The Navy SEALS were great; it’s the White House that’s bungling the operation *UPDATED*
Bookworm on May 04 2011 at 6:44 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
This is right on the money:
What I expected on Sunday evening as I waited for Obama to finally appear on television was a more detailed explanation of what transpired, beginning with a brief summary of the intelligence leading up to the operation and ending with photos of the compound and bin Laden himself. Rather than a presidential appearance with the pomp and circumstance of red carpets and the like, I expected the President to appear in the White House briefing room to make a statement and then leave the details and follow-up questions to the likes of his Press Secretary as well as military personnel who had been briefed on the details of the operation. Not surprisingly, I was disappointed.
It is now Wednesday and conspiracy theories abound due to the scarcity of information provided by the White House. I do not doubt that the American military killed OBL. I am, however, disgusted that the White House is offering contradictory stories. And I am disgusted by the silence that we hear from the media while questioning what in the world is going on. When presented with pictures of US soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the New York Times and other mainstream publications could not wait to print the pictures (and partake in the demonization of the American military) without regard to the risk posed to soldiers in the field. In this case however, the White House is holding back on releasing the photographs of bin Laden claiming that the release could be inflammatory.
[snip]
As more information becomes available, such as the fact that Obama took 16 hours to make his final decision because he had to “sleep on it,” he continues to look like the incompetent leader that he is. According to this report, “the president stunned officials when he told a national security meeting that he wanted more time to think — and disappeared out of the room. The head of the CIA and other senior intelligence officers who were keen to proceed were left tense as they waited for the president’s decision.”
Be sure to read the whole thing.
UPDATE: Vodkapundit makes the same point.
Related posts:
- “We have friends in the White House now”
- Obama and his White House security *UPDATED*
- The foreigners in the White House *UPDATED*
Email This Post To A Friend
77 Responses to “The Navy SEALS were great; it’s the White House that’s bungling the operation *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Laurie B. Regan: It is now Wednesday and conspiracy theories abound due to the scarcity of information provided by the White House.
Which Regan will, no doubt, do her best to dispel.
Laurie B. Regan: So we are left with the preposterous state of affairs in which the following headlines appear hour by hour on the Drudge Report:
Regan dutifully links to conspiracy theories.
Laurie B. Regan: When presented with pictures of US soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the New York Times and other mainstream publications could not wait to print the pictures (and partake in the demonization of the American military) without regard to the risk posed to soldiers in the field.
In fact, the original 60 Minutes II story was delayed two weeks at the request of the military.
Laurie B. Regan: In this case however, the White House is holding back on releasing the photographs of bin Laden claiming that the release could be inflammatory.
Regan just compared the action of journalists, who are in competition to publish first, with the White House, which has to consider a host of factors before releasing any photographs.
Laurie B. Regan: According to Leon Panetta, the President who ordered US soldiers to carry out this unbelievably dangerous mission into an ally’s sovereign soil, did not watch the actual shooting of bin Laden notwithstanding the photo released by the White House purporting to show Obama and the national security team “monitoring the mission against Osama bin Laden in real time from the White House Situation Room” (notice the Commander in Chief sitting to the side with no laptop, papers, or other information from which to garner up to the minute information).
A laptop? Heh. They were watching on the “Big Board.” Also, it’s doubtful they had realtime video from the actual firefight.
Laurie B. Regan: When will this administration learn that the country needs transparency, not secrecy?
If there ever was a time for secrecy, it certainly involves a military operation in a foreign country. It also takes time for information to be gleaned from the action reports.
Laurie B. Regan: As more information becomes available, such as the fact that Obama took 16 hours to make his final decision because he had to “sleep on it,” he continues to look like the incompetent leader that he is.
Gee whiz. They didn’t even know bin Laden was there for sure. It was a sovereign country. The operation used a very small footprint, so they could find themselves outgunned, or cut off. Americans could be killed, or arrested and tried by Pakistan. As it was, they lost an aircraft. An adverse result could destabilize the region. But the payoff could be huge. Of course, he slept on it.
I am proud of our Navy SEALs and it would be fine if I never knew exactly what happened during the raid. Lord knows most of what they do is never known or reported. We’ve seen enough events covered on cable news – natural disasters like Katrina or tragedies like the AZ shooting – to know that the initial information is scant and supplemented with a lot of speculation by the media and experts.
While I’m not surprised this is the case with the OBL shooting, I am disappointed at how poorly the White House is handling this. They are tarnishing the heroics of the SEALs by changing key facts (was OBL armed or not?), giving the impression that they are covering up a crime. I get the feeling that this may be Obama’s way of weaseling out of full responsibility now that he is being condemned by human rights and Muslim leaders. They need to get their message straight and then stop talking about it.
As for the story that Obama supposedly took 16 hrs to make the call, see ACE’s funny take on this: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/315658.php
He had to “sleep on it”? That above all else stands out to me as a completely incompetent leader.
This is something that should have been decided in a couple of minutes; not hours, and certainly not something to “mull over.”
Now, if it was a case of “let’s wait to see what other information we can gather”, then I could see a reason to wait – but to not make a decision with all the available information right away is just plain clueless.
Also, this article explains why I’ve been feeling uneasy about this “news.” It is exactly because there is a clear lack of leadership. The author is correct in that a real leader would have gathered ALL parties together, gathered ALL facts, and presented a untied front with a clear narrative to the Press, the American Public, and the World as to what exactly took place.
As to whether they should release the photos of dead bin Laden or not; everyone will debate the wisdom of that until the cows come home. (I’ll go on the record here and say that it doesn’t prove bin Laden is actually dead – photoshop is something that is not unheard of and those who wish bin Laden alive will claim any photos are just that – photoshopped) But, the decision to release or not should have been made days ago; within hours of the President and his team seeing the photos.
It seems that Obama (like so many other times in the past) is waiting to see how others will react. Kind of like when, during the campaign, folks were attacking Palin’s kids, Obama took three whole days before speaking out against such attacks. (The one exception would be his jumping the gun and saying the Cambridge cops acted stupidly; it is funny how he had no problem making that decision in record time.)
To be polite, I guess, we could just say that Obama isn’t “quick on his feet.”
Lucky for him, and most importantly for us (Americans that is) most of what is taking place during Obama’s adminstration for the “war on terror” was set up under Bush and Obama is just letting the players in that struggle continue their jobs. I see it kind of like a top-notch surgeon. Bush has done all the hard work of removing the cancerous tumor from the patient and Obama has now come along to “close up.” Let’s just hope that he doesn’t screw up and let the patient bleed to death because he is waiting to long.
“the president stunned officials when he told a national security meeting that he wanted more time to think — and disappeared out of the room. The head of the CIA and other senior intelligence officers who were keen to proceed were left tense as they waited for the president’s decision.”
There’s your imaginary Obama, Z. Suck on it while you contemplate your miserable lack of judgment.
This is what many Americans are thinking:
“Bret Stephens writingin the Wall Street Journal Tuesday labeled me and people like me who write “right-wing commentary” as “unbecoming” inhalers of “a whiff of sour grapes” during “Obama’s Finest Hour.”"
The WSJ editorial page already leans right, so how far to the right are you? Obviously, you are fully entitled to your opinion, but one begins to wonder what Obama could accomplish or do that would not inspire harsh criticism from those on the far right.
Just because there have been communication errors and snafus, doesn’t mean that an unequivocally successful operation qualifies as “bungled.” And while pictures from Abu Graib ran the risk of inflaming–and CBS sat on them for weeks before the New Yorker reported this and forced the networks to air them–at least it served the purpose of reforming an obviously corrupt, incompetent and unAmerican modus operandi at that prison. If you believe that OBL is dead, then what do the pictures serve in this case that rises to the level of reforming a military prison committing injustices and inhumanities?
Also, I don’t understand why people now want to criticize Obama because he wanted to sleep on it. Do they have privileged information that OBL was going to leave? So taking that extra time threatened the mission? From what I understand, they didn’t know for sure that he was there, so I don’t know how this was possible. They did spent a lot of time going through potential scenarios (e.g., hostage taking, fallout from Pakistan’s military, a helicopter malfunction, etc.), which seems like prudent behavior and contrasts with what we know about prior administrations’ operations and planning. But perhaps the folks who are criticizing could share their unique information that suggests that because the President slept on a mission that got their man with no US casualties–an unequivocal success in my book, regardless of the party of the man in power–he somehow bungled it. And if the bungling came after that 40 minute mission, then I can live with it. If the doctor saves the patient’s life, we don’t quibble with the quality of the sutures put in afterward. At least I don’t.
Charles: He had to “sleep on it”? That above all else stands out to me as a completely incompetent leader.This is something that should have been decided in a couple of minutes; not hours, and certainly not something to “mull over.
Gee whiz. They didn’t even know bin Laden was there for sure. It was a sovereign country. The operation used a very small footprint, so they could find themselves outgunned, or cut off. Americans could be killed, or arrested and tried by Pakistan. As it was, they lost an aircraft. An adverse result could destabilize the region. But the payoff could be huge. Of course, he slept on it.
A precipitous decision is exactly what was not needed.
Ymarsakar: There’s your imaginary Obama, Z. Suck on it while you contemplate your miserable lack of judgment.
Posturing does not make for a coherent argument.
ABC proudly displays his/her grasp of historical context: “And while pictures from Abu Graib ran the risk of inflaming–and CBS sat on them for weeks before the New Yorker reported this and forced the networks to air them–at least it served the purpose of reforming an obviously corrupt, incompetent and unAmerican modus operandi at that prison.”
Uh…not so, ABC. The Abu Ghraib story came from the leaking of an Army criminal investigation that was already underway. Military justice was taking care of the problem when the information was leaked to the world, along with the despicable meme that this was American policy when, in fact, it was the actions of rogue soldiers.
To the Left, of course, the facts did not matter. All that mattered was that it was one more opportunity to undermine a sitting President and their own country while at war. That the repercussions of these disclosures cost American lives in the field didn’t matter to the Left either. Yes, I do question their Patriotism!
Danny Lemieux: Uh…not so, ABC.
The abuse wasn’t limited to Abu Ghraib, but was widespread in U.S. black-site detention centers.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/cia-says-shutting-down-detention-black-site/445407/
As for the photographs, the American people certain deserve to know what was happening in their prisons. After all, it was only secret to the Americans. The Iraqis already knew, as it was their children being beat and humiliated and raped.
Seymour Hersch tells a very different story than Danny does, and I place more weight on Hersch–not because he is more liberal, but because he is universally regarded as one of the best investigative journalists of the 20th century. The military was not reforming the system, since they were copying the M.O. at Abu Ghraib elsewhere. Further, the sanctioning of misconduct was being sent from Rumsfeld’s office, so this was not a small group of rogue soldiers. This is why Cheney called Hersch an a**hole: the journalist has such senior and reliable contacts, that he obtained dirt on the administration that appeared to be leak-proof. But since that dirt is factually accurate, it is important to see it. Danny, without proof, claims that Hersch was merely trying to undermine a government for ideological reasons, but that is what folks on this blog do all the time, so I am not surprised they would make this criticism about others. I for one, while hardly objective, nonetheless would like to know when the most senior folks in an administration are guilty of lying and misconduct, regardless of the party in power. Hopefully, Danny would agree with that, even if he chooses to ignore Hersch’s account in this case. To many on the RIGHT and left, facts do not matter, but for me they are paramount. Hopefully, that is true for Danny as well. In any case, there are still many differences between members of the press putting out those pictures to uncover government misconduct, and the prudent (and ongoing) deliberation of our government currently to determine which, if any, photos of OBL to release. The context and purpose of the issue of photo publications are totally different, and hopefully Danny can at least acknowledge this relatively uncontroversial (at least to me) point…
“Seymour Hersch tells a very different story than Danny does, and I place more weight on Hersch–not because he is more liberal, but because he is universally regarded as one of the best investigative journalists of the 20th century.”
I guess I don’t live in the same universe. With that statement, abc, you’ve lost a huge amount of whatever cred you’ve established here.
I don’t give a rat’s ass what Seymour Hersh thinks at any time about anything. That’s not an authority. This is the same schmuck who referred to SEAL Team 6 as Cheney’s “executive assassination squad.” You’ll just have to forgive me if I don’t take his word on any subject.
Zach & abc, I think the problem that many have with Obama taking 16 hrs to “sleep on it” is that OBL’s location had been known for months, and having decided in March against bombing, the SEAL team had been reportedly running drills in a mock-up of the compound. So this moment of indecision/delayed decision was unusual given how everything they’d done up to this point was leading up to executing the plan. Why would someone need 16 hrs to decide if it was the right moment to execute the months-in-the making plan?
To me, this is not only in keeping with Obama’s “leading from behind” and “voting present” approach that we’ve seen on other decisions like getting involved in Libya, it seems that he was wrestling with whether or not it was right thing to do. Or worse, he was delaying his decision until it was no longer possible (i.e. OBL escaped) so that the decision was made for him. This was not the moment for soul-searching, it was a moment for action. If this 16hr delay story is true – and I hope it isn’t – it’s very disturbing.
Libby, thanks for the added information. I can see how you wouldn’t want to make the Seals sweat it out longer than necessary, but these guys have ice in their veins so I don’t know that the 16 hours would make a difference to them. THey are truly that good–like no other special forces group anywhere in the world.
Here is what I heard on AM radio yesterday evening. Apparently, there were three options on the table:
1. wait and gather more data
2. bomb the site
3. go in with SEALs
Obama polled his advisors and solicited comments and info from each, and it appeared about 50% favored #3, with the other half split between #1 and #2. He took the extra 16 hours to weigh the options, as well as to consider the many risks and eventualities associated with this risky mission.
I dont’ see how the information you laid out detracted from the merits of taking that extra time, given the complexity and gravity of the decision. I know that neuroscience does teach that sleeping on weighty decisions is actually recommended, given what we know about brain chemistry and good judgment. But perhaps you have alternative data in this area as well that you can share.
I also think that the “leading from behind” approach is as much partisan propaganda as anything else. While Obama is clearly a politicians, and a conventional one at that, one can say the same thing about Bush, Clinton and Reagan. This idea that there are people out there who go through the modern process of becoming President, but who do not worry about their political necks, is just nonsense. At the end of the day, you accept that as part of the mix, and then judge whether in any given case they showed prudent and intelligent judgment around productive policies, or whether they did the opposite. I am so tired of people clinging onto meme’s that are not provable or disprovable, and which do not illuminate the debate. Sticking closer to facts, as opposed to rhetoric, would be helpful in virtually all cases.
It escapes me why people are complaining about why the President wanted to sleep on it. The raid could easily be construed as an act of war against Pakistan. What if Pakistan decides to close their airspace to the U.S.? That might make things a little difficult for us in Afghanistan. Sure we could eventually force our way through but at what cost?
Of course other people were just rarin’ to go, but who is responsible if things go south and there is tremendous blowback? It sure as heck is not the “stunned officials.” The raid was filled with tremendous risks, and it strikes me that someone wanting to “sleep on it,” shows good discipline and due diligence.
Libby, you have understand that for Obama defenders this is as close as their Golden One is ever going to get to displaying an actual pair. The man has never been noted for his courage, so of course his admirers are going to seize on the bin Laden episode as his finest hour, etc., etc., and ride it for all it’s worth.
I remember a James Cagney movie about Admiral Halsey in the Pacific War, “The Gallant Hours.” It was dark, brooding flick that focused on Halsey’s agony at trying to make the right decision regarding a pivotal naval battle with the Japanese. Obama’s crew will try to paint the same picture of a passionate, agonized leader whose greatest fear is not that failure could lead to one term, but that it could besmirch the reputation of his beloved country.
You know, the country he reps by bowing to tyrants. The one whose flag he couldn’t be bothered to wear. The one whose Pledge of Allegiance he couldn’t be bothered to recite. The one whose gun-toting, religious folks in flyover country are not to be taken seriously.
As Libby pointed out and nobody really answered, the conditions for a raid were in place since March. The “sleep on it” hedge is supposed to show us how “disciplined and diligent” Obama is. It’s not working with large and growing number of people who see a man who’s in way over his head.
See, Martel, this is the line of argument that makes it tough to have productive discussions. Even a man who has never been noted for courage can show courage and ought to be lauded in that instance. And to imply that I or others here are Obama defenders merely because we say “job well done” when the job was well done makes it difficult to believe that you can ever stick to the facts rather than a preconceived notion of who is worthy of being connected to positive ones (selectively marshalled) and who gets the opposite treatment. This is the difference between the NFL ref and the NFL fan. I will cheer for my Steelers even if they benefit from a bad call, but I do not give my elected leaders or others commenting on policy the same luxury. Afterall, football is a frivolous game, while the business of governing is serious.
By the way, the conditions were not set in March. The final details and discussion weighing a raid versus other options were discussed in May. You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts.
correction: end of April, but still not March.
I guess that, in ABC’s mind, Seymour Hersh (what is it with ABC’s spelling, btw?) is right up there with that “Nobel Prize- winning economist” that totally discredited Paul Ryan’s Road Map to Solvency
Enjoy this video of a Sean Duffy (R., Wis.) — (see at 1:20): http://bcove.me/u3mrqbva
abc, help me here. Your tone since you first came on, as well as your references to your high government connections, bespeak a man who knows a vast lot. Could you tell what exactly was the courageous part of Obama’s decision?
I haven’t disagreed with your call that Obama did good—he had a murderous thug killed. But I do not see what courage was involved. Is it that failure would have sealed his political fate, and by saying yes to the operation he bravely put it all on the line? If that were the case, why not just let Bin Laden quietly rot in Pakistan until after the 2012 election?
Abc,
I agree that it was a tough decision to make. One can only imagine the gravity of making a decision to purposely kill a person (if it really was a kill-not-capture mission) as well as put many other lives at risk. I want all of our presidents to take these types of decisions seriously.
However, I still don’t understand what was left to decide, other than “should we do it now?”. Obama had already decided to making finding OBL a high priority, having discovered his location, Obama had already decided against bombing, a plan to raid the compound had been made, personnel had been selected, the SEALs had practiced the raid in a mock-up of the compound, and Obama with or without his advisors had chosen not to involve Pakistan in these plans. At this point, it seems safe to assume that in order to get to this point the following decision had already been made:
* We will kill and/or capture OBL
* We will do this even if it means entering Pakistan without their knowledge or permission
* We will not bomb the compound
* We will get him by executing the plan that was devised and practiced
So again, what was left to decide? While we don’t know everything about the situation, I’ve read nothing about how Obama was using the 16hrs to await further details that would determine whether or not it was the right moment to do it. The story has been presented as: Obama was told the team is ready and OBL is currently at the compound, is it a go?
And as for using partisan jabs, like “leading from behind” and “voting present”, you’re right, this doesn’t further the discussion and I apologize for using them.
Charles Martel: As Libby pointed out and nobody really answered, the conditions for a raid were in place since March.
In February, the CIA tentatively concluded bin Laden had been located. There were at least five NSC meetings held by the President to discuss the operation, March 14, March 29, April 12, April 19 and April 28. On April 29, Obama approved the mission. On May 2, bin Laden was killed. The 16-hour delay is more than reasonable in context, and it makes a lot of sense to think before acting.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Danny, you’ll enjoy this. I went to Wiki, (Zach’s preferred source of information), which everybody here knows is a right-wing site. This is what the entry has to say about criticisms directed at Hersh:
“Those who criticize Hersh’s credibility especially point to allegations Hersh has made in public speeches and interviews, rather than in print. In an interview with New York magazine, Hersh made a distinction between the standards of strict factual accuracy for his print reporting and the leeway he allows himself in speeches, in which he may talk informally about stories still being worked on or blur information to protect his sources. “Sometimes I change events, dates, and places in a certain way to protect people… I can’t fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say.”[39]
Some of Hersh’s speeches concerning the Iraq War have described violent incidents involving U.S. troops in Iraq. In July 2004, during the height of the Abu Ghraib scandal, he alleged that American troops sexually assaulted young boys:
“
Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children, in cases that have been recorded, the boys were sodomized, with the cameras rolling, and the worst above all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking. That your government has. They’re in total terror it’s going to come out.[39]
”
In a subsequent interview with New York magazine, Hersh regretted that “I actually didn’t quite say what I wanted to say correctly…it wasn’t that inaccurate, but it was misstated. The next thing I know, it was all over the blogs. And I just realized then, the power of—and so you have to try and be more careful.”[39] In his book, Chain of Command, he wrote that one of the witness statements he had read described the rape of a boy by a foreign contract interpreter at Abu Ghraib, during which a woman took pictures.[39]
In March 2007 Hersh asserted in a piece in The New Yorker that the United States and Saudi governments were funding the terrorist organization Fatah al-Islam through aid to Lebanese Sunni Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.[40] Following the publishing of the story journalists in Beirut uncovered that Hersh put forth the claim without any reliable sources. Hersh had heard the unconfirmed story from Robert Fisk who had, in turn, heard the story from former British intelligence agent Alastair Crooke. Crooke had only heard it circulated as rumor and no one had fact checked the claims before Hersh ran the story[41] which prompted a variety of criticisms.[42]”
Remember, Danny, this is a man “universally regarded” as one of our great investigative journalists.
Libby: The story has been presented as: Obama was told the team is ready and OBL is currently at the compound, is it a go?
So Obama was presented with a decision, and then took a few hours to reach it. It makes sense to consider the decision before committing the U.S. to an action that could have destabilized the region, to make sure that everything had been considered. It’s not as if America has never blundered militarily due to poor presidential decision-making.
Charles Martel: Is it that failure would have sealed his political fate, and by saying yes to the operation he bravely put it all on the line? If that were the case, why not just let Bin Laden quietly rot in Pakistan until after the 2012 election?
Obviously, because Obama thought it was the best course of action for the U.S.
Whoops! Video link referred to in #21 didn’t take.
Here it is with a different link (2nd video down, at 1:10).
http://www.therightsphere.com/2011/04/thinkprogress-tries-to-do-astroturf-and-fails-bonus-krugman-gets-laughed-at/
Libby, it was one of Obama’s advisors who used the expression “leading from behind,” and it was Obama himself who voted “present” 129 times in the Illinois senate. I don’t see either one as particularly partisan, especially since Obama himself is their source.
(I note that “leading from behind” as a management concept predates Obama by a couple of decades, and that his “present” votes were a small percentage of his total senate votes. However, if you want to see a gloriously twisted rationale for being able to vote “present,” the Annenberg Organization notes that the New York Times reported “‘present’ votes provide a way for lawmakers to voice opposition to an issue. Such votes can also help them avoid the political fall-out of voting ‘no.’”)
Get it? Not voting “no” means you’re opposed to whatever it was you could have voted no on.
Charles Martel: Libby, it was one of Obama’s advisors who used the expression “leading from behind,” …
The phrase came from Gilbert and Sullivan.
“In enterprise of martial kind,
When there was any fighting,
He led his regiment from behind–
He found it less exciting.
But when away his regiment ran,
His place was in the fore, O–”
However, the phrase was reinterpreted by Nelson Mandela.
“It is better to lead from behind and to put others in front, especially when you celebrate victory when nice things occur. You take the front line when there is danger. Then people will appreciate your leadership.”
Guys, I know that the “leading from behind” was used by a White House aid as a compliment in Lizza’s recent New Yorker article, and Obama was known as voting present as a State Senator as a way to avoid taking a stand. I had used both terms as shorthand jabs as Obama, in much the same fashion as lefties have been doing to Bush using phrases like “No WMDs!”, “My pet goat!”, “With us or against us!”, etc. I think that the “leading from behind” comment was unintentionally revealing, and rather nicely describes Obama’s track record. Same goes for his habit of voting present. I was just agreeing with abc that throwing in the jabs is not always the best way to make a point, that’s all.
Libby, I sleep on a decision to buy a stock sometimes. How much graver was Obama’s decisions? Just because you haven’t read about it, doesn’t mean there weren’t issues he wanted to sort out in his head. The group he’d assembled were far from unanimous.
Charles, if you don’t see courage in making decisions amongst uncertainty, risk and consequences of the magnitude involved, then I don’t know what to say.
Danny, you never really addressed Hersh’s charges, did you? And yes, I think Krugman was right in his critique of the Ryan plan, but he is hardly alone. Uwe Reinhardt (also at Princeton) and Martin Wolf (chief econ editor at the FT), among many others, also supplied devastating criticism of assumptions involved, FYI.
Charles, Hersh is hardly perfect. But he remains one of the very best investigative journalists. Uncovering the massacre at MyLai during the Vietnam War, alone, puts him in the top ten of the last several decades.
MyLai. . .1968. Forty-three years later, Hersh is still living off that great journalistic feat. Kinda reminds me of Joe Louis finishing his life as a greeter at a Las Vegas casino after one of the finest boxing careers in history.
Neither Zach nor abc answered my clear question: Could you tell me what exactly was the courageous part of Obama’s decision? You can choose to treat the question as hostile, though I’ve clearly agreed that Obama did a swell thing. I simply want to know what he stood to lose if the operation had failed.
Charles: “I simply want to know what he stood to lose if the operation had failed.”
You’re kidding, right? We need to answer this? While his own life wasn’t at stake, those of the men he is responsible for were. Also, his reputation, legacy and political future, which are far less important than human lives, but still very important to him as a President and as a politician, all hung in the balance.
And I didn’t mean to say that Hersh’s only contribution was MyLai, but it was a huge one. I wonder how many of his articles you have actually read. It is easy to go Google search someone that you have a partisan interest in discrediting, but that account is hardly as useful as a more neutral one built over a period of time. I wonder whether yours is the former or the latter.
Okay, what do we have here.
Some other woman – the maid? – was used as a shield. By somebody. Downstairs.
1) There was a firefight.
2) There was no firefight.
3) Bin Laden was “resisting.”
4) Bin Laden wasn’t armed. (Makes the concept of “resisting” interesting.)
5) He used his wife as a shield.
6) His wife was killed too.
7) He didn’t use his wife as a shield, she ran at a SEAL who shot her in the leg, but she’s fine.
9) That other woman – downstairs – was killed.
10) Maybe not. She was killed unless she wasn’t – and who was she, anyway?
11) Bin Laden’s son was killed.
12) Unless it was some other guy.
13) Bin Laden’s daughter saw him get killed. She’s undoubtedly traumatized, poor dear.
14) They were going to capture Bin Laden until the problem with the helicopter, which was:
A) It had mechanical trouble
B) It did a hard landing
C) It crashed
D) It clipped a wall with a tail rotor, effectively a crash
15.) They were never going to try to capture him, it was always a kill mission.
16.) No it wasn’t.
17) The chopper blew up.
18) The SEALs blew it up.
19.) Panetta said yesterday the world needed proof, the photo would be released.
20.) Obama said today in an interview he taped with Steve Kroft for “60 Minutes” to be broadcast Sunday that it won’t be released. It’s too gruesome, would offend Muslim sensibilities (something he worries about a lot – I personally do not give a warm fart on a wet Wednesday about Muslim sensibilities), and how would Americans feel if Muslims released pictures of dead Americans?
21.) Kroft – whose not a total idiot – pointed out that ever since “Black Hawk Down” days, Muslims have been doing precisely that, filming American bodies being dragged through the streets, filming Daniel Pearl’s head being cut off, filming any and everything.
22) Obama gets pissed at CBS, the tape gets cleaned up, that question disappears. (Inside info.)
23.) We got a “treasure trove” of stuff from hard drives, etc.
24.) There were no phone lines, and no internet access at the “mansion,” they didn’t even have TV – what “treasure trove?”
25.) There is obviously in the pictures of the place a large satellite dish. I guess they used it for making salads.
26.) And now, just today: apparently the idea was to capture him, but only if he was naked. There was a suspicion he might be wearing a suicide bomber type explosive vest, or belt. So if he’s not naked and you can’t see if he has a vest on or not – shoot him.
The idiot Carney – they actually managed to find someone who makes Gibbs look good – is currently twisting himself into knots trying to explain why the photograph that the whole world was expecting isn’t going to be released. (Obviously the thing to do is get Trump on the case, he’ll force Obama to release it.)
The military did great, the administration – or whatever that bunch is, kind of like “The Little Rascals” – have managed to turn it into spaghetti. The story has changed so many times in the course of a mere three days it’s a joke – the world would be better off if Panetta had left the little shitwit on the golf course.
Abc: ” I sleep on a decision to buy a stock sometimes. How much graver was Obama’s decisions?”
Obama is the president. He worked very hard to become president, a job that he knows requires him to make complex, significant decision all the time. He knew the job requires making many life or death decisions. A successful president is one who doesn’t shy away from making these decisions, often without having all of the information needed, and knowing that some of these decisions will fail. This is what leadership is all about. This is why we’re bothered that he took so long to make a decision in a situation that requires fast action. He didn’t take a few minutes or an hour, he supposedly took 16 hours.
jj: Okay, what do we have here.
Bin Laden is still dead.
Libby: A successful president is one who doesn’t shy away from making these decisions, often without having all of the information needed, and knowing that some of these decisions will fail. This is what leadership is all about. This is why we’re bothered that he took so long to make a decision in a situation that requires fast action. He didn’t take a few minutes or an hour, he supposedly took 16 hours.
So? Bin Laden is dead.
Charles M, re. #25, what you are trying to tell me is that Seymour Hersh is one of our all-time great investigative journalists in the tradition of Pulitzer Prize-winning NYT journalists Walter “Ukraine” Duranty and his colleagues, Herbert “Cuba” Matthews and Sidney “Kampuchea” Schanberg (although, in fairness, Schanberg later regretted his support of the Khmer Rouge):
http://mnprager.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/walter-duranty-new-york-times-stalinist-a-name-that-should-live-in-infamy/
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/item_qfY4y5SbR3e9bFHjvQR7NJ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Schanberg
b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but it’s the New York Times! They won Pulitzer Prizes!
In and of itself, I don’t have a problem with 16 hours. I myself like to take my time making a decision.
But according to their own account, he chaired 5 NSC meetings. I assume some of the discussions would be about tactical matters, including the political ramifications of the various options would be.
What this shows me is the lack of executive decision making experience of Barack Obama. He clearly needed more experience (running a Senate committee or a staff or even a couple of more campaigns) before running for President.
BrianE: But according to their own account, he chaired 5 NSC meetings. I assume some of the discussions would be about tactical matters, including the political ramifications of the various options would be.
Yes, it was a complex undertaking that included diplomatic as wellas military implications.
BrianE: What this shows me is the lack of executive decision making experience of Barack Obama.
Why would you infer “lack of executive decision making experience” from having a series of NSC meetings, reaching a decision to implement a plan that led to the killing of the #1 terrorist enemy of the United States who had successfully eluded the United States for the past ten years?
jj
ROTFLMAO (no easy task at my age)
A quick p.s. to all the news, sorta news, semi-news:
Obama pondered 16 hours or didn’t ponder.
Bin Laden got a burial at sea (maybe) and ‘culturally sensitive burial’ (maybe).
What I know for sure:
Gas is $4.00/gallon.
The price of food keeps going up.
The value of the dollar is going down.
Unemployment is too high.
MSNBC’s new motto is: Leaning forward
Obama’s motto is: Leading from behind
Sadie’s motto: Get off the golf course and fix the holes in the economy instead of puttering around.
abc, my beef isn’t so much with Hersh as it is with your blithe pronouncement that he is “universally regarded” as one of the century’s journalistic greats. I’m happy that you feel confident enough to make a comment that leaves absolutely no room for dissent.
Me, I’d try to take into account other points of view—wasn’t the need to do so the topic of some of your other pronouncements?
SADIE, what is it with you knucklewalkers? Give the guy a chance. Remember, it was Bush who left us $4.50-per-gallon gas, trillion-dollar deficits, deep bows to tyrants and hostiiity toward Israel.
Z, Iraq’s still liberated. What do you have to say about WMDs now?
To repeat Z’s logic, what WMDs? Hussein is dead. You know Hussein is dead, right Z.
[...] and misinformation to make itself look arbitrary, unlawful, helpless and stupid. Here’s jj’s great summary: Okay, what do we have [...]
[...] and misinformation to make itself look arbitrary, unlawful, helpless and stupid. Here’s jj’s great summary: Okay, what do we have [...]
Why do I think it shows his inexperience?
There were two options as I see it.
Bomb the compound. Not much of an option. Besides the amount of explosives needed to insure bin Ladens demise, you have the problem of verification and the collateral damage. This is the option Bill Clinton would have taken.
That leaves two variations of option 2 which was to send in ground forces.
That decision was whether to take him alive or kill him. They probably already knew the compound wasn’t heavily guarded. But they had already taken the first variation off the table. After the politicization of tribunals and the circus of civilian trials it is doubtful that was a serious option. Holder made it clear that bin Laden was never going to face a trial.
The only option left (and I guess it wasn’t even on option at that point, since the other two fell away from their own baggage) was to just kill him (and I’m not going to use the emotionally charged word- assassinate).
If Obama was having moral qualms with killing bin Laden, he shouldn’t have. His orders as CinC have been killing people for two years. It would seem naive to suddenly have to do battle with his conscience.
So, in reality, the decision had already been made– and it would have been made in those meetings. It was merely a waiting game for the appropriate moment when the stars were aligned.
The fact that he had to second guess his decision making process tells me he hasn’t been an executive charged with making precisely those kinds of decisions (and I’m not necessarily talking about decisions to kill people)– decisions that have all sorts of ramifications, serious decisions that have consequences.
His struggle was likely over the political ramifications, but sorry, occasionally a president has to rise above politics.
Added this to the newer article as well. Perhaps it will explain the confusion a bit.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/05/skulking-towards-bin-laden-obama-overridden-by-military-and-intel-officials-in-takeout-of-obl.html
Charles, until you offer a better candidate, I’ll stick with Hersh.
BrianE, political ramifications relating to Pakistani and wider Muslim relationships are non-trivial. Otherwise, what poltiical ramifications are you talking about? Where is the huge Dem/liberal outcry against failing to take OBL alive? Not sure I follow the logic…
Libby, why is the cut-off 1 hour rather than 24 hours? And why do you get to make it? Were you as bothered when Bush spent several minutes reading to little kids rather than leaving immediately when he first heard the news about the 9/11 attack? I find it funny that people on both the left and the right focus on minutiae rather than big picture, important stuff. Yes, Bush looked a bit foolish lingering in front of kids, apparently to avoid alarming them–as if that was a great cost in light of the grave situation–but he also acquitted himself well at Ground Zero and in bolstering CIA operations after 9/11. So liberals who harp on those 18 minutes or whatever it was look rather silly. I kind of view your comments in a similar light. But that is just my opinion. Perhaps you can explain in non-partisan terms why 1 hour is okay but 16 is not…
jj, the conflicting information is indeed puzzling, but I still view it as bad suture work after a successful, high risk surgery. The surgeon saved the patient, so those details seem rather small by comparison–in my opinion. Would you rather have a botched raid with impeccable communications after the fact, or a successful raid with botched communications?
ABC recollects fondly what Michael Moore taught him, “ Were you as bothered when Bush spent several minutes reading to little kids rather than leaving immediately when he first heard the news about the 9/11 attack? I find it funny that people on both the left and the right focus on minutiae rather than big picture, important stuff. Yes, Bush looked a bit foolish lingering in front of kids, apparently to avoid alarming them–as if that was a great cost in light of the grave situation–but he also acquitted himself well at Ground Zero and in bolstering CIA operations after 9/11.”
Funny you should mention that now – your timing is impeccable:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2069327-1,00.html
abc, I’ll be your friend and pretend, like you, that you never said “universally regarded.”
ABC, I presume you are a Harvard grad, right?
Thanks, Charles. Can I say “widely regarded”? Is our friendship solid enough for that??
Danny, does it matter?
Much better, abc. You da man!
Danny, I knew that Time was in the tank for Bush, but this is really great. Bush saved the minds of those kids by lingering there rather than quietly leaving minutes sooner. And who is more expert to judge that than an adult with recollections of his elementary school years? I’m glad we have that straightened out. Mind you, it never bothered me much that he sat there. Whatever news they supplied could not have been enough for him to understand just how big the news really was. However, this idea that his sitting there for those extra minutes protected children. That is just precious.
BrianE: If Obama was having moral qualms with killing bin Laden, he shouldn’t have.
That was almost certainly not the issue. The most important consideration was probably the ramifications of failure. It could have led to a serious incident with Pakistan, and that could have led to political destabilization. Even success could have led to political turmoil, though so far the situation is still calm. Indeed, it is your naïve concept of executive decision-making that seems flawed. It is clear that Obama made the right decision at the right time. Bin Laden is dead. No Americans were hurt. There was minimal collateral damage. According to what we know, by any reasonable measure, the mission was a success.
Danny, I knew that Time was in the tank for Bush, but this is really great.
LOL, ABC! Btw…the kids quoted are 16 years old, not adults.
re. your Harvard pedigree, no….doesn’t matter, but it does add a flourish of parsley to the beef, don’t you think?
I suspect that you don’t have kids, either, right?
wrong.
Well, if you want to see the measure of a man, watch how he handles the small stuff as well as the large. If it had been Al Gore who had lingered those few minutes so as not to alarm the children, I doubt that the issue would have ever been raised. I sure wouldn’t have raised it, and I’m a right-wing troglodyte.
I certainly know that abc, who has so earnestly implored us to give Obama a break, will just as earnestly counsel the Zachs and Sullivans of the world to give Bush the benefit of the doubt regrading those moments in a classroom almost 10 years ago.
Otherwise, what poltiical ramifications are you talking about? Where is the huge Dem/liberal outcry against failing to take OBL alive?- abc
You’re probably right. I always underestimate the hypocrisy of the Dem/liberals.
Indeed, it is your naïve concept of executive decision-making that seems flawed- Zachriel
No. No, I’m sure my characterizations of how experienced executives function is accurate.
Charles, I thought I just did.
BrianE: No, I’m sure my characterizations of how experienced executives function is accurate.
That certainly isn’t clear. We have examined just the one example, where the executive made a decision that was a matter of life or death, for the soldiers involved, and possibly many more people, a course of action with many avenues of failure (which could even include regional instability and war). After months of planning, he gave orders to execute the mission. The operation succeeded in killing a dangerous terrorist, with no loss of American lives. So far, the diplomatic situation is calm. From everything we know, it was a resounding success. Yet for some inscrutable reason, you don’t think he did a good job.
Bush was never confronted with a decision he needed to make in the classroom. Acting on incomplete information too hastily is just almost as bad as procrastinating for 16 hours.
Frankly, I wouldn’t trust Z or abc here to make an executive decision on what to have for breakfast.
That sorta says it all.
Well, apparently I was wrong on this.
After months of planning, he gave orders to execute the mission.- Zachriel
Kicking and screaming.
White House Insider: Obama Hesitated – Panetta Issued Order to Kill Osama Bin Laden
Nothing changed with the president’s opinion – he continued to avoid having one. Every time military and intelligence officials appeared to make progress in forming a position, Jarrett would intervene and the stalling would begin again. Hillary started the ball really rolling as far as pressuring Obama began, but it was Panetta and Petraeus who ultimately pushed Obama to finally act – sort of. Panetta was receiving significant reports from both his direct CIA sources, as well as Petraeus-originating Intel. Petraeus was threatening to act on his own via a bombing attack. Panetta reported back to the president that a bombing of the compound would result in successful killing of Osama Bin Laden, and little risk to American lives. Initially, as he had done before, the president indicated a willingness to act. But once again, Jarrett intervened, convincing the president that innocent Pakistani lives could be lost in such a bombing attack, and Obama would be left attempting to explain Panetta’s failed policy. Again Obama hesitated – this time openly delaying further meetings to discuss the issue with Panetta. A brief meeting was held at this time with other officials, including Secretary Gates and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but Gates, like Panetta, was unable to push the president to act. It was at this time that Gates indicated to certain Pentagon officials that he may resign earlier than originally indicated – he was that frustrated. Both Panetta and Clinton convinced him to stay on and see the operation through.
I have been told by more than one source that Leon Panetta was directing the operation with both his own CIA operatives, as well as direct contacts with military – both entities were reporting to Panetta only at this point, and not the President of the United States. There was not going to be another delay as had happened 24 hour earlier. The operation was at this time effectively unknown to President Barack Obama or Valerie Jarrett and it remained that way until AFTER it had already been initiated. President Obama was literally pulled from a golf outing and escorted back to the White House to be informed of the mission.
Read more: http://socyberty.com/issues/white-house-insider-obama-hesitated-panetta-issued-order-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/#ixzz1LQv1qboR
Interesting. I have no idea if this is legitimate or not.
[...] Unbelievable. What incompetence! Via Melissa Clouthier – The Bookworm Room is tracking the bumblings of this administration following the Sunday’s brilliant military operation. Usually when governments use misinformation, they use it to make themselves look good. The Obama Administration gets points for originality, insofar as it’s been using disinformation and misinformation to make itself look arbitrary, unlawful, helpless and stupid. Here’s jj’s great summary: [...]
OK, it’s fake, but it’s a better story than the WH is telling.
My initial surmise is that the SEAL team decided to do this before hand, in order to ensure that there would be no last minute cancellation of the mission op. Thus they knowingly and deliberately sabotaged their own camera feed and explained it away as a “technical malfunction”. Helmet cams has been going on since forever. It’s not something they would have failed to maintain because it was new or they were inexperienced or they didn’t have the time/resources.
They were determined to get OBL dead, one way or another.
How odd. In my circle Sy Hersh is widely recognized as a blazing a**hole. Pretty much how I regard him mytself – and I’ve even met the smarmy little SOB. Guess it depends on your circles. When he apologizes to Team 6 for the Cheney crack, I’ll (perhaps) regard him as something other than a urinal.
Until then abc, I’m going to go with the idea that I know him - and you don’t. (Unless you are Alan Colmes.)
[...] and misinformation to make itself look arbitrary, unlawful, helpless and stupid. Here’s jj’s great summary: Okay, what do we have [...]
[...] and misinformation to make itself look arbitrary, unlawful, helpless and stupid. Here’s jj’s great summary: Okay, what do we have [...]
[...] Bookwarm has compiled a list of the White House inconsistencies and how the Obama administration seem to be going out of their way to prove ow incompetent they are: Usually when governments use misinformation, they use it to make themselves look good. The Obama Administration gets points for originality, insofar as it’s been using disinformation and misinformation to make itself look arbitrary, unlawful, helpless and stupid. Here’s jj’s great summary: [...]
[...] they were watching a Keystone Kops film. HT: [...]
[...] and misinformation to make itself look arbitrary, unlawful, helpless and stupid. Here’s jj’s great summary: Okay, what do we have [...]
[...] Simon discusses the issue of the strange and inconsistent narrative of the slaying of OBL. What does the incoherence tell us? The first thing it reveals of course is [...]