Lots of unfair & hyperpartisan stuff being circulated about the Prez and the raid. It is silly to say he should have informed Congress – there is no requirement to do so, and it would have been dangerous. No way Obama informed them prior to Osama raid. And of course the US has to tip off the Russians – it’s standard practice to avoid miscommunications and misperception.
Two stories should dominate the post-raid coverage: (1) How great the operation was – how awesome the intel and tactical pros are – and (2) how terrible Trump's address was.
Just imagine if he had given some version of the speech linked below. He would have had an unambiguous foreign policy success, one that we all could be proud of. Instead he stepped all over it, lying about al-Baghdadi “whimpering and crying.” And I can’t get past when he said that the Kurds are easier to deal with now that they have been beaten down by the Turks. Just gut-wrenching.
Link: Imagine if he gave this speech?
This monster was a huge target. Kudos to all re the execution of the mission.
Nevertheless, as some experts have weighed in, the mission underscores a few things:
1) The importance of intelligence gathering by our intelligence community
2) The importance of maintaining trustworthy relationships with our allies (e.g Kurds) who we rely upon to carry out such missions
3) The importance of vetting missions (pros vs cons; risks v rewards -- short time and long game; ripple effect -- good and bad).
The criticism or concern is that although this mission was a huge success, does Trump understand and appreciate 1-3? Does he understand and appreciate how ISIS crew members incubate?
Moreover, Trump ought not politicize national security, but he clearly did yesterday in morning remarks, and of course with his dealings with Ukraine.
Trump will never unite the nation. Divide divide divide.
Despite the success of this impressive mission, Trump remains a dangerous, corrupt and compromised President, and a piece of shit human being.
The nation needs to move on. Anyone else will suffice.
(no message)
It still is, except Trump and his Manson Family type followers (e.g. you) have unfairly labeled it as corrupt to protect Trump’s legal predicaments.
(no message)
presence in Syria.
(no message)
Pee Pee tape.
Why mentioning Assad regime of Syria? Didn't they fight ISIS too? Who led Aleppo offensive and took the city back from ISIS? By mentioning Assad's Syria is the author wanting to say that Assad's regime caused raising of ISIS or is the author wanting to cause more confusion? Also, mentioning a "multi-ethnic, multi-confessional, international coalition" is purely for propaganda and wishful thinking. Everybody knows nobody worked hard to fight ISIS. Europeans don't, Saudi, Israel, Turkey don't . Only Assad's Syria (with help of Iran & Russia) and Kurds (with help of U.S.) truly fought ISIS. But it's for their own interest. Because ISIS took over their lands, they fought to take back the lost lands.
(no message)
This is the reason why I don't like those wordsmiths.
(no message)
It is not a "neocon thing to say" to point out the regime murdered thousands of its own people. Without that, there would have been no ISIS.
Not sure why you object to that being in there. In the hypothetical speech.
too in Trump's speech.
From 2011 to 2015, regime change is the U.S. policy on Syria. "Assad has to go" was our priority, not fighting the ISIS (we didn't have strategy to fight ISIS during that time). So here my beef. The author claim that "we will support those who fight terror and tyranny, and help those who suffer under its thumb. a new day has not come". This is not Trump's policy. This is neocon's policy, i.e. fight ME trannies and establish democracy in ME. Realistically say, the new day of no tyranny in ME won't come for 20 years, 50 years or even100 years. That means U.S. will get involved with this cause for 20 more, 50 more or even 100 more years. This is neocon's stand, not Trump's.
...that we will do whatever it takes to get rid of him.
The former is fact; the latter is policy. It was never a high priority for Obama - if it was, he'd be gone - and it is not for Trump, and they are both right.
but that would be a bullshit move as well, in a speech after this killing.
I thought this was a minor beef, barely worth mentioning, but your insistence on arguing the point is making me think this is far more important to you than I thought. You would mess up this victory speech as well to make some BS political points. Whatever.
(no message)
Did it finish with a call for democracy in the Middle East?...I don't know, because I stopped reading when it mentioned Assad and the Arab Spring. It started to sound like Bush halfway through.
We killed a religious leader who had declared holy war on our children in the United States. He and his organization are our true enemy, not "oppressive regimes" in general. And, the Arab Spring was not a uniform good for the United States. It removed two allies of ours in Mubarak and Qadaffi, and it started the removal of a secular enemy in Assad, almost replacing him with a much worse religious enemy. All things considered, the Arab Spring was bad for the United States.
But, the beginning of the speech was good, though. Having not heard Trump's speech, I can't compare the two.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
on Election Day as your prophet Rachel Maddow suggested?
(no message)
(no message)
And didn't this fiscal policy almost double the deficit in just a few years?
(no message)
I guess there is some truth to that. You pivot in every thread. I should know that.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Forget the politicians tripping over themselves trying to take credit. Your Special Forces are bloody heroes. Job well done.
(no message)
(no message)
#MAGA hoser.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
bitterness.