The one common thing I noticed about my "facebook friends" posting this is none of them will be confused with the brights bulb on the tree anytime soon.:lol:

Coming from one of the most biased posters on BGP.

What is my bias, marvel? I don't sing Obama's praises at every turn. I simply defend him against some of the more ridiculous things he gets blamed for on here.

:thumb: Bush deserves a lot of credit and Obama deserves a lot of credit. To make it into a sports analogy, Bush is Wayne Krivsky building the framework and fundamentals for this mission's success and Obama is Walt Jocketty taking it to the next level with focus and the right pieces to make it happen.

I could probably get on board with that analogy, although I still believe our involvement in Iraq took away the focus from finding and capturing or killing bin Laden, which should have been a top priority.

My view is both the Obama and Bush administrations deserve credit for taking out Bin Laden and of course all of our military deserves credit too. In other words, Clyde and I are in the same camp on this one.

 

I agree as well. :thumb:

No argument here about talk radio which is why I've given up on it.

 

I had Laura Ingraham on last night and had to turn it off within 5 minutes. It was impossible to listen to.

Here's the thing....this type of facebook post, and related e-mails, comments in forums, on on-line news stories, etc, show themselves to be of little credibility.

 

The biggest shot to their credibility? At NO TIME has President Obama excluded anyone, including President Bush, from credit in the process of finding and taking out Osama Bin Laden. In every thing I've read, seen, heard, he's given credit where credit is due. I don't recall hearing him say "I" at any point of the way, as far as credit is concerned.

 

In all of the accounts I've read of what happened in the immediately preceeding time before the order was given, he asked for the opinions of everyone in the room, and considered them all. I understand there was quite a heated debate. And I'm sure what he elected to do in the end was vehemently renounced at the time. However, he did what the Commander-in-Chief should do...asked for, listened to, and considered ALL opinions, then made the best decision he felt he could do.

 

If there's a difference in his situation and President Bush's situation in the decision to go into Iraq, it's that I think President Obama's advisors may trump those of President Bush's.

 

But, when it comes down to it, President Obama could have taken a couple of other "safer" routes...he could have chosen to wait even longer, hoping for stronger evidence, or he could have chosen the bombing method. The first method means we most likely would never have gotten OBL, and the if the public became aware that there was any evidence, he'd have been "hung" for not acting on it. If he'd have chosen the 2nd method, there's no guarantee he could prove that we got OBL. Even with the ultimate decision, the risks were extraordinarily high.

 

I will say this...the majority of public sentiment was on the side of President Bush in going into Iraq. I don't think the majority of public sentiment would have been with Obama, if they'd have known what was being planned.

 

I'll say this as well....I think President Obama surprised a lot of people. How many ever thought that if this were the situation, this would be the routh President Obama woul take? Most consider him to be without "chutzpah" from what I can tell. Maybe there will be a little more willingness to consider what he's saying in the future? I didn't say it was a probability...just a possibility.

 

One last thing...President Obama's team seems to keep their mouths shut better than some of those in President Bush's team. I never understood announcing our intentions.

I will say 95% of what I here is giving praise to the President. I do not want to portray this as a large segment of America. That group would be up in arms if Obama cured all diseases, ended poverty, found world peace, and solved a rubix cube in under 8 seconds.

Rockmom-why don't you think the majority of the public would have been in favor if they had known what was planned? Seems to me he would have had overwhelming support as I don't believe we've had anybody as wanted by the public since maybe Hitler.

Can you rephrase that because I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

The people that are angry and saying what you posted above, are often times saying so because of what others are also posting/saying and that's that "Obama got done what Bush could not" or something along those lines.

The biggest shot to their credibility? At NO TIME has President Obama excluded anyone, including President Bush, from credit in the process of finding and taking out Osama Bin Laden. In every thing I've read, seen, heard, he's given credit where credit is due. I don't recall hearing him say "I" at any point of the way, as far as credit is concerned

Very true ... he's been very gracious, as have Bush and Cheney.

 

I will say this...the majority of public sentiment was on the side of President Bush in going into Iraq. I don't think the majority of public sentiment would have been with Obama, if they'd have known what was being planned.

I would disagree. I put a lot of faith in our special forces and would trust them to make a targeted, quick, surgical move as opposed to a bombing which could also harm civilians in the area.

 

Bin Laden wasn't a head of state, either, so there were no questions of legality there. Assassinating heads of state, as Saddam Hussein was, is against the law.

 

Frankly, given the cost of the Iraq War in terms of money, resources and lives, I suspect the American public would have preferred this kind of action against Saddam, if it had been legal to do so.

Rockmom-why don't you think the majority of the public would have been in favor if they had known what was planned? Seems to me he would have had overwhelming support as I don't believe we've had anybody as wanted by the public since maybe Hitler.

 

Because of the uncertainty of the evidence. President Bush sold the Iraq initiative based upon the "strength" of the evidence of WMD.

Because of the uncertainty of the evidence. President Bush sold the Iraq initiative based upon the "strength" of the evidence of WMD.

 

Got it. I just happen to think as bad as people wanted Bin laden they would support an attempt to get him based on the evidence they had. While not certain it certainly seemed pretty strong. Unfortunately, intelligence operations have taken a hit over the past decade. Hopefully this restores some shine to them.

Got it. I just happen to think as bad as people wanted Bin laden they would support an attempt to get him based on the evidence they had. While not certain it certainly seemed pretty strong. Unfortunately, intelligence operations have taken a hit over the past decade. Hopefully this restores some shine to them.

 

 

I hope so as well. :thumb:

No argument here about talk radio which is why I've given up on it.

 

 

I am to the point were all talk radio(including sports talk) is beyond annoying. I listen to one talk radio show and that is The Dan Patrick show.

I am to the point were all talk radio(including sports talk) is beyond annoying. I listen to one talk radio show and that is The Dan Patrick show.

 

100% agree. I can't listen to shows that actually have callers.