Thread: Obama/Biden Bin Laden/GM

Originally Posted by Bigfella

Follow your own advice Z.

Linebacker 2 was a lot more about convincing the RVN that the US was serious than about convincing the DRV to do what America wanted. The terms the DRV agreed to were practically identical to those thay had agreed to months earlier. They gave the DRV 10% of the territory of the RVN, allowed them to station something like 150,000-200,000 troops & personnel in that territory and guaranteed that the one thing standing between the DRV & vistory - the US military - was removed from the country. In the end the Paris Peace accords were a fig leaf that allowed Nixon & his apologists to claim that the US achieved its ends in Vietnam. It gave them their 'decent interval' before the eventual fall of the RVN. Kissinger's threat to cut off the RVN if it did not agree sign what was effectively a suicide note is testimony to how little thought was given to the fate of the RVN. Further, the public backlash from the 'Christmas Bombing' made it even harder for the US to continue any involvement in that war.

If that is an example of strategic bombing 'winning' something then you are really struggling. So, the DRV didn't 'sue for peace' after America 'after getting the full measure of the wind they sowed'. They cleared a path for eventual victory after accepting that they would not get it as quickly or easily as they had hoped. Had they withdrawn their troops & handed back the territory you might have a point. You are wrong on this & wrong on Bin Laden.

The failure of US negotiators does not change the fact of the impact LBII had on DRV. That was also just one example of several I gave.

Originally Posted by zraver

The failure of US negotiators does not change the fact of the impact LBII had on DRV. That was also just one example of several I gave.

Sorry Z, that is a pretty poor comeback. Wrong again. US negotiators didn't fail. They succeeded in getting what they wanted - a way out. You need to choose more relevant examples & you need to represent them accurately. You failed on both counts here.

Originally Posted by zraver

I am starting to see claims under the Obama banner- Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive.

Well a couple of points.

1. Bush not Obama bailed GM out.

Things seem to have gone a bit quiet on this point, so lets have a bit of fun. Apparently Romney & his people don't see it that way. He seems to think Obama did bail out GM & Chrysler and he criticized him for doing so.

From February:

Much of Romney’s op-ed focused on criticism of Obama, whom he slammed for “crony capitalism” in the bailout.

“The indisputable good news is that Chrysler and General Motors are still in business,” he wrote. “The equally indisputable bad news is that all the defects in President Obama’s management of the American economy are evident in what he did.”

Romney argued that Obama should have let the free market work and allowed GM and Chrysler to go through a managed bankruptcy. Instead, he wrote, Obama rewarded union bosses and gave the “secured creditors” of Chyrsler the short shrift.

Romney defends opposition to auto bailout in Detroit op-ed - The Hill's Ballot Box

Now someone from Romney's camp, still accepting that Obama did bail out the auto makers, is complainng that it was actually Romney's idea anyway:

"[Romney's] position on the bailout was exactly what President Obama followed. I know it infuriates them to hear that," Eric Fehrnstrom, senior adviser to the Romney campaign, said.

"The only economic success that President Obama has had is because he followed Mitt Romney's advice."

Romney campaign aide claims auto bailout was Romney's idea - The Hill's Ballot Box

SO, Romey & his folks seem to think Obama DID bail out Detroit.

What is truly funny about this is that I can clearly recall people (including WABers I suspect) using the bailouts as proof of Obama's 'socialist/marxist' credentials. I'm pretty sure there is a thread lurking around here somewhere involving a furious debate on the bailouts. Don't recall anyone claiming they weren't actually happening. You can certainly argue that Obama doesn't deserve all the credit, but that is a different argument entirely. Obama took the hit for the bailouts at the time, so he gets to claim credit if it works.

What metrics should be used if the bailout was success?

Originally Posted by Bigfella

What is truly funny about this is that I can clearly recall people (including WABers I suspect) using the bailouts as proof of Obama's 'socialist/marxist' credentials.

Me being one of them. However the truth is the bailouts of Chrysler and GM are due to Bush, and I complained about it from him as well.

i missed the fact that tom franks spoke at the RNC. talk about pulling a wes clark.

Is Obama’s Bin Laden video a partisan exploitation of war? So was the 2004 Bush campaign. - Slate Magazine

Bin Laden’s Scalp
It’s wrong to exploit military success for partisan advantage, unless you’re a Republican.
By William Saletan

On Friday, the Obama campaign released a video taking credit for the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden. Republicans denounced the video. The Republican National Committee issued a statement from Sen. John McCain calling it a “pathetic political act of self-congratulation”:

Shame on Barack Obama for diminishing the memory of Sept. 11 and the killing of Osama Bin Laden by turning it into a cheap political attack ad. … Barack Obama is not only trying to score political points by invoking Osama Bin Laden, he is doing a shameless end-zone dance to help himself get reelected. No one disputes that the president deserves credit for ordering the raid, but to politicize it in this way is the height of hypocrisy.

The statement appeared on the RNC’s website rather than McCain’s, a clear sign that the RNC orchestrated it. Other Republicans joined in the outrage. Sunday morning on Meet the Press, former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie, now an adviser to Mitt Romney, quoted the McCain statement and called Obama “one of the most divisive presidents in American history. He took something that was a unifying event for all Americans … and he’s managed to turn it into a divisive, partisan political attack.” When David Gregory pointed out that President Bush had used the same tactics in 2004, Gillespie replied that Obama, unlike Bush, crossed a line by suggesting “that Gov. Romney wouldn’t have done” what Obama did in the Bin Laden case. According to Gillespie, Republicans in 2004 simply depicted Bush as “a strong leader. You don’t see him saying, ‘and that guy [John Kerry] would have done something different.’ ”

Really? Let’s go back and look at the 2004 campaign. Let’s see what McCain, Gillespie, and other Bush surrogates said about Kerry, Iraq, and Saddam Hussein.

In December 2003, U.S. forces captured Saddam in Iraq. He had been hiding in a hole in the ground. Two months later, as Kerry began to wrap up the Democratic presidential nomination, Gillespie, who was then the RNC chairman, embarked on a media tour to brand Kerry a wimp. Here’s Gillespie on CBS in February 2004: “If his policies were in place, Saddam Hussein would not only be in Baghdad; he'd still be in Kuwait.” And on CNN: “If his policies were in place, Saddam Hussein would not only be in Baghdad today, he'd still be in Kuwait, and we would not be waging an aggressive war against terror.” And on NBC: “If John Kerry had his policies in place today, Saddam Hussein would not only be in Baghdad, he'd be in Kuwait.” And on Fox: “If his policies were in place today, Saddam Hussein would not only be in Baghdad, he'd be in Kuwait.” And at a Republican dinner: “"If Sen. Kerry's policies were in place today, Saddam Hussein would not only be in Baghdad, he would still be in Kuwait.” And so on.

That summer, Gillespie turned the Republican National Convention into a martial victory parade. Speaker after speaker bragged that Bush had defeated, deposed, and captured Saddam—and that Kerry couldn’t be trusted to make such tough calls. “We have captured or killed hundreds of al-Qaida,” Vice President Dick Cheney crowed. “In Iraq, we dealt with a gathering threat and removed the regime of Saddam Hussein. … Tonight he sits in jail.” Cheney went on: “Time and again, Sen. Kerry has made the wrong call on national security. … America needs and America has a president we can count on to get it right.”

Introducing Bush at the convention, New York Gov. George Pataki reminded voters of the hole in which Saddam had been found: “President Bush understands we can't just wait for the next attack. We have to go after them, in their training camps, in their hiding places, in their spider holes.” The convention’s keynoter, Sen. Zell Miller, D-Ga., used Saddam’s capture to smear Kerry: “As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military. As a senator, he voted to weaken our military. … President Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists, no matter what spider hole they may hide in.”

McCain, the main speaker on the convention’s opening night, hailed Bush’s courage: “He ordered American forces to Afghanistan and took the fight to our enemies, and away from our shores, seriously injuring al-Qaida and destroying the regime that gave them safe haven. … President Bush made the difficult decision to liberate Iraq. … We need a leader with the experience to make the tough decisions and the resolve to stick with them.” Romney, in his speech, argued that Kerry lacked this toughness: “I don’t believe Sen. Kerry is the leader our country needs. … He’s campaigned against the war all year, but says he’d vote yes today. I don’t want presidential leadership that comes in 57 varieties.” And Bush, in his acceptance address, described the loneliness of making the call to take down Saddam: “I faced the kind of decision that comes only to the Oval Office.”

When you look back at this record of boasts and taunts, it’s amusing to hear Gillespie, Romney, and McCain whine today about the political exploitation of military decisions. Their accusations of hypocrisy are hypocritical. Their cries of shamelessness are shameless. But Gillespie is right that Obama’s tactics don’t quite match Bush’s. At their 2004 convention, Republicans did two things Obama hasn’t mustered the chutzpah to try. First, they assigned a major speaking role to Tommy Franks, the general who had overseen the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Franks used his prestige as a war hero to recommend a vote for Bush over Kerry: “I choose George W. Bush because he is a leader we can depend on to make the tough decisions—and the right decisions.” Second, the convention featured a speech by Bernard Kerik, the police commissioner of New York City (who later pleaded guilty to tax fraud), in which he declared:

I think of the courage it took for our commander in chief to land on an airstrip in the dark of night, a world away, to be with our troops on Thanksgiving. He was there for them as he was for us right here in New York City, inspiring a nation as he stood on hallowed ground, supporting the first responders. This fight against terrorism takes decisiveness, not contradiction. … There are two candidates in this race, but only one fills those needs.

This tribute wasn’t for Bush’s decision to launch the war, or for capturing Saddam. It was for spending two hours serving and eating dinner with U.S. troops at the Baghdad airport. The visit took place six months after Bush, standing in front of a “Mission Accomplished” banner, had declared a successful end to major combat operations. Kudos to Bush for visiting the troops. But risking your life for a quickie morale booster—or making the risk look, in retrospect, bigger than it really was—isn’t one of those difficult calls we hire a president to make. It isn’t like, say, sending a team into Pakistan to kill the guy who hit us on 9/11, when you know that a Carter-style helicopter fiasco will sink your presidency.

Is Obama using his Bin Laden gamble, and its success, to score political points? You bet. Is he cynical to imply that Romney, in the same situation, wouldn’t have done the same thing? I think so. But, please, let’s not hear such complaints from the people who spent 4,000 American lives and $1 trillion to get the wrong guy—and then played the patriotism card all the way to re-election.

Business as usual. But I must say Obama seems to be taking the OBL thing a bit far, implying that Romney wouldn't have made the call. No one can know that, even if Romney said 5 years ago the US is spending too much money to get one man.

I'll take this as a cue to give my opinion. Our guys pulled off a incredible feat finding and getting OBL. But I think we should have taken it in stride and not make such a big deal out of it. Look at it another way: Despite all our power, grit and resources, it took us 9 years to get ONE man. I give Obama a tip of my hat for making the call, but that was his job, but elevating it to a national holiday or making him a hero for doing his job...bah, humbug.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

But I must say Obama seems to be taking the OBL thing a bit far, implying that Romney wouldn't have made the call.

I agree. He needs to shut up about Bin Ladin.

But I think we should have taken it in stride and not make such a big deal out of it. Look at it another way: Despite all our power, grit and resources, it took us 9 years to get ONE man.[/QUOTE]I agree that we need to take in stride (after a few days of savoring an incredible moral victory) but while it did take us 9 years to get one man, I have to point out: That one man had a shitload of help, most especially from the Pakistani government.

Whether merely elements of it or not, wholehearted support or merely a blind eye, OBL had a sovereign country haven that the US could not or would not use it's formidable surveillance and military assets to the full.

Originally Posted by dalem

No I don't. That's his job. He doesn't get credit for doing his job.

-dale

And you give credit to Reagan and bush for doing their jobs ?

Originally Posted by Blademaster

And you give credit to Reagan and bush for doing their jobs ?

Depends. Which parts?

-dale

Originally Posted by TopHatter

I agree that we need to take in stride (after a few days of savoring an incredible moral victory) but while it did take us 9 years to get one man, I have to point out: That one man had a shitload of help, most especially from the Pakistani government.

Whether merely elements of it or not, wholehearted support or merely a blind eye, OBL had a sovereign country haven that the US could not or would not use it's formidable surveillance and military assets to the full.

I agree. I didn't cover that element of it, but you're right--if he indeed had Pakistan government help at the highest level. But it's entirely plausible that the civilian government had no idea he was living in domestic tranquility a mere 5-minute drive from one of it's major army installations. They probably thought he was in the wilds of the NWT.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Business as usual. But I must say Obama seems to be taking the OBL thing a bit far, implying that Romney wouldn't have made the call. No one can know that, even if Romney said 5 years ago the US is spending too much money to get one man.

I'll take this as a cue to give my opinion. Our guys pulled off a incredible feat finding and getting OBL. But I think we should have taken it in stride and not make such a big deal out of it. Look at it another way: Despite all our power, grit and resources, it took us 9 years to get ONE man. I give Obama a tip of my hat for making the call, but that was his job, but elevating it to a national holiday or making him a hero for doing his job...bah, humbug.

Agree. I suspect that if he was going to stroll to victory it might get a bit less play (but only a bit less). As it is I struggle to imagine any President in this position who would just sit back & say nothing. As they say on 'The Wire', the game is the game.

"...They probably thought he was in the wilds of the NWT.

...and left it at that.

Not to digress but I strongly doubt it was an item of national import to the Pakistanis until the night our SEALS showed up on their front step.

If we could castigate Bush for failing to nail that prick to the wall in 2002 then we'd have done the same to B.O. He made a tough (and correct) call to get OBL and an equally tough call regarding the manner in which it would be done along with the expected end-result.

No muss, no fuss. All the loose ends tidied up and swept into the Indian Ocean.

Agree.

This week's TIME Magazine has a good article on the decision making process. A joint operation with the Paks was in the mix until near the end, but for obvious reasons got axed. Bombing the compound was ruled out since there would be no way to prove if OBL was killed should the Pakistanis not want to provide the proof, etc. etc. Many interesting tidbits found in OBL's papers...