• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you think Obama takes to much credit for the killing of Bin Laden?

Do you think Obama takes to much credit for killing Bin Laden?


  • Total voters
    44
Right....instead you argue that the Seals should say "we did this all ourselves, 100%".

Yeah and almost anyone in this country could say take OBL out..They are not out there putting there life on the line.......I don't think any of you anti military people understand how dangerous this mission was..........The Seal team had no clue in what they would run into on the ground......They are the ones that risked their lives not Hussein Obama. Why you lefties don't understand that I will never know..........Its probably your contempt for our brave military and your Love for Hussein Obama that blinds you.
 
Yeah and almost anyone in this country could say take OBL out..They are not out there putting there life on the line.......I don't think any of you anti military people understand how dangerous this mission was..........The Seal team had no clue in what they would run into on the ground......They are the ones that risked their lives not Hussein Obama. Why you lefties don't understand that I will never know..........Its probably your contempt for our brave military and your Love for Hussein Obama that blinds you.

if the mission had failed somehow, or the SEALs had gotten captured, you would be blaiming Obama 100% for all of it.
 
He's likely referencing the failure of an agreement to keep US forces in Iraq.

That in itself is an interesting case in who is sane and who is offer their rocker. I can bet that you have some idea of what happened, largely that the State Department, Military and Obama refused to accept the make or break agreement set forth by the Iraqi government that US forces who commit any crime, real or perceived would be tried in Iraqi courts. Obama is getting flak for not agreeing to this agreement. But if he did, anyone with a brain would know that Obama would get HUGE flak for agreeing to remove immunity from US forces. Basically people who attack Obama on the Iraq-US force agreement are giant political hacks with no regard for consistency or honesty who would use either outcome to attack Obama.

The whole political affair frustrates me. I'm beyond frustrated anymore. Conservatives pretend to be approving of waterboarding because anything else must equate to not supporting Bush or the "War on Terror," or the troop. To this day, most of them can't even bring themselves to recognizing what Rumsfeld was...an enemy of the troop.

AND NOW flip the coin .....

Today, Liberals act as if GITMO simply disappeared because a continual criticism must equate to not supporting "Hope & Change." That, somehow, an exponential civilian death toll across the "soveriegn" border of Pakistan via UAVs is no longer something to protest over. But not only are Liberals proving, once again, that they can forsake everything they believe in quite easily when necessary, Conservatives are proving that "Support the Troop" was just Bush's "Hope & Change" ....a calling to the sheep by the shepherd.
 
Those who take big risks, get to take credit for a job well done.

I don't understand people's need to hoist the man on their shoulders. He took no risk by making the right decision (in fact, he barely makes decisions about anything). The risk would have been not allowing the military to do its job and having the entire world find out that he did nothing after they offered him up on a silver platter. There was no gamble. There was no choice. With Clinton being criticized mercilessly for bombing out empty warehouses, Obama merely did the only thing he could. He gave the OK for the military to cross a border and to either succeed or fail. That's it.
 
if the mission had failed somehow, or the SEALs had gotten captured, you would be blaiming Obama 100% for all of it.

And they would be wrong for it. Obama's failure would be to not persevere through the military failure. Carter did not persevere. He left hostages in Iran for well over a year because he became impotent.
 
I don't understand people's need to hoist the man on their shoulders. He took no risk by making the right decision (in fact, he barely makes decisions about anything). The risk would have been not allowing the military to do its job and having the entire world find out that he did nothing after they offered him up on a silver platter. There was no gamble. There was no choice. With Clinton being criticized mercilessly for bombing out empty warehouses, Obama merely did the only thing he could. He gave the OK for the military to cross a border and to either succeed or fail. That's it.

What happens if Pakistan fired on an unknown aircraft. What happens if both helicopters would of crashed. The mission was a success because the SEALs and those supporting them did a great job. Bin Laden is dead because the Commander in Chief made a ballsy call and those charged with the task took care of business. You make it seem as if there was really no decision but I honestly doubt if the mission would of went badly we'd have everybody saying that was the only choice. It would be picked apart and criticized every which way.
 
What happens if Pakistan fired on an unknown aircraft. What happens if both helicopters would of crashed. The mission was a success because the SEALs and those supporting them did a great job.

Hence...a military success.

Bin Laden is dead because the Commander in Chief made a ballsy call.....

"Ballsy call" is an exaggeration. Not many calls today are "ballsy" when they entail today's well equipped military on a mission. We can pretty much do anything now. We aren't the falling apart military of Carter.

But the joke is how constituents are eating this up. Why is all of this even churned up now? Democrats made less of a fuss last year. So...why now?


By the way....today Obama stated that he "supports gay marriage." Yesterday, despite Biden's sentiments made clear on the matter, Obama stated that he was "opposed, but evolving." This is not a man who makes "ballsy calls." As the Arab Spring showed us, he waits for events to unfold and sort themselves out and then he safely makes a stand either way. Locating the exact location of Bin laden and having our military trained, fueled up, and ready to go is hardly a situation where a hard call is needed to be debated over.
 
Last edited:
As the Arab Spring showed us, he waits for events to unfold and sort themselves out and then he safely makes a stand either way.

Well generally I like that. Our last President was the kick down the doors and take names to find out we kicked the down the door to a country with no WMD's...whoops! A commander is suppose to have that mentality. Patience and make a decision when either he needs to or has a clear obvious reason to.

Locating the exact location of Bin laden and having our military trained, fueled up, and ready to go is hardly a situation where a hard call is needed to be debated over.

Of course...using hindsight after a successful operation. The President gets blamed for everything...from gas prices to what anybody in his administration says. That is the Presidents call..to violate an ally's airspace to conduct a special operations raid. Nobody can make that call besides him. He also would be held responsibility for whatever occurs.

"Ballsy call" is an exaggeration. Not many calls today are "ballsy" when they entail today's well equipped military on a mission. We can pretty much do anything now. We aren't the falling apart military of Carter.

The falling apart military of Carter? I wasn't alive during the Carter administration but that was still in the middle of the Cold War. We still spent almost 1/5th of our GDP on the defense budget.

But the joke is how constituents are eating this up. Why is all of this even churned up now? Democrats made less of a fuss last year. So...why now?
Because it's an election year. Because the President typically runs on what has happened during his term. Because Republicans like to pretend they have some automatic superiority on security.

By the way....today Obama stated that he "supports gay marriage." Yesterday, despite Biden's sentiments made clear on the matter, Obama stated that he was "opposed, but evolving."

He's the first President to ever support gay marriage.
 
Well generally I like that. Our last President was the kick down the doors and take names to find out we kicked the down the door to a country with no WMD's...whoops! A commander is suppose to have that mentality. Patience and make a decision when either he needs to or has a clear obvious reason to.

I like my Presidents to be leaders. You think Bush and the most sophisticated spy network in history didn't know whether or not Hussein had WMDs? Get over it all ready. He used your fears to rid ourselves and the Middle East of a thorn.


Of course...using hindsight after a successful operation. The President gets blamed for everything...

Only if you allow it. Carter wasn't to blame for the military failure. It was his impotence after the fact that made him a political target. Hindsight has nothing to do with it.


The falling apart military of Carter? I wasn't alive during the Carter administration but that was still in the middle of the Cold War. We still spent almost 1/5th of our GDP on the defense budget.

Don't you love Defense contracts? The military was in a sorry state following the Vietnam War. What wasn't in a sorry state was the fat contractor civilian that got paid billions to make toys the troop didn't need. And just how much did "Star Wars" cost? Do you know why our troops went into Afghanistan and Iraq with duct tape on their NBC suits and many, without body armor? Because despite the government spending trillions on the Defense during the 90s, none of this went to the troop. Do you know how many F/A-22s have supported troops since 9/11? Not one. Not a single troop called in fire support from our mutli trillion dollar F/A-22 program in the last 11 years in the "War on terror." Just another toy? Get my point? When I state that the military was in a sorry state under Carter (much like at the front end of Bush), I mean the military and not the Defense Industry.

And I wasn't alive during Korea, but I do read about the country I live in. You a college kid? <---- Just curious.

He's the first President to ever support gay marriage.

So...let's analyze this. He opposed gay marriage on the election trail. Gays in the military was only a matter of time according to the federal judge who made DADT unconstitutional, in which the Pentagon ordered a halt...... before Obama did anything (in fact, he ordered its continuation on a technicality so that later Congress could get the credit for ending it). Yesterday he "opposed gay marriage, but was evolving." I guess today he has evolved? Now, after North Carolina's vote, he's going to show those gays he cares? What really has Obama done for any gay? He has supported nothing. And he will be praised by Liberals everywhere for it. And why? Because, just like Kennedy's White House was "Camelot," Liberals can't bring themselves to accepting the reality of who their guy is. They prefer the idea of who he is. And today he wears a cape with a sniper rifle under his arm as the guy who got Bin Laden. He made a call and then he got out of the way. Much like what he did about the hostage off the coast of Somalia. I guess he got the pirate too? Beyond doing what he was supposed to do, what was ballsy? When we start celebrating our leaders for making a correct decision, we have surely lost our idea of proper and improper leadeship.
 
Last edited:
it happened on his watch, he gave the order to take him out, he gets to share in the credit....if it had failed, and if hard core conservatives were honest, they would admit that they would have crucified him, compared the attempt to the failed rescue attempt by the Carter administration to rescue the hostages....the right would have put all the blame on his shoulders if this would have failed....it just kills the right that Obama gets to claim some credit. :cool:
I'm on the Right, and I'm glad the President gave the order.
 
What was really funny was watching conservatives trying to give Bush credit, and say "anyone would have made that decision."

They think we've forgotten all about Tora Bora, where our troops had bin Laden cornered but Bush and Rumsfield were too chicken**** to pull the trigger.
 
And they would be wrong for it. Obama's failure would be to not persevere through the military failure. Carter did not persevere. He left hostages in Iran for well over a year because he became impotent.

Carter had the cojones to actually try a mission, unlike Bush and Rumsfield who had bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora but were too chicken**** to pull the trigger.
 
Obama gets to take credit because the wrong decision would have jeapordized his Presidency.

when someone makes a brave decision, they should be commended.
 
What was really funny was watching conservatives trying to give Bush credit, and say "anyone would have made that decision."

They think we've forgotten all about Tora Bora, where our troops had bin Laden cornered but Bush and Rumsfield were too chicken**** to pull the trigger.

Or when Clinton had him on a silver platter from Sudan and was to busy in the oval office getting BJs to take him....If he had done that there would not have been a 9/11...
 
Carter had the cojones to actually try a mission, unlike Bush and Rumsfield who had bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora but were too chicken**** to pull the trigger.

Well, don't be too obvious in your political slavery. Or did Clinton's empty warehouse bombing save us from 9/11? Carter's cojones lasted until he became immediately impotent and his cojones dried up. Bush relied on Rumsfeld, who made a disaster of everything for too long. See how I try to address the truth of things no matter where the fools reside on the politicial spectrum? Perhaps your allegiance would be better spent towards gaining understandings of things rather than polishing cojones on the Left?
 
If the mission had failed, or our SEALs had ben taken captive and paraided on Al Jazeera tv, Obama would have been finished. Utterly finished.

The final decision was his. It was a very tough call. The reputation of the USA was at stake...as was his Presidency.

THAT'S why he gets a lot of the credit. Those who take big risks, get to take credit for a job well done.

Exactly. He risked his presidency on this. He risked relations with Pakistan. Biden urged him not to do it. He gave proper credit to the Seals and to our intelligence community. He never claimed he went in there himself with an M16. He's handled this absolutely properly. The right's attempt to make him look bad are absurd and just prove they'll spin anything to make Obama look bad. In fact, if Obama actually had gone on the mission himself and shot bin Laden himself, the right would STILL be criticizing him for this. It's absolutely absurd.
 
Back
Top Bottom