Not an unreasonable request.

Yes, Obama deserves some credit. He absolutely made the call, as it was his alone to make.

Here's what I liken it to. The Berlin wall fell when GHWBush was President. Did he deserve THE credit? Not all, but some, and there was credit due the previous administration of Reagan and the policies thereof.

I also liken it to Carter and the attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages. This was a little unique in that while he authorized it, he also aborted it mid operation. I think he deserves a lot of blame (more than if the operation had simply failed without his mid operational call to abort it), but not all of it. Should it have worked, he would have deserved some credit, but not all

So if Bush were in office, I do think my reaction would be the same.

I think there is WAY too much short term thinking in politics and the American public in general. Very little on a global scale is the result of the policies of one individual or one event. It is an eviolution of relations and policies and events over time, and FAR too often the blame is pointed at one man or one thing. It should be a view of the macro, not the micro.

I would. I would hope we all would (except for the part where people refuse to answer a direct question).

Doh!

Really? We are arguing over who gets the credit for pre-meditated murder, incursion into a sovereign nation and trampling over the rules of law and justice we as a nation are supposed to stand for?

It's pretty clear that Bush and Obama should share credit for that.

Note to self: don't invite Moonliner over to watch "Munich." Or James Bond movies for that matter.

I'm reasonably comfortable thinking that Bin Laden was still "at war" with us, so that this was not a garden variety criminal justice matter.

The prospect of trying Bin Laden would have been a nightmare, even if they agreed from the word go that he would have been tried by a military tribunal. It still would have cost millions of dollars, would have taken years, and he probably would have died before any sentence was carried out.

As for Pakistan, well . . .

A false analogy, IMO. The fall of the Berlin Wall was not a military action directed by a US President. It had very little to do with the US, in fact.

Your comparison to Carter's action in Iran is more apt. The difference is that Obama's succeeded, where Carter's failed.

And I still can't, for the life of me, figure out why Bush should be congratulated for something that the current administration accomplised that he failed to do in his 8 years in office.

I see. So what you are saying is that adhering to Constitution of the United States of America is based on how uncomfortable and/or expensive a particular issue is?

The intelligence gathering that lead to the eventual discovery of Bin Laden's location began well before Obama took office, to presume that Bush's decisions had nothing to do with it is as inane as presuming that Obama's didn't, or that Clinton was "to blame" for 9/11 for "failing to capture Osama" before Bush. I have no problem with giving Bush credit for the role his orders to the intelligence community played in the long and difficult task.

Bin Laden was a military target who had made it abundantly clear that he would not be taken alive. Given that he had vowed to kill himself before capture, and that his organization is rather fond of taking people out around them when killing themselves, I see no issue with shooting first and asking questions later. It's not murder, it's war. I don't like war, I do not promote war, but when someone starts a war and vows to continue that war, then war-like response is justified.

Wow....we sure do have a different view of 1980's geopolitics. I, however, view mine as opinion, and you seem to view your opinion as fact. A stark difference.

Both of these issues are matter of opinion, I suppose, and we disagree.

And I do agree with GD on the Constitutional question. It is war. There is also the point that it is widely believed (and I think Panetta even alluded to this) that we were worried that Pakistan would warn OBL. Talk about a fire storm. Can you imagine the outrage if it were discovered Obama had OBL but tipped off people that warned him? Not only would Obama be vilified (and would have been rightfully so - just as he does deserve credit for giving the order), but there would be active calls for war with Pakistan. Yikes.

No, I'm saying that's why we would not want to try him.

While we may be bound by various treaties that limit our actions abroad, I don't think there's anything in the Constitution that prevents us from assassinating foreign leaders, or blowing up half the world if we want to.