more bullshit from you. I guess its better than landing on a carrier with a mission accomplished banner.
I read your post fully, it was a back handed compliment thats clear. If that mission would have failed you would be calling him Jimmy Carter. I have no problem with him approving drone strikes because if its a fuck up and a lot of civilians die then its a crisis. All that other shit you just posted doesnt mean a thing to me.
Sometimes I reget replying to fools but I can't let your comment "I have no problem with him approving drone strikes because if its a fuck up and a lot of civilians die then its a crisis." stand. WHAT ABOUT THE CIVILIANS KILLED??? Don't they count and isn't that more than a crisis it is murder. You don't have an issue with one man determining life or death of people in an unsanctioned action with no checks or balances? Agree or disagree with what W did he went through congress for his actions and had legal sanction for then. You can't have a moral or in the long run stable government without checks and balances. Come on Mannnn!
now you have changed the basis of your argument, no where did I say civilian death was ok, I said if it happens its a crisis for the office of the presidency, dont try to change to subject to fit your failed argument. You want to talk about what Bush did, i guess he went through congress to approve waterboarding and torture. No he didnt, Yoo wrote a lot of bullshit legal memos to justify battlefield tactics. so get out of here with your checks and balances shit.
First sentence = WRONG Second Sentence = WRONG Third Sentence = Calling him Jimmy Carter would have been a compliment from me. It wasn't Carter's fault the mission failed, he showed leadership and courage giving it the go ahead. I thought the same of Obama with the OBL mission. I especially liked the ocean dump. My only critisizm was that the administation members talked to much afterwards. Fourth sentence = Obama approving drone strikes is like Benson approving offensive plays. Both have no business being involved at that level Fifth sentence and other posts on this topic = You've proved you're an expert on Bull Shit, I'll give you that.
Then how do you explain its overwhelming success? You make too many assumptions. Obama is the Commander in Chief and he approves of ALL military actions. It doesn't mean that he personally selects targets, the military does that. But in sensitive political situations like attacking sites within our "ally" Pakistan, he must also signal when it is diplomatically advantageous and when it is not. Decidedly not. These are not wars of "stay the course" or "establish democracy in the middle east". Obama has removed forces from Iraq and gotten out of the nation-building business. We are on schedule to leave Afghnaistan to the Afghans as well. They can kill each other till Hell freezes over. What he has also done is to step up the overt and covert military strikes directly on our enemies,the ones that attacked us on 9/11. Focus is the difference. Obama's foreign policy is far more focused. Ghadaffi is dead. Bin Ladin is dead, Al Aulaqi is dead. The Somali pirates that took Americans are dead. Our military efforts are more deadly, more destructive, and less costly in casualties and treasure. He hits our enemies wherever they hide. There is nothing secret about strikes in Pakistan, they are just conducted covertly and authorized under our NATO commitment to Afghanistan. We are not at war with Pakistan itself. Neither are we at war with Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, but we are hitting Al Qaeda hard in all their refuges. Obama is not squeamish or hesitant about the use of force, nor is he rash or imprudent. These are good things. Foreign Policy is an area Romney cannot hope to match Obama in this election.
i doubt y'all have enough info about this to evaluate potus's decision-making. significant headway has been made against alqaeda, paki hasnt fallen apart (remarkably), afghanistan is still a mess, the us is "out" of iraq and there has not been an uptick in intl terrorist attacks in the us under b.o.'s watch. that is what you should base your evaluation of b.o.'s natl security policy on.
