Who Gets the Credit?

dustyrhoades 2 years ago

Like most of Mr. Strojny's "contributions", this is glib but ultimately empty of meaning.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 12 months ago

Yet, you keep reading. Thanks again.

Ross 2 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

George Bush "cooked that burger" all too well, all too well done, as in BURNT!. And especially after that 'MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" Fiasco. A Commander in Chief/General NEVER credits himself or herself with a battle victory before the enemy's General is either killed or captured. Our present Commander in Chief gave the "guttsy" order to send in the SEALS to kill the Leader of Al-Qaeda. Without his orders the SEALS would have not been allowed to complete their mission, but because of that command OBL is no longer on the face if this earth. OBL is at the bottom of the sea and our GREAT Commander in Chief in a more subdued situation alerted the NATION to that fact. A TRUE MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Then the real previous CLOWNS started to mush mouth those FACTS. Sorry are the only words left to describe them.

teufelhunden 2 years ago

He better not muck up Israel. Got news for ya...that would be a disaster!

DaveyNC 2 years ago

I am very queasy about what he just did with Israel. He is playing around with life and death there.

teufelhunden 2 years ago

You are so right. The timing is sketchy too. Not good.

dustyrhoades 2 years ago

Even Charles Krauthammer admits he's just articulating the same policy towards Israel as George W Bush and Bill Clinton.

teufelhunden 2 years ago

Wow! Really?

dustyrhoades 2 years ago

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-news-in-obamas-speech/2011/05/19/AF4dFN7G_story.html?nav=emailpage

A new formulation favorable to maximal Arab demands. True, that idea has been the working premise for negotiations since 2000. But no president had ever before publicly and explicitly endorsed the 1967 lines.

Note how Krauthammer manages to contradict himself in the same paragraph. "That has been the working premise since 2000, but no one's ever said it." Right.

He's also wrong: Dubbya called for a division roughly based on the "1949 Armistice lines". i.e. the pre-1967 war border, with "mutually agreed swaps".

dennisnd62 2 years ago

Of all people to call my short note "glib and without meaning"! You've been making a living with stuff like that! It was actually a direct quote from a recently recently retired Navy Seal. Why don't you tell him personally what you think of his writing?

dustyrhoades 2 years ago

So you're unoriginal as well. Imagine my surprise.

Especially since you can't come up with any better retort than yet another iteration of the lame old "I know you are, but what am I?"

dennisnd62 2 years ago

I enclosed that with quotation marks and the editor deleted them. Your weekly spewing of Democratic talking points really isn't original either. If you used quotation marks, you wouldn't have a column.

dustyrhoades 2 years ago

I use quotation marks all the time, Denny. And I attribute my sources. Otherwise it's plagiarism.

teufelhunden 2 years ago

DR erased his credibility as far as I'm concerned with his hypocritical post about Cain.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 12 months ago

The one where I said I respected his accomplishments, but disagreed with his policies?

JT 2 years ago

If anyone looks at the whole thing, one condition imposed by Obama was that Hamas formally recognize Isreal as a state. Not gonna happen, so nothing will change. You can bet he was in touch with the israeli powers before releasing the comments.

carlj1161 2 years ago

It's called "sour grapes" because President Obama did something good. Most people in this country are smart enough to know who actually did the nuts and bolts work of the operation. But the question you have to ask yourself is, "could you actually sign the order that possibly gets a young man or woman killed" Like it or not, Obama gave the order and the soldiers followed them, as they should. So quit insulting and cheapening our soldiers accomplishments with your petty, cry baby insults directed toward the President. As a former military man, I can say, insulting the President is the same as insulting a soldier. Even if the individuals don't agree with the Presidents politics, they follow their orders. Grow up and quit trying to cheapen a well earned victory with your petty crap.

dustyrhoades 2 years ago

I can say, insulting the President is the same as insulting a soldier

Carl, while I agree with the rest of this post, I can't agree with you on this part. I didn't buy into it during the Dubbya years, when any criticism of the Dear Leader Bush would draw an accusation that you 'hated the troops" and I don't buy into it now.

The President set the priorities, gave his people the mission, approved the plan and gave the go order. He wasn't like the guy in the commercial, as our plagiarizing friend Dennis claims in his letter (apparently cut and pasted without attribution from someone else). Obama was more like the CEO, and yes, he deserves the credit for his part. As do the people who executed the plan.

teufelhunden 1 year, 12 months ago

Mauiman-I totally agree-happened on his watch!

dustyrhoades 1 year, 12 months ago

Actually, both of those things were well underway under Bush, and you know it. Y'all don't even make a pretense of honesty any more, do you?

teufelhunden 1 year, 12 months ago

"You can't handle the truth!"

mcg2010 1 year, 12 months ago

Mauiman, by your logic does this mean we should blame Bush 42 for 9/11?

teufelhunden 1 year, 12 months ago

Now that is just plain silly. You know good and well there's a difference.

mcg2010 1 year, 12 months ago

Ergo your logic is silly. Stop playing the blame game and start coming up with useful solutions.

teufelhunden 1 year, 12 months ago

I give Obama and any president credit for what they have a role in accomplishing. Guess what? They all make big mistakes-whoppers! Your 9/11 comment was a very disrespectful & distasteful example on your part. That's what I'm saying.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 12 months ago

You know good and well there's a difference.

Sure there is. One happened on a Republican's watch, but you'll never blame a Republican for anything, and one started under a Republican and continued under a Democrat, so you'll blame the Democrat for everything. And as the economy gets better, you won't give the Democratic President credit for it, choosing instead to credit the Republican House, even though they've done squat to promote job creation.

sgmartin 1 year, 12 months ago

Were you born in 2008 ? I have no idea how you can make that claim if you have any understanding of history and what got us to where we are today.

teufelhunden 2 years ago

I agree: Obama deserves credit for OBL because it happened on his watch.

teufelhunden 1 year, 12 months ago

True leaders own up to their own mistakes & don't blame others for them.

moonchild7 1 year, 12 months ago

The low unemployment rates during Bush's Presidency were due to TWO FACTORS: The Surplus that Clinton turned over to him and the Absolutely CRAZY and IRRESPONSIBLE CREDIT CARD FEEDING FRENZY AMERICANS happened to be EATING ON! I've been able to sit back relatively well these past 10 yrs and watch it sink(for many). I just never "bought into" the keeping up with the Jones' mentalilty and I tried many times to "teach" some of my friends and relatives those same techniques...to no avail. So sadly, I've watched several bankruptcies, divorces, and major illness ensue. The TURN AROUND for the economy might be many, many more years to go. President Obama inherited that mess and has done what he thinks(or is told)is the best remedy to get us out of it. It's a CRAZY, CRAZY mess out there, and who knows when OR IF it will recover back to the "GOLDEN AGE" of spending $$$$$ that most people don't have.

teufelhunden 1 year, 12 months ago

You know MC7, I totally agree with you in that people need to learn to live with less and understand the difference between needs & wants. We are such a greedy & wasteful society. Never felt like I needed to have something because it was the latest and greatest gizmo. Live within your means and you will actually be able to pay your bills, use cash more and not use your credit cards for unnecessary "stuff". Possessions end up owning you after a while. There's freedom in frugality.

difflook 1 year, 12 months ago

For the SOLDIERS, For the COUNTRY, For us all, APPLAUD ALL on this one, ALL our Former presidents, Clinton and Bush, our Current one, Obama, certainly to the NAVY SEALS!!! For ONCE we all should come together, STOp bickering about parites and positions and be thankful!

sgmartin 1 year, 12 months ago

Absolutely!

teufelhunden 1 year, 12 months ago

Amen to that!

fatboy 1 year, 12 months ago

Clinton could have gotten the credit for killing bin Laden if he had listened to Oliver North instead of fooling around with Lewinski. North could have delivered bin Laden to Clinton twice, but Clinton didn't know who he was.

jimt 1 year, 12 months ago

That is either a deliberate lie or you are ignorant. In the case of the latter, I would remind you that Clinton attacked bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan with cruise missiles.

What if anything did the convicted felon (yes I know his conviction was voided on a "legal technicality.") had to tell President Clinton? You are aware (or maybe not) that Ollie was long gone from the NSC before Clinton became President?

fatboy 1 year, 12 months ago

Check Snopes.com; bin Laden and Clinton. Clinton orderes strilkes on terrorist camps to draw attention away from him and Lewinski. Maybe if YOU do al little research, you may be able to communicate facts instead of opinion. Although Clinton ordered attacks, he didn't know who the mastermind was.

jimt 1 year, 12 months ago

fatboy.

YOU are wrong. I'll match my research skills against yours any day of the week. Clinton's administration was quite aware of bin Laden. I was in the Intelligence Community at the time. I had colleagues on the NSC and in intelligence agencies. Try checking reporting at the time.

jimt 1 year, 12 months ago

Excerpts of comments by Senator John McCain on the Floor of the United States Senate

“With so much misinformation being fed into such an essential public debate as this one, I asked the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta, for the facts. And I received the following information:

“The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. We did not first learn from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the real name of bin Laden’s courier, or his alias, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the man who ultimately enabled us to find bin Laden. The first mention of the name Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, as well as a description of him as an important member of Al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country. The United States did not conduct this detainee’s interrogation, nor did we render him to that country for the purpose of interrogation. We did not learn Abu Ahmed’s real name or alias as a result of waterboarding or any ‘enhanced interrogation technique’ used on a detainee in U.S. custody. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts, or an accurate description of his role in Al-Qaeda.

“In fact, not only did the use of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed; it actually produced false and misleading information. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married, and ceased his role as an Al-Qaeda facilitator — which was not true, as we now know. All we learned about Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti through the use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ against Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the confirmation of the already known fact that the courier existed and used an alias.

“I have sought further information from the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and they confirm for me that, in fact, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in Al-Qaeda and his true relationship to Osama bin Laden — was obtained through standard, non-coercive means, not through any ‘enhanced interrogation technique.’

“In short, it was not torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees that got us the major leads that ultimately enabled our intelligence community to find Osama bin Laden. I hope former Attorney General Mukasey will correct his misstatement. It’s important that he do so because we are again engaged in this important debate, with much at stake for America’s security and reputation. Each side should make its own case, but do so without making up its own facts."

So James, what do you know that the Senator does not?

jimt 1 year, 12 months ago

“With so much misinformation being fed into such an essential public debate as this one, I asked the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta, for the facts. And I received the following information:

“The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. We did not first learn from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the real name of bin Laden’s courier, or his alias, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the man who ultimately enabled us to find bin Laden. The first mention of the name Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, as well as a description of him as an important member of Al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country. The United States did not conduct this detainee’s interrogation, nor did we render him to that country for the purpose of interrogation. We did not learn Abu Ahmed’s real name or alias as a result of waterboarding or any ‘enhanced interrogation technique’ used on a detainee in U.S. custody. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts, or an accurate description of his role in Al-Qaeda. “In fact, not only did the use of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed; it actually produced false and misleading information. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married, and ceased his role as an Al-Qaeda facilitator — which was not true, as we now know. All we learned about Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti through the use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ against Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the confirmation of the already known fact that the courier existed and used an alias. “I have sought further information from the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and they confirm for me that, in fact, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in Al-Qaeda and his true relationship to Osama bin Laden — was obtained through standard, non-coercive means, not through any ‘enhanced interrogation technique.’ “In short, it was not torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees that got us the major leads that ultimately enabled our intelligence community to find Osama bin Laden. I hope former Attorney General Mukasey will correct his misstatement. It’s important that he do so because we are again engaged in this important debate, with much at stake for America’s security and reputation. Each side should make its own case, but do so without making up its own facts."

dustyrhoades 1 year, 12 months ago

If you're seriously asking that question, you will never comprehend the answer.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 12 months ago

Agree that the operation was the result of hundreds of pieces of information. Agree that the facts are that we're at war with Al-Quaida. Agree that our forces were fired upon during the raid. Agree that waterboarding is inconsistent with our values.

And I reiterate: if you truly can't see the difference between shooting someone in the middle of a firefight, someone who's publicly said he wants to die fighting Americans, someone who the SEALS reasonably believed would have weapons in the room and who refused to surrender...if you can't see the difference between that and torturing someone who's helpless and completely in your power, then there is no more point in this conversation. You will never understand. If you cannot make that distinction, there is something deeply wrong with you, on a fundamental moral level.

jimt 1 year, 12 months ago

James: "And I give the CIA great credit for extracting the name of bin Laden's courier through waterboarding (as well as credit to Bush for authorizing its use). Like many others, I simply do not believe waterboarding is torture. But what is undisputed (as shown by the links above with Panetta and Donilin), is that the Obama administration has already conceded that intel obtained through waterboarding was part of the "pieces" which led the SEALS to bin Laden...my original point precisely.

You are simply wrong. Reread what McCain said. He asked if the couriers name was obtained through enhanced interrogtion (which is more than just waterboarding). He said Panetta told him it was not. McCain: "We did not learn Abu Ahmed’s real name or alias as a result of waterboarding or any ‘enhanced interrogation technique’ used on a detainee in U.S. custody. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts, or an accurate description of his role in Al-Qaeda."

But keep up the BIG LIE, it's what you and Bushies relied on for eight years and it seems to work for you.

jimt 1 year, 12 months ago

Panetta never said that the enhanced interrogation techniques yielded the couriers code name or real name. Ignatius never wrote that the enhanced interrogation techniques yielded the couriers "nickname." You've" a priori" read that into what Panetta said and what Ignatius wrote. So I guess your calling McCain a liar? I have nearly 17 years in the intelligence community, with top secret and code word clearances, that tell me that Panetta, and Jay Carney, the President's press secretary, finagled the questions regarding the role "enhanced interrogation" played in identifying bin Laden's compound in order to avoid compromising sources and methods. The clearest "evidence" of what role enhanced interrogation played in determining the exact location of bin Laden is the precise, unambiguous language McCain used in his remarks on the Senate floor. They don't fit with your worldview and "a prior" beliefs, therefore you say we only have McCain's word about what Panetta "says."

Sad and/or pathetic.

jimt 1 year, 12 months ago

Actually, Panetta never used the word "waterboarding," you realize that right? There were/are many types of interrogation that were/are used other than waterboarding that fall under what was called "enhanced" interrogation. You ASSUME he was referring to waterboarding. And in any event, Panetta told McCain otherwise. Even though we only have McCain's word for what Panetta told him. You impugn McCain's version of what Panetta told him ("jimt-- Your entire argument is what John McCain "says" Leon Panetta told him (McCain)" but resent it when you get called on doing so. Yeah you just imply he's a liar.

Tell you what LiarJames, I'll stop calling you (or implying that you are) a liar when you stop referring to "The Liberals," as an epithet.

James: "Was he unambiguous and direct in confirming that waterboarding led to critical intel? Yes." Actually, NO he wasn't

jimt 1 year, 12 months ago

You do use the word "liberal" as an all-encompassing label of everything you disagree with.

Wow! Some of your best friends are liberals! (In the 50's you'd have said, "some of my best friends are Jewish," ergo I'm not a bigot)

I still think you're a liar, by the way. Something you've proved over and over again. You're also smarmy, such as intimating that McCain cannot be relied upon to accurately report his conversation with Panetta because if you had it would have totally undercut your belief system which distorts your analysis of facts. Now you can argue that your never implied any such thing, I just inferred it. Thus your also intellectually dishonest and thus not worth debating honestly.

jimt 1 year, 12 months ago

I cite as yet another example of your inability to actually read, your assertion that I accused you of being an anti-semite.

Reading comprehension is such a bitch.

sgmartin 1 year, 12 months ago

So just out of curiosity, who would have gotten the blame if things had gone wrong? I don't see Obama taking credit. I see him giving credit where it is due - the US military and some very, very brave Navy SEALs. I do give him credit for making a gut wrenching decision.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 12 months ago

So just out of curiosity, who would have gotten the blame if things had gone wrong?

I think we all know the answer to that. If things had gone wrong, there'd be right wingers all over the talk shows and op-ed pages demanding Obama's impeachment.

teufelhunden 1 year, 12 months ago

If things had gone wrong, whether it was Obama or Bush-the blame would be placed on them. That's just how it is. Yes the talk shows ($$$) would have to wear it out & throw the blame around a while to get the public all worked up, but at the end of the day folks would remember.

moonchild7 1 year, 12 months ago

"That's just how it is". Oh really? It seems that the facts are very clear that for the very most part(a few other presidents included in a little lesser way)the BUSH Administration is responsible for the WORST ECONOMIC FAILURE'S since the Great Depression. Yet they are constantly not accepting the BLAME/RESPONSIBILITY. President Obama would have taken the BLAME DIRECTLY if the Navy Seals had failed in their mission. He knew he had to and that it could/would have probably meant his being a one term President. It could have also meant many of those involved losing their lives. And yes, those Republicans would have gone IMPEACHMENT crazy....as if one failed attempt at Impeaching a President wasn't enough. Is anyone learning anything these days?

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
28	29	30	1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31	1

Who Gets the Credit?

More like this story

Comments

May events