Has been played.

BOOM! Obama Just Played The Bin Laden Card (http://www.businessinsider.com/boom-obama-just-played-the-bin-laden-card-2011-12)

He played the card man. You knew it was coming :deadhorse::rollem:

He has a right to play it....one of the things he did right so why shouldn't he use it.

It's like when Bush said something like you don't appease your enemies you kill them.

Obama has a good record here, and it's come with a lot of political risk.

-spence

He has a right to play it....one of the things he did right so why shouldn't he use it.

Obama taking any significant credit for killing Obama is a classic case of the rooster taking credit for the sunrise. Yes, Obama was the sitting President when this mission became possible, but everything that made it possible had its genesis in the security apparatus set up by the previous administration. I'll give Obama credit for not derailing the mission, but he had almost nothingf to do with it.

I give Obama decent marks on killing terrorists with drones. But the Bin Laden killing wasn't a result of much that Obama did, other than leavs Bush's policies in place. If I'm wrong, I'm persuadable. If I'm wrong, let's see some evidence.

He is the standing CnC he had to sign off on that action and the 22 other Al Qaeda executions we know about.

I think he can claim it.

If I'm wrong, let's see some evidence.
Even though you try and state it as such, opinion is not fact. How about some evidence to support your claims for all the work the Bush Administration did?

Bush seemed to be pretty passive with Pakistan. You can't fully blame him though for a lack of focus on Pakistan, as he did have two wars that he started to hold his attention.

Bin Laden is old history.
If he wants to take credit for something,
destroy our downed drone in Iran and I'll give him full credit.

It's like when Bush said something like you don't appease your enemies you kill them.

Obama has a good record here, and it's come with a lot of political risk.

-spence

:rotf2: The left giving Bush credit for anything was rare and usually sarcasm was involved.

Obama taking any significant credit for killing Obama is a classic case of the rooster taking credit for the sunrise. Yes, Obama was the sitting President when this mission became possible, but everything that made it possible had its genesis in the security apparatus set up by the previous administration. I'll give Obama credit for not derailing the mission, but he had almost nothingf to do with it.


He id make the "Go" call, which for a politician of his, err, politicalness was significant.

Bin Laden is old history.
If he wants to take credit for something,
destroy our downed drone in Iran and I'll give him full credit.

Too late. But interestingly, O finally did find a border he would respect.

He is the standing CnC he had to sign off on that action and the 22 other Al Qaeda executions we know about.

I think he can claim it.

can we refer to him as the "Executor-in-Chief"?....he seems to be good at killing stuff :uhuh:

can we refer to him as the "Executor-in-Chief"?....he seems to be good at killing stuff :uhuh:

Including domestic stuff, sure thing

EnC Bamarama
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The odd thing is that he is a democrat with a decent foreign policy record and a crap domestic record which is the opposite of most democratic presidents. I do not think that is enough to get him another term.

:rotf2:



Too late. But interestingly, O finally did find a border he would respect.


:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

there's been too many F-ups that have happened recently
and over exposure of the last days of Bin laiden on TV

EVeRY TIME NATO F's-up AMERICA gets solely blamed
so its a loose loose situation...NATO is a JOKE, whoopie Dew

hats off and i salute the seals that went in
they alone ......deserve the Praise

Even though you try and state it as such, opinion is not fact. How about some evidence to support your claims for all the work the Bush Administration did?

Bush seemed to be pretty passive with Pakistan. You can't fully blame him though for a lack of focus on Pakistan, as he did have two wars that he started to hold his attention.

That's fair, Johnny. I only failed to mention the factual support because I assumed it was common knowledge.

According to everyone with knowledge, the first break in the case that led to Bin Laden's death, was intelligence obtained from Khalid Shiek Mohammed after he was waterboarded at Guantanimo Bay. Now, no one can prove that we wouldn't have gotten the information, eventually, from other means. But the fact is, the first break was the revelation of the identity of an Al Queda courier, and KSM only gave that up after he was waterboarded. Bush established the waterboarding aproach, and he set up the terrorist facility at Guantanimo. Obama is on record as being vehemently opposed to both of these things.

"he did have two wars that he started to hold his attention"

Oh, Bush started the war in Afghanistan? Johnny, we sometimes disagree on the interpretation of facts, but we usually agree on the facts. That is the stupidest thing you have said on this forum. The Taliban started the war in Afghanistan when they gave support and safe haven for Al Queda to plan the 09/11 attacks. Maybe you aren't familiar with the events of 09/11.

Johnny, given that the anniversary of Pearl Harbor was this week, let me ask you a similar question. Do you think that FDR started the war with Japan in WWII? 2,402 Americans were killed at Pearl Harbor (I think). Many more were killed on 09/11.

I was in Iraq with the USMC. Bush and other western leaders gave Saddam Hussein all kinds of chances to avoid war (I had ample reason to follow these events pretty closely). All Saddam had to do was comply with the UN resolutions which ended the first Gulf War, another war of aggression which Saddam initiated by the way. That we fired the first shot in Iraq iasn't necessarily the same thing as saying that we started the war (no one who has ever been in close-quarter combat would ever say there's any reason to ever let someone else fire the first shot). Hussein kept kicking out the weapons inspectors, and in my opinion, it seems like the prudent thing would be to assume that he was trying to hide something.

Very few people spoke against that war until it became politically convenient. What do you think of liberal politicians who voted to support the war initially, and then when public opinion eroded, these same politicians started acting like they were always opposed to it? If that's not a slap in the face to people like me who bled over there, and officers like me who lost kids under our command (I lost 2), I don't know what is.

Oh, Bush started the war in Afghanistan?
Do you think that FDR started the war with Japan in WWII?

Yes and Yes. Were they both justified? 110% yes. You are arguing semantics. Maybe if Johnny said they both 'declared' war on these countries it would have been more 'factual'

I was in Iraq with the USMC.
As always, thanks for your service.


Very few people spoke against that war until it became politically convenient.
I agree. One of the main reasons I couldn't support Hillary in '08, even though I think she is doing a decent job as SoS.

All along Afghanistan, while probably 5+ years too long, was justified. Iraq, I have to disagree, and have been personally consistent on this.
This does not demean what you and your troops did, you guys did/are doing an exemplary job. Support the troops, if not the war...

Jim - everything I read is that three options where presented for the kill and Obama went with the assault option. It was his choice. He had all the accountablity and all the risk squarely on his shoulders. I think it was a ballsy call and I give him 100% credit for it. He deserves to play this card.

With a couple exceptions, I lean to the right rather strongly. But I think that Obama's best accomplishment was the handling of the pirates. That is how you play the Comander-in-Chief game. As for Osama, he was following thru on stuff that was in the works for years. There was no way he could do anything else.. Make no mistake, I am glad they got that sumbitch and I give Obama credit for following thru but he by no means would have put all this in motion.

The pirate issue he delt with swiftly and appropriately. I applaud his leadership there.
But I think he will loose on the economic meltdown and the excessive deficit spending issues...too many people are hurting, and they are the people who voted for him.

When he was vacationing over the summer, a businessman friend was invited to a private session with him (20 local businessmen met with him at the home of a billionaire who donated a million to his campaign). My friend is further to the right than I am. He was uncomfortable initially but got to ask him several direct questions. All I can say is that my friend is still a republican.
Obama's biggest fear: not the economy....it is Pakistan.

Obama's biggest fear: not the economy....it is Pakistan.

That is a real threat...
given his track record with these things, I'd prefer Obama to the alternatives right now....

RIJ nailed it.
if the OBL mission failed, he would have had ZERO chance of winning reelection, and I think he had to have known that, and made the call anyways...

Yes and Yes. Were they both justified? 110% yes. You are arguing semantics. Maybe if Johnny said they both 'declared' war on these countries it would have been more 'factual'


As always, thanks for your service.



I agree. One of the main reasons I couldn't support Hillary in '08, even though I think she is doing a decent job as SoS.

All along Afghanistan, while probably 5+ years too long, was justified. Iraq, I have to disagree, and have been personally consistent on this.
This does not demean what you and your troops did, you guys did/are doing an exemplary job. Support the troops, if not the war...

I just don't get how you can say that America "started" the conflict with Japan in WWII. We didn't engage Japan untikl afte rthey attacked Pearl Harbor. Maybe you and Johnny need to look up the word "started" in the dictionary, I'm just at a loss. If someone shoots at you, and then you shoot back, how do you say that you "started" the shooting?

Your welcome for the service, as always, I appreciate the very pro-vet stance of all here.

Jim - everything I read is that three options where presented for the kill and Obama went with the assault option. It was his choice. He had all the accountablity and all the risk squarely on his shoulders. I think it was a ballsy call and I give him 100% credit for it. He deserves to play this card.

I can't give him credit for making a "ballsy" call. After 09/11, no one in their right mind would have refused to take the chance. I'll give him credit for making the "correct" call, but it was one of the easiest decisions any president has ever been faced with. He declined to get in the way of what obviously needed to be done. It was not a difficult decision. The SEALs were ballsy, not Obama.

RIROCKHOUND, you stated that the USA started the war in the Pacific with Japan in the 1940s.

I contend that the opening shot in that war was when the 1st Japanese plane dropped a bomb onto a ship at Pearl Harbor. In my opinion, that was what started the war in the Pacific.

Clearly you disagree. Please tell me what you consider to be the opening shot of that war, and since whatever example you give will have occurred aftre Pearl Harbor, please tell me why Pearl Harbor wasn't the start of that war.

I have heard some bizarre things in my life. I have never heard anyone claim that the USA initiated the war with Japan in the Pacific theater.

I have heard some bizarre things in my life. I have never heard anyone claim that the USA initiated the war with Japan in the Pacific theater.

I didn't say that they initiated, started whatever.
The fact is that War was declared by GWB, (and FDR). In terms of Japan (if I recall, Germany declared war on us first, we followed suit) and Afghanistan, they were 100% justified, provoked by an attack.

I see a clear distinction between those situations and Iraq.
that's all...

That's fair, Johnny. I only failed to mention the factual support because I assumed it was common knowledge.

According to everyone with knowledge, the first break in the case that led to Bin Laden's death, was intelligence obtained from Khalid Shiek Mohammed after he was waterboarded at Guantanimo Bay. Now, no one can prove that we wouldn't have gotten the information, eventually, from other means. But the fact is, the first break was the revelation of the identity of an Al Queda courier, and KSM only gave that up after he was waterboarded. Bush established the waterboarding aproach, and he set up the terrorist facility at Guantanimo. Obama is on record as being vehemently opposed to both of these things.
Appreciate the reply and agree on the facts you post... however, I disagree that "establishing the waterboarding approach" means that Bush played a large part in killing OBL. It was reported that since 2008, there's been a significant amount of surveillance and discover missions. Authorization of such tactical missions in another country's sovereign territory typically can come from no one other than the President and his staff.

"he did have two wars that he started to hold his attention"

Oh, Bush started the war in Afghanistan? Johnny, we sometimes disagree on the interpretation of facts, but we usually agree on the facts. That is the stupidest thing you have said on this forum. The Taliban started the war in Afghanistan when they gave support and safe haven for Al Queda to plan the 09/11 attacks. Maybe you aren't familiar with the events of 09/11.
I must be getting stupider and stupider then because you've said that at least a half dozen times. (yeah, opening the door wide there)

Johnny, given that the anniversary of Pearl Harbor was this week, let me ask you a similar question. Do you think that FDR started the war with Japan in WWII? 2,402 Americans were killed at Pearl Harbor (I think). Many more were killed on 09/11.

I was in Iraq with the USMC. Bush and other western leaders gave Saddam Hussein all kinds of chances to avoid war (I had ample reason to follow these events pretty closely). All Saddam had to do was comply with the UN resolutions which ended the first Gulf War, another war of aggression which Saddam initiated by the way. That we fired the first shot in Iraq iasn't necessarily the same thing as saying that we started the war (no one who has ever been in close-quarter combat would ever say there's any reason to ever let someone else fire the first shot). Hussein kept kicking out the weapons inspectors, and in my opinion, it seems like the prudent thing would be to assume that he was trying to hide something.
Pearl Harbor was a nation-sanctioned attack on our country and an obvious act of war by an obvious party.
9/11 was an act of war by a terrorist network who did not have any directly sponsored/authorization to attack the US. Yes, the Taliban turned a blind eye to OBL's network.
Iraq had *literally* absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Not a single thing.

Pearl Harbor is not the same as 9/11. Neither Pearl Harbor nor 9/11 are the same as the invasion of Iraq. You're comparing Apples to Oranges.


Very few people spoke against that war until it became politically convenient. What do you think of liberal politicians who voted to support the war initially, and then when public opinion eroded, these same politicians started acting like they were always opposed to it? If that's not a slap in the face to people like me who bled over there, and officers like me who lost kids under our command (I lost 2), I don't know what is.
Very few people spoke out because of the "detailed, accurate intelligence" that was presented for Iraq's sponsorship of terrorism and "advanced WMD programs". "Facts" which have been consistently proven false.

Listen, please don't take any of this as an attack on the Men and Women who risk their lives every day for us. As a country, we are eternally indebted to the work that our servicemen like yourself have done. Hell, in 2004, I tried to sign up for OCS and was medically declined. Went through a whole appeals process and the Marines ultimately said no.

At times, I'll vehemently disagree with your opinions and comments, but there is certainly a deeply-seated appreciation and gratitude for your service.

I believe missions had been presented to take out Bin Laden before it actually happened. They were probably not authorized due to level of risk and confidence in the intelligence. This one was the best option that had been on the table and he authorized it. He weighed the risks and he deserves the credit for authorizing. Bin Laden would have been target #1 for anyone who assumed the Presidency. But let's not lose sight of the men and women who worked on all the missions, the successful one as well as the ones which were not approved. They were told to come back with a better solution, and they did. Despite the loss of a chopper, the team pulled it off, flawlessly.... It is just unbelievable that the entire team from that mission was lost a few months later..........

As for Pakistan, I have been railing over that country's government and our financial aid there for years... What exactly are we getting in return for the hundreds of millions we've sent there? ST6 had to operate covertly in their air space to accomplish the Bin Laden take down.

But if a country is going to harbor enemies of the US and think we aren't going to put some boots on their turf, they have a limited shelf life... If Bin Laden were in Canada or Britain, be assured we would be deploying troops there..... The Paskistanis are just on the clock...

I didn't say that they initiated, started whatever.
The fact is that War was declared by GWB, (and FDR). In terms of Japan (if I recall, Germany declared war on us first, we followed suit) and Afghanistan, they were 100% justified, provoked by an attack.

I see a clear distinction between those situations and Iraq.
that's all...

"I didn't say that they initiated, started whatever."

I must have somehting wrong with me, because that's twice this week I thought someone said somethiing (you and Spence) and maybe you didn't say it.

I asked this...

"Oh, Bush started the war in Afghanistan?
Do you think that FDR started the war with Japan in WWII? "

And you said this...

"Yes and Yes."

I also distinguish Afghanistan and WWII from Iraq. We were not attacked in a preemptive strike by Iraq, although they did fire at some American aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone, which could easily be called an act of war in my opinion. If my kid is flying that jet, I don't want his commander in chief giving a pass to some despot taking shots at him.

War was declared by Bush afetr we were attacked on 09/11 (and long aftre Al Queda declared war on us). Similarly, FDR declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor (and aftre Japan declared war on us). If someone declares war on us and attacks us, and THEN we declare war on them and attack them, I don't see how you say we started that war.

I don't see how you say we started that war.

for #^&#^&#^&#^&s sake.

This all started because you took umbridge to JD saying Bush started two wars.

My final post and take on the matter.
Bush declared two wars during his term. One justified, one not.

Appreciate the reply and agree on the facts you post... however, I disagree that "establishing the waterboarding approach" means that Bush played a large part in killing OBL. It was reported that since 2008, there's been a significant amount of surveillance and discover missions. Authorization of such tactical missions in another country's sovereign territory typically can come from no one other than the President and his staff.


I must be getting stupider and stupider then because you've said that at least a half dozen times. (yeah, opening the door wide there)


Pearl Harbor was a nation-sanctioned attack on our country and an obvious act of war by an obvious party.
9/11 was an act of war by a terrorist network who did not have any directly sponsored/authorization to attack the US. Yes, the Taliban turned a blind eye to OBL's network.
Iraq had *literally* absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Not a single thing.

Pearl Harbor is not the same as 9/11. Neither Pearl Harbor nor 9/11 are the same as the invasion of Iraq. You're comparing Apples to Oranges.



Very few people spoke out because of the "detailed, accurate intelligence" that was presented for Iraq's sponsorship of terrorism and "advanced WMD programs". "Facts" which have been consistently proven false.

Listen, please don't take any of this as an attack on the Men and Women who risk their lives every day for us. As a country, we are eternally indebted to the work that our servicemen like yourself have done. Hell, in 2004, I tried to sign up for OCS and was medically declined. Went through a whole appeals process and the Marines ultimately said no.

At times, I'll vehemently disagree with your opinions and comments, but there is certainly a deeply-seated appreciation and gratitude for your service.

First, I would NEVER take anything you said as an attack on our military. If I thought you were capable of doing that, I wouldn't debate you.

"I disagree that "establishing the waterboarding approach" means that Bush played a large part in killing OBL."

I don't know that I'd say Bush played a "large role" either. But in my opinion, he did way more to complete the task than Obama, who pretty much just happened to be there when it all came to fruition.

"9/11 was an act of war by a terrorist network who did not have any directly sponsored/authorization to attack the US"

You are correct. The war on terror, in many ways, cannot be categorized and compartmentalized the way wars historically have been. As you said, it's not sovereign nations that are attacking us. But the American victims on 09/11 are every bit as dead as the American victims of Pearl Harbor, and their families deserve the same expectation of justice.

"Very few people spoke out because of the "detailed, accurate intelligence" that was presented for Iraq's sponsorship of terrorism and "advanced WMD programs". "Facts" which have been consistently proven false."

Most Democrat senators voted to invade Iraq, and they all know that intelligence gathering is not, has never been, and never will be, an exact science. Bill Clinton said many times that it was certain that Saddam had WMDs. It just seems unspeakably cowardly to me to support the war when it was popular, and then act like you never did when it becomes unpopular. I'm not saying it's wrong to change your mind when more data becomes available. But I think that everyone who supported the war at the time, is equally responsible for it. I don't like it when politicians RETROACTIVELY wash their hands of the mess, and almost everyone who did that is a democrat.

"Iraq had *literally* absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Not a single thing."

Agreed. Iraq also repeatedly violated the terms of the treaty that ended the first Gulf War, which Saddam also started. In my opinion, you don't want to give tyrants a free pass for that sort of thing. That sets a bad precedent.

I can't give him credit for making a "ballsy" call. After 09/11, no one in their right mind would have refused to take the chance. I'll give him credit for making the "correct" call, but it was one of the easiest decisions any president has ever been faced with. He declined to get in the way of what obviously needed to be done. It was not a difficult decision. The SEALs were ballsy, not Obama.

The "call" was the way they went in. I believe the options presented where
- bomb the compound
- drone
- seal attack

I also believe his advisors favored bombing. Since O wanted to be 100% they got him, he went with seals. Since it risked US lives and crossed Pakistan with our troops - I believe it was a ballsy call.

for #^&#^&#^&#^&s sake.

This all started because you took umbridge to JD saying Bush started two wars.

My final post and take on the matter.
Bush declared two wars during his term. One justified, one not.

Bryan, I'm sorry. In my opinion, there is a huge difference between launching an unprovoked attack, and responding to an unprovoked attack that someone else inflicts upon you. It seemed to me you weren't distinguishing between those 2 scenarios.

I agree that Iraq wasn't as immediate an imminent threat as the Taliban.

I believe missions had been presented to take out Bin Laden before it actually happened. They were probably not authorized due to level of risk and confidence in the intelligence. This one was the best option that had been on the table and he authorized it. He weighed the risks and he deserves the credit for authorizing. Bin Laden would have been target #1 for anyone who assumed the Presidency. But let's not lose sight of the men and women who worked on all the missions, the successful one as well as the ones which were not approved. They were told to come back with a better solution, and they did. Despite the loss of a chopper, the team pulled it off, flawlessly.... It is just unbelievable that the entire team from that mission was lost a few months later..........

As for Pakistan, I have been railing over that country's government and our financial aid there for years... What exactly are we getting in return for the hundreds of millions we've sent there? ST6 had to operate covertly in their air space to accomplish the Bin Laden take down.

But if a country is going to harbor enemies of the US and think we aren't going to put some boots on their turf, they have a limited shelf life... If Bin Laden were in Canada or Britain, be assured we would be deploying troops there..... The Paskistanis are just on the clock...

"What exactly are we getting in return for the hundreds of millions we've sent there?"

One thing we're getting is the safety in knowing that as of today, all of Pakistan's nukes are safe and accounted for. We cannot afford to lose sight of that. If they didn't have a nuclear arsenal, nothing in that Godforsaken place would be worth the life of any of the kids in our military.

"What exactly are we getting in return for the hundreds of millions we've sent there?"

One thing we're getting is the safety in knowing that as of today, all of Pakistan's nukes are safe and accounted for. We cannot afford to lose sight of that. If they didn't have a nuclear arsenal, nothing in that Godforsaken place would be worth the life of any of the kids in our military.
As the 42nd most corrupt country in the world, I don't have the slightest bit of confidence that their nukes are safe.

I also believe his advisors favored bombing. Since O wanted to be 100% they got him, he went with seals. Since it risked US lives and crossed Pakistan with our troops - I believe it was a ballsy call.
Had they failed Obama's presidency would have been effectively over right then and there, the national embarrassment would have been huge and done severe damage to our ability to fight terrorism and influence other nations.

For someone who the Right accuses of being anti-military it would seem that Obama has enormous faith in the skills and dedication of our warriors.

-spence

Yes they favored bombing. O wanted a surgical strike. He signed off on the 6th Seals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

According to everyone with knowledge, the first break in the case that led to Bin Laden's death, was intelligence obtained from Khalid Shiek Mohammed after he was waterboarded at Guantanimo Bay.
What about the people with "knowledge" that have said we got much of this intel before he was water boarded?

Now, no one can prove that we wouldn't have gotten the information, eventually, from other means. But the fact is, the first break was the revelation of the identity of an Al Queda courier, and KSM only gave that up after he was waterboarded.
The reports actually indicate he gave false information when being water boarded.

I believe they didn't learn of the couriers identity until 2006 and his location until 2009.

Bush established the waterboarding aproach, and he set up the terrorist facility at Guantanimo. Obama is on record as being vehemently opposed to both of these things.

Actually, it was used hundreds of years before Bush. The Spanish Inquisition, Khmer Rouge etc.. have all been big fans of the technique.


Bush and other western leaders gave Saddam Hussein all kinds of chances to avoid war (I had ample reason to follow these events pretty closely). All Saddam had to do was comply with the UN resolutions which ended the first Gulf War, another war of aggression which Saddam initiated by the way.
Well...

That we fired the first shot in Iraq iasn't necessarily the same thing as saying that we started the war (no one who has ever been in close-quarter combat would ever say there's any reason to ever let someone else fire the first shot). Hussein kept kicking out the weapons inspectors, and in my opinion, it seems like the prudent thing would be to assume that he was trying to hide something.
We've beaten this horse to death, but the fact is that after some time (yes they misled at first) Hans Blix was reporting back to the UN that Saddam was indeed starting to cooperate and they were still finding nothing. The Duelfer report confirmed this.

The justification Powell presented to the UN has been reduced to nearly a joke.

Very few people spoke against that war until it became politically convenient. What do you think of liberal politicians who voted to support the war initially, and then when public opinion eroded, these same politicians started acting like they were always opposed to it? If that's not a slap in the face to people like me who bled over there, and officers like me who lost kids under our command (I lost 2), I don't know what is.
Mainstream support for the war eroded because the justification for the war fell apart and the Administration's efforts to "market" the war were exposed.

Bush's inner circle had a transformational strategy for the Middle East that was radically liberal and 9/11 gave them the opening. Most of the quotes I've read (Like the often quoted out of context Hillary Clinton speech) agreed Saddam was a problem but stopped short of unilateral action.

Some politicians have voiced regret over their initial support of the war, but they were also being led by the marketing effort. I'm sure some didn't do their own work and deserve criticism.

I'd note that President Obama opposed it from the start but after being elected didn't rush the withdrawal his base wanted and instead has looked after the safety of our troops and stability of the region.

-spence

As the 42nd most corrupt country in the world, I don't have the slightest bit of confidence that their nukes are safe.

Can't argue with that. But the more involved we are, the better I'll feel.

If Clinton had killed Bin Laden when he had the chance,
instead of a janitor in an aspirin factory, most all of this stuff
wouldn't have happened.

i don't think a single terrorist should ever be jailed

just shot....

a dead terrorist cannot escape prison

Here's what happened...the special operations command told Obama "we think Bin Laden is in this compound, and we think we have a plan to capture/kill him. President Obama, should SEAL team 6 attempt this, or should they have a cookout instead?"

I'll give Obama credit for making the "corrcet" decision. It was about as easy a decision as you can fathom. I also give him credit for getting through each day without accidentally setting off a nuke. Yes, he gets credit for that, but it's the least you can expect.

I hate to break it to Spence, but Obama didn't jump out of a helicopter and kick down any doors. He made a decision that was almost impossible to get wrong.

His decision on the Somali pirates was much gutsier.