Do you agree with the Navy SEALS?

by Marie/M2M2K™-#1ConservativeGuru Posted 2012/05/01 02:11:05

Related Topics: Osama Bin Laden, Osama, Obama, Barack Obama, Credit, Bin Laden, Seal, Racist, Election, color, Economy, President Barack Obama, Issues, Re-election, UK, Campaign

Read More

334 votes
Read all 815 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	282 votes	84%
	No	37 votes	11%
	Undecided	15 votes	4%

I think most sitting presidents use anything they can to try and get re-elected. However in this instance, I find it despicable. And for you racists out there it has nothing to do with skin color. My opinion is aimed at you sh*t-spewing cult members who have followed lock-step with this disgraceful excuse for a US leader, blaming anyone but the POTUS himself for the economy and other issues we face in this country. Not a single president before this POS has ever been so flagrantly coddled as this moron. If it's good, both he and his sh*t-spewing cult give him credit. If it's bad, BLAME, BLAME, BLAME.

Serving and former US Navy SEALs have slammed President Barack Obama for taking the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and accused him of using Special Forces operators as ‘ammunition’ for his re-election campaign.

+59

Add a comment above

blah 2012/05/01 02:23:55

Yes

+17
The Seals should get the credit.
>> See Replies

More polls by Marie/M2M2K™-#1ConservativeGuru

Pat to Maurice... 2012/06/02 00:05:54 (edited)

Intelligence.

Propaganda.

Obama's big with assassins, but wants to read terrorist combatants rights?

A liberal is not expected to acknowledge hypocracy.

reply
Maurice... to Pat 2012/06/03 11:26:12

I'm not a Liberal, Pat. I'm Independent, actually. I'm just stating, that the US Army Special Forces and the Navy SEALs are designed to carry out irregular orders:

a. that the regular Army is too big to fight inconspicuously. (The Horn of Africa, Afghanistan, and Southeast Asian has a high special forces population.)
b. spy on known enemies. (Gathering intelligence is a specialty of "The Delta Force"...they actually exist!)
c. provide humanitarian aid to hostile areas. (For example, the war in Somalia the Black Hawk Down incident.)
d. to assassinate war criminals. (Bin Laden, and every other high profile criminal that comes up "missing" or "mysteriously dead".)
e. rescue and/or secure hostages, very important people, and sensitive items.
f. to protect the president. (Even if he doesn't realize somebody's watching him...)

reply
Jim to wgossett99 2012/05/02 00:27:08

+2
Obama was fortunate to have seasoned advisers and solid intelligence from the ground. He listened to his intell advisers and allowed military experts to actually make any and all tactical calls. Given the intell they were working with, this was an easy call. The only people in danger were the SEALS. If the mission failed, he would have blamed the military or the intelligence component. Those experts are not the business of placing men or women in harms way for no reason and gave the mission a high confidence rating and with a high probability of success. The Presidents actual call was elementary.

reply
Apache to Jim 2012/05/02 00:57:32

+4
Obama wanted to stop enhanced interrogation techniques also. If it hadn't been for his predecessor, George W Bush, Obama would still be in hiding.

reply
dave s to Apache 2012/05/02 02:31:11

+2
I think you meant osama?? but then again, maybe not...

reply
Jim to Apache 2012/05/02 03:14:51

+1
True.

reply
lee to Jim 2012/05/02 01:08:17

wrong... there were "experts" telling him to blow the whole block off the map...

but he chose to go in with a small team and try to capture OBL and gather up as much intel as possible so he could shut down the network...

he made the right call, but it was RISKY.

reply
Jim to lee 2012/05/02 03:13:55

They would have preferred to take UBL alive for the intell value. Blowing up the block would have been counterproductive. Those experts would have wanted to minimize collateral damage.

All military missions are risky.

reply
Apache to wgossett99 2012/05/02 00:54:59

+3
So what's your point? Any President would have given the order. Obama is not the exception, he is the norm.

reply
wgossett99 to Apache 2012/05/02 17:30:58

Check out Romney's statements about tracking down OBL. It sounds as if he wouldn't have even bothered.

reply
lauren ... to wgossett99 2012/05/02 01:51:00

+1
ANYONE would have made the same decision. I really don't think he had a choice. If he didn't and it got out that we could of had him. and obama whimped out his political career would be over. He deserves very little credit.

reply
Robin B to wgossett99 2012/05/02 01:52:05

If it would not have been for Bush Oblowme never would have had the intel to give the go ahead.

reply
wgossett99 to Robin B 2012/05/02 17:35:54

Had Bush listened to the Clinton, Gore and CIA officials when he came into office, it is quite possible 9/11 would never have happened. Clinton/Gore were hot on OBL's trail after the Cole bombing and the earlier aboted attack on the WTC.

Clinton was vilified for blowing up an "aspirin factory" in Somalia but evidence showed OBL had been holed up there within a couple of months of the bombing.

reply
Robin B to wgossett99 2012/05/04 01:59:58

ClintOn has admitted that he failed to get OBL and could have many times.

reply
John Boy to wgossett99 2012/05/02 04:36:15 (edited)

+2
Wow, hard decision !!! Yes or no, I believe any president would have said yes. I believe Obama was then using this as a distraction, cause of failed leadership and now for re election purposes. The
Navy Seals are the heros.

reply
Kaimeso 2012/05/01 21:20:58

Yes

+3
Yes, agree 1000 percent,

reply
Billyk75 2012/05/01 21:14:59

Yes

+3
100%!

reply
Elementer 2012/05/01 20:58:01

No

+6
Reagan got all the credit for the Iranian Hostage situation, but neglected to give Carter and his Administration the proper credit.

It's politics, people. What do you expect?

reply
konalimu to Elementer 2012/05/01 21:32:27

+2
President Obama is entitled to showcase the killing of Osama, but what is not ok is he used this killing in a campaign ad and accused Romney incapable of making a national security decision.

Romney has accomplished so much more before he was a CEO/turn around failing companies, a governor, and now a candidate for President. what have our president done that made him qualify to be so arrogant????? A community agitator from Chicago Southside was Obama's main accomplishment for the most of his adult life.

Obama crossed the line/over playing the card, our president knew this and that's why he personally went to Afghanistan today. But, his followers would never see the light.

reply
Elementer to konalimu 2012/05/01 21:40:10

+2
Again, it's politics. I've seen terrible ads on both sides. Complaining about one side doing what both sides have been doing since the dawn of America is both bias and immature.

reply
konalimu to Elementer 2012/05/01 21:44:40

+1
Name me one that Hillary or Romney, or any one has done to our Obama that isn't fair?

reply
Elementer to konalimu 2012/05/01 21:57:59

+1

Again, it's politics.

reply
konalimu to Elementer 2012/05/02 03:24:24

Santorum is not Romney, President Obama accused Romney of not capable of making decisions that are vital to our national interest. You are avoiding the truth.

Our President is rather Unpresidential and all he has been doing is playing defense for his indefensible policies, poor leadership, poor judgement..

reply
Elementer to konalimu 2012/05/02 03:55:46

Is the economy not vital to our national interests? Because the second attack ad I posted was from Romney and it painted Obama as if he was implying the economy didn't matter.

You're teeming with bias right now.

reply
konalimu to Elementer 2012/05/02 14:50:36

Economy was not the central issue at hand, stay on the subject.

Romney didn't not attack President with the killing of Osama, "a national emotion" issue. If you can not see the differences, no one could carry on an intelligent conversation with you. You are ingrained with your bias, false indignation, and irrational at best.

Our president needs to grow up, be a leader, and stop blaming. Community agitation is not a job description of the presidency.

Have a nice day.

reply
Elementer to konalimu 2012/05/03 03:15:29

The economy has been the focal point of the last election and will be the focal point of this one.

Again, you're brimming with bias. It's perfectly fine for Romney to take Obama out of context, but when Obama does it it's immature.

Both are immature.

"If you can not see the differences, no one could carry on an intelligent conversation with you. You are ingrained with your bias, false indignation, and irrational at best."

You're kidding, right. Saying that because I don't agree with you, I'm not intelligent is extremely immature. And it doesn't help your stance at all, if anything, it makes you look worse. Resorting to personal attacks is a sign you have nothing of substance to say.

reply
Apache to Elementer 2012/05/02 01:02:49 (edited)

+5
Because you're only 19 yrs old and weren't around back then, let me inform you that Iran was frightened to death of Reagan. Jimmy Carter was such a weak Buffoon that Iran laughed in his face, especially after Carter's failed rescue attempt. You know, the one where he disavowed radio silence with the operation, and it was a general phuck-up in the desert. Our enemies regard Obama as a clown just like they did with Carter.

It was only after Ronald Reagan won the election that Iran released the hostages at the US Embassy.

reply
Elementer to Apache 2012/05/02 01:25:44

That means absolutely nothing, you're at best theorizing. Reagan was just lucky.

reply
observer to Apache 2012/05/02 01:26:34

+1
"It was only after Ronald Reagan won the election that Iran released the hostages at the US Embassy."

To be exact, Iran released the American hostages just several minutes after Reagan was sworn into office.

reply
dave s to Elementer 2012/05/02 02:32:05

+2
carter was the reason that the hostages were held for so long. carter had absolutely nothing to do with their release other than the fact that he lost the election

reply
Elementer to dave s 2012/05/03 03:16:34 (edited)

Had Obama been Reagan, and Carter been Bush, would you say the same thing?

reply
dave s to Elementer 2012/05/03 03:20:28

+1
absolutely. carter was out of his league as president. he may have a degree in "nucular" science, but he was a horrible president. bush was not much better.

reply
Elementer to dave s 2012/05/03 03:35:53 (edited)

Alright, I can accept that. At least you're not bias, lol.

I still don't think Reagan deserves any credit for the hostages being set free.

reply
Marie/M... to Elementer 2012/05/03 17:02:36

Ah! It's politics, huh? Have you chastised every single person who does not support 0bama as being racists? Are you one who has jumped to that conclusion as well?

It's politics. What do you expect?

reply
Elementer to Marie/M... 2012/05/03 18:30:13

Wow, you're seriously trying too hard with the Strawman.

reply
Marie/M... to Elementer 2012/05/03 20:19:09

Hypocrisy. You do it well!

reply
Boomer 2012/05/01 20:40:48

Yes

+5
This man could not find his way out of a paper bag if he had a teleprompter in front of him.

reply
Donald Eric Kesler 2012/05/01 20:35:27

No

+4
President Obama met with the Navy Seals as soon as they returned from their mission. He thanked them on behalf the United States of America. He gave full credit to those who did the work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The Navy Seal who feels slighted by the President is certainly entitled to his opinion; however, I have not seen anything to give credence to his grievances. Proper credit is given for the role played by the Navy Seals.

The campaign advertisement that stirred this up is accurate. The ultimate decision for the life or death of Osama Bin Laden was placed in the hands of President Obama. The advertisement does not claim, as Ryan Zinke posits, that President Obama seeks to take credit for either the preparation or the sacrifice. Again, President Obama has acknowledged and recognized the larger team effort.

What about Zinke’s contention that the “decision was a no brainer” and that “every president would have done the same.”

In an April 2007 interview with the Associated Press, Romney opined that Americans will not be markedly safer if bin Laden were killed and that "it's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person."

This reads like someone who would not be willing to go into another country and commit an ass...

President Obama met with the Navy Seals as soon as they returned from their mission. He thanked them on behalf the United States of America. He gave full credit to those who did the work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The Navy Seal who feels slighted by the President is certainly entitled to his opinion; however, I have not seen anything to give credence to his grievances. Proper credit is given for the role played by the Navy Seals.

The campaign advertisement that stirred this up is accurate. The ultimate decision for the life or death of Osama Bin Laden was placed in the hands of President Obama. The advertisement does not claim, as Ryan Zinke posits, that President Obama seeks to take credit for either the preparation or the sacrifice. Again, President Obama has acknowledged and recognized the larger team effort.

What about Zinke’s contention that the “decision was a no brainer” and that “every president would have done the same.”

In an April 2007 interview with the Associated Press, Romney opined that Americans will not be markedly safer if bin Laden were killed and that "it's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person."

This reads like someone who would not be willing to go into another country and commit an assassination. For what it is worth, I agree with Mitt Romney. Assassinating Osama Bin Laden has accomplished absolutely nothing. I think it was wrong for President Obama to send assassins into another country to kill someone without the benefit of a trial.

The justness of killing Osama Bin Laden is not the question which confronts us today. The question before us today is if we agree with Ryan Zinke. I do not. He has failed to support his position.
(more)

reply
AL to Donald ... 2012/05/01 21:05:21

+3
Obama's code name should be Dumb bro from now on, if anyone falls for his Bull sh**! When he made the only choice he could, Take him out OR not!So what a** hole would ever believe he would have called it off in this case then?

reply
Donald ... to AL 2012/05/02 01:54:26

You are patently incorrect in claiming that there was only one choice President Obama could have made.

President Obama could have followed Mitt Romney's wisdom and simply not bothered looking for Osama Bin Laden.

Once we located Osama Bin Laden, we could have attempted to work with the Pakistan government. We could have opted to capture Osama Bin Laden and allow him the chance to actually face his accusers.

In short, there was an infinite number of options.

reply