Remember when Dubya called himself the "DECIDER"

[wreckhog]

Step aside, there is a new "DECIDER"

Washington (CNN) – President Barack Obama gave the go-ahead for U.S. forces to raid a northern Pakistan housing compound based on "what was probably a 50-50 case that Osama bin Laden was there," his national security adviser said.

On April 28, Obama attended the last of several National Security Council meetings focused on finding and going after the al Qaeda leader. During that meeting, some advocated for the commando raid while others advised against it, according to National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, given there had been no clear-cut sightings of bin Laden by that point.

[jlwilliams]

I'm no particular fan of the current President, but I don't begrudge him his basking in the glory of this.  The political game is what it is.  We can haggle over who made what decisions, who's policies made this decision possable and all sorts of other stuff that doesn't really mean squat.  Bin Laden went down on Obama's watch.  He gets to take the bow and bathe in the adulations.  Congratulations, Mr President.  Job well done.

  Now, we have some other matters closer to home that warrant his attention.  In the mean time, he can bask in the sun of this big win.

[subdjoe]

There are reports by a supposed WH insider that The One Who One didn't make the call.   Skulking Towards bin Laden: Obama Overridden by Military and Intel Officials in Takeout of OBL?

was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper.  The primary opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama.  Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position.  This situation continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton.  She was livid over the president’s failure to act, and her office began a campaign of anonymous leaks to the media indicating such.  As for Jarrett, her concern rested on two primary fronts.  One, that the military action could fail and harm the president’s already weakened standing with both the American public and the world.  Second, that the attack would be viewed as an act of aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in the Middle East.

Q: What changed the president’s position and enabled the attack against Osama Bin Laden to proceed?

A:  Nothing changed with the president’s opinion – he continued to avoid having one.  Every time military and intelligence officials appeared to make progress in forming a position, Jarrett would intervene and the stalling would begin again.  Hillary started the ball really rolling as far as pressuring Obama began, but it was Panetta and Petraeus who ultimately pushed Obama to finally act – sort of.  Panetta was receiving significant reports from both his direct CIA sources, as well as Petraeus-originating Intel.  Petraeus was threatening to act on his own via a bombing attack.  Panetta reported back to the president that a bombing of the compound would result in successful killing of Osama Bin Laden, and little risk to American lives.  Initially, as he had done before, the president indicated a willingness to act.  But once again, Jarrett intervened, convincing the president that innocent Pakistani lives could be lost in such a bombing attack, and Obama would be left attempting to explain Panetta’s failed policy.  Again Obama hesitated – this time openly delaying further meetings to discuss the issue with Panetta. 

If true, it shows a craven who is more concerned with his image than with security or policy.  It also shows a dithering incompetent who is incapable of making a tough call.  He can't just wave his hand and vote "Yeah, I'm here" on everything.

[Mohawk]

It makes you wonder what they would do if they had 25 minutes to launch ICBM's or lose them. Probably play a short round of golf while deciding.

[Junior1942]

And you believe every word written in a right wing blog, huh?  Hey, I didn't know the military could override a presidential decision.  Things must have changed during the 8 year fiasco called the GWBush administration.  Does this mean the military now runs the country?

[billy_56081]

Jr., your lack of real world military knowledge is really showing in the above post. Spec opsoften operate outside the bubble. When you do good, the boss will always be happy to take the credit.

[Junior1942]

BS.

[jimster]

I'm no particular fan of the current President, but I don't begrudge him his basking in the glory of this.  The political game is what it is.  We can haggle over who made what decisions, who's policies made this decision possable and all sorts of other stuff that doesn't really mean squat.  Bin Laden went down on Obama's watch.  He gets to take the bow and bathe in the adulations.  Congratulations, Mr President.  Job well done.

About sums it up...he really had no choice to not disassemble what was already in process over the years, it would have been political suicide and Obama and everyone knows it.  He has not done so well on many issues, he needed this badly.  He also had no choice but to change directions and leave behind the far left now, they are small potatoes compared to the more conservative type thinking people that he needs votes from.  It's all politics for sure.  Same as when the republicans came close to balancing the budget for the first time in history (and probably the last time) Clinton took credit for what the republicans did after defeating the Dem's in the 90's.  Course now, the republicans are not serious about balancing the budget or being too conservative, things always change over time. 

A good politician knows when to change sides quickly, it's a game they all play.  If you listen to his earlier speeches while running for president on foreign policy...it's a 180 degree turn.  Matter of fact I see no difference at all between him or Bush, don't agree with either one on foreign policy's.  He will appear to turn the other way again when needing certain votes again, but really won't...just appear to.

He has the right to take the credit...like any other president would...

[subdjoe]

And you believe every word written in a right wing blog, huh?  Hey, I didn't know the military could override a presidential decision.  Things must have changed during the 8 year fiasco called the GWBush administration.  Does this mean the military now runs the country?

No, nor do I automatically discount it as you seem to do.  I don't buy into everything from Kos or MoveOn either.  Nor do I automatically discount it.

I tend towards believing that account as it does seem to fit the pattern of behavior of The One Who Won.  In the IL legislature he never seems to have taken a stand on any controversial legislation, but just voted "Yeah!  Here I am!  I'm here!"  Also from what was on his site during the campaign - reading through his positions carefully, you could only come to the conclusion that he had no firm position on anything.  A quick read of his "stand" on something would make it seem as if he did, but once you dug through all the qualifiers, the kind of thing that Azimov in "Foundation" called "goo and drivel", you find that there is no position, no stand.

Add in the pettyness he shows when questioned on anything - blackballing radio or TV stations for daring to ask hard questions, whining "Can't I just eat  my waffle" when questioned by reporters at a diner, complaining when he went to the WH press room and reporters daring to ask in something - and we get an image of a very shallow, craven, indecisive, empty suit.