Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course there is always somebody to blame.........
"Consider the events surrounding the operation. A recently disclosed memorandum from then-CIA Director Leon Panetta shows that the president's celebrated derring-do in authorizing the operation included a responsibility-escape clause: "The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven's hands."
Now the great orator runs around slapping himself on the back for what a great job HE did. Lets see what Bush had to say after getting saddam......
He did mention himself at the end: "Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them."
Obama held his nose and after a year gave the go ahead and now gives terrorists free sanctuary in Pakistan as he just promised to not attack them there. He is the biggest ally AQ has.
"The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out."
If he had given the go ahead and the information provided had been faulty and the whole thing had gone sideways, where should the blame lie?
Looks to me like the president learned a good lesson based on the scorn heaped upon President Carter.
Of course there is always somebody to blame.........
"Consider the events surrounding the operation. A recently disclosed memorandum from then-CIA Director Leon Panetta shows that the president's celebrated derring-do in authorizing the operation included a responsibility-escape clause: "The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven's hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out."
You don't think that operational decisions should be left to someone with actual military experience? How strange.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25
Which is to say, if the mission went wrong, the fault would be Adm. McRaven's, not the president's. Moreover, the president does not seem to have addressed at all the possibility of seizing material with intelligence value—which may explain his disclosure immediately following the event not only that bin Laden was killed, but also that a valuable trove of intelligence had been seized, including even the location of al Qaeda safe-houses. That disclosure infuriated the intelligence community because it squandered the opportunity to exploit the intelligence that was the subject of the boast."
Yes, perhaps it would have been best if Obama had waited to make the announcement closer to the election. Would have been the politically smart move, for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25
Now the great orator runs around slapping himself on the back for what a great job HE did. Lets see what Bush had to say after getting saddam......
"George W. Bush, also had occasion during his presidency to announce to the nation a triumph of intelligence: the capture of Saddam Hussein. He called that success "a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq." He attributed it to "the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers. . . . Their work continues, and so do the risks." He did mention himself at the end: "Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them."
I'll assume that you were just ignorant of Obama's actual remarks rather than trying to distort the truth purposefully.
From Obama's live announcement that bin Laden had been killed:
"Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who’ve worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.
We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day." http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/...bin-laden-dead
Of course there is always somebody to blame.........
"Consider the events surrounding the operation. A recently disclosed memorandum from then-CIA Director Leon Panetta shows that the president's celebrated derring-do in authorizing the operation included a responsibility-escape clause: "The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven's hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out."
Which is to say, if the mission went wrong, the fault would be Adm. McRaven's, not the president's. Moreover, the president does not seem to have addressed at all the possibility of seizing material with intelligence value—which may explain his disclosure immediately following the event not only that bin Laden was killed, but also that a valuable trove of intelligence had been seized, including even the location of al Qaeda safe-houses. That disclosure infuriated the intelligence community because it squandered the opportunity to exploit the intelligence that was the subject of the boast."
Now the great orator runs around slapping himself on the back for what a great job HE did. Lets see what Bush had to say after getting saddam......
"George W. Bush, also had occasion during his presidency to announce to the nation a triumph of intelligence: the capture of Saddam Hussein. He called that success "a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq." He attributed it to "the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers. . . . Their work continues, and so do the risks." He did mention himself at the end: "Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them."
Obama held his nose and after a year gave the go ahead and now gives terrorists free sanctuary in Pakistan as he just promised to not attack them there. He is the biggest ally AQ has.
Bush's attorney general stomping his feet and whining in a right wing editorial about Obama's win over bin Laden. The same Michael Mukasey who argued that waterboarding isn't torture, and ended up in hot water himself.
In 2009, legal ethics complaints were filed against Mukasey and other Bush administration attorneys for their roles in advocating for torture.
Of course there is always somebody to blame.........
"Consider the events surrounding the operation. A recently disclosed memorandum from then-CIA Director Leon Panetta shows that the president's celebrated derring-do in authorizing the operation included a responsibility-escape clause: "The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven's hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out."
Which is to say, if the mission went wrong, the fault would be Adm. McRaven's, not the president's. Moreover, the president does not seem to have addressed at all the possibility of seizing material with intelligence value—which may explain his disclosure immediately following the event not only that bin Laden was killed, but also that a valuable trove of intelligence had been seized, including even the location of al Qaeda safe-houses. That disclosure infuriated the intelligence community because it squandered the opportunity to exploit the intelligence that was the subject of the boast."
Now the great orator runs around slapping himself on the back for what a great job HE did. Lets see what Bush had to say after getting saddam......
"George W. Bush, also had occasion during his presidency to announce to the nation a triumph of intelligence: the capture of Saddam Hussein. He called that success "a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq." He attributed it to "the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers. . . . Their work continues, and so do the risks." He did mention himself at the end: "Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them."
Obama held his nose and after a year gave the go ahead and now gives terrorists free sanctuary in Pakistan as he just promised to not attack them there. He is the biggest ally AQ has.
I highly would he would ahve done that . Perhaps the liberal emdia like with Carters failed rescue would have tried to but it didn't work nor would this have.Same wioth Clinton's failed missio chnage to get rid of the tribel leader in Somolia. In the ned both in history will get the blame becuae of carters funding of miltary and Clinton;s pressure to do the mission with wrong forces in place.Liike the long CIA effort and the years of preparation by SEALS to do such a misson will get the nod in history.
Same wioth Clinton's failed missio chnage to get rid of the tribel leader in Somolia. In the ned both in history will get the blame becuae of carters funding of miltary and Clinton;s pressure to do the mission with wrong forces in place.
If I interpret your post correctly, you're blaming Clinton for Somalia. Perhaps you're too young to recall how it went down. It was Daddy Bush who sent our troops to Mogadishu, not Clinton. Of course, he handed the whole mess off to his Democratic successor, just like his son did with his two much larger quagmires 16 years later.
"President Bush ordered troops into Somalia today on a mission to "save thousands of innocents," as the Pentagon outlined an operation that will leave soldiers and marines in Somalia well into the Administration of President Bill Clinton."
So, KUChief, are you willing to say with a straight face that you wouldn't have blamed President Obama the slightest bit, had the raid gone wrong and ended up with crashed helicopters, dad and captured SEALs on TV, all the unspeakable consequences?
Actually, there's no need to answer that. We both know you and Mukasey would have screamed for Obama's resignation in disgrace.
The memo shows exactly what you' expect: A President giving the overall order and authorization, leaving the details to the professionals - which is his job.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Shocking!
Like father, like son...
