Gutsy call?

posted at 11:01 am on April 29, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

The Obama administration and his re-election campaign will spend today and the rest of the week reminding everyone that Barack Obama is the President who killed Osama bin Laden.  And that’s certainly true; it was a year ago this week that US special forces stormed bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad and shot the al-Qaeda leader to death, and also captured a trove of intelligence.  If the Obama campaign sticks to just those facts, they’ll stay on solid ground, although it’s still a big question as to whether anyone will cast a vote based on that singular event.

The ball-spiking got off to a bad start, though, when the Obama campaign claimed that Mitt Romney wouldn’t have the killer instinct to make that kind of a call — a weird claim in and of itself.  Team Obama has already painted Romney as a heartless executive who didn’t hesitate to fire people and, er, execute poorly-performing companies as a Bain executive.  What exactly would keep Romney from taking a risk with a terrorist mastermind in his crosshairs?  The attack was an overreach, and an opening for critics to challenge Obama’s actual role in the mission — and when Time Magazine published the mission orders from Leon Panetta to Admiral William H. McRaven, commander of US Special Operations Command, Big Peace pounced:

The memo puts all control in the hands of Admiral McRaven – the “timing, operational decision making and control” are all up to McRaven. So the notion that Obama and his team were walking through every stage of the operation is incorrect. The hero here was McRaven, not Obama. And had the mission gone wrong, McRaven surely would have been thrown under the bus.

The memo is crystal clear on that point. It says that the decision has been made based solely on the “risk profile presented to the President.” If any other risks – no matter how minute – arose, they were “to be brought back to the President for his consideration.” This is ludicrous. It is wiggle room. It was Obama’s way of carving out space for himself in case the mission went bad. If it did, he’d say that there were additional risks of which he hadn’t been informed; he’d been kept in the dark by his military leaders.

Finally, the memo is unclear on just what the mission is. Was it to capture Bin Laden or to kill him? The White House itself was unable to decide what the mission was in the hours after the Bin Laden kill, and actually switched its language. The memo shows why: McRaven was instructed to “get” Bin Laden, whatever that meant.

President Obama made the right call to give the green light to the mission. But he did it in a way that he could shift the blame if things went wrong. Typical Obama. And typical of him to claim full credit for it, when he didn’t do anything but give a vague nod, while putting his top military officials at risk of taking the hit in case of a bad turn.

Here’s the memo that conveyed the green light:

Received phone call from Tom Donilon who stated that the President made a decision with regard to AC1 [Abbottabad Compound 1]. The decision is to proceed with the assault. The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out. Those instructions were conveyed to Admiral McRaven at approximately 10:45 am.

I think that the interpretation from Big Peace is perhaps a little overblown, too.  The decision to assault the compound was based on the risk profile from Panetta and McRaven.  A risk profile would normally cover a range of possibilities, along with the countermeasures the military planned to negate or minimize them.  If that changed, then any President would want to make sure that the decision got some reconsideration, especially since the mission involved invading a nominal ally and conducting a military operation just a couple of miles from one of their premier military academies.  If there were no changes, then McRaven needed to have the authority to determine timing and hold operational control of the mission.  McRaven couldn’t consult Obama and his team on constantly-shifting but manageable conditions on a moment-to-moment basis if anyone expected the raid to succeed.  That’s not a setup for a patsy; it’s operational reality.

Besides, if the mission had gone badly, Obama couldn’t have escaped the failure, even if this was some sort of attempt to make McRaven a fall guy.  Ask Jimmy Carter how well that worked with Operation Eagle Claw in April 1980, 32 years ago, almost to the day, or for that matter, George W. Bush about Tora Bora, an incident used by Obama in the 2008 election.  Biden was right that a big failure at Abbottabad would have had big negative consequences for Obama.

On the other hand, had Obama not made the call to conduct this mission and missed his chance at bin Laden, that would also have had large negative consequences for Obama, had that refusal gotten out, and arguably larger than a failed attempt would bring.  I don’t want to take away from the difficult circumstances of this decision — the aftermath of the successful mission with Pakistan shows the dangerous context of that call — but in the end, very few American Presidents would have passed up the opportunity to “get” bin Laden in this precise set of circumstances, whatever “get” meant.  It was the right call, but I don’t think it was as “gutsy” as the White House wants to portray it, nor do I think that these operational orders show an attempt to hide from the consequences of failure.

Obama’s order produced a successful result and America finally brought justice to Osama bin Laden.  He’s entitled to claim credit for that decision in his re-election effort, but let’s not make it more — or less — than the American victory that it represented.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

SOP.

Aplombed on April 29, 2012 at 11:07 AM

How many Bin Ladens are there? It is not a reason to re-elect someone.

OldEnglish on April 29, 2012 at 11:10 AM

are you trying to be moderate Ed? sorta take both sides of the issue?

reminds me how you treated the whole Shirley Sherrod affair

DHChron on April 29, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Evil,heartless,kicks dogs,takes candy from babies Mitt Romney,

would give food stamps and federal assistance to Bin Laden.

LOL

gerrym51 on April 29, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Obama is a fool and a political animal…he deserves zero credit

DHChron on April 29, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Barry was sitting on the decision for weeks, not ballsy enough to make a call, if memory serves.

galtani on April 29, 2012 at 11:12 AM

The Wimp is so tough.

Mason on April 29, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Obama killed 300 Mexicans and got away with it…what makes you think he couldn’t have skated from underneath a failed Osama hit?

DHChron on April 29, 2012 at 11:13 AM

When do we get around to talking about Bark Obama receiving his “due” for the 200-plus Mexicans (and at least on American) killed by the regime’s “Fast and Furious” program?

If there is a minuscule amount of praise for the SCoaMF’s hesitant order to off Osama, F&F — not to mention additional felonies and Constitutional violations committed by and for President Historic First© — is truly impeachment-worthy.

Not that I expect such an action to be called for around here….

MrScribbler on April 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Ed, if Obama had not made the call, or if the mission had gone badly, we never would have heard a damn word about it. It would have been “helicopter crash in Pakistan” while on “training maneuvers” and that would have been the end of it. There was NO risk for Barack in this. None at all. It’s the story of his life: if it goes well, he gets a parade. If it doesn’t, everyone around him and a willing and entirely corrupt media covers it up. Need proof? Fast & Furious.

So stop suggesting it was a “courageous” decision. If it had gone south, they would have lied their asses off about it and we would never have known it went down. How in the hell is that courageous?

Rational Thought on April 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Gutsy call???

What modern day President (other than Jimmy Carter) would have said “no, not gonna do it” after the target had been identified, and operators were enroute?

Gutsy call?

Obama has not ever made a gutsy call in his life.

coldwarrior on April 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM

This is how you vote “present” in a military op.

Obummer is a loser – even when he wins.

Tim_CA on April 29, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Ed is correct, the memo from Panetta clearly indicates that the President made the call, but that operational control was in the hands of the professionals. Good intelligence, training, skill, leadership and some luck led to the desired outcome. But this came only after the erosion of the enemy over time. All who took on Al Qaeda deserve credit, and those who ordered and executed the raid deserve credit for this success.

A.S.R. on April 29, 2012 at 11:15 AM

It’s above his pay grade to make such critical decisions. If things went bad he would have blamed the military and Pakistan too for leaking information to the Al Qaida.

Sticky Wicket on April 29, 2012 at 11:16 AM

In victory Obumbler celebrates, in defeat Obumbler dishonors. It’s a win, win for him. If the Military is successful he takes FULL credit, if they don’t complete a mission, he can dishonor them and he does every chance he gets.

Tell me why he’s the Commander In Chief again?

You may not like Rommeny, but I hate the Obumbler!!

Tbone McGraw on April 29, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Liberals: The lousy economy is all the Bush administration’s fault.

Conservatives: The OBL kill had nothing to do with the Obama administration.

YYZ on April 29, 2012 at 11:19 AM

So stop suggesting it was a “courageous” decision. If it had gone south, they would have lied their asses off about it and we would never have known it went down. How in the hell is that courageous?

Rational Thought on April 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM

So you just skipped over the part where I wrote, “I don’t think it was as “gutsy” as the White House wants to portray it”?

Ed Morrissey on April 29, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Ed, if Obama had not made the call, or if the mission had gone badly, we never would have heard a damn word about it. It would have been “helicopter crash in Pakistan” while on “training maneuvers” and that would have been the end of it. There was NO risk for Barack in this. None at all. It’s the story of his life: if it goes well, he gets a parade. If it doesn’t, everyone around him and a willing and entirely corrupt media covers it up. Need proof? Fast & Furious.

So stop suggesting it was a “courageous” decision. If it had gone south, they would have lied their asses off about it and we would never have known it went down. How in the hell is that courageous?

Rational Thought on April 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM

…exactly!

KOOLAID2 on April 29, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Liberals: The lousy economy is all the Bush administration’s fault.

Conservatives: The OBL kill had nothing to do with the Obama administration.

YYZ on April 29, 2012 at 11:19 AM

YYZ: Simplistic Moron.

Tim_CA on April 29, 2012 at 11:20 AM

If anyone votes for bho only on this issue alone, they have no clue how bho has cratered our Republic in less than four years! Or maybe they just don’t care?
L

letget on April 29, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Another of Obama’s gutsy calls was ordering the bombing of the remains of the crashed drone in Iran, to prevent them from getting information about it. No, wait . . . .

Sowell Disciple on April 29, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Ed said:

Biden was right that a big failure at Abbottabad would have had big negative consequences for Obama.

Actually, I doubt he would have taken much of hit for it at all. What would the argument have been, that he shouldn’t have ordered the raid? Unless it could be shown that Obama had made some decision that screwed it up somehow, I don’t think the public would have blamed him for taking the shot.

Jon0815 on April 29, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Team Obama has already painted Romney as a heartless executive who didn’t hesitate to fire people and, er, execute poorly-performing companies as a Bain executive. What exactly would keep Romney from taking a risk with a terrorist mastermind in his crosshairs?

Nailed it.

cicerone on April 29, 2012 at 11:23 AM

So you just skipped over the part where I wrote, “I don’t think it was as “gutsy” as the White House wants to portray it”?

Ed Morrissey on April 29, 2012 at 11:19 AM

I only heard “not as gutsy as made out to be, but still sorta gutsy” call. That’s not a very gutsy stance.

DHChron on April 29, 2012 at 11:24 AM

The wording of the memo seems to say “go get him” in the sense of bringing him back, as was done with Saddam. It is an ambiguous order, and I bet there’s a communication back to the White House to clarify the term “get” in no uncertain terms, e.g.; “do you want him dead, or do you want him captured?” My money says this back and forth will never see the light of day.

IMHO, the intent of the WH was to capture and bring Bin Laden home as a prize for political purposes to be determined later on. McRaven probably did not get the clarification he needed, and proceeded to order the killing of Osama.

Further, once that occurred, there was no way in hell Obama was ever going to say anything about his wanting to capture Bin Laden. Not in the face of world-wide celebration of his death.

No, that was applause that Obama just couldn’t refuse.

BobMbx on April 29, 2012 at 11:25 AM

So you just skipped over the part where I wrote, “I don’t think it was as “gutsy” as the White House wants to portray it”?

Ed Morrissey on April 29, 2012 at 11:19 AM

No, I didn’t skip over it. I just get a wee bit annoyed by any discussion of how bad this could have been for Obama if it had gone badly. If the mission had failed, WE WOULDN’T HAVE KNOWN IT EVER OCCURRED. Who can doubt that??!! There was absolutely NO DOWNSIDE to this for Barack. It goes well? He spikes the ball (again and again). It goes badly? It never happened. What was the risk? What was the downside? Where was the courage?

Rational Thought on April 29, 2012 at 11:25 AM

I don’t care if he made the “call” or not. This isn’t some special thing he did – this is doing his job IMO.

The fact that he has to keep bringing this up shows that he’s been a complete failure in everything else he’s done.

Oh and the Romney attack – petty petty petty

gophergirl on April 29, 2012 at 11:26 AM

What modern day President (other than Jimmy Carter) would have said “no, not gonna do it” after the target had been identified, and operators were enroute?

Clinton. On as many as 12 separate occasions.

BobMbx on April 29, 2012 at 11:27 AM

This is only a “gutsy” call for people who would think of “getting” Bin Laden as a political act- not a strategic one.

Book on April 29, 2012 at 11:27 AM

This is starting to remind me of when the democrats tried to make John Kerry into a war hero when the truth was almost the opposite. It makes me wonder what the real story was because it’s kind of like the White House wants to get their preferred version of history out their first.

pitythefool on April 29, 2012 at 11:28 AM

In essence, Obama accomplished more of Al Qaeda’s aims than Osama ever did ~by his promotion of the delusional “Arab Springregime change follies.

More secular Arab leaders -who were our allies- have fallen to jihadists ~in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, et al~ under Obama, through U.S. military pressure and literal bombing, than Osama could have ever achieved.

Barry is a more effective de facto leader of the Muslim thrust for global dominance than Bin Laden.

That he ordered Osama’s death was thus made meaningless by what Obama did in the Arab world to [witlessly?] further the terrorist’s intolerant, imperialistic Islamic goals.

profitsbeard on April 29, 2012 at 11:28 AM

It goes badly? It never happened. What was the risk? What was the downside? Where was the courage?

Rational Thought on April 29, 2012 at 11:25 AM

But it went well, so the first thing Obama did was tell Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson.

DHChron on April 29, 2012 at 11:28 AM

This isn’t some special thing he did – this is doing his job IMO.

The fact that he has to keep bringing this up shows that he’s been a complete failure in everything else he’s done.

gophergirl on April 29, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Perfect.

Tim_CA on April 29, 2012 at 11:28 AM

This isn’t some special thing he did – this is doing his job IMO.

The fact that he has to keep bringing this up shows that he’s been a complete failure in everything else he’s done.

gophergirl on April 29, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Oh, the Glory Days of the Obama Administration.

BobMbx on April 29, 2012 at 11:30 AM

That’s the beauty of the regime’s current over-reach – and only a Monica, figuratively speaking, could swallow Clinton’s pre-emptive dissing Romney of Romney and the claim he might not have authorized the raid. Over-reaching in return doesn’t accomplish anything.

Yes, Obama does deserve some credit. Of course much of that credit is for taking a political risk, not risking his own personal safety and certainly not risking his personal reputation, since the vast majority of Americans would approve of the effort.

Knowing what we know of Obama’s modus operandi, I do think this IDB editorial gets it right.

Somebody wrote that Adm. McRaven attended last night’s celebrity dinner, but sat largely ignored.

Drained Brain on April 29, 2012 at 11:30 AM

BobMbx on April 29, 2012 at 11:25 AM

SOP..if anyone within the target area does not immediately throw themselves to the ground and place their hands behind their head, or if they make any move that appears threatening, or refuse the commands of the operators…two maybe three shots…they die.

In the few seconds of intensity of any op, there is not a lot of time (nor the luxury) of sorting out folks and getting their curriculum vitae.

Even if the ambiguous order to “get” Osama was to be understood to capture him…the moment he grabbed one of his wives for a shield, he was dead.

Or, would one like to have a repeat of Desert One where a lot of good men died after a President decided at the last minute to scrub a mission?

coldwarrior on April 29, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Was Bin Ladin’s order to execute 9/11 a gutsy call?

Electrongod on April 29, 2012 at 11:31 AM

This ploy by Obama and his handlers is laughable, as are the Dems coming out of the woodwork to praise their awesomely brave Commander-in-Chief.

These are the same people, who during the Bush years in office, showed a contempt. distrust and deep hatred for the military, and showed more sympathy for the terrorists than they did for our troops on the ground. They have always despised war and those who carry it out. From the protesting hippies at Haight/Ashbury in the late 60s to their offspring who now roam the halls of congress, these unpatriotic do-nothings have spit on our soldiers, condemned the entire armed forces when one or two get out of hand at Abu Graib, and now they want us to believe they are so, so proud of the killing of OBL, a killing not at the hands of Obama but by the military they so despise.

So go for it clowns. We know who you are by your words and deeds. If OBL had been taken out during Bush’s term you would all be questioning and criticizing his every move, his methods, his objectives, and probably asking why it took so damn long.

Hypocrites. Phonies. America haters.

fogw on April 29, 2012 at 11:31 AM

We will never know how many other earlier opportunities arose regarding BinLaden (and other top terrorists) where Obama did say “No”.

albill on April 29, 2012 at 11:33 AM

So you just skipped over the part where I wrote, “I don’t think it was as “gutsy” as the White House wants to portray it”?

Ed Morrissey on April 29, 2012 at 11:19 AM

..granted and your dis-assembly of this farce (the POTUS’s role) is accurate. However, wasn’t there also an 18-hour rumination period involved in him consenting to the SEALs taking the shot?

The man is riddled with a history of bad judgment and farting around: the delay, the two-month-long dilly-dallying over the oil spill, constantly claiming to repivot with laser-like focus on jobs and the economy, etc.

Bottom line is that skillful application of these facts can convince most Americans that years of community organizing and voting present has did not produce a person capable of making executive decisions and that he is not worthy of another four years.

..again, skillful application.

The War Planner on April 29, 2012 at 11:34 AM

What a load of horse turds. According to Obama officials themselves, the biggest risk they faced was if OBL wasn’t there. In which case the downside is… really nothing. A little PR hit. Its not like a full on frontal assault that goes bad and hundreds or thousands end up dead. Though that’s what they seem to want to make this out as.

This is by far the lamest claim of “accomplishment” this White House can make. Following up on intelligence and operations begun under the previous administration ? Wow, I’m so impressed.

deadrody on April 29, 2012 at 11:34 AM

The only thing “gutsy” about it was the the Obama administration used the intelligence gathered during the Bush years and continued with Bush policies that Obama campaigned against.

Had Bill Clinton done this it would have been a gutsy call, but for any administration after 9/11 it’s simply an obvious call.

batterup on April 29, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Not However, I meant Additionally.

The War Planner on April 29, 2012 at 11:35 AM

This is all BS. I’d like to see the draft of Obama’s pre-prepared speech to the nation, to deal with the failure of the mission if that happened including taking full responsibility for its failure, as General Eisenhower did before the D-Day invasion.

GaltBlvnAtty on April 29, 2012 at 11:36 AM

This is the week I reflect on how many liberals told me, “This is it. Obama just won reelection.”

Not so fast, libs.

Grace_is_sufficient on April 29, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Or, would one like to have a repeat of Desert One where a lot of good men died after a President decided at the last minute to scrub a mission?

coldwarrior on April 29, 2012 at 11:30 AM

To be quite frank, I don’t there was a single individual in that mission that hadn’t decided to kill Osama Bin Laden before they landed. Maybe they discussed it, maybe they didn’t.

You’d have a hard time convincing me they didn’t enter that building willing to trade their career and possibly their own freedom to kill OBL.

Prisoner? Yes Sir! (that friggin’ guy is dead if he gets in my crosshairs…)

BobMbx on April 29, 2012 at 11:37 AM

THAT’S A PEACE PRIZE!

thebrokenrattle on April 29, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Desperate

cmsinaz on April 29, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Just make them all go away in November. All of them.

BetseyRoss on April 29, 2012 at 11:37 AM

So now “no-brainer” equals “gutsy call”?

A gutsy call would have been bowing to his extreme left-wing anti-war constituency and not have killed him.

hawkdriver on April 29, 2012 at 11:38 AM

I really dislike Obama and am voting for Romney, with that said this is another example of why Bush messed up big time. For years he spent his time trusting Pakistan, and saying Pervez Musharraf was a friend! The constant begging and pleading for Pakistan to help was beyond stupid.

Lesson for the next Republican President: Don’t trust Pakistan, in fact don’t trust any Muslim controlled country. If you see a target you want to wack…just do it…don’t talk…

It sucks that Obama takes the credit, but that is what happens when waste seven years begging a known enemy. It is not just Bush either, but even some so called conservatives, like Michele Bachmann, who still live in the fantasy of Pakistan as too important to fail.

For the love of god, let them fail!!!

William Eaton on April 29, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Even that picture that we always see, that shows everybody watching the raid go down…he looks like a child, that all the adults ‘made’…come into the room.

KOOLAID2 on April 29, 2012 at 11:39 AM

And if there is Islamic retribution for this “gutsy call” and ball-spiking follow-up, will Obama take responsibility?

onlineanalyst on April 29, 2012 at 11:40 AM

It was the right call, but I don’t think it was as “gutsy” as the White House wants to portray it

If I give any credit to this administration it is for this “gutsy” call. The fact that it was in Pakistan, right next to a major military facility is what makes it gutsy.

However, everything else about this administration sucks.

Vince on April 29, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Imagine Biden saying that this was the gutsiest call ever made by any president! How about George Washington’s attack on Christmas morning by crossing a mostly frozen Delaware river to attack the Hessians knowing that if it failed his campaign and the future of America would be in doubt? Or Abraham Lincoln’s decision to SPLIT the nation into North and South to fight a terrible war against fellow Americans? Or FDR’s lying and cheating to help the British fight the Germans until we actually got into the war? Or maybe old Harry Truman’s decision to drop two atomic bombs on the Japs? These were gutsy decisions. Maybe if they had shown them on TV Biden might have known about them! One last thing about “Gutsy”. How is it gutsy to kill someone with out any due process, unless they attempt to kill you first, but to be against enhanced interrogation that might save thousands of your fellow Americans lives? I guess it’s the same as being against the death penalty for murders but FOR abortion for the unborn!

inspectorudy on April 29, 2012 at 11:41 AM

For the love of god, let them fail!!!

William Eaton on April 29, 2012 at 11:38 AM

I say we let India blow them off the map

DHChron on April 29, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Ummm..what is the conclusion of Ed’s analysis here??

To take out Bin Laden based on high probability intel is a no-brainer. It is the default decision. It’s automatic.

He obviously covered his own ass on this by handing over all responsibility to Adm. McRaven.

The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out.

What additional risks determined DURING the operation could be transmitted back to the situation room for Obama to ponder after he was pulled off the golf course?

“OK SEAL team…hold on a sec…we need to wait until the CinC putts out before we can get back to you about that phalanx of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan that suddenly surrounded the compound and is firing on you”

…and the order was to get out if Bin laden weren’t there?
No sh*t. What the hell else were they supposed to do?…crack open a few cold ones before the long flight back to Afghanistan?

Operations like this always have very defined set of parameters, so the claim that there was a special order to abort if the target was not on-site is specious…and stupid.

Reports say that it took Obama 16 hours to reach his decision to green light the mission. It sounds like he needed to get his wall of self-protection up before he would commit.

beedubya on April 29, 2012 at 11:41 AM

profitsbeard on April 29, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Very well summarized. Compound this deliberate expansion of the caliphate with Obama’s subsidizing the Muslim Brotherhood and the Palestinians with American funds, and we have further examples of Obama’s insidious foreign policy.

onlineanalyst on April 29, 2012 at 11:44 AM

So, do some of you want Obama to apologize for, how shall I put this, being President when bin Laden was killed? Because there’s a heck of a lot of sour grapes here.

YYZ on April 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM

I really thought after the primaries were over, a lot of the more vocal shills that seemed bend on carping about every article posted here would pack their bags and move on.

Guess not.

hawkdriver on April 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM

I guarantee Romney wouldn’t have waited 16 hours to pull the trigger. In fact I bet 300 million Americans wouldn’t have waited to make such a “gutsy” call.

Capitalist Infidel on April 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM

So, do some of you want Obama to apologize for, how shall I put this, being President when bin Laden was killed? Because there’s a heck of a lot of sour grapes here.

YYZ on April 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM

nope…he shouldn’t be “spiking the football” so to speak. Who said that? oh yeah

DHChron on April 29, 2012 at 11:47 AM

gutsy post?

sesquipedalian on April 29, 2012 at 11:47 AM

So, do some of you want Obama to apologize for, how shall I put this, being President when bin Laden was killed? Because there’s a heck of a lot of sour grapes here.

YYZ on April 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Ah nope – I want him to stop beating his chest for a decision that was a no-brainer.

He did his job – he shouldn’t be given a victory parade for that.

gophergirl on April 29, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Obvious call….gutless wonder, taking 16 hrs to make it…

ProfShadow on April 29, 2012 at 11:48 AM

The decision to send in our best-trained, violent operators to take our America’s boogeyman was, by definition, a no-brainer. Gutsy would be unequivocally owning the operation before the outcome was known, but of course nobody knew anything was going on until it was done. I’m not saying that keeping a tight lid on it was a bad decision. What I am saying is that, in this case, the right decision was also the easy decision. Nobody should ever build a statue for someone that made the easy choice.

Immolate on April 29, 2012 at 11:48 AM

So, do some of you want Obama to apologize for, how shall I put this, being President when bin Laden was killed? Because there’s a heck of a lot of sour grapes here.

YYZ on April 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM

No, we want him to apologize for taking this country into an economical abyss that will take decades to recover from, if ever.

But we do know Obama is very good at apologizing ……. for the evil misdeeds of America whenever he leaves the country.

fogw on April 29, 2012 at 11:48 AM

The fact that he is holding up operations for his approval seems to be a very ignorant way to prosectute a military exercise.

Rio Linda Refugee on April 29, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Or, would one like to have a repeat of Desert One where a lot of good men died after a President decided at the last minute to scrub a mission?

coldwarrior on April 29, 2012 at 11:30 AM

..in fairness — and not to validate that drooling Georgian goober farmer — but wasn’t the initial order to scrub given the military leadership after malfunctioning of a number of the aircraft:

The failing helicopter’s crew wanted to continue, but due to the increased risk of not having a backup hydraulic system during flight, the helicopter squadron’s commander decided to ground the helicopter. The commander of the operation, Col. Beckwith, then recommended the mission be aborted and his recommendation was approved by President Carter. As the helicopters repositioned themselves for refueling, one helicopter ran into a C-130 tanker aircraft and crashed, killing eight U.S. servicemen and injuring several more.

Sadly, the crashes and fatalities occurred after the abort. The stink that arose out of that was that Carter had let the military degrade so much that this operation was seen as a cluster fark.

Obama’s really lucky he had the SEALs and a competent — though fraying — military.

Given another four years, he will be able to enjoy similar failures.

The War Planner on April 29, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Ah nope – I want him to stop beating his chest for a decision that was a no-brainer.

He did his job – he shouldn’t be given a victory parade for that.

gophergirl on April 29, 2012 at 11:47 AM

..let him continue. This will get old very quick and he will be seen for the arrogant, skinny, pathetic little Johnny One-Note he really is.

The War Planner on April 29, 2012 at 11:51 AM

I think it’s very likely that a raid in Pakistan next to the Pakistani military academy had to have presidential approval. I’d be very surprised if they delegated the go order to a three-star.

On the other hand, execution, training, planning and intelligence development would have been under McRaven’s control.

blofeld42 on April 29, 2012 at 11:52 AM

DHChron on April 29, 2012 at 11:41 AM

…OT for a sec…how’s the pup?

KOOLAID2 on April 29, 2012 at 11:52 AM

“bent”

hawkdriver on April 29, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Yeahhhhh, a gutsy call is sending planes to bomb Ghaddafi back in the 80′s to send him a message. Taking out Bin Laden, that’s about as gutsy as cashing the winning ticket for a $100 million Powerball lottery.

Bishop on April 29, 2012 at 11:53 AM

…OT for a sec…how’s the pup?

KOOLAID2 on April 29, 2012 at 11:52 AM

she’s great koolaid :) all the bone is covered up now and she walks on the leg occasionally. I’ll post some pics later, thanks for asking

DHChron on April 29, 2012 at 11:54 AM

I say we let India blow them off the map

DHChron on April 29, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Correct! I always hear leftist and Muslims go on about the occupied lands in Palestine, which the civilized world knows as Israel, but what about the occupied lands in India, which the uncivilized world knows as Pakistan. We need to support India, the democracy in that part of world, and not Pakistan, the Islamic state. Also our relationship with India is more important from a military strategic view (China) and from a trade / economic stand point than anything we get from Pakistan. Our relationship with Pakistan over the years is shameful, foolish, and has come back to bite us on the ass.

William Eaton on April 29, 2012 at 11:55 AM

I think it’s very likely that a raid in Pakistan next to the Pakistani military academy had to have presidential approval. I’d be very surprised if they delegated the go order to a three-star.

Believe it.

Static21 on April 29, 2012 at 11:57 AM

DHChron @11:13
Exactly, 300 Mexicans 2 Americans dead……. If he wants the credit for Bin Laden, He’s due all the credit of Fast@Furious ………Hey Mitt, hammer this home………..

angrymike on April 29, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Static21 on April 29, 2012 at 11:57 AM

About the 3 star. Is what I meant to say…

Static21 on April 29, 2012 at 11:59 AM

DHChron on April 29, 2012 at 11:54 AM

…I think about those ‘beasts’ more…now that I know the ‘gutsy’ guy has had them for lunch!

KOOLAID2 on April 29, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Think of all the people that prop this man up doing everything they can to make him look good. They know the truth. It has to make some of them want to vomit.

bailey24 on April 29, 2012 at 12:01 PM

I have been reading some of the White House Insider interviews over at Ulsterman (I probably lost some readers on that) and I am skeptical about some of the stories but the attached was released 3 May 11. To me, it fits with this new information. Take it as you will.

http://socyberty.com/issues/white-house-insider-obama-hesitated-panetta-issued-order-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/

Russ86 on April 29, 2012 at 12:04 PM

DHChron on April 29, 2012 at 11:11 AM

:)

bazil9 on April 29, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Exactly, 300 Mexicans 2 Americans dead……. If he wants the credit for Bin Laden, He’s due all the credit of Fast@Furious ………Hey Mitt, hammer this home………..

angrymike on April 29, 2012 at 11:57 AM

…give him the credit for all the people being assaulted around the country for Zimmerman too! They are responsible for some guy who what would have looked like his son.

KOOLAID2 on April 29, 2012 at 12:04 PM

A recent Military Times poll has Obama’s approval rating with the Marines at 25%.

They don’t trust him. They know who is really responsible for getting OBL.

beedubya on April 29, 2012 at 12:05 PM

DHChron @11:13
Exactly, 300 Mexicans 2 Americans dead…….( so far) If he wants the credit for Bin Laden, He’s due all the credit of Fast@Furious ………Hey Mitt, hammer this home………..

angrymike on April 29, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Damn straight!

bazil9 on April 29, 2012 at 12:06 PM

“The memo puts all control in the hands of Admiral McRaven – the “timing, operational decision making and control” are all up to McRaven. So the notion that Obama and his team were walking through every stage of the operation is incorrect. The hero here was McRaven, not Obama. And had the mission gone wrong, McRaven surely would have been thrown under the bus.”

Six degrees of separation.
Slappy spikes the ball that was thrown in-bounds by GW Bush.
What a champ! /sarc

Anyone who has read the facts behind the “momentus” decision made by Ø’Bambi knows damn good and well that he fully insulated himself should he be characterized as the incompetent Jimmuh Cottuh redux re: Iran. The HUMINT assets and SOF troops were readied under Mr. Bush.
Gee … What a convenient fact to omit.
Just UndØ It.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on April 29, 2012 at 12:08 PM

KOOLAID2
+ 100,000
Bazil9
thanks for FIFM……….;)

angrymike on April 29, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Yup. That Willard guy sure is a sissy.

My collie says:

Ya’ mean, THIS kind of sissy.

Ooooo. Not quite THAT much of a sissy, collie.

CyberCipher on April 29, 2012 at 12:08 PM

I’m beginning to wonder about Ms. Malkins priorities with this blog. Ed, old bean, I think you need to consider writing for HuffPo. You give more positive attention to Obama, along with AP, than is deserved.

If this were a more serious endeavor we’d see in~depth articles about Fast and Furious, etc. They almost don’t exist at Hot Gas anymore.

DevilsPrinciple on April 29, 2012 at 12:09 PM

I really thought after the primaries were over, a lot of the more vocal shills that seemed bend on carping about every article posted here would pack their bags and move on.

Guess not.

hawkdriver on April 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Here’s another news flash for you: There is no tooth fairy.

Does anybody remember how W was excoriated when a picture of him looking out the window of AF-1 after 9-11 was included in a Bush 2004 donation packet?

My how times have changed.

cozmo on April 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Barack Obama is the President who killed Osama bin Laden.

Ten years of CIA, FBI, Army/Navy Intelligence, NSA and all the rest of the agencies involved in the hunt for osama resulted in a situation where barry got to say,”Go ahead.” Now maybe he did that without a telepromptor which would increase the degree of difficulty for him but osama was a hunted man from day ne and limited in his ability to run al queda. His death did not make my economic situation any better but lots of stuff barry and his fascist academic team did made my life a whole lot more difficult.

peacenprosperity on April 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM

thanks for FIFM……….;)

angrymike on April 29, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Anytime, my brother.;)

bazil9 on April 29, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Anyone who tells you that “Obama got Osama” tell them that he also got a peace prize. MAKE THEM SQUARE THAT CIRCLE.

thebrokenrattle on April 29, 2012 at 12:12 PM

DevilsPrinciple on April 29, 2012 at 12:09 PM

…I guess… we’re counting on you to replace Tina.

KOOLAID2 on April 29, 2012 at 12:13 PM

That was a decision?

I thought it merely a given.

Would someone have not authorized the mission? After 9/11?

Seriously?

Shivas Irons on April 29, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Barry was sitting on the decision for weeks, not ballsy enough to make a call, if memory serves.

galtani on April 29, 2012 at 11:12 AM

The reason the WH keeps calling this decision “gutsy” is only because BHO was dragged kicking and screaming to it, and giving the order went against everything his instincts tell him to believe. The WH knows BHO well enough to know that 9 times out of 10 he does not make this decision on his own, but only with the help of “persuasive” elements.

Profitsbeard is right, everything BHO has done in the ME pretty much negates the Bin Laden raid x1000.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on April 29, 2012 at 12:14 PM

DevilsPrinciple on April 29, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Ummm..Malkin sold the site..where you been?

bazil9 on April 29, 2012 at 12:14 PM

If this were a more serious endeavor we’d see in~depth articles about Fast and Furious, etc. They almost don’t exist at Hot Gas anymore.

DevilsPrinciple on April 29, 2012 at 12:09 PM

You got that right sister!

Go start one.

cozmo on April 29, 2012 at 12:15 PM

A recent Military Times poll has Obama’s approval rating with the Marines at 25%.

They don’t trust him. They know who is really responsible for getting OBL.

beedubya on April 29, 2012 at 12:05 PM

..that high? My LCPL son says all the folks in his unit thinks the guy sucks. Empirical evidence, I know, but..

The War Planner on April 29, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3