OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEAD!!!!!!!!!!

58 thoughts on “OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEAD!!!!!!!!!!”

1. trooperbari May 1, 2011 at 9:34 pm

   Yes, Joe. This is, in fact, a big f***ing deal.
2. Joe Mama May 1, 2011 at 9:36 pm

   WEEE!
3. David K. May 1, 2011 at 9:37 pm

   Mission Accomplished
4. David K. May 1, 2011 at 9:38 pm

   When is Trump going to ask to see the death certificate? 😉
5. Casey May 1, 2011 at 10:22 pm

   WOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

   USA! USA! USA!! WOOOOO!!!!!!

   TAKE THAT SOVIET HOCKEY TEAM!!!!

   WOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!! USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA
6. Casey May 1, 2011 at 10:25 pm

   Seriously, may this king of terrorist bastards rot in hell for all eternity.
7. Casey May 1, 2011 at 10:28 pm

   Oh, and the announcement did come in the middle of Donald Trump’s Celebrity Apprentice.
8. Brendan Loy Post authorMay 1, 2011 at 11:18 pm

   Heh.
9. AMLTrojan May 2, 2011 at 7:11 am

   LOVE the birth certificate / Osama pic!
10. dcl May 2, 2011 at 8:08 am

    Not sure that Osama’s death means anything or changes anything, but it certainly is really fucking cathartic.
11. Joe Mama May 2, 2011 at 9:33 am

    Obama reportedly was going to bomb OBL’s compound back in March, but decided against it because he wanted evidence of his death. Good call.
12. Alasdair May 2, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    We should give all due credit to Obama for his continuation of the Bush II Osama Doctrine ongoing up to its coming to fruition …

    It is also interesting to speculate if they were able to find little pieces of 72 Virginian Hams to put in his mouth when they tipped Osama off into his watery grave …
13. David K. May 2, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    “We should give all due credit to Obama for his continuation of the Bush II Osama Doctrine ongoing up to its coming to fruition …”

    No Al, we should give credit to Obama for getting the job done. Period.
14. Casey May 2, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    Which Bush II Osama doctrine? The “ignore Osama” doctrine pre 9-11, which overturned the vigilant policies of his predecessor? Or the “I don’t spend much time on him,” policy for post 9-11?

    In terms of Obama’s priorities, capturing/killing Osama was number 1 from day 1. If you buy into the whole cause/effect thing, you have to give Obama credit for this one.

    Unless we’re doing the whole silly thing where the Clinton boom was due to Reagan, the Bush II recession was due to Clinton and all that. I’ll get in on that. 9-11 was Jimmy Carter’s fault!
15. Brendan Loy Post authorMay 2, 2011 at 3:37 pm

    Dude. 9/11 was totally FDR’s fault. Everybody knows that.

    In all seriousness, the reporting I’ve read makes it sound like this operation evolved from intelligence that was being continually developed throughout the end of the Bush Administration and then into the Obama Administration. Can we just credit everyone involved, including both Bush and Obama, and leave it at that?
16. Alasdair May 2, 2011 at 3:40 pm

    No Da, we should give credit to the Navy Seals who *actually* pulled off the operation … they were actually there, doing the actual work …

    Our current Pretender-in-Chief continued the Bush II Doctrine on Obama (“Git ‘im, daid or aalaavv – jist be sure y’all git ‘im !”) and deserves credit for having done so – at least Obama didn’t pull a Biden and claim to have originated the idea … no, wait a minute, well, he sorta did, but reasonable people know better, fortunately …
17. David K. May 2, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    Alasdair, your attempt to give Obama a half hearted compliment by relating it back to Bush is pathetic.
18. Brendan Loy Post authorMay 2, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    Alasdair, this is exactly what I was talking about a while ago when I said you always — without exception — every single time — criticize Democrats and praise Republicans, regardless of the issue, regardless of the circumstances and facts. You say we should credit the Seals, not the politicians. But is there any doubt, any at all, that you would be praising Bush profusely if he were Commander-in-Chief right now? No. Absolutely not. There is a 100% chance that you would be giving Bush full credit if he were in power.

    You’d credit the Seals too, of course — as do we all! did you somehow think David and I believe the Seals don’t deserve credit? did you miss my other posts specifically praising them? — but you wouldn’t be making this implicitly derisive, anti-Obama point about how they’re the ones “who *actually* pulled off the operation,” and thus we should credit them exclusively and leave the politicians out of it, if the politicians were Republicans. There is a 0% chance you’d be making that same point if you had the opportunity to solely credit Republicans for this. Your record speaks for itself in that regard.

    I tried to extend an olive branch, mediate the dispute, and move us back toward a bipartisan stance by saying, let’s give them both credit… and you respond with this partisan bullshit. Like David said: pathetic.
19. Brendan Loy Post authorMay 2, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    The indisputable reality is as follows. The conservative meme that Obama is a soft-on-terror wuss who is at best indifferent to America’s national security interests, and at worst wishes America ill; who doesn’t want to defeat our enemies or achieve “victory”; who does nothing but apologize and advocate appeasement; etc. etc., has just been conclusively, empirically disproven. The meme was always obviously wrong — in that it portrays honest differences of opinion over strategy and tactics regarding how best to achieve our national interests with a lack of desire to advance those interests — but now it simply cannot be advanced by anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty. A crucial pillar of the far right’s worldview has been utterly debunked. And yet still you say “Pretender-in-Chief.” Well, fuck you very much, Alasdair. That’s my president you’re talking about, and I’d appreciate it if you would shut the fuck up with your vile slander and stop being such a deranged partisan idiot.

    You are Cindy Sheehan. You are Michael Moore. You are those “Bushitler” sign-waving people. That’s the level to which you have sunk — you are what you despise, Alasdair, or its ideological mirror image. I hated the bile those buffoons spewed at Bush, and I condemned it; and I hate your bile at Obama, and I condemn it. You are the worst kind of ridiculous ideologue, and your noxious hatred for your political opposition, divorced from all reality and analysis, is a sad, pathetic testament to the endless vacuity and indefensibleness of your political opinions. This is not true of any other conservative on this blog — not AMLTrojan, not Joe Mama, not gahrie, not any of them. But you? Your opinions are a farce, an exercise in unintentional self-parody. You cheapen the conversation and lower the level of discourse every time you enter a political discussion here. This just clinches it. If there was ever a day to show even a slight hint of magnanimity toward Obama — albeit without giving up ground on your substantive position that Bush’s approach is better, which I certainly wouldn’t ask or expect you to give up — today would be that day… and you’ve failed utterly. What an absolute joke.
20. AMLTrojan May 2, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    In all seriousness, the reporting I’ve read makes it sound like this operation evolved from intelligence that was being continually developed throughout the end of the Bush Administration and then into the Obama Administration.

    This. People tend to underestimate the power of inertia when it comes to policy and bureaucracy. The reality is, Dubya did almost nothing of import prior to 9/11 that altered our course set by Clinton (one could argue his administration dawdled for too long in deciding how they were going to deal with terrorism in general and were caught off guard when 9/11 happened, but that simply bolsters the fact that no major initiatives or policy changes were flowed down between Bush’s election and 9/11, and thus government action to that point was driven by inertia). And to date, when it comes to the intelligence community, Obama has been very hands off: he’s directed no major funding or priority shifts, and he installed leaders keen on keeping the course (e.g. Leon Panetta at CIA). It’s pretty clear to me that Obama — and his appointees — deserve credit for listening to the defense and intelligence leadership team they inherited and keeping an unwavering focus on bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. The recent move of David Petraeus to CIA and Leon Panetta over to DOD, the backing off from shutting down Guantanamo, and his willingness to completely ignore prevailing international opinion on such things as targeted assassination bodes well of Obama, and my general opinion of him now is that, while his initial waffling on Afghanistan and his recent foreign policy actions have left a lot to be desired, he’s doing just fine on the commander-in-chief part.
21. Joe Mama May 2, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    In all seriousness, the reporting I’ve read makes it sound like this operation evolved from intelligence that was being continually developed throughout the end of the Bush Administration and then into the Obama Administration.

    Well the reporting I’ve read makes it sound like the intelligence went back a bit further then “the end of the Bush Administration” (e.g., KSM and Abu Faraj al-Libi reportedly gave up the nicknames of several of OBL’s couriers, including the courier who eventually led the U.S. to OBL’s compound, after being waterboarded), and the operation was carried out by “Cheney’s Assassination Squad”, but I agree with Brendan — let’s just credit Bush and Obama and leave it at that.
22. Brendan Loy Post authorMay 2, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    Alasdair, take note. The above comments constitute reasonable, rational conservative opinions. (Just preempting your inevitable “you’re just attacking me because you’re liberal!” nonsense reply.)
23. Brendan Loy Post authorMay 2, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    @AMLTrojan: Yeah. My sense is that Obama may have walked into office and been like, “Hey, guys! We need to kill Bin Laden! I’m super cereal!” and they were all like, “We’re already on it, Boss.”
24. AMLTrojan May 2, 2011 at 4:14 pm

    The conservative meme that Obama is a soft-on-terror wuss who is at best indifferent to America’s national security interests, and at worst wishes America ill; who doesn’t want to defeat our enemies or achieve “victory”; who does nothing but apologize and advocate appeasement; etc. etc., has just been conclusively, empirically disproven.

    I think you’re mixing too many things together here. “Soft on terror”, that’s definitely not an accurate statement, however his policies and speeches towards Israel, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Libya, and so forth have been atrocious and counterproductive to our strategic goals, IMO. I have no doubt Obama wishes for “victory” over “our enemies”, but his tactics have been very unsatisfactory and radiate weakness and appeasement, and they reflect an internalization of the view that the United States of America is an unexceptional run-of-the-mill nation-state like any other. Closing successfully on bin Laden doesn’t change any of that — in fact it has no bearing whatsoever.
25. Joe Mama May 2, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    Above all, as I alluded to above, Obama deserves a lot of credit for making the gutsy call to send in the SEALs. He could’ve just bombed the place, but he decided to take precise action that verified OBL was dead. If things went south and this turned into another Desert One, Obama would’ve taken it on the chin, especially in the polls…
26. AMLTrojan May 2, 2011 at 4:25 pm

    I agree with Joe that Obama was not squeamish here: He made a sober accounting of risk vs. reward when deciding on the operational approach to take, and I especially respect the fact that he did not heed the left-wing Lilliputians who scream at Israel for making targeted assassinations and argue that these types of military actions violate international law. Seeing that Obama does not take the UN and international law as seriously as those on the Left would prefer brings me great comfort. I’m quite confident the NYT editorialists will scream back into action once a Republican is elected president again, however.
27. Casey May 2, 2011 at 4:52 pm

    The manner of OBL’s death shows that Obama can be tough.

    Democratic presidents always have to show toughness. We know they care about us; we want to know they can kick ass as well. Now we know Obama spends his spare time kicking ass.

    In contrast, Republican presidents have to show that they care. Which is why Dick Cheney could never be president. If he ever took a picture while kissing a baby, most people would probably say, “Oh my God! Somebody save that poor baby before Cheney eats it!”
28. Cartman May 2, 2011 at 4:56 pm

    Although precise details are sketchy, and may be for some time due to national security concerns, let’s look at what has been reported. According to the Associate Press, “U.S. officials said the information that ultimately led to bin Laden’s capture originally came from detainees held in secret CIA prison sites in Eastern Europe. There, agency interrogators were told of an alias used by a courier whom bin Laden particularly trusted.” These sound like the Eastern European “black sites” that caused so much controversy and were part of the meme that Bush/Cheyney were war criminals. The AP goes on to describe how it took four years just to learn the man’s real name. Then it took “years” to get a “big break”: in mid 2010, the courier was overheard using a telephone by “intelligence officials”. Now a snarky thing would be to ask you liberals whether or not we should have gotten a court order first. But I will just speculate that Obama didn’t just come into office and say, “look out for this guy”. It was this phone call that apparently lead to the residence to where Bin Ladin was killed. Reuters tells a similar story in less detail: “U.S. officials said their forces were led to the fortress-like three-storey building after more than four years tracking one of bin Laden’s most trusted couriers, who was identified by men captured after the Sept. 11 attacks.”

    To recap, we have guys captured probably sometime in Bush’s first term revealing the presence of this courier, the name of the curiour being discovered sometime late in Bush’s second term, the tracking of this guy beginning in Bush’s second term, and a “big break” that allowed U.S. forces to finally locate Bin Ladin’s compound sometime last year. The takedown occurs at the halfway point of Obama’s first term. So, if you want to adopt the standard that the President owns whatever happends during his term, and give Obama full and unadulterated credit, as DavidK and Casey do, that’s fine, and you wouldn’t necessarily be out of the mainstream in adopting “the President owns what happens” standard, but be consistent. If Obama fully, and without reservation, owns this, then he also owns the deficit, the 9%+ unemployment, and skyrocketing gas prices. If Obama’s ownership of these negative aspects of modern life is mitigated by a logical cause/effect chain of events that predates his administration, then you have to apply the same exercise to the Bin Ladin kill. After all, just look at the proximate action that allowed us to locate Bin Ladin: this curier was finally caught making a phone call. We got lucky that he f*cked up. If he keeps of the telephone, then perhaps Bin Ladin dies of kidney disease 15 years from now. Of course, if sand doesn’t get into the engines of a bunch of hellicopters, perhaps the Iran hostiges are rescued and Jimmy Carter gets re-elected. History turns on such silly, random events. But back to the main point, this wasn’t the result of Obama’s force of will or intelligence or hard work. It was the result of a lot of hard work and force of will that pre-dates the Obama administration, continued into the Obama administration, and that finally paid off.
29. David K. May 2, 2011 at 5:14 pm

    I haven’t had the opportunity to read the info about the backstory of this opp today so I can’t comment on whether or not intelligence apparatus and efforts put in place under Bush were involved, and even after reading the various articles I highly doubt any of us will have a clear picture of exactly how this all came about for the obvious reason that intelligence gathering processes that are fully explained cease to be as valuable. I do not object to the idea that initiatives begun under Bush helped us get to this point. I do object to Alasdair’s assinine claim that Obama was continuing the “Bush II Doctrine”. To that I say BULLSHIT.

    Deciding to capture/kill a terrorist bastard who attacked our country and helped orchastrate numerous other attacks isn’t a “doctrine”, its a task. Bush didn’t come up with the idea of taking out or killing an opposing leader in retalition for actions he’s commited. We’ve been doing that for hundreds of years!
30. Rebecca Loy May 2, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    @AML, if appeasement can lead to the democratization of the Middle East, then bring me a heaping spoonful. Obama has now killed pirates and Osama. That’s pretty badass right there.

    @Brendan, damn. Remind me not to cross you, ala Alasdair. I think he’s very good for comic relief and he does articulate the extreme Obama derangement extremely well.

    I’m happy that Osama is gone and I hope this silences some of the effing retards who say dumb shit like, “Obama is soft on terror.” If being soft on terror means executing your enemies, then that’s okay with me.
31. Cartman May 2, 2011 at 7:09 pm

    Acording to this ABCNews story, the courier who eventually led us to Bin Ladin was first identified by KSM, AFTER KSM had been waterboarded. Basically, KSM gave us a list of couriers which basically put him on a watch list. Then his name came up again by another CIA Black Site prisoner (interrogation methods not stated), which put him on the “we need to find this freaking guy” list. Now the story does say that this was after KSM had been waterboarded, not while being waterboarded, but the whole purpose of waterboarding is the break a detainee. If KSM had been giving us intelligence beforehand, he wouldn’t had been waterboarded. So, if the elements of this story are to be true, it is looking more and more like a vindication of the post-9/11 era intelligence gathering techniques. Forget Bush. If this story is to be believed, then waterboarding and sending captives to deep, dark secret prisons away from lawyers and the ACLU deserves a lot of credit. I suppose it is impossible to state for certain whether or not this courier’s name would been disclosed if KSM and this other source were transferred to Riker’s Island after capture rather than some CIA Black Site, but I’m going to say, “not bloody likely”. It’s like if a friend sets you up on a blind date with a complete stranger saying “this person would be perfect for you” and you end up marrying him/her. There was a lot of work that went into developing the relationship into a marriage, but you have to give credit to that friend for making the eventual outcome possible.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=13512344
32. Brendan Loy Post authorMay 2, 2011 at 7:56 pm

    @ Becky, ugh, I don’t mean to be as personally harsh to Alasdair as I guess I’m being – I just get sick to death of his constant predictable b.s. on political posts. I think Alasdair is a good guy at heart, but his “extreme Obama derangement,” as you aptly put it, is poison for rational political discussion.
33. Alasdair May 2, 2011 at 8:14 pm

    Brendan #18 – here’s that to which I responded … from the White House’s own transcript …

    “And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaedai, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.

    Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.

    Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.” … {my emphasis} …

    Contrast that with another famous speech – Bush II’s “Mission Accomplished” speech … the following are the parts where the Commander-in-Chief used “I” …

    “… And tonight, I have a special word for Secretary Rumsfeld, for General Franks, and for all the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States: America is grateful for a job well done. … When I look at the members of the United States military, I see the best of our country, and I’m honored to be your Commander-in-Chief. … As I speak, a Special Operations task force, led by the 82nd Airborne, is on the trail of the terrorists and those who seek to undermine the free government of Afghanistan. America and our coalition will finish what we have begun. … Nineteen months ago, I pledged that the terrorists would not escape the patient justice of the United States. And as of tonight, nearly one-half of al Qaeda’s senior operatives have been captured or killed. … Our war against terror is proceeding according to principles that I have made clear to all: Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country, and a target of American justice. … “ …

    One of those two men gave the credit where the credit was due … the other seeks to arrogate as much credit to himself as he can …

    Is it partisan to have respect for one, and not so much for the other ? Or is it simply that one of ’em *earned* our respect while the other hasn’t yet …

    Read the entirety of both speeches – follow the links … then, ask yourself – which deserves praise and which deserves criticism ?
34. AMLTrojan May 2, 2011 at 8:21 pm

    Becky, methinks you’re exhibiting a sense of confused delirium that is sometimes associated with altitude sickness. First of all, Obama hasn’t killed anybody — the Navy SEALS did. Second, taking out bin Laden may have been cathartic, but operationally it will have little impact on the networks and organizations conspiring to attack us. Third, sharpshots to the head of three pirates in a dramatic rescue does not equate to the Somali pirate issue being resolved. In fact, the problem is arguably worse, with the pirates extending their reach nearly to the Persian Gulf and Maldives, and some 35 ships and 650 people were captive as of December 2010. I’m happy for you if these displays of Obama’s manliness are giving a jumpstart to your lovelife at home, but they’re hardly predicatory of real-world results.

    Finally, “if appeasement can lead to the democratization of the Middle East”, then you can have your spoonful — I demand a jug’s worth. Sadly, Obama’s hardly done anything to jumpstart democracy in the Middle East. As soon as he ascended to office, he made derogatory comments about the democratically elected leaders of both Afghanistan and Iraq while simultaneously sucking up to the dictators in Iran and Syria. This led right into Iran’s “Green Revolution”, which Obama completely ignored and made absolutely no effort to assist, since he was too busy trying to negotiate with the mullahs. Later, when the uprisings in Egypt began, Obama and HRC waffled for days and then weeks, first quietly supporting Mubarak but demanding reforms, and then belatedly — after the tide had turned for good — backing the people. Not content to walk away after that initial screw-up, the administration then came out in support of quick transition to elections, when the reality is the Muslim Brotherhood is the only organized political entity in Egypt outside of the Mubarak regime, and they’ve made little effort to help democratic parties organize and stand for election. I’ll give Obama a pass on Bahrain and Yemen — there’s almost no good outcome imaginable no matter which direction those two uprisings go in — but Obama flat out blew it on Libya and now Syria. The U.S. had to be dragged into Libya kicking and screaming by its NATO allies, who are heavily dependent on Libyan oil exports and have a huge incentive to replace Qaddafi and reinstitute a more stable, democratic-oriented government. Yet Obama says he won’t put boots on the ground, even as he’s writing executive orders to send special forces and other intel operatives into Libya to help the rebels. He won’t come out and advocate for forceful “regime change”, but he will meekly state that Qaddafi must step down. Meanwhile, whereas the pretense for taking action in Libya was the supposed threat of genocidal reprisals by Qaddafi against the Libyans who are rising up, over in Syria, Assad is already following in his father’s footsteps and slaughtering civilians to quell his own uprising. And where is Obama on this? Completely silent, of course!

    So yes, cheer the man for having enough cojones to order the SEAL attack on bin Laden’s compound deep in Pakistan, but good Lord — at least have the wherewithal to recognize that the current president is FAR less interested in promoting democratization in the Middle East than his predecessor. I am more than willing to entertain pragmatic, realpolitik arguments about how the Bush Doctrine was overly ambitious, unrealistic, and inappropriate (heaven forbid we throw our weight around a little and knock off some bad guys here and there for the good of the world, ya know?); I can live with a pause, a catching of breath, a temporary retrenchment — if that is how you want to whitewash (or is it blackwash?) Obama’s foreign policy. but to make the case that Obama is even pretending to try to advance democratization in the Middle East (or anywhere, for that matter) is painfully absurd.
35. Brendan Loy Post authorMay 2, 2011 at 8:29 pm

    Alasdair, so your argument for calling Obama the “Pretender-in-Chief,” and for refusing to acknowledge — without sarcastically undercutting your own back-handed compliment — a signature moment of success in his predency that, given the exact same facts, you would undeniably praise a Republican President effusively for (that is a fact, to a 100% certainty) is that… he uses the word “I” a lot?

    Compelling.

    As an American, I am insulted by your smearing my president as “Pretender-in-Chief” (among other slurs and unjustified attacks). I would like you to either substantively defend the criticism, or else retract it and apologize. You’re under no obligation to do either, of course. But your use of that sort of language makes you no better than the Bush-hating smear merchants of the Left you used to spend so much time (rightly) criticizing.
36. AMLTrojan May 2, 2011 at 8:30 pm

    Also, I’m with Alasdair @ #33. As much as I applaud the president for taking out Osama bin Laden, the self-aggrandizing nature of his rhetoric grates me. I’m having a hard time trying to decide whether I cared less for John Kerry or John Edwards’ styles — both of them had a knack for making me gnash my teeth. In the end, I think I find Obama’s speeches slightly less annoying, if only because I grew up listening to the over-the-top self-aggrandizing style of Rush Limbaugh (which was always more for the radio entertainment effect) and thus I’ve conditioned myself to temper my reaction to that kind of hoity-toity oratory.
37. Cartman May 2, 2011 at 8:33 pm

    And it get’s juicier. According to this Time.com article (linked at the end of my blathering), the second source who identified the courier, Abu Faraj al-Libbi, was also subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques (although not water boarding). So it sounds as if al-Libbi was probably slapped across the face and slammed against fake walls with a towel around his neck to prevent whiplash (these are the EITs besides waterboarding).

    DavidK, unless these articles (from Reuters, ABC, and Time) are a million miles off (and they very well could be), it would appear that the debate over whether the killing of Bin Ladin grew from efforts launched during the Bush administration are over. So too would the debate about whether Bush deserves some credit for this. Instead, the real debate should be about whether the killing of Bin Ladin came as a direct result of – and in all likelihood, only occurred because of – enhanced interrogations and “black” detentions that Bush took a lot of heat for, that people on this message board who are now celebrating opposed, and that candidate Obama routinely condemned. A further important issue to debate, more important than who gets how much credit, is whether we have, in disbanding the black site CIA prisons and publicly ending EITs we (and Obama in particular), denied future Presidents valuable lines intelligence that might otherwise lead to key victories such as Sunday’s in the GWOT? I think the answers need to be flushed out to the greatest extent possible not because they might vindicate Bush or embarrass Obama, but because we need to know what we have given up by ending some of Bush’s very controversial policies.
38. Brendan Loy Post authorMay 2, 2011 at 8:33 pm

    By the way – like AML, I do not necessarily disagree with your point that Obama says “I” and “me” a bit much. I don’t see it as a huge problem, but sure, he could dial it back a bit.

    But that’s a relatively trivial point. It has nothing to do with your wholesale attacks on him, and use of terms like “Pretender-in-Chief” to describe him on the day after he ordered an attack that killed America’s archenemy.
39. AMLTrojan May 2, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    Brendan @ #35, your run-on sentence was a tad difficult to follow, but what I think you’re trying to say is that Bush’s speech used a lot of I’s as well, and therefore that undermines Alasdair’s point. Perhaps, but to me, the treatment of the first person in the two speeches is categorically different. In Bush’s speech, the I is more incidental to the action: “I have a special word…”; “when I look…, I see”. In contrast, Obama is “I directed”, “I met repeatedly”, “I determined”; “at my direction” — the focus is always on him as the principal actor. It’s as if he has a speechwriter whispering into his ear, “You don’t want to be caricatured as a weak, peacenik Democrat, so you must use strong, decisive language.” That’s simply horrible advice for a man like Obama, who has never had his masculinity called into question and who hasn’t done anything overly stupid like riding down the street in a tank trying to look “presidential”. Instead, it simply amplifies one of his most notable character traits, which is self-confidence, to off-putting, chin-in-the-air arrogance.
40. Cartman May 2, 2011 at 8:42 pm

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110502/us_time/08599206899800

    Here’s the link previously alluded to.
41. Alasdair May 2, 2011 at 9:45 pm

    Brendan #38 – this humble person could give a rodent’s fundament how many times Mr Obama uses first person statements … this person *does* object to the arrogance and arrogating practised by said Mr Obama …

    Had Mr Obama instead said something along the lines of “As Commander-in-Chief, I am proud of what our valiant band of Navy Seals has achieved … our CIA Chief made capture or killing of OBL our highest al Qaeda priority” and the like, I would have gained some respect for him … rather, since he chose the Pretender role – pretending to the Hero role – he earned the term “Pretender-in-Chief” – precisely because he pretended to something which he had not done or earned … he didn’t kill OBL – a Navy Seal did – and Obama felt it was appropriate to appropriate to himself the credit for having done so – or so his speech pretty much would lead one to believe …

    Bush’s speech gave the credit to those who had earned it … and didn’t try to keep it for hinself … Obama’s mentioned others as being worthy in passing, if at all …

    Another way of looking at it is Bush saying “I saw these folk do well”, “I am proud of what those folk did/are doing” and Obama saying “I did well” and “I am proud of what I did/am doing” – and Bush was referring to what armed forces did and Obama was referring to what armed forces did … *I* see a big contrast … the number of times they use the word “I” doesn’t matter … *how* they use it *does* matter …

    It boils down to “Character matters” …
42. Brendan Loy Post authorMay 2, 2011 at 11:34 pm

    Ah, I see. Naturally, your objection isn’t to anything objective (the words they said), but rather to “how” they said those words — in your subjective judgment of whether that manner (the “how”) is proper. Of course, needless to say, it is utterly inconceivable that you would ever object to the manner in which a Republican president said his words, because you would always give a Republican’s words the most charitable interpretation possible, just as you always give a Democrat’s words the most uncharitable interpretation possible.

    And then, somehow, you extrapolate from your uncharitable rhetorical analysis of the usage of “I” and “me” — a deeply unserious, trivial issue upon which to judge a presidency (as opposed to merely being irked by a rhetorical tic) — that it’s reasonable to call a Democratic president (on the day after he ordered the killing of America’s archenemy) the “Pretender-in-Chief,” even though you would, of course, object strongly to such an insulting title being applied by far-left liberals to a Republican president, notwithstanding that they can certainly come up with equally silly explanations for why their terminology is reasonable.

    It boils down to “You’re a blind partisan” …
43. Brendan Loy Post authorMay 2, 2011 at 11:44 pm

    By the way, in case this is unclear out of context, I am not really morbidly offended by your calling Obama the “Pretender-in-Chief.” I mean, whatever. Obama’s a big boy; he can take it. Nor is my job here to defend his honor, or that of the presidency. “Pretender-in-Chief” is an insult, but it takes a lot more than that to truly, deeply insult me.

    Instead, I’m merely making a point. That’s the sort of rhetoric you rightly decried for eight years when Bush was president and the far Left was employing the nasty, unjustified, over-the-top rhetoric. Now you routinely use such rhetoric yourself, under the least appropriate circumstances imaginable (HE JUST FUCKING HAD BIN LADEN KILLED), and on the flimsiest bases imaginable (he says “I” too much, so he’s “pretending” to be the one who personally killed Bin Laden*, so he’s a “Pretender-in-Chief”! haha! so clever!).

    There is no curse in Entish, Elvish of the Tongues of Men for your endless, unfathomably unserious, intellectually bankrupt partisan hackery.

    (*Obviously, this is a patently absurd, utterly risible, totally fucking nonsensical claim, one that no serious person with a shred of common sense can possibly believe is true. Obama did give full credit to the armed forces; he effusively praised them, as he always does; in no way did he claim to have personally killed Osama bin Laden; in no way did he denigrate or downplay the heroism of the servicemembers who actually did the deed. Is he guilty of the rhetorical sin of being a bit too self-referential in his choice of words at times? Sure. Can the tic grate a bit? Yes. Is he arrogating all credit to himself at the expense of the armed forces? No, of course not; that is sheer, unadulterated nonsense.)
44. Rebecca Loy May 2, 2011 at 11:53 pm

    @AML, regarding ME democratization, I’m willing to take a more ‘wait and see’ approach with it. These regime changes and democracy movements are like newborns. I’m not willing to call them failures because the circumstances of their births are less than stellar. I’m willing to wait and see if they show some intelligence, personality and tenacity first. However, if you’d like to declare Egypt a failed state based on two months after its revolution, I’m perfectly willing to mock you later if it turns out well. And if it turns out poorly, I may be inclined to give you grudging respect, if only for a lucky guess. 😛

    The analysis of Obama’s speech as self-aggrandizing is stupid partisanship at its worst. Such commentary to me is about as valuable as Jersey Shore episodes, as relevant as my thoughts on particle physics and as entertaining as snorting shards of glass.
45. Brendan Loy Post authorMay 3, 2011 at 12:02 am

    @ AML, no, I’m not saying Bush is as self-referential as Obama. I already acknowledged Obama could dial down the self-referential tone somewhat. Rather, I’m merely saying that Alasdair is a shameless partisan hack who would never criticize any Republican for the same things that he is not only criticizing Obama for, but is using as a flimsy, ridiculous excuse to denigrate Obama’s entire presidency. In any event, I’m not sure why I waste my time, but I guess I’ve just reached my breaking point with his endlessly vacuous partisan drivel. Anyway, I’m going to shut up now because I’m just making it worse by talking about it. *facepalm*
46. Alasdair May 3, 2011 at 2:01 am

    Brendan #42 – I just quoted directly to you examples of how one President was self-aggrandising and the other was not … how about you quote to me where “Obama did give full credit to the armed forces; he effusively praised them, as he always does;” …

    I do agree that ” in no way did he denigrate or downplay the heroism of the servicemembers who actually did the deed.” – especially given how little he even referred to them, how could he have downplayed or denigrated them …

    Or do you consider ” A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability.” to be ” effusively praised them” ?

    So far, twice, you have ignored my explicit central point … Obama in and of himself seems not to be capable of the Presidential gravitas that Reagan managed, that Bush I managed, and that Bush II managed to convey clearly even as he mangled the pure english language … *I* don’t give the proverbial rodent’s fundament, partisan or otherwise, about rhetorical flourishes … I *do* care when a supposed commander-in-chief is full of how *he* did this, and *he* did that, by giving the order to take out bin Laden (which effort by Navy Seals succeeded), and somehow “effusively” managed not to mention that Navy Seals did it ?

    Yes, he did say “We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.” … note how, characteristically, he manages *not* to express that “*I* thank these men …” … in English language, this is known as “damning with faint praise” …

    So – by all means project blind partisanship on me, or others who do not agree with you politically … it is still projection … and, of course, you can prove me wrong quite trivially – all you have to do is show us all where in that speech he referenced Navy – or Seals – or helicopter pilots – as opposed to the many references to himself, to his team, to his CIA chief by name …

    Oh, and, as an extension of the projection, in *this* post, I cannot criticise *any* Republican for the same thing about which I am criticising Obama because I know of no Republican who has been so self absorbed and arrogant with respect to US Armed Forces personnel who carried out significant missions of national importance … in *that* respect, Obama is indeed The One … again, if I am wrong, cite such a Republican …
47. Alasdair May 3, 2011 at 2:13 am

    It seems I am not alone in my “shameless partisan hack” mode … at the LA Times, that well-known GOP-partisan-hack rag, this article shamelessly is less-than-flattering to the Noble Commander-in-Chief who had such a tense time over the weekend … “According to another one of those White House briefings of reporters designed to suck up all available credit for good news, President Obama’s homeland security advisor reveals that it was a really tense time in the air-conditioned White House as unidentified U.S. Navy SEALs closed in on the world’s most wanted man after midnight a half a world away.” …
48. dcl May 3, 2011 at 7:21 am

    Al, lest I confuse you with facts, that’s an op-ed pice you linked to. Which means it says jack shit about the tone of the paper on the subject just what Andrew Malcolm happens to think. So your point at 47 is nothing other than someone else somewhere happens to agree with you. Perhaps you haven’t heard that it is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

    Your risible asininity makes me want to vomit.
49. AMLTrojan May 3, 2011 at 7:53 am

    @AML, regarding ME democratization, I’m willing to take a more ‘wait and see’ approach with it. These regime changes and democracy movements are like newborns. I’m not willing to call them failures because the circumstances of their births are less than stellar. I’m willing to wait and see if they show some intelligence, personality and tenacity first. However, if you’d like to declare Egypt a failed state based on two months after its revolution, I’m perfectly willing to mock you later if it turns out well. And if it turns out poorly, I may be inclined to give you grudging respect, if only for a lucky guess. 😛

    Becky, you make no sense. I made no predictions for any of the revolutions, let alone Egypt. And like I said, arguing for a hands-off, “wait-and-see” approach is fine — but that is not how you characterized Obama’s actions initially. You called his policies “appeasement” and cited them as successfully sparking democratization. But you can’t have it both ways: either Obama has taken some action to spark democracy in the Middle East, or he has been sitting on his hands waiting to see how things turn out. Clearly his foreign policy has been marked more by the latter (inaction in Syria and Iran, muted quietness on Bahrain and Yemen), and in the few instances where he has lifted a finger, it’s usually been half-measures (bombing Libya) or counterproductive (backing an accelerated election schedule in Egypt). There’s room in this world for Uncle Sam to be a midwife to democracy as well as the World’s Policeman.
50. gahrie May 3, 2011 at 7:53 am

    1) It is a good thing Osama is dead.

    2) President Obama deserves to take some credit for his death…he had the responsibility if things went wrong.

    3) Dumping the body at sea was a mistake.
51. dcl May 3, 2011 at 8:14 am

    I’m not sure dumping the body at sea was a mistake. It’s probably the best of bad options. The last thing you want is Osama’s corpse becoming some kind of shrine to martyrdom or some crap. Parading his head around on a pike doesn’t really gain us much in this day and age. I am a bit annoyed they bothered to give him a proper burial. But other than that, I think the issue of the body was handled reasonably well.
52. Joe Mama May 3, 2011 at 9:01 am

    It kind of bothers me that the U.S. military had to wash this guy’s balls before dumping him in the ocean. I like to think that some of them maybe carved their initials or USA into him beforehand … me, I would’ve cut off his prick and shoved it up his ass …
53. AMLTrojan May 3, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    Joe @ #52, it just occurred to me what a perfect example we have here of how the gamut of hidden fame runs across the military. On the one extreme, you have the SEAL who put a bullet in Osama’s head; on the other, the presumed Navy coroner who had to wash Osama’s balls. Both men, I’m quite certain, are happy to remain anonymous — for both the same and divergent reasons.
54. Alasdair May 4, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    dc #48 – you are seemingly unaware of the LATimes’ track record for partisanship … the fact that the article was allowed to be published as associated with the LATimes is remarkable in and of itself …

    More significantly, the writer of the article didn’t write it to show agreement with what I wrote … he came to the same conclusions that *I* (and many others) did …

    For a nice simple graphic expression of this, look at this a nicely subtle (almost Rorschach) non-partisan commentary …
55. dcl May 4, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    Really Al? Really?

    First, your second paragraph is a farcical canard. You linked to someone that possessed your same opinion, which is what I said. So you can try and twist into meaning something other than what it means, but either that is transparently stupid or you are or both.

    It was in the op-ed section. Regardless of what you think of the paper’s general poltics, the fact that it was in the op-ed section means it means nothing in regard to the papers general stance. Especially given the dude seems to have a regular column. Much like David Brooks, they arn’t going to tell him what to think. And it doesn’t make it not an op-ed. Are you really that stupid?

    The cartoon is cute, but kind of irrelevant to the point I thought we were talking about.
56. Rebecca Loy May 4, 2011 at 1:26 pm

    AML, you sound like you have a bit of sand in your vagina that Obama’s supposedly wimpy foreign policy is creating (or, at least overseeing) dramatic results whereas Bush’s dramatic wars and executions produced only wishy washy results and dangerous consequences, like the exaggerated importance of Iran. You can bitch about how Obama should use our muscle to support insurgents, but I don’t think the American electorate or the GOP House has the stomach for more war expenses, given the howling over the cost of our bombs at the beginning of the Libyan campaign. Seems to me that Obama knows the flat-lining pulse of an empty piggy bank and a war-weary public won’t support an ambitious military campaign, like you advocate. A bit of gangsta behind the scenes support seems more apropos.

    Personally, I think it’s a shame that Bush didn’t articulate a domino theory for democracy in the ME: that by creating democracy in Iraq, we would encourage it elsewhere. If he had, he might get more credit for current unrest. But alas, Bush and articulation weren’t exactly buddies.
57. Brendan Loy Post authorMay 4, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    Becky, maybe I was reading too many neocon blogs in 2002-2004, and not listening to enough of Bush’s actual speeches, but I think he did articulate that vision, albeit not as the primary rationale for war in Iraq.
58. B. Minich May 4, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    Let me back up Brendan here. I was REALLY into the neocon scene in that time frame. Bought it hook, line, and sinker. Took a while to get this stupid hook out. And that vision was articulated. Not the main justification, but a justification nonetheless.

Comments are closed.