on terror and you know it, it's just the only one that happened on your watch."
Maps, facts, figures and direct quote: watch and squirm.
The decision to put American soldiers in harm's way will always be tough to any Commander-in-Chief with any sense of his moral responsibilities. It will never be a tough decision to a drunken ignoramus who sees our brave soldiers as mere props for his swaggering across the deck of an aircraft carrier behind an overstuffed codpiece. (We understand your confusion on this point, and we pity you for it.) - Posted by tensor at May 11, 2011 09:51 PM
Then, I would really like you bloviating, lie repeating, easily led, koolaid liberals to attempt to refute each (or even some!) point made.
I would like that very much ... but I know, AND YOU KNOW, you can't.
We'll be waiting for your Obummer-like humility [snort!]
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on May 12, 2011 11:10 AMAmid all the uproar over the Obama administration's missteps following the successful raid on Osama bin Laden's Abbotabad hideout, one question has been overlooked: did the administration deliberately delay the raid to yield the greatest benefit for Obama?
Eight months between the possible identification of the most wanted man alive and the raid that took him down? How does this make sense? ...
... Taking a look at the surrounding circumstances, we find that the spring of 2011 was a bleak stretch for Barack Obama. His positives were hovering in the low 40s, and had been for over a year. He had been firmly bounced in the midterms, and was for the first it in his life facing an organized and determined opposition. The recovery was suffering hiccups, very much due to the administration's endless interference, and the public was well aware of it. His Libyan adventure had not turned out as planned. To top it off, he had been made to look like eight kinds of jackass by reality-show clown Donald Trump, who had succeeded in goading him into releasing his original birth certificate, a trick that he very likely wanted to save until the 2012 election.
Timing in politics is part of the game. ...
... With this administration, anything is possible. There may in fact be an innocent explanation for the long gap between discovery and action. But if there is, we need to hear it. This is not simply Obama's customary procrastination (though we got that too, in the form of his sixteen-hour snooze). Somebody was playing a potentially disastrous game here -- a game risking good men's lives, the reputation of the United States, and above all, the security and safety of the nation he had sworn to defend. We need an explanation as to why.
*Emphasis mine
At What Point is Spiking the Football Excessive Celebration?
When an irreverent egoist tells Americans not to spike the football, and then proceeds to brazenly do so over and over again, it isn't just rude; it isn't just ironic, or even utterly predictable. In this case, it isn't just a pretense of manliness or military acumen.
It's cover. Because the fact is Obama doesn't seem to object to terrorism all that much when it comes to advancing his socioeconomic revolution. If he really wanted to thwart terrorism, he certainly wouldn't ridicule anyone who knows it's just as easy to mastermind terror from within our borders, as it is outside. ...
... Can a man who is effectively organizing the revolution for open borders and free-flowing illegal immigration in the name of fairness -- call it amnesty, the Dream Act, a path to citizenship, or 'comprehensive' immigration reform -- celebrate the death of a terrorist as he simultaneously leaves open our floodgates to terrorists? ...
... OBL knew community organizing as well as Obama. It's almost as if he played from the same handbook. OBL knew the means justified ends -- Hope and Change by whatever means necessary, even the 'moral' rationalization of violence.
Who would have guessed -- Osama Bin Laden just took one for the Alinsky team.
Headline: Any Republican walks on water
SP Regulars: It's a sign from God!
Headline: Obama walks on water
SP Regulars: Obama can't swim!
It's amusing to imagine what you and your ilk would be saying if the SEALs operation had ended with Bin Laden escaping, a dozen SEALs killed and another dozen being held as hostages and their gruesome torture being televised daily on Al Jazeera. Let me guess: You'd fault Obama for the decision he made, the details of the operation, and letting Bin Laden get away instead of just bombing him to a certain death. And you'd say he made the idiotic choice instead of the only reasonable choice of bombing because he was chicken to risk collateral damage.
No, I can't prove that you'd have said any of that, so go ahead, call me a liar....
Bush wouldn't have done that. He would have bombed a lake in the next county.
Posted by: Bruce on May 12, 2011 03:07 PM+SEVEN hours later and the chirping crickets are still chirping.
Where, oh where, are those refutations?
And you wonder why we mock you.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on May 12, 2011 06:31 PMAnd, as I've pointed out and no one has disagreed with, let alone refuted, other top objectives were to ID the body, and to gather intel.
Killing him with a bomb would have widely been considered a success.
Except, of course, we may never have known we killed him.
Sure, it would have taken a while to prove we had killed him ...
If ever ... even to ourselves. We didn't know he was in there, remember?
... and we wouldn't have the intelligence data we got.
Therefore, there was only one reasonable option.
the risk would have been vastly less
That's just incredibly stupid. If you're not going to use the military to accomplish important objectives just because you're afraid they might be harmed, then don't have a military.
It's amusing to imagine what you and your ilk would be saying if the SEALs operation had ended with Bin Laden escaping, a dozen SEALs killed and another dozen being held as hostages and their gruesome torture being televised daily on Al Jazeera. Let me guess: You'd fault Obama for the decision he made, the details of the operation, and letting Bin Laden get away instead of just bombing him to a certain death. And you'd say he made the idiotic choice instead of the only reasonable choice of bombing because he was chicken to risk collateral damage.
And you're a damned liar, as usual.
No, I can't prove that you'd have said any of that, so go ahead, call me a liar....
Well, you made up bullshit about me, so yes, that makes you a liar. That's how it works. I am not sure why you have a problem with this.
"If the election of America's first African-American president was expected to give blacks an economic boost, it hasn't emerged yet. Indeed, the percentage of African-American men with a job has dropped to its lowest level since records began in 1972, according to the government's monthly jobs report released last week.
[T]he percentage of black males over 20 who are currently employed dropped slightly to 56.9, the Labor Department's April report shows. For whites, the equivalent figure is 68.1 percent. Before this recession, the percentage of black adult men with a job had never dropped below 60 percent, according to Labor Department statistics.
It is easy to understand why most African-Americans were enthusiastic about President Obama's candidacy. In their shoes, I probably would have been excited, too. But by now it is painfully obvious that what blacks needed was a president who understands the economy and who would staff his administration with people who know how jobs are created. A redistributionist job-killer like Barack Obama has proved the worst possible choice for the very people who supported him the most."
Time to get back to reality and stop ruminating about a past military decision that almost anyone in his position would have made.
Bruce at 68: But the main objective was to kill Bin Laden.
So, Bruce, again it goes back to the question of why waterboarding (aka, not killing) known terrorists under Bush is a "war crime" according to leftists like yourself, but ordering a "hit" (aka, ordering the killing of an unarmed man) is somehow elevated to hero status on the left? I support both actions by the way, which makes me consistent. Meanwhile, your fellow regressives pick and choose which action was "heroic" and which is "a war crime" based on your own warped political ideology.
Logic: Not for liberal consumption
Posted by: Rick D. on May 12, 2011 08:02 PMGosh, are those the only options? Use the military without regard for cost/benefit anytime you can accomplish an "important objective", or disband it?
Rick@73 wonders "why waterboarding (aka, not killing) known terrorists under Bush is a "war crime" according to leftists like yourself, but ordering a "hit" (aka, ordering the killing of an unarmed man) is somehow elevated to hero status on the left"
This may be news to you, but under international law, killing a military enemy is permitted under some circumstances (including the circumstances in Abbottabad), but torture is never permitted.
Posted by: Bruce on May 12, 2011 08:22 PMUm, which country's military does Al Queda belong to? And doesn't the Geneva convention pertain to uniformed military? Dirty nightshirts certainly doesn't qualify in most people's eyes as a "uniform".
Yes.
Use the military without regard for cost/benefit anytime you can accomplish an "important objective"
You're a damned liar. I neither stated nor implied any such thing. I said nothing about "can accomplish" the objective. I noted the fact that in this case it was the only way to accomplish it. And yes, if it is as important as Obama and most everyone else has been saying -- the biggest victory against the radicals, a game-changer, etc. -- then yes, the cost is irrelevant. Absolutely.
This may be news to you, but under international law, killing a military enemy is permitted under some circumstances (including the circumstances in Abbottabad), but torture is never permitted.
This was not a military enemy, as Rick D. pointed out, so you're obviously wrong there. And "torture" is ill-defined in any treaty we're a party to.
That said, I think a better argument against Rick D. isn't a legal one: it's simply the fact that killing and torture are inherently different things.
Alan Keyes has noted that executing a person guilty of a heinous crime isn't necessarily revenge or evil or immoral; different people can see it in different ways, but he sees it rationally as turning a person over to God for punishment, as the person's crimes are to grave for humans to punish. But does it follow that since we can execute that person, that we can defile his body while he is alive? Of course not. They're two completely different acts, and while you can come up with justifications for one or the other, it doesn't follow that there's a logical connection between those justifications.
So I'll agree with those who disagree with Rick in saying that there's no inherent contradiction in being in favor of assassination or execution or other killings, but being against torture.
Not sure where the confusion is here, pudge. Of course they are two entirely separate acts, that's obvious. One is temporary and results in continuation of life (as that of trainees in SERE training) and those that are permanent as those incurred by an unarmed UBL with a bullet to the head and chest courtesy of the USN SEALS. I find it rather asinine of someone to rationalize the latter behavior while decrying the former even though its outcome is a much less egregious act. Even Bruce knows he can't jam that square peg into a round hole logically, even though he'll try to.
Alan Keyes has noted that executing a person guilty of a heinous crime isn't necessarily revenge or evil or immoral...but [Keyes] sees it rationally as turning a person over to God for punishment, as the person's crimes are to grave for humans to punish.
If a human kills another human, then that person has already exacted a punishment by taking the other persons life. The alternative to that is having "defiled" the body prior to punishment by God, which would conceivably be deemed by God as torture.
I see this coming full circle here.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 13, 2011 12:44 AMOh, OK. Well, it is in that you are saying that to be against torture, but for killing, is incongruous. It's not, because the acts are of a different nature, and can be justified entirely independently on completely different bases.
I find it rather asinine of someone to rationalize the latter behavior while decrying the former even though its outcome is a much less egregious act.
Yes, I understand you find this. But it's wrong-headed, as I explained.
If a human kills another human, then that person has already exacted a punishment by taking the other persons life.
Of sorts, but it's swift and mostly painless and doesn't defile the person's body or soul.
The alternative to that is having "defiled" the body prior to punishment by God, which would conceivably be deemed by God as torture.
... which could conceivably be seen as much worse than killing them, yes.
Except, of course, that you've not even begun to demonstrate that it is illogical. You make assumptions, and I disagree with your assumptions, and you provide no argument for why anyone should accept your assumptions.
There is no debate in that
Spoken as someone incapable of backing up their assertions.
katomar: You are operating under the assumption that OBL had any soul left to be defiled ...
All people do, yes.
... and that we care.
Shrug. Rick D. brought up torture. If he doesn't care about the issue, he has a funny way of showing it.
It is illogical to 90% of those reading and commenting on this post. If you can't see that it is, that's your problem. Besides, you're not exactly known to change from your entrenched position even if that position flies in the face of reality and/or common sense. pudge has spoken, afterall, so why waste the time and effort trying to convince you otherwise? I'd have better luck trying to teach a pig to sing than to expect for you to admit you're wrong.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 13, 2011 12:23 PMThe question is not whether a certain number of people see it as illogical, it is whether it actually is illogical. And you've done nothing to demonstrate that it is illogical.
... why waste the time and effort trying to convince you otherwise?
If you want to talk about what other people think, I'd say 100% of those reading and commenting on this post recognize that as an obvious cop-out, Rick.
This is a place for discussion and argument: for making points, and backing them up. If you refuse to back up your point, fine, but don't pretend it's my fault that you lack either the desire or ability to do so. You're not fooling anyone.
And neither are you, Pudge. Thanks for sharing your opinion with the rest of us, but remember, it's just your opinion.
The only point you think you've made here is to say that "it's simply the fact that killing and torture are inherently different things." Gee, Pudge, thanks for enlightening us with that highbrow intellect of yours, but I think most of us knew that already.
Please, share with us, Rick, in what way you think I am "fooling" anyone.
Thanks for sharing your opinion with the rest of us, but remember, it's just your opinion.
I never implied it was anything more; you, however, did directly imply that your opinion is more than just mere opinion: by saying it is "illogical" to hold to particular positions simultaneously, you are necessarily saying that -- as a matter of fact -- there is are characteristics of each that make it impossible to hold to both at the same time and still be logically consistent.
For example, I can say it's irrational to believe that meat is murder, and to believe that murder is wrong, and to believe it is acceptable to eat meat whenever one wished to. That seems pretty obvious: the latter position directly contradicts the combination of the first two positions.
But you've not shown any such contradiction between believing murder of a terrorist is acceptable, and torture of a terrorist is not acceptable. You've merely asserted it, and you've done so using language directly implying that it's a matter of fact. You even went all Al Gore on us and said there's no debate, which is one of the most anti-intellectual things one can say (which is, of course, why Al Gore is so fond of saying it).
What's odd here is that you seem to hold me to a different standard than yourself: my opinion is mere opinion (even though I never implied otherwise) while yours is not (as you directly implied your opinion is fact ... even though if it were fact, one would think you'd have no trouble demonstrating it).
Sorry, exactly WHAT did I do or say that was wrong, that you haven't done or said? Please enlighten us.
It's really not a topic worth getting into any further with you and I really couldn't care less.
Translation: "I couldn't back up my assertions, so when pressed I tried to attack you personally, and since that didn't work, I am going to pretend to be above it all."
You are so completely full of it, Rick.
Not half as much as you, pudge. You clearly don't like your 'opinion' to be challenged as evidenced numerous times, with numerous commenters on the SP blog over the years. I think i've made my point obvious and logically, whether you think I did or not is really irrelevent to me.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 13, 2011 06:09 PMLet's move on.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on May 13, 2011 06:49 PMIn what way? You refuse to say! That's the problem.
You clearly don't like your 'opinion' to be challenged
You didn't challenge it! I've been BEGGING you to actually challenge it. Instead all you do is make assertions you refuse to even attempt to back up.
I think i've made my point obvious and logically
You clearly did not. Again, your assertion is that believing "waterboarding ... is a 'war crime' ... but ordering a 'hit' ... is somehow elevated to hero status" is "illogical" and not "consistent." You have not offered any argument or evidence to support this, at all, in any way whatsoever. You've simply engaged in question-begging by implying they are two acts along the same spectrum that differ only in severity/finality/etc.
While I do not believe torture is necessarily a war crime, I -- like many other people, including various soldiers I know -- reject this unsubstantiated assumption. And -- again -- you've offered no argument or evidence to back it up.
To say you've made your point "obviously" emphasizes what I am saying: you think it's obvious, so you assume it instead of actually arguing it. To say you've made your point "logically" is false, as you've not made your point at all: you've merely asserted it.
I've made my point obvious and you know it. Your OPINION is clearly in the minority on your own blog post so I'll leave it at that. Moving on =)
Posted by: Rick D. on May 14, 2011 12:00 AMI know that you've made your point, but you've not done so "logically" as you claimed: to make a point logically is to give rational arguments supporting it. Despite repeated requests, you've refused to do this.
I know that you repeatedly reference the number of people whom you believe agree with you, as if that matters in any way: we are talking about the arguments (or lack thereof) supporting your point, not how many people may or may not agree with it. (Red herring fallacy.)
I know that you invented some bizarre criticism of me that I am pretending my opinion is something more than mere opinion, made worse by the fact that you've directly asserted that your opinion is fact (again, despite being able to back up your point).
I know that you falsely claim I don't like my opinion to be challenged, when I've been asking repeatedly for you to actually challenge my opinion, rather than making mere unsubstantiated assertions about it, made worse by the fact that you are the one who's been making personal attacks against me since I actually challenged your opinion.
Look, Rick, without fail, I provide good arguments to back up my claims, every time (with the sole exception being when I refuse to argue with particular individuals who don't deserve my efforts, like Lysander, which doesn't count because I don't make my assertions to him ... he just happens to show up :-). Most liberals here, however, at SOME point, will abandon reason.
Bruce is one of the better ones, making many good (even if not convincing) arguments. But even he abandons reason often, as demonstrated here: he could not provide an alternate decision the President could possibly have made while meeting the top objectives, and yet still asserts Obama made a "tough decision." When pushed to answer how it is a tough decision to choose from a list of ONE decisions, he pretends that I am being unreasonable, and bows out.
But you're being even worse: at least Bruce TRIED to provide an argument to back up his point. You've refused. Now, I don't fault you for refusing, per se: it's a tough argument to make, because you'd have to show not just that murder and torture are two acts along the same spectrum that differ only in severity/finality/etc., but you'd have to show that there's no significant ways in which they are different, that is, that they are on different spectrums.
For example, I can say it's illogical to say it's murder to eat meat, while eating apples, because trees and their fruit are alive too. A vegan would correctly point out that's nonsense, because while it's true there are some similarities, there are also some important differences between "animals" and "vegetables." You've pointed out there are similarities between murder and torture, but have not even attempted to provide argument either a. that there's no significant differences, or b. that my briefly stated argument about one of the differences is incorrect in some way.
Feel free to move on, but don't make the mistake in pretending that you've done anything here other than make yourself look silly. Yes, I look silly too, for bothering to engage with you: but I don't mind, as long as my arguments are rational, which they are. But you have no arguments, and that's the point.
I love few things more than people challenging me. What I dislike is people pretending to challenge me while offering nothing but flummery.
Whose top objectives? I believe Obama's top objective in Abbottabad was to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden. Other relevant objectives included proving we'd got him (but of course that would become evident eventually anyway), gathering intelligence, protecting American lives, and improving (or at least not damaging) the long-term stability of Pakistan and our influence there. We have lots of opportunities to accomplish many of those objectives, so it would be idiotic to say we must accomplish each one every time we can, even at the expense of the others.
You have selected a few of these objectives and declared them "the top objectives". From there you conclude that the SEALs mission was the only reasonable course of action. That's logical only if you assume that any other weighting of objectives was not only wrong in your (and Obama's) opinion, but unreasonable.
A caveat is that neither you nor I know all the considerations that Obama knew, so we can only guess what the alternatives looked like to him. But from where I sit, he had at least one good alternative, and doubtless many sub-options.
Posted by: Bruce on May 14, 2011 03:47 PMObama's.
We have lots of opportunities to accomplish many of those objectives, so it would be idiotic to say we must accomplish each one every time we can, even at the expense of the others.
As usual, you're not making sense. You cannot accomplish the goal of identifying OBL's body some other time. It's now or never. As Obama's own top anti-terror guy, John Brennan, said identifying OBL's body was one of the top objectives. So that's what they did.
You have selected a few of these objectives and declared them "the top objectives".
Yes, based on what was obviously true, based on the administrations own statements, and so on. I said in my original post that this list of top objectives was presumed "uncontroversial," and until now -- nearly 100 comments and several days later -- this is the first time anyone has questioned it.
From there you conclude that the SEALs mission was the only reasonable course of action.
NO ONE has offered ANY OTHER reasonable alternative. The only thing anyone's brought up was a bombing, which directly goes against the administration's own stated objectives.
A caveat is that neither you nor I know all the considerations that Obama knew, so we can only guess what the alternatives looked like to him.
Obama and his people are the ones claiming this was a tough decision; if they want us to believe that, then can tell us why, which would entail telling us at least SOME of those "considerations." I am not the one making this whole thing an issue: Obama is. HE is the one asking us to believe this was a tough decision. Don't blame me for questioning my President: blame him for either lying (which is likely, based on the available evidence) or not giving us sufficient evidence to back up his assertion that the decision was tough.
But from where I sit, he had at least one good alternative ...
If you're referring to the bombing, no, I've already proven this was an unacceptable option.
... and doubtless many sub-options.
You're lying. You have no evidence from which to conclude there were any "sub-options."
http://www.politico.com/largevideobox.html?id=943086459001
And yes, I heard Gates say that, and yet he didn't give any good reasons.
He listed:
1. The uncertainty of the intelligence
2. The consequences of it going bad
3. The risk to the lives of the Americans involved
I addressed all of these above. In brief: the intelligence was MORE than certain enough to believe that SOMETHING of value related to al Qaeda or its allies was in there; the consequences of something going wrong are grossly overstated, and entirely worth the risk if, indeed, getting OBL was the greatest thing to happen in the "war on terror"; and we have special forces for the purpose of putting them in harm's way when necessary.
So yeah, I'm gonna have to say Gates is simply trying to make his boss look good.
As is true in thousands of places all over the world. So?
"the consequences of something going wrong are grossly overstated"
This is impossible to prove or disprove, as neither of us is privy to what Obama and Gates knew/know. Historically many similar missions have ended badly, but of course no 2 missions are identical. Reading about the operation made me think of all the things that could easily have gone wrong. I guess each person will have to use their own judgment here (and you will keep saying that anyone whose judgment varies from yours is an idiot).
"and entirely worth the risk if, indeed, getting OBL was the greatest thing to happen in the "war on terror""
Who said that? Obama? Gates? I doubt it.
"we have special forces for the purpose of putting them in harm's way when necessary."
Nonsense. We have special (and nonspecial) forces for the purpose of accomplishing objectives that are worth the risk (in lives, consequential damage to our foreign policy goals, etc.). Getting OBL was highly desirable but not "necessary", let alone in the manner we got him. Was it worth the risks of doing what Obama did? Maybe. But is it clear that it was the only reasonable choice? Absolutely not.
Posted by: Bruce on May 16, 2011 05:55 PMAllowing ObL to go unpunished and free was a decision made by W. So you're right, no. I stand corrected.
You are confusing easy decisions with light decisions. They aren't the same thing.
Please define "easy", as opposed to "light" decisions. (Does one involve ignoring a PDB titled, "Bin Laden Intends To Strike Within the U.S."?)
There is no evidence here, of any kind, that Obama did anything that Bush wouldn't have done, in any timeframe differently than Bush could have done it.
Bush was Preznit for many more years than Obama has been -- years when ObL lived free and unmolested. (I'm sorry, you were saying?)
Bush never said he wasn't a worthwhile target: he said he, personally, didn't spend much time thinking about him.
Because the Preznit of, um, wherever would never, ever spend much time thinking about a worthwhile target. Yeah, that's it.
But again, I concede. No one has any evidence that W ever spent any time thinking. About ObL. Or anything else.
Posted by: tensor on May 16, 2011 11:18 PMUm. There are not thousands of places with nearly as high a certainty with nearly the level of value as this place. In fact, this place was singularly, by far, the highest value target we knew about it, even if Bin Laden wasn't there. So any talk whatsoever about the "risk" of going in and Bin Laden not being there are utter bullshit. There was NO REASON to NOT go in.
neither of us is privy to what Obama and Gates knew/know
Again: Obama and Gates are the ones making the case that this was a tough decision. If they have evidence to back that claim up, they can present it. Otherwise, we will evaluate their claim based on what we know. This is rational and fair. What you're asking -- that citizens should accept the words of their leaders without question -- is irrational and unfair.
Reading about the operation made me think of all the things that could easily have gone wrong.
But ALL of the things you thought about going wrong pale in comparison to the opportunity lost if we DIDN'T attempt to go in. Therefore, we had no rational choice but to go in.
you will keep saying that anyone whose judgment varies from yours is an idiot
You're a damned liar, Bruce. I've never said that.
Who said that?
Almost everyone who is an Obama fan.
Nonsense. We have special (and nonspecial) forces for the purpose of accomplishing objectives that are worth the risk
So you said what I said was nonsense, but then restated what I said to say the same thing. You wanna recheck yourself?
Getting OBL was highly desirable but not "necessary"
Not according to Obama.
... let alone in the manner we got him.
Not according to Obama's own counterterrorism guy, who said it was of the utmost importance to be able to demonstrate that we actually got Bin Laden. And you've offered no argument whatsoever that it was NOT of the utmost importance to be able to identify the body.
is it clear that it was the only reasonable choice? Absolutely not.
Screw you, Bruce. You keep saying this but you keep offering NO ALTERNATIVE CHOICE. You're being grossly dishonest.
Wow, tensor. Starting off your comment with such a bald-faced lie was a decision YOU made, and as a consequence, I won't read the rest of your comment, and any further comments from you will be removed.
Posted by: pudge on May 17, 2011 05:27 AM
