What does it say about a person when they are so unwilling to accept that Obama succeeded at least in part due to the groundwork laid by Bush that they are unable to give credit where credit is due and instead resort to desperate and petty measures to discredit him?
Experience enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again - Jeanne Pincha-Tulley
Comprehensive is Latin for there is lots of bad stuff in it - Trey Gowdy
I doubt either president had a lot of input other than "go, no go". The intelligence gatherers, the troops on the ground- the folks who painstakingly planned for the operation-in other words scores of men and women whose names we will never know deserve the credit for this. A tussle over Bush v Obama lessens the discussion.
major bean wrote: [ There is a huge difference between demanding respect and commanding respect. Using "I" as opposed to "we" tells quite a bit of a person.
What does it say about a person when they are so unwilling to accept that Obama succeeded where Bush failed that they are unable to give credit where credit is due and instead resort to desperate and petty measures to discredit him?
This is funny! Liberals have been yelling "Bush did it!" with such a deafening mantra for the past 2 years. And now they must interject Bush into the conversation in order to defend their Obama. We are talking about Obama here not Bush. Get over it!
Bush took a lot of heat for his acceptance and approval of enhanced interrogation techniques. Now it seems that these techniques yielded some vital information that allowed Obama to "Seal" the deal. While I don't believe that the U.S. should be engaged in torture, maybe, in extreme circumstances, it can produce a desired result. Was it worth it? In this case, yes.
jf1acai wrote: What does it say about a person when they are so unwilling to accept that Obama succeeded at least in part due to the groundwork laid by Bush that they are unable to give credit where credit is due and instead resort to desperate and petty measures to discredit him?
So what "desperate and petty measures are you referring to? Specifically? Did someone count the "Is" in his comments regarding the Obama's success?
I'm perfectly willing to give Bush credit WHERE IT IS DUE but I also am justifiably critical of the fact that he not only failed in capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, but did so at least in part because by his own words on the subject, it was clear he stopped seeing it as a priority.
And neither am I willing to join the bandwagon who try to say invading Iraq or getting cozy with torture contributed in any significant way to locating and taking out Osama. At least not without evidence.
chickaree wrote: I doubt either president had a lot of input other than "go, no go". The intelligence gatherers, the troops on the ground- the folks who painstakingly planned for the operation-in other words scores of men and women whose names we will never know deserve the credit for this. A tussle over Bush v Obama lessens the discussion.
I don't know of one single person who has in any way, shape or form discounted or disregarded the contribution of the troops on the ground.
But troops on the ground still need commanders, of whom the President, last I heard, was Commander in Chief. Military operations at this level are very dependent on whether that Commander in Chief chooses to prosecute the mission. It really looked to me like Bush gave up on trying to find Osama bin Laden, or at the very least no longer considered it as important. If Obama decided otherwise and succeeded, I think he deserves credit for that, and I fail to see how that takes away one iota of credit for the work of the many military and civilian people whose names we will never know.
I think is was being at the right place at the right time with the right information. For all involved. There is absolutely no way to know what information Clinton, Bush, or Obama has had or did have regarding OBL's hide outs. This information is now and will remain for a long time classified.
towermonkey wrote: Bush took a lot of heat for his acceptance and approval of enhanced interrogation techniques. Now it seems that these techniques yielded some vital information that allowed Obama to "Seal" the deal. While I don't believe that the U.S. should be engaged in torture, maybe, in extreme circumstances, it can produce a desired result. Was it worth it? In this case, yes.
I pretty much agree. And I never liked calling it enhanced interrogation. While water boarding is not full blown torture where you are cutting off limbs, it's still torture IMO. Maybe call it "torture lite". Anyway, I think it should be used only in extreme cases such as when dealing with a KSM. And the OK should come from the top of the chain of command. Someone should take responsibility for it.
It's still not yet clear to me if it was used, though, to get the info about the courier. Some articles specifically say it was, some specifically say it wasn't. But the most recent I saw said KSM gave the info while interrogated in eastern Europe. If that's true, then I'd guess he was water boarded.
So far as credit goes, I give most of it to our troops and intelligence. Bush and Obama too! Obama took a major risk in giving the go ahead. No, not a risk to his life, but a big political risk. If it had failed, he'd bear the brunt of the scorn, similar to what happened with Carter. Also a failure would of been a major coup for the terrorists.
LEXINGTON, South Carolina (CNN) – Sen. John McCain condemned Mike Huckabee Monday for saying that, as president, he would strike at terrorists inside Pakistan's borders with or without permission from the country's leadership.
McCain called Huckabee's comments naïve and said the former Arkansas governor lacks military experience needed to lead.
Keep in mind this is posturing crap but interesting.
:thumbsup:
