• 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

I voted no.If he was trying to make it seem as though it was he was solely responsible for taking out Bin Laden then you might have a point, he did not do that. Asking if the worlds biggest flip flopper would have ordered Bin Laden's death if that flip flopper was president is not taking too much credit. Its a legitimate question. I realize that you are such a die hard party tard that you think Romney ****s Gold you still have to remember that he is a bigger flip flopper than blue falcon/buddy ****er John Kerry. Romney flip flops so much his nick name should be Flipper.

 
Last edited:
it happened on his watch, he gave the order to take him out, he gets to share in the credit....
The order to capture Osama Bin Laden was actually given after the 93 WTC bombing. Obama only gets a share because of circumstance. Regardless, 100% of the credit should go to CIA Director Panetta, and JSOC, which includes the nameless members who preformed the operation. Obama was simply at the right place at the right time. Doesn't even merit an honorable mention in my book.
 
Last edited:
The order to capture Osama Bin Laden was actually given after the 93 WTC bombing. Obama only gets a share because of circumstance. Regardless, 100% of the credit should go to CIA Director Panetta, and JSOC, which includes the nameless members who preformed the operation. Obama was simply at the right place at the right time. Doesn't even merit an honorable mention in my book.
and you are most certainly entitled to your opinion, but unless Obama gives the go ahead, nothing happens...the seals don't go in without authorization , and that authorization comes from Obama.
 
I bet those who claim that Obama does not deserve any credit will give all the credit to Bush if Osama was captured during his tenure.
 
Last edited:
Every president has done the same thing...tout their military success' when running for re election...or take credit for someone elses...common practice, obama doing it is no different..
I missed the part where Obama flew a jet fighter to an aircraft carrier and put up a banner "Mission Complete".
 
Well the guys from SEAL TEAM 6 would probably be dead.........At least Hussein Obama would be safe and sound in the White House wouldn't he.....

That isn't what Clinton meant when he said that. He was talking about political rammifcations to if the mission had gone bad. Do you honestly think Obama or Clinton did not know the risks those men were putting themselves in if the mission had gone bad? Clinton of any modern day president probably understands best how bad things can get considering Black Hawk Down happened under him.
 
well GWB didn't do it when he got Hussein Obama, whoops I mean Saddam Hussein.........I sure get those 2 mixed up.:wink:
Yup. GWB had decided approved a large mission into a country that we didn't have permission to operate in. Yup. I Remember how GWB got Saddam. You have quite a bit of pride, it shows.
 
if he doesnt give the order, the operation doesnt happen...so the order does mean something...Obama put his Presidency at stake, he took a real risk giving the go ahead, knowing full well that if it failed, the right would use it as a hammer on him.

I grow tired of this idea that he took a risk. If it failed, the public would know that we found him and we took a real military stab at him. It would prove that not only did we not "forget about him," but that Obama wants his head. So the "risk" was next to nothing when we look at the political risk of doing nothing. So where exactly was the risk? All blood was going to be spilt by the military either way so what risk is taken by anyone in Washington ever?

And the whole Carter thing people keep bringing up. His time in office wasn't cut short to only one term because of the failed attempt to free hostages. His time in office was cut short because after 444 days he did nothing else and because of his behavior on the international stage (hence the defection of NeoCons from the Democratic Party).
 
Last edited:
Hey Navy Pride...or more appropriately Voice of Reason,

If you're so angry about Obama politicizing terrorism, why did you say absolutely nothing on Whistlestopper when Cheney said that if Kerry was elected, we'd see a successful terrorist attack?

Obama's pulling the same **** the GOP did when it comes to terrorism. It's just you have a problem when the tactic you love to hit Democrats on is used against you.

So when you guys aren't bashing Bush you're bashing Cheney?
 
Last edited:
I grow tired of this idea that he took a risk. If it failed, the public would know that we found him and we took a real military stab at him. It would prove that not only did we not "forget about him," but that Obama wants his head. So the "risk" was next to nothing when we look at the political risk of doing nothing. So whre exactly was the risk? All blood was going to be spilt by the military either way so what risk is taken by anyone in Washington?

I don't know, there is absolutely no doubt our treasure in blood would lay on the Pakistani soil had the mission failed. Unless people are living under a rock, which is a realistic possibility now-a-days, most know it would have been the blood of that small number of Americans willing to walk the walk so the rest of the United States can have McDonald's, cheap chinese Tv's, and iPhones. I have no doubt that when Obama was watching the live video from the drone, and that first helicopter crashed going into the compound, flash backs of Jimmy Carter danced in his head. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure the political environment of today would allow for those opposed to Obama to attack his leadership, making the attacks against Carter look like child's play. To think Obama's political enemies would give him pass on a failure of this proportion seems not so realistic.

Seems to me he actually took a huge political risk by doing what he was suppose to. Inherently, there is something wrong with that. Something seems wrong when you take a political risk by doing the right thing.
 
notice i said 'some'...read for comprehension my friend...very proud of our seals ....no kidding navy, they carried out a dangerous mission, and could have died....thankfully, that didnt happen, and the mission was a great success...God bless our men and women in uniform...they stand ready to do great violence so that we may sleep at night.

You miss the point my friend.......If the mission had failed they would be dead so my question to you is who risked more Hussein Obama or the Seal team 6?
 
Last edited:
I don't know, there is absolutely no doubt our treasure in blood would lay on the Pakistani soil had the mission failed. Unless people are living under a rock, which is a realistic possibility now-a-days, most know it would have been the blood of that small number of Americans willing to walk the walk so the rest of the United States can have McDonald's, cheap chinese Tv's, and iPhones. I have no doubt that when Obama was watching the live video from the drone, and that first helicopter crashed going into the compound, flash backs of Jimmy Carter danced in his head. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure the political environment of today would allow for those opposed to Obama to attack his leadership, making the attacks against Carter look like child's play. To think Obama's political enemies would give him pass on a failure of this proportion seems not so realistic.

Seems to me he actually took a huge political risk by doing what he was suppose to. Inherently, there is something wrong with that. Something seems wrong when you take a political risk by doing the right thing.

President Obama may have gotten OBL, but he also surrendered to the terrorists in Iraq.
 
I don't know, there is absolutely no doubt our treasure in blood would lay on the Pakistani soil had the mission failed.

Pakistan, like so many belligerents, receives a paycheck. In other words they are on payroll. If it failed they would have still had to answer (or not answer as the case is) to the fact that we had to seek him out within their borders anyway. There wouldn't have been anymore backlash than there was.

To think Obama's political enemies would give him pass on a failure of this proportion seems not so realistic.

Republicans don't give him a pass either way. Clinton is blasted for bombing "empty aspirin warehouses." You think Obama wouldn't have been blasted for not going after Osama Bin Laden after having his exact position pin pointed? He didn't make a decision. He simply did the only thing politically possible. And if he failed, despite the Republican exploitation, he would be on record for continuing the search and the fact is that it would have been the military that failed, just like under Carter. This is exactly what Democrats would be arguing and they would be right because Obama, nor Carter, was on a helicopter. Anymore than Obama was behind the sniper rifle that freed the hostage taken by Somali pirates. So what was the risk again?
 
President Obama may have gotten OBL, but he also surrendered to the terrorists in Iraq.

You would have to explain that one to me. Terrorists don't have Iraq. Iraq is in the midst of tribal rivalry all claiming to be the rightful rulers of Baghdad. No matter when we left, Iraq was always going to have to settle this on their own, just like every nation on earth has had to do. Even Europe's history is one of tribal sorting and cleansing until they agreed upon the population composition within their borders and what was both World Wars but a local civil war between their tribes?
 
Last edited:
Pakistan, like so many belligerents, receives a paycheck. In other words they are on payroll. If it failed they would have still had to answer (or not answer as the case is) to the fact that we had to seek him out within their borders anyway. There wouldn't have been anymore backlash than there was.

I agree. Screw em anyway.

Republicans don't give him a pass either way. Clinton is blasted for bombing "empty aspirin warehouses." You think Obama wouldn't have been blasted for not going after Osama Bin Laden after having his exact position pin pointed? He didn't make a decision. He simply did the only thing politically possible. And if he failed, despite the Republican exploitation, he would be on record for continuing the search and the fact is that it would have been the military that failed, just like under Carter. This is exactly what Democrats would be arguing and they would be right because Obama, nor Carter, was on a helicopter. Anymore than Obama was behind the sniper rifle that freed the hostage taken by Somali pirates. So what was the risk again?

You think it was the only politically possible thing to do. Saying no to the mission was the other political option in my mind. No mission, no chance of failure, no Jimmy Carter like perceptions or comparisons. Truly Sarge, I do not think there are any folks I know that blame or blamed the military for Carter's perceived failure. If anything, they blamed Carter for not having our military and its equipment up to snuff.

I hate to disagree with you on this because I agree with so much more that you write in the year 2012. I understand your argument, but my memory tells me failure would have been so politically disastrous for Obama here at home, a second term would have been almost impossible.
 
You think it was the only politically possible thing to do. Saying no to the mission was the other political option in my mind. No mission, no chance of failure, no Jimmy Carter like perceptions or comparisons. Truly Sarge, I do not think there are any folks I know that blame or blamed the military for Carter's perceived failure. If anything, they blamed Carter for not having our military and its equipment up to snuff.

Once the politicians place success or failure in the hands of the military, the military owns the success or failure. There is no way Obama had an option here. If he had not given the green light, he would be blasted today as Pakistan harbored Osama Bin Laden. He would not be re-elected based on the fact that he hasn't done enough to get him. His only option was to give the green light. Military failure would have also been to his advantage, because it meant that he can make decisions. The military failure under Carter was not met with further decision making and that is why Carter was viewed as weak. He allowed the one attempt to define his efforts.

I hate to disagree with you on this because I agree with so much more that you write in the year 2012. I understand your argument, but my memory tells me failure would have been so politically disastrous for Obama here at home, a second term would have been almost impossible.

Only if he stopped the attempt. If Carter followed up the first attempt with another and actually freed the hostages, the first attempt would have been forgiven. Success is always forgiven.
 
Last edited:
It sure does. It means he called for action on a plan given to him by the military and carried out by the military. Being the ok guy that does nothing else doesn't deserve much credit.
Just like any other CEO in the world it's all about who you hire, who you fire, who you listen to, and what plans you OK.

Oh please, everything a president does could risk him his job and the opponents could have fun with it. I grow tired of Obama supporters thinking this is actually new.
It's not new - and it wasn't new ten years ago when Republicans did the same with GWB. It didn't stop them then, either, it's just how the Game is played.
 
Once the politicians place success or failure in the hands of the military, the military owns the success or failure. There is no way Obama had an option here. If he had not given the green light, he would be blasted today as Pakistan harbored Osama Bin Laden. He would not be re-elected based on the fact that he hasn't done enough to get him. His only option was to give the green light. Military failure would have also been to his advantage. The military failure under Carter was not met with further decision making and that is why Carter was viewed as weak. He allowed the one attempt to define his efforts.

I agree 100% if . . . and that is a BIG IF, a story leaked to the media that he passed on a 100% for sure chance to kill Bin Laden because he was afraid of violating Pakistan's sovereignty. Then he'd be one and done . . . no doubt. However, we will never know had he passed on this mission, which by all accounts had no more than a 50/50 chance of finding Bin Laden there in the first place . . . if it would ever have seen the light of day. He did not have to green light this at all, and probably would not be blamed if he had waited for further information before acting. With only a 50% chance of being right, even if it leaked, I would think he would have been safe.

Only if he stopped the attempt. If Carter followed up the first attempt with another and actually freed the hostages, the first attempt would have been forgiven. Success is always forgiven.

Man, I don't know . . . you are absolutely right that had he tried again and succeeded he would have been forgiven, but maybe there wasn't enough time left in his term to get it done. Or maybe he was just too scared in a political way . . . I don't know. Some might argue one good thing came out of that failure; some may say it was catalyst for the birth of the modern special warfare units of today.
 
Last edited:
Man, I don't know . . . you are absolutely right that had he tried again and succeeded he would have been forgiven, but maybe there wasn't enough time left in his term to get it done. Or maybe he was just too scared in a political way . . . I don't know. Some might argue one good thing came out of that failure; some may say it was catalyst for the birth of the modern special warfare units of today.

Carter was and is of the belief that if one sacrifices some conviction and relies on the graces of another, that all will turn out for the best. After the fiasco he relied upon Iran to simply do the right thing and free them. His ultimate problem is that he will compromise even as the other side takes advantage and offers none. His self-appointed status as a "peace maker" is what motivates him.

Besides that, has Obama ever really taken credit beyond making the decision? Hasn't he mostly be quiet on the matter whle his political cronies have paraded it around?
 
Last edited:
well GWB didn't do it when he got Hussein Obama, whoops I mean Saddam Hussein.........I sure get those 2 mixed up.:wink:

It would be an all out frontal assault on common sense to conclude that Saddam, relative to what the Bush Administration declared as the real threat to U.S. security, was somehow on par with Osama.

Neocons, were (and still are) a far bigger threat to U.S. security than any number of Osama/Saddam combinations anywhere in the world. The problem in our country is that there are too few people, genuinely educated on matters related to U.S. Foreign Policy and the strange bed-fellows that are a direct result of decades of misguided individuals in both out official government, as well as the unofficial shadow-government that runs Washington, without approval from the electorate.

Until you develop an understanding of that, you will always be a bit "mixed up."
 
if he doesnt give the order, the operation doesnt happen...so the order does mean something...Obama put his Presidency at stake, he took a real risk giving the go ahead, knowing full well that if it failed, the right would use it as a hammer on him.

Well, its just not order he gave, the fact is that created the conditions that made it possible to get bin Laden. First he made a campaign promise to get him even if he had to go in Pakistan in a debate with John McCain Sept 2008. Then:

USA Today said:
It turns out that June 2, 2009, was an even busier day for President Obama than we thought.

We knew that on that day, Obama held a health care meeting with congressional Democrats, nominated John McHugh to be Army secretary, and signed the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission. That night, he took off to begin a Middle East trip in Saudi Arabia.

Now we learn that, somewhere in the middle of all that, Obama signed the order that led to the Sunday raid that killed 9/11 organizer Osama bin Laden.

According to a White House timeline, Obama signed a memo on June 2, 2009, telling CIA Director Leon Panetta that, "in order to ensure that we have expanded every effort, I direct you to provide me within 30 days a detailed operation plan for locating and bringing to justice Osama bin Laden."

Obama's bin Laden operation began on June 2, 2009
 
Back
Top Bottom