What's new
By:

Bin Laden is dead

LogGrad98 said:
I think you are giving him too much credit. Where is the evidence that we weren't in there already looking for him for years now? How do you know the ONLY reason we even thought about going there was because Obama ordered it. I think this kind of thing does not evolve overnight. We have had people scouring that part of the world for a DECADE. I really doubt that in some meeting Obama said "So in 10 years did you try looking in Pakistan?" and they said "Holy crap, what a great idea! I mean, we have never before had operatives in a country that didn't welcome us with open arms, so we never thought of that! You saved the day Obama!" I would bet dollars to donuts that the plan was PRESENTED to Obama after intelligence discovered OBL had ties in Pakistan and Obama signed off on it. As any president would have done. The bottom line is, in no way does that mission reflect on Obama being "gutsy" or having super-human courage. That is just yet another spin his party is trying to put on the whole thing (just like the repubs are spinning the whole debt thing right now). No, Obama just did what any sitting president would, and should, have done in his place. No great heroics there.



I have also heard what you are saying (above in bold) in forums and in conversations but have yet to find corroborating evidence of that. Do you happen to have any links?
Click to expand...
You obviously didn't read the link that was posted when this thread got bumped. Here it is:
https://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_schmidle?currentPage=all

It spells out exactly what happened, how it all came about, and what intelligence they had. Some blurbs that may surprise you:

"Four months after Obama entered the White House, Leon Panetta, the director of the C.I.A., briefed the President on the agency’s latest programs and initiatives for tracking bin Laden. Obama was unimpressed. In June, 2009, he drafted a memo instructing Panetta to create a “detailed operation plan” for finding the Al Qaeda leader and to “ensure that we have expended every effort.” Most notably, the President intensified the C.I.A.’s classified drone program; there were more missile strikes inside Pakistan during Obama’s first year in office than in George W. Bush’s eight. The terrorists swiftly registered the impact: that July, CBS reported that a recent Al Qaeda communiqué had referred to “brave commanders” who had been “snatched away” and to “so many hidden homes [which] have been levelled.” The document blamed the “very grave” situation on spies who had “spread throughout the land like locusts."

"In late 2010, Obama ordered Panetta to begin exploring options for a military strike on the compound."

"On March 14th, Obama called his national-security advisers into the White House Situation Room and reviewed a spreadsheet listing possible courses of action against the Abbottabad compound. Most were variations of either a JSOC raid or an airstrike. Some versions included coöperating with the Pakistani military; some did not. Obama decided against informing or working with Pakistan."

"The President’s military advisers were divided. Some supported a raid, some an airstrike, and others wanted to hold off until the intelligence improved. Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense, was one of the most outspoken opponents of a helicopter assault. Gates reminded his colleagues that he had been in the Situation Room of the Carter White House when military officials presented Eagle Claw—the 1980 Delta Force operation that aimed at rescuing American hostages in Tehran but resulted in a disastrous collision in the Iranian desert, killing eight American soldiers. “They said that was a pretty good idea, too,” Gates warned. He and General James Cartwright, the vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs, favored an airstrike by B-2 Spirit bombers. That option would avoid the risk of having American boots on the ground in Pakistan."

"Panetta asked the participants, one by one, to declare how confident they were that bin Laden was inside the Abbottabad compound. The counterterrorism official told me that the percentages “ranged from forty per cent to ninety or ninety-five per cent,” and added, “This was a circumstantial case.”

"Before taking that step for bin Laden, however, John Brennan made a call. Brennan, who had been a C.I.A. station chief in Riyadh, phoned a former counterpart in Saudi intelligence. Brennan told the man what had occurred in Abbottabad and informed him of the plan to deposit bin Laden’s remains at sea. As Brennan knew, bin Laden’s relatives were still a prominent family in the Kingdom, and Osama had once been a Saudi citizen. Did the Saudi government have any interest in taking the body? “Your plan sounds like a good one,” the Saudi replied."


LogGrad98 said:
https://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/...meline_of_the_mission_to_kill_osama_bin_laden
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/...laden-is-killed.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
https://blogs.abcnews.com/political...in-laden-is-killed-white-house-time-line.html

From the last link:



https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/05/death_of_bin_laden_took_many_t.html



These all support the fact that this mission was years in the making. It was not the brainchild of Obama alone, and he did not act against anyone's advice. They waited until they had the proper intelligence and acted, as any sitting president would have (and should have).

These are not all. Virtually every source I could find supports what these say.

Obama did the right thing. There is no doubt of that. Of course, up until they decided to dispose of the body for very specious reasons. But he didn't do anything heroic. Don't kid yourself. Any president in the white house at that point in time, following the wars that came after 9/11, would have done the same thing. Any and all presidents would KILL to be able to be "the one" who brought down OBL. You really underestimate the power of positive press in politicians' decision-making.
Click to expand...
Um, Bush was presented with the option to get Bin Laden at Tora Bora. He chose to send the Afgans with only limited Americans acting as basically supervisors. after that operation utterly failed, Bush started saying he wasn't too worried about Bin Laden. So it's absolutely NOT a safe bet that Obama only did what any other president would have done.

Tora Bora was in a mountainous region in a country we were already at war with. Obama sent military forces into a city in a country we are supposedly allies with. And it was unannounced, and less than a mile from a major military installation.

I posted a current link (actually reposted a link someone had already posted in this thread) that spells out exactly what happened. You should really read it. You are selling Obama short. It wasn't something that just fell into his lap, like you claim. And had he failed (Bin Laden not there, Pakistanis shoot down the Black Hawks and kill all the Americans, etc) I have no doubt in my mind you would be blasting Obama for it. It would not be "anyone would have done the same thing" if he had failed.
 
LogGrad98,

Dude, I see what you're saying. BY FAR the most credit for this goes to the guys on the ground... you won't get a debate from me there. I am not trying to give Obama all this credit... I am certainly not one of his sympathizers. But instead of just bombing the **** out of the whole area on 50/50 intelligence Obama decided to go the tough route and send in ground forces. The risk of disaster in this situation was extremely high. What if the entire army academy had woken up and came down the road guns blazin and we are put into the position of fighting our way out of Pakistan? A conflict with an ally on the War on Terror would have been a disaster to his presidency. What if we would have taken 10 KIA and no Osama at the compound? Again, disaster in the public eye.

My point is, while he wasn't on the ground wielding a 5.56 M4 with night vision goggles looking for Osama himself, he did put his neck on the line for a good cause and he came out on top. That was gutsy IMO.
 
TheDude said:
My point is, while he wasn't on the ground wielding a 5.56 M4 with night vision goggles looking for Osama himself, he did put his neck on the line for a good cause and he came out on top. That was gutsy IMO.
Click to expand...

He put other people's necks on the line, not his own.
 
I love that if you don't show undying love for a political figure you are automatically assumed to venomously hate said figure. I do not agree that Obama deserves much credit for this. Most published sources support this. The quotes listed above can only be found elsewhere as quotes of that exact article from the New Yorker, a notoriously liberal magazine. There are no corroborating sources that says that his top guys advised against anything. All other published accounts detail the years of painstaking work that went into it. Obama made the choice to attack with people rather than machines, that is it. That is nowhere near as heroic as the Obama diehards would have anyone believe.

For the record, if I had heard Obama ordered the attack and it failed I would be applauding them for trying, and hoping they would try again. It has taken far too long to make any real inroads into taking down OBL. I am very glad he is out of the picture. I just get tired of the party-line liberals laying all the accolades at Obama's feet when he stood on the shoulders of giants to get there.
 
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to LogGrad98 again.
Click to expand...

Sometimes paying attention to the news as things happens is better than the polished accounts made up later. As I recall, it was all on the news the day it happened how this thing developed from a lead that had been picked up very early on, and that the glory of it all was exactly that: the culmination of years of very thorough good use of system resources. Years.

Well, that, and the news story on day two after 9/11, while all commercial and private air traffic was grounded, George Bush personally cleared one plane for taking all of OSB relatives back to Saudi Arabia. Yes, they were afraid of repercussions befalling these good folks. . . . . but these were exactly the folks who had the connections to OSB too.
 
LogGrad98 said:
For the record, if I had heard Obama ordered the attack and it failed I would be applauding them for trying, and hoping they would try again. It has taken far too long to make any real inroads into taking down OBL. I am very glad he is out of the picture. I just get tired of the party-line liberals laying all the accolades at Obama's feet when he stood on the shoulders of giants to get there.
Click to expand...
lol, yeah right. You honestly expect me to believe that if the mission had failed you would have applauded Obama for trying? And after the mission was a success all you are doing is trying to piss on Obama's parade and saying he doesn't deserve any of the credit?
 
SaltyDawg said:
lol, yeah right. You honestly expect me to believe that if the mission had failed you would have applauded Obama for trying? And after the mission was a success all you are doing is trying to piss on Obama's parade and saying he doesn't deserve any of the credit?
Click to expand...

I am giving him the proper amount of credit. You are obviously one of his proboscis-suppositories so you are blinded by your party-line into believing he is Superman/Ghandi/Jesus/Huggy Bear all rolled into one. I already stated what credit I gave him and that is what he deserved. Obama did the right thing. No more, no less. He made the right call based on the years of intelligence-gathering presented to him. He made the call to attack on the ground rather than through the air (so to speak), which again was the right call to ensure the mission was a success. But in no way was he a lone ranger, valiantly standing against his oppressive advisers and weak-willed military men and cowardly intelligence officials, to order a strike that was unprecedented in the history of America, the way so many democrats make it out to be, without even a hint of hyperbole.

And you can question my motives all you want, but in the meantime click here. Just because that is what YOU would do with anyone not riding the democratic party-line does not mean that other people are also incapable of (appropriately) applauding one action from an individual while (appropriately) criticizing other actions from that same individual. See, everything is not so black and white. Few people are 100% "good" or 100% "bad". The fact that you (and others) show that inclination shows how blindly you follow the party-line.

It is very very telling about democratic thought processes how often I am attributed things I never even hinted to. Such as "I am sure if he were white you would like him fine" or "I am sure if Bush had done it you would give him all the credit". Neither concept did I ever even hint at. Those are the biases of weak-minded individuals going through what is in the link above. I couldn't care less if the president were black or white or purple or gold or plaid (but no green people...screw the green people). And if Bush had ordered the strike, I would have given him the exact same credit.

Think about this:

The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. - F. Scott Fitzgerald
Click to expand...

Maybe....just maybe...Obama did a good thing ordering the strike against OBL, but maybe....just maybe....he ALSO isn't infallible.




I know, I know, tough to comprehend, right?
 
LogGrad98 said:
I am giving him the proper amount of credit. You are obviously one of his proboscis-suppositories so you are blinded by your party-line into believing he is Superman/Ghandi/Jesus/Huggy Bear all rolled into one. I already stated what credit I gave him and that is what he deserved. Obama did the right thing. No more, no less. He made the right call based on the years of intelligence-gathering presented to him. He made the call to attack on the ground rather than through the air (so to speak), which again was the right call to ensure the mission was a success. But in no way was he a lone ranger, valiantly standing against his oppressive advisers and weak-willed military men and cowardly intelligence officials, to order a strike that was unprecedented in the history of America, the way so many democrats make it out to be, without even a hint of hyperbole.

And you can question my motives all you want, but in the meantime click here. Just because that is what YOU would do with anyone not riding the democratic party-line does not mean that other people are also incapable of (appropriately) applauding one action from an individual while (appropriately) criticizing other actions from that same individual. See, everything is not so black and white. Few people are 100% "good" or 100% "bad". The fact that you (and others) show that inclination shows how blindly you follow the party-line.

It is very very telling about democratic thought processes how often I am attributed things I never even hinted to. Such as "I am sure if he were white you would like him fine" or "I am sure if Bush had done it you would give him all the credit". Neither concept did I ever even hint at. Those are the biases of weak-minded individuals going through what is in the link above. I couldn't care less if the president were black or white or purple or gold or plaid (but no green people...screw the green people). And if Bush had ordered the strike, I would have given him the exact same credit.

Think about this:



Maybe....just maybe...Obama did a good thing ordering the strike against OBL, but maybe....just maybe....he ALSO isn't infallible.




I know, I know, tough to comprehend, right?
Click to expand...

Wow, you couldn't be further off. I point out that you are doing nothing but trying to limit any amount of credit Obama is getting (certainly not "applauding" him)- therefore I find it hard to believe you would have actually "applauded" him had he failed. And your response is to claim I am a blind Obama lover based on party lines?

I think the last time we "talked" on this board I told you I didn't even like Obama and didn't think he could even win a primary if he were forced into one. And just yesterday I told bean I would write him in when I vote for president because I don't like Obama.

Now I'm some blind Obama supporter for giving him credit when he did what Bush failed to do?

Do the math on it. All the sources out there say Bin Laden only lived at that compound for 4 or 5 years at the most. So if they would have known about it the second he moved in (which they obviously did not), then Obama would have been in the mix roughly 2 years later. And if they knew about it for 2 years under Bush without acting on it, then it's even more ridiculous when you claim that anyone else would have done what Obama did.

Again- Obama basically ordered the SEALS to invade an ally. That does NOT happen all the time, as you claim.
 
Apparently you aren't reading any of the sources listed by others either. Here is one from an earlier post:

Although the mission may seem ripped from a big-budget action movie or the pages of a spy thriller, some said such operations are not unusual. Officials just keep them quiet.
"They carry out lots of operations like this," Lindsay said. "We never hear about them because the targets are far less well known to the American public."
Today Pakistan sharply criticized the operation as "unauthorized unilateral action" and a "threat to international peace and security."
"The government of Pakistan further affirms that such an event shall not serve as a future precedent for any state, including the U.S.," the Foreign Office said in a statement.
But U.S. forces have been active in Pakistan for years.
"The significance (of the operation) was that it was bin Laden, not that we were in Pakistan," said Rutgers-Camden foreign policy professor Wojtek Wolfe.
Click to expand...

Yep, completely unprecedented huh. Amazing how these people with more information than we have about it think just the opposite.

The only way anyone is "limiting" the credit Obama gets is by countering the people who think he is the Savior who ferreted out OBL all by himself and daringly did all but pull the trigger while our inept intelligence people and military minds sat on the sidelines sucking their thumbs, because of course Bush is a moron so anyone who worked on this under him were all morons too.

Actually YOU are limiting the credit of those people who, despite changes in political regimes here at home, have worked tirelessly on this for the better part of the last decade, culminating in this mission. That is a lot like saying Michael Jordan was ok in the playoffs, but since Kerr hit a 3-pointer at the end to win a game, he was the REAL hero.

The timeline goes back to the early 2000's when they started identifying and following couriers with ties to OBL. They traced one to Pakistan and started watching there. Then the break came when they found the compound. Obama ordered the attack and rightly so. That is the extent of his involvement. Multiple sources not controlled by the democratic party support this timeline. You provide one heavily liberally slanted source to counter it.

But let me get this straight. You hate Obama so much, but are convinced that any other person in the white house would NEVER have done what he did to get OBL. So all others would have ignored the intelligence. No other single individual would have taken the opportunity to take out the top terrorist in the world. Not a single other person would have ordered any kind of strike like this. Right?

Wow, if you are not a democratic lacky you are certainly delusional.
 
SaltyDawg said:
Wow, you couldn't be further off. I point out that you are doing nothing but trying to limit any amount of credit Obama is getting (certainly not "applauding" him)- therefore I find it hard to believe you would have actually "applauded" him had he failed. And your response is to claim I am a blind Obama lover based on party lines?

I think the last time we "talked" on this board I told you I didn't even like Obama and didn't think he could even win a primary if he were forced into one. And just yesterday I told bean I would write him in when I vote for president because I don't like Obama.

Now I'm some blind Obama supporter for giving him credit when he did what Bush failed to do?

Do the math on it. All the sources out there say Bin Laden only lived at that compound for 4 or 5 years at the most. So if they would have known about it the second he moved in (which they obviously did not), then Obama would have been in the mix roughly 2 years later. And if they knew about it for 2 years under Bush without acting on it, then it's even more ridiculous when you claim that anyone else would have done what Obama did.

Again- Obama basically ordered the SEALS to invade an ally. That does NOT happen all the time, as you claim.
Click to expand...

Well, except for the personal digs going on between friends here, I'm finding this a pretty good discussion.

Here's where I agree with Salty: I actually am just so burned at Bush for his part in the bailouts and deficits. . . . and especially for his action in facilitating the evacuation of all Osama Bin Ladin relatives then in the US, well, mainly TEXAS. . . . on day two after 9/11. . . . . I think we should give Obama credit for ordering the mission to take out OSB. . . . because I really don't think George Bush would have.

I really think the American public has been played into spending trillions on a useless foreign war, again..... just like Viet Nam. . . . and Korea.. . . and costing thousands of American lives. . . . with absolutely NO INTENT on the part of our military-industrial corporate establishment and their lackey figurehead "Presidents" and bought and paid for "Representatives" and "Senators", to actually win the stupid wars.

That's why I want our government put back in the hands of the American people, and why I want to return to the original intent of our Constitution to limit the power of the Federal government and the extent to which our "leaders" can synchronize the supposedly "separate" branches of government.

Obama's decision may have been very gutsy in ordering the mission, going against the wishes of his MIC "management"/support base. And while he may have done it precisely because he sees his political future hopeless and because he was desperate to re-ignite popular support for his Presidency, I would take it all and say "Good. Maybe our political system does work, sometimes, for the benefit of the voters."
 
LogGrad98 said:
Apparently you aren't reading any of the sources listed by others either. Here is one from an earlier post:



Yep, completely unprecedented huh. Amazing how these people with more information than we have about it think just the opposite.

The only way anyone is "limiting" the credit Obama gets is by countering the people who think he is the Savior who ferreted out OBL all by himself and daringly did all but pull the trigger while our inept intelligence people and military minds sat on the sidelines sucking their thumbs, because of course Bush is a moron so anyone who worked on this under him were all morons too.

Actually YOU are limiting the credit of those people who, despite changes in political regimes here at home, have worked tirelessly on this for the better part of the last decade, culminating in this mission. That is a lot like saying Michael Jordan was ok in the playoffs, but since Kerr hit a 3-pointer at the end to win a game, he was the REAL hero.

The timeline goes back to the early 2000's when they started identifying and following couriers with ties to OBL. They traced one to Pakistan and started watching there. Then the break came when they found the compound. Obama ordered the attack and rightly so. That is the extent of his involvement. Multiple sources not controlled by the democratic party support this timeline. You provide one heavily liberally slanted source to counter it.

But let me get this straight. You hate Obama so much, but are convinced that any other person in the white house would NEVER have done what he did to get OBL. So all others would have ignored the intelligence. No other single individual would have taken the opportunity to take out the top terrorist in the world. Not a single other person would have ordered any kind of strike like this. Right?

Wow, if you are not a democratic lacky you are certainly delusional.
Click to expand...
Your quote that "these type of missions happen all the time" doesn't mean anything. Yes, we're all aware that the USA conducts missions like this all the time. But the point is they don't do it in countries that are supposedly our ally, without notifying them first.

So it comes down to this: Do you agree that this RARELY happens? If so, Obama deserves a lot of credit for doing what few others have/would have done.
Or: Do you think this happens all the time? If so, the quotes and links you posted are not making this claim, so please find a better source to help me understand how you came to this conclusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top