Of course the concept is debateable. I was just pointing out that one of the goals of the SEALs ad is to harp on Obama’s giving himself credit for everything good, while passing the buck for everything bad. And since there isn’t that much good to give himself credit for, he’s motivated to leak stories that make him look good.
Foreign policy has undoubtedly been a great strength of this President. Unfortunately for him, some of his greatest accomplishments can’t be made public. So he just made them public anyway.
So we’ve got two issues here, leaks and taking credit, which the ad seeks to tar Obama with. I think both are good points, but them I’m biased.
BTW, is there any policy failure that Obama has owned up to? Ever? You know, aside from “I just work too darn hard”.
Adaher, thank you for providing those cites (Bush on Hussein’s capture, vs. Obama on bin Laden’s). That was helpful, and does support your contention.
I would posit that one difference (among many) is that the Iraq war did not enjoy nearly the level of popular support (especially after WMDs failed to show up) as the bin Laden raid did. So, there were reasons to “spread the blame” as well as the “credit” in the former case.
And, the bin Laden raid really did require a specific, gutsy, real-time decision by the president, while the Hussein capture did not. (I think Bush would have made the same call, though.)
So, these are mitigating points. Still, your linguistic observation is an interesting one – there are quite a few “I’s” and “me’s” in Obama’s announcement.
As others have pointed out, though, the reason Obama’s overall presentation in the days after the bin Laden raid is rememebered (to all but Fox-news-watching morons) as having been generally more humble than it might have been, is partly because the Bush “Mission Accomplished” incident looms so large in all our memories that practically anything else seems positively Christ-like in comparison.
Wow. I think those goalposts just broke some sort of land speed record.
Obama has a lengthy list of accomplishments, which you are conveniently ignoring because it doesn’t match with the reality you want or because you don’t like what he’s achieved. But please feel free to move on to your next random criteria for Why Obama Is Bad.
IMHO, just a glance at a graph showing the use of the filibuster over time would exonerate Obama from any need to take responsibility for “policy failures.” And a list of positions which Republican leaders once advocated, but then turned against once Obama sided with them, would make this even more true.
That said, I do agree that Obama should be rather more honest and vocal about some missed opportunities, such as Guantanamo and more stringent financial reforms. (I would add comprehensive immigration reform, but I recognize that he chose to blow his first-term wad on health care reform instead, and I’m cool with that.)
Cite for “Obama leaked the news that Osama was dead”? There were people in Abbottabad live-tweeting the raid as it happened. Hell, even the Rock, a professional wrestler who presumably does not have any close ties to the Obama administration, was spreading the news to his fans a full hour before Obama’s speech.
That’s not the leak. I’m no military expert, so I don’t know what he should and shouldn’t have leaked, but the SEAL team members were none too happy about their unit being named, for starters.
And this isn’t just some disgruntled SEALS. The whole Pentagon was pissed:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates expresses dismay that the Situation Room pact not to talk about the details of the SEAL Team Six operation ‘lasted about 15 hours.’ Adm. Mike Mullen says further leaks could jeopardize the effectiveness of future special ops.
Neither of your cites say that Obama was responsible for any leaks or contain any “operational details” about DEVGRU Red (which hasn’t even been named “Seal Team Six” since several years before the raid,) nor do they express the opinions of anyone who was on the team that killed Osama (probably because their names are, you know, classified).
I guess I see these as two separate issues: 1. Obama’s supposedly unwarranted credit-taking, and 2. Indisecretions by certain people in government (perhaps in “the White House”) which led to more details about the raid being made public than some intelligence experts (in and out of the government) think is prudent.
I don’t think there is any reason to conflate the two issues, as the recent Romney supporters are trying to do.
I think the first issue is just plain wrong, and to any degree that it’s true is pure opinion, and not all that important anyway.
The second issue, though, is a bit of a real problem, perhaps. Any event of this nature will have to be presented in a way which is some compromise between the public’s right (and thirst) to know, and security concerns. Usually, the government or military is blamed for leaning too far in the security direction. Obama does have a (generally admirable) inclination toward openness and transparency, and this has led to some real changes in policy (not enough, though). In this case, though, this inclination may have led him and others to be just a bit less cautious than was probably warranted. Not in any egregious way, though – especially, as others have pointed out, after that copter crashed. Better to control the flow of information (to the degree than one can, these days) than to let others do so.
The leaks came from that room. He’s responsible for that. Have there been any attempts to find out who leaked? On that issue, or the issue of the Iran and drone leaks, whose source was two dozen current and former administration officials?
My first reaction to the Iran story was, “Good on him”. I knew that he was revealing sensitive information, but figured that’s a President’s prerogative.
You know what changed my thinking? The denial. The story came out, the administration didn’t mind the leaks at all, then when Senators started bitching, the administration claimed, “Leaks? We don’t know anything about any leaks!”
If the President just felt we needed to know more than his intelligence advisors thought we should know, that would be defensible. What is not defensible is leaks that just happen to make him look good, but which he refuses to take responsibility for.
I was referring to the Iran and drone leaks mainly. The bin Laden raid leaks could be just pure sloppiness. But he still hasn’t taken responsibility or tried to find out who leaked.
How do you know he hasn’t? If it were public knowledge that he was trying to find out who leaked the information, wouldn’t that itself constitute a leak?