And Mark Levin and Sean Hannity. Their dilemma is acute: how acknowledge the accomplishment of their decade-long desideratum–the killing of Osama Bin Laden–without giving Obama credit? Arguably, Obama doesn’t deserve credit: he is the beneficiary of the continuous workings of the intelligence and military bureaucracy and just happened to be at the right place at the right time: at the country’s head when the opportunity to kill OBL finally presented itself. But the right-wing punditocracy has already in theory ruled out that position, having blamed the Obama intelligence community for having nearly missed the would-be underwear bomber, even though most of the relevant personnel responsible for that oversight undoubtedly were hold-overs from the Bush days. So if Obama deserves the blame for failures of military intelligence, he should in theory deserve credit. We’ll see.
Rush update:
Rush’s strategy: ostentatiously, with unctuous noblesse oblige, give credit to Obama for maintaining Bush anti-terrorism policies which made—per Limbaugh–the Osama assassination possible, while mocking the press for pumping up the momentousness of the event and mocking the Obama Administration for allegedly spinning the killing as an accomplishment of the Obama Administration (Rush: “Listen to him; it’s all ‘me, me, me’”). In other words, the hall of mirrors quality of modern politics continues unabated. If Rush is right to ironize the media coverage and to detect in it a political agenda, is there any doubt that had Bush killed Osama, the right would be celebrating it as a Bush victory—and assessing its effect on the next presidential election, something which Rush, in his new, “I’m above politics” mode, now scorns?
Limbaugh has been reassuring his listeners that this event does not improve Obama’s election chances—probably rightly so. But his efforts to focus attention back on the economy are particularly amusing: “In fact, five and a half million Americans will lose their unemployment benefits this week. Five and a half million Americans shut out.” This lachrymose dirge from a long-time opponent of extending unemployment insurance.
You said ‘dilemma’ and not ‘field day’. That is darn cute.
Actually, Obama does deserve quite a bit of credit. If this had gone wrong, it could have been a Desert Eagle scale disaster redux. It took some stones to take this sort of a risk instead of just sending in a Tomahawk or two.
I just wish he’d have shown that sort of fortitude when dealing with Powers and Clinton over Libya.
You say that as if it will actually be particularly difficult for the totally shameless to ignore everything they said before. They do it all the time.
The template was up at the National Review and out in the form of self serving quotes from Don Rumsfeld right away. They’ll credit Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Co. for Gitmo and go right on slamming Obama. I bet that the more totally shameless even ask why he risked American lives by sending in the raid instead of just lobbing cruise missles.
It will not matter to the far right as they will pounce on Obama. Their followers never follow a consistent line of logic anyway.
As of right now (10:14 am PST), Rush has responded by not mentioning it on his site at all. No idea if he’s broadcasting today, but it’s telling that his “Excellence in Broadcasting” Network can’t manage to mention the biggest story of the year so far, apparently because there’s no way to spin it to make Obama look like Rush has always proclaimed he looks.
Normally, Rush has to open his mouth to appear foolish and petty. It’s nice to see him doing that without actually having to listen to him.
Oh that’s easy, just focus on the Navy SEALS who actually did the dirty work. Which has the benefit of being factually correct.
Apparently, this is what he said!:
“President Obama has continued the Bush policies of keeping a military presence in the Middle East. He did not scrub the mission to get Bin Laden. In fact, it may be that President Obama single-handedly came up with the technique in order to pull this off. You see, the military wanted to go in there and bomb as they always do. They wanted to drop missiles and drop bombs and a number of totally destructive techniques here. But President Obama, perhaps the only qualified member in the room to deal with this, insisted on the Special Forces. No one else thought of that. President Obama. Not a single intelligence adviser, not a single national security adviser, not a single military adviser came up with the idea of using SEAL Team 6 or any Special Forces.”
So he went with sarcasm. (I think. Mediaite isn’t reporting it that way and really, I don’t want to listen to that guy speak, so maybe I’m wrong and Rush means this sincerely.) Fair enough. Also, my experience in strategic military intelligence (5 years in and out of Iraq and faculty jobs at the Army Intel School) tells me that yeah: a regular Division would have screwed this up, so I actually agree with Rush on this point.
Obviously Seal Teams are not Obama’s idea. We used them in Iraq when Bush was President to, among other things, kill Zarqawi. Obama did, apparently, focus efforts on OBL beyond the then-current Bush policy, and Obama has showm more interest in small operations, as opposed to major military interventions, which are both cheaper and more effective at counter-terrorism. Just like Rush said.
Weird day.
He managed to say “Obama” then correct himself to say “Osama” twice within the first few minutes of the show. If the mission had failed, I suspect it would have been three hours of how incompetent, and perhaps treasonous, Obama is. Instead, there was a lot of sarcasm about Obama taking all the credit. He must have heard a different speech given by Obama than the one I heard.
OK, I guess I get to be the shameless partisan. The reason why I blame Obama for mistakes like the underwear bomber, but am not inclined to give him much credit for killing Osama is his stance on defense issues overall.
Suppose that Michael Dukakis has won the 1988 election, and the USSR had fallen the same way that it did. Would we be cheering Dukakis because the Cold War ended on his watch? No, we would rightfully have attributed it to policies enacted before he got there.
Obama wants to slash defense to cut the deficit (defense is about the only thing left after all his exemptions to his “failsafe trigger”), opposes reasonable airport security measures (profiling), wanted to pull out of Gitmo until the adults told him he couldn’t, is wasting resources on a badly fought war in Libya, is outsourcing our foreign policy to the UN, and on, and on.
Given all of this, it is hard to believe Obama’s role in killing Osama was anything other than saying “OK” when the generals told him the plan. There isn’t much point in pretending otherwise.
In fairness, John, Bush demagogued the “profiling” issue during the 2000 elections, so you can’t just pin that on Obama. Really, he helped set up 9/11 with his anti-profiling foofarah, as one of the ticket agents admitted squelching his fears about Atta because of his own fear of being perceived as “racist.”
Also, Obama didn’t just say “OK”. He was more than aware of Desert Eagle and other disasters. If this had failed, it would have been a massive political disaster, and, more importantly, a loss of human life.
Otherwise I tend to agree with you. Obama’s speech had what others had noted as nasty tendency to use “I” for anything good that happened after 2008, and “we” for anything good that happened before 2008. He’s also more than willing to use this to political advantage, which is fine, but you can’t complain when the other side responds in kind.
” is wasting resources on a badly fought war in Libya, is outsourcing our foreign policy to the UN, and on, and on.”
That’s fairly tribal, isnt it. Do you know whats a huge waste of American time and money in the Middle East – the war on Iraq, a war based on lies, and deceit and contrary to American interests in the region. Afghanistan is different, even if just as – or more – difficult. This should stare you in the face – there was no Baathist link to 9/11 ( so first cause is out), no WMD and at the very end the neo-cons were calling for a liberal intervention, more of less, which is why leftists like Hitchens came on board. The neo-cons are clearly out of favour because many of them support Libya. Neither is in American interests. Killing Osama was good work.
As for Rush’s sarcasm. It does seem like he is crediting Obama ( or ironically, somebody else) with not blowing the hell out of the place. He may be claiming that the opposite happened – Obama wanted to blow it up, less chance of a Iran incident – and the army advised against. In any case he was reported as being enthusiastic for Obama in this case. And he seems, in transcript, to be.
Yes, Iraq was a waste of lives and money, but that doesn’t make Obama’s adventure in Libya better. In fact, given the Iraq example, the man can’t even plead ignorance. The only advantage he can claim over Bush is that this time he managed to get France on board, and still the outcome of the war is in question.
What a pleasure — to read the text, where Capital and small letters are typed according to standard rules of English writing.
Respectfully, F.r.
@Poli: “The only advantage he can claim over Bush is that this time he managed to get France on board, and still the outcome of the war is in question.”
Well, that and no troops on the ground, no bases, no KBR contract, no open-ended occupation, no false premises to get us there….
Libya feels more like Bosnia than Iraq to me, and it’s not just the initial after the President’s name. Is anyone still pissed off at Clinton for Bosnia? No. We won’t be able to say the same for Bush 12 years from now. That’s because there are a lot more “advantages over Bush” than having France on board.
Well, there is one more difference. Saddam is dead. Gaddafi isn’t.
Well, that and no troops on the ground…
…and no definitive results.
…no bases, no KBR contract, no open-ended occupation…
Now we have an open-ended civil war instead, when it would have ended otherwise in a few weeks. I disagreed with his decision to invade, and thought his justifications were largely bullsh!t, but at least Bush was willing to follow through and stick to his commitment.
Also, it’s not as if the other side Obama picked looks to be any better than Khaddafi, as many of them are closely tied to Al Qaeda.
…no false premises to get us there…
The threats of Khaddificide were bullsh!t, plain and simple.
You also forgot one other thing that’s missing from the Libyan balance: No American interest. Even Obama’s SecDef admitted to that.
Given the Persian Gulf situation after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and our resulting permanent troops presence in the area, Bush could at least cite a serious U.S. interest in removing Hussein.
Khaddafi had long since submitted to U.S. demands to disarm, so there was and is no American interest in the Libyan conflict. All you have are humanitarian concerns, and those have been exacerbated by Obama’s half-hearted involvement.
Too, your outrage over KBR is bit silly when you go on to laud Clinton, given how he gave them lots-o-money in places like Camp Bondsteel
Really, your argument comes to down to saying that Obama didn’t screw up as much as Bush. Let’s grant that arguendo. He still screwed up. He got pushed into a war that he would only half commit to, despite precedents that should have warned him off, and the people in Libya are now living with that. If you want to say that no one here may notice that in twelve years, fine. But I don’t think the Libyans will feel that way.
Well, there is one more difference. Saddam is dead. Gaddafi isn’t.
Eventually, Gadaffi will have to go. I don’t see how Obama will want to go into 2012 with that guy still in power. Obama will probably find himself having to commit troops, as the Libyan rebels aren’t really up to the job of finshing Gadaffi off. It’s either that, or Obama will still wind up looking like Carter.
…or maybe Obama will get lucky. Napoleon said he preferred lucky generals to good ones. Obama has certainly had his share of good breaks.
“Obama will probably find himself having to commit troops”
You could very well be right, in which case all arguments that the left made against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will have been shown to be posturing, not that they’ll notice.
“but at least Bush was willing to follow through and stick to his commitment.”
Bush (‘s Administration) took steps to squelch any mention of post-regime change planning prior to the invasion for fear that it would make Americans less likely to go to war. After Iraqq turned into a nightmare, Bush’s response was to pretend as if there had been a plan all along, and still no firm plan was made. “Follow through” is the LAST thing I would accuse Bush of doing, with regard to war planning. I really don’t know what planet you’re on sometimes, Poli.
As for Obama in Libya, you’re quite the armchair general with your belief that this all should be over by now. Where you imagine you get this expertise I’ll never know, but I bet it’s the same place Michelle Malkin gets hers.
You are so confident, that you believe any Libyan civil war would have been over in a few weeks. Right. Like Iraq’s civil war, or Rwanda’s, or… actually, have there been any civil wars that lasted less than a month in human history? I sure can’t think of any. Too bad Obama screwed us out of seeing the first one ever in Libya!
I’m no great fan of the Libya situation either, but are you such a keen observer of political behavior that you think Bush or McCain wouldn’t have sent a ton more troops into yet another war zone at the first whiff of a chance for regime change? (It’s what many of his advisors have been saying.)
Come on, Poli! What side do you imagine you’re on? If Obama had lost the last election, we’d be over a month into a ground war in Libya (either that, or it would have started and finished by now, apparently), and already be drawing up plans to invade Islamabad. I’ll take non-committal air strikes (more “committal” by a mile than St. Reagan’s, btw) over what the Krauthammers and Kristols, whose ideas actually become policy under GOP presidents, are advocating any day.
“You could very well be right, in which case all arguments that the left made against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will have been shown to be posturing, not that they’ll notice.”
You confuse the anti-war left with President Obama, who was never on the anti-war left. Do you actually not know that the left criticizes Obama and other Democrats constantly over waffling of this sort? Rachel Maddow does it practically every night! So no, committing troops would not show anti-war sentiment on the left to be “posturing,” except to the extent that the left supports Obama in this (something we didn’t even do when he expande the Afghanistan mission).
Also, the left could sign on for every land war that comes up in the next 20 years and still not have to feel a moment of doubt over Iraq, because the Iraq War was based on a lie. There’s no escaping that central fact: no Saddam-AQ connection and no WMDs. Your convenient amnesia on this point is the posturing, John.
“Follow through” is the LAST thing I would accuse Bush of doing, with regard to war planning. I really don’t know what planet you’re on sometimes, Poli.
There was monumental incompetence when it came to the occupation, but Bush did see the situation through when he could have declared victory and left after Hussein was captured.
I’m not happy with the Iraq War, and I opposed it from the beginning, but the Bush Administration did manage to correct most of their major errors and the Iraq is in a lot better shape than most of us would have expected.
As for Obama in Libya, you’re quite the armchair general with your belief that this all should be over by now.
Not to get too personal, but my “armchair generalship” led me to oppose invading Iraq in 2002, so my record’s not so bad on that point.
To the point, when we intervened, Ghaddafi was rapidly moving westward and was on the point of taking Benghazi. The rebels would have probably then retired to Tobruk, and then they would have scuttled over the Egyptian frontier.
Given the rebels’ inability to make solid progress, even with NATO acting as their air force, I don’t see anything suggesting a different outcome.
I’m no great fan of the Libya situation either, but are you such a keen observer of political behavior that you think Bush or McCain wouldn’t have sent a ton more troops into yet another war zone at the first whiff of a chance for regime change? (It’s what many of his advisors have been saying.)
Uh, yeah. That’s the point. If you’re going to commit to a fight, then commit to the fight. Otherwise, stay the hell out. Bush or McCain would have at least finished off the war rather quickly.
Look, we’re being told Khadaffi is a genocidal monster. Well, then why aren’t we seriously trying to get him (something beyond desultory airstrikes)? If he’s not worth that much effort, then why intervene and extend a war?
The one thing that kept me supporting Obama over McCain in 2008 was his reluctance to get involved. But now he’s given half a commitment to opposing Libya, which really means we’re totally on the hook for the outcome but can’t assure it. Add on to that his insistence on expanding government at an insane rate, his pushing of amnesty and subverting the rule of law in areas like labor relations, I’m being forced to support whatever dud the GOP throws up in 2012.
As far as Pakistan goes, Obama was actually the more hawkish, BTW, and I think he deserves some credit for that. Given that Islamabad (or important elements therein) were hiding the guy responsible for 9/11, an invasion (at least a punitive one) might not be totally out of order.
“Also, the left could sign on for every land war that comes up in the next 20 years and still not have to feel a moment of doubt over Iraq, because the Iraq War was based on a lie. There’s no escaping that central fact: no Saddam-AQ connection and no WMDs.”
Bush never said that Saddam directly supported Al Qaeda. All he said was that Saddam supported terrorism, which was true. He was paying the families of Palestinians who were blowing up night clubs.
There were no WMDs, at by the time we got there. Saddam definitely had WMDs once–he gassed the Kurds. Take a look at these pictures, if you haven’t eaten in awhile:
http://www.google.com/search?q=kurds+gassed&hl=en&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=HVjDTYvwFIyztwewwKSnBA&sqi=2&ved=0CDwQsAQ&biw=1316&bih=757
I don’t know what happened to the rest of the gas, but I’m curious. I’m willing to bet it didn’t disappear into thin air.
He had a long history of trying to develop nukes. Israel had to bomb a site in the 80’s where he was developing them. Had it not been for Desert Storm, he would have gotten them by the mid 90’s. By the time Bush 43 invaded in the 00’s, the sanctions regime had completely fallen apart, and Saddam would have pushed for nukes again, especially since Iran is getting them.
The left doesn’t have any doubt? Neither do I. There is no way anyone can make the claim that Gaddafi was a greater threat than Saddam. On the contrary, after we took Iraq, Gaddafi gave up his program because he was afraid that we’d go after him next. We basically agreed that he’d leave us alone if we left him alone. Now that Obama has bombed his country and killed one of his children, it’s fair to say that deal is off. We’ll probably have to wait for the next Republican president to clean the mess up.
I spent two years working strategic and tactical intelligence in Iraq. I know about the gassing of the Kurds. The question was whether Saddam had a WMD Program–sojmething positively asserted by Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and Tenet. It. Was. A. Lie.
The rest of that gas, by the way, was inert by 2003. The inspectors and the Bush Administration knew that. I was in a convoy that was attacked by one of the old chemical weapons in Summer 2004, which was by that point nothing more than a weak explosive.
As for the nuke issue, counter to the narrative that the right insisted upon at the time, inspections were working. They were working so well, in fact, that Saddam had neither a nuclear program, nor the germ of one. At least according to MI6’s source, the guy who, if there were such a program, would have been in charge of it. The Brits turned this source over to us, but our response was to ignore him entirely, insisting upon the wishful-thinking version of events that would get us into the war.
“Now that Obama has bombed his country and killed one of his children, it’s fair to say that deal is off. We’ll probably have to wait for the next Republican president to clean the mess up.”
Are you suggesting that one should vote Republican, at least in part, to get back in the good graces of Muammar Gaddafi? Seriously, you should consider an opinion before publishing it on the internet.
I’ll give you this: you’re original. You may be the only person in America who thinks that Obama made a mistake by de-friending Gaddafi, and that re-friending him should be the goal of a future Administration. I mean, WOW.
OK, this is my last post on this exchange:
The only reason why Gaddafi was allowing inspectors was because Bush was threatening to invade. The sanctions regime was falling apart because people were losing the stomach to keep pressuring Saddam. Saddam was bribing the French and Russians to ignore the sanctions, which they did. If not for Bush, there would be no inspections, no sanctions with teeth, and Saddam would be well on his way to getting nukes, if he didn’t have them already.
No, I am not saying we should “refriend” Gaddafi. Obama burnt that bridge permanantly. We are going to have to hope we’re lucky and he dies or is overthrown, or we will have to kill him ourselves. The next time a German nightclub is blown up with Libyan assistance, we can all thank Obama.
“This time I think the Americans are serious. Bush is not like Clinton. I think this is the end.” – Odai Hussein, April 2003
“The only reason why Gaddafi was allowing inspectors was because Bush was threatening to invade.”
Really? Can you cite anything to back up this assertion? I think you’re making it up.
“sanctions… Saddam… nukes”
Nothing in this paragraph even remotely describes what is known about that era, or begins to justify going to war. It sounds like you’re trying to convince yourself of something. Maybe it’s working, but your premises are false.
“We are going to have to hope we’re lucky and he dies or is overthrown, or we will have to kill him ourselves.”
You still seem to believe that good, rosy relations with Muammar Gadaffi, of all people/regimes, is a positive goal for US foreign policy. Do you know how odd that makes you?
“The next time a German nightclub is blown up with Libyan assistance, we can all thank Obama.”
That is a despicable thing to say, and it makes you look as if you haven’t read a news story about Libya in years. Also, it makes you look like a right wing hack, and a dick.
News flash: Gadaffi has more enemies than us now. You can thank Obama for that, by the way. Bush might have gone in unilaterally, then the blame wouldn’t be so easy to pass around. Of course, I’m not as quick as you to turn tail at the spectre of a pissed off Gadaffi. I think that whatever he brings in retaliation, we can handle pretty easily. I’m not one to willy-nilly piss off the world, but come on: you write as if Gaddafi is a threat to us.
The Odai quote is just ridiculous. All it shows is that Bush was willing to lead his country into war more readily than Clinton, which we knew already. Pushing the country into war based on lies is a far greater sin than allowing Odai Hussein to live.