(03-08-2019, 09:42 AM)B2hibry Wrote:

(03-08-2019, 09:07 AM)Bullseye Wrote: So ordering the strike that killid Bin Laden did nothing to advance America?

Is this seriously what you're arguing?

Pretty sure you are arguing that point. But I'll play. What has changed since his death? You can ponder that but the answer is nothing.

If you think Obama is the hero in that scenario, you couldn't be more wrong. So, should we blame Obama for the 15 other times he could have been taken out but wasn't? Was it his fault that foreign policy failures allowed Pakistan to shelter Bin Laden for years? Can we blame Obama for his tight authoritarian grip on combat rules of engagement that endangered boots on the ground? Teams like the one that got Bin Laden had worked auntonomously for decades but not under Obama. Good thing they are now back to that mission set.

No.

Bin Laden got on America's [BLEEP] list in the Clinton administration.

He launched the 9-11 attacks 9 months into W's administration.

President Obama ordered the strike that killed Bin Laden two years into his term of office.

It's patently silly and spectacularly disingenuous to blame president Obama for the failures that happened more than a decade before he got into office, but apparently that isn't stopping you from doing so.

Big shock.

If he had an abundance of clear policy failures, there's no need to make stuff up or exaggerate.

---