Ding Dong bin Laden is gone

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by JWBear

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Moonliner

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?

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.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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.

I do not agree. Obama made the call, not Bush. Obama would have (rightly) take all the blame if something had gone wrong, and no one would have blamed Bush.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by JWBear

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.

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.

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.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

It sure sounded like you were stating it as fact to me.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

Communism was already on it's last legs when Reagan took office. The soviets simply could not compete with the western world. It would have collapsed regardless of who the president was.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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'm with you here. I think we get too caught up in simplifying things, so that we can get a handle on them, and forget that it's more complicated.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Here's SL's point. Many republicans in the media have been pointedly leaving Obama's name out of any accolades and/or invoking Bush's name instead. Purposely trying to avoid giving credit where credit is due to Obama. SL is wondering if scaeagles is doing the same thing. Would his post in response to similar news, had it happened under the last President's term, been similarly devoid of mention of the executive branch, or is that omission reserved for Obama? I think it's a pretty valid question in a climate where explicitly leaving Obama out of the equation is a high profile form of partisan rhetoric being tossed around right now. AND considering that that is precisely what the discussion in the thread right before he posted it was about. There was a link to a public comment that omitted Obama's name, discussion about said omission, then scaeagle's post that omitted Obama's name. Is it really that controversial, in that context to then ask about the omission.

[Betty]

So, to sum it up: I'm right, you're wrong. And you have a little dong. I don't like you. I don't care. You have holes in your underwear. Go away. Leave me alone. Go cry to your Mom on the telephone.

Everyone needs to lighten up. I don't think you'd act this way in person to each other.

[Strangler Lewis]

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

[Strangler Lewis]

Doh!

[Moonliner]

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.