Forum Thread

Why did Obama's Administration succeed where Bush's failed with Bin Laden?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 6 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Question is pretty simple. I want to start a forum to try and answer this question: Why did Obama's Administration succeed where Bush's failed with Bin Laden?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Well, it wasn't for lack of trying on Bush's part nor was it any new policy or action that Obama took. In fact, Obama tried his best to screw up this one too. Hell, didn't he even have to 'sleep on it' to decide whether to go in? Yep, sho' 'nuff.

    .... But the president stunned officials when he told a national security meeting that he wanted more time to think - and disappeared out of the room.
    'I'm not going to tell you what my decision is now - I'm going to go back and think about it some more,' said Obama, according to the New York Times. He then added 'I'm going to make a decision soon.'
    The head of the CIA and other senior intelligence officers who were keen to proceed were left tense as they waited for the president's decision.
    But the next morning after 16 hours, Obama summoned four top aides to the White House Diplomatic Room. Before they could speak, the president put his fist on the table and declared 'It's a go'.

    Read more: ...

    Yeah, he's a real decisive leader. What could we really expect though from someone who took 4 months to pick a dog and chose all 4 number 1 seeds in the final four...
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    You rightwingers are digging one gigantic big hole for your goddamned selves.
    You cannot Stone the Crow. Osama is Dead...and it's because Obama had the balls to bring the fight into Pakistan.

    Bush gave up on Osama like we gave up on SETI.
    And let us remind the American people.....if Bush had followed Clinton's anti-terror lead ....9/11 would not have ever happened.
    Shake the fucking tree!!!!!That's how the Clinton administration stopped the Millennium bombings! Bush had a national security briefing memo on his desk saying BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK THE US.....and he did nothing.

    You want to talk about decisiveness?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    I should never be surprised about how certain far right Republicans will distort any and all of Obama's accomplishments. Lots of revisionist history going on that credits Bush more then Obama....oh and how all that waterboarding was a good thing. For those that are interested in the facts, Think Progress has published both a summary Timeline on the Hunt for bin Laden and a detailed timeline starting in 1993 with key events covering Clinton's earnest attempts to kill him, followed by Bush's lassitude once he failed at Tora Bora, to Obama's "we will kill him pledge" as a candidate.

    While Fox News viewers have receieved a daily dosage of the Bush rhetoric right after 9/11: “I want justice. And there’s an old poster out west, that I recall, that said, ‘Wanted, Dead or Alive,’” just five months later after his failure at Tora Bora, Bush had this to say in response to a question: "Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not. We haven’t heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. He’s just a person who’s been marginalized… I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you."

    Fox News must have misplaced those latter tapes.

    While I don't doubt that the CIA continued at a low level to pursue bin Laden during the Bush years, Bush, however, diverted critical intelligence resources in his futile and misguided attempt to link bin Laden with Saddam Hussein. In 2005, Bush even closed down the CIA unit hunting bin Laden:

    “The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants. … Michael Scheuer, a former senior C.I.A. official who was the first head of the unit, said the move…’will clearly denigrate our operations against Al Qaeda.’”

    On the other hand, people should be well aware of Obama's campaign promise to refocus efforts on finding and killing bin Laden, even if it meant that he would have to act unilaterally without Pakistan's support. Maybe Fox News viewers, however, won't know that. But Obama did exactly as he said he would.

    From September 1, 2010 when they first had evidence that he might be hiding in Abbottabad, Obama initiated a series of strategic meetings and plans to ultimately get him. It was eight months in the making, and even then Obama's chosen course of alternative action plans had maybe only a 55 percent chance of success.  It was a gutsy call made after careful deliberation covering weeks preceeding the action.

    And now Obama is being criticized by the right for taking an extra few hours to deliberate on one of the most important decisions of his Presidency and for America?  Ha! How pathetic.

    Read the time lines...

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    I could care fucking less whether "Obama got Osama" when the government impinges on civil liberties, as it has been doing in Post-911 America such an issue is baseless to me. Obama continued the Patriot Act, proposed a larger defense budgetm continued the Military Commissions Act, REAL ID, and failed to clost GITMO with a democratic majority, he really can go fuck himself
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Let us be clear about GITMO, the Military Commissions Act, Patriot Act, and military spending......all of these things are on the broken ramparts of Congress.  Notice that a "democratic majority" does not constitute a "liberal majority"...we are a Coalition Party.  Dems 50 State plan called for running to the right of the liberal base in Conservative districts.  The Democratic Party is home to members from across the spectrum of political theory.

    trials do not go down well with the American public.  Left-Liberals/libertarians/socialists/anarchists and right-Libertarians represent the only factions which really support the idea.  The vast majority of the American public is not left-liberal/libertarian/socialist/anarchist or right-libertarian. They are mostly moderates suckling at the teet of corporate media. 

    The president has led where he has had the chance, especially in the realm of national security. 
    He has completely destroyed the notion of Democratic inability to keep this country safe. But yes, it has been a journey of compromises.   
    But it is a necessary political shift, if we are ever going to corral the national-security state.  
    To the point, the president and his team have made it clear that the MCA is still a moral and legal disaster.  It's just the only option they have been left due to the recaltriance of Congress. 
    They have ended waterboarding.....(with Congressional support).  They have made overseen a major withdrawal out of Iraq...following a major reduction in violence largerly due to the President's brave public leadership as a Senator,candidate, and President-elect during the Status of Forces Agreement debate with the Iraqi government from 2007-2008, which undermined the Bush administration's negotitating position which was crippling Iraqi domestic politics.   
    Killing Bin Laden moves us closer to the goal of shutting down GITMO.  

    As for the Patriot Act....I disagree that the entire bill is unconstitutional....but I agree that there are parts which are clearly problematic. 
    We just aren't a very healthy democracy.  We can't have reasonable debate anymore.  It just all degenerates into an unworkable mess in Congress.  Picking apart the bad from the good in the Patriot Act is just something that Congress is currently incapable of doing. 

    If the president were to use his executive decision power to withdrawal the Patriot Act...or parts of it from enforcement by his administration..this would risk a full revolt by the "conservative" foundations within the national security state complex....with a Congress that's basically on their side.

    On a REAL ID note...
    I think its pertinent for this country to find a means of nationally identitying individuals that doesn't involve SOCIAL SECURITY numbers. 
    It's just bizarre using our Social Security number to identify ourselves.  It's like asking for Social Security fraud. Effectively, it's subsidizing Social Security fraud.  
    I like national id a minimum because, you are not literally reduced to just a name and number on your Driver's License.     but also because it's just stupid to use Social Security for identifying purposes.     

    Now, Patriot Act Real ID provisions are a mess.  I'll give you that.  And using Social Security numbers for identifying purposes is not going away anytime soon.