Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FJB who wrote (485175)	5/1/2012 3:22:53 AM
From: unclewest	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794187

SEALs slam Obama for using them as 'ammunition' in bid to take credit for bin Laden killing during election campaign Obama continues to take credit for the SEALS work and the risks only they took. The SEALS understand this - Who was going to take credit if the mission failed? You can bet your bippy it wasn't going to be Obama.

To: FJB who wrote (485175)	5/1/2012 6:09:47 AM
From: simplicity	11 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794187

My husband generally awakens in the morning before I do, and he will generally put FoxNews on quietly in the bedroom to hear the morning news. This morning, instead of Fox, he put on MSNBC (he occasionally likes to hear what the ‘enemy’ is saying, just to get his blood pumping for the day ahead). Of all days, I awakened earlier than usual and heard their report on the new Obama campaign ad regarding his ‘courageous’ decision to send the SEAL team in to do away with bin Laden. The way MSNBC defended the ad was despicable, as expected. Not only did they strongly intimate that Mitt Romney was on record as being against such a decision before it was made, but they brought on an ‘expert’ (don’t know who it was) to report that, had the mission failed, Obama knew full well that the failure of the mission, and the inevitable death of the SEALS, would have absolutely meant that he would be a one-term president. The obvious message of the report was that Mitt Romney would not have made the same ‘courageous’ decision, and Barack Obama made it selflessly, placing the death of Osama bin Laden before his desire to serve a second term (of selfless, courageous leadership). There are so many things wrong with this report that its value as unmitigated propaganda is enormous. First of all, according to reliable accounts, it was not Barack Obama who made the final decision to take out bin Laden. He reportedly shifted the responsibility to Admiral William McRaven who was serving as head of Joint Special Operations Command. As the article you posted says, ‘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.’ Secondly, there are no reliable accounts affirming that Mitt Romney voiced opposition to the decision to take out bin Laden. He simply, and accurately, observed that bin Laden's death wouldn't mean an end to the war with radical Islam. And, maybe worst of all, what informed American believes that this president would have made that call if he believed that his chances for a second term were at stake? This president makes virtually every decision he makes based on how it will affect his chances for re-election, with even the safety and security of America and the success of the war on radical Islam often taking second place to that consideration. Had the operation been a failure, the mainstream media would have pulled out all the stops to see to it that either (1) someone else was blamed for making the decision to go ahead with the mission, or (2) Obama was given credit for making a difficult decision because he believed in the courage and ability of the SEAL team. He would have been painted as courageous in spite of the loss of American life and the failure of the mission, and he would have immersed himself, replete with countless photo-ops, in the country’s mourning, with the final result being that the failure would have had absolutely no effect on his re-election chances. I can just see the photos of his head bowed in mourning/prayer at his desk in the oval office and reports of how deeply the failure affected his ability to govern with his usual upbeat, optimistic attitude about America. With the media’s agenda-driven portrayal of the part he played in the process, and how deeply and personally the failure affected him, the failure might have even increased his political stature. I virtually never listen to mainstream news, and I’m going to request that, the next time my husband decides to listen to enemy propaganda just to get his blood pumping, he do so outside of my earshot. My blood is pumping just fine, thank you, and listening to blatant leftist indoctrination is no way to start the day.