Member Rara Avis
I don't understand that.
Which part confuses you, John? That bin Laden was a monster or that I don't take joy in his death?
I';ll defer to John's comment... I didn't know Obama was a Seal
What does either Obama or the Seal team have to do with crediting Bush, Mike?
The Seals took on a dangerous job and should be applauded for both their loyalty to country and their courage. They did their jobs and did it proudly. But, uh, they didn't find the target, Mike, and that's kind of what we were talking about.
Need I even say it? I didn't know Bush was a Seal.
Yes, I remember, Ron, and that's why I say where is the acknowledgement to Bush? Obama doesn't have to put Bush in the spotlight but acknowledging that the results stemmed from actions that Bush put into effect would seem to be appropriate.
I believe the Administration already did exactly that, Mike, when they publicly announced that President Bush was one of the first people called. I think that was acknowledging Bush's part and I definitely agree it was appropriate. But it certainly didn't have anything to do with crediting Bush for torturing men some ten years ago and then going after Iraq instead.
Then it could (and no doubt was) obtained Really? No doubt? At the time democrats were screaming bloody murder that waterboarding was going on, you claim there is no doubt waterboarding was NOT used?
My pronouns could no doubt have been more clear, Mike. "It' doesn't refer to waterboarding, but rather to the nick name of someone obtained from waterboarding. My contention is that the name could have been obtained without torture -- and no doubt was. It could never have been trusted without that confirmation, Mike.
That's speculation from Rumsfeld and, frankly, a lot of crap. A strange statement, coming from you, Ron. You have no way of knowing if it's crap or not. You may WISH it is but I'd like to see the proof that it isn't.
LOL. Mike, everything coming from Rumsfeld has always been a load of crap.
No, of course, I don't have any proof. Simply the logical conclusion that men who probably don't know who won the last World Series or the (outrageous) price of gas probably didn't know bin Laden's location in 2011, either.
If we look only at what Presidents Bush and Obama have publicly said the conclusions are inescapable.
Obama publicly claimed one of the first things he did when taking office was to tell the appropriate people that capturing Osama bin Laden was their number one priority. Bush, on the other hand, publicly claimed he didn't care where bin Laden was and spent the greater part of eight years dismissing the leader of Al Qaeda as unimportant.
Honestly? I don't believe either man. One was trying to take credit, the other trying to escape blame, and both were simply playing politics as usual. The bottom line, however, is that Bush didn't find bin Laden within the scope of two four-year terms, whether his failure was from not caring, as he repeatedly claimed, or from really bad luck. Obama did find bin Laden, either because he pushed harder as he claimed or from really good luck. I have very little doubt that luck played a part for both men (which probably shouldn't detract from Obama's willingness to take action when the opportunity presented itself).
I just don't see any reason someone would expect Bush to get credit for Obama's luck?