BREAKING NEWS: Osama Bin Laden is dead!

[tstew]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The President has been pressing things forward in Afghanistan and he has a good team with Panetta and Gen. Petraeus. I think where a lot of people take umbrage is that this whole operation in the works since last August to get bin Laden was opened up because of intelligence gathered at Gitmo and through water boarding.

These were two of the strongest things that candidate Barack Obama had denounced during the campaign. His insinuations and the outright (false) accusations of "torture" by his supporters really made the U.S. military and intelligence communities look bad.

And now? Now he wants to take credit for the fruit of Gitmo interrogations.

It's obvious that the President has been learning "on the job." That's okay. What I want to know is if his most vocal supporters have been learning as well.

And BTW (Stewie didn't raise this, but others have) - If getting involved in Iraq was "wrong" and a "diversion" away from what we really should be doing... just what, then, are we doing in Libya?

I guess "Regime Change" is okay after all? Code Pink? Michael Moore? CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS/NBC/HuffPo/NYTimes/WashPost?

My whole point is that if that is the issue, then discuss that. It is pointless when people introduce whatever particular propaganda they like even when it flies in the face of facts. That is the problem with modern day politics and all the spin machines and outlets on both sides IMO.

Is it possible that Obama had very little to do with this? I guess. Is it possible that his vastly increasing the focus on operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan and strengthening our relationships there had a hand in this? I guess that's possible too. Is it possible that this is all a scam and that Osama has either been dead or is sipping margaritas on some private beach on our dime? Anything's possible.

I'm not sure that you can even begin to compare the scope of our involvement and loss in Iraq to what happened in Libya. Either way I guess I'll go with it for the sake of conversation. Taking out Saddam out of power (which took 15 minutes) is not where a lot of people had problems. It was our continued involvement and our effort to somehow win something that is more than likely unwinnable that turned most people off who I've heard. The resources that we were expending there were too great in terms of human life, but also in terms of resources that would have been better served if focused on those who actually were attacking us.
Either way, I'm still not sure I'm ready to compare Libya to Iraq just yet. Get back with me in 10 years or so

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by tstew

My whole point is that if that is the issue, then discuss that. It is pointless when people introduce whatever particular propaganda they like even when it flies in the face of facts. That is the problem with modern day politics and all the spin machines and outlets on both sides IMO.

And that is my point actually. With these people dismissing the role GW played, his administration I thought it was fair and balanced to point out without his action there was no base of operations in either country, no years of groundwork layed by the CIA. If Obama decided to do that without that ground work, we'd still be looking for Osama. It takes time to set up an intel network and getting leads

[canam]

Right prax, i heard a retired militay col.say the same thing just before Bo took office ,he said i promise ya when he gets debriefed about what is really going on and sees the whole picture he will get real quiet and start to realize just what he has got himself into,its mind boggling and scary on the inside he said and then to realize you have control of this machine.The economic and domestic stuff? he has lots of wackos and know it alls, from his life gone by that influence him and have his ear ,the military stuff ?they know nothing about and they cant influence him at all.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by tstew

My whole point is that if that is the issue, then discuss that. It is pointless when people introduce whatever particular propaganda they like even when it flies in the face of facts. That is the problem with modern day politics and all the spin machines and outlets on both sides IMO.

Is it possible that Obama had very little to do with this? I guess. Is it possible that his vastly increasing the focus on operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan and strengthening our relationships there had a hand in this? I guess that's possible too.

No offense, but that one's "spin," Bro. Iraq has quieted down because of the Troop Surge that Senator Obama opposed. This has freed up more resources for Afghanistan (and Pakistan) operations - but make no mistake, our relations there have NOT improved since Obama took office. If anything, they've continued to grow worse.

Originally Posted by tstew

Is it possible that this is all a scam and that Osama has either been dead or is sipping margaritas on some private beach on our dime? Anything's possible.

Let's leave the "margaritas on a beach" theory for coadie and caman.

Originally Posted by tstew

I'm not sure that you can even begin to compare the scope of our involvement and loss in Iraq to what happened in Libya.

Wait a minute... did you mean "losses in Iraq?" We didn't "lose" in Iraq. We went there to throw out Saddam and we did that. And, Libya isn't past tense ("what happened in Libya") - it's ongoing.

Originally Posted by tstew

Either way I guess I'll go with it for the sake of conversation. Taking out Saddam out of power (which took 15 minutes) is not where a lot of people had problems. It was our continued involvement and our effort to somehow win something that is more than likely unwinnable that turned most people off who I've heard. The resources that we were expending there were too great in terms of human life, but also in terms of resources that would have been better served if focused on those who actually were attacking us.
Either way, I'm still not sure I'm ready to compare Libya to Iraq just yet. Get back with me in 10 years or so

You're right about the mess that followed Saddam's ouster. I personally can't believe our DoD people and folks in the Bush admin didn't see those problems coming on... but then again, they obviously did buy into the intel we were getting from the Brits and the French that made Saddam's army out to be this colossal behemoth that would step into the vacuum and keep order.

The comparison between Iraq and Libya isn't in their respective battlefield situation. It's what we see when we look at the President's desk.

GWB took us into Iraq after 12+ years of Iraqi noncompliance to over a dozen Security Council Resolutions. Iraq was also openly firing upon and engaging our aircraft in the UN mandated No-Fly zones. They were shooting at Americans. This is an act of war in anyone's book. They also had failed to comply with the terms of the Kuwait/Gulf War cease fire agreement. Noncompliance with a ceasefire means that there is no "ceasefire..." The Gulf War of 1990/1991 had never really ended until Saddam was out.

The United States Congress met in a special joint session in 2003 to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

In Libya - The Obama Administration attacked a country that hadn't fired a shot at us since the Lockerbie bombing in 1988 - 23 years ago! The Obama administration attacked Libya with just a handful of allies (none from Africa where Libya is located) and WITHOUT Congressional authorization.

Imagine if GWB had attacked anyone without first getting Congressional authorization. We'd be listening to all of the media and press screaming hysterically about a "Constitutional Crisis!!!"

... but Obama? He gets a free pass to drop his bombs wherever he wants. The double standard is the "difference" between Iraq and Libya. In both cases we had (have) a President who is simply doing his best to protect Americans and American interests. In Obama's case - he gets support from his political opponents. In Bush's case - he got treatment that at times proved to be treasonous.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by pelathais

No offense, but that one's "spin," Bro. Iraq has quieted down because of the Troop Surge that Senator Obama opposed. This has freed up more resources for Afghanistan (and Pakistan) operations - but make no mistake, our relations there have NOT improved since Obama took office. If anything, they've continued to grow worse.


Let's leave the "margaritas on a beach" theory for coadie and caman.



Wait a minute... did you mean "losses in Iraq?" We didn't "lose" in Iraq. We went there to throw out Saddam and we did that. And, Libya isn't past tense ("what happened in Libya") - it's ongoing.



You're right about the mess that followed Saddam's ouster. I personally can't believe our DoD people and folks in the Bush admin didn't see those problems coming on... but then again, they obviously did buy into the intel we were getting from the Brits and the French that made Saddam's army out to be this colossal behemoth that would step into the vacuum and keep order.

The comparison between Iraq and Libya isn't in their respective battlefield situation. It's what we see when we look at the President's desk.

GWB took us into Iraq after 12+ years of Iraqi noncompliance to over a dozen Security Council Resolutions. Iraq was also openly firing upon and engaging our aircraft in the UN mandated No-Fly zones. They were shooting at Americans. This is an act of war in anyone's book. They also had failed to comply with the terms of the Kuwait/Gulf War cease fire agreement. Noncompliance with a ceasefire means that there is no "ceasefire..." The Gulf War of 1990/1991 had never really ended until Saddam was out.

The United States Congress met in a special joint session in 2003 to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

In Libya - The Obama Administration attacked a country that hadn't fired a shot at us since the Lockerbie bombing in 1988 - 23 years ago! The Obama administration attacked Libya with just a handful of allies (none from Africa where Libya is located) and WITHOUT Congressional authorization.

Imagine if GWB had attacked anyone without first getting Congressional authorization. We'd be listening to all of the media and press screaming hysterically about a "Constitutional Crisis!!!"

... but Obama? He gets a free pass to drop his bombs wherever he wants. The double standard is the "difference" between Iraq and Libya. In both cases we had (have) a President who is simply doing his best to protect Americans and American interests. In Obama's case - he gets support from his political opponents. In Bush's case - he got treatment that at times proved to be treasonous.

WOW, Pel!!!! I think Fox found a replacement for Beck's spot! LOL! Great post!!!!

[tstew]

Originally Posted by pelathais

No offense, but that one's "spin," Bro. Iraq has quieted down because of the Troop Surge that Senator Obama opposed. This has freed up more resources for Afghanistan (and Pakistan) operations - but make no mistake, our relations there have NOT improved since Obama took office. If anything, they've continued to grow worse.


Let's leave the "margaritas on a beach" theory for coadie and caman.



Wait a minute... did you mean "losses in Iraq?" We didn't "lose" in Iraq. We went there to throw out Saddam and we did that. And, Libya isn't past tense ("what happened in Libya") - it's ongoing.



You're right about the mess that followed Saddam's ouster. I personally can't believe our DoD people and folks in the Bush admin didn't see those problems coming on... but then again, they obviously did buy into the intel we were getting from the Brits and the French that made Saddam's army out to be this colossal behemoth that would step into the vacuum and keep order.

The comparison between Iraq and Libya isn't in their respective battlefield situation. It's what we see when we look at the President's desk.

GWB took us into Iraq after 12+ years of Iraqi noncompliance to over a dozen Security Council Resolutions. Iraq was also openly firing upon and engaging our aircraft in the UN mandated No-Fly zones. They were shooting at Americans. This is an act of war in anyone's book. They also had failed to comply with the terms of the Kuwait/Gulf War cease fire agreement. Noncompliance with a ceasefire means that there is no "ceasefire..." The Gulf War of 1990/1991 had never really ended until Saddam was out.

The United States Congress met in a special joint session in 2003 to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

In Libya - The Obama Administration attacked a country that hadn't fired a shot at us since the Lockerbie bombing in 1988 - 23 years ago! The Obama administration attacked Libya with just a handful of allies (none from Africa where Libya is located) and WITHOUT Congressional authorization.

Imagine if GWB had attacked anyone without first getting Congressional authorization. We'd be listening to all of the media and press screaming hysterically about a "Constitutional Crisis!!!"

... but Obama? He gets a free pass to drop his bombs wherever he wants. The double standard is the "difference" between Iraq and Libya. In both cases we had (have) a President who is simply doing his best to protect Americans and American interests. In Obama's case - he gets support from his political opponents. In Bush's case - he got treatment that at times proved to be treasonous.

Pel, I did mean "losses" in terms of lives, resources, and energies focused on. The issue of whether we "lost" or "won" the war is an entirely different debate.
There is too much here for me to respond to. However, I'll just say that my main point was that his consistent message was that we were focusing on Iraq at the expense of the real war on terror and those who pose a legitimate threat against us. There are tons of videos that support this and the message was always consistent. He immediately started beefing up activities in the region once he took office. That's all I'm saying. I'm not nominating him for another Nobel Prize. I'm not saying you should vote for him. I'm just clearing up some misinformation.
The issue as to how the powers-that-be didn't foresee the inevitable problems in Iraq is a totally different issue as well. It just seems to me that they didn't fully understand the nature of sectarian and tribal conflicts and were expecting people in the region to think along the lines of nationalistic patriotism...but I don't know...