“Would have”? He blames him for the failure anyway.
I’ve been taking a peek at various liberal/progressive blogs lately, and if you believe that they reflect the general tone of the modern Democrat base voter, then the whole “The One” thing is even LESS true than it was in the beginning. I mean, damn. If they really ARE “the base,” then Obama may be in some trouble.
Even though it was a success. 
His “recovery” is still in the early stages; be patient with him.
To be fair, I’m pretty sure a lot of that is due to right-wing operatives. Post on liberal sites, claim to be a liberal, and say that Obama is so terrible at advancing the liberal agenda that we should just vote him out and hope for a real liberal next time.
One of these things is not like the other. The depths to which conservatives sink to support their cult-like beliefs is almost breathtaking.
To be fair, if GW Bush, Reagan, or Nixon had had any medals they would not have thrown them. If they had served in combat they all would have been heroes; they’d have been a ton more brave than those liberals. It’s really just bad luck they never got the chance. W was so upset about missing combat that he developed a drinking problem, but then again he did stop the Mexicans from invading while he served in the Air National Guard.
So you’re saying Obama deserves no credit for the successful takedown of Osama bin Laden.
By this logic then, Jimmy Carter deserves no blame for the failure of Operation Eagle Claw. Right?
Can’t have it both ways. (Watch him try, though…)
Sure you can.
Obama deserves no credit because the intelligence and planning work that went into that operation far preceded him. If left to him, we’d have never used the enhanced interrogation techniques that lead to bin Laden. Not to mention, the guy waited SIXTEEN HOURS before authorizing the mission. (He didn’t want to miss that White House Correspondence Dinner).
Carter, on the other hand
- Sold the Shah down the river.
- Weakened our military with spending cuts.
- Let the Iranians take the hostages to start with.
- Ignored his own generals who told him the plan wouldn’t work.
In many ways, we got off easy with Eagle Claw. I think it was only about seven guys who died because they never encountered a single Iranian. If it had gone full throttle, we’d have lost about half the hostages and most of the extraction team.
Of course, carpet bombing Tehran would have shown them they effed up… which is what we should have done.
Got a rough estimate on how many innocent people would have died in your masturbatory military fantasy? Just a rough guess will do.
Well, I called that one, didn’t I? :rolleyes:
Two things. The first is monumentally important and almost always overlooked. A huge reason the economy did so well during Clinton was that his presidency coincided with the explosion of the internet. The second thing is that the dot-com bubble burst and the stock market tanked while Clinton was in office, not after he left.
I never heard this, but I love it. God, could we use some of it now.
You mean the enhanced interrogation techniques that didn’t lead to bin Laden at all.
You are right. The stock market was not doing well by '08. I mis-remembered.
This needs repeating, because the lie about torture being good is both so persistent and so dangerous. Not only did absolutely none of the information that led to the raid on bin Laden come from torture, but the information we actually did get from torture was wrong and probably significantly delayed that mission. Even if torture were not one of the most reprehensible evils possible, it still wouldn’t be justified, because it doesn’t accomplish anything.
That Bush was good, he planned the raid before we even knew where OBL was and the plan was so good it worked on a compound in a residential area even though it was designed for a cave.
I dunno, there seem to be plenty who’re pretty genuine, only some of which are roundly mocked by “fellow” liberals/progressives.
Whether that’s reflective of the base in general, of course, is another thing entirely.
Leon Panetta said they did.
Funny, Panetta told John McCain the exact opposite.
I missed the edit window but rewatched the Williams interview again. Panetta is quite sneaky. Listen to what he says:
- Information leading the raid came from a variety of sources
- Some of those sources were detainees subject to interrogation
- Some detainees were subject to enhanced interrogation techniques
- Waterboarding is an enhanced interrogation technique.
What he carefully never says, but is happy to let viewers infer, is that the detainees in point 3 are the same detainees that gave up the useful information. We already know that useful information was garnered from detainees subject to the more standard forms of interrogation.
Why he might want people to think that CIA-sanctioned torture wasn’t in vain is also left as an exercise for the reader.
So he did the weasel-word equivalent of “Some people say that he was caught through the use of waterboarding”.
Gotta love our media culture - they let anything slide for “access”.
-Joe