Probably more an IMHO or MPSIMS thing, but since it’s about the election I put it in here. I’ve been sort of watching things about the election on CNN while I drive about today, and it’s hard for me to believe or understand how things have tightened up so much in the race. CNN says here that it’s nearly dead even, with very little if any advantage going towards Obama in the final push. How could this be?? I mean, yeah, the economy kind of sucks…no doubt about that…but a lot of that suckage was the results of factors that either happened in the previous administration or are beyond anyone in the US’s control (such as the situation in the EU or China). And look at the string of foreign policy successes Obama et al have on their side, with the largest being the big brass balls it took to send a SEAL team in to whack ObL. That alone, IMHO, should put Obama over the top.
So…‘deserve’. I think Obama deserves a second term to follow through on his vision for the US. I’m a bit dismayed that it’s even possible he might not get it too. I think he’s done a lot of good, especially on the foreign policy side. To me, the jury is still out on the economic side of things, but I want to see what he does in a second term.
Yeah, no meat in this OP…JMHO and feelings as we come down to the wire. I hope things go right for Obama and he manages to win this thing. Going to be a bit depressed tonight if he doesn’t, to be honest.
That’s the largest? I don’t think that took exceptional balls at all; any President would have made the same decision. He gets no points from me for that.
As far as deserving to get another 4 years to complete his vision, that’s not how it works. You don’t get 8 years, you get 4 years. If you can’t get people on board with your vision in 4, you’re probably not doing a very good job of either 1) getting your vision accomplished or 2) explaining your vision, and shouldn’t expect (or deserve) another 4.
You’re wrong, and the fact that the defense and military people involved with the decision have agreed it was a difficult and risky choice (and the only people contesting this are people who are running for Obama’s job or want to see him lose) ought to be a hint that it really was not an easy call: he sent the military into Pakistan without informing the Pakistani government because of intelligence that said there was a 50-50 or slightly better chance Bin Laden had been located. And Obama also made finding the guy a priority again - which his predecessor had not and his competitors might not have done.
I think Obama has accomplished a lot and that he’s a far superior candidate, and that he’s also the only one who has a shot at putting the messes of the last few years in the rear view mirror. But I agree that this is electoral politics, and ultimately you deserve to win if you win. That’s how it works.
Yeah, this is not a serious response. The deaths of a couple dozen Navy SEALs on a secret mission in Pakistan would have been a huge deal. As it was, the Pakistani government was very angry about the raid. If the SEALs had died the American public likely would’ve been extremely upset as well, and certainly more than a few people would have decided it made Obama an incompetent commander in chief.
Nobody would have known about it. Not for years, anyway.
I think you mean that you can continue to make your argument without facts all night.
That’s not how that works.
You’re right- commentary from people like Petraeus and the Joint Chiefs can’t be trusted. What would they know about it? Counterfactual speculation on the Internet is the way to go.
What they’re saying is that the operation itself was risky, not that they’re supporting his decision to go forward with it. I’m sure anyone supports it with 20/20 hindsight, but what the military officials who were involved in the decision making process are saying is that it was not a sure thing, involved an incredible amount of risk, both personal and political. Not every president would have chosen to stake his administration on a 40-60% likelihood that the intel they received was actionable and that the operation would be successful.
I think Sicks Ate’s point, absurd as it is, is that Obama is saying it was a tough and risky decision and he should be lauded for it (he’s not saying that, his supporters are) and the generals are backing him up by saying it was indeed a tough and risky decision.
To Sicks Ate, this is clearly yes-manism, which is all the evidence you need to prove it was no more risky than deciding what to have for breakfast.
Of course I have no way of knowing, but I suspect (as you do) that it would have been politicized. I can think of a few particularly skewed and nasty arguments (Well he KNEW OBL probably wouldn’t be there, he just did it for points!), but personally the net effect on my opinion of the president probably wouldn’t have been much different.
And it’s my position that every president would. Of course there’s no way to test that theory, since Obama frikkin ruined the chance for everybody else.
Taking something that Romney said in 2008 about not interfering in Pakistan to mean that he wouldn’t have given the ‘go’ order as acting president under same circumstances that Obama did is a non-argument.
If that’s the case, then it’s stupid. We should therefore completely disregard anything anyone in the military says that is in line with what the President states as they are clearly playing a game of CYA.
Sicks Ate’s point was that anybody would have authorized the Bin Laden raid, the public statements of other candidates and the commentary by other people who were involved about the nature of the decision be damned. The generals didn’t say “it was a tough and risky decision,” they confirmed they felt there was a high probably Bin Laden wasn’t at the house. There is already a lot of published material about the raid and who made what argument for or against it before Obama gave the go-ahead.