Is Obama Really this Bad?

[Special K]

I think Obama has handled this just fine. If some of you haven't noticed, the media likes to speculate, particularly in regards to major stories like these. You can't take everything the media says immediately following an event like this as gospel truth.

The one thing I don't agree with is not showing the photo of bin Laden's dead body. If nothing else, I think the family members of all 9/11 victims should be able to see that picture to help them with closure of this horrific event. That being said, I do not have access to the latest intelligence information, and I figure it's highly likely there is significant intelligence out there regarding potential backlash from releasing photos. I have to trust that.

Otherwise, I don't have a problem at all with how this whole thing has been handled. I like very much that he called both Clinton and Bush Jr. telling them of the OBL news prior to it hitting the press. I don't think he needed to wax on about their involvement in this issue. Just come to the podium, explain the situation, explain what happened, thank the military and intelligence officers who were involved in this, then be done.

[twa]

Read up on her various other exploits here: http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/148051/how_one_right-winger_tried_to_take_over_the_legacy_of_9_11/?page=1

Sheehan lite?

[Predicto]

Absolutely. If America were attacked by another country or substantially terrorized by some organization and Obama were to embody our rage and promise swift retribution you can bet your house that American would love him. No question about it.

Like Bush, it would take a sudden and debilitating attack followed by a visceral Presidential response. And like Bush, that support would be replaced with scorn as he moved from rage from concrete action.

You mean the concrete action of justifiably invading Afganistan (which almost everyone in the whole world supported, including me)?

Or do you mean the concrete action of turning around and invading Iraq for trumped -up reasons (which is really what got Bush 95% of the scorn)?

Anyone who claims that Bush was opposed solely because he "took action" is kidding themselves.

---------- Post added May-5th-2011 at 04:59 PM ----------

Sheehan lite?

Naw, Sheehan is much worse.

[mjah]

How often have you heard people emphatically claim that "Bush lied about WMD" in Iraq. I've seen it written very often by many excellent posters on this board.

Fair point; there's no reason to conclude that W lied about that, when the "Bush was unbelievably stupid to believe in WMDs in Iraq" narrative could also be true.

In fact, I believe that W really did buy into the Iraq-nuclear-program-and-active-bioweapons-production nonsense -- meaning the second option would be the only plausible one remaining.

:whoknows:

[mardi gras skin]

You mean the concrete action of justifiably invading Afganistan (which almost everyone in the whole world supported, including me)?

Or do you mean the concrete action of turning around and invading Iraq for trumped -up reasons (which is really what got Bush 95% of the scorn)?

Anyone who claims that Bush was opposed solely because he "took action" is kidding themselves.

No. I mean any decision he made would have eroded support. If Bush didn't act on the intelligence reports that Saddam had nuclear and biologicial weapons AND intelligence reports that Saddam had connections to terrorism, Bush's support would have evaporated as well. If, right now, there were an active and fully functioning Saddam threatening us and paying the families of terrorists, and inflaming andi-American sentimetns in the Middle East, Bush's support would have dwindled just as badly as it did.

Remember, we would still think Iraq had WMD if Saddam were still in power. The only reason we can look back on Saddam as a non-factor is because we took him out.

---------- Post added May-5th-2011 at 08:15 PM ----------

Fair point; there's no reason to conclude that W lied about that, when the "Bush was unbelievably stupid to believe in WMDs in Iraq" narrative could also be true.

In fact, I believe that W really did buy into the Iraq-nuclear-program-and-active-bioweapons-production nonsense -- meaning the second option would be the only plausible one remaining.

:whoknows:

And he wasn't the only one. According to the Rockafeller commission, Bush's assessment was "generally substantiated by available intelligence."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html

And Bush had plenty of company in his trust of the intelligence information reports that Saddam had WMD's:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by:

-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by:

-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."

-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"

-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[Destino]

My problem with Iraq is that I think it took our eye off the ball and made us look foolish. Osama had years to reorganize and the early information coming out of that compound is that he wasn't nearly as "marginalized" as we wanted to believe he was. It doesn't matter how many democrats are republicans were on board with the idea of WMD, the man that makes the decision is held accountable. We lost lives, treasure, and credibility on a war that turned out to be unnecessary.

Having said that I'm unsure how large a role that war has played in the "Arab Spring" everyone keeps talking about. A stable democratic Iraq is no small accomplishment so while it may have cost us it is looking more and more like it may have been worth it. Bush's legacy isn't going to be nearly as bad as a lot of folks liked to tell themselves if Iraq stays as a democracy, even if it's imperfect. Democracies can be negotiated with and lend themselves to stability far more than wild eyed dictatorships.

[mardi gras skin]

My problem with Iraq is that I think it took our eye off the ball and made us look foolish. Osama had years to reorganize and the early information coming out of that compound is that he wasn't nearly as "marginalized" as we wanted to believe he was. It doesn't matter how many democrats are republicans were on board with the idea of WMD, the man that makes the decision is held accountable. We lost lives, treasure, and credibility on a war that turned out to be unnecessary.

That's fine. But if Bush didn't invade Iraq, he would have received equally scathing critiques from a host of republicans and democrats who continued to be sure that Iraq had WMD's and ties to terrorism...and there's spineless George Bush who didn't do anything about it. Hell, I don't think he'd have had enough support to get re-elected if he ignored Iraq. But my point is, Bush's support was going to erode rapidly from his 90% spike no matter what he did.

Having said that I'm unsure how large a role that war has played in the "Arab Spring" everyone keeps talking about. A stable democratic Iraq is no small accomplishment so while it may have cost us it is looking more and more like it may have been worth it.

I'm trying to imagine a secure Saddam in Iraq while the "Arab Spring" takes hold. I can't see it.

[Thiebear]

He kills Osama bin laden!

We find out we have badass silent helicopters (go defense spending ).

We provide military honors that shows a respect that those that only have State sponsored news and backfilled with the internet will notice.

The President refused to show the picture due to it being a mess. And on 60 minutes drops the we won't stoop to their level, its not needed.

We knew hiring a Muslim during these time would pay off with some good thinkin.

[mardi gras skin]

We find out we have badass silent helicopters (go defense spending

This is a good point. I want to go back and change my "NY Times Deficit Puzzle" to maintain our obscene spending on new weapons programs. Its a lot of money but toys they come up with are really cool!

[Devastate]

To the OP.. Feel this is appropriate

[Predicto]

mardi gras, all of those quotes you listed came after people in Congress were given intelligence information that was totally skewed by Doug Feith, RIchard Perle and the rest of the neocon true beleivers that Bush put in charge of the entire intelligence community. Congress has no intelligence capacity of its own - it can only go on what it is shown by the executive branch.

Basically, you have just demonstrated that Congress was fooled by the bad intelligence that Bush gave them.

(and no I don't think Bush lied. I think he saw what he wanted to see. I DO think that Doug Feith and Richard Perle lied, to give Cheney and Bush the intelligence results that they demanded, that they were absolutely sure must be out there somewhere, if they just looked hard enough and connected enough missing dots).

---------- Post added May-5th-2011 at 06:31 PM ----------

That's fine. But if Bush didn't invade Iraq, he would have received equally scathing critiques from a host of republicans and democrats who continued to be sure that Iraq had WMD's and ties to terrorism...and there's spineless George Bush who didn't do anything about it. Hell, I don't think he'd have had enough support to get re-elected if he ignored Iraq.

I think this is ridiculous.

But my point is, Bush's support was going to erode rapidly from his 90% spike no matter what he did.

However, on this you are absolutely correct. Nevertheless, it appears that there is about 40 percent of the nation right now who would find fault with Barack Obama if he singlehandedly cured cancer. George Bush did not face that level of rigid, unthinking opposition. No one ever has before.

I suspect that is because Fox and the alternative conservative echo chamber media did not yet exist.

[Zazzaro703]

I'd say it has more to do with the media reporting unsubstantiated "facts" before the actual facts come out, over and over and over. Just like the media does with anything.

I would agree with exactly this. Irresponsible Journalism is a major factor in a lot of these things. I remember i was watching the news and right after Obama came out and addressed the nation, the newscasters kept on talking like the raid happened earlier last week and not on Sunday even though Obama said he gave them the go ahead earlier on Sunday. This went on for seriously almost an hour.

[mardi gras skin]

mardi gras, all of those quotes you listed came after people in Congress were given intelligence information that was totally skewed by Cheney, Doug Feith, RIchard Perle and the rest of the neocon true beleivers that Bush put in charge of the entire intelligence community.

Bush was much more powerful than I ever realized. Look at these dates again:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by:

-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

[Wrong Direction]

You need to submit this to the RNC and see if they'll get it circulated, Wrong Direction...the might even want to hire you.

This was a missed opportunity. It's the kind of thing that has the potential to bite you. Its in the "I won" range of reactions. He's under no obligation to be gracious but he isn't doing anything to win win them over either.

Too early to tell what happened but the entire team should have been tight lipped about specifics for a day or two and let the details sort out. There was no reason for them to provide the specifics early like they did.

Not releasing them is a good move. You can't unring that bell. If the pressure to release the images grows, he can always do it later.

Irrelevant. A 25 minute video lapse doesn't change anything.

This is going to be an issue, I guarantee it. Too many people on both sides of the debate are invested in getting to the bottom of this issue. If it turns out that waterboarding was useless, he's golden. If it turns out waterboarding helped in the gathering of pertinent info, it gets pretty ugly. What was immediately said or not said won't be the issue.

I don't know what you're talking about. Got a link to an article or something?

About 60 posts in and this is the first respectful response. Thanks. Here's the link you're looking for:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/05/burlingame_after_meeting_with_obama_he_turned_his_back_on_me.html

[Predicto]

Bush was much more powerful than I ever realized. Look at these dates again:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by:

-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Not as simple as that, sorry. Those statements were made in support of the use of sanctions and other non-invasion means because of Saddam's intransigence. Nothing wrong with that.

Things changed in 2002, when we suddenly had all this new information that came filtered through Doug Feith and Richard Perle, information that indicated that the sanctions had failed, Saddam had yellowcake, he's gonna hit us any day, we need to invade NOW. There was a huge racheting up of the rhetoric and coloring of the intelligence to justify an invasion, an invasion that Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of the neocons had called for five years earlier in the Project for a New American Century.

[Wrong Direction]

To the OP.. Feel this is appropriate

It's unfair to quote movies I love.

[AsburySkinsFan]

It seems like everything he's done since then has been an utter disaster.

Ok, seriously, this is where I stopped reading.....I mean honestly, how can anyone take anything you say after that completely unbiased and objective statement seriously.

[mardi gras skin]

About 60 posts in and this is the first respectful response. Thanks. Here's the link you're looking for:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/05/burlingame_after_meeting_with_obama_he_turned_his_back_on_me.html

You're an excellent poster. You've demonstrated in numerous threads that you're able to bring much better information to the table than most of the people sniping at you. In this thread I do think you went too far too soon after a great success. Obama deserves some time to bask in his accomplishment. All your critiques added together don't measure up to the relief I feel in being done with Bin Laden.

But I certainly don't see anything worse in your post than in the hundreds of Bush bashing threads. The criticism you're getting is over the top.

[mjah]

When such a long litany of quotes fails so hard to support a flawed set of claims, the real story pretty much tells itself. (As it has so many times before.)

Thank you Predicto, for providing the voice of reason here. It must get old, having to repeatedly remind certain people of reality -- but the truth is what it is, and the Tailgate is better for your apparently infinite patience.

[DCSaints_fan]

Yeah, I'm sure in the immediate aftermath of a top secret black-ops military operation,, every single administration official is going to get every detail exactly right

[mardi gras skin]

Not as simple as that, sorry. Those statements were made in support of the use of sanctions and other non-invasion means because of Saddam's intransigence.

Nice. You just abandoned your first response in total. You are good, Mr. Lawyer.

Still, both congress and the Clinton administration were SURE Saddam had WMD's before Bush had any opportunity to mislead congress. What Clinton wanted to do with that information before 9/11 is irrelevant. Bush didn't invent a "Saddam had WMD's" boogie-man. If you want to claim that both Bush AND Clinton misled congress you can try to make that case, I guess, but the steady affirmation of WMD's both before and during Bush's administration undermines your case. Bush could not have been responsible for the widespread assumption that Saddam had WMD's.

[Wrong Direction]

You're an excellent poster. You've demonstrated in numerous threads that you're able to bring much better information to the table than most of the people sniping at you. In this thread I do think you went too far too soon after a great success. Obama deserves some time to bask in his accomplishment. All your critiques added together don't measure up to the relief I feel in being done with Bin Laden.

But I certainly don't see anything worse in your post than in the hundreds of Bush bashing threads. The criticism you're getting is over the top.

Again, much obliged.

I originally was going to make this a thread asking if the Obama admin was doing this on purpose...meaning they're providing different stories to feed the trolls (see birthers). It wasn't supposed to be so negative, but then I got rushed toward the end of a work day and worked up because I really do think they've bungled the aftermath and I really do expect that to feed conspiracy theorists.

I also get offended that he didn't specifically credit Bush, though I don't want to make this thread about that. To not do so is to not recognize the (similar) hell that Bush and his administration had to go through in the aftermath. If anyone should be able to sympathize, it's Obama.

---------- Post added May-5th-2011 at 10:17 PM ----------

Yeah, I'm sure in the immediate aftermath of a top secret black-ops military operation,, every single administration official is going to get every detail exactly right

The point is they shouldn't have put out information before they knew the story. It was amateur hour.

[mardi gras skin]

When such a long litany of quotes fails so hard to support a flawed set of claims, the real story pretty much tells itself. (As it has so many times before.)

Thank you Predicto, for providing the voice of reason here. It must get old, having to repeatedly remind certain people of reality -- but the truth is what it is, and the Tailgate is better for your apparently infinite patience.

The sure money among people in the know under the Clinton Administration, the Bush Administration, the Democrats in Congress and the Republicans in congress was the Saddam had WMD's. Spin that every which way you want and congratulate yourself for you're craftiness but the truth is very obvious.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Mardi, you're comparing the tone and rhetoric that occured after Bush failures to the tone and rhetoric here, that has come after an Obama and United States success. You don't see a problem there?

[mardi gras skin]

Mardi, you're comparing the tone and rhetoric that occured after Bush failures to the tone and rhetoric here, that has come after an Obama and United States success. You don't see a problem there?

No, I'm not comparing the tone. Clearly, the tone changed after 9/11. I'm comparing the assumption that Saddam had WMD's before and during Bush's administration. Both Republicans and Democrats were SURE Saddam had WMD's. This was conventional wisdom before Bush became president.