On Tue, 03 May 2011 11:06:50 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2011 23:15:33 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2011 00:52:15 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2011 21:22:30 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 2 May 2011 19:32:08 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:


So, you're claiming that Obama didn't take a huge risk, on the order
of Carter's risk to free the hostages?

Actually I give Obama high marks for doing this right so it wasn't the
cluster**** Carter had at desert 1.

You're blaming Carter for the desert operation? He tried but it didn't
work.

If Obama did this, Carter did that one. You can't have it both ways.

He used the right helicopters and the people who went on the mission
were well trained. The story is they actually built a full sized mock
up and practiced this until they had it down cold

I believe things have changed a bit since Carter. Carter did what he
could.

He could have use a ground attack helicopter with air filters on the
engine intakes instead of the mine sweeping Sea Stallions they used.


If I was a terrorist I might laugh at 150,000 regular GIs but 2 dozen
SEALs would scare the **** out of me.

What risk did Bush take?

Invading Iraq?

You mean lying and expecting not to get caught.

I think he just believed what he was told. The intel came from the
Brits and we know now it was bogus. Why not blame them a little. Again
you want this both ways. On one hand you think he was totally out of
touch and didn't know anything and then you have him being some kind
of evil genius

He was on vacation for 1/3 of his presidency.

Does any president ever really get a vacation? The presidency follows
them wherever they go or I would really be worried about them walking
around natural disaster sites in Fumbuck kicking rubble.

He was sitting on his ranch enjoying himself. I'm sure he had lots of
interaction with all his policy makers and Congress in DC, at least in
between riding around his ranch and watching TV.

Feel free to defend him, but the fact is that he was AWOL and I'm not
talking about his "service" in the Texas Air National Guard.

It is just clear you do not understand how the president, any
president, travels. The White House comes with them.

onsite... lest the stalkers go crazy.

On Tue, 03 May 2011 15:52:19 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 3 May 2011 13:50:35 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 May 2011 05:27:09 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:


When you have your intelligence resources devoted to assembling shreds
of "evidence" to "prove" the existence of Iraq WMD, there's not much
left over to hunt for Bin Laden.
Bush made himself clear in his words above.
Iraq was always more important to him than Bin Laden.
He shut down the CIA unit hunting for Obama in 2005.
That's when Bin Laden had his house built. 2005.
Obama was saying back in 2007 that he would send troops into Pakistan to
get Bin Laden or any other high level target.

The only problem with that is the path to this house came from 2007
and some information they got from KSM in Gitmo. Maybe we just said we
were not "looking for OBL" to get him to relax and settle in
somewhere.

There's no "problem" with the facts I stated.
Anything about KSM and where the "path" started is talking head
speculation.
I already hear the Bush fans using this to justify torture.
And those on the other side denying it.
Here's what we know: Obama got Bin Laden. And GWB didn't.

That is so simplistic... as if it wasn't a ten year hunt... The
intelligence agencies got Bin Laden. All either President Bush or
President Obama did was say, "go get 'em"...

The thing that Obama did right was hire the right guys, make sure they
had the right support, training and stayed out of the way while they
did their job.

I give him an A on this one.

And, the thing GWB did right?

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 03 May 2011 14:03:41 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2011 15:52:19 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 3 May 2011 13:50:35 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 May 2011 05:27:09 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:


When you have your intelligence resources devoted to assembling shreds
of "evidence" to "prove" the existence of Iraq WMD, there's not much
left over to hunt for Bin Laden.
Bush made himself clear in his words above.
Iraq was always more important to him than Bin Laden.
He shut down the CIA unit hunting for Obama in 2005.
That's when Bin Laden had his house built. 2005.
Obama was saying back in 2007 that he would send troops into Pakistan to
get Bin Laden or any other high level target.

The only problem with that is the path to this house came from 2007
and some information they got from KSM in Gitmo. Maybe we just said we
were not "looking for OBL" to get him to relax and settle in
somewhere.

There's no "problem" with the facts I stated.
Anything about KSM and where the "path" started is talking head
speculation.
I already hear the Bush fans using this to justify torture.
And those on the other side denying it.
Here's what we know: Obama got Bin Laden. And GWB didn't.

That is so simplistic... as if it wasn't a ten year hunt... The
intelligence agencies got Bin Laden. All either President Bush or
President Obama did was say, "go get 'em"...

The thing that Obama did right was hire the right guys, make sure they
had the right support, training and stayed out of the way while they
did their job.

I give him an A on this one.

And, the thing GWB did right?

Anti-AIDS efforts in Africa?
Catching Saddam?

And don't forget, "hiring" the right guys then too, probably the same
"guys" President Bush "hired" too... The intelligence agencies.
President Obama picked up where President Bush left off, in the middle
east, and here too for that matter in most areas.

--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

On Tue, 03 May 2011 12:54:24 -0700, wrote:

He? So Carter was the one who decided what type of helicopter was
used? On what planet?

It's all about management.

Are the right people in place, have they been given access to the
necessary resources, and have they been given the right sense of
priorities?

There was a breakdown somewhere in that list, and like it or not, all
roads lead back to Carter. As Harry Truman said, "The buck stops
here", and he was right.

On Tue, 03 May 2011 17:30:31 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2011 14:03:41 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2011 15:52:19 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 3 May 2011 13:50:35 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 May 2011 05:27:09 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:


When you have your intelligence resources devoted to assembling shreds
of "evidence" to "prove" the existence of Iraq WMD, there's not much
left over to hunt for Bin Laden.
Bush made himself clear in his words above.
Iraq was always more important to him than Bin Laden.
He shut down the CIA unit hunting for Obama in 2005.
That's when Bin Laden had his house built. 2005.
Obama was saying back in 2007 that he would send troops into Pakistan to
get Bin Laden or any other high level target.

The only problem with that is the path to this house came from 2007
and some information they got from KSM in Gitmo. Maybe we just said we
were not "looking for OBL" to get him to relax and settle in
somewhere.

There's no "problem" with the facts I stated.
Anything about KSM and where the "path" started is talking head
speculation.
I already hear the Bush fans using this to justify torture.
And those on the other side denying it.
Here's what we know: Obama got Bin Laden. And GWB didn't.

That is so simplistic... as if it wasn't a ten year hunt... The
intelligence agencies got Bin Laden. All either President Bush or
President Obama did was say, "go get 'em"...

The thing that Obama did right was hire the right guys, make sure they
had the right support, training and stayed out of the way while they
did their job.

I give him an A on this one.

And, the thing GWB did right?

Anti-AIDS efforts in Africa?
Catching Saddam?

Anti-AIDS effort was great, except for the abstinence only crap.

Catching Saddam was nice, except that it was predicated upon a war of
choice.

On Tue, 03 May 2011 17:24:42 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2011 12:54:24 -0700, wrote:

I believe things have changed a bit since Carter. Carter did what he
could.

He could have use a ground attack helicopter with air filters on the
engine intakes instead of the mine sweeping Sea Stallions they used.

He? So Carter was the one who decided what type of helicopter was
used? On what planet?

On the planet where Carter thought he should be micro managing
everything.

Please show us something to suggest Carter designated which type of
helicopter to fly.


If I was a terrorist I might laugh at 150,000 regular GIs but 2 dozen
SEALs would scare the **** out of me.

What risk did Bush take?

Invading Iraq?

You mean lying and expecting not to get caught.

I think he just believed what he was told. The intel came from the
Brits and we know now it was bogus. Why not blame them a little. Again
you want this both ways. On one hand you think he was totally out of
touch and didn't know anything and then you have him being some kind
of evil genius

He and/or Cheney fabricated the intelligence to suit his desire. You
don't have to be particularly smart to foster lies.

And you are saying the flawed info from the brits had nothing to do
with it?

I'm saying that it seems to me that there was conflicting information,
and that he should have done his due diligence to sort it out.
Instead, he decided to accept it without vetting, and Cheney attempted
to get at Joe Wilson by outing an undercover CIA agent.



He was on vacation for 1/3 of his presidency.

Does any president ever really get a vacation? The presidency follows
them wherever they go or I would really be worried about them walking
around natural disaster sites in Fumbuck kicking rubble.

He was sitting on his ranch enjoying himself. I'm sure he had lots of
interaction with all his policy makers and Congress in DC, at least in
between riding around his ranch and watching TV.

Feel free to defend him, but the fact is that he was AWOL and I'm not
talking about his "service" in the Texas Air National Guard.

It is just clear you do not understand how the president, any
president, travels. The White House comes with them.

It's clear that you're going to defend Bush no matter what. The "White
House" doesn't "come with them." They can do a bunch of stuff, but
it's not like you're on sight, talking to and meeting with all the
people.

What can't they do?

See previous. Sorry if you're having reading comprehension problems.

I do have some intimate information about exactly how the president
travels. My brother in law was the White House telephone support rep
pretty much living in EOB unless the president traveled, then he was
in the support plane. They took the whole White House switchboard with
them (a duplicate #5 crossbar, then later an ESS.) . He worked for
LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan.
My neighbor did the same thing in the Air Force side, setting up the
secure data links for the phones, radios, computers and the
"football".
If they are at Camp David or their residence, all of that is already
there.
The president does not have to "see" anyone to get his job done.

Which has nothing to do with what I said previously.

On Tue, 03 May 2011 17:47:48 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2011 12:54:24 -0700, wrote:

He? So Carter was the one who decided what type of helicopter was
used? On what planet?

It's all about management.

Are the right people in place, have they been given access to the
necessary resources, and have they been given the right sense of
priorities?

There was a breakdown somewhere in that list, and like it or not, all
roads lead back to Carter. As Harry Truman said, "The buck stops
here", and he was right.

And, Carter paid the price for it, but don't try and claim he failed
to give it his best. Bush did not give it his best and he said so
publically.

On Tue, 03 May 2011 19:01:44 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2011 17:47:48 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2011 12:54:24 -0700, wrote:

He? So Carter was the one who decided what type of helicopter was
used? On what planet?

It's all about management.

Are the right people in place, have they been given access to the
necessary resources, and have they been given the right sense of
priorities?

There was a breakdown somewhere in that list, and like it or not, all
roads lead back to Carter. As Harry Truman said, "The buck stops
here", and he was right.

It was cobbled together pretty fast without enough real planning. That
was the big flaw.

Mostly untrue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw


Perhaps there was the fear that loading more capable helicopters on a
carrier would attract attention but FDR managed to train crews and put
B-25s on the Hornet without a leak. Much like Mogadishu, the right
assets should have been in theater before you try things like this or
you can't deal with adversity.

I bet the sky over Aghanistan was black with orbiting planes and
choppers full of guys, in case this thing blew up.

I'll bet that if you look at the timeline, there was a lot more time
available for the current vs. the previous.

Feel free to claim Clinton was at fault, but Reagan did just fine in
Lebanon.

wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 17:47:48 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2011 12:54:24 -0700, wrote:

He? So Carter was the one who decided what type of helicopter was
used? On what planet?
It's all about management.

Are the right people in place, have they been given access to the
necessary resources, and have they been given the right sense of
priorities?

There was a breakdown somewhere in that list, and like it or not, all
roads lead back to Carter. As Harry Truman said, "The buck stops
here", and he was right.

And, Carter paid the price for it, but don't try and claim he failed
to give it his best. Bush did not give it his best and he said so
publically.


The Bush Admin did not rise to the level of competency on most issues.

On Tue, 03 May 2011 21:29:31 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2011 17:20:37 -0700, wrote:

He was on vacation for 1/3 of his presidency.

Does any president ever really get a vacation? The presidency follows
them wherever they go or I would really be worried about them walking
around natural disaster sites in Fumbuck kicking rubble.

He was sitting on his ranch enjoying himself. I'm sure he had lots of
interaction with all his policy makers and Congress in DC, at least in
between riding around his ranch and watching TV.

Feel free to defend him, but the fact is that he was AWOL and I'm not
talking about his "service" in the Texas Air National Guard.

It is just clear you do not understand how the president, any
president, travels. The White House comes with them.

It's clear that you're going to defend Bush no matter what. The "White
House" doesn't "come with them." They can do a bunch of stuff, but
it's not like you're on sight, talking to and meeting with all the
people.

What can't they do?

See previous. Sorry if you're having reading comprehension problems.

"meeting all the people"? Is that what you mean?
You can have a meeting without being in the same room.

Sure. Feel free to defend Bush's 1/3 term vacation. I guess you must
not understand how important it is to meet face-to-face with people.
Do you think he imported all the people to Crawford for an hour
meeting.


FDR ran most of WWII from a sanitarium in Arkansas.

I think that was a few years ago. I'm sure it's applicable somehow.

I do have some intimate information about exactly how the president
travels. My brother in law was the White House telephone support rep
pretty much living in EOB unless the president traveled, then he was
in the support plane. They took the whole White House switchboard with
them (a duplicate #5 crossbar, then later an ESS.) . He worked for
LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan.
My neighbor did the same thing in the Air Force side, setting up the
secure data links for the phones, radios, computers and the
"football".
If they are at Camp David or their residence, all of that is already
there.
The president does not have to "see" anyone to get his job done.

Which has nothing to do with what I said previously.

What did you say that makes that wrong?

See previous. I don't need to spend my time typing the same thing over
and over.