Customer Discussions > Politics forum

Gutsy call? Not at all. Former Attorney general Says Kill-Osama Memo Was "Heavily Lawyered" To Throw All Blame on Admiral McRaven If It Failed.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 76-100 of 140 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 11:13:38 AM PDT
"What you posted was nothing more than your opinion and had no basis on what a so called career officer told you."

Now you are lying.
Here is my original post.

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on May 7, 2012 4:42:08 PM PDT
Last edited by you 18 hours ago
Leonard Fleisig says:
Its all malarkey in any event. Bullspit from people who don't know any better.

I sent the Memo to a friend for his response. He was an Army lifer, West Point, retired with the rank of Major, a combat vet with multiple tours in Asia and the Middle East. He was also a staunch advocate of the Iraq war and is no liberal. Here are his two responses:
1. Nothing about this strikes me as remotely strange. The President made the call, named an operational commander, turned him loose on the problem, and told him to report back if conditions changed significantly.

Not sure how this would be read as gutless or a way out. First, the fact that the memo was made is pretty standard - when decisions are communicated by phone, face-to-face, etc, most significant players will immediately write an MFR to document the fact. Second, if someone is trying to paint this as Obama shifting things to McRaven, they don't understand how the chain works. As reflected in this memo, Obama had already made the tough call. He didn't give McRaven a choice to raid or not to raid - he had already said 'go,' and left the specifics to McRaven. That's sound leadership. The final part is also pretty standard. Say, for example, that a last-minute UAV recon revealed that Kayani had entered the compound. McRaven would have been expected to notify Obama and await a new decision.
2. He then fleshed it out a bit in a post to me on Facebook:

Just saw and responded on the DB. Short answer: Obama made the decision, named an operational commander, gave that commander the freedom to decide the raid's details, and turned him loose with the understanding that if ground truth changed enough to change the Presdident's understanding of the risks, those changes would be reported back to him. Absolutely sound process. The key is that Obama left the "operational" decisions to McRaven; in other words, Obama made the call that the raid would happen - that wasn't up to McRaven - but McRaven was given the freedom to decide which night, at what time of night, with what force, under which rules of engagement, etc - without having to run back to Obama for permission at every step.
In short, every senior commander dreams of having the kind of boss who demands good information, makes a call - then gets the hell out of the way.

The memo itself, by the way, is CYA and par for the course at the same time. It wasn't written by Obama, it was written by someone (Panetta, IIRC) who was documenting Obama's decision. Any senior leader, military or civilian, will write a memo like this when given important instructions orally. It's CYA in the sense that if the guy writing the memo got burned by Obama or his administration later for exceeding his authority, he'd pull the memo out and say "on such and such a date, this member of your administration gave the following instructions." But it's not JUST CYA. It's also serves as a historical record and as a reference, so that, 3 days later, if someone asked the author "what exactly did Donilon say to you?", he'd pull this out instead of searching his memory.

33 minutes ago · Like

Posted on May 8, 2012 11:14:16 AM PDT
If the corporal cares to rebut it he can.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 11:14:23 AM PDT
Eagle Eye says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on May 8, 2012 11:16:31 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 8, 2012 11:27:54 AM PDT
Here's the link to part 1.
http://forums.prosperotechnologies.com/am-custreview/messages?msg=33825.10
From: Leonard Fleisig May-7 5:45 pm
To: Jor[lll] (10 of 16)

33825.10 in reply to 33825.1

Hey, off topic, but pre-season hasn't started.

What do you make of this memo to McRaven? In some very right-winger quarters I'm reading how this was a gutless way-out memo for Obama to cover himself if things went wrong. Does that smell bad, have a ring of truth, or is this kind of standard operating instructions? Thanks

"

MEMO FOR THE RECORD Apr. 29, 2011, 10:35 a.m.

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.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 11:18:10 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 8, 2012 11:25:04 AM PDT
And here is his response:
Jo [vvvvv] May-7 6:56 pm
To: Leonard Fleisig (11 of 16)

33825.11 in reply to 33825.10

Nothing about this strikes me as remotely strange. The President made the call, named an operational commander, turned him loose on the problem, and told him to report back if conditions changed significantly.

Not sure how this would be read as gutless or a way out. First, the fact that the memo was made is pretty standard - when decisions are communicated by phone, face-to-face, etc, most significant players will immediately write an MFR to document the fact. Second, if someone is trying to paint this as Obama shifting things to McRaven, they don't understand how the chain works. As reflected in this memo, Obama had already made the tough call. He didn't give McRaven a choice to raid or not to raid - he had already said 'go,' and left the specifics to McRaven. That's sound leadership. The final part is also pretty standard. Say, for example, that a last-minute UAV recon revealed that Kayani had entered the compound. McRaven would have been expected to notify Obama and await a new decision.


http://forums.prosperotechnologies.com/am-custreview/messages?msg=33825.11

The rest is on Facebook and I sure as hell aren't going to link anyone here to my facebook account.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 11:19:31 AM PDT
"I think he is a dismal failure as a president, but I will give him credit when credit is due."

That's fine if true. But if you read these threads you know what I am talking about.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 11:21:25 AM PDT
Kevin says:
"Talk about tinfoil hats yours in a little tight. "

It is not my reading comprehension. It is your writing. What the heck does that mean?

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 11:22:20 AM PDT
Kevin says:
"If the raid had gone south it would have depended how the Whitehouse spun the story "

You must mean how the wingnuts would spin it.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 11:26:41 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 8, 2012 11:34:38 AM PDT
Kevin says:
"I think he is a dismal failure as a president"

And we think he has accomplished a lot because we are doing so much better than Europe, where austerity measures have created another recession.

In other words, you think he is a failure because he has not done things the right-wing way. We think he is a success because of it. We see the economy recovering steadily, and we have not forgotten the 8 years of Bush.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 11:46:00 AM PDT
Eagle Eye says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 11:48:41 AM PDT
Eagle Eye says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 11:49:49 AM PDT
Eagle Eye says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 11:52:11 AM PDT
Eagle Eye says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on May 8, 2012 11:56:02 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 17, 2012 12:50:43 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 12:03:47 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 8, 2012 12:05:39 PM PDT
"This so called friend "

There you go again. Can't face the facts so you claim the story is made up. Pathetic.

And my friend is a combat vet, a West Point grad and someone whose judgment I trust. So your futile I was a noncom I know what they do in the Pentagon inference is pretty weak.
The point is, in fact moot, but your inability to view anything other than through a terminally myopic prism means you are nothing but a prisoner of your own ideology. Objectivity clearly means nothing to you if it gets in the way of your agenda.

Posted on May 8, 2012 12:06:52 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 17, 2012 12:50:35 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 12:10:20 PM PDT
Kevin says:
"Again you show your ignorance of economics. "

I would accept that from an economist; not you.

"Obama has done more damage to the economy than any other president with the possible exception of Carter."

Repeating the same clueless rhetoric you hear on Fox News does not make you an expert on the economy, nor gives you credibility. And I will not even bother to ask you what the damage is because I know you have no answer.

I just heard that commercial real estate is back on its feel again, too and 2 million of the added jobs have been because of it. The economy has done quite well taking into account the depth and magnitude of the global recession and economic instability.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 12:46:49 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 12:48:51 PM PDT
Leonard Fleisig says:
==============

hey Leonard. I'm not ignoring your reply to me yesterday. I want to give you thoughtful answer and I'm saving it for later - as long as i don't forget. :)

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 12:51:57 PM PDT
And even if I hadn't that does not take away from the fact that adopting the exact opposite posture isn't any better. A very simple point. It works both ways. I thought that was self-evident, but apparently not.
==============================
both parties have too big a tent. There are a lot of things I disagree with the right too.

But, I also don't want the mess of having 6 or however many smaller tents sharing the power.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 12:58:03 PM PDT
No worries KB.
If we don't get back to it here I'm sure there will be other threads!

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 1:08:02 PM PDT
Richard A. Lord, aka Richard Lord says:To the three people who voted NO on that post, let me just say that this proves you to be hopeless ideologues incapable of basic fairness or intellectual honesty. You might find yourself more at home on other forums.

=============================

Leonard is an amazon friend of mine. I don't no vote him. But as far as your statement goes. There is more than enough no voting going around and it overwhelmingly is against the right. There are left wing stalkers here who sit and wait and then no vote people without reading the posts. Some have multiple ID's. You can even watch the voting as if they signed out and then back in with another ID. It is very obvious.

They do it all night long, almost like it is a shift. I have seen no votes overwhelm right side posts, even when no one of is participating in the thread.

I hope your indignation is equally applied.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 1:10:58 PM PDT
DEEZUS says:
note that he didn't mention right or left.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 1:14:54 PM PDT
bperr says:
kinda along MY thoughts too....

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 1:41:26 PM PDT
Rev. Otter says:
<<More likely it would have simple been consider another failed mission, and the public would never know about it.>>

just like the public never, EVER knew about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw

/how often am i gonna have to link to historical precedent?
//obvious facts are obvious

----------------------

you can keep linking to that stupid comparison all you want.

First. You don't know what you don't know. I doubt we know of every mission to catch OBL, much less ones that had failed. We could have failed 10 other locations and you weren't told. They don't even have to tell you it was OBL. They could have said it was a high level AQ guy. Then, the media and the pundits could get paid to speculate if it OBL. Pakistan would have complained. We would grease their palms, and that would be that.

The difference with eagle claw is that Carter was a dove. He was rightly perceived as weak. We didn't have ongoing military operations in the area. Bush had correctly trivialized OBL when he said OBL wasn't is primary issues anymore. At the time eagle claw, the hostages had the spotlight and were one of the most important issues at the time for us. ABC nightline had a story every night.

Carter was seen as impotent and the failed mission only served to reinforce that view. It came so late that it looked like a reelection political decision.

That is far different that having a filed mission to catch OBL when we have already lost more that 2000 soldiers in the same region during ongoing military operations.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  24
Total posts:  140
Initial post:  May 7, 2012
Latest post:  May 9, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions