What 'Gutsy Call'?: CIA Memo Reveals Admiral Controlled bin Laden Mission

[Soul Crusher]

What 'Gutsy Call'?: CIA Memo Reveals Admiral Controlled bin Laden Mission
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Ben Shapiro

www.breitbart.com


 

Today, Time magazine got hold of a memo written by then-CIA head Leon Panetta after he received orders from Barack Obama’s team to greenlight the bin Laden mission. Here’s the text, which summarized the situation:
 

Received phone call from Tom Donilon who stated that the President made a decision with regard to AC1 [Abbottabad Compound 1]. The decision is to proceed with the assault.


The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out. Those instructions were conveyed to Admiral McRaven at approximately 10:45 am.

This, of course, was the famed “gutsy call.” Here’s what Tom Hanks narrated in Obama’s campaign film, “The Road We’ve Traveled”:


HANKS: Intelligence reports locating Osama Bin Laden were promising, but inconclusive, and there was internal debate as to what the President should do.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: We sat down in the Situation Room, the entire national security apparatus was in that room, and the President turns to every principal in the room, every secretary, “What do you recommend I do?” And they say, “Well, forty-nine percent chance he’s there, fifty-one … it’s a close call, Mr. President.” As he walked out the room, it dawned on me, he’s all alone. This is his decision. If he was wrong, his Presidency was done. Over.

Only the memo doesn’t show a gutsy call. It doesn’t show a president willing to take the blame for a mission gone wrong. It shows a CYA maneuver by the White House.


The memo puts all control in the hands of Admiral McRaven – the “timing, operational decision making and control” are all up to McRaven. So the notion that Obama and his team were walking through every stage of the operation is incorrect. The hero here was McRaven, not Obama. And had the mission gone wrong, McRaven surely would have been thrown under the bus.
 

The memo is crystal clear on that point. It says that the decision has been made based solely on the “risk profile presented to the President.” If any other risks – no matter how minute – arose, they were “to be brought back to the President for his consideration.” This is ludicrous. It is wiggle room. It was Obama’s way of carving out space for himself in case the mission went bad. If it did, he’d say that there were additional risks of which he hadn’t been informed; he’d been kept in the dark by his military leaders.


Finally, the memo is unclear on just what the mission is. Was it to capture Bin Laden or to kill him? The White House itself was unable to decide what the mission was in the hours after the Bin Laden kill, and actually switched its language. The memo shows why: McRaven was instructed to “get” Bin Laden, whatever that meant.
 

President Obama made the right call to give the green light to the mission. But he did it in a way that he could shift the blame if things went wrong. Typical Obama. And typical of him to claim full credit for it, when he didn’t do anything but give a vague nod, while putting his top military officials at risk of taking the hit in case of a bad turn.

[Shockwave]

LOL, this doesnt suprise me one bit. Obama is a politician, he has to have some escape in order to cover his ass in case of failure.
Its just like everything else with this administration, nothing goes to the top, not F&F, not anything. Everything has a way out so it doesnt come back on the admin - its called plausible deniability. Every admin has this - this one moreso than most.

There is zero accountability it seems with this admin -  always some way to tie it around someone elses neck and make them take the fall - always some way to deny any involvement. This is the most pathetic admin Ive ever seen - everything good is "because of his choices", everything bad has somebody to blame and somebody else to take the fall. Whatever happened to "the buck stops here!"?

[Emmortal]

Clinton nearly blew a hemorrhoid trying to get Obama to make the call to do this and he was still hesitating.

[avxo]

LOL, this doesnt suprise me one bit. Obama is a politician, he has to have some escape in order to cover his ass in case of failure.
Its just like everything else with this administration, nothing goes to the top, not F&F, not anything. Everything has a way out so it doesnt come back on the admin - its called plausible deniability. Every admin has this - this one moreso than most.

There is zero accountability it seems with this admin -  always some way to tie it around someone elses neck and make them take the fall - always some way to deny any involvement. This is the most pathetic admin Ive ever seen - everything good is "because of his choices", everything bad has somebody to blame and somebody else to take the fall. Whatever happened to "the buck stops here!"?

I see absolutely nothing that's out of the ordinary with this memo. Let's examine this a bit more closely, shall we?

Obama approved the operation. He is the Commanded in Chief, and it was his call to make. What's the problem?

Someone was put in charge. Obama can't run the operation from across the world, and doesn't have the military expertise to do so anyways. A general, who presumably is highly competent and has a lot of military expertise was tasked with executing the order that his Commander in Chief issued. Again, what's the problem?

New risks had to be brought back to the President for his consideration. What's the problem with the President of the United States, in his ex-officio role as Commander in Chief, to say that "I am approving this issue based on what is presented to me. If any new facts come to light, then you come back to me." Is it, or is it not his prerogative? If it is, then again... what's the problem?

As for the assertion that, somehow this was a CYA attempt and that had things gone wrong, "McRaven surely would have been thrown under the bus" I have a question for Shapiro. Where's the evidence behind this baseless assertion? Or is it really not as strong a statement as it was written out to be?

Lastly, I first heard about this from Mark Levin, who read the article on air. He fumed over the bit about Obama hogging all the credit. I've seen no evidence of Obama hogging the credit. He came out an announced that UBL was killed in an operation, thanked the SEAL Team 6 operators and the people who helped with the plan, and that was that.

But Levin didn't stop there. He hinted that Obama should have brought SEAL Team 6 on the Rose Garden. Is he serious? Really? SEAL operators whose identities are, very likely, are classified at least at the CONFIDENTIAL level; their personal security -- and the security of their families -- depends very much on the anonymity they are afforded. And Mark Levin wants them paraded out in the open?

Was it a gutsy call? Yes, and no. Like it or not, it took guts to order this operation. Did Obama weigh in political considerations before making a decision? Almost certainly - he would be a fool not to do so. Did he give considerable latitude to McRaven? He did and that's a good thing. Did Obama want to ensure that the mission would be aborted if the risk profile change? Yes - another good decision.

Obama's economic policies suck, but in this case, I really find it hard to fault his handling of the situation, based on the information that's available to us. Ben Shapiro's mock anger and baseless, unsubstantiated and unsupported assertions about what would have happened if things hadn't happened as they happened notwithstanding.

[Shockwave]

I see absolutely nothing that's out of the ordinary with this memo. Let's examine this a bit more closely, shall we?

Obama approved the operation. He is the Commanded in Chief, and it was his call to make. What's the problem?

Someone was put in charge. Obama can't run the operation from across the world, and doesn't have the military expertise to do so anyways. A general, who presumably is highly competent and has a lot of military expertise was tasked with executing the order that his Commander in Chief issued. Again, what's the problem?

New risks had to be brought back to the President for his consideration. What's the problem with the President of the United States, in his ex-officio role as Commander in Chief, to say that "I am approving this issue based on what is presented to me. If any new facts come to light, then you come back to me." Is it, or is it not his prerogative? If it is, then again... what's the problem?

As for the assertion that, somehow this was a CYA attempt and that had things gone wrong, "McRaven surely would have been thrown under the bus" I have a question for Shapiro. Where's the evidence behind this baseless assertion? Or is it really not as strong a statement as it was written out to be?

Lastly, I first heard about this from Mark Levin, who read the article on air. He fumed over the bit about Obama hogging all the credit. I've seen no evidence of Obama hogging the credit. He came out an announced that UBL was killed in an operation, thanked the SEAL Team 6 operators and the people who helped with the plan, and that was that.

But Levin didn't stop there. He hinted that Obama should have brought SEAL Team 6 on the Rose Garden. Is he serious? Really? SEAL operators whose identities are, very likely, are classified at least at the CONFIDENTIAL level; their personal security -- and the security of their families -- depends very much on the anonymity they are afforded. And Mark Levin wants them paraded out in the open?

Was it a gutsy call? Yes, and no. Like it or not, it took guts to order this operation. Did Obama weigh in political considerations before making a decision? Almost certainly - he would be a fool not to do so. Did he give considerable latitude to McRaven? He did and that's a good thing. Did Obama want to ensure that the mission would be aborted if the risk profile change? Yes - another good decision.

Obama's economic policies suck, but in this case, I really find it hard to fault his handling of the situation, based on the information that's available to us. Ben Shapiro's mock anger and baseless, unsubstantiated and unsupported assertions about what would have happened if things hadn't happened as they happened notwithstanding.

What he means, is that Obama has been parading the OBL mission around on everyone on any and every speech and discussion insinuating that it was his leadership and decicions that brought him him.
Next, in several articles, Biden and others have talked about how the president was so personally involved in the op and he deserves all the credit for making this re-cock-taculous decision that no other president would have made, that this was such a big deal. (Which it was to order, but not to the level the administration has been parading it around to the public).

No one is faulting the way the choice he made (besides that Panetta and Clinton had to practically force him into doing it). That little claue about "bringing any new potential risk back to the president" IS a get out of jail free card.

Adm McRaven had total Operational control, Obama greenlighted it based on the risk that had been brought to his table. That little clause gives him a way to lay it around Mcravens neck if it went south, as he'd be able to say "Well, what happened was not in the briefing I was shown, and the Operation should have been aborted as soon as a new risk became apparent and brought back to me for reconsideration", full well knowing that once an Op is underway, its underway. Those guys are the best at what they do because they adapt on the fly - they dont lose. Once they get the green light and boots are on the ground, come hell or high water theyre going to complete that mission or die trying.

Theyre not going to say "Shit, well theres a new risk, (maybe an unforseen Pakistani guard unit stationed somewhere around the compound) better head back to base, inform the president that something has changed and let him re-assess the situation and wait for another green light."
They'd never get anything done.

IMHO this is just an quick way for the President to be able to deflect the brunt of a massive failure, and be able to lay it around Mcraven if it came out.(Remember, these guys dont get to the office of the President without learning how to side-step a few land mines, to steal the A Few Good Men quote.)

Look at it this way, we didnt even know he made the decision until the op was successful.
Imagine for a sec if it failed - What would we have heard?

Probably nothing, but if we were to hear something, I think it would have gone something like this -

Unfortunatley, last night , an entire US Navy SEAL team was killed on a mission to apprehend Osama Bin Laden. Their commander, Admiral Mcraven usurped the Presidents authority and had the SEALs continue their mission in the face of unforseen, high risk complications.

The President, against his better judgement, and under pressure from his constiutents SecDef Panetta and former President Clinton, had tentatively chosen to give this op a green light. Unfortunatley it was based on inaccurate intelligence, as Admiral Mcraven failed to inform the President of new intelligence that could potentially turn the operation to disaster. Now, because Admiral Mcraven put his own desire to apprehend OBL ahead of the lives of his SEALs and because he chose to go on without informing the President of the new risks, some of America's most elite military fighters are no longer with us.

This is a sad day for the America and I would hope that Admiral Mcraven steps down for not bringing the President accurate information on all the possible outcomes of the mission.

Now, I know this is typical political fare - but think for a moment - Obama takes personal credit during his speeches and campaign event like it was his Op. But if it failed - it would have been Mcravens fault for not brining him the proper intelligence. He also would probably say he was pressured into it by Panetta and Clinton.
In short - he would have deflected it everywhere he could. Just like he does with everything else.

[avxo]

What he means, is that Obama has been parading the OBL mission around on everyone on any and every speech and discussion insinuating that it was his leadership and decicions that brought him him.

I haven't heard this "parading". Can you provide a quote of this? Since it's from every speech and discussion, you shouldn't have much trouble.

Next, in several articles, Biden and others have talked about how the president was so personally involved in the op and he deserves all the credit for making this re-cock-taculous decision that no other president would have made, that this was such a big deal. (Which it was to order, but not to the level the administration has been parading it around to the public).

I think that's it accurate to say that if this operation had gone south, it could have gone way down south and ignited a firestorm.

No one is faulting the way the choice he made (besides that Panetta and Clinton had to practically force him into doing it). That little claue about "bringing any new potential risk back to the president" IS a get out of jail free card.

This sort of language is pretty boilerplate. It is Obama's decision - he gets to weigh the risk and decide if it's worth it. He's the Commander in Chief. As for the assertion that he had to be forced into making the decision, what is your evidence, short of vigorous hand-waving?

Adm McRaven had total Operational control, Obama greenlighted it based on the risk that had been brought to his table.

Which is exactly as it should be. A person with military expertise had to have the authority to run the operation. Would you really want the operation to be ran from the White House by people who don't have military expertise?

That little clause gives him a way to lay it around Mcravens neck if it went south, as he'd be able to say "Well, what happened was not in the briefing I was shown, and the Operation should have been aborted as soon as a new risk became apparent and brought back to me for reconsideration", full well knowing that once an Op is underway, its underway.

You are asserting that once an operation begins it cannot stop. Seriously? Is this your own military experience speaking?

So basically, if an operation says "go to this place, and get target X" and new intelligence shows, say, a contingent of 2000 new troops has arrived on the location to protect target X, the operation is still a go, as planned, because it's already underway?

Those guys are the best at what they do because they adapt on the fly - they dont lose. Once they get the green light and boots are on the ground, come hell or high water theyre going to complete that mission or die trying.

If those guys are the best, you should respect them enough to not say "you will go do this, or die trying even if new information comes to light"

Theyre not going to say "Shit, well theres a new risk, (maybe an unforseen Pakistani guard unit stationed somewhere around the compound) better head back to base, inform the president that something has changed and let him re-assess the situation and wait for another green light."
They'd never get anything done.

What about a large contingent of Pakistani guards? What about an unrelated fire, or explosion, in the building next door? Should they go on then? And do you not think that it's the President's decision to make, as the Commander in Chief, about whether an operation can or cannot continue?

IMHO this is just an quick way for the President to be able to deflect the brunt of a massive failure, and be able to lay it around Mcraven if it came out.(Remember, these guys dont get to the office of the President without learning how to side-step a few land mines, to steal the A Few Good Men quote.)

Opinions are like assholes. And you know what they say about assholes. Do you have any factual, concrete evidence, that if things had gone south, the General would have been hung out to dry, or only your suppositions and your personal opinions?

Look at it this way, we didnt even know he made the decision until the op was successful.

What the fuck? You wanted Obama to hold a press conference and announce "I approved an operation to have SEAL Team 6 to go grab Bin Laden at his secret compoound in Pakistan. Let me walk you through the plan" before the op? What the hell are you smoking?

Imagine for a sec if it failed - What would we have heard?
Probably nothing, but if

I'm not interested in hearing your suppositions about what would have happened if what actually happened wouldn't have happened. If you want to play that game, go to your local fair and work a palm-reading stand.

Now, I know this is typical political fare - but think for a moment - Obama takes personal credit during his speeches and campaign event like it was his Op. But if it failed - it would have been Mcravens fault for not brining him the proper intelligence. He also would probably say he was pressured into it by Panetta and Clinton.
In short - he would have deflected it everywhere he could. Just like he does with everything else.

I haven't heard Obama take personal credit once. Of course I don't follow -- and don't want to follow -- every speech Obama makes, so it's entirely possible I missed this personal credit-taking, but I've seen no indication that he's going around, thumping his chest and taking personal credit for this.

[Hugo Chavez]

I see absolutely nothing that's out of the ordinary with this memo.

that's what I was thinking too.

As far as Obama using it, that goes with past presidents too.  Nothing different here.  Would people give him credit for not taking credit?  hell no lol...

[whork]

that's what I was thinking too.

As far as Obama using it, that goes with past presidents too.  Nothing different here.  Would people give him credit for not taking credit?  hell no lol...

+1

[240 is Back]

Romney criticized Obama in 2007 for saying he'd go into Pakistan

You may have that this past weekend Romney tried to diminish the US strike against Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, saying "any president" would have ordered the raid. What he forgot to add was, "any president but President Romney." Mediaite dug up an old Romney quote from 2007, criticizing then candidate Obama for saying he'd go into Pakistan, unilaterally if need be, if we had actionable intelligence that an Al Qaeda threat was there:


"I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours... I don't think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort," Romney told reporters on the campaign trail....
 
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.
 
Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who is one of the Republican front-runners, said U.S. troops "shouldn't be sent all over the world." He called Obama's comments "ill-timed" and "ill-considered.""
So for the record, there is one president who wouldn't have ordered the attack against Osama bin Laden. That would be President Romney.
 
http://www.americablog.com/2011/12/romney-criticized-obama-in-2007-for.html

[Shockwave]

I haven't heard this "parading". Can you provide a quote of this? Since it's from every speech and discussion, you shouldn't have much trouble.


I think that's it accurate to say that if this operation had gone south, it could have gone way down south and ignited a firestorm.


This sort of language is pretty boilerplate. It is Obama's decision - he gets to weigh the risk and decide if it's worth it. He's the Commander in Chief. As for the assertion that he had to be forced into making the decision, what is your evidence, short of vigorous hand-waving?


Which is exactly as it should be. A person with military expertise had to have the authority to run the operation. Would you really want the operation to be ran from the White House by people who don't have military expertise?


You are asserting that once an operation begins it cannot stop. Seriously? Is this your own military experience speaking?

So basically, if an operation says "go to this place, and get target X" and new intelligence shows, say, a contingent of 2000 new troops has arrived on the location to protect target X, the operation is still a go, as planned, because it's already underway?


If those guys are the best, you should respect them enough to not say "you will go do this, or die trying even if new information comes to light"



What about a large contingent of Pakistani guards? What about an unrelated fire, or explosion, in the building next door? Should they go on then? And do you not think that it's the President's decision to make, as the Commander in Chief, about whether an operation can or cannot continue?

Opinions are like assholes. And you know what they say about assholes. Do you have any factual, concrete evidence, that if things had gone south, the General would have been hung out to dry, or only your suppositions and your personal opinions?

What the fuck? You wanted Obama to hold a press conference and announce "I approved an operation to have SEAL Team 6 to go grab Bin Laden at his secret compoound in Pakistan. Let me walk you through the plan" before the op? What the hell are you smoking?


I'm not interested in hearing your suppositions about what would have happened if what actually happened wouldn't have happened. If you want to play that game, go to your local fair and work a palm-reading stand.

I haven't heard Obama take personal credit once. Of course I don't follow -- and don't want to follow -- every speech Obama makes, so it's entirely possible I missed this personal credit-taking, but I've seen no indication that he's going around, thumping his chest and taking personal credit for this.

Werent you prior military?
Anyway this is ALL supposition. These kinds of arguments are ALL suppositions. Im not presenting any of this as fact - im presenting it as an opinion formed out of what I know about military politics.

This part you split up out of context - "look at it this way, we didnt hear of it until post-op, wasnt meant to criticize it, it was meant to say lead into the "If it had gone south what, what would have been the admin's response".

Anyway,

What about a large contingent of Pakistani guards? What about an unrelated fire, or explosion, in the building next door? Should they go on then? And do you not think that it's the President's decision to make, as the Commander in Chief, about whether an operation can or cannot continue?

Once boots are on the grood and the op is in motion, they coordinate with their command and usually are trying to find a way to adapt or go around, and usually these guys get a LOT of leeway, basically they are allowed to make the decision on ground level if they can accomplish their mission given the unforseen obstacles and it usually doesnt get routed all the way up to the president and back down. Besides, I dont think it would be the presidents call. If the boots are on the ground and moving, he's not going to know the full capabilities of the unit's there and whether or not they can succeed in a given situation.

From the guys ive know, and even fewer that would discuss such things, they bascially have said that once theyre on the ground and moving theyre givin tremendous power to re-write the strategy on the fly in order to accomplish their objective. Thats my point.

As far as the other stuff, yes Obama is practically running his campaign on "I got Osama bin Laden, would Romney have done the same?" And every single speech, he has to throw out the
I got OBL", but it appears from several articles that have been posted that he didnt want to go in, that Panetta and Clinton practically had to force him, and that he had a neat little "get out of jail free" card to wash his hands of any responsibility had it gone south"

Is it any different than any other president in recent history? The point is, from my perspective, he makes it sound like he made this decision knowing full well he was going to bear full resposibility for any possible outcome, (even so much as to have a movie about it) but then it comes out he was forced into it by his constiuents and still had a way to wash his hands of it all the same.

As far as your bullshit "You should respect them enough... " line, the point was, they adapt and overcome in order to achieve their objective. I wasnt speaking on our expectations that they succeed or die - im saying that they will do everything in their power to accomplish their mission even if it gets them killed, thats how dedicated these guys are.

Its politics, and I know it is, but it drives me nuts.

[Shockwave]

Heres a big article on it

Credit to 333

SEALs slam Obama for using them as 'ammunition' in bid to take credit for bin Laden killing during election campaign

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137636/SEALs-slam-Obama-using-ammunition-bid-credit-bin-Laden-killing-election-campaign.html#ixzz1tcPSCyu2

Ryan Zinke, 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 Zinke, 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 compound
Mr 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 same
Senior 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.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137636/SEALs-slam-Obama-using-ammunition-bid-credit-bin-Laden-killing-election-campaign.html#ixzz1tcOvGxb3

[whork]

Romney criticized Obama in 2007 for saying he'd go into Pakistan

You may have that this past weekend Romney tried to diminish the US strike against Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, saying "any president" would have ordered the raid. What he forgot to add was, "any president but President Romney." Mediaite dug up an old Romney quote from 2007, criticizing then candidate Obama for saying he'd go into Pakistan, unilaterally if need be, if we had actionable intelligence that an Al Qaeda threat was there:


"I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours... I don't think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort," Romney told reporters on the campaign trail....
 
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.
 
Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who is one of the Republican front-runners, said U.S. troops "shouldn't be sent all over the world." He called Obama's comments "ill-timed" and "ill-considered.""
So for the record, there is one president who wouldn't have ordered the attack against Osama bin Laden. That would be President Romney.
 
http://www.americablog.com/2011/12/romney-criticized-obama-in-2007-for.html

Ups not good for sir Romney...