Some things are only gutsy when a weenie does them
Bookworm on May 07 2011 at 11:56 pm | Filed under: Barack Obama, Media matters
John Hinderaker, in writing about the kvelling the media has engaged in regarding Obama’s “gutsiness” when he ordered the bin Laden hit, nails something – the shrieking reveals that, despite the media’s slavish devotion to the man, in their own (white, racist) minds, they’ve been holding him to the lowest standards, and are therefore mightily surprised that he’s exceeded those minimal expectations:
All of this praise is due to the fact that Obama approved, rather than nixing, the killing of bin Laden. A good decision, to be sure. But is there a single person, anywhere, who doubts that George W. Bush would have made the same call? Or John McCain, if he had won in 2008? Of course not. The Democrats’ jubilation results from the fact that their guy didn’t wilt under pressure, but rather lived up to the standard that George W. Bush and John McCain easily met. For this, he is called “courageous” and “gutsy.”
One wonders: if killing bin Laden was a courageous, gutsy decision by Barack Obama, where were the liberals when President Bush approved the killing of Zarqawi? Do you remember any of them praising that decision as courageous and “game changing?” No, neither do I. Or how about the apprehension of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? How many congratulations did that skillfully-executed operation draw from the Left? And how about Bush’s decision to topple, and then capture, Saddam Hussein, one of America’s bitterest enemies, whose forces tried to shoot down American airplanes and who attempted to assassinate a former American President? Was that a courageous and gutsy decision? We all know the answer to that question.
Read the whole thing here, including some examples of the media’s more fulsome praise.
Related posts:
Email This Post To A Friend
17 Responses to “Some things are only gutsy when a weenie does them”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“President Bush approved the killing of Zarqawi”
Zarqawi was taken out by a missile in U.S. occupied Iraq.
“Or how about the apprehension of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?”
Mohammed was arrested by the Pakistanis in Pakistan (though the CIA provided support).
“And how about Bush’s decision to topple, and then capture, Saddam Hussein…”
There’s a difference between courage and foolhardiness.
-
xposted to Power Line
Well, real men would be insulted by the “praise.” The self-esteem culture is for children and metrosexuals. And really, the only thing gutsy or courageous Obama did was decide to do something that some people might find controversial, i.e., he didn’t vote present.
I doubt it was so much Obama’s decision. He is President, of course, and deserves credit and that is fine by me. POTUS is POTUS whether I like it or not. But I have thought for a while the US has reached the point where two Presidents are needed,one for domestic affairs, the other for foreign policy (Nixon, for example was focused on foreign policy and referred to domestic policy, allegedly, as’building outhouses in Peoria’) and we may be seeing some executive evolution here. I don’t care much for Obama, regarded him as an Empty Suit then in 2008 and an Empty Suit now: shallow, arrogant, disengaged, image-obsessed; as a state senator and briefly as US Senator focused on domestic policy. I suspect the kill switch was thrown on OBL,and that foreign policy will be run by Panetta, Petraeus, Gates, Clinton. Better hands those.
BTW, don’t miss this SNL land shark skit riff regarding OBL’s special delivery. Alan K. Henderson’s Weblog You won’t be disappointed if you want a laugh via OBL’s death, well, Zachriel might be disappointed.
Given Z’s behavior here, are we supposed to believe he is an authority in foolhardiness?
My reaction from the first has been that he could not afford to do anything else. Does anyone believe that it would not have leaked if he had let this opportunity slip away? The other option, a B-2 strike using a JDAM? (Some brilliant thinker said drop 24 of them, which would have wiped out the whole damn town.) Think the Pakistanis have their undies in a wad now? Just imagine a stealth bombing attack 30 miles from their capital. Besides, given the number of times that HVTs have been targeted by surgical strikes, and missed that is a non-starter. Remember Clinton? This was the safest, surest course of action.
God Bless our Special Ops heroes; in this case Seals and helo crews.
As Zhombre said; he is POTUS, and he should and will get credit for what goes right during his tenure. Just don’t get too carried away. Of course, he and his media accomplices try to ignore the corollary to that.
Commented on Bill Katz’s superb Urgent Agenda Subscriber’s forum that I wonder if BHO will ever grow up enough to be gracious, and give credit where it is due; specifically to GWB. I think I could say the same for Z. Give it a rest.
JKB, thanks for the amusing link. Let me return the favor.
Lady Gaga and Barack Obama Tripping the Light Fantastic
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/tripping-the-light-fantastic-with-lady-gaga-and-obama/?singlepage=true
There’s a difference between courage and foolhardiness.
And you would know the difference because …. ? Spare me a list, a quote, a link, an opinion or an answer.
p.s.
Bookworm, only because you asked us to temper our comments, I decided to leave my comment as close to rhetorical as possible.
Sixteen hours. He needed sixteen hours to make a simple, straightforward, obvious decision. In the end – probably thanks to Leon Panetta’s boot in his arse – he didn’t wilt, but he came as close to it as anyone could.
I concur with Oldflyer, the decision Obama made was, from his persepctive, the only reasonable option. Take no action and kiss reelction goodbye if it leaded out. Use missles in Abbotobad and he would have had substantial collateral damage and no ultimate proof that bin Laden was dead – unless Pakistan would cooperate to allow us to send CSI into the bombsite. The raid, given the utter lack of security at the compound, was not merely the only decision, but it should have been an easy one. And as Hinderaker points out, is there any other prior President who would not have made the same decision? I can’t think of one. This was not gutsy, it was doing your job. And on those rare occasions that Obama meets that standard, we can all be happy.
The missile strike on Zarqawi was made utilizing time sensitive intel. It was very likely that waiting for troop mobility would have alerted Z or simply have been delayed long enough for Z to have re-located. At the time of the missile strike, it was utilized as the leading vanguard of a ground assault. That is why Zarqawi collapsed in front of US soldiers, who promptly took him out on a stretcher, where he either died in or later on from internal bleeding and blood loss, and thus obtained Zarqawi’s intel stash located on his thumb drive (USB flash drive).
McChrystal at the time was not willing to allow such a crucial piece of intel to sit on a shelf for 16 hours while he took a nap to think about it. IN so far as the strike was delayed, it was delayed only in so far as it was necessary to inform the land forces to allow them to have at least a semi-good chance of surrounding the area after the strike had commenced. In these operations plans, aerial strikes have a shorter C3 than the land based mechanized infantry component does. Thus all the orders must first go to the mechanized infantry for them to prepare and launch the raid, then commence the air raid portion of the operation in order to get the timing as close to synchronized as possible. If the ground forces arrive too soon, the target will become aware of issues and move to a place where the bombs may not reach. If the ground forces are too late, then the JDAM strike can do damage but miss the critical HVTs. If the ground forces take too long, the intel may become obsolete by changing variables on the ground.
This is why McChrystal sought a combined arms strike on Zarqawi’s compound. It didn’t take 16 hours but neither did he hastily execute a bombing order just on the off chance that the information was 100% correct and that the JDAM would 100% kill Zarqawi and any of his subordinates.
The fact that people like Z aren’t even aware of these factors spells out quite well their inexperience, arrogance, and ignorance. Only people like that think they can take complicated world events and boil it into their private dream fantasy of a one off jerk off line.
Ymarsakar: … aware of these factors …
As mentioned above, the difference is that bin Laden was suspected to be in Pakistan, not Iraq where the U.S. was the de facto occupying power. There was some uncertainty that bin Laden was actually in the compound, and a mistake could have serious diplomatic repercussions that could cause a rift with an important ally, their citizens, and possibly even destabilize the region. These problems could occur even though the mission was successful.
jj: Sixteen hours. He needed sixteen hours to make a simple, straightforward, obvious decision. In the end – probably thanks to Leon Panetta’s boot in his arse – he didn’t wilt, but he came as close to it as anyone could.
Tell me it didn’t take sixteen hours. Please. This decision requires only sixteen seconds. For a real POTUS, that is. This guy probably has someone help him decide whether or not he really does in fact want to take a crap. And even then he’d call a committee together to help decide which toilet to use.
I note that all the meaningful intel on this was gathered during the Bush Administration. The Obama Admin didn’t gameplan out this scenario or similiar scenarios in advance? Suppose they’d had a far narrower time window within which to decide to kill Bin-Laden. This extreme indecisiveness that is intrinsic to Obama would have meant a lost opportunity.
This worries me. (Of course, many things Obama worry me.) How many other such critical decisions, needing to be made promptly, aren’t being made at all by this indecisive, muddling-along, lead-from-behind, vote-present-whenever-possible pretender in our Oval Office?
Mike Devx: Tell me it didn’t take sixteen hours. Please.
It actually tooks months of planning. A major concern was if they came under attack by the Pakistani military. They had to be prepared to fight their way out, but that might have sparked a war.
Mike Devx: This decision requires only sixteen seconds.
That may be the difference between Obama and the previous administration, who diverted resources from getting bin Laden to Iraq.
No, it is not the planning, it is the DECISION of go-no go.
Of course there was planning. The military experts didn’t come up with their plan in sixteen hours. The military experts didn’t practice their plan in sixteen hours. The clueless ADMINISTRATION dithered and discussed whether to proceed or not, for sixteen hours. I was very careful to point out that the DECISION took sixteen hours.
Pathetic.
And even then he’d call a committee together to help decide which toilet to use.
Why do you think Saddam had numerous palaces with toilets made out of gold?
Mike Devx: Of course there was planning. The military experts didn’t come up with their plan in sixteen hours.
The NSC was heavily involved in planning over a period of months, including at least five meetings with the President. It makes perfect sense to seriously consider the risks of such an important mission, and to make sure that everything that can be done has been done. That the mission was a success speaks for itself.