Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Anybody tired of saving face?

Tags:
  • Politics
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
May 8, 2012 1:20:34 PM

Today, we see an almost spiked football with the death of Bin Laden, one year later.
What if it had failed?
http://nation.foxnews.com/usama-bin-laden/2012/05/07/of...

More about : tired saving face

May 8, 2012 2:33:09 PM

Such a sad thing. No doubt they all do it.. but involving so many lawyers.

Bay of Pigs anyone?
May 8, 2012 3:53:59 PM

First thing that came to mind was the Iranian hostage situation where the military did **** up. If they did fail at getting Osama, wouldn't it have been the military's fault anyways?
Related resources
May 8, 2012 4:59:55 PM

Yeah, it's not really new. Before the d-day invasion Eisenhower drafted his letter of resignation to Roosevelt in case of failure.
May 8, 2012 5:22:29 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Yeah, it's not really new. Before the d-day invasion Eisenhower drafted his letter of resignation to Roosevelt in case of failure.


That's kind of different though.. that shows a single person taking responisblility for it. Eisenhower also got credit for the invasion success, not Roosevelt. He would have also taken the blame for the failure. He had standards.. glad to know I have roots in his ancestry. :) 
May 8, 2012 5:27:36 PM

riser said:
That's kind of different though.. that shows a single person taking responisblility for it. Eisenhower also got credit for the invasion success, not Roosevelt. He would have also taken the blame for the failure. He had standards.. glad to know I have roots in his ancestry. :) 


Hmmmm, I see your point.
May 8, 2012 5:40:09 PM

Now youre getting it
May 8, 2012 5:55:22 PM

Which part of the memo are they quoting from? And doesn't it say the Panetta wrote it?
May 9, 2012 1:35:00 PM

johnsonma said:
First thing that came to mind was the Iranian hostage situation where the military did **** up. If they did fail at getting Osama, wouldn't it have been the military's fault anyways?

Not necessarily.

Two possible scenarios for failure:
1. Being saddled with unworkable ROE.
2. Being denied necessary equipment because of political considerations.
May 9, 2012 1:37:47 PM

jsc said:
Not necessarily.

Two possible scenarios for failure:
1. Being saddled with unworkable ROE.
2. Being denied necessary equipment because of political considerations.



True, Mogadishu, Somalia comes to mind.

1. Saddled with unworkable ROE
2. Were denied armored support even though it was requested on several occasions. It was denied for political reasons because the Clinton admin. didn't want to appear to be escalating the conflict.
May 9, 2012 1:45:23 PM

So can anyone find that memo and explain the part of it that places blame?

And didn't Panetta write it?

Mission Accomplished anyone?
May 9, 2012 2:45:56 PM

The memo wasn't released from what I see.. the mission was not a failure.

If you can't believe the words of the former Attorney General (replaced by Eric Holder) then I'm at a loss for how you can trust anything the Obama Administration says.
May 9, 2012 2:56:22 PM

riser said:
The memo wasn't released from what I see.. the mission was not a failure.

If you can't believe the words of the former Attorney General (replaced by Eric Holder) then I'm at a loss for how you can trust anything the Obama Administration says.


Well Ive been doing some research and here is the memo

Quote:
“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.”


Which part of the memo throws McRaven under the bus, and how do you interpret it? I found it very odd you have all made up your minds, but you haven't even read the memo........
May 9, 2012 3:15:57 PM

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.
May 9, 2012 3:17:16 PM

For the sake of our specOps guys i'm glad McRaven was in charge of timing and operational decision making. Much better than say, Joe Biden being in charge.

just sayin'
May 9, 2012 3:17:53 PM

The assumption is based on the exact words of the AG.
May 9, 2012 3:17:56 PM

The point here is, we need to get back to the point where people who gave the order the responsibility, and then, that said person should take no credit for it, as only giving the order, but give that praise to the people who actually did the deed
May 9, 2012 3:19:13 PM

If it should fail, the one giving the order takes the blame, and still praises those who tried to carry out those orders
May 9, 2012 3:21:22 PM

This goes back to Carter, where he failed in his order for the hostage rescue.
We saw this change with Clinton, where he limited the missions success, deflected responsibility, and made our troops look bad.
Not the way to lead, not at all
May 9, 2012 3:29:51 PM

And there it is in your link riser
The failure to take the lead, and the readiness to save face
May 9, 2012 3:59:46 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
For the sake of our specOps guys i'm glad McRaven was in charge of timing and operational decision making. Much better than say, Joe Biden being in charge.

just sayin'



Right that is the point. Did you want Obama kicking open the door with Seal Team 6? Im glad the military was in charge of timing and operational decision making because that is what they do.

Now you introduce a whole new article about how Panetta orchestrated the raid, but its Obama's fault and the memo Panetta hand wrote proves Obama is blaming McRaven. You see how confusing you make this?

But which part of the memo do you take issue with?
May 9, 2012 4:10:34 PM

Thats not the point.
Obama himself proclaims his intentions many a time about Bin Laden, and how he was to get him, yet, here we see him hedging all the time, not taking the lead where others did, then going out and reaffirming his original and publicly known intentions.
And, to top it off, theres the secret door CYA, in case it fails.
Time to lead, time to man up, time to take blame, and give praise where its due.

Who cares about his popularity here?
It gets real old real fast when we see these things.
Do you think people liked the teflon president, when others took the blame?
It gets old

And read my quote below
May 9, 2012 4:16:49 PM

Still seems like the GOP is trying really hard to take away any kind of credit the Obama administration is getting.

Im out of this thread.

Mission accomplished I guess.
May 9, 2012 4:36:41 PM

wanamingo said:
Right that is the point. Did you want Obama kicking open the door with Seal Team 6? Im glad the military was in charge of timing and operational decision making because that is what they do.

Now you introduce a whole new article about how Panetta orchestrated the raid, but its Obama's fault and the memo Panetta hand wrote proves Obama is blaming McRaven. You see how confusing you make this?

But which part of the memo do you take issue with?


I'm confused. Are you directing those questions at me? I didn't introduce any article and I don't really have a huge problem with the memo. I thought I was clear on that.
May 9, 2012 4:37:02 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
This goes back to Carter, where he failed in his order for the hostage rescue.
We saw this change with Clinton, where he limited the missions success, deflected responsibility, and made our troops look bad.
Not the way to lead, not at all


Of course, Jimmy Carter actually served in the military, while Bill Clinton was a draft-dodging pot-smoking hippy anti-war activist. Or some such :p . IIRC when his administration first moved into the White House, one of his aides told the military liaison something to the effect "Now you war mongerers are going to have to answer to us for a change". And this after the highly successful Gulf War under Bush senior...
May 9, 2012 4:44:05 PM

wanamingo said:
Still seems like the GOP is trying really hard to take away any kind of credit the Obama administration is getting.

Im out of this thread.

Mission accomplished I guess.


I think the Cliff Note's version goes "The military did get Bin Ladin, so now Obama is now taking credit for his success during his reelection campaign. If the military had failed however, Obama would have shifted the blame to the military guy in charge"

Wasn't it Truman who had a big sign on his desk "The buck stops here"? Obama's sign probably reads "Credit only, no cash (bucks) accepted" :p ..
!