Obama Discusses Osama bin Laden Raid on "60 Minutes"

President Obama is still walking a tight line when it comes to Pakistan's possible role in sheltering Osama bin Laden. On "60 Minutes", taped a few days ago but airing tonight:

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We think that there had to be some sort of support network for bin Laden inside of Pakistan. But we don't know who or what that support network was. We don't know whether there might have been some people inside of government, people outside of government, and that's something that we have to investigate, and more importantly, the Pakistani government has to investigate. And we've already communicated to them, and they have indicated they have a profound interest in finding out what kinds of support networks bin Laden might have had. But these are questions that we're not going to be able to answer three or four days after the event. It's going to take some time for us to be able to exploit the intelligence that we were able to gather on site.

The full interview, transcript and video, is here.

< When Ignorance Is Bliss | Pakistan's Prime Minister Addresses Parliament on Osama bin Laden Raid >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Worth watching (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun May 08, 2011 at 07:23:43 PM EST
    It was a good interview. Near political perfection IMO.

    I'm sure his comments about justice--played twice during the broadcast--will not appeal to Jeralyn. They again show that Mr. cold and sober has a real political sense, though.

    Obama really is the classic ... (2.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Sun May 08, 2011 at 08:23:24 PM EST
    example of the projection politician.  He says "we don't need to spike the football" after spiking the football for anyone with a camera and thirty seconds of disc space.

    And, it makes me so sad that you find this "political perfection".  This type of appeal to human barbarism was old when Julius Caesar was young.

    Nothing cold and sober here.  All hot and drunken.  And old, oh, so, so ... old.


    He did exactly what was needed (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun May 08, 2011 at 08:28:36 PM EST
    Believe me: there are politicians who would have preened much more.

    Preening is preening ...` (none / 0) (#6)
    by Robot Porter on Sun May 08, 2011 at 08:38:08 PM EST
    and spiking is spiking.

    There was a time when American politicians appeared on Sixty Minutes to deny they were engaging in political assassinations.

    Now they go on the show to brag about it.  And preen like it's going out of style.


    He didn't exactly confirm (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sun May 08, 2011 at 08:47:25 PM EST
    that he ordered an assassination either.

    In any case, this was a military operation against Osama bin Laden. I don't think "assassination" captures what happened--or why.


    It was clearly an assassination. (3.50 / 2) (#38)
    by masslib on Mon May 09, 2011 at 12:07:14 PM EST
    Why are people who support it so uncomfortable with it?  It would have been difficult to take Osama alive, maybe impossible.  Doesn't change the fact that this was a blatant assassination.

    Please research the legal differences between (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by steviez314 on Mon May 09, 2011 at 02:50:14 PM EST
    assassination and targeted killing of enemy combatant before using the word "clearly".

    Oh, come now ... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Robot Porter on Sun May 08, 2011 at 08:54:40 PM EST
    As nervous as I was about this whole process, the one thing I didn't lose sleep over was the possibility of taking bin Laden out.

    We've become a much more openly barbaric nation in the last decade.  And you can split hairs on just how much more barbaric.  But you're blind, if you don't see it's happened.


    I think that's fairly ridiculous overstatement (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sun May 08, 2011 at 09:10:45 PM EST
    The torture is novel and outrageous. The attack on bin Laden? Not so much.

    More Barbaric Than What ? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by ScottW714 on Mon May 09, 2011 at 11:30:12 AM EST
    Are you suggesting the modern times are more barbaric than the era of: slavery, the relocation of Indians, witch hunts, the civil war, or A-bombs on Japan.  

    When exactly was this nation not barbaric ?

    I don't think it's that we are more open about it, it's that with communications today, we get every single detail complete with graphics.  And it's not one or two sources, every channel, every news site, and every blog, from local to National to International is broadcasting it.


    Of course it was an assassination, but (none / 0) (#25)
    by observed on Mon May 09, 2011 at 08:45:16 AM EST
    I wouldn't call it political. For me it's hard to argue that it wasn't justified, although if the same standard were applied to George W. Bush...

    Political assassinations (none / 0) (#14)
    by Politalkix on Sun May 08, 2011 at 09:52:24 PM EST
    "There was a time when American politicians appeared on Sixty Minutes to deny they were engaging in political assassinations"

    What is great about politicians ordering assassinations and denying them on television in earlier times?

    Robot Porter, stop obfuscating! The killing of Osama Bin Laden is not a political assassination.

    The President took a big political risk and the special forces team took extraordinary risks to their lives to minimize deaths of people in a residential neighbourhood when it was easier to bomb the place. The President and the Special forces should be commended for this action.


    What was "great"? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by sj on Mon May 09, 2011 at 12:36:05 AM EST
    What is great about politicians ordering assassinations and denying them on television in earlier times?

    The fact that they knew it was wrong.  


    Human Barbarism (none / 0) (#17)
    by Politalkix on Sun May 08, 2011 at 10:29:31 PM EST
    Probably, the only non-"barbaric" thing to do was send a Sufi saint to OBL's hideout to convince him about the error of his ways, extract a promise from him that he would not repeat his "alleged offenses" and let him live out his life in freedom. I think it is pretty barbaric to capture someone who does not believe in the legitimacy of the secular, western judicial system, hold him in captivity and subject him to what some people in this blog consider "due process" to enable some defense lawyers to make money, get television time and satisfy their egos that "justice has been served".

    Sure, Donald. (none / 0) (#99)
    by Politalkix on Mon May 09, 2011 at 09:32:04 PM EST
    I will apologize if you found my comment offensive. I have always had the utmost respect for your comments.
    I was intentionally being a little provocative in my snark since some people in this blog went to extreme lengths to interpret cynical intents in anything the President said or did.

    He's not walking any tight lines when (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Anne on Mon May 09, 2011 at 08:36:01 AM EST
    it comes to the definition of "justice," though:

    From the interview:

    You know, the fact of the matter is this was somebody who was deserving of the justice that he received.


    Justice was done. And I think that anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil didn't deserve what he got needs to have their head examined.

    Don't get me wrong.  Am I sorry OBL is dead?  No, I can't say that I am.  But does his death, happening as it did, exemplify the meaning of the word "justice?"  No, I don't think it does.  And the more I hear Obama frame it that way,as "justice," the more uncomfortable I feel.  And this is not helped by Obama now saying that anyone who doesn't think OBL got what he deserved is, essentially, nuts.

    I completely get that it might not have been possible to take OBL alive - assuming that was ever even a consideration - but the words Obama uses to describe the outcome stand in stark contrast to his comments that OBL isn't a trophy or that we don't need to "spike the football: those words do exactly that, in my opinion.

    Words matter.

    I'm fine with the words (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 09, 2011 at 08:54:17 AM EST
    And given all the circumstances, justice was done for me.

    Agree with you completely, MT (4.00 / 3) (#32)
    by christinep on Mon May 09, 2011 at 11:18:25 AM EST
    Words do matter, and the President's words were the correct words. (Even the Pakistani PM acknowledges now that "justice was done.") No, it wasn't pretty; but then, combat isn't pretty...nor were all events and unpretty killings and declarations of war on the US by the late bin Laden anywhere near pretty.

    What happened to all of Bin Laden's (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 09, 2011 at 12:11:35 PM EST
    victims wasn't pretty either.  I watched the 60 minutes piece this morning and reflect upon what President Obama said about the respect we showed his body and I have no doubt it wasn't somberly yet respectfully tended too.  I have no doubt we treated his body with more respect than he ever treated any of his victims.

    Are you kidding me? (1.67 / 3) (#52)
    by mjames on Mon May 09, 2011 at 01:58:30 PM EST
    Blowing out the brains of an unarmed man at point-blank range (if true, and who among us here really knows the truth) and then throwing his body into the ocean is showing respect?

    You have been expressing this particular point of view - that the military can do no wrong and that the end justifies the means - for days over here. I understand you are connected to the military, but, please, you have no idea what happened.

    I do not see how you can vouch for that which you do not know. Very disturbing.

    Personally, I suspect that this is nothing more than a reelection ploy - and I guess, if I'm right, and judging by your fervor, it's worked to some degree. I cannot believe they couldn't have gotten OBL whenever they wanted. They needed to now. But I don't really know the truth either. All I know is that I would never trust a word this government says about anything, without solid factual proof.

    Lest we forget, OBL was our guy, CIA-trained and supported.


    You a truther too? (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by MKS on Mon May 09, 2011 at 02:14:39 PM EST
    Growing up, all of the men in my family served.  All of them.

    I will not second guess the SEALs who killed Bin Laden.  John Kerry does not.  He said that you could never know if Bin Laden was going to detonante a bomb or reach for a weapon.

    The first goal of the mission is simple:  Our guys come home safe.  Everything else is gravy.....

    Frankly, if I were making the call, I would have bombed the place to Kingdom Come.  Our guys stay safe that way....As it was, many civilians were spared....


    I'm glad we didn't bomb the place (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 09, 2011 at 06:46:26 PM EST
    I'm glad we didn't kill any women and children and I'm glad we got that intelligence.  I think the risks were well worth it. I'm grateful that Seal team six was there and able to do it too.

    Clearly the better and the right call (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by MKS on Mon May 09, 2011 at 07:06:52 PM EST
    Let me understand your reasoning: (none / 0) (#76)
    by mjames on Mon May 09, 2011 at 05:44:15 PM EST
    Your family served in the military; therefore, the military can do no wrong.

    I'm a truther only in the sense that I prefer finding out the truth on any topic. Why don't you? John Kerry is no authority to me; he is as establishment as they come.

    If the first goal of the military - and you did say first - is to come home safe, then maybe they shouldn't ever leave home. That should keep them safe.

    We have killed hundreds of thousands of regular ordinary folk in Iraq, Afghanistan, and wherever else we tread. That's one of the reasons we're so beloved over there.

    I don't know what's going on here. OBL should have been brought into a court of law for proper justice. Why wasn't he? You can't possibly know, but I guess it doesn't matter to you.


    Well, since you were unwilling to place (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 09, 2011 at 05:57:40 PM EST
    yourself in danger to go get him yourself in the manner that you would have chosen, and you would rather rely on others to protect you and take care of things you deem as petty dangers, you must certainly understand that they also think that their life has worth as well and they will take certain risks but they aren't interested on being slaughtered.  George Bush felt like you did about the military and he almost destroyed his military in Iraq using them for cannon fodder.  We were giving people $30,000 bonuses trying to get them to reenlist once their signed slavery to you expired.

    You raise a couple of valid points (none / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Mon May 09, 2011 at 07:09:10 PM EST
    but cut a wide swath and have largely changed the subject....

    Bin Laden was not a criminal suspect in custody here in the U.S.  He was the enemy's commanding general during a time of war....


    Oh please! (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 09, 2011 at 03:07:30 PM EST
    Good rebuttal (none / 0) (#77)
    by mjames on Mon May 09, 2011 at 05:45:03 PM EST
    Then enjoy a real rebuttal (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 09, 2011 at 05:59:20 PM EST
    Sometimes some things are best left unsaid when one feels so very high and mighty.

    Oh, well, if the Pakistani president says (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Anne on Mon May 09, 2011 at 12:15:30 PM EST
    justice was done, what more do we need?

    This isn't about "pretty," christine, so I fail to see the need to try to make it so.

    You are certainly entitled to believe that what the president has said is the right thing to say, but I, for one, do not appreciate the president saying that anyone who thinks justice has some other meaning needs to have his or her head examined.

    There is danger not in our government working so hard to run down someone as evil as bin Laden, but in the rhetoric that seeps into our subconscious and allows us to accept that it's okay to change the meaning of "justice."  When this kind of thinking comes to a city or town near you, don't say people didn't try to warn you, because, when you leave it up to the "good judgment" of political leaders, you are taking a huge, huge risk that (1) that judgment will always be good and in line with your own thinking - because of course you have excellent judgment - and (2) it won't create opportunities down the line for someone with more malignant intentions.

    I'll say it again: I'm not sorry OBL is dead; I would just like the freakin' president of the United States to remember what the meaning of "justice" is, and find some other way to talk about it.


    Re: meaining of justice (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by vicndabx on Mon May 09, 2011 at 12:30:14 PM EST
    an eye for an eye is in the bible.  Not saying I agree w/it, but the idea that this will "seep into our subconscious" to the detriment of mankind seems a little late.  People have been this way for millenia.  The celebrations after the fact - yes, tacky, IMO, and a sad statement about those who did it.  I was not surprised however to see it happen.  There will always be those who react w/their hearts first.  Indeed, those celebrations go the heart of the democracy you wish to preserve.

    So, you would have been opposed (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by MKS on Mon May 09, 2011 at 01:48:39 PM EST
    to the efforts to assassinate Hitler?

    Are you being intentionally obtuse? (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Anne on Mon May 09, 2011 at 03:01:40 PM EST
    I've said more than once that I'm not questioning the mission, MKS, but how it is being framed in the aftermath; while I'm not sorry OBL is dead - something I've also said like 40 times now - I don't agree that his killing equates to "justice."

    I felt like Obama needed to take the high rhetorical road, and continuing to repeat that "justice was done," and "he got what he deserved" and that people who don't agree need to have their heads examined, isn't taking the high road, in my opinion.

    Godwin would be proud of you, I'm sure.


    No, the analogy holds here. (3.50 / 2) (#71)
    by MKS on Mon May 09, 2011 at 03:16:24 PM EST
    You are okay with Bin Laden being killed but just don't want to call it "justice?"

    That is some fine line you have there....and I think betrays your first comment that you are okay with the raid....


    Maybe it's a fine line for you, (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Anne on Mon May 09, 2011 at 04:00:38 PM EST
    but "justice" to me is what is meted out at the end of a judicial/legal process held in accordance with the law.

    I have no problem with our special forces and intelligence personnel running down bin Laden, nor do I have a problem with the raid itself; I have admitted that, not having been there, I have no idea how things went down, how much danger they felt they were in, and whatever orders they were given, they needed to be carried out to minimize the loss of life to our own people.

    If the situation didn't warrant taking OBL into custody, that's fine.  But don't tell me 40 different stories about what happened and expect me to not have questions.

    Say that OBL was killed in the course of events and we hope we obtained important information from the compound.  Say that you expect people will find closure in OBL's death.  But don't question the sanity of people who define "justice" differently than "he got what he deserved."  Karma?  Sure, why not?  


    How many people thought (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by MKS on Mon May 09, 2011 at 04:09:21 PM EST
    that when Obama talked about "justice" he meant the end of a formal legal process?

    It was clear what he was talking about--the moral rightness of the action.

    Of all the things to focus on in connection with the raid......


    So, now it's a moral thing? Now we get (none / 0) (#80)
    by Anne on Mon May 09, 2011 at 06:01:24 PM EST
    to depend on how the leader-of-the-moment defines "moral?"

    The president - any president - has a responsibility to be careful with his words, because however he means them, he has no control over how others hear them, what they will do with them, or how they will drive the issues.

    Do you remember the reaction to George Bush's "bring it on?"  Do you remember how irresponsible people felt he had been by uttering such a challenge?  I'm sure you do, because you've already demonstrated what a superb memory you have.

    Do Obama's words fall into that category?  Well, for some of us they do, coming as they do on top of the assassination orders on al-Awlaki, an American citizen.  And on top of a laundry list of actions and policies over the last two years that have further entrenched the Bush/Cheney policies.

    You can stop belittling me any time now for caring how the president's words - any president's words - normalize things we used to think were contrary to core Democratic principles.

    Words matter to me.


    Choosing to not protect and defend (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 09, 2011 at 06:12:58 PM EST
    ourselves and address enemies is not a core Democrat principle though.

    No one's suggesting we shouldn't (3.50 / 2) (#84)
    by Anne on Mon May 09, 2011 at 06:31:38 PM EST
    defend ourselves or address enemies; I've never said that.

    Rule of law used to be a core principal, but that's now history; now we just depend on someone's good judgment because there's nothing we can do in the face of so much executive power.

    For the last time, I have not objected to Obama's giving the okay for the mission - I've said that over and over and over; my objection has been to the rhetoric, to the words he's used in the aftermath.  Clearly, in the wave of tingly feelings you've been having since your boyfriend - I mean, your president - took bin Laden out, you don't seem to be able to process anything that makes you look beyond the fabulous end of the raid.


    Your rule of law in the United States (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 09, 2011 at 06:42:10 PM EST
    isn't the rule of law of every other nation or culture. And the truth is that this is a war. Bin Laden was not a criminal in my book and he only is considered so among a fringe group of Democrat voters in this country.  What you are claiming is a core Democrat principle in this matter just isn't so.  It is a core principle of the Democrat you are, but not the majority of us.

    I'm sort of a Pagan, I don't believe in magical things but I do embrace Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and the rule of law you throw around in your discussions requires two things that Osama took away and planned to take away more and more and more.  The first need is survival, and the military gets this one big time because we've gone the front of this little fight that you have going on with Osama Bin Laden and his crew and they have stood between them and you so that you don't feel that screaming pinch of perhaps not surviving the day out like Osama wanted you to feel.  The second need is safety and comfort.  If you can those needs met you can become self actualized and develop complex systems of justice that honor human beings.  Without Survival and without safety you got nothing and without the military standing between you and Al Qaeda and whoever comes next for you, you don't get to keep any of that either if someone shows up and wants your stuff and they are bigger than you.  Your system of justice is only possible in your system of civilized society and Pakistan is not that, neither is Yemen.


    Anne, you say "boyfriend" (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by MKS on Mon May 09, 2011 at 06:55:17 PM EST

    Actually, I found that comment refreshingly honest.....even though it was intended to be a dig.

    I understand MT's view of this....It is a signficant issue for military families.....

    They were our guys on that raid, and I don't care what happened to the enemy that day....I am glad our guys came home safe....


    She isn't going to get to me on this (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 09, 2011 at 07:16:00 PM EST
    She just isn't even able.  We've buried friends, seen families not able to take the stress and just implode.  I felt sort of numb the night we found out he was gone.  I felt a little less numb the next day.  I wasn't able to address what had really changed until the start of the fourth day, and then I had several crying spells that some of us get when we are purging evil.  Had a couple of those the next day too, but also began to feel repaired.  Anne can say whatever she wants to try to taunt me but I lived this pain and this stress everyday for ten years, and deserve to feel how I feel right now and I guess that I paid enough for it that I don't care what anybody says that is meant to belittle me on the subject, it registers like someone is spray painting a wall with graffiti.  It just doesn't matter.  I managed to live what mattered and I came out on the other side.  Many did not.  Many families did not.  My thoughts are with them tonight if they are resting upon anything.

    My grandfather died in the service (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by MKS on Mon May 09, 2011 at 07:27:27 PM EST
    of his country.  My Dad and my grandmother were never the same.  A couple of years ago, my Dad gave me the Western Union telegram......

    I remember like it was yesterday when my Dad packed up his gear to go to Vietnam.....

    So, I am very glad we had no more bad news as part of the Bin Laden raid.....and this argument about Bin Laden being a criminal suspect is just wrong....


    MT and your family: Once again, (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by christinep on Mon May 09, 2011 at 09:04:57 PM EST
    thank you. I am proud of you; I am--at long last--proud of all of us too. As CBS Bob Schieffer put it last week...maybe now we can begin again as a people with renewed vigor & renewed self. I'm optimistic.

    A core (none / 0) (#104)
    by sj on Wed May 11, 2011 at 11:39:43 AM EST
    "Democrat" principle?  Did you really say it that way?

    The words were fine (3.50 / 2) (#90)
    by MKS on Mon May 09, 2011 at 06:52:33 PM EST
    You have to really strain to find an issue here....

    If you want to talk about other issues, fine.  But those are other issues....

    And, if you want to talk about the legality of killing Bin Laden, I actually would be interested in such a discussion of international law.  I am would be very happy to read what Jeralyn would say on that issue--I am glad that there are people who would be concerned about such things, even if I do not agree agree.

    What I find bizarre is your focus, not on whether the raid was legal under international law, but on the words Obama used....

    You have drilled down to a level quite far,  beyond all recognition.


    These ops are planned with (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 09, 2011 at 07:19:19 PM EST
    a pack of lawyers present too.  Every battlefield strike has lawyers present arguing in the middle of the real time on the ground situations.  Not that there was such a thing going on in this situation, but I bet they had people on the sidelines prepared if this event went South and decisions had to be made on the fly.  It does sort of get to me that some people think lawyers aren't constantly analyzing the battlefield legalities and aren't involved because they are constantly.

    The NY Times (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Politalkix on Mon May 09, 2011 at 08:45:31 PM EST
    has an article about the OBL operation.
    The article should put to rest some of the misconceptions people have about the operation and the President.

    Excellent link (none / 0) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 10, 2011 at 06:11:56 AM EST
    Thank you

    Combat situations are meted out differently (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by christinep on Mon May 09, 2011 at 06:35:56 PM EST
    They certainly are (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 09, 2011 at 06:44:22 PM EST
    But some refuse to see Osama Bin Laden as a "combat situation".  He was only a mild mannered criminal that they wouldn't have gone within 200 miles of if he had free range, but he wasn't that bad.  He would have only had me stoned to death or beheaded for the vile vagina ridden scum that I am :)

    Yeah...cuz there's loads and loads (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 09, 2011 at 06:31:48 PM EST
    of justice handed out in the legal system.  Do you read this blog :)  

    Bias (4.00 / 3) (#48)
    by MKS on Mon May 09, 2011 at 01:47:44 PM EST
    Anne, before Obama took office, you said you could not stand the sound of his voice and thus had to read his Inaugural speech.....

    Well, leaving aside for the moment (none / 0) (#53)
    by Anne on Mon May 09, 2011 at 02:10:28 PM EST
    your prodigious memory for such details, as well as your having made this particular point in two separate comments, try to wrap your head around the fact that I have not been talking about the sound of his voice here, but the words he is using.

    The words.  Words which I have specifically referenced and addressed my opinions in light of.

    Not the way he speaks, the rhythm of his speech, or any other aspect related to the sound of his voice.

    You might want to consider putting your focus where I put it - on the words, instead of what I said two+ years ago.  And also remember that when I said I read the Inaugual speech, it was for the specific reason of wanting to judge the words, not the delivery.  

    Which is why I read the transcript of the 60 Minutes appearance; I neither listened nor watched, because I didn't want to be distracted by the way he looked (quite noticeable and distracting to some, apparently) or by his delivery (although, interestingly, the CBS transcript is complete with the dropped "g"s from both interviewee and interviewer).


    It is about the bias, Anne (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by MKS on Mon May 09, 2011 at 02:16:57 PM EST
    You are not an accurate judge of this.

    You find fault to find fault.

    I cannot recall you ever saying anything positive about Obama....


    Excuse me, but (none / 0) (#57)
    by sj on Mon May 09, 2011 at 02:22:09 PM EST
    YOUR bias is also showing.

    I have been clear that I am an Obama (4.00 / 3) (#58)
    by MKS on Mon May 09, 2011 at 02:26:46 PM EST
    supporter.  I have also criticized Obama....

    The difference here is that the anti-Obama crowd here cannot or will not admit to their bias.....They write the same comment over and over again....straining to criticize every Obama success....just for the sake of it.

    The criticism of Obama's make-up and the Bin Laden raid?   Good grief....


    Jesus, do you have a comprehension (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Anne on Mon May 09, 2011 at 02:55:44 PM EST

    From a comment I made on Monday, May 2:

    Obama had the choice to make, in terms of the whole operation, whether to go for it or not.  In a rare example of gutsy leadership, he went for it, not knowing whether it would succeed or fail.

    And this, which also picks up on my focus on the message:

    I'm not questioning the mission, Jeff, (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Anne on Wed May 04, 2011 at 11:13:53 AM EDT

    as much as the message that has accompanied it; considering the precision and detail that had to exist for this operation to work, I can't understand why those in government responsible for disseminating information about it have been unable to get their stories straight.  

    Yes, I've had questions about whether this was a kill operation from the get-go, but who hasn't?  Am I not entitled to ask that question because I'm not an Obama supporter?  Would I be okay if this had happened under a Republican president?

    I mean, at what point am I entitled to focus on the underlying principles and concepts, weigh in on how something like this is being framed?  Ever?

    My criticism since the OBL mission has been almost exclusively about the message, not the man; I don't tippy-toe around things, MKS, so if you're still not getting what I've been saying, I'd have to conclude that your own bias is getting in the way.


    Okay, I missed the compliment of Obama (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Mon May 09, 2011 at 03:00:10 PM EST
    Seems overwhelmed by all the other stuff....

    The sense of proportion seems out of whack here...


    You "criticize Obama" ... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Yman on Tue May 10, 2011 at 10:21:59 AM EST
    ... like Hannity criticizes Republicans.

    An occasional mild tap on his wrist does not mean you are more objective/less biased than those you criticize.


    Did you really just say that? (none / 0) (#60)
    by sj on Mon May 09, 2011 at 02:37:10 PM EST
    The difference here is that the anti-Obama crowd here cannot or will not admit to their bias

    right after saying

    Anne, before Obama took office, you said you could not stand the sound of his voice and thus had to read his Inaugural speech.....

    Sounds to me like "bias" is pretty much admitted to. If admitted bias makes one's analysis unsound, then yours is unsound as well.

    Personally, that's not something I believe.  Because there isn't a soul on this planet who is completely unbiased.  And lots of sound analysis has been done.

    A lot of cr@p analysis, too, no doubt, but that's the way it works.


    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by MKS on Mon May 09, 2011 at 02:39:03 PM EST
    Won't deny she said it....But won't admit she can't stand the guy on a personal level....

    Oh! (2.00 / 0) (#63)
    by sj on Mon May 09, 2011 at 02:45:16 PM EST
    Well, that's different then.  I wasn't aware she knew the guy on a personal level.

    Dont' be deliberately obtuse (3.50 / 4) (#66)
    by MKS on Mon May 09, 2011 at 02:58:41 PM EST
    She hates the guy and has for a long time....He can do nothing right...

    So her assessment is quite suspect imo.


    oy (none / 0) (#68)
    by sj on Mon May 09, 2011 at 03:01:03 PM EST
    You're really conflating everything, now.  Later.

    I'd call it a needed summary (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Mon May 09, 2011 at 03:18:04 PM EST
    "Bias" on both sides is obvious (none / 0) (#83)
    by christinep on Mon May 09, 2011 at 06:27:35 PM EST
    Speaking for myself too.

    very true (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by sj on Wed May 11, 2011 at 11:39:19 AM EST
    Please note my use of the world "also" in the parent comment -- acknowledging this.

    Cripes.  What has happened to reading comprehension?  And yes, you're right:  your bias is ALSO obvious.

    And before you or anyone can pretend that I don't know this: yes, I also have bias.

    Who the heck doesn't?


    Well...we agree on the size of the table, maybe. (none / 0) (#105)
    by christinep on Wed May 11, 2011 at 06:33:16 PM EST
    Some of the "word" games you play, Anne (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by christinep on Mon May 09, 2011 at 06:25:41 PM EST
    are interesting & challenging. And, most of the time--believe it or don't--I enjoy your rejoinders. But, here is the problem you have constructed: "Words" do not eradicate all your earlier negative impressions (& almost vituperation) about most things this President has done. As MKS reminds, those "words" of yours--just about all negative--existed before President Obama became president.

     Why is this important? Well...to some, like myself, it is the predictable pattern of someone who can almost be expected to find cause for put-down (the old "find a cloud in a silver lining" routine.) You have every right to proclaim whatever you want, certainly. But, for goodness sake, the real fascinating part will be if there ever is a time when you agree with the President's course. Whatever. Kudos for your determination.

    I do understand that you find something unjust, when I & others find it just. We disagree.


    In this age (none / 0) (#106)
    by jondee on Thu May 12, 2011 at 02:33:59 PM EST
    of a noticable resurgence in Old Testament an-eye-for-an-eye rhetoric and belligerent, righteous, chest-thumping, I can relate to Anne's qualms over Obama's use of the momentous term "justice"..Makes me think too much of how the hang 'em high loves to throw the word "deserve" around..

    But then, when in a time of war (and when isn't it?), hasn't a President been required to publicly frame major events with emotionally galvanizing, 'inspiring' language to unscore the righteousness of our cause?


    I'm sure you are, Tracy - (3.50 / 2) (#31)
    by Anne on Mon May 09, 2011 at 09:47:58 AM EST
    you've made that quite clear in the last week - but please don't think that just because you are a military family that what you are fine with should be the standard for all of us.

    If this is to be considered "justice," I guess that's one more word the definition of which will need to be revised; and when this kind of justice, promoted and blessed as it is by our esteemed leaders, crosses over into the civilian world, we'll know why.

    I don't know, I guess I'm one of those weird people who believes that it isn't the circumstances that should determine the "justice" people are entitled to, but the principles and laws, because once you start allowing those in power to mete out justice according to their standards, it all goes out the window for all of us.


    Well sorry, but I agree with my President (4.40 / 5) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 09, 2011 at 11:33:37 AM EST
    on this and if someone doesn't think that justice was served they should have their head examined :)

    what would you say (none / 0) (#108)
    by jondee on Thu May 12, 2011 at 02:48:01 PM EST
    to a Chilean, whose father or brother was beat to death with a rubber hose in that soccer stadium, if he or she said justice was served on 9/11?

    I'm reminded of that (none / 0) (#107)
    by jondee on Thu May 12, 2011 at 02:41:28 PM EST
    quote about truth (and probably circumspect language use), being the first casualty of war..

    Obama has not been celebratory (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by vicndabx on Mon May 09, 2011 at 09:20:22 AM EST
    Rather, sober, and honest in my opinion. No one should feel good about the killing of another.  Realistically however, there was no other alternative for bin Laden. Even IF he were captured and bought to the US, your fellow taxpayers would not have been keen to paying for a lengthy trial. If there was a trial and he was convicted, he surely would've been given the death penalty.

    Soldiers were somber too (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 09, 2011 at 11:38:01 AM EST
    And I heard some of them being very upset about all the partying in the streets too.  They said they felt like it made us look like Palestine after 9/11.  No celebrating happening here either, but wow...what has dominated my life for ten long stressful grueling years has shifted severely.  I feel such a huge relief too, a giant stone has been lifted off of me and as actionable intelligence is being acted on it feels like more stones are coming off of my shoulders.

    It's sobering to consider (none / 0) (#33)
    by brodie on Mon May 09, 2011 at 11:18:48 AM EST
    all the nightmare scenarios involving a live OBL brought back -- where? to Gitmo to be abused? or mainland US for a civilian court where the locale would have had huge ongoing security concerns as it would become targetted by OBL sympathizers and AQ for attack.  Would NYC, and Mayor Bloomberg, have been eager to take on a Bin Laden Trial of the Century?  I doubt it.

    Nor was what appears to have happened ideal either.  Much better for our interests if there'd been an actual firefight involving OBL where our SEALs clearly acted in self defense.

    But here we are in less than ideal circumstances, and not so much with a Bin Laden problem right now for the Obama admin as a Pakistani problem.


    Well gee... (3.00 / 2) (#37)
    by masslib on Mon May 09, 2011 at 12:04:44 PM EST
    Thank gosh we just carried out an assassination rather than bother ourselves with having to find a solution to carry out justice.

    Not the ideal (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by brodie on Mon May 09, 2011 at 12:15:36 PM EST
    outcome, I concede.  But some pretty good presidents have done much worse than arrange for the taking out of a known mass murderer.  (how about HST ordering the atom bombing of a city targeted in large part for its concentrated civilian population? -- and further contrast to Obama's rather subdued response:  Truman called it "the greatest day in history".  And that guy is revered today by many, even on the left ...)

    And under my guy, Bill Clinton, there were attempts at killing Ben Laden via missile.  Grisly outcome that would have been, with all the wives and children that would have also been killed, along with some very bad, much worse in fact, pr for Bill to have to work out with the Muslim world and others.

    For me, this one is in the Unfortunate but Acceptable Outcome category.

    And if there's another military mission to take out, say, the AQ #2 (or that American citizen AQ higher up), next time Obama should give orders strongly preferring a capture as opposed to kill outcome.


    All fair points. (none / 0) (#42)
    by masslib on Mon May 09, 2011 at 12:19:52 PM EST
    My point really is only that justice is messy.

    Just like Yamamoto (none / 0) (#47)
    by MKS on Mon May 09, 2011 at 01:45:47 PM EST
    Killing the leader of the enemy forces....

    I think it does (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 09, 2011 at 09:36:40 AM EST
    It was not processal justice. It was moral justice.

    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 09, 2011 at 12:55:33 PM EST
    Spike (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 09, 2011 at 08:53:37 AM EST
    the football are the exact same terms Bush used to use. Interesting that Obama chooses that same phrase.

    I was actually going to say something (none / 0) (#29)
    by Anne on Mon May 09, 2011 at 09:36:21 AM EST
    about how Obama's words sound more like George Bush than what I would like to be hearing from a Democratic president with a law degree, but figured I'd just get hammered by people who think Obama gets to skate on it because he got bin Laden and Bush didn't.

    I have no praise or defense for Bush, but this isn't a case where not having a defense for one requires that we defend the other; they were both wrong to frame things the way they did.


    You have made it clear you did (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MKS on Mon May 09, 2011 at 01:50:49 PM EST
    not vote for Obama....and as to what Obams "sounds like," you are on record as saying you can't stand the sound of his voice...

    So? One is only allowed (2.00 / 0) (#56)
    by sj on Mon May 09, 2011 at 02:19:05 PM EST
    to criticize a public official if one has voted for him?  So, assuming you didn't vote for GWB, did you refrain from criticizing him during his administration?

    It is about bias (3.50 / 2) (#59)
    by MKS on Mon May 09, 2011 at 02:30:46 PM EST
    Finding fault with every little thing....

    But with Bush, there was a philsophical difference.  

    The animus against Obama here is personal.....

    Anyone is "allowed" to criticize Obama, but then again, why shouldn't I then be allowed to point that such criticism is biased and to be taken with a hefty grain of salt....


    With O (none / 0) (#62)
    by sj on Mon May 09, 2011 at 02:44:08 PM EST
    there is also a philosophical difference.  Which is what Anne is saying.  

    But with Bush, there was a philsophical difference.  

    You're perfectly welcome to point out that such criticism is biased and to be taken with a hefty grain of salt.

    Similarly, then, it is just as valid to point out that your support is biased and to be taken with a hefty grain of salt as well.

    Doing so, however, apparently irritates the supporter as much as it does the critic.  So why not address the analysis?  Which is actually the point.


    I don't think there is an honest philisophical (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by MKS on Mon May 09, 2011 at 03:28:20 PM EST
    difference with Obama.....

    I come to that conclusion because much (not all) of the Obama criticism here is incoherent.....

    The raid on Bin Laden was fine but don't call it "justice?"

    The gain of 244,000 in jobs in April is not a good sign?



    So much straw (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Yman on Tue May 10, 2011 at 10:36:59 AM EST
    I come to that conclusion because much (not all) of the Obama criticism here is incoherent.....

    So little time.

    The raid on Bin Laden was fine but don't call it "justice?"

    Many people (particularly on the left) support Obama's decision for the OBL raid, but question the legality of killing him.  Really not a difficult concept.

    The gain of 244,000 in jobs in April is not a good sign?

    Who said that?  What people pointed out was that the creation of 244,000 jobs is good, we also need to look at the unemployment rate (which increased) and the types of jobs being created.  But some of the most biased here like to suggest this is some sort of trend, or that those who point out the obvious counterveiling facts are doing so merely because of some sort of personal animus.

    Kinda funny, really ...


    So what? (none / 0) (#50)
    by MKS on Mon May 09, 2011 at 01:49:49 PM EST
    Okay (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 08, 2011 at 06:42:02 PM EST
    That paragraph basically talks in a circle.

    It seems to me that we've always know there was a support system for AQ in Pakistan. I remember discussing this very thing years ago. It was always a question of how far up in the government and the ISI it went. I remember some ISI officials even being fired a few years back because of their associations with AQ.

    Is Obama using Boehner's makeup artist? (none / 0) (#9)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun May 08, 2011 at 09:10:31 PM EST

    Heh (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun May 08, 2011 at 09:11:41 PM EST
    The HD isn't kind to anyone. I couldn't help but notice that he had some neck irritation. I just had a bad shave, so I'm sensitive to that.

    On my screen, looks like they caked him ... (none / 0) (#12)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun May 08, 2011 at 09:47:37 PM EST
    ... with some horrid orangey stuff.

    One of the downsides of color.


    Color TV in the US use to be so bad (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by andgarden on Sun May 08, 2011 at 09:49:44 PM EST
    that you could get away with odd makeup. Our system--adopted first, was NTSC, which europeans used to correctly refer to as "Never Twice the Same Color."

    HAHAHAHA! (none / 0) (#44)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 09, 2011 at 12:49:36 PM EST
    That's absolutely right and particularly hilarious to those of us who used to sit glued to stuff we wouldn't ordinarily ever watch just because it was in spectacularly bad color.  You shoulda been there.  It actually was thrilling to see anything on a TV screen that wasn't black, white or gray.

    I imagine our parents felt the same joy and wonder at movies in color.


    Interestingly, (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Mon May 09, 2011 at 01:31:33 PM EST
    most network scripted fare was shot on 35mm film until about four years ago. That's Star Trek TOS can look great on blu ray. Well, that and a boatload of digital restoration work (color film is ephemeral, especially from the mid-50s; just ask the folks who had to restore Vertigo).

    Not the first (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 09, 2011 at 05:57:25 AM EST
    time his make up has been bad. One time during the debates with McCain it was really bad but it wasn't orange.

    Maybe most people don't know how to do African American makeup?


    Geronimo's family... (none / 0) (#18)
    by desertswine on Sun May 08, 2011 at 10:44:16 PM EST
    So do I (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by sj on Mon May 09, 2011 at 12:38:16 AM EST