Intresting Obama/binladen article

[Robert Thomas]

Damn typed a whole reply and hit the wrong key and lost it. I'll try again.



What amazes me is how the point of my search for information was completely turned into a vote on if the President should be playing Golf. How what I wrote was completely misinterpreted and how my statements were rewritten to mean something else. How you know we have a completely difference of opinion and how I now need a 101 course on different life experiences. You asked me several question and I answered them. I only asked one and never got a answer, yes or no. I don't need to divorce myself and ask questions on why you think the way you do. I want to know more about the process that led up to the raid.



My starting post asked all to read the article, read the transcript of Panetta's interview, and read the transcript of the President. Then ask yourself if you want to know more. I wanted to know more. If you didn't want to know more, OK with me. If you did want to know more, OK with me.



I stated my concerns about the golf outing because I saw it as important, to me. I sought the yes or no answer to my question as not a condemnation of the President but as a gateway to the overall question of did the President know of the raid before it happened. For me this was important to the article and the transcripts. That answer could leads me to want to know more about the process. To me it makes no difference if he micro managed the raid or that he just gave Panetta the go ahead and heard about it on the golf course. It was his doing and he gets the credit. I tend to study interviews and listen to what people say. The interviews are interesting.

 

[Bud Williams]

Difference between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in a crisis?.....None...Both are going for a hole in one!:banana:

 

[Richard L]

Redfish,

your question was: "Would I have played golf on the day of the raid". I already answered that when I said "I did not play golf, but I know others find golf relaxing".



The other part of your arguement assumes that the article Eddie linked to was accurate and truthful. You can accept the artivle as the truth, but I don't. I do not accept the article because the person being interviewed is not identified, as well as the fact that it appeared on an obviosly anti-Obama website. I don't think that website has any more credibility than "The National Enquirer", or the "Globe", both who are well known for fabricating outlandish stories to sell newspapers.



As I have previously said, several times, I don't approve of how Obama has handled the economy, jobs, Healthcare, the budget and deficiets, but I do give him credit for for getting bin Laden.



Even if after 10 years it's a bit of a hollow victory and that does not mean Al Qaida will just go away. Hopefully the intelligence the SEALs captured at bin Laden's house will be helpful in dismantling much of Al Qaida.



...Rich

 

[Robert Thomas]

 

[Robert Thomas]

Rich



I am not smart enough to interpret that as a answer. Since I will not put words in your mouth, is that a yes you would or no you would not.



I never accepted he article as true. I went to the transcripts of Panetta and the President for facts. By searching I found out some of what is true and what is probably false. The President supports some of what is said in the article, as does Panetta. Some items in the article don't seem possible and are unsupported.



The article and both interviews support the facts that the President gave Panetta the written authorization to proceed with the operation. How could anyone question that he wasn't responsible for the raid and the killing of bin Laden. No one is saying that.

 

[Richard L]

Redfish,

No I would not play golf, only because I don't like golf. However, I do not object that the President played golf, or basketball or anything that he enjoys doing. He put Panetta in charge of the operation and he trusted him to do the job. If he did not trust him to do the job, he should have never made him Secretary of Defense. Would you have trusted Rumsfeld with that mission? I know I wouldn't, but then I never liked him



Everything I read about the raid are all filled with contradictions. I find some parts believable and other parts not so much. Reporters who covered these press conferences often differ slightly in how they tell their story and add a bit of their own opinions creep into their version, or how we perceive what they said. That's just human nature.



My whole issue with this article that Eddie posted is that it portrays Obama as being indecisive, dragging his feet and not engaged in the planning. One could easily say that the person being interview simply had a difference of opinion. Consider that Obama had to protect his Presidency and there was a lot of risk to him and his office if the mission failed.



While we may never know who the article interviewed, I would suspect that Obama and his Senior Advisor (Jarrett) would probably know who it is. When someone runs to the enemy (anti-Obama website) to talk behind my back I know that I would have lost all trust in them and I certainly would not want that person as part of my staff. They would be fired.



I also find it hard to believe that whenever there is a Whitehouse leak (if there really was any leak), the first place they go is to these rags and scandal sheets to tell their story. In this case, it would have been a bit more believable if they had at least gone to FOX news, who I am sure would have published the story if they thought it contained a shred of truth.



These websites do not have to tell the truth, because they are not considered legitimate newspapers or mainstream media who have some responsibility, respectability and reputation to protect. They just pop up, spew out their poliltical garbage in the form of lies, distortions and BS and hope they get enough people to believe it, and theywill tell their friends, etc. I just don't like BS and it usually starts with unbelievable witnesses and outlandish statements that cannot be cooborated or proven.



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Redfish said:

I sought the yes or no answer to my question as not a condemnation of the President but as a gateway to the overall question of did the President know of the raid before it happened.

Now it is me that is amazed.



Amazed that anyone would even wonder that or have that question in their mind.



I just assumed with what I felt to be 100% certainty that the president was well aware of the raid, its planning, and its time of intended execution. I suspect he knew about it days if not weeks in advance, and had instructed those that plan the specific execution of these things to keep him in the loop of all events as they transpired.



I only state these assumptions because I see these things as his "job".



I don't know the details. I don't know if there was a standby in place with seals at the ready looking for the right window of opportunity for the raid. If that were the case, I don't know how long that standby lasted (hours, days...). Or, maybe there was a specific date/time defined days in advance. Again, I don't know.



What I am confident on is that few people knew about this, BHO was one of them, and he was kept in the loop and probably was calling final shots (go, no-go, etc)...but even that he "might" have delegated.



I find these questions and their answers interesting. But since the outcome was a success, I personally don't feel the need to poke at this...



TJR

 

[Robert Thomas]

TJR - I should have been clearer. My fault. Did he know in the morning of the raid that it was going to take place that afternoon. He knew and approved, in writing, the raid. Was he aware that morning? I don't know. For a individual that sees nothing as "black and white" you take a big leap to 100% certainty that he knew its time of intended execution. Glad I could amaze you. Thanks for the comment.





Rich - So if you played golf the answer would be yes? I will put you down as "Present" in the vote.



To answer you Rumsfield question. No. I would be sitting on his desk at 5:30 am.



Off Topic - Rich - The shocks that you installed on your Trac Cover. Are they automatic (electric open) or manual. Do they get in the way. Can you still remove the cover completely without any additional problems. Thanks.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Redfish,



I didn't mean to say that I thought BHO knew the exact intended time of execution. If you read the entire post above you will probably get that.



What I was trying to say was that I suspected that he either knew a set time or that there was a given window in which those directing the shots would be looking for an opportunity and then the raid would happen.



Either way, I don't see it critical or required that the president sit by in the situation room while the Seals were on standby, or as they were preparing for the raid, whichever the case might have been.



TJR

 

[Richard L]

Redfish,

Off Topic - Rich - The shocks that you installed on your Trac Cover. Are they automatic (electric open) or manual. Do they get in the way. Can you still remove the cover completely without any additional problems. Thanks.

The shocks I used were NOT Electric, they were oil dampened "Gas Springs" which contain about 2000 psi of nitrogen gas. They mount on the sides of the cover where the tonneau cover and are designed not to block access to the sides of the bed...especially for the front cover since the only access is from the side. Howeer, I have closed the LeverLift Company and no longer make the tonneau lift kits or stock parts.



As for my playing golf on the day of the raid: If I actually played golf and wanted to play golf, it would depend on my trust in guy in charge of the operation. Obama is not a military strategist, he is a politician as were most of our Presidents. Panetta was the Intelligence guru from the CIA who just took over as Secretary of Defense. Gates was there as well as all the Military strategist and planners.



I think Obama layed out exactly what he wanted and did not want and was given assurances that he would get the results he wanted. I'm sure they would have discussed contigencies and cover stories of how to minimize damage if the mission should fail. I think that is normal for all Presidents and executives to do when the take these kinds of risks.



Yes, he could have gone to the meeting room at 5:30am, but what would he do. Everything was in the hands of his trusted Intelligence and Military strategist. He probably only gotten in the way, or would appear that he did not trust the people or the plan.



Remember, that in my military career, I was a senior NCO who would have been part of a team executing the mission and following the orders from my military commanders. Not from the President, so it would not matter to me if the President was playing golf, having dinner, or sitting on the crapper. Most military people are only dealing with superiors who are only one or two levels above them in their chain of command.



I suspect that the Generals and Panetta preferred that the President not be present when they were in the final stages before the actual arrival at bin Ladens compound. If Obama was there, I would hope that he had the common sense to keep his mouth shut, and just watch and listen. I'm sure they did not need him to be asking a bunch of stupid questions, since that might put doubt into their minds and perhaps think they needed to make changes that were not rehearsed.



...Rich

 

[Robert Thomas]

Rich,



Thanks for the reply on the shocks.



I basically don't have any problem with your feelings and thoughts on the raid. I only differ from you on my quest to find out the process. I have some problems with statements made by different individuals and time lines.



Never said that the President should be in at 5:30. Only replied to your question.



Your closing speculations on what actually happened is close to what I actually think happened. I have no problem with this.



TJR



"What we have here is a Failure to Communicate"



I'll take the baseball and go to the hotbox, and give you each the last word.



If you are 100% sure. I take you at your word.



I will move you from a Present to a Yes.



:haveabeer:

 

[Richard L]

Redfish,

Let me take a moment of your time to tell you a funny story that happened during my time in the military, as it somewhat relates to Obama or any President and his role in the planning and execution of the bin Laden raid.



I was a senior Staff Sergeant working with a team of about 15 other people consisting of Commissioned Officers, Warrant Officers, NCOs and enlisted personnel. The people on this team were handpicked, and considered to be the top 3% of people in their field. That meant that we were moved to the front of the promotion lists, ahead of people with more experience or time in service. We function very well as a team, and everyone on the team knew their roles and did their jobs to meet or exceed the highest standards.



A new Major had just taken over our team a few weeks earlier and assumed he knew everything about what we were doing which was obvious that he did not. He got in front of our group and began to knit-pick things that he did not like. After the Major finished, he asked if there were any questions or complaints. Everyone was silent except my friend, another Staff Sergeant. My friend stood up and said to the Major. Sir, you dont have any idea about anything we do. The best thing you can do is go back into your office and keep your mouth shut, and I promise that we will make you look good!



I think everyones jaw dropped to the floor. The Majors face turned red, and he went back into his office. Of course a few minutes later he called my friend into his office to "discuss" his statement.



Afterwards my friend told me that the Major was not pissed off at what he said, but that he said it in front of everyone in the office, which I can support him on that. Surprisingly, the Major never got on our case again, learned more about what we were doing, and did not try to implement unneccessary changes, and turned out to be an effective team leaderand I think we did make him look good! :grin:



I certainly dont agree that my friend should have done that especially in front of the everyone, but I think that same feeling would apply to Obama if he started knit-picking the Intelligence and military planners as the raid was getting underway.



Rich

 

[Richard L]

Redfish,

I only differ from you on my quest to find out the process. I have some problems with statements made by different individuals and time lines.

Almost all of these kinds of high drama incidents will have conficting details and timelines from different peoples point of view. Most of these details are not very significant and only appear to be a criticism of people involed.



Just as the President cannot possibly micro-manage the military operation, we should not micro-manage the President on such minor details as what he was doing when, what he knew and when he knew it. That's what some people here are trying to do but their motive is to somehow put Obama under a microscope just to find fault.



Obama has made enough big mistakes that has sunk his approval rating for dealing with the economy, jobs and deficiet to around 37%. After getting bin Laden, his approval rating has climed up to around 60%. Unless he can get the economy going again, his ratings will continue to fall between now and the election. My only hope is that the Republicans can pick a viable candidate that can beat Obama...and that does not include the arrogant A-hole named Donald Trump:angry:



...Rich

 

[Robert Thomas]

Rich



So your telling me I have no business questioning the process? I should not read articles of this type, never let them spark my interest, or in any way say anything that appears to be critical of elected/appointed officials (unless it is deemed significant.)



I will redirect my efforts at the presidents approval ratings and arrogant A-holes.

 

[Richard L]

Redfish,

So your telling me I have no business questioning the process? I should not read articles of this type, never let them spark my interest, or in any way say anything that appears to be critical of elected/appointed officials (unless it is deemed significant.)

Yep!



Just kidding. Of course you are free to question anything you want, but just realize that operations like this raid will have people claiming many different things mostly based on rumors or on someone's perception who may or may not have any direct knowledge. People were jumping all over Obama about insignificant details or nuts and bolts of the operation that he would not know. From the SEAL team to the President probably has 6 levels of command and all act as a filter to all communications. The SEALS had to all be debriefed individually for the local commanders to know all the details to know exactly what went on during the raid, who shot at who and every minor detail is examined and compared to what another SEAL said.



Obama only made the basic statement that they had gotten bin Laden. But the media is not satisfied with that so they start asking other people who may or may not know anymore about it and assume everthing they say is the gospel truth.



I just think it's best to calm down and let them evaluate all the details before criticizing them because some minor details don't agree with your assumptions.

I will redirect my efforts at the presidents approval ratings and arrogant A-holes.

What ever makes you happy...But A-Hole Trump has dropped out of the Presidential campaign (like I knew he would) He just wanted the spotlight to point at him for a little while and when Obama showed his Birth Certificate, Trump knew he had made an Ass out of himself. He even cancelled his opportunity to drive the Pace car at this month's Indianappolis 500 race....What a Jerk!



...Rich

 

[Robert Thomas]

He found out it was a Indy car race not a NASCAR race, so no votes to be had. Besides they told him the windows would have to say down and his hair wouldn't take it.

 

[Richard L]

Redfish,

Yes, I heard the same thing...:bwahaha:



His hair would be about a lap behind at the start of the race:bwahaha:



...Rich

 

[Robert Thomas]

The Indy 500 race was red flaged immediately after the start because of a 22 car wreck and fire that started when Donald Trump's hair flew out of the pace car and got caught in Danica Patrick's helmet shield. Donald Trump appeared in a after race interview and denied his hair was responsible for the wreck. However, several reporters indicated that his hair now is combed front to back and was badly burnt. President Obama attending the race, in a bold move, had Trump's hair seized by the attending Seal Team 84. DNA test came back to a Columbian woman who sold her hair two years ago to get money to travel to Mexico. She now lives in West Virginia and is a member of ACORN. Danica Pactrick was ordered to appear before a Presidential Commission established by Obama, it is chaired by President Clinton.

 

[Richard L]

Yes,

And the winner of the race refused to take the traditional drink of milk, stating that there were pieces of Trumps hair in it !!



:bwahaha:



...Rich

 

[Kevin Lang]

Wasn't the whole Trump presidency bid for nothing but publicity the whole time? According to all the polls I saw, he didn't stand a chance even in the primaries. Even Wiki says he was ranked 5th for the Republican candidates.



Where you say he made an "Ass" out of himself, he'd say he made himself a household name.



Also, his pace car withdraw gave him far more press than actually driving the pace car would, in any likelihood, would have. Withdrawing got his name further in the lexicon, and his offer to drive the car got thousands of Indy fans to angrily sign a petition to get Trump booted from the pace car, so they now know his name.



Shoot, we're still talking about it here.



I'm sure he's saying Mission Accomplished right about now :bwahaha: