Fair enough, let me amend: “There is no question about this - if McCain were president and kept his word, Bin Laden would still be alive”.
I do agree, if the elections were held today. But they’re not. My point was, to put it more clearly, he’ll get an approval bounce but I don’t think it will last long enough to help him in the election.
One can certainly debate how much this will help him: 18 months is a long time, after all, and a lot can and will change before then. But it’ll certainly help at least a little. Yeah, there probably aren’t that many voters who will be swayed from R to D over this, but there would be even fewer who’d be swayed the other way. Actually, you’d probably need twice as many people opposed as in favor for this to hurt Obama, since most of the people opposed (vehement pacifists, say) would probably go to a third party, rather than the Republicans.
This can’t be repeated often enough.
If McCain were president, Bin Laden would still be alive.
People’s memories are short, but this was actually a debating point between the two candidates back in 2008. Obama emphasized how he would make catching bin Laden a top priority if he was elected. McCain said that going after bin Laden should take a back seat to other diplomatic goals. McCain held up Obama’s willingness to go after bin Laden in Pakistan as an example of Obama’s naivete and foreign policy inexperience.
Of course this will help Obama in 2012. This undercuts several different lines of attack from the right wing:
[ul]
[li]Obama is a stealth Muslim.[/li][li]Obama like to pal around with terrorists.[/li][li]Obama is weak and indecisive.[/li][/ul]After yesterday, none of these talking points are useful anymore.
Put it this way: I sure as shit don’t see how it’s going to hurt.
That’s a much more reasonable response than talking about “Democratic mutual masturbation” and “pooping skittles”. I’d say that while the effect will obviously be less than whatever his approval bounces to in the next week, it will be measurable - both perspectives are well within the realm of possibility.
Do you also perhaps acknowledge that Obama wasn’t merely “the lucky guy” but actually re-prioritized CIA objectives, in a manner different from what the GOP nominee in 2008 promised to do? And that at least in this regard, he perhaps deserves some credit?
I can think of two: Pakistan’s military crumbles due to outrage over the sovereignty issue leading to an Islamist state with nukes, or an Al Qaeda cell manages a retributive attack on a US interest (not sure what effect this would have, to be honest).
I have my doubts about how strongly the first would affect the general public, and the second could easily be spun as, “Obama’s the one who took down bin Laden! Re-elect him so he has a chance to go after this new group!”
If nothing else, it has given Obama a weapon with which to publicly humiliate one of his opponents. If Trump steps out of line, I can guarantee his “I have accomplished something nobody else has accomplished” line is going to be thrown back in his face.
You are taking his statement out of context. The reason he said he would not authorize a raid into Pakistan was “because Pakistan is a sovereign nation.”
In case it isn’t bloody obvious, having Pakistan’s cooperation and consent means that obstacle no longer existed.
I guess that’s one way to read it. The original source is here: CNN.com - Transcripts
Has there been confirmation that Obama received any sort of consent from Pakistan for a military raid? I heard that the US received intel, and that after the raid they notified the Pakistani authorities, but I didn’t hear about any request for permission. There were certainly elements in Pakistan that didn’t want him “out of their hair” considering his living arrangements.
It’s way to early for this to really help him much. As a rule people vote their pocketbook. If the economy doesn’t pick up by the 2012 election, Mr Obama is in real trouble. This is why he got in, in 2008 and this is why the Republicans did so well in 2010. The party in office always has trouble in bad economic times
While the first part of your statement is pure speculation, I agree with the second part about GOP talking points.
Who’s to say that McCain would or would not have OBL killed?
McCain himself. As already pointed out, he said he wouldn’t do what Obama did.
McCain did. I posted the direct quote above. Unless you are assuming that Pakistan would have allowed for the military strike (thus circumventing the sovereignty issue), and the contact required to get this approval would not have allowed OBL to escape.
McCain himself, on Larry King live. He explicitly said that he would not go after bin Laden inside Pakistan because that would be a violation of their sovereignty. He implied that Obama was naive for promising to do so.
Well, now the President of Pakistan is complaining because we violated their sovereignty.
Maybe McCain would have flip-flopped on the matter. But it’s pretty clear that Obama just did exactly what McCain made a point of saying he himself wouldn’t do.
They did not have Pakistan’s consent.
Former President, Hamster. I have not heard of any such complaints from the current regime in Islamabad. They are being understandably vague about their level of involvement.
That link specifically says Former President.
I never gave much thought to what Bush or Cheney had to say after Bush left office, either.
You’re correct. My zeal was excessive.
Anyone else suspect his release of the birth certificate, knowing the OBL operation was about to go, was timed to accentuate the fatuity of the GOP’s position?
He can still be beaten; anyone can. But it just got a lot harder to see how or by whom.