Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Hmm. SEALs speak out against Obama politicizing Osama killing
SEALs slam Obama for using them as 'ammunition' in bid to take credit for bin Laden killing during election campaignBy TOBY HARNDENPUBLISHED: 18:35 EST, 30 April 2012 | UPDATED: 18:47 EST, 30 April 2012Comments (6)ShareServing and former US Navy SEALs have slammed President Barack Obama for taking the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and accused him of using Special Forces operators as ?ammunition? for his re-election campaign.
The SEALs spoke out to MailOnline after the Obama campaign released an ad entitled ?One Chance?.In it President Bill Clinton is featured saying that Mr Obama took ?the harder and the more honourable path? in ordering that bin Laden be killed. The words ?Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?? are then displayed.
Besides the ad, the White House is marking the first anniversary of the SEAL Team Six raid that killed bin Laden inside his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan with a series of briefings and an NBC interview in the Situation Room designed to highlight the ?gutsy call? made by the President.Scroll down for video
Taking credit: President Obama has used bin Laden's death as a campaign toolMr Obama used a news conference today to trumpet his personal role and imply that his Republican opponent Mr Romney, who in 2008 expressed reservations about the wisdom of sending troops into Pakistan, would have let bin Laden live.
?I said that I'd go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him, and I did,? Mr Obama said. ?If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they'd do something else, then I'd go ahead and let them explain it.? More...'Forward' revealed as Obama's new campaign sloganBarack Obama's mother 'was secretly in contact with his estranged father during his entire childhood without his knowledge'Why 'annoying cuss' Jimmy Carter is the least popular member of the Presidents' ClubRyan Zilke, a former Commander in the US Navy who spent 23 years as a SEAL and led a SEAL Team 6 assault unit, said: ?The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call.
?I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice - it was a broader team effort.?
Mr Zilke, who is now a Republican state senator in Montana, added that MR Obama was exploiting bin Laden?s death for his re-election bid. ?The President and his administration are positioning him as a war president using the SEALs as ammunition. It was predictable.?
Target: Bin Laden, pictured in his compound in Pakistan, was killed a year ago
Mission: Senior figures gathered to watch Navy SEALs invade the compoundMr Obama has faced criticism even from allies about his decision to make a campaign ad about the bin Laden raid. Arianna Huffington, an outspoken liberal who runs the left-leaning Huffington Post website, roundly condemned it.
She told CBS: ?We should celebrate the fact that they did such a great job. It's one thing to have an NBC special from the Situation Room... all that to me is perfectly legitimate, but to turn it into a campaign ad is one of the most despicable things you can do.?
Campaigning in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Mr Romney responded to a shouted question by a reporter by saying: ?Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.?
A serving SEAL Team member said: ?Obama wasn?t in the field, at risk, carrying a gun. As president, at every turn he should be thanking the guys who put their lives on the line to do this. He does so in his official speeches because he speechwriters are smart.
?But the more he tries to take the credit for it, the more the ground operators are saying, ?Come on, man!? It really didn?t matter who was president. At the end of the day, they were going to go.?
Chris Kyle, a former SEAL sniper with 160 confirmed and another 95 unconfirmed kills to his credit, said: ?The operation itself was great and the nation felt immense pride. It was great that we did it.
?But bin Laden was just a figurehead. The war on terror continues. Taking him out didn?t really change anything as far as the war on terror is concerned and using it as a political attack is a cheap shot.
?In years to come there is going to be information that will come out that Obama was not the man who made the call. He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn?t allowed to speak out against the commander- in-chief so his secret is safe.?
Rival: Mr Obama has questioned whether Mitt Romney would have done the sameSenior military figures have said that Admiral William McRaven, a former SEAL who was then head of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) made the decision to take bin Laden out. Tactical decisions were delegated even further down the chain of command.
Mr Kyle added: ?He's trying to say that Romney wouldn't have made the same call? Anyone who is patriotic to this country would have made that exact call, Democrat or Republican. Obama is taking more credit than he is due but it's going to get him some pretty good mileage.?
A former intelligence official who was serving in the US government when bin Laden was killed said that the Obama administration knew about the al-Qaeda leader?s whereabouts in October 2010 but delayed taking action and risked letting him escape.
?In the end, Obama was forced to make a decision and do it. He knew that if he didn?t do it the political risks in not taking action were huge. Mitt Romney would have made the call but he would have made it earlier ? as would George W. Bush.?
Brandon Webb, a former SEAL who spent 13 years on active duty and served in Iraq and Afghanistan, said: ?Bush should get partial credit for putting the system in place.
?Obama inherited a very robust package with regards to special ops and the intelligence community. But Obama deserves credit because he got bin Laden ? you can?t take that away from him.
?My friends that work in Special Operations Command (SOCOM) that have been on video teleconferences with Obama on these kill or capture situations say that Obama has no issue whatsoever with making decisions and typically it's kill. He?s hitting the kill button every time. I have a lot of respect for him for that.?
But he said that many SEALs were dismayed about the amount of publicity the Obama administration had generated about SEAL Team Six, the very existence of which is highly classified.
?The majority of the SEALs I know are really proud of the operation but it does become ?OK, enough is enough ? we?re ready to get back to work and step out of the limelight.? They don?t want to be continuously paraded around a global audience like a show dog.
?Obama has a very good relationship with the Special Operations community at large, especially the SEALs, and it?s nice to see. We had the same relationship with George W. Bush when he was president.?
It was ?stretching a little much? for Mr Obama to suggest only he would have made the decision. ?I personally I don't think Romney would have any problem making tough decisions. He got a very accomplished record of making decision as a business professional.
?He may not have charisma but he clearly has leadership skills. I don?t think he'd have any problem taking that decision.?
Clint Bruce, who gave up the chance of an NFL career to serve as a SEAL officer before retiring as a lieutenant after nine years, said: ?We were extremely surprised and discouraged by the publicity because it compromises the ability of those guys to operate.
?It?s a waste of time to speculate about who would and wouldn?t have made that decision. It was a symphony of opportunity and intelligence that allowed this administration to give the green light. We want to acknowledge that they made that decision.
?Politicians should let the public know where they stand on national security but not in the play-by-play, detailed way that has been done recently. The intricacies of national security should not become part of stump speeches.?
The SEALs spoke out to MailOnline after the Obama campaign released an ad entitled ?One Chance?.In it President Bill Clinton is featured saying that Mr Obama took ?the harder and the more honourable path? in ordering that bin Laden be killed. The words ?Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?? are then displayed.
Besides the ad, the White House is marking the first anniversary of the SEAL Team Six raid that killed bin Laden inside his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan with a series of briefings and an NBC interview in the Situation Room designed to highlight the ?gutsy call? made by the President.Scroll down for video
Taking credit: President Obama has used bin Laden's death as a campaign toolMr Obama used a news conference today to trumpet his personal role and imply that his Republican opponent Mr Romney, who in 2008 expressed reservations about the wisdom of sending troops into Pakistan, would have let bin Laden live.?I said that I'd go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him, and I did,? Mr Obama said. ?If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they'd do something else, then I'd go ahead and let them explain it.? More...'Forward' revealed as Obama's new campaign sloganBarack Obama's mother 'was secretly in contact with his estranged father during his entire childhood without his knowledge'Why 'annoying cuss' Jimmy Carter is the least popular member of the Presidents' ClubRyan Zilke, a former Commander in the US Navy who spent 23 years as a SEAL and led a SEAL Team 6 assault unit, said: ?The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call.
?I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice - it was a broader team effort.?
Mr Zilke, who is now a Republican state senator in Montana, added that MR Obama was exploiting bin Laden?s death for his re-election bid. ?The President and his administration are positioning him as a war president using the SEALs as ammunition. It was predictable.?
Target: Bin Laden, pictured in his compound in Pakistan, was killed a year agoMission: Senior figures gathered to watch Navy SEALs invade the compoundMr Obama has faced criticism even from allies about his decision to make a campaign ad about the bin Laden raid. Arianna Huffington, an outspoken liberal who runs the left-leaning Huffington Post website, roundly condemned it.She told CBS: ?We should celebrate the fact that they did such a great job. It's one thing to have an NBC special from the Situation Room... all that to me is perfectly legitimate, but to turn it into a campaign ad is one of the most despicable things you can do.?
Campaigning in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Mr Romney responded to a shouted question by a reporter by saying: ?Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.?
A serving SEAL Team member said: ?Obama wasn?t in the field, at risk, carrying a gun. As president, at every turn he should be thanking the guys who put their lives on the line to do this. He does so in his official speeches because he speechwriters are smart.
?But the more he tries to take the credit for it, the more the ground operators are saying, ?Come on, man!? It really didn?t matter who was president. At the end of the day, they were going to go.?
Chris Kyle, a former SEAL sniper with 160 confirmed and another 95 unconfirmed kills to his credit, said: ?The operation itself was great and the nation felt immense pride. It was great that we did it.
?But bin Laden was just a figurehead. The war on terror continues. Taking him out didn?t really change anything as far as the war on terror is concerned and using it as a political attack is a cheap shot.
?In years to come there is going to be information that will come out that Obama was not the man who made the call. He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn?t allowed to speak out against the commander- in-chief so his secret is safe.?
Rival: Mr Obama has questioned whether Mitt Romney would have done the sameSenior military figures have said that Admiral William McRaven, a former SEAL who was then head of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) made the decision to take bin Laden out. Tactical decisions were delegated even further down the chain of command. Mr Kyle added: ?He's trying to say that Romney wouldn't have made the same call? Anyone who is patriotic to this country would have made that exact call, Democrat or Republican. Obama is taking more credit than he is due but it's going to get him some pretty good mileage.?
A former intelligence official who was serving in the US government when bin Laden was killed said that the Obama administration knew about the al-Qaeda leader?s whereabouts in October 2010 but delayed taking action and risked letting him escape.
?In the end, Obama was forced to make a decision and do it. He knew that if he didn?t do it the political risks in not taking action were huge. Mitt Romney would have made the call but he would have made it earlier ? as would George W. Bush.?
Brandon Webb, a former SEAL who spent 13 years on active duty and served in Iraq and Afghanistan, said: ?Bush should get partial credit for putting the system in place.
?Obama inherited a very robust package with regards to special ops and the intelligence community. But Obama deserves credit because he got bin Laden ? you can?t take that away from him.
?My friends that work in Special Operations Command (SOCOM) that have been on video teleconferences with Obama on these kill or capture situations say that Obama has no issue whatsoever with making decisions and typically it's kill. He?s hitting the kill button every time. I have a lot of respect for him for that.?
But he said that many SEALs were dismayed about the amount of publicity the Obama administration had generated about SEAL Team Six, the very existence of which is highly classified.
?The majority of the SEALs I know are really proud of the operation but it does become ?OK, enough is enough ? we?re ready to get back to work and step out of the limelight.? They don?t want to be continuously paraded around a global audience like a show dog.
?Obama has a very good relationship with the Special Operations community at large, especially the SEALs, and it?s nice to see. We had the same relationship with George W. Bush when he was president.?
It was ?stretching a little much? for Mr Obama to suggest only he would have made the decision. ?I personally I don't think Romney would have any problem making tough decisions. He got a very accomplished record of making decision as a business professional.
?He may not have charisma but he clearly has leadership skills. I don?t think he'd have any problem taking that decision.?
Clint Bruce, who gave up the chance of an NFL career to serve as a SEAL officer before retiring as a lieutenant after nine years, said: ?We were extremely surprised and discouraged by the publicity because it compromises the ability of those guys to operate.
?It?s a waste of time to speculate about who would and wouldn?t have made that decision. It was a symphony of opportunity and intelligence that allowed this administration to give the green light. We want to acknowledge that they made that decision.
?Politicians should let the public know where they stand on national security but not in the play-by-play, detailed way that has been done recently. The intricacies of national security should not become part of stump speeches.?
Re: Hmm. SEALs speak out against Obama politicizing Osama killing
I'm honestly not very bothered, but I am confused. I'm just not seeing the connection to Mitt Romney. Does anyone here doubt that the decision would've been made in the same way by at least 90% of Presidents? I'd actually take that number to closer to 100% for R Presidents. It's not like Rs are known for their soft stance on military force. LOL.
I did find this a bit interesting...
?We were extremely surprised and discouraged by the publicity because it compromises the ability of those guys to operate.
?It?s a waste of time to speculate about who would and wouldn?t have made that decision. It was a symphony of opportunity and intelligence that allowed this administration to give the green light. We want to acknowledge that they made that decision.
?Politicians should let the public know where they stand on national security but not in the play-by-play, detailed way that has been done recently. The intricacies of national security should not become part of stump speeches.?
I think there is a real threat to the safety of our military in general with the abundance of info in today's media. But not in a direct criticism of Obama kind of a way. More in the "realities of the negatives of 24 hour news and the internet" kind of a way.
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Home D
I believe the connectionis that in the 2008 election season, Romney (and McCain) both ridiculed the idea of going into Pakistan to go after Obama.
As to the rest, I keep changing my mind on how I feel about it.
I kind of think it's a bad sign that this is the only positive thing Obama has to campaign on. As you said, you'd think most Presidents would have made the same decision. Still, somehow it feels a bit tacky to me.
On the other hand, I don't know that can agree with the Seals. Presidents campaign on the acts of others all the time They'll claim a treaty or a ceasefire that their State Dept employees brokered. We blame Presidents for losing wars - even though part of that probably belongs on the backs of others - and we credit them for winning them, even though they never fired a shot. They're the deciders, right? It seems kind of late in the game for military men to get all silly and sensitive about that. Bush got the blame for there being no WMDs in Iraq, but the credit for getting Saddam, at least.
I was at a get together made up of mostly active duty Marines when the news broke. The majority of the Marines were members of Special Operation Training Group (SOTG) or the intelligence community. Everyone's face basically said "WTF" in reaction to some of the details that were made available to the press. And they just kept coming.
Maybe it's because I spent so many years on active duty and know the drill, but accolades go to the actual people who gathered the intel and carried out the operation. Not once did I think to pat Obama on the back. I would feel the same way regardless of who was the POTUS.
Someone hold my hand and explain to me the difference between these guys speaking out against (the practice of) the president and the guy that was recently discharged for his Facebook comments. Is it because these guys weren't ordered otherwise, or warned?
I do believe there's a distinction, I'm just having trouble putting it into words. Partly because it'd be sheer speculation.
I agree. Having family who have served "over there" for many years - they feel the same. I think it's great Obama gave the OK... but I also think pretty much any president would have. When it comes down to it- yeah, the president has the final say in things like that- but he's getting his intelligence from the guys out in it - who REALLY know what's going on... I can't imagine any president who would have said no at that point.
I think it's pathetic that the media is asking "what would Romney have done?".... really? that's all we've got to discuss?
Military personnel are allowed to have and voice opinions about political issues. They just can't claim (or insinuate) to be doing so on behalf of the military (i.e. Armed Forces Tea Party). Also, without reading the article again, I believe the SEALS that were quoted are no longer active duty or spoke anonymously.
Well, if you go back to 2007,it's not so hard to imagine. I seem to recall that all the candidates, (including Clinton I think?) thought Obama was nuts for saying he'd send forces into another sovereign country to go after bin Laden. LOL, they were all "But Pakistan is our ally! You can't do that!"
The Marine who was discharged also specifically threatened insubordination.
This is what concerns me. Politicians claim credit for all kinds of things - and I say so what to that.
However, I'm currently my brother's legal contact while he spends the next month in some special forces training (that is all I can know about it) and it terrifies me for him b/c most likely this training is the first step for him to move into special forces from where he is now. And I want him to be as safe as he can be.
Already there has been info coming out that once BL's location was discovered Obama had to be pushed into the actual capture/killing of BinLadin as he was not supportive of it.
I celebrate the end of BL, but think Obama only did what he should have done all along as Commander in Chief. (And he followed the Bush plan in doing it)
The Bush plan. Huh.
But if it failed, you'd better bet the POTUS would have been taking the blame for it. No one would say "the troops failed, I guess they're not that great after all."
A couple things:
-it's probably naive to think that any president wouldn't brag about it, whether they are justified in doing so or not
-Re: McCain and Romney, even if they WOULD have done exactly what he ended up doing, saying so back then wasn't terribly wise, diplomatically, to talk about unauthorized military action in a sovereign ally's borders.
-When you look at the greater context, I don't think anyone was saying BL didn't matter. I think they were seeing the situation for what it is. Because here we are, he is dead, and of course the "war against terror" continues. I interpret the "not willing to move heaven and earth" comments as we are not going to make unwise use of resources knowing that there are multiple fronts, so to speak. And I think that is realistic. Our president and military are capable of multi-tasking.
-Regardless, I'm proud of Obama. We can armchair quarterback it all we want, and speculate about whether he felt his hand was forced, but at the end of the day, he's President and doesn't HAVE to approve it.
Zeus and Bubba
I absolutely agree. I kind of forgot about the ad. But I think that 90% of ads seem to speak to the dumbest 50% of voters, so there's that. Not a great deal of nuance.
Zeus and Bubba
God bless Bush.
I agree that the troops who carried out the operation would not be blamed. However, top military commanders, CIA director, etc. would be blamed and would probably end up a political sacrifice (relieved of duty).
The public would place some of the blame on the president. You know this. But I'm glad you agree that the troops who carried out the operation would not be blamed. How then should they be commended after a successful operation? Especially if their anonymity is so required? Or, rather 'should' they be commended for success if they're not blamed for failure?
ETA: It's like the troops are Jesus and God. You can only thank them, not hold them accountable.
Romney did not want ALL of the "War on Terror funding" to focus solely on getting Bin Laden as this threat was from more than 1 man. Obama was narrowing the focus. Saying Romney was agianst hunting down is misleading and inaccurate.
We did not show photos of BinLaden after death due to the possibility of them being inflamatory and used as recruiting tools for AlQeaeda -- using this event as a political tool can also be used as a recruiting tool for those who would harm us.
Certainly. The opposing party would have a field day. And that's why I think the (any) president would be quick to deflect and find at least one sacrificial lamb.
I don't think immediate, public commendation after a successful operation is necessary or even expected. Successful operations are part of the daily grind over there, but they obviously aren't of the same magnitude or hold the same political benefits so they are largely overlooked. I'm still dumbfounded that we knew the specific SEAL team so quickly. Once upon a time "special forces" would have been enough information. As another poster said, the 24/7 news bubble plus a significant increase in embedded reporters has changed everything.
It seems we only hear about missions that were otherwise reported by the media beforehand. For obvious reasons we were all curious to know what happened to OBL, but there's also that amazing triple shot to those pirates we heard about relatively soon before it.
Then again, I don't think their identity was outed.
Ahh, drones. 21st Century big brother (and fodder for WH Correspondent's Dinner jokes by the President).
Key issues that some people seem to be overlooking:
1. Obama was hammered by his political opponents when he explicitly stated that he would make capturing Osama Bin Laden a priority, and that he would be willing to go into Pakistan to get him, with or without Pakistan's consent. His opponents (McCain, Romney, others) said those decisions were terrible and roundly criticized him for saying that. But it seems fairly obvious, in hindsight, that those two factors did indeed contribute to catching Bin Laden in Pakistan.
2. There was a lot of work that went into capturing Osama Bin Laden before the actual Seal team went into Pakistan. You can't get the man if you don't know where he is, and Obama explicitly made it a priority to use the intelligence resources to track him down. This wasn't solely a military operation.
3. Obama took some fairly big risks in his decisions - allocating intelligence resources to find Bin Laden instead of to other areas, risk of repercussions from Pakistan for keeping them out of the loop, risk of getting lambasted if the mission failed and/or American soldiers, innocent Pakistani civilians, etc. were killed, or bin Laden was not found. While hindsight is 20/20, at the time these were not slam-dunk decisions that anyone obviously would have made.
Finally, bin laden was a political issue far before Obama made the ad. If the mission had failed, or had resulted in anything that his political opponents could have made hay of, they would have been the ones to bring it up. His decisions on this issue were debated before we knew what the outcome would be, so it seems unfair to bar him from bringing it up because it was successful.
Yes because we all know the military is just barely getting by...
Um, where has this information been coming out from? I haven't read that anywhere. In fact, I've read the opposite - that the intelligence was less than 50% sure that bin Laden was even in that building and Obama advocated landinga capture team in opposition to most advisor's opinions.
I don't know what "following the Bush plan" even means, when the Bush administration let bin Laden get away in Tora Bora and then pretty much ignored him while they turned their focus to Iraq. Obama did in two years what Bush couldn't achieve in seven. But then again, by 2002 Bush was already saying that " "I truly am not that concerned about him."