Should Obama receive credit for getting Bin Laden

Conundrum wrote:

Wow, Obama's team got Bin Laden and that creates an intolerable level of dissonance for you conservatives. Read what you just wrote. Do you see your cognitive back flips and the rigid over focus on a small concrete point? Would you think this way if it was Bush who got him?

And in your example, the offensive coordinator SHOULD get some credit when a team scores a touchdown!

Just say Obama did well to get Bin Laden and then change the subject. I'd have more respect for that approach.

(Now this will get the thread deleted - its an effective argument)

It would be an effective statement if Obama were analogous to an offensive coordinator. The planning and execution is done by people who actually have military training.

Like Romney said, the decision was a no-brainer.

Conundrum wrote:

Wow, Obama's team got Bin Laden and that creates an intolerable level of dissonance for you conservatives. Read what you just wrote. Do you see your cognitive back flips and the rigid over focus on a small concrete point? Would you think this way if it was Bush who got him?

And in your example, the offensive coordinator SHOULD get some credit when a team scores a touchdown!

Just say Obama did well to get Bin Laden and then change the subject. I'd have more respect for that approach.

(Now this will get the thread deleted - its an effective argument)

I'm not conservative by any means. Yes, the offensive coordinator should get some credit. He should get credit for calling the play that resulted in a touchdown. He should not get credit for throwing the touchdown pass. Similarly, Obama should get credit for bringing about the death of Bin Laden. He should not, however, get credit for "getting Bin Laden." He did make the call that resulted in Bin Laden's death. He did not get Bin Laden.

Obama was here wrote:

I'm not conservative by any means. Yes, the offensive coordinator should get some credit. He should get credit for calling the play that resulted in a touchdown. He should not get credit for throwing the touchdown pass. Similarly, Obama should get credit for bringing about the death of Bin Laden. He should not, however, get credit for "getting Bin Laden." He did make the call that resulted in Bin Laden's death. He did not get Bin Laden.

Especially when he didn't want our troops over there in the first place. If anything, bin Laden is dead IN SPITE of Obama.

General Patraeus wrote:

Like Romney said, the decision was a no-brainer.

Actually Romney said that it wasn't worth expending resources to get Bin Laden. He was wrong.

As far as Romney knowing about a no brainer I would think he would be very familiar with the condition

on a personal level.

Elaine wrote:

Yes, he overruled his pvssy advisers and put boots on the ground rather than an airstrike.

I don't think the members of DEVGRU wear "boots"

Charles Manson's son wrote:

Mmmm, no confusion here. It's the liberals always preaching about how evil the war was in the first place and how we shouldn't have our armies overseas and blah blah blah blah blah.

But that is conveniently forgotten when you need to make Obama look good.

Sorry, son, but if you recall during the 2008 campaign, then candidate Obama went around telling everyone we were fighting the wrong war (ie get out of Iraq), and that he'd redeploy troops to afghanistan and find bin laden:

As for whether, Obama deserves credit, of course he deserves credit. Did he pull the actual trigger? No. But he pulled the decision making trigger and told the guys to get it done, in a risky situation that could've possibly provoked fighting between US and Pakistani military forces.

Lastly, if you blame Obama for the Affordable Care Act (which you (ie conservatives) do; see Obamacare), you have to give him some credit for getting OBL. He did not cast a vote for the ACA, as he's not a legislator. His office didn't write the bill. Yes, he signed the bill into law, but I don't see that as much different than making the decision to go after OBL.

I've heard that Obama and bin Laden made a secret agreement that bin Laden would fall on his sword to advance "The Cause." It's pretty obvious to anyone who hasn't been brainwashed by the mainstream media. Or have they gotten to you to?!?

Guy O'Leighken wrote:

Or have they gotten to you to?!?

Only liberals worry about correctly using to/too. Lamestream media again.

also, if it was such a no-brainer, you'd think Bush would have done it in 2001 when there may have been an opportunity. but he didn't do it, whereas Obama did. Obama took the chance (and it was a chance as they didn't have 100% confirmation) and Bush did not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618-2002Apr16

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-11-29-senate-report-bin-laden_N.htm

who wants to let actual facts get in the way of things, though???

my mum f***ed Charles Manson wrote:

Wait a sec...

Didn't Obama promise to bring the troops home when he became president? Aren't Democrats the ones with all the "Make peace, not war" bumper stickers? And yet they're proud that Obama made the order to kill bin Laden?

Double standard, anybody?

This is exactly what he said in a national debate with McCain on October 7, 2008:

"And we have a difficult situation in Pakistan. I believe that part of the reason we have a difficult situation is because we made a bad judgment going into Iraq in the first place when we hadn't finished the job of hunting down bin Laden and crushing al-Qaida.

So what happened was we got distracted, we diverted resources, and ultimately bin Laden escaped, set up base camps in the mountains of Pakistan in the northwest provinces there.

They are now raiding our troops in Afghanistan, destabilizing the situation. They're stronger now than at any time since 2001. And that's why I think it's so important for us to reverse course because that's the central front on terrorism. They are plotting to kill Americans right now. As Secretary Gates, the Defense secretary, said, the war against terrorism began in that region, and that's where it will end.

So part of the reason I think it's so important for us to end the war in Iraq is to be able to get more troops into Afghanistan, put more pressure on the Afghan government to do what it needs to do, eliminate some of the drug trafficking that's funding terrorism.

But I do believe that we have to change our policies with Pakistan. We can't coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him billions of dollars, and then he's making peace treaties with the Taliban and militants. What I have said is we're going encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our non-military aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants.

And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act, and we will take them out.

We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaida. That has to be our biggest national security priority."

Did he promise to bring the troops home? The troops in Iraq, yes. And he has.

Aren't Democrats the ones with bumper stickers that say make peace, not war? I'm not sure who you're thinking of, I'm a Democrat and know lots of Democrats and have never seen that bumper sticker. In general I don't like war though. Do you?

Are we proud Obama got Bin Laden? Yes. You should be proud too.

Double standard? What are you talking about? Because in general I think war is bad, now I have to forgive a mass murderer? No, Bin Laden got what he deserved. I can hate war and still be happy about the death of a mass murderer. There is no hypocrisy there.

Of course Obama should get some credit, but that's the whole point the Repubs are making: Obama is overselling it and insulting the memory of those killed on 9/11 by attempting to aggressively cherry pick political points on the back of the accomplishment.

You don't go making chest-thumping political ads about it and trying to suggest your opponent would not have done the same. It is as ridiculous as it is pathetic and I think diminishes the president. People are not stupid enough to buy the argument that Obama was singularly equipped to say, "Yes, go ahead with the operation," when getting Osama bin Laden had been elevated to the very holy grail of political point scoring. Obama had been salivating over this opportunity from the moment he took to the campaign trail. It was the perfect opportunity to prove his "mettle" in the war on terror after having tried to undermine and badmouth every decision and policy made in the Middle East by his predecessor. Policies and decisions, by the way, that paved the way for the eventual demise of Bin Laden.

Any president in his position would have done the same. It was about as much of a political "no brainer" as could possibly come across your desk as the American president in 2011. Good for Obama in getting at least one decision right.

He would have done better to have merely let the accomplishment speak for itself. Trust Obama and his "ad wizards," though, to overreach and try to parlay that one glitzy, yet ultimately fairly inconsequential, accomplishment into his very rallying cry going into the election and an attempt to portray the Republican as somehow weak on national defense. It would be even more laughable if it wasn't so depressingly misleading.

It's like Obama and Axelrod et al looked into a suitcase of campaign weaponry and said... "hmmm... not much here... ooh! The Bin Laden assassination! Yes! Oh yeah, we're going to have a field day with this!"

...Problem is, one "no brainer" in a sea of weak, incompetent and incoherent foreign policy decisions just isn't enough. Kudos to Obama for sinking the layup, but don't expect us to believe Romney wouldn't have done the same. Sometimes, Obama, less is more but, sadly, that is a concept you never seem to appreciate.

Yes, but the Dems are making this sound like it was a hard decision when it was the easiest decision of all. Now sending in SEALS is a bit tougher decision than having a drone attack or smart bomb do the job, but everyone wanted to make sure it was Bin Laden.

Clinton was the person who really screwed the pooch when he had him but was too busy playing golf to give the order.

Bush did not exactly let bin Laden go either. More resources might have helped, but that was some rugged country.

Duck forevermore wrote:

He had to review and okay the mission as a "go," when they were not 100% sure it was BL in that compound.

Yes, he gets credit, as does the entire US forces that cooperated.

Bush let him escape.

Bush is the one who ordered the hunt for Bin Laden. Obama wouldn't have even been in a lucky position to make that call had it not been for Bush.

Any president past, present or future would have made that call. Intel is what located him. Intel is who was watching him for several months. Intel made the plan. Intel made a similar fake compound to pactice in. All Obama had to say was "okay".

Funny how Obama blames everyone else for anything that goes wrong. Then turns around and takes ALL the credit for anything that goes right. If Bush had made the call Obama and the Democrats would be screeming bloody murder with the usual no trial rhetoric. Remember Gitmo and the Democrats that wanted terrorists tried in downtown NY. Now they not only speak nothing of trials but they disciminately engage in death penalty crimes by blowing them to bits from drones.

I'd say yes since it was planned for 2 years from a house the CIA rented a few blocks away with a clear view of OBL's little hideout. The CIA had it planned so well they used older slow soldiers who servre a CIA policemen to carry out the operation rather than use nimble teenagers for high risk hand-to-hand combat with insane nutjob terrorists. OBL had hidden out for years in that safe house in Abbotabad with only two lightly armed priestly body guards to not draw attention. Obama knew the situtaion very well and had polar earth orbit satellites, USAF drones, USAF AWACS, and one dozen stealth helos overhead. Obama had two aircraft carriers battle groups on standby. Obama had a batallion of Army Rangers on standby in case OBL had hidden Islamic Freedom Fighters nearby to attack the US Navy SEALS. The officers, CIA, and SEALS spent years at the Westin Kabul planning the assasination. In the end Obama succeeded. Job well done for President Obama.

Blowme wrote:

Any president past, present or future would have made that call. Intel is what located him. Intel is who was watching him for several months. Intel made the plan. Intel made a similar fake compound to pactice in. All Obama had to say was "okay".

So you don't think Romney will be president?

Romney saying in 2007 that, "It's not worth moving heaven and earth, spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person."

yes he does wrote:

as comander in chief of the armed forces, he does get credit. It was his job to get Bin Ladin and he got the job done, as much as this hurts to conservatives. Obama gets credit. next....

I'm conservative and I give Obama credit. He shares the credit with Bush who started the drive to get Osama in the first place. I am glad Obama kept at it and finished the job. Kudos from me.

Obama gets credit.

It's a valid point to raise because he was roundly criticized by the Republicans for taking the policy that he would strike inside Pakistan (even without Pakistani approval) if the chance existed to get bin Laden. Romney in particular called out Obama calling his plans "ill conceived".

Republicans typically own the National Security/Defense argument when it comes to elections. They don't this time. Obama has excelled in this area, particularly where Bush failed.

Yes. Just like Bush tried to take credit for executing a brilliant, 8 week war in Iraq by landing on an aircraft carrier and declaring victory in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner.

Romney can pound sand.

After years of the prior admin's misdirected efforts in Iraq and downplaying the importance of "one man," Obama changed course and prioritized the capture/kill of OBL. That's the key difference, and not every president would have done it. It lead to the actionable intelligence that got OBL. Bush's policies in no way paved the way for it to happen. They were counterproductive to the effort. He had his chance at Tora Bora and was found wanting.

"you don't go around making chest-thumping political ads and trying to suggest your opponent would not do the same." Really? Were you around for the 2004 campaign? Mission Accomplished? Suddenly it's beyond the pale?

Sure, if another president had it all cued-up with strong intelligence on an OBL safe house, it would be a closer call. The point is focusing on getting Bin Laden was a choice and a distinct change of policy that many other president would not have made. And, given his statements on the subject, that includes Romney.