Kathianne
08-25-2012, 12:13 AM
I read, a lot. WSJ near daily. I missed this on WSJ or at least forgot about it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303916904577374552546308474.html
April 30, 2012, 7:43 p.m. ET
<!-- ID: SB10001424052702303916904577374552546308474 --> <!-- TYPE: Commentary (U.S.) --> <!-- DISPLAY-NAME: Opinion --> <!-- PUBLICATION: The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition --> <!-- DATE: 2012-04-30 19:43 --> <!-- COPYRIGHT: Dow Jones & Company, Inc. --> <!-- ORIGINAL-ID: --> <!-- article start --> <!-- CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=R/NME CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=R/US CODE=DJII-REGION SYMBOL=namz CODE=DJII-REGION SYMBOL=usa CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=ncat CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=nedc CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=nfact CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=nfcpex CODE=STATISTIC SYMBOL=FREE CODE=STATISTIC SYMBOL=PRMN CODE=STATISTIC SYMBOL=PRMN-E CODE=SUBJECT SYMBOL=OPIN --> 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.
...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...
...
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." ...
He spoke about it all, here:
http://youtu.be/y9eqDmTkTwE
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303916904577374552546308474.html
April 30, 2012, 7:43 p.m. ET
<!-- ID: SB10001424052702303916904577374552546308474 --> <!-- TYPE: Commentary (U.S.) --> <!-- DISPLAY-NAME: Opinion --> <!-- PUBLICATION: The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition --> <!-- DATE: 2012-04-30 19:43 --> <!-- COPYRIGHT: Dow Jones & Company, Inc. --> <!-- ORIGINAL-ID: --> <!-- article start --> <!-- CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=R/NME CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=R/US CODE=DJII-REGION SYMBOL=namz CODE=DJII-REGION SYMBOL=usa CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=ncat CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=nedc CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=nfact CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=nfcpex CODE=STATISTIC SYMBOL=FREE CODE=STATISTIC SYMBOL=PRMN CODE=STATISTIC SYMBOL=PRMN-E CODE=SUBJECT SYMBOL=OPIN --> 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.
...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...
...
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." ...
He spoke about it all, here:
http://youtu.be/y9eqDmTkTwE