If he *had *taken out OBL, he’d have been accused of vastly overstating the guy’s significance and danger to try to prop up his image. And there’d be quite a bit of contrived dudgeon about targeting someone for death (see, we don’t do that, but someone as morally hollow as Clinton would).
That was/is/will be secret, Marley!
:dubious:
I think the intelligence wasn’t available. It is ridiculous to say Obama got Bin Laden. He just happened to be President when the intelligence agencies located the bastard. Even Jimmy Carter tried to rescue hostages.
Baloney. The bin Laden hunt was de-emphasized as the Bush years dragged along, maybe because their failure to find him was embarrassing. Obama made it a priority again. If you make doing something a priority, you get credit when it gets done.
No. Is it relevant?
Then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said this about Obama’s decisionmaking:
No intelligence agency, no Navy SEAL, no general, no cabinet secretary gets to make the decision that Obama did; only the President can do that. Since he made the decision that ended up being historic, he gets the credit for it.
Indeed. If it had gone horribly wrong, a bunch of SEALs and civilians killed and OBL escapes (or was never there), Obama would certainly be blamed, right? So since it worked, don’t be a bitch and give him the credit.
Now now, that how politics always works, isn’t it? Your positive accomplishments are forgotten within minutes, whereas your blunders and gaffes live on forever. Heck, everyone still remembers all the times G.W. Bush screwed up (even though he’s been out of office for nearly six years) but hardly anyone remembers that one time he saved the day when he… umm… hmm… wait, I’ll think of something… hmm… umm… still thinking… still… thinking… hmmmm… it’ll come to me any minute now… I swear it will… umm… hmmm…
You really think Marley meant that the president couldn’t do so because it was immoral? :dubious:
That doesn’t prove that the president couldn’t take out ObL before that.
Ugh. I wasn’t trying to praise Bush, merely pointing out the timeline. And you have no idea what Bush did or did not do with that intel.
I understand Bush is frequently praised for funding and such to combat AIDS in Africa. I admit I’ve never looked seriously into the details of this, but I don’t feel inclined to dismiss it out of hand just because he is Bush.
If anything, it further reduces my opinion of Mother Theresa, though that opinion is largely informed by my mother (who worked for a relief agency in south Asia in the late seventies) and, much later, Christopher Hitchens.
She told those in pain to “offer it up to God.”
Horse puckey.
Gates was grandstanding, sharing the glory.
As I said, even Jimmy Carter would have gone for it once he knew where Bin Ladin was.
You don’t think Bush would have delighted in being able to take out another bad guy?
It is the intelligence agencies we should praise, the guys on the ground collecting information, not the guy lucky enough to be President.
I think it was a less discreditable reason. Al Qaeda and its allies have connections with various Middle Eastern regimes. Going after al Qaeda offended those regimes. Bush placed a higher value on maintaining good relations with countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Obama placed a higher value on going after al Qaeda. Neither position was 100% wrong or 100% right; it was just a different balance of priorities.
How about letting him speak for himself, huh?
BTW, there really is such a thing as believing that killing is wrong. You’ve probably even heard it before, too.
Not at all.
-
Bin Laden wasn’t armed by any US administration in order to attack American interests, irrespective of what you have heard. Bin Laden was armed to fight against Soviet Russians in Afghanistan. He is/was what is called a ‘rogue’ or ‘turncoat’ or WTF you want to call somebody who was formerly on your side, and betrays you.
-
Who or what a previous President does nothing to ‘make tricky’ an action by
the incumbent; if you will gauge Obama, you will find that he does quite a bit of railing on the Bush administration, and it doesn’t change Obama’s actions. -
Bin Laden was armed not only by Clinton’s ‘immediate predecessor’, but, also by the US military and the Congress, which is comprised of two major parties, and some lesser independents.
All ofwould have nothing to do with anything that Clinton could do against somebody who is attacking US interests. If you are saying that Clinton was a coward and afraid to do something to make Bush mad, I can’t agree with you.
I don’t think that we need to go off into fantasyland too quickly!
Carter probably WOULD have authorized the raid to get Bin Laden. After all, he authorized the raid to rescue the hostages in Iran. And rightly took the heat when it went south.
It’s amazing how short people’s memories are. “Wag the Dog” should be enshrined as a sterling example of Republican foreign policy idiocy. The Republicans were so obsessed with tearing down Clinton at all costs during the 90’s they refused to pay attention to the real threat posed by Al Qaeda. So anything Clinton did to nip Islamic terrorism in the bud was dismissed as a manufactured distraction. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Should be, but it wasn’t. Actually, it shouldn’t be. It was a direct result of Clinton’s actions.
You’re going all off on a tangent attacking the Republicans using something started by Clinton’s failures. Keep to facts. Get your head straight.
Anyway, to the OP: IIRC, Clinton gave a standing order to have bin Laden assassinated. Does anybody else have this in their heads? At any rate, this changed my concept of Clinton from a jerk to a good President.
Can you give a cite for his business ties with bin Laden? (And don’t say that bin Laden doesn’t wear any.)
Or, maybe because he (bin Laden) had become marginalized as a leader, and finding and killing one person who wasn’t doing too much of anything, wasn’t going to change too much about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan…