Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Michael Mukasey: Obama and the bin Laden Bragging Rights
It's hard to imagine Lincoln or Eisenhower claiming such credit for the heroic actions of others..Article Video Comments (194) more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».Email Print
By MICHAEL B. MUKASEY
The first anniversary of the SEAL Team 6 operation that killed Osama bin Laden brings the news that President Obama plans during the coming campaign to exploit the bragging rights to the achievement. That plan invites scrutiny that is unlikely to benefit him.
Consider the events surrounding the operation. A recently disclosed memorandum from then-CIA Director Leon Panetta shows that the president's celebrated derring-do in authorizing the operation included a responsibility-escape clause: "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."
Which is to say, if the mission went wrong, the fault would be Adm. McRaven's, not the president's. Moreover, the president does not seem to have addressed at all the possibility of seizing material with intelligence value—which may explain his disclosure immediately following the event not only that bin Laden was killed, but also that a valuable trove of intelligence had been seized, including even the location of al Qaeda safe-houses. That disclosure infuriated the intelligence community because it squandered the opportunity to exploit the intelligence that was the subject of the boast.
The only reliable weapon that any administration has against the current threat to this country is intelligence. Every operation like the one against bin Laden (or the one that ended the career of Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S. citizen and al Qaeda propagandist killed in a drone attack last September) dips into the reservoir of available intelligence. Refilling that reservoir apparently is of no importance to an administration that, after an order signed by the president on his second day in office, has no classified interrogation program—and whose priorities are apparent from its swift decision to reopen investigations of CIA operators for alleged abuses in connection with the classified interrogation program that once did exist.
While contemplating how the killing of bin Laden reflects on the president, consider the way he emphasized his own role in the hazardous mission accomplished by SEAL Team 6:
"I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority . . . even as I continued our broader effort. . . . Then, after years of painstaking work by my intelligence community I was briefed . . . I met repeatedly with my national security team . . . And finally last week I determined that I had enough intelligence to take action. . . . Today, at my direction . . ."
That seems a jarring formulation coming from a man who, when first elected, was asked which president he would model himself on and replied, Lincoln.
Abraham Lincoln, on the night after Gen. Robert E. Lee's surrender ended the Civil War, delivered from the window of the White House a speech that mentioned his own achievements not at all, but instead looked forward to the difficulties of reconstruction and called for black suffrage—a call that would doom him because the audience outside the White House included a man who muttered that Lincoln had just delivered his last speech. It was John Wilkes Booth.
The man from whom President Obama has sought incessantly to distance himself, George W. Bush, also had occasion during his presidency to announce to the nation a triumph of intelligence: the capture of Saddam Hussein. He called that success "a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq." He attributed it to "the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers. . . . Their work continues, and so do the risks."
Related Video
Editorial page editor Paul Gigot on the Obama campaign's new theme "Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive."
.
.He did mention himself at the end: "Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them."
That is not to say that great leaders, including presidents, have not placed themselves at the center of great events. But generally it has been to accept responsibility for failure.
Lincoln took responsibility in August 1862 for failures that had been attributed to General George McClellan—eventually sacked for incompetence—and Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Lincoln told a crowd that McClellan was not at fault for seeking more than Stanton could give, and "I stand here, as justice requires me to do, to take upon myself what has been charged upon the Secretary of War."
Dwight Eisenhower is famous for having penned a statement to be issued in anticipation of the failure of the Normandy invasion that reads in relevant part: "My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."
A week later, when the success of the invasion was apparent, Eisenhower saluted the Allied Expeditionary Forces: "One week ago this morning there was established through your coordinated efforts our first foothold in northwestern Europe. High as was my preinvasion confidence in your courage, skill and effectiveness . . . your accomplishments . . . have exceeded my brightest hopes.
Eisenhower did mention himself at the end: "I truly congratulate you upon a brilliantly successful beginning. . . . Liberty loving people everywhere would today like to join me in saying to you, 'I am proud of you.'"
Such examples are worth remembering every time President Obama claims bin Laden bragging rights.
Mr. Mukasey served as U.S. attorney general from 2007-09, and as a U.S. district judge from 1988 to 2006.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
and worse! Obama integrate his 'Trophy' into his presidential election campaign. Romney.. as usual, attacked the usage campaign as 'Playing with the emotions of 911 survivors"
That is not to say that great leaders, including presidents, have not placed themselves at the center of great events. But generally it has been to accept responsibility for failure.
Sounds un-American to Mitt. Don't you know you never apologize for America?
Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++ A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.
Clthomps wrote:What dribble.... Who seriously wrights an essay comparing Lincoln and Eisenhower's public speeches to a press release in this day and age...
That's like comparing apples and lug nuts.
Oh wait I know who wrights that crap... people that make a fortune off of exploiting week minded Americans... right, carry on.
The path to bin Laden’s death didn’t start with Obama
Text Size PrintE-mailReprintsBy Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., Published: April 30The Washington Post Jose A. Rodriguez Jr. is a 31-year veteran of the CIA and the author of “Hard Measures: How Aggressive CIA Actions After 9/11 Saved American Lives.”
As we mark the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s death, President Obama deserves credit for making the right choice on taking out Public Enemy No. 1.
But his administration never would have had the opportunity to do the right thing had it not been for some extraordinary work during the George W. Bush administration. Much of that work has been denigrated by Obama as unproductive and contrary to American principles.
.He is wrong on both counts.
Shortly after bin Laden met his maker last spring, courtesy of U.S. Special Forces and intelligence, the administration proudly announced that when Obama took office, getting bin Laden was made a top priority. Many of us who served in senior counterterrorism positions in the Bush administration were left muttering: “Gee, why didn’t we think of that?”
The truth is that getting bin Laden was the top counterterrorism objective for U.S. intelligence since well before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. This administration built on work painstakingly pursued for many years before Obama was elected — and without this work, Obama administration officials never would have been in a position to authorize the strike on Abbottabad, Pakistan, that resulted in bin Laden’s overdue death.
In 2004, an al-Qaeda terrorist was captured trying to communicate with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of the terror organization’s operations in Iraq. That captured terrorist was taken to a secret CIA prison — or “black site” — where, initially, he was uncooperative. After being subjected to some “enhanced interrogation techniques” — techniques authorized by officials at the most senior levels of the U.S. government and that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel confirmed were consistent with U.S. law — the detainee became compliant. He was not one of the three al-Qaeda operatives who underwent waterboarding, the harshest of the hard measures.
Once this terrorist decided that non-cooperation was a non-starter, he told us many things — including that bin Laden had given up communicating via telephone, radio or Internet, and depended solely on a single courier who went by “Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti.” At the time, I was chief of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center. The fact that bin Laden was relying on a lone courier was a revelation that told me bin Laden had given up day-to-day control of his organization. You can’t run an operation as large, complex and ambitious as al-Qaeda by communicating only every few months. It also told me that capturing him would be even harder than we had thought.
Armed with the pseudonym of bin Laden’s courier, we pressed on. We asked other detainees in our custody if they had ever heard of “al-Kuwaiti.” Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, reacted in horror when he heard the name. He backed into his cell and vigorously denied ever hearing of the man. We later intercepted communications KSM sent to fellow detainees at the black site, in which he instructed them: “Tell them nothing about the courier!”
In 2005 another senior detainee, Abu Faraj al-Libi, told us that this courier had informed him that Libi had been selected to be al-Qaeda’s No. 3 official. Surely that kind of information is delivered only by highly placed individuals.
A couple of years later, after I became head of the National Clandestine Service, the CIA was able to discover the true name of the courier. Armed with that information, the agency worked relentlessly to locate that man. Finding him eventually led to tracking down and killing bin Laden.
With some trying to turn bin Laden’s death into a campaign talking point for Obama’s reelection, it is useful to remember that the trail to bin Laden started in a CIA black site — all of which Obama ordered closed, forever, on the second full day of his administration — and stemmed from information obtained from hardened terrorists who agreed to tell us some (but not all) of what they knew after undergoing harsh but legal interrogation methods. Obama banned those methods on Jan. 22, 2009.
This past weekend, Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Carl Levin attacked statements made in May 2011 by me, former CIA director Michael Hayden and former attorney general Michael Mukasey regarding what led to bin Laden’s death. They misunderstood and mischaracterized our positions.
No single tactic, technique or approach led to the successful operation against bin Laden. But those who suggest it was all a result of a fresh approach taken after Jan. 20, 2009, are mistaken.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:
That is not to say that great leaders, including presidents, have not placed themselves at the center of great events. But generally it has been to accept responsibility for failure.
Sounds un-American to Mitt. Don't you know you never apologize for America?
"What do you think the A on on my head stands for, France?"
-Captain America.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/01 12:00:56
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
As the CinC if it had gone really bad he would have been slammed by the Republicans and everyone else (as Carter was).
If he had decided NOT to send in troops and bombed instead it would have been hard to 'prove' they nailed Usama. Heck, plenty of tin foil hat types still not convinced.
If he had decided to do nothing, and that leaked out he would have been ruined politically.
Personally, I don't see how and US President in the situation would have done nothing, so that one is a throw away option. Between bombing and SOF ends up being the available choices. Frankly a bombing gone bad has about the same fallout out level from the Pakistani Gov't as a raid not getting the right target does. A raid has potential to get a LOT more than a bombing does (as this one did in the intel gathered at the site).
I guess I just don't see it as a hard choice. I give him credit for being politically astute enough to realize that. I am sure as heck glad Usama is dead and that it didn't take a lot of US casualties to make that happen.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/05/01 12:15:18
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
CptJake wrote:As the CinC if it had gone really bad he would have been slammed by the Republicans and everyone else (as Carter was).
If he had decided NOT to send in troops and bombed instead it would have been hard to 'prove' they nailed Usama. Heck, plenty of tin foil hat types still not convinced.
If he had decided to do nothing, and that leaked out he would have been ruined politically.
Personally, I don't see how and US President in the situation would have done nothing, so that one is a throw away option. Between bombing and SOF ends up being the available choices. Frankly a bombing gone bad has about the same fallout out level from the Pakistani Gov't as a raid not getting the right target does.
I guess I just don't see it as a hard choice. I give him credit for being politically astute enough to realize that. I am sure as heck glad Usama is dead and that it didn't take a lot of US casualties to make that happen.
Agreed. Further, he can take credit with the standard "no terrorism spiel" and use it as an excuse "Bin Laden's dead, we've done what we went to Afghanistan to do and we're out by Jan. 1" but the blah blah gets lame fast. But "Bin Laden's dead, GM's alive" and saying your opponent wouldn't have done it- seriously? Any politician besides Biden (who said he wouldn't) would have capped BL is they could get him. Give credit to the men who did it, and you'll get credit. Walking around high fiving yourself makes you look like, well Obama.
As noted, you would not have seen Bush Sr. acting like that, nor Clinton, nor Kennedy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/01 12:19:40
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
... from both sides. This is election season. Of course it gets old.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/05/01 12:44:30
Subject: Re:Obama and the bin Laden Bragging Rights
If I were Obama, I'd give a speech that pretty much verbatim calls out the GOP. The nads on these guys, man. The utter, unmitigated gall. It's unimaginable. The fact is, when the Republicans were in power, they let OBL skate. While the WTC was still essentially a smoking hole in the ground, GWB gave a speech saying he didn't think much about him.
Obama says he'll do what it takes - including going into Pakistan, specifically - to get OBL;and gets ridiculed for it. You guys remember, that, right? McCain and Hillary telling him naive he was? So, he does it, and gets him. And they have the nerve to say it was a no-brainer: what does that say about all the years the previous administration couldn't be bothered?
You're damn right he has the right to take a victory lap over making a hard call that went right, and lets please not pretend for even a second that the GOP wouldn't be hammering this issue from then till the election had it gone wrong somehow.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
It's almost as if Obama was actually being... HONEST... about his campaign promises?!?!?
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
I agree. He should call them out just like that. He should then reveal a Super O shirt and proclaim himself the best Commander in Chief in military affairs evah, even better than Grant, Nixon, Washington, and Eisenhower.
Lets do it and see what happens.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote:I agree. He should call them out just like that. He should then reveal a Super O shirt and proclaim himself the best Commander in Chief in military affairs evah, even better than Grant, Nixon, Washington, and Eisenhower.
It's almost as if Obama was actually being... HONEST... about his campaign promises?!?!?
But he's a socialist.
And Kenyan Born Muslim.
And he wants to kill Grandma.
Forward!
New Obama slogan or name for Lenin's broadsheet? You decide!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Piston Honda wrote:
Frazzled wrote:I agree. He should call them out just like that. He should then reveal a Super O shirt and proclaim himself the best Commander in Chief in military affairs evah, even better than Grant, Nixon, Washington, and Eisenhower.
Lets do it and see what happens.
During a debate he should just start singing
I'd be ok with that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Clthomps wrote:Slightly off topic, but....
Frazzled are you seriously going to vote for Mitt? He's a richer version of Obama that didn't make his own money....
Says anything to get elected... check
Created mandatory healthcare.... check
weak on social issues..... check
I just don't see how republicans are going stomach voting for him.
I'm not a Republican.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/05/01 13:03:26
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
His working experience he likes to talk about is getting a job at his daddies company.... The job being to buy failing corporations and then to take out loans on their assets, pay his ridiculous salary and then default / drive the company into the ground and claim large tax breaks.
A Please don't work your way around the language filter, it's there for a reason. If you can't use a word then you're better off finding a different way to express yourself. Thanks Reds8n chimp could do that... provided he had a rich family of course.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/05/01 15:51:46
CptJake wrote:As the CinC if it had gone really bad he would have been slammed by the Republicans and everyone else (as Carter was).
If he had decided NOT to send in troops and bombed instead it would have been hard to 'prove' they nailed Usama. Heck, plenty of tin foil hat types still not convinced.
If he had decided to do nothing, and that leaked out he would have been ruined politically.
Personally, I don't see how and US President in the situation would have done nothing, so that one is a throw away option. Between bombing and SOF ends up being the available choices. Frankly a bombing gone bad has about the same fallout out level from the Pakistani Gov't as a raid not getting the right target does. A raid has potential to get a LOT more than a bombing does (as this one did in the intel gathered at the site).
I guess I just don't see it as a hard choice. I give him credit for being politically astute enough to realize that. I am sure as heck glad Usama is dead and that it didn't take a lot of US casualties to make that happen.
CptJake, I think this is the first post you have made in Off Topic that I agree with entirely
Does anyone think that Mitt Romney stands much of a chance in this election? I'm sure the Republicans will be very careful about choosing his running mate this time, after what happened last time with Palin.
Frazzled are you seriously going to vote for Mitt? He's a richer version of Obama that didn't make his own money....
Says anything to get elected... check
Created mandatory healthcare.... check
weak on social issues..... check
I just don't see how republicans are going stomach voting for him.
Yeah me either, I don't particularly like Obama, and I was stateside when he won the election, me and the missus went along to vote and she voted for an independent over Obama, but this time she is putting a cross straight in Obamas box.
I'm not a huge fan, but id rather have almost anyone over Romney.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
Frazzled are you seriously going to vote for Mitt? He's a richer version of Obama that didn't make his own money....
Says anything to get elected... check
Created mandatory healthcare.... check
weak on social issues..... check
I just don't see how republicans are going stomach voting for him.
Yeah me either, I don't particularly like Obama, and I was stateside when he won the election, me and the missus went along to vote and she voted for an independent over Obama, but this time she is putting a cross straight in Obamas box.
I'm not a huge fan, but id rather have almost anyone over Romney.
Yup I voted like your wife, and this year its going to be the anyone but romney vote....
Does anyone think that Mitt Romney stands much of a chance in this election?
There is a chance. I even think it is possible Mitt gets the popular vote and loses. Then republicans and Fox news will make a big stink about it saying we need to reform the system.
Jobs are at the top of everyone's minds.
Romney has portrayed himself as someone who has and can create jobs no matter what history tells us.
Obama has failed to do that. Not that he deserves all the blame, fact of the matter is, Obama is the big guy and can be pointed to easily. No Jobs? President is the problem.
Could be a natural reaction for voters to pick Mitt. People are not patient and it will hurt Obama.
I'm sure the Republicans will be very careful about choosing his running mate this time, after what happened last time with Palin.
You Betcha.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/01 13:23:10
Gallup has ROmney over Obama by the way. Just leaving that here...
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Pacific wrote:anyone think that Mitt Romney stands much of a chance in this election? I'm sure the Republicans will be very careful about choosing his running mate this time, after what happened last time with Palin.
I think it's a very competitive election, as of right now. The election is still politically speaking a lifetime away; and a lot can happen. I think that both of the nominees have a pretty significant enthusiasm gap; and Obama's going to have a really hard time firing up his own base unless the GOP continues inflicting the sort of self-inflicted wounds they have been as of late. But that's a whole other thread; this one is for being outraged - outraged - that Obama had the nerve to take credit for one of his successes.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
His working experience he likes to talk about is getting a job at his daddies company.... The job being to buy failing corporations and then to take out loans on their assets, pay his ridiculous salary and then default / drive the company into the ground and claim large tax breaks.
A See above ! chimp could do that... provided he had a rich family of course.
Wow, you're way off.
First, Romney donated his inheritance to charity.
Second, George Romney worked for American Motors Corporation, then became governor of Michigan. He never worked for Bain & Co. (the precursor to Bain Capital), which was founded in the '70s, after George Romney was governor, Secretary under Nixon, and retired to private life to manage a charity and work for the LDS Church.
Third...well, you just don't understand gak about gak in asset management.
Fourth, way to circumvent the language filter. MODs really appreciate that kind of effort.
I'm not going to vote for Obama because he was raised by Asian immigrants in Oklahoma who taught him conservative American values before he murdered them in cold blood and went on a four-day murder spree through the central planes before finally being run down by the cops. And that explanation makes just as much sense as the one you gave above.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/05/01 15:52:21
Ouze wrote:Obama's going to have a really hard time firing up his own base unless the GOP continues inflicting the sort of self-inflicted wounds they have been as of late.
The republican party is Obama's greatest ally?
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
biccat wrote:I'm not going to vote for Obama because he was raised by Asian immigrants in Oklahoma who taught him conservative American values before he murdered them in cold blood and went on a four-day murder spree through the central planes before finally being run down by the cops. And that explanation makes just as much sense as the one you gave above.
All I'm seeing here are reasons to vote for someone, here. The presidency requires a strong man with iron-hand discipline and I suspect lesser politicians might have a moment of hesitation before filibustering legislation proposed by a spree killer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:The republican party is Obama's greatest ally?
... more like, their own worst enemy, lately. I think members of the GOP have been more successful in damaging the GOP brand over the last, say, 2 months then the DNC has been, generally.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/05/01 14:04:13
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
His working experience he likes to talk about is getting a job at his daddies company.... The job being to buy failing corporations and then to take out loans on their assets, pay his ridiculous salary and then default / drive the company into the ground and claim large tax breaks.
A No, really, don't do this. chimp could do that... provided he had a rich family of course.
Wow, you're way off.
First, Romney donated his inheritance to charity.
Second, George Romney worked for American Motors Corporation, then became governor of Michigan. He never worked for Bain & Co. (the precursor to Bain Capital), which was founded in the '70s, after George Romney was governor, Secretary under Nixon, and retired to private life to manage a charity and work for the LDS Church.
Third...well, you just don't understand gak about gak in asset management.
Fourth, way to circumvent the language filter. MODs really appreciate that kind of effort.
I'm not going to vote for Obama because he was raised by Asian immigrants in Oklahoma who taught him conservative American values before he murdered them in cold blood and went on a four-day murder spree through the central planes before finally being run down by the cops. And that explanation makes just as much sense as the one you gave above.
1. Wait what now? You are arguing that he gave his inheritance away.... you know that's after he revived millions from his parents before they died...
2. As for Brain & co, while george Romney did not work for them you are telling me that the fact that he was the governor had no effect on mitt getting the job... LOL
3. Hmmm intelligent comment there... How about gracing us with your copious knowledge, explain to me how it takes any skill to dismantle businesses?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/01 15:53:29
Clthomps wrote:1. Wait what now? You are arguing that he gave his inheritance away.... you know that's after he revived millions from his parents before they died...
Yup, he gave his inheritance away. At this point you can either dispute it or accept it.
Just to be clear, you're now stepping back from your "his grandfather made all of [Romney's money]" comment?
Clthomps wrote:2. As for Brain & co, while george Romney did not work for them you are telling me that the fact that he was the governor had no effect on mitt getting the job... LOL
You're now stepping back from your claim that Romney "[got] a job at his daddies [sic] company"? I just want to make sure we're on the same page.
This just leaves the claim that his job was "to buy failing corporations and then take out loans on their assets, pay his ridiculous salary, and then default / drive the company into the ground and claim large tax breaks."
Lets split this up into five parts: 1) Bain bought failing corporations; 2) Bain took out loans on their assets; 3) Romney got paid a salary (based on these loans) 4) The company was then driven into the ground; and 5) Bain claimed large tax breaks.
I don't have any interest in disputing 1 or 2. As for #3, Romney was a partner of Bain, his income was based not on a salary, but on his ownership. If Bain did well then Romney did well. #4 is easy to dispute because some of the companies Bain took over are still in business. And Bain made a lot of money selling those companies. As for #5, well, you should understand that taxes are an expense, not profit. Claiming large tax breaks doesn't make you rich, only if you already have money can claiming large tax breaks make you rich(er).
Clthomps wrote:3. Hmmm intelligent comment there... How about gracing us with your copious knowledge, explain to me how it takes any skill to dismantle businesses?
It's actually quite difficult. Do you know how to file bankruptcy? How do you determine which assets are valuable and which assets aren't valuable? Or, how about an easy one, how do you close out a corporation?
I'm curious as to why you didn't address my 4th point.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/01 15:08:37
Clthomps wrote:1. Wait what now? You are arguing that he gave his inheritance away.... you know that's after he revived millions from his parents before they died...
Yup, he gave his inheritance away. At this point you can either dispute it or accept it.
Just to be clear, you're now stepping back from your "his grandfather made all of [Romney's money]" comment?
You need to define terms then, if by inheritance you mean anything after death then yes, but you have to be out of your mind to believe that receiving millions in assets before death to skirt paying taxes on them, had nothing to do with his net worth today.
Clthomps wrote:2. As for Brain & co, while george Romney did not work for them you are telling me that the fact that he was the governor had no effect on mitt getting the job... LOL
You're now stepping back from your claim that Romney "[got] a job at his daddies [sic] company"? I just want to make sure we're on the same page.
biccat wrote:
This just leaves the claim that his job was "to buy failing corporations and then take out loans on their assets, pay his ridiculous salary, and then default / drive the company into the ground and claim large tax breaks."
Lets split this up into five parts:
1) Bain bought failing corporations;
2) Bain took out loans on their assets;
3) Romney got paid a salary (based on these loans)
4) The company was then driven into the ground; and
5) Bain claimed large tax breaks.
I don't have any interest in disputing 1 or 2. As for #3, Romney was a partner of Bain, his income was based not on a salary, but on his ownership. If Bain did well then Romney did well. #4 is easy to dispute because some of the companies Bain took over are still in business. And Bain made a lot of money selling those companies. As for #5, well, you should understand that taxes are an expense, not profit. Claiming large tax breaks doesn't make you rich, only if you already have money can claiming large tax breaks make you rich(er).
Yes I concede that I was wrong on his father officially working for brian & co. Although I still maintain that his fathers political contentions met that he could get a job anywhere in the state he wanted.
The fact that he got paid a salary is a moot point when you consider Bonuses and Stock options given to him during his tenure, one can hardly say his salary made him the fortunes he has today. As for point #4 during his time at the company he sunk more than one thousand businesses, how many are still around? What percent is that? I would wager its less than 5%
Clthomps wrote:3. Hmmm intelligent comment there... How about gracing us with your copious knowledge, explain to me how it takes any skill to dismantle businesses?
biccat wrote:
It's actually quite difficult. Do you know how to file bankruptcy? How do you determine which assets are valuable and which assets aren't valuable? Or, how about an easy one, how do you close out a corporation?
Bankruptcy is easy to file, its a matter of filling out pre-made forms. Determining valuable assets is easy too, banks preform an assessment when you apply for a loan, temporarily jacking up stock prices is easy also, all you need to do is lay off half of the workforce.... Closing our a corporation is as easy as bankruptcy simple pre-made forms. Want to try again?
I'm curious as to why you didn't address my 4th point.
What would I address about it? did you want me to start trolling so you can feel validated?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/01 15:54:47
