quote:

The envious cons say that it was a no brainer decision....anyone would`ve made the same decision....

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper
With that said, Bush II and Ashcroft penned SIGNIFICANT changes to legislature prior to 2001 thought impossible to pass. That became our beloved Patriot Act which Bush shoved down everyone's throat at perril of seeming <ahem> Un-Americana. It fully included assassination of non-military combatants at the pleasure of government agents well below the executive branch.
So why not debate whether the previous President's liquidation of volumes of standing law in favor of the Patriot Act was in fact the 'moral' issue? As opposed to a President lawfully executing his powers to end a huge symbol of fear amongst Americans for the better part of a decade.

quote:

ORIGINAL: angelikaJ

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Whew, it's a good thing that Blitzer wasn't asking any leading questions, wasn't it?
It was a huge decision, there is no doubt. One, I would have also made, in that spot. Hindsight being what it is, though, did we just kill someone who had not been granted a trial? Isn't that a mainstay of our judicial system? And, I'm not saying Obama was any less American for making the choice he made. I already said that I would have made the same decision. I wouldn't believe it if someone said Bush II wouldn't have made the same decision.
How many here would have made the same decision President Obama made?

I am anti-war and anti-death penalty.
My thought has been this: had they taken him alive it would have caused more problems and aggression against the US would have heated up in efforts to bully us into releasing him.
With him dead, he was just another casualty of their war against us.
As a war strategy, it was better that he died.

quote:

You want to oppose me in a Patriot Act debate?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Whew, it's a good thing that Blitzer wasn't asking any leading questions, wasn't it?

It was a huge decision, there is no doubt. One, I would have also made, in that spot. Hindsight being what it is, though, did we just kill someone who had not been granted a trial? Isn't that a mainstay of our judicial system? And, I'm not saying Obama was any less American for making the choice he made. I already said that I would have made the same decision. I wouldn't believe it if someone said Bush II wouldn't have made the same decision.

How many here would have made the same decision President Obama made?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

It was a huge decision, there is no doubt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

OBL died at Tora Bora in DEC 2001. The rest (including Bush, hunting him down in Iraq) is complete fantasy.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Whew, it's a good thing that Blitzer wasn't asking any leading questions, wasn't it?

It was a huge decision, there is no doubt. One, I would have also made, in that spot. Hindsight being what it is, though, did we just kill someone who had not been granted a trial? Isn't that a mainstay of our judicial system? And, I'm not saying Obama was any less American for making the choice he made. I already said that I would have made the same decision. I wouldn't believe it if someone said Bush II wouldn't have made the same decision.

How many here would have made the same decision President Obama made?

Yeah, that decision is bothering me a lot. On the one hand, it violated some of the normal laws of war. On the other hand, it was a helluva lot cheaper and less messy that invading and starting a war, and far less collateral damage. I wish there was another way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

It was a huge decision, there is no doubt. One, I would have also made, in that spot. Hindsight being what it is, though, did we just kill someone who had not been granted a trial?

I agree, it was a HUGE decision, morally, diplomatically, spiritually, and politically (it's been said the same set of opportunities were offered Bush several times and the political cost greatly affected his decision.).
With that said, Bush II and Ashcroft penned SIGNIFICANT changes to legislature prior to 2001 thought impossible to pass. That became our beloved Patriot Act which Bush shoved down everyone's throat at perril of seeming <ahem> Un-Americana. It fully included assassination of non-military combatants at the pleasure of government agents well below the executive branch.

So why not debate whether the previous President's liquidation of volumes of standing law in favor of the Patriot Act was in fact the 'moral' issue? As opposed to a President lawfully executing his powers to end a huge symbol of fear amongst Americans for the better part of a decade.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
By the way the commander of enemy forces is and always has been considered a ligitimate target.

quote:

Defending its decision not to commit forces to the Tora Bora campaign, members of the Bush administration - including the president, the vice president and Gen. Tommy Franks - have continued to insist, as recently as the last presidential campaign, that there was no definitive information that bin Laden was even in Tora Bora in December 2001. "We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora," Franks wrote in an Oct. 19, 2004, Op-Ed article in The New York Times. Intelligence assessments on the Qaeda leader's location varied, Franks continued, and bin Laden was "never within our grasp." It was not until this spring that the Pentagon, after a Freedom of Information Act request, released a document to The Associated Press that says Pentagon investigators believed that bin Laden was at Tora Bora and that he escaped.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/magazine/11TORABORA.html?pagewanted=print

quote:

Tin foil time

quote:

Since there is no AlQida army does this mean that we have to capture each one, merandize them and put them on trial? Of course not. Bin Laden was thier commander and thus a ligitimate target.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
It was a huge decision, there is no doubt.

Yeah, I'm comparing it to Bush's decision to invade Iraq on the basis of flawed intelligence. Aside from the human cost and economic cost, it darn near killed his chances for a second term. And his unpopularity has dogged him since and led to Obama's landslide over McCain.
Had OBL not been there, and it simply been some reclusive millionaire, the Obama would look like a trigger-happy idiot and would have been forced to apologize to Pakistan for violating their sovereignty. The GOP would have labeled him something like "wrong-way Obama" and would have pilloried him for apologizing to the Pakis. Even worse than being soft on terrorism is being dead wrong when attacking. I don't think he'd have a chance of a second term.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Whew, it's a good thing that Blitzer wasn't asking any leading questions, wasn't it?

It was a huge decision, there is no doubt. One, I would have also made, in that spot. Hindsight being what it is, though, did we just kill someone who had not been granted a trial? Isn't that a mainstay of our judicial system? And, I'm not saying Obama was any less American for making the choice he made. I already said that I would have made the same decision. I wouldn't believe it if someone said Bush II wouldn't have made the same decision.

How many here would have made the same decision President Obama made?

As Romney said Mother Teresa would have made that call.