4 ms·

At a tactical level, you are correct: the credit goes to the US military. But you have to give credit to Obama too. Bush had his eyes focused on Iraq, and let

by ajays 15y ago

At a tactical level, you are correct: the credit goes to the US military. But you have to give credit to Obama too. Bush had his eyes focused on Iraq, and let BinLaden escape a few times. I still vividly remember, at some press conference a couple of years after 9/11, Bush was asked: what about Bin Laden? He callously replied, "I don't worry about Bin Laden. I don't care about him." So, if Obama had continued Bush's policy, we would not have got Bin Laden. Obama changed the policy and made Bin Laden priority #1 again, and you have the results today.

jamesbritt 15y ago
Obama changed the policy and made Bin Laden priority #1 again, and you have the results today. And you know this because of a comment most likely made to avoid giving bin Laden more public attention or further elevating his importance? Regardless of what one thinks of George W. I have a hard time believing he didn't want bin Laden dead or captured any less than anyone else in the USA, and these kinds of public statements are no way to divine what the CIA has been sent out to do.
- Synthetase 15y ago
  The proof is in the pudding. GWB may have wanted bin Laden dead but never devoted sufficient resources to allow it to happen. The fact that this was an operation which was beginning to be planned 10 months ago is evidence enough of Obama's ownership. According Rumsfeld's chief of staff, it was a team of SEALs that carried out the operation. I might try getting basic facts right before posting obviously motivated comments.
- ajays 15y ago
  You must be a mind-reader to know what GWB was thinking of when he made that comment? (This is not an ad-hominem attack). All we have to go by is GWB's actions and words. The actions at Tora Bora alone are a strong datapoint; but over the years, I remember reading several articles from people actively involved, claiming that insufficient resources were being tasked for hunting Bin Laden. This particular quote from his news conference fits very well with everything else that we saw was going on, hence it is very believable. There was also one Whitehouse Correspondents' Dinner, where GWB joked about looking under the sofa in the WH for Bin Laden. I myself remember asking myself (and in discussions) countless times, "why aren't we making Bin Laden priority #1, and not Saddam?". Do you remember how we hunted Saddam? Do you remember anything comparable for Bin Laden after the first couple of years? If you would like to counter this statement of GWB, you are welcome to provide evidence (news articles, etc.) to buttress your claim. All I know is: I was frustrated with us not putting sufficient resources into tracking OBL, and when Obama forcefully said that we'd be making him enemy #1 again, I was delighted.
  - jamesbritt 15y ago
    If you would like to counter this statement of GWB, you are welcome to provide evidence (news articles, etc.) to buttress your claim. My point was that "news articles, etc.", as well as 3rd-hand accounts and hearsay, are likely insufficient to determine just what the CIA is up to. But maybe Wikileaks has something.

by ajays 15y ago

jamesbritt 15y ago

Obama changed the policy and made Bin Laden priority #1 again, and you have the results today. And you know this because of a comment most likely made to avoid giving bin Laden more public attention or further elevating his importance? Regardless of what one thinks of George W. I have a hard time believing he didn't want bin Laden dead or captured any less than anyone else in the USA, and these kinds of public statements are no way to divine what the CIA has been sent out to do.

Synthetase 15y ago
The proof is in the pudding. GWB may have wanted bin Laden dead but never devoted sufficient resources to allow it to happen. The fact that this was an operation which was beginning to be planned 10 months ago is evidence enough of Obama's ownership. According Rumsfeld's chief of staff, it was a team of SEALs that carried out the operation. I might try getting basic facts right before posting obviously motivated comments.
ajays 15y ago
You must be a mind-reader to know what GWB was thinking of when he made that comment? (This is not an ad-hominem attack). All we have to go by is GWB's actions and words. The actions at Tora Bora alone are a strong datapoint; but over the years, I remember reading several articles from people actively involved, claiming that insufficient resources were being tasked for hunting Bin Laden. This particular quote from his news conference fits very well with everything else that we saw was going on, hence it is very believable. There was also one Whitehouse Correspondents' Dinner, where GWB joked about looking under the sofa in the WH for Bin Laden. I myself remember asking myself (and in discussions) countless times, "why aren't we making Bin Laden priority #1, and not Saddam?". Do you remember how we hunted Saddam? Do you remember anything comparable for Bin Laden after the first couple of years? If you would like to counter this statement of GWB, you are welcome to provide evidence (news articles, etc.) to buttress your claim. All I know is: I was frustrated with us not putting sufficient resources into tracking OBL, and when Obama forcefully said that we'd be making him enemy #1 again, I was delighted.
- jamesbritt 15y ago
  If you would like to counter this statement of GWB, you are welcome to provide evidence (news articles, etc.) to buttress your claim. My point was that "news articles, etc.", as well as 3rd-hand accounts and hearsay, are likely insufficient to determine just what the CIA is up to. But maybe Wikileaks has something.