****
Stephen: Matt, we always hear about how the economy wasn't Obama's fault and that he inherited it from Bush. The wars the same thing. If you believe there is credence in this (and I'd agree) should he not also give credit to Bush for laying the groundwork for killing Osama bin Laden? This seems necessary unless you have some evidence that Obama tossed out all the intelligence gathered before his term.
Matt: Absolutely, Barack Obama does not get full credit for the raid. For one, he didn't crash land any helicopters or charge up any stairs to shoot the world's most wanted terrorist in the head. And a lot of that intelligence was in fact gathered during the later Bush years. However, since it WAS Obama who came into office ordering his national security team to re-focus on bin Laden after the effort had stalled, and since it was Obama who ordered the raid itself over the advice of his Vice President and top general (not saying Bush wouldn't have, but BHO did), he certainly gets to take his share of the credit, especially if holding it up as an example of gutsy national security leadership under pressure.
Stephen: So how often does he mention this? Because he definitely mentions that Bush was responsible for the economy all the time.
Matt: He's a politician, for the love of God. Bush blamed Clinton like none other. Reagan was the same way with Jimmy Carter. Also, as I wrote in the second half of my response, the pursuit for bin Laden was on ice until Obama took office. He revived it. Why does Bush get any credit there, when it took him all of a year after 9/11 to say he wasn't worried about bin Laden and invade another country instead? Finally, since Obama mostly just takes credit for having the balls to order the mission in the first place, I don't see a problem here.
Matt: I'm going to double up here... on a scale of 1-10, how much credit does Obama get for bin Laden being dead? I'm going with an 8, for the reasons I've already outlined.
Stephen: If we assume that it's like a percentage? I'd give Obama like 20%, Bush 15%, the CIA 25% and SEAL Team 6 40%. On a scale of 1-10, like a 4. That might be generous. Having the balls? First, a former Seal Team 6 leader said the mission was a no-brainer and anyone would have gone in. Second, aren't the Democrats always complaining the Republicans are too much balls too little brains? At this point it's like we're cheering for Lebron James for getting a layup. Yeah, it's great but we still need 30 more of those to really be impressed.
Matt: Wow, a member of the team put into action said it was a no-brainer... because he's the one actually making the decision, and sees all the intelligence beforehand, and doesn't just get ordered into battle. The Navy Seals are some of the bravest people out there, but soldiers aren't decision-makers and have no idea what the possible consequences of their actions might be. In general, our readers should probably become aware of the Stephen Siena election year index, in which we can add at least three points to everything Obama does that you feel compelled to rate, because god forbid Barack Obama look too good. In this case, I'll just assume that in a normal year you would give Obama a 7 for his efforts, since our supposedly weak president overruled his top general and a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and OK-ed a mission that had, at best, a 50-50 chance of success. But that's not at all worth giving credit for. Anyone would have done it.
Stephen: So are you making the claim that Obama is unnecessarily reckless? If your 50-50 chance is correct, sounds like Obama probably rolled the dice and got lucky? I'm actually not seriously proposing any of that, just observing how you are making it seem. No, Matt, in reality I don't hold presidents especially responsible for killing enemies under any circumstances. I'll agree that Obama has been more than decent in the war on terror and handled the Libya situation fairly well. I just find this "no one else would have done this" arguement to be stupid. And how much praise should this man get - which is really the core of this debate? According to you, it sounds like we should all get in line and genuflect at his mighty altar for something he should have done anyway.
Matt: Not saying no one else would have done it, but we should recognize and credit good leadership here appropriately. The guy took a chance based on the intelligence that was out there, intelligence with which he probably doesn't even get presented if he doesn't order his national security team to essentially re-prioritize the hunt for bin Laden in the first place. Then he trusts American boots to go out there and get it done. What quote did you used to have on your facebook profile? Fortune favors the bold?
Stephen: Matt, I'm all about being bold. In fact, I would have it no other
way. Furthermore, I'm not even saying Obama doesn't get credit for this.
I'm discussing scale. Finally, if those responsible for the mission's
actual success do not want their work politicized then I think we should
respect their wishes.
Matt: As I commented on Monday, I just wonder where any soldiers were to complain about Bush turning the entire 2004 presidential campaign into a chest-beating celebration of terrorist killing everywhere. But fair is fair. If the guys who actually went in there say so, let's take that seriously. Pleasure as always. More to come.
My biggest problem is not whether Obama is due credit or not, but how much he himself talks about it. Ike (then a general, not yet president) had an immense role in planning D-Day, yet afterwards he saluted and congratulated the troops who executed the plan rather than patting himself on the back. That's real leadership and humble reverence for the men (no women yet) on the front lines.
ReplyDeleteObama could have knocked this out of the park by celebrating the troops and having that be the end of it, but instead he and Biden had to go ahead and question whether Romney would have given the green light. Truly baffling and another example of his failure to follow through on his 2008 promises of not using divisive politics.
Well, it's definitely a classic defense against the common criticism that democrats aren't militarily assertive enough.
ReplyDelete@John - It's difficult because I agree with you on that last part, and it was a huge reason that I along with many other young people campaigned and voted enthusiastically for Obama all the way from the '08 primaries on up through his election. Yet at the same time, the guy is in a shark tank. Is he supposed to not fight? Should he just stand by while conservatives accuse him of apologizing for America, and not call people's attention to a massive foreign policy success that would not have happened without his leadership? Say Obama went back on his pledge to change Washington, or whatever it is you feel, but I find that argument lacking when he tried and failed to collaborate with an opposition party that was determined to deny him any success at all, from day one.
ReplyDeleteI think to say that Republicans were determined to deny him success from day one is a bit hyperbolic- he's not the first President to have to work with an opposition party.
DeleteI'm not saying he shouldn't fight, I just think this was an unnecessary cheap shot at Romney over a hypothetical situation that Romney could never definitively refute. I didn't vote for Obama so that I could hear this stuff three years later.
Fair, but I'd still challenge the first part. Obama offered (and ultimately passed) a stimulus that was 40% tax cuts - a direct olive branch to the GOP, but every House Republican and 39 out of 42 GOP senators were uncompromisingly opposed to the Recovery Act before the White House even had a chance to try and negotiate. The Obama people were basically negotiating against themselves. All this for a bill that was necessary to prevent another Great Depression.
DeleteBut anyway as I said on one of the other posts, I wish he hadn't turned it into a shot against Romney, just kept it as a celebration of the mission and his decision to authorize it. But at this point, with the Tea Party-dominated GOP, I'm okay with just about anything that prevents the Republicans from taking power.