This is a great question. In fairness, however, I think it should be noted that the previous administration politicized the heck out of 9/11 and its wars. See this photo from the "Mission Accomplished" photo op. Bush landed in a fighter jet on and aircraft carrier and the carrier, which was near American shore, actually turned itself around so the photos could use the open sea as a backdrop! http://tinyurl.com/3r2huue That said, I think it degrades the office to crow about killing. However since John Kerry's campaign was blown up by an assault on his fitness to be commander-in-chief, I suppose these "tough guy" poses are inevitable.
This is a very interesting topic, especially in light of all that is happening in the Middle East. I agree with Mr. Baker that these "tough guy" poses are somewhat natural elements of a presidential campaign. Historically, administrations have flouted war accomplishments (if you can ever call killing an accomplishment). They are a means of boosting moral and support for the wars at home. They also are a demonstration of "tax dollars at work." Obama has been accused by people on both the left and right of having a weak foreign policy, so it makes sense that he keeps bringing up this death. While I do believe that it is wrong for Obama to take credit, I think the bigger issue with his reference to the death in his speeches and speeches by his supporters is the fact that it is stirring up violence in the Middle East. The Navy Seals stated that the reason there were no pictures taken of the body was to minimize the reaction in areas that harbor Al Queda. Bringing it up so frequently, especially when multiple US embassies are under attack in the Middle East is simply careless. It sends the message that Obama is more concerned with his campaign that with the troops that are serving him (he IS the commander in chief). So normally I would equate the presidents statements as little more than tasteless, but ultimately harmless muscle flexing. In light of recent events however, his statements have complicated an already muddy situation over seas, and should be judged not based on the content of the statements, but on the dangerous effect they seem to be having.
This is a very interesting question that you brought up. As Tori said, this makes it even more interesting because what has gone on in the Middle East. I agree with Payas that the president should not get about killing Obama. They brought up this topic during the Democratic National Convention many times showing that he makes the tough decisions. Personally I do not believe that deciding to kill bin Laden is considered a tough decision, as Payas mentioned he killed many people and was the leader of Al Queda. I believe that when Obama states, or others, that he killed bin Laden it is very misleading. I also agree with Tori in her statement that the President seems to be bring up this topic more for his campaign and that not talking about what is currently going on in the middle east shows he cares more about getting reelected than helping resolve what is going on there except him apologizing.
President Obama and the democratic party's utilization of the murder of Osama Bin Laden as proof of "strong foreign policy" is utterly absurd. Yes, as Tori and Mr. Baker said, previous presidents have used war accomplishments to make themselves appear tough, but the fact of the matter is, Obama is by no means a "tough guy" with respect to foreign policy. It's almost laughable that Obama is taking "credit" for killing Osama Bin Laden. Sure, he holds the position commander in chief and "called the shots" on his death, however, the death of Osama was only made possible because of the techniques used at a location that Obama vehemently decried during his campaign in 2008 (1), and tirelessly fought to close (Guantamo).Further, the vast majority of national security governmental workers (CIA agents) and navy Seals are not confined to term limits or the ebbs and flows of partisanship. The men and women who participated in the raid would not have cared if the president is a Republican, Democrat, or even a Green Party member; what they care about is that a man who is directly responsible for the killing of thousands of innocent Americans is now gone . Having this issue be a talking point for Obama and other Democratic Party members is simply wrong. 1. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/khalid-sheikh-muhammad-capture-osama-bin-laden-courier/story?id=13506413#.UGTE3k3A-So
Just as an aside—I found this online and thought it was pretty funny. Obviously anyone who thinks that Obama is not an American citizen is very ignorant, but I thought the meme was pretty funny. http://www.funnymail.com/sites/funnymail.com/files/imagecache/blogroll-image/230737_2019864581448_1388912077_32333882_2759560_n.jpg
To begin with, President Obama should receive credit for the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Regardless of one’s opinions on how the killing was carried out or the use of it in a political campaign, it is factual that he ordered, as Commander in Chief, the killing of Bin Laden, executed by SEAL Team 6. Although some supporters of the Republican Party claim that President Obama has weak foreign policy, I think the killing of Osama Bin Laden only proves the antithesis of this. In order to conclude a war that he did not start and attempt to restore fortified national security, President Obama made the tough decision to violate the boundaries of the sovereign nation of Pakistan, a country with nuclear capability. There was not complete assurance that Bin Laden was at that location, and this operation could have started a nuclear war in the Middle East. Despite the opinions of most of the Cabinet members, including the Vice President, President Obama made the tough decision to protect the United States’ national safety. Although I agree with Mr. Baker that crowing about killing is distasteful, to his credit, President Obama has not made the killing of Bin Laden a significant political issue on the campaign trail. It was mentioned at the Democratic National Convention, but so were a multitude of other issues. President Obama only uses this topic in order to answer the critics that claim that he has weak foreign policy. The risky decision to order a killing operation in a volatile country is anything but weak. It showcases his decisiveness and willingness to do what he thinks is best as Commander in Chief, for the national security of the United States. Some supporters of the Republican Party seem to bring this issue up just to criticize President Obama. However, anyone that tries to make this a primary issue of the campaign, superseding the economic crisis or nuclear proliferation with Iran, is only trying to cause unnecessary controversy.
I think that whether or not Obama using the death of Osama Bin Laden as a highpoint of his presidency is moral or not is somewhat irrelevant because it’s a basic fact of our political system. Presidents have always used military successes as bragging points and that is unlikely to change. Do I think that President Obama should singularly receive praise for this? No, I don’t. The work was put in by the members of our military and not really by the president himself. So, I think it is fine for him to take a little bit of credit, the choice was officially his, but carrying on about it is frivolous and not in his best interest or the best interest of his party. In my opinion, he has plenty of other positive accomplishments of which it would be far more beneficial to remind the nation. We know that it happened and most people think it needed to, but dwelling on the death of Bin Laden is unnecessary and it isn’t very helpful to his campaign.
In my opinion, as stated previously, bringing up, promoting, restating, etc. the successful killing of someone, even a most heinous enemy, is not a mature, wise, or becoming thing for anyone to do. I do not think it is really appropriate for either of the presidential candidates to talk about this issue unless something new comes up from it. The issue is over and done with. Everyone already knows that this happened under Obama's rule and to bring up an issue like this is not a good thing to do. It reminds me somewhat of a "sore winner", in my way of looking at it Bin Laden was the loser, and no one should be using a murder no matter how justified as a talking point. Although it was a good thing to rid the world of such a villain, it was an unfortunate way in which we had to do it and to bring back up such a sensitive topic after it should be long buried, in my opinion, is not very tasteful from any political figure.
Another opinion I have is that it really was uncalled for for the Obama campaign to question whether Romney would have been able to make that call. It is something that unless you are in the situation you really can't know what you would do and to say that Romney wouldn't have been able to make that call is really unjustified. Although it is inevitable I wish the candidates would stick to their own accomplishments and ideas rather than bash their opponent.
I'm personally somewhat torn when it comes to these questions! In all honesty I think it's totally expected and appropriate for the president to talk about the killing of Bin Laden. I mean he was connected to the most tragic thing that's happened to our country in a while and he was just a straight up bad guy so why not talk about his death? I'd say it's an accomplishment (hopefully that doesn’t make me a heartless jerk). I'm sure most people that tear Obama apart for "bragging" about it probably tear him apart for everything else he does as well - and I'm sure if a republican had been in office they would be darn sure to bring it up just as much if not more (with their military fascination and everything). I don’t think President Obama is necessarily taking all the credit for the killing - I mean you'd have to be not the sharpest tool in the shed to think that he flew over there and killed Bin Laden himself - obviously he means our own seals/soldiers accomplished that feat. Also, it's not only President Obama who was politicizing it - the media, of course, played a HUGE role in escalading the whole thing, and why do you think that is? Because it's kind of a big deal. However, I can also understand the points that Payas as well as Tori made - the killing hardly proves anything about foreign policy, but it does act as a point of reference as to where our tax dollars are going!
I believe that President Obama should not take credit for the killing of Osama Bin Laden. I think that although he ordered the navy seals to kill Bin Laden he was not part of the team that hunted him down and found out where he was hiding. I think that he had the right to tell the public about when he ordered the attack and when there was confirmation on his death; however, I do not believe that he should bring this topic up in speeches especially not in a reelection year. He did little during the past decade in international policy to even think that he was a major reason for why Osama Bin Laden was killed. Also, I think for moral reasons the death of someone, no matter if they were an enemy, should not be a reason to be reelected. I think that it would be more important for President Obama to discuss the positive things he has done to end terrorism in places such as the Middle East instead of discussing the death of a person who has already been replaced as leader of this terrorist group. I think that because he is a major public figure that the people have the right to criticize what he believes and they also have the right to their own opinion. Many Americans support President Obama and his chose to take credit for the death of Bin Laden, but many others do not agree. However, in my opinion I don't believe that he did enough in one term of presidency to take credit.
I disagree about whether he deserves credit, because it was his order. I understand that he was not on the team that fought, but he was the Commander in Chief on that mission, which makes it his successful mission. I do agree that we should not be celebrating anybody's death. However, it is the closest we have gotten to making any real progress in the "War on Terror" since it began with Bush. Obama must have been a major reason behind Bin Ladin's death, because, as you said, it was on his order that the Navy Seals killed him. I understand why you don't think he should bring up the death in speeches, but I am confused about why you think that it is especially wrong in a reelection year. I don't know when else it would be appropriate for him to bring it up besides in a situation of trying to get reelected.
Although I agree that the Navy Seals did the true work in Bin Ladin's death, but Obama is the Commander-in-Chief. Anything that happens with the armed forces he deserves credit for because it is his job to be in charge of that. I personally don't think that we should be celebrating anybody's death, but Bin Ladin's death is considered to be a major win for the US armed forces, and I think that the Commander-in-Chief absolutely deserves credit for that. I think that it is perfectly fair for Obama to use any of his successes, especially one that was as widely popular as this one, in order to get reelected, just like it is fair for Mitt Romney to use any successes he has had in business or as Governor of Massachusetts. I also don't think that it is fair to say that he is using something that should have united the nation as a means of dividing it. He was not trying to cause any division by making that a part of his speech, he was trying to appeal to everyone. It is his critics that have used it as a means of dividing the nation.
I think that Obama has been publicizing the killing of bin Laden excessively. He is trying to take credit for the victory instead of giving credit to those who were behind enemy lines, acting on his command, the Navy Seals. As one would expect, the Seals and CIA members are extremely angry that Obama is trying to take all the credit and have called it a "cheap shot." Obama has given them minimal recognition, but has instead patted himself on the back for the success of the operation. Even more, during the raid, the Seals were able to seize some valuable information to help the U.S. intelligence. The Obama administration has leaked some of this information, essentially making it impossible to exploit the intelligence the Seals had risked their lives to get. These leaks have even compromised the identities and safety of various members of the Seals involved in the raid, which is inexcusable. Also, in the past, presidents have credited the armed forces when a major operation has been successful. When Saddam Hussein was captured, President Bush gave all the credit to the military personnel who made the mission successful and thanked them profusely, without mentioning his role in the operation. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about Obama with regards to the death of bin Laden. Instead, he has used it in his bid for reelection, particularly to use it as a ploy to distract voters from the horrible economy. On the other hand, I do believe that Obama made the right call in ordering the mission to go through and I give him a lot of credit for making that extremely hard decision, for which he was rewarded with a positive outcome.
I don’t think Obama should take the credit for killing Osama Bin Laden. Obviously he didn’t physically kill Osama, and the Navy Seals and CIA have been cheated out of much deserved credit. First off the CIA and Seals have been working to kill Osama since day one, and Obama walked into the picture, not even 4 years ago.
I believe that Obama is bringing this topic up too often in his campaign, using it as more of a strategy to get re-elected. It was definitely a really hard decision to make, and I think Obama made the right decision in ordering the mission to be carried out. However, in the mission the Seals had to re-adjust their plan. They had two helicopters one team was going to enter the building from the roof and work their way down and the other was going to go from the ground and work their way up. However when one went to land it crashed, so instead they went in from the ground. That was a hard and quick decision the Seals had to make on sight, without direction from Obama.
Like someone mentioned before I think he had the right to announce Osama’s death. Personally, however, I believe that Obama announced Osama’s death too soon. Osama’s death was announced immediately after being assured that the body was that of Osama, and the testing didn’t take very long. After killing Osama the Seals took tons of information, ranging from USB drives, hard drives, videos, pictures, and cell phones. Not only was some information leaked, but announcing Osama’s death didn’t give the U.S. intelligence nearly enough time to track down the leads on the DL. By announcing Osama’s death caused leads to run dry much quicker than they could have, had Osama’s death been kept quite a little longer. Obviously I believe that we had the right to know of his death, but I think it would have hurt to be in the dark for a little while, especially when it could save countless lives in the long run.
I think Obama does deserve credit, since he did help, however I don’t think he deserves as much credit as he is taking. He also has politicized it WAY too much. The killing of Osama is a touchy subject. Like Tori mentioned the Seals wanted to minimize the reaction of Al Queda, yet Obama keeps bringing it up, putting the US embassies at greater risk. He helped kill Osama, and it is an amazing burden lifted from us, but there are more issues going on, and the war isn’t over. I think he should be more focused with what is going on in the Middle East right now than dwelling so much on a past accomplishment.
The whole notion of 'I killed Osama" is absurd. Technically, however, President Obama acting as Commander and Chief of US forces did order the assault, and therefore can claim the terrorist's subsequent death as foreign policy accomplishment. The president (as he has been careful to do lately) should say "we killed Osama." This is one of the few foreign policy achievements of his administration. Some may argue the Pakistani drones are considered a success, but the use of unilateral strikes on Pakistani territory, without their governments endorsement, is internationally unjustifiable, and even now the global community is starting to take notice. Furthermore, despite it's debatable success in killing terrorists, drone usage has lead to a substantial worsening in US Pakistani relations. The Obama administration claims that the civilian causalities from the attacks were relatively low, but a recent expose by the New York TImes, explains that the administration considers "all military-age males killed in a strike zone" to be combatants, not civilians. These not-so-combative combatants are not counted in the casualty estimates. So, Obama killed terrorists. That is his main claim to fame foreign-policy wise, and he will continue to harp on it as he attempts to rail Governor Romney's for his lack of experience.
I think that as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, a title the every President of the United States assumes, Barack Obama technically should get partial credit for the death of Osama bin Laden. As Commander in Chief, Obama gives orders to the military and oversees military operations. Although I do agree with Payas that the men of Seal Team Six who were sent on the mission to kill Osama bin Laden were not acting as political agents, they were acting as Americans. The death of Osama bin Laden is a victory (whether it be moral to call the killing of another human being a victory or not) that crosses party lines. Osama bin Laden was hated by almost all Americans, and his defeat was sought for years. No matter who gave the order for the assassination, it was a victory for the American people. Obama, in my opinion, should not get all of the credit for killing Osama bin Laden, but he should get some. The credit should rightly go to the men of Seal Team Six, and the men and women who serve the United States in the military and intelligence services.
I believe that Obama should receive credit for the death of Osama Bin Laden as well as the men and women involved in the process of taking him down. The servicemen and women would not have been able to pursue Osama Bin Laden without direction, funding, or support. The ultimate decision maker in entering that compound was Obama. There was a 60/40 chance that Osama Bin Laden was in the building and it proves that Obama is a "tough guy" because he made the call to send Seal Team Six into the building. This "tough" call would make or break his legacy as a President. Think of the fall out that would have occurred if Osama Bin Laden was not in the building and the Seal Team was sent on a failed mission. Furthermore, Obama did not claim sole credit for Osama Bin Laden's death - he has thanked all who helped in this endeavor. I also believe that Obama has every right to use this in his campaign. This killing shows an accomplishment Obama made during his presidency that the previous president failed to accomplish. Why would you not want to remind the American people of the hard decisions he has to make and bring justice and closure for the Americans that lost loved ones?
As I said earlier, I do not believe Obama should receive ALL of the credit for the death of bin Laden, however I do believe he should receive some. He is the Commander-in-Chief and did have the final say in the matter. He was the one who decide to take the risk on the mission and he does deserve recognition for his decision-making. But he has publicized the incident way too much and seems to be taking all of the credit, without thanking those who risked their lives to carry out his orders. He has definitely used this as a major foreign policy achievement , which it is, but he is using it to distract from other more pressing issues. Also, he has gone further than just touting his achievement in this case. He continues to question whether his opponent, Mitt Romney, would have done the same thing in his position. Ironically, Joe Biden continues to harp on the fact Romney said we shouldn't move heaven and earth to get one person, even though Biden publicly said he did not think that the Seals should attack the compound and completely disagreed with Obama before the event took place. If Obama wants to talk about the success of the mission, that is fine. But he has not given credit where it is due and has been dwelling on the subject excessively.
I agree with Isabelle on the fact that Obama should get some, but not all of the credit. However, I think we are a little beyond that point in the debate. The killing happened months ago. Sure Obama made the right call months ago, and sure Seal Team Six had success in the past, but that is just it--this is in the past. Since Osama bin Laden's death, numerous events have occurred in the Middle East, and the situation has changed. I think that the problem many Americans see with Obama's flaunting of the killing (which is objectionable both by pacifists on the left and "support our troops" war hawks on the right) is the fact that it seems to be celebrating the war in the Middle East as if it has been won. It celebrates one foreign casualty amid thousands of American ones. To call the bulk of Obama's foreign policy successful (and Bush's for that matter) would be a misnomer at best.
There is definitely a lot that the public doesn't know about the details of the war. We know that it wasn't the traditional war the United States has seen success with--it is proving to be more similar to the guerrilla fighting in Vietnam with its roadside bombing and surprise attacks than the tried and true tactics of WWI and II. We know that there has been deaths, injuries; we don't know why. Many Americans believe that we are fighting over oil, many more over Al Qaeda. Some still think this is about 9/11. Regardless of all the uncertainty, one thing is clear: the war, at least in Afghanistan, is not over. Despite campaign promises and countless jabs at Bush, Obama has not ended the fighting. The simple fact is that members of our military are still at war, even as Obama denounces the country they are risking their lives fighting for. Maybe, once in office, Obama learned things that he did not know when he made the promise to end the war--things that WE don't even know now. But whatever the reason, the "bragging" over Bin Laden's death looks like little more than a distraction to me. It is supposed to pose as a finality to Bush's--and the Republican's--hated war. If Romney wants to win, he needs to stop playing defense and point this out to the public, and tell our president to worry about his real job--making sure our soldiers come home safely--and to do it before he celebrates a victory that hasn't happened yet on camera.
I have to agree with many of the girls that suggested that the death of Osama Bin Laden was not because of one person, President Obama, but rather a large group of people. I think that it would show great character if President Obama thanked and recognized specific people who were apart of the operation and also the people who have been involved in searching for him for the past decade. I have to say that I still believe that President Obama should not take credit for the death of Bin Laden. However, I do believe that it should be considered an accomplishment of the country and especially our armed forces.
Another reason why I believe President Obama should stop politicizing the death of bin Laden is because he canceled the operation to kill Osama bin Laden three times before saying yes, because he got cold feet about the possible political harm to himself if the mission failed. Instead of listening to advisers from the U.S. military, Defense, or even State, Obama was acting on the advice of White House politico and close friend Valerie Jarrett. (To read more about Valerie Jarrett visit: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/obamas_strange_dependence_on_valerie_jarrett.html )
This shows that he was very reluctant about killing bin Laden. Now stating that he was strong in saying yes to having bin Laden in his sight is misleading. He changed his mind three times. This shows how indecisive he was about killing a terrorist.
Reading again many of the statements stated I would again have to disagree. President Obama can't specifically name or thank the people of the Navy Team to America because there names are supposed to be kept secret and confidential. President Obama personally thanked each and every one of them for their work and service they provided for the country. Yes he might have said no to sending his troops three times but you have to have good knowledge if whether Osama Bin Laden is there or not. Even going into Pakistan a sovereign country. Obama stated in 2008 during his debate he would get Osama Bin Laden killed and he did it. So I still continue to think he has every right to refer to this in his campaign to show what he would have done vs. his candidate as President and to remind the American people his successes during his presidency. http://www.politifact.com/florida/article/2011/may/02/obamas-2008-pledge-kill-osama-bin-laden-promise-ke/
As I said before, I don't think Obama should bring up the killing of Osama Bin Laden unless it has real political relevance. I think that when the issue was happening it was alright to talk about it and bring it up then while it was prominent. But now that the issue is over and done with the discussion should be over with. It is alright for him to maybe bring it up once but to repeatedly bring it up is not really good, in my opinion. And as I said before, I don't think it is right for anyone to try and say someone else couldn't have made the call. It was a hard call to make and that should have been, and I believe was, acknowledged.
My opinion has remained pretty much the same. I think that it was fine for Obama to take some credit, as it was, we all must admit, technically his call. In addition, I don't think that it was at all President Obama's intent to take away credit from those who really deserve it. But it's long over now and I think it's time to focus on new, more important issues. There's a lot of pressing issues in this year's election and I think it would be best for the candidates to move on. It isn't entirely inappropriate for Obama to bring up the killing in my opinion, but he's already done so and I think it's time for him and the others involved in his campaign to find new talking points and he should have just as good a chance of being successful this way.
I agree with Tori that many Americans disagree with the continued celebration of Osama bin Laden's death because it seems to be celebrating the war in the Middle East as if it has been won, which it has not. Although combat troops have been pulled out of Iraq, there is still a war in Afghanistan that has NOT been won yet. One of the President's jobs is to ensure that all American soldiers, sailors, and airmen come home safe. Americans should not forget in the haze of celebration that Obama does need to fulfill his promise on ending the wars that the United States are currently involved in in the Middle East. On the other hand, in a long war filled with much tragedy and loss, celebrations and achievements made by Americans and President Obama should be acknowledged and not simply forgotten about. The killing of Osama bin Laden was not a political event and it should be seen as a step made by the American people in the War on Terror. In response to Kirsten's comment about Obama hesitating on executing the plan, there are many factors that need to be taken into account when executing such a plan. In the military, ORA (Operational Risk Management) is assessed by many officers when drawing up plans. Things such as the chance for loss of life, chances of operational success, and whether or not the benefits outweigh the risks. Since the U.S.'s relationship with Pakistan is not the most solid, and since bin Laden was such a large threat, the situation was dangerous and needed to thoroughly assessed before sending the men of Seal Team Six. This could account for Obama's "reluctance to kill a terrorist."
I agree with Logan. The president usually takes credit for many victories of the armed forces, displaying his title of Commander in Chief. The majority of the public does not claim that Obama is trying to “take all the glory” of Osama’s death, but rather exercising his position as President of the United States by delivering the news to the country. When one talks about Osama’s death, they don’t say “Obama killed Osama Bin Laden,” it is better known that SEAL Team 6 killed Osama Bin Laden. I think Obama did an admirable job of venerating the SEALS for their mission, but also concealing an overflow of the praise, due to the nature of their secretive, low-profile jobs. Obama truly only brings up the killing of Osama to answer his critics about his supposed weak foreign policy. He is not parading the idea in citizens’ faces, but rather using it as a reminder of his ability and determination to keep the United States safe and assert its power to benefit the greater good. Personally, I have barely heard any coverage about this topic in the newspapers or on TV, demonstrating that the media and the candidates do not view it as a central issue of the campaign. Although the war in the Middle East is far from over, the death of Osama bin Laden marked a major milestone for the United States, furthering its the ultimate goal of military peace in the Middle East. As a result, it deserves recognition on President Obama and SEAL Team 6’s respective parts. I think only the harsh critics of Obama are feeding off of this topic, in order to show Obama in a bad light. No matter what political party one associated with, I think the American people felt victorious after Osama bin Laden’s death. This is not a party issue or even a completely relevant political issue, yet some extremists on both sides are trying to make it one.
My same argument/opinion still stands- I think Obama does indeed deserve credit for killing Osama (like Stephanie, Katie, and Isabelle said, he IS the Commander-in-Chief), however the argument made by Katie that the President could instead state "WE killed Osama" is a good one! It was his troops that killed Osama, and those who support his troops as well! Indirectly that is. It would probably make a lot more people happy, as well as be more presidential and patriotic and such - just because it would lead to a more unified look - not quite reaching cheesy status, but would simply act as a cuter; more inspirational and modest way of putting things. However, I do think it's valid, especially with the election so close, for Obama to use Osama's killing to his advantage - you have to admit it looks good. It seems to me that people are acting as if it's less of a deal than it is. On another note, I don’t see how saying no to sending his troops three times has anything to do with the fact that they did eventually kill Osama, nor does it have anything to do with publicizing the matter. Also, although the actual event is long gone, I don't think it does any legitimate harm by bringing it up - people bring stuff up from the past repeatedly all the time - take the Chris Brown and Rihanna scandal for example. If it's a big deal, it's going to come up every now and then - that's just the way it works.
I'm going to bring up a relevant and related point that I touched upon in class today. Currently the unemployment rate has stagnated between 8.2% and 8.4% in 2012. There has not been an incumbat president that has been re-elected with an unemployment rate above 7.4% since World War II. The Obama campaign strategists are most likely very cognizant of this fact and are willing to use any ploy or distraction to refocus the attention of the election on a different dimension of American consciousness (Obama's "killing" of Osama Bin Ladin, for example). For this reason and as those that I mentioned in my previous blog post that it is utterly unacceptable for the Obama administration to make this a main talking point. The focus of this election should be domestic economics and not an arguably controversial assassination that occurred (as Tori mentioned) months ago.
Some may argue that, yes, President Obama is currently ahead in the polls, but the upcoming debate will certainly be a good indication of what the real focus of the election will be. If Romney sticks to his economic policy guns, I think we will see a significant change in these polls.
Can you please explain to me why the assassination of Osama Bin Laden is controversial? He was responsible for the largest terrorist attack on United States soil, killing thousands of innocent American men, women, and children which you indicated in your first comment. I can't fathom why this terrorist's assassination would ever be described as controversial. If you want to open up the economy now that's a whole different topic. If we stay on topic of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, my opinion remains that President Obama does not use the assassination as a talking point but as a legitimate part of his presidential record.
Logan, I think all Erin was trying to say was that it would be dishonest for President Obama to characterize his entire foreign policy as a success over the killing of one terrorist. As Tori pointed out earlier, the President has still not made good on his promise to end "the War on Terror." Thousands of soldiers are still oversees, and causalities keep coming. If the president were to use Bin Laden's demise as the focal point of his argument, he would be totally disregarding more relevant and pressing foreign policy issues, and arguably failures. The never-ending war is one. Also, the handling of the current situation with Israel and Iran is extremely controversial. Refusing to meet with the Israel's PM incited a lot of criticism from the country, considering they are one of our greatest allies.
Katie put it perfectly! Further, there are some people (namely pacifists) who believe that any form of the "death penalty" or assassination is immoral. Although I agree with this testimony to a certain extent (I am vehemently against the death penalty), I do believe that the killing of Osama Bin Laden was justified.
This is a great question. In fairness, however, I think it should be noted that the previous administration politicized the heck out of 9/11 and its wars. See this photo from the "Mission Accomplished" photo op. Bush landed in a fighter jet on and aircraft carrier and the carrier, which was near American shore, actually turned itself around so the photos could use the open sea as a backdrop!
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/3r2huue
That said, I think it degrades the office to crow about killing. However since John Kerry's campaign was blown up by an assault on his fitness to be commander-in-chief, I suppose these "tough guy" poses are inevitable.
This is a very interesting topic, especially in light of all that is happening in the Middle East. I agree with Mr. Baker that these "tough guy" poses are somewhat natural elements of a presidential campaign. Historically, administrations have flouted war accomplishments (if you can ever call killing an accomplishment). They are a means of boosting moral and support for the wars at home. They also are a demonstration of "tax dollars at work." Obama has been accused by people on both the left and right of having a weak foreign policy, so it makes sense that he keeps bringing up this death. While I do believe that it is wrong for Obama to take credit, I think the bigger issue with his reference to the death in his speeches and speeches by his supporters is the fact that it is stirring up violence in the Middle East. The Navy Seals stated that the reason there were no pictures taken of the body was to minimize the reaction in areas that harbor Al Queda. Bringing it up so frequently, especially when multiple US embassies are under attack in the Middle East is simply careless. It sends the message that Obama is more concerned with his campaign that with the troops that are serving him (he IS the commander in chief). So normally I would equate the presidents statements as little more than tasteless, but ultimately harmless muscle flexing. In light of recent events however, his statements have complicated an already muddy situation over seas, and should be judged not based on the content of the statements, but on the dangerous effect they seem to be having.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting question that you brought up. As Tori said, this makes it even more interesting because what has gone on in the Middle East. I agree with Payas that the president should not get about killing Obama. They brought up this topic during the Democratic National Convention many times showing that he makes the tough decisions. Personally I do not believe that deciding to kill bin Laden is considered a tough decision, as Payas mentioned he killed many people and was the leader of Al Queda. I believe that when Obama states, or others, that he killed bin Laden it is very misleading. I also agree with Tori in her statement that the President seems to be bring up this topic more for his campaign and that not talking about what is currently going on in the middle east shows he cares more about getting reelected than helping resolve what is going on there except him apologizing.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama and the democratic party's utilization of the murder of Osama Bin Laden as proof of "strong foreign policy" is utterly absurd. Yes, as Tori and Mr. Baker said, previous presidents have used war accomplishments to make themselves appear tough, but the fact of the matter is, Obama is by no means a "tough guy" with respect to foreign policy. It's almost laughable that Obama is taking "credit" for killing Osama Bin Laden. Sure, he holds the position commander in chief and "called the shots" on his death, however, the death of Osama was only made possible because of the techniques used at a location that Obama vehemently decried during his campaign in 2008 (1), and tirelessly fought to close (Guantamo).Further, the vast majority of national security governmental workers (CIA agents) and navy Seals are not confined to term limits or the ebbs and flows of partisanship. The men and women who participated in the raid would not have cared if the president is a Republican, Democrat, or even a Green Party member; what they care about is that a man who is directly responsible for the killing of thousands of innocent Americans is now gone . Having this issue be a talking point for Obama and other Democratic Party members is simply wrong.
ReplyDelete1. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/khalid-sheikh-muhammad-capture-osama-bin-laden-courier/story?id=13506413#.UGTE3k3A-So
Just as an aside—I found this online and thought it was pretty funny. Obviously anyone who thinks that Obama is not an American citizen is very ignorant, but I thought the meme was pretty funny.
http://www.funnymail.com/sites/funnymail.com/files/imagecache/blogroll-image/230737_2019864581448_1388912077_32333882_2759560_n.jpg
To begin with, President Obama should receive credit for the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Regardless of one’s opinions on how the killing was carried out or the use of it in a political campaign, it is factual that he ordered, as Commander in Chief, the killing of Bin Laden, executed by SEAL Team 6. Although some supporters of the Republican Party claim that President Obama has weak foreign policy, I think the killing of Osama Bin Laden only proves the antithesis of this. In order to conclude a war that he did not start and attempt to restore fortified national security, President Obama made the tough decision to violate the boundaries of the sovereign nation of Pakistan, a country with nuclear capability. There was not complete assurance that Bin Laden was at that location, and this operation could have started a nuclear war in the Middle East. Despite the opinions of most of the Cabinet members, including the Vice President, President Obama made the tough decision to protect the United States’ national safety. Although I agree with Mr. Baker that crowing about killing is distasteful, to his credit, President Obama has not made the killing of Bin Laden a significant political issue on the campaign trail. It was mentioned at the Democratic National Convention, but so were a multitude of other issues. President Obama only uses this topic in order to answer the critics that claim that he has weak foreign policy. The risky decision to order a killing operation in a volatile country is anything but weak. It showcases his decisiveness and willingness to do what he thinks is best as Commander in Chief, for the national security of the United States. Some supporters of the Republican Party seem to bring this issue up just to criticize President Obama. However, anyone that tries to make this a primary issue of the campaign, superseding the economic crisis or nuclear proliferation with Iran, is only trying to cause unnecessary controversy.
ReplyDeleteI think that whether or not Obama using the death of Osama Bin Laden as a highpoint of his presidency is moral or not is somewhat irrelevant because it’s a basic fact of our political system. Presidents have always used military successes as bragging points and that is unlikely to change. Do I think that President Obama should singularly receive praise for this? No, I don’t. The work was put in by the members of our military and not really by the president himself. So, I think it is fine for him to take a little bit of credit, the choice was officially his, but carrying on about it is frivolous and not in his best interest or the best interest of his party. In my opinion, he has plenty of other positive accomplishments of which it would be far more beneficial to remind the nation. We know that it happened and most people think it needed to, but dwelling on the death of Bin Laden is unnecessary and it isn’t very helpful to his campaign.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, as stated previously, bringing up, promoting, restating, etc. the successful killing of someone, even a most heinous enemy, is not a mature, wise, or becoming thing for anyone to do. I do not think it is really appropriate for either of the presidential candidates to talk about this issue unless something new comes up from it. The issue is over and done with. Everyone already knows that this happened under Obama's rule and to bring up an issue like this is not a good thing to do. It reminds me somewhat of a "sore winner", in my way of looking at it Bin Laden was the loser, and no one should be using a murder no matter how justified as a talking point. Although it was a good thing to rid the world of such a villain, it was an unfortunate way in which we had to do it and to bring back up such a sensitive topic after it should be long buried, in my opinion, is not very tasteful from any political figure.
ReplyDeleteAnother opinion I have is that it really was uncalled for for the Obama campaign to question whether Romney would have been able to make that call. It is something that unless you are in the situation you really can't know what you would do and to say that Romney wouldn't have been able to make that call is really unjustified. Although it is inevitable I wish the candidates would stick to their own accomplishments and ideas rather than bash their opponent.
I'm personally somewhat torn when it comes to these questions! In all honesty I think it's totally expected and appropriate for the president to talk about the killing of Bin Laden. I mean he was connected to the most tragic thing that's happened to our country in a while and he was just a straight up bad guy so why not talk about his death? I'd say it's an accomplishment (hopefully that doesn’t make me a heartless jerk). I'm sure most people that tear Obama apart for "bragging" about it probably tear him apart for everything else he does as well - and I'm sure if a republican had been in office they would be darn sure to bring it up just as much if not more (with their military fascination and everything). I don’t think President Obama is necessarily taking all the credit for the killing - I mean you'd have to be not the sharpest tool in the shed to think that he flew over there and killed Bin Laden himself - obviously he means our own seals/soldiers accomplished that feat. Also, it's not only President Obama who was politicizing it - the media, of course, played a HUGE role in escalading the whole thing, and why do you think that is? Because it's kind of a big deal. However, I can also understand the points that Payas as well as Tori made - the killing hardly proves anything about foreign policy, but it does act as a point of reference as to where our tax dollars are going!
ReplyDeleteI believe that President Obama should not take credit for the killing of Osama Bin Laden. I think that although he ordered the navy seals to kill Bin Laden he was not part of the team that hunted him down and found out where he was hiding. I think that he had the right to tell the public about when he ordered the attack and when there was confirmation on his death; however, I do not believe that he should bring this topic up in speeches especially not in a reelection year. He did little during the past decade in international policy to even think that he was a major reason for why Osama Bin Laden was killed. Also, I think for moral reasons the death of someone, no matter if they were an enemy, should not be a reason to be reelected. I think that it would be more important for President Obama to discuss the positive things he has done to end terrorism in places such as the Middle East instead of discussing the death of a person who has already been replaced as leader of this terrorist group. I think that because he is a major public figure that the people have the right to criticize what he believes and they also have the right to their own opinion. Many Americans support President Obama and his chose to take credit for the death of Bin Laden, but many others do not agree. However, in my opinion I don't believe that he did enough in one term of presidency to take credit.
ReplyDeleteI disagree about whether he deserves credit, because it was his order. I understand that he was not on the team that fought, but he was the Commander in Chief on that mission, which makes it his successful mission. I do agree that we should not be celebrating anybody's death. However, it is the closest we have gotten to making any real progress in the "War on Terror" since it began with Bush. Obama must have been a major reason behind Bin Ladin's death, because, as you said, it was on his order that the Navy Seals killed him. I understand why you don't think he should bring up the death in speeches, but I am confused about why you think that it is especially wrong in a reelection year. I don't know when else it would be appropriate for him to bring it up besides in a situation of trying to get reelected.
DeleteAlthough I agree that the Navy Seals did the true work in Bin Ladin's death, but Obama is the Commander-in-Chief. Anything that happens with the armed forces he deserves credit for because it is his job to be in charge of that. I personally don't think that we should be celebrating anybody's death, but Bin Ladin's death is considered to be a major win for the US armed forces, and I think that the Commander-in-Chief absolutely deserves credit for that. I think that it is perfectly fair for Obama to use any of his successes, especially one that was as widely popular as this one, in order to get reelected, just like it is fair for Mitt Romney to use any successes he has had in business or as Governor of Massachusetts. I also don't think that it is fair to say that he is using something that should have united the nation as a means of dividing it. He was not trying to cause any division by making that a part of his speech, he was trying to appeal to everyone. It is his critics that have used it as a means of dividing the nation.
ReplyDeleteI think that Obama has been publicizing the killing of bin Laden excessively. He is trying to take credit for the victory instead of giving credit to those who were behind enemy lines, acting on his command, the Navy Seals. As one would expect, the Seals and CIA members are extremely angry that Obama is trying to take all the credit and have called it a "cheap shot." Obama has given them minimal recognition, but has instead patted himself on the back for the success of the operation. Even more, during the raid, the Seals were able to seize some valuable information to help the U.S. intelligence. The Obama administration has leaked some of this information, essentially making it impossible to exploit the intelligence the Seals had risked their lives to get. These leaks have even compromised the identities and safety of various members of the Seals involved in the raid, which is inexcusable. Also, in the past, presidents have credited the armed forces when a major operation has been successful. When Saddam Hussein was captured, President Bush gave all the credit to the military personnel who made the mission successful and thanked them profusely, without mentioning his role in the operation. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about Obama with regards to the death of bin Laden. Instead, he has used it in his bid for reelection, particularly to use it as a ploy to distract voters from the horrible economy. On the other hand, I do believe that Obama made the right call in ordering the mission to go through and I give him a lot of credit for making that extremely hard decision, for which he was rewarded with a positive outcome.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI don’t think Obama should take the credit for killing Osama Bin Laden. Obviously he didn’t physically kill Osama, and the Navy Seals and CIA have been cheated out of much deserved credit. First off the CIA and Seals have been working to kill Osama since day one, and Obama walked into the picture, not even 4 years ago.
I believe that Obama is bringing this topic up too often in his campaign, using it as more of a strategy to get re-elected. It was definitely a really hard decision to make, and I think Obama made the right decision in ordering the mission to be carried out. However, in the mission the Seals had to re-adjust their plan. They had two helicopters one team was going to enter the building from the roof and work their way down and the other was going to go from the ground and work their way up. However when one went to land it crashed, so instead they went in from the ground. That was a hard and quick decision the Seals had to make on sight, without direction from Obama.
Like someone mentioned before I think he had the right to announce Osama’s death. Personally, however, I believe that Obama announced Osama’s death too soon. Osama’s death was announced immediately after being assured that the body was that of Osama, and the testing didn’t take very long. After killing Osama the Seals took tons of information, ranging from USB drives, hard drives, videos, pictures, and cell phones. Not only was some information leaked, but announcing Osama’s death didn’t give the U.S. intelligence nearly enough time to track down the leads on the DL. By announcing Osama’s death caused leads to run dry much quicker than they could have, had Osama’s death been kept quite a little longer. Obviously I believe that we had the right to know of his death, but I think it would have hurt to be in the dark for a little while, especially when it could save countless lives in the long run.
I think Obama does deserve credit, since he did help, however I don’t think he deserves as much credit as he is taking. He also has politicized it WAY too much. The killing of Osama is a touchy subject. Like Tori mentioned the Seals wanted to minimize the reaction of Al Queda, yet Obama keeps bringing it up, putting the US embassies at greater risk. He helped kill Osama, and it is an amazing burden lifted from us, but there are more issues going on, and the war isn’t over. I think he should be more focused with what is going on in the Middle East right now than dwelling so much on a past accomplishment.
The whole notion of 'I killed Osama" is absurd. Technically, however, President Obama acting as Commander and Chief of US forces did order the assault, and therefore can claim the terrorist's subsequent death as foreign policy accomplishment. The president (as he has been careful to do lately) should say "we killed Osama."
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the few foreign policy achievements of his administration. Some may argue the Pakistani drones are considered a success, but the use of unilateral strikes on Pakistani territory, without their governments endorsement, is internationally unjustifiable, and even now the global community is starting to take notice. Furthermore, despite it's debatable success in killing terrorists, drone usage has lead to a substantial worsening in US Pakistani relations. The Obama administration claims that the civilian causalities from the attacks were relatively low, but a recent expose by the New York TImes, explains that the administration considers "all military-age males killed in a strike zone" to be combatants, not civilians. These not-so-combative combatants are not counted in the casualty estimates.
So, Obama killed terrorists. That is his main claim to fame foreign-policy wise, and he will continue to harp on it as he attempts to rail Governor Romney's for his lack of experience.
I think that as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, a title the every President of the United States assumes, Barack Obama technically should get partial credit for the death of Osama bin Laden. As Commander in Chief, Obama gives orders to the military and oversees military operations. Although I do agree with Payas that the men of Seal Team Six who were sent on the mission to kill Osama bin Laden were not acting as political agents, they were acting as Americans. The death of Osama bin Laden is a victory (whether it be moral to call the killing of another human being a victory or not) that crosses party lines. Osama bin Laden was hated by almost all Americans, and his defeat was sought for years. No matter who gave the order for the assassination, it was a victory for the American people. Obama, in my opinion, should not get all of the credit for killing Osama bin Laden, but he should get some. The credit should rightly go to the men of Seal Team Six, and the men and women who serve the United States in the military and intelligence services.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Obama should receive credit for the death of Osama Bin Laden as well as the men and women involved in the process of taking him down. The servicemen and women would not have been able to pursue Osama Bin Laden without direction, funding, or support. The ultimate decision maker in entering that compound was Obama. There was a 60/40 chance that Osama Bin Laden was in the building and it proves that Obama is a "tough guy" because he made the call to send Seal Team Six into the building. This "tough" call would make or break his legacy as a President. Think of the fall out that would have occurred if Osama Bin Laden was not in the building and the Seal Team was sent on a failed mission. Furthermore, Obama did not claim sole credit for Osama Bin Laden's death - he has thanked all who helped in this endeavor. I also believe that Obama has every right to use this in his campaign. This killing shows an accomplishment Obama made during his presidency that the previous president failed to accomplish. Why would you not want to remind the American people of the hard decisions he has to make and bring justice and closure for the Americans that lost loved ones?
ReplyDeleteAs I said earlier, I do not believe Obama should receive ALL of the credit for the death of bin Laden, however I do believe he should receive some. He is the Commander-in-Chief and did have the final say in the matter. He was the one who decide to take the risk on the mission and he does deserve recognition for his decision-making. But he has publicized the incident way too much and seems to be taking all of the credit, without thanking those who risked their lives to carry out his orders. He has definitely used this as a major foreign policy achievement , which it is, but he is using it to distract from other more pressing issues. Also, he has gone further than just touting his achievement in this case. He continues to question whether his opponent, Mitt Romney, would have done the same thing in his position. Ironically, Joe Biden continues to harp on the fact Romney said we shouldn't move heaven and earth to get one person, even though Biden publicly said he did not think that the Seals should attack the compound and completely disagreed with Obama before the event took place. If Obama wants to talk about the success of the mission, that is fine. But he has not given credit where it is due and has been dwelling on the subject excessively.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Isabelle on the fact that Obama should get some, but not all of the credit. However, I think we are a little beyond that point in the debate. The killing happened months ago. Sure Obama made the right call months ago, and sure Seal Team Six had success in the past, but that is just it--this is in the past. Since Osama bin Laden's death, numerous events have occurred in the Middle East, and the situation has changed. I think that the problem many Americans see with Obama's flaunting of the killing (which is objectionable both by pacifists on the left and "support our troops" war hawks on the right) is the fact that it seems to be celebrating the war in the Middle East as if it has been won. It celebrates one foreign casualty amid thousands of American ones. To call the bulk of Obama's foreign policy successful (and Bush's for that matter) would be a misnomer at best.
ReplyDeleteThere is definitely a lot that the public doesn't know about the details of the war. We know that it wasn't the traditional war the United States has seen success with--it is proving to be more similar to the guerrilla fighting in Vietnam with its roadside bombing and surprise attacks than the tried and true tactics of WWI and II. We know that there has been deaths, injuries; we don't know why. Many Americans believe that we are fighting over oil, many more over Al Qaeda. Some still think this is about 9/11. Regardless of all the uncertainty, one thing is clear: the war, at least in Afghanistan, is not over. Despite campaign promises and countless jabs at Bush, Obama has not ended the fighting. The simple fact is that members of our military are still at war, even as Obama denounces the country they are risking their lives fighting for. Maybe, once in office, Obama learned things that he did not know when he made the promise to end the war--things that WE don't even know now. But whatever the reason, the "bragging" over Bin Laden's death looks like little more than a distraction to me. It is supposed to pose as a finality to Bush's--and the Republican's--hated war. If Romney wants to win, he needs to stop playing defense and point this out to the public, and tell our president to worry about his real job--making sure our soldiers come home safely--and to do it before he celebrates a victory that hasn't happened yet on camera.
I have to agree with many of the girls that suggested that the death of Osama Bin Laden was not because of one person, President Obama, but rather a large group of people. I think that it would show great character if President Obama thanked and recognized specific people who were apart of the operation and also the people who have been involved in searching for him for the past decade. I have to say that I still believe that President Obama should not take credit for the death of Bin Laden. However, I do believe that it should be considered an accomplishment of the country and especially our armed forces.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason why I believe President Obama should stop politicizing the death of bin Laden is because he canceled the operation to kill Osama bin Laden three times before saying yes, because he got cold feet about the possible political harm to himself if the mission failed. Instead of listening to advisers from the U.S. military, Defense, or even State, Obama was acting on the advice of White House politico and close friend Valerie Jarrett.
ReplyDelete(To read more about Valerie Jarrett visit: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/obamas_strange_dependence_on_valerie_jarrett.html )
This shows that he was very reluctant about killing bin Laden. Now stating that he was strong in saying yes to having bin Laden in his sight is misleading. He changed his mind three times. This shows how indecisive he was about killing a terrorist.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteReading again many of the statements stated I would again have to disagree. President Obama can't specifically name or thank the people of the Navy Team to America because there names are supposed to be kept secret and confidential. President Obama personally thanked each and every one of them for their work and service they provided for the country. Yes he might have said no to sending his troops three times but you have to have good knowledge if whether Osama Bin Laden is there or not. Even going into Pakistan a sovereign country. Obama stated in 2008 during his debate he would get Osama Bin Laden killed and he did it. So I still continue to think he has every right to refer to this in his campaign to show what he would have done vs. his candidate as President and to remind the American people his successes during his presidency.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.politifact.com/florida/article/2011/may/02/obamas-2008-pledge-kill-osama-bin-laden-promise-ke/
As I said before, I don't think Obama should bring up the killing of Osama Bin Laden unless it has real political relevance. I think that when the issue was happening it was alright to talk about it and bring it up then while it was prominent. But now that the issue is over and done with the discussion should be over with. It is alright for him to maybe bring it up once but to repeatedly bring it up is not really good, in my opinion. And as I said before, I don't think it is right for anyone to try and say someone else couldn't have made the call. It was a hard call to make and that should have been, and I believe was, acknowledged.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion has remained pretty much the same. I think that it was fine for Obama to take some credit, as it was, we all must admit, technically his call. In addition, I don't think that it was at all President Obama's intent to take away credit from those who really deserve it. But it's long over now and I think it's time to focus on new, more important issues. There's a lot of pressing issues in this year's election and I think it would be best for the candidates to move on. It isn't entirely inappropriate for Obama to bring up the killing in my opinion, but he's already done so and I think it's time for him and the others involved in his campaign to find new talking points and he should have just as good a chance of being successful this way.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tori that many Americans disagree with the continued celebration of Osama bin Laden's death because it seems to be celebrating the war in the Middle East as if it has been won, which it has not. Although combat troops have been pulled out of Iraq, there is still a war in Afghanistan that has NOT been won yet. One of the President's jobs is to ensure that all American soldiers, sailors, and airmen come home safe. Americans should not forget in the haze of celebration that Obama does need to fulfill his promise on ending the wars that the United States are currently involved in in the Middle East. On the other hand, in a long war filled with much tragedy and loss, celebrations and achievements made by Americans and President Obama should be acknowledged and not simply forgotten about. The killing of Osama bin Laden was not a political event and it should be seen as a step made by the American people in the War on Terror. In response to Kirsten's comment about Obama hesitating on executing the plan, there are many factors that need to be taken into account when executing such a plan. In the military, ORA (Operational Risk Management) is assessed by many officers when drawing up plans. Things such as the chance for loss of life, chances of operational success, and whether or not the benefits outweigh the risks. Since the U.S.'s relationship with Pakistan is not the most solid, and since bin Laden was such a large threat, the situation was dangerous and needed to thoroughly assessed before sending the men of Seal Team Six. This could account for Obama's "reluctance to kill a terrorist."
ReplyDeleteI agree with Logan. The president usually takes credit for many victories of the armed forces, displaying his title of Commander in Chief. The majority of the public does not claim that Obama is trying to “take all the glory” of Osama’s death, but rather exercising his position as President of the United States by delivering the news to the country. When one talks about Osama’s death, they don’t say “Obama killed Osama Bin Laden,” it is better known that SEAL Team 6 killed Osama Bin Laden. I think Obama did an admirable job of venerating the SEALS for their mission, but also concealing an overflow of the praise, due to the nature of their secretive, low-profile jobs. Obama truly only brings up the killing of Osama to answer his critics about his supposed weak foreign policy. He is not parading the idea in citizens’ faces, but rather using it as a reminder of his ability and determination to keep the United States safe and assert its power to benefit the greater good. Personally, I have barely heard any coverage about this topic in the newspapers or on TV, demonstrating that the media and the candidates do not view it as a central issue of the campaign. Although the war in the Middle East is far from over, the death of Osama bin Laden marked a major milestone for the United States, furthering its the ultimate goal of military peace in the Middle East. As a result, it deserves recognition on President Obama and SEAL Team 6’s respective parts. I think only the harsh critics of Obama are feeding off of this topic, in order to show Obama in a bad light. No matter what political party one associated with, I think the American people felt victorious after Osama bin Laden’s death. This is not a party issue or even a completely relevant political issue, yet some extremists on both sides are trying to make it one.
ReplyDeleteMy same argument/opinion still stands- I think Obama does indeed deserve credit for killing Osama (like Stephanie, Katie, and Isabelle said, he IS the Commander-in-Chief), however the argument made by Katie that the President could instead state "WE killed Osama" is a good one! It was his troops that killed Osama, and those who support his troops as well! Indirectly that is. It would probably make a lot more people happy, as well as be more presidential and patriotic and such - just because it would lead to a more unified look - not quite reaching cheesy status, but would simply act as a cuter; more inspirational and modest way of putting things. However, I do think it's valid, especially with the election so close, for Obama to use Osama's killing to his advantage - you have to admit it looks good. It seems to me that people are acting as if it's less of a deal than it is. On another note, I don’t see how saying no to sending his troops three times has anything to do with the fact that they did eventually kill Osama, nor does it have anything to do with publicizing the matter. Also, although the actual event is long gone, I don't think it does any legitimate harm by bringing it up - people bring stuff up from the past repeatedly all the time - take the Chris Brown and Rihanna scandal for example. If it's a big deal, it's going to come up every now and then - that's just the way it works.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to bring up a relevant and related point that I touched upon in class today. Currently the unemployment rate has stagnated between 8.2% and 8.4% in 2012. There has not been an incumbat president that has been re-elected with an unemployment rate above 7.4% since World War II. The Obama campaign strategists are most likely very cognizant of this fact and are willing to use any ploy or distraction to refocus the attention of the election on a different dimension of American consciousness (Obama's "killing" of Osama Bin Ladin, for example). For this reason and as those that I mentioned in my previous blog post that it is utterly unacceptable for the Obama administration to make this a main talking point. The focus of this election should be domestic economics and not an arguably controversial assassination that occurred (as Tori mentioned) months ago.
ReplyDeleteSome may argue that, yes, President Obama is currently ahead in the polls, but the upcoming debate will certainly be a good indication of what the real focus of the election will be. If Romney sticks to his economic policy guns, I think we will see a significant change in these polls.
http://economics.about.com/cs/macroeconomics/a/presidency_3.htm
Can you please explain to me why the assassination of Osama Bin Laden is controversial? He was responsible for the largest terrorist attack on United States soil, killing thousands of innocent American men, women, and children which you indicated in your first comment. I can't fathom why this terrorist's assassination would ever be described as controversial. If you want to open up the economy now that's a whole different topic. If we stay on topic of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, my opinion remains that President Obama does not use the assassination as a talking point but as a legitimate part of his presidential record.
DeleteLogan, I think all Erin was trying to say was that it would be dishonest for President Obama to characterize his entire foreign policy as a success over the killing of one terrorist. As Tori pointed out earlier, the President has still not made good on his promise to end "the War on Terror." Thousands of soldiers are still oversees, and causalities keep coming.
DeleteIf the president were to use Bin Laden's demise as the focal point of his argument, he would be totally disregarding more relevant and pressing foreign policy issues, and arguably failures. The never-ending war is one. Also, the handling of the current situation with Israel and Iran is extremely controversial. Refusing to meet with the Israel's PM incited a lot of criticism from the country, considering they are one of our greatest allies.
Katie put it perfectly! Further, there are some people (namely pacifists) who believe that any form of the "death penalty" or assassination is immoral. Although I agree with this testimony to a certain extent (I am vehemently against the death penalty), I do believe that the killing of Osama Bin Laden was justified.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete