Mr. President, You Are The Leader of a Team. Act Like One.

archer wrote: I in no way am equating the presidents risk with that faced by the seals....I'm not sure how you came up with that opinion from my post. Apples and oranges rockdoc. It IS gutsy to make the decision to send American Seals on such a risky mission, you would have to be an awfully cold blooded person not to agonize over such a decision....and I don't think Obama is cold hearted. So yes, I do think his making the call to do this mission based on intelligence only and no actual sighting of bin Laden was gutsy, it could have failed miserably and the political fallout of that was the least of his worries. That does not, however, equate to the expertise and ability of the Seals who actually risked their lives, their gutsy-ness, if you will, is what makes them so good, it's what they do.

I do see and acknowledge your point. And yes, I'm certain he agonized over his decision, but to my way of thinking that only makes it a hard decision, not a gutsy one. Semantics, perhaps? This is why I compared the decision making process to that of a company CEO. Some company CEOs also make decisions involving lives. It is the nature of the beast, but like most leaders, their actual personal risk is relatively minor. So those are hard decisions to make, but then again many leaders are callous knowing that the expense of a few lives is worth the risk. To make the same decision and lead it from the front, now that is truly gutsy as you risk not only all you detailed, but you put your life as a leader on the line too. This is where I'm coming from.

Obama made the decision that had to be made. His speech was totally appropriate and ,to my way of thinking, expressed adequately what should have been said. If he had not approved of this mission, then my concerns would be that he was totally unqualified, as a man, to be president. I have no qualms with the mission being a "kill" mission.
His attendance at the Twin Towers ceremony today was totally appropriate and I do not understand those who would disapprove of it. Bush and Clinton, in my opinion, were very disrespectful in their absence.

My greatest concern is how he disposed of the body with a Muslim ceremony promptly after the raid. Moderate Muslims must raise their eyebrows at such a ceremony for a person that they would disavow.
And you know my feelings about photo evidence since the body has been dumped.

Well Obama certainly did put his reputation as Commander-in-Chief on the line with this decision. If it had failed he would be just another Jimmy Carter and the Republicans would have had a field day with it in the next election. And we might have lost some damn fine American soldiers......

That is part of the job. But in Obama's case it is "damned if you do, damned if you don't". I am no fan of his, but he did what the president should have done. And it was a roll of the dice.

:thumbsup:

archer wrote: Well Obama...would be just another Jimmy Carter and the Republicans would have had a field day with it in the next election.

Oblama already IS another Jimmy Carter and the republicans WILL have a field day with him in the next election.

:thumbsup:

IMO, oblama (with his ego) would not have given a "GO" if it wasn't 99.9% a sure thing.

archer wrote: I disagree... (My Comment: Of Course)
It seems like their was enormous risk....bin Laden may not have been there, they didn't have real solid evidence he was....(My Comment Yes, my Dear we did, thanks to waterboarding)
other people were killed before they even knew if bin Laden was there........ (My Comment: The hero SEALS knew who was in there and bassically where they were)the seals might have been detected and shot down by the pakistanis, we may have lost some American lives...(My Comment: The word is "SEALS, not the animal seals, WE HAVE LOST 3,000 inncoent lives, & countless heroes)that would not have played well in Peoria.... (No Comment!)missions like this carry enormous risk of failure and I am sure Obama knew that if this mission failed he would be vilified and could very well lose in 2012 because of that failure. (My Comment:LOL!! This will bring a bump in this favorable poll numbers, but remember that the American people (when it comes to politics) have short memories)Yet he chose to go ahead with this mission, knowing the risks, because it was the right thing to do. It WAS gutsy, and saying that it wasn't diminishes what the Seals (My Comment: Close) accomplished.(No Comment. Maybe you can answer for vl, since he's to chicken to, why did he title his thread "oblama kills bin lurdin!", when all he did was say "Go"?)

archer wrote: I disagree...It seems like their was enormous risk....bin Laden may not have been there, they didn't have real solid evidence he was....other people were killed before they even knew if bin Laden was there........the seals might have been detected and shot down by the pakistanis, we may have lost some American lives....

The CIA and SEALS knew exactly where he was.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/05/06/uk-binladen-idUKTRE7415H120110506

Extensive surveillance of Osama bin Laden's hideout from a nearby CIA safe house in Abbottabad led to his killing in a Navy SEAL operation, U.S. officials said, a revelation likely to further embarrass Pakistan's spy agency and strain ties.

The U.S. officials, quoted by the Washington Post, said the safe house was the base for intelligence gathering that began after bin Laden's compound was discovered last August, and which was so exhaustive the CIA asked Congress to reallocate tens of millions of dollars to fund it.