Serious question. Numerous reports and books have been written on the way he handles the War on Terror, authorizing targeted killings, drone attacks and numerous covert operations. In fact, rumor has it too the reigns off of JSOC, and let them do their thing. There was another drone attack today or yesterday that killed 16 people in Pakistan, and from all accounts, Obama doesn't really give a shit what the Pakistan government thinks. He even authorized what was basically an invasion into a country with nuclear weapons to kill Bin Laden. You could argue the drone attacks are much more simple to give a go ahead too considering there is a small chance it ever gets shot down, so the attack on Bin Laden too way more balls. And before you say that any President would have authorized that hit, Clinton had the same chance and opted not too. Not only has he been ruthless that way, but there are reports that the Bush Administration started the program that created the Stuxnet Virus that took now the Iran Nuclear Power Plant, and he begged Obama to continue with it when he took office. Obama not only continued with it, but when the US found out that Stuxnet had accidentally been released into the internet or public domain, Obama didn't let them shut it down. He went further with it and did even more damage to the Natanz Plant. So the question remains, is Obama what we could consider a ruthless President? We probably don't even know half of what he authorizes. Like I said, there are rumors he gave JSOC free reign, which probably authorized numerous hits of a bunch of people. Hell, he has a lawyer that controls his 'kill list' like a bunch of baseball cards. Personally I love it. Rick might cry like a little bitch, but this is what we should have been doing from the start. Covert Operations to take out the terrorists wherever we find them all over the world. None of this nation building shit.
Don't get me wrong, I don't see it as a bad thing. I commend him for having the balls. Its just strange that a President that has been weak on some many other fronts is seemingly so strong on this one. And its probably the toughest one.
He's doing what he can so the Republicans can't call him soft on terrorism. Unlike healthcare reform or the economy, he doesn't have to worry about the Republicans throwing up roadblocks in Congress. He's no doubt angering some members of the base, but he's no doubt getting more support from independents than he's losing.
Two thoughts: One, the American public only ever really knows a fraction of the decisions taken by any President. That can be said of any nation, but I think it's fair to say there's a bit more transparency in the U.S. than there would be in, say, Syria. Two, for as long as there have been humans, there has been conflict. Give us another few thousand years of intellectual evolution and we might grow past that but, as of now, thinking that we can melt down all the guns and gather daisies starting tomorrow is delusional. When talking/negotiating, sanctions, and all other means have failed, and it's clear the Other Guy intends to keep acting out, he needs to be stopped...but with a minimum of force. In an ideal world, we could take out every Bad Guy with surgical precision. Barring that, whatever action results in the lowest (ideally none) number of ancillary casualties is far preferable to leveling entire cities to get at one dictator. Of course, it would also help if the U.S. weren't Arms Dealer to the World, but that's a separate topic.
In flagrant breech of international and domestic law, also "taking out" uncounted number of innocents. Fuck Obama. Are you getting this tuff from here? He calls them "Terror Tuesday" meetings. President Obama has bestowed upon himself the right to assasinate anyone he so chooses. Disgusting.
So a democratic president who swore to change the way the country operated under republican administrations, and has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (why, again?) should be lauded for being a ruthless killer of foreign nationals?
Not to mention that he did not do one single thing that he promised to do. He may be ruthless, but he's also a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure.
You don't get to be president by being a soft-hearted teddy bear. It's just not always immediately apparent why something was politically expedient for one guy but not his predecessor.
He's weak! He's weak, he's weak, he's weak, he's wwhhaaaaAAAAAAA? *wheels spin desperately* ... He didn't do what he promised to do!
Is he ruthless or just politically expedient. While I applaud and approve of most of his actions in this area, the aftermath and his incessant babbling about the missions, not to mention the horrid way he went about the one year anniversary of the raid make me think the primary factor in his decisions is politics.
The living in the real-world part of me supports his not pussyfooting around with bad guys. He might not be a great President, but I think he shows an aptitude for Secretary of Defense or some other related job. Don't hold his feet to the fire over the Nobel Prize - everyone knows it's bullshit anyway.
So what he says is more important than what he does. Got it. I love the way the right couches its desire to see America fail. "Well, sure, he might kill terrorists and keep our country safer...but his pronouns!!!!" If Obama had an R next to his name instead of a D, you'd be creaming yourselves with every drone strike.
Yeah, he should have worn a flight suit on a carrier. Yeah, I've tossed that one out before, but an aversion to repetition didn't stop you from repeating your zombie noise, so....
If you could comprehend written language you might understand what I posted. I said I support these things that he's doing. I am questioning his motivations, which is what the thread was about. Killing bin-Ladin as he did, good. Telling the whole world significant details of the classified op, very bad. Drone strikes on confirmed terrorist targets, good. Not adopting a policy of not confirming any specific strikes, bad. It's not his actions I oppose, it's his use of them for political gain in a way that compromises US security. I have no objection to his trying to capitalize on these things if he doesn't harm US security. He could have gotten great hay (probably more than he did) if he had just announced that US forces had killed bin-Ladin, confirmed the identity via forensics and buried him at sea. That was all that need have been said.
Since I never praise that, you got nothing. Beyond that, his posing on the carrier did not give away confidential information or secret info. So you still got nothing.
You neglected to condemn it, same thing. Yeah, that's a shitty tactic, but I learned it from watching you assholes.
What details did the President "tell the whole world?" That it was a SEAL team? I'm pretty sure more information was given away in that stupid "Act of Valor" movie, and the right crapped itself praising that. The only reason you have a problem with what President Obama said is beause of who said it. Do you honestly believe that? A not-insubstantial portion of Republicans still think President Obama is either a non-citizen or secretly a Muslim. And you think these people would have been okay with "Bin Laden is dead, we dumped the body, trust me?" You're delusional.
Being the dummy again I see. Again, in simple english for you. Bush action stupid, but not threat to US security and intel. Obama action stupid and yes threat to US security and intel. Comprende? Or do you need pictures?
Far beyond that, which was bad anyway. There was no need for him to tell them that documents, hard drives etc had been recovered. No need to confirm that. It just let's them know any data on ops he had was compromised. There was no need to even identify the country where he was. We all knew, but the announcement didn't benefit anyone. Then we come to the doctor who was just sentenced to 33 years in jail. There was no need for that info to come out at all. Another concrete example of the harm done by saying too much. As for the movie, most of us were vehemently against it for the same reason. You can't base your policy on conpiracy theorists. Ironically, regarding the body, that's what he did do. No pics, no proof just telling us. Yet, all but the wack jobs believed him. Thus, the historical evidence says yes, he would have been believed the same as he was.
The Obama administration has been a bit loose when it comes to talking about DEVGRU. Some SEALs even came out and admitted it.
There really isn't any way to avoid that since simply talking about some operations compromises them. Considering the hatred for Obama from some and the irrational belief from some that he is determined to establish Sharia law in the U.S. he really doesn't have any choice but to talk about his anti-terror campaign. Since the fallback position on the right is that democrats are soft on defense, soft on terror, sleep with muslims...etc, what else is he going to do? Politics shouldn't figure into the equation, but we don't live in a perfect world. I really doubt that he's spilled anything that our enemies either didn't know first hand from being on the business end of some operations or could reasonably gather from public sources.
