Will the Libya Crisis Help Obama or Romney?

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Just want to let you know I checked and Bin Laden is still dead.

...and Bush is still more responsible for killing him than Barrack Obama.  I guess I'm missing how getting a phone call on a golf course and saying "yea go ahead and kill the #1 sworn enemy of this country" is an "achievement" or deserving of merit, but than I remember that Bill Clinton and Joe Biden wouldn't say "yes I authorize" for some incomprehensible reason.  So, BO had the ability to say "yes" when 95% of the country would/could do the same thing.  WOW, does he dress himself too?     

There was only a 45% or so chance he was there. The President had to make a decision regarding whether to send American troops into a sovereign middle eastern state for an enemy we weren't even sure was there. You'd all blame him for him as a failure if Bin Laden hadn't been there, so why not give him credit for making the tough decision that proved correct?

It wasn't a tough decision, There was more than a 45% chance ( some reports vary), We have had people in Pakistan for decades now, I wouldn't blame a failed military operation on the president if he didn't do anything wrong/unreasonable (some might, but that's kind of irrelevant).  I'm GIVING HIM CREDIT for saying "yes I authorize", which is all he did.  Bush did far more work and Obama campaigned on reversing the Bush policies that were critical to making it happen.  I also give Obama credit for violating his stupid campaign promises, but I hold him accountable for lying.  You got about 1 out of 6 right :-)          

President Bush, god bless 'em, said in 2003 that he had no idea where bin laden was and that he didn't worry about him. Bush shut down the CIA team that was working to find him. One of Obama's first commands in office was to get any intelligence on the whereabouts of Bin Laden. He didn't lie either. In fact, back in 2007 he said that if Bin Laden was hiding in another sovereign state, like Pakistan, he would authorize going in and getting him. And he was relentlessly attacked on it by then Senators Clinton and McCain.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Just want to let you know I checked and Bin Laden is still dead.

...and Bush is still more responsible for killing him than Barrack Obama.  I guess I'm missing how getting a phone call on a golf course and saying "yea go ahead and kill the #1 sworn enemy of this country" is an "achievement" or deserving of merit, but than I remember that Bill Clinton and Joe Biden wouldn't say "yes I authorize" for some incomprehensible reason.  So, BO had the ability to say "yes" when 95% of the country would/could do the same thing.  WOW, does he dress himself too?     

There was only a 45% or so chance he was there. The President had to make a decision regarding whether to send American troops into a sovereign middle eastern state for an enemy we weren't even sure was there. You'd all blame him for him as a failure if Bin Laden hadn't been there, so why not give him credit for making the tough decision that proved correct?

It wasn't a tough decision, There was more than a 45% chance ( some reports vary), We have had people in Pakistan for decades now, I wouldn't blame a failed military operation on the president if he didn't do anything wrong/unreasonable (some might, but that's kind of irrelevant).  I'm GIVING HIM CREDIT for saying "yes I authorize", which is all he did.  Bush did far more work and Obama campaigned on reversing the Bush policies that were critical to making it happen.  I also give Obama credit for violating his stupid campaign promises, but I hold him accountable for lying.  You got about 1 out of 6 right :-)          

President Bush, god bless 'em, said in 2003 that he had no idea where bin laden was and that he didn't worry about him. Bush shut down the CIA team that was working to find him. One of Obama's first commands in office was to get any intelligence on the whereabouts of Bin Laden. He didn't lie either. In fact, back in 2007 he said that if Bin Laden was hiding in another sovereign state, like Pakistan, he would authorize going in and getting him. And he was relentlessly attacked on it by then Senators Clinton and McCain.

Quoted for truth.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It wasn't a tough decision, There was more than a 45% chance ( some reports vary), We have had people in Pakistan for decades now, I wouldn't blame a failed military operation on the president if he didn't do anything wrong/unreasonable (some might, but that's kind of irrelevant).    

Bullcrap.  If Operation Eagle Claw had worked, then Jimmy Carter would have been reelected.  The decision to go after Bin Laden was definitely a tough one on many levels, one of which was political.  If Bin Laden hadn't been there, or worse, was there but got away, then Obama would have thrown away any chance of being reelected. Whereas, if it had been decided to not go on the mission, the election right now would be much the same as it is now.  Romney might be marginally closer, but not significantly so.

If nothing else, it is an example of Obama being willing to do what his gut told him was the right thing to do instead of being willing to do what his gut told him was the right thing to do politically, which seems to be Romney's MO.  That's why Obama is winning this election right now.  More people prefer Obama's guts to Romney's.

I disagree that it would be a huge political liability.  I mean, look at Bill Clinton's popularity and he missed/messed up getting Bin Laden at least 2 or 3 times.  Bush/US military 'could' have got Bin Laden at Torra Borra supposedly and he was reelected.  The fact that you lead with "taking a minor political risk in order to authorize a necessary military operation" as some major accomplishment basically confirms my point(s).    

Until 9/11 Bin Laden was just a minor nuisance as far most people were concerned, so Clinton's failure there was of course not going to have much effect politically.

You think sending an armed force into Pakistan and having it not only not get Bin Laden, but also take casualties in the process wouldn't have been a major political and diplomatic liability?  Your assessment of the risk assumes that everything will go right, much as Cheney and Rumsfeld did with Iraq and Afghanistan. If things had gone wrong, as they well could have, not only would Obama have had no chance of being reelected, he would have had problems getting renominated.  It also would have seriously hurt the reputation of the US as a whole and the US military in particular. It was not a minor political risk and frankly whether it was a necessary military operation is debatable as well.  To the degree it was necessary it was purely because of the symbolism involved and nothing to do with the actual military operations in Afghanistan.

[Politico]

Nobody wants to see images of the flag being burnt without a strong response that puts an end to such displays.

Speak for yourself.  I don't buy into neocon fantasies that attacking a Muslim country picked at random out of a hat is going to stop this kind of behavior.  If you read the paper the latest reports pretty much are ruling out some sort of spontaneous grass roots demostration.  This was the same Al Queda attack we've been experiencing for years despite killing hundreds of thousands of Muslims.

Just so you know, Obama is the first president since Carter to have an embassy overrun with its ambassador assassinated in the process. Had the president stood strong with Israel, perhaps none of this would have happened.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just want to let you know I checked and Bin Laden is still dead.
[/quote]

The 21st Century is driven by "What have you done for me lately?" Furthermore, there has been plenty in the news lately to show that the Obama Administration largely continued the policy set forth by Gates and the CIA with regards to nailing Bin laden. Yes, it is an achievement, but it's not like Obama personally came up with the polio scheme or managed the Navy SEALs.

[Politico]

It wasn't a tough decision, There was more than a 45% chance ( some reports vary), We have had people in Pakistan for decades now, I wouldn't blame a failed military operation on the president if he didn't do anything wrong/unreasonable (some might, but that's kind of irrelevant).    

Bullcrap.  If Operation Eagle Claw had worked, then Jimmy Carter would have been reelected.  The decision to go after Bin Laden was definitely a tough one on many levels, one of which was political.  If Bin Laden hadn't been there, or worse, was there but got away, then Obama would have thrown away any chance of being reelected.

Rubbish. We probably never would have heard about it, and even if we did May 2011 - November 2012 is an eternity in politics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People are simply buying into the "Romney is a Monster" meme. It has nothing to do with guts or competence. Besides, Romney's competence and guts made him worth hundreds of millions of dollars (not everybody can achieve these results or everybody would); Obama's tongue (and little else save for perhaps the color of his skin, the other reason he defeated Hillary Clinton) got him elected president.

It's rather pathetic that Osama being killed on Obama's watch is one of the few good things anybody on here can say about Obama's tenure (oh, and some of you being able to stay on your parents' health insurance until you're well into adulthood).

Obama: Nice guy, but he's in over his head. It's time to let him go...

[J. J.]

Just want to let you know I checked and Bin Laden is still dead.

But AL-Qaeda lives.

Politico and Jfern actually have it right.  Libya itself is different from the rest of Islamic world.  Libya, singularly is a slight plus for Obama.  The rest of it is a twofold problem.

1.  It makes Obama look like he lost control of foreign policy.  That criticism is unfair, but that doesn't change the perception.

2.  It harkens back to how Obama hasn't changed the world and further frustrates expectations. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It wasn't a tough decision, There was more than a 45% chance ( some reports vary), We have had people in Pakistan for decades now, I wouldn't blame a failed military operation on the president if he didn't do anything wrong/unreasonable (some might, but that's kind of irrelevant).    

Bullcrap.  If Operation Eagle Claw had worked, then Jimmy Carter would have been reelected.  The decision to go after Bin Laden was definitely a tough one on many levels, one of which was political.  If Bin Laden hadn't been there, or worse, was there but got away, then Obama would have thrown away any chance of being reelected.

Rubbish. We probably never would have heard about it, and even if we did May 2011 - November 2012 is an eternity in politics.

Possibly if Obama had decided not to go it would have never been heard about, but if Obama gave the go ahead and the mission went wrong, it most certainly would have been heard about it, and we'd have a least a few Republican yahoos talking about impeaching the President for invading Pakistan in a failed mission that cost US lives.  Plus the diplomatic fallout could easily have been far worse.  Suppose instead of Bin Laden, the compound held the family of a retired Pakistani general who had an Arab wife or two?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People are simply buying into the "Romney is a Monster" meme. It has nothing to do with guts or competence. Besides, Romney's competence and guts made him worth hundreds of millions of dollars (not everybody can achieve these results or everybody would); Obama's tongue (and little else save for perhaps the color of his skin, the other reason he defeated Hillary Clinton) got him elected president.

Thing is there is precious little evidence that business acumen is correlated with making good government policy decisions.

Andrew Johnson was a very successful tailor before entering politics, but he hardy was a good president.

Hoover was without a doubt the president who had the most extensive business experience and yet proved a disaster.

Truman was an utter failure at business, but a reasonably competent president.

George W. Bush did reasonably well in the oil business, and was an average president.

George H.W. Bush did okay in oil and baseball businesses, but was hardly a stellar businessman.  Overall, he ended up a lower than average president.  Both Bushes got significant support in their business careers from the political careers of their fathers. (Significantly more than Mitt got from his father.)

Now maybe Mitt would prove to be the exception to the general rule, but so far good businessmen have generally been worse than average as president.

[J. J.]

Thing is there is precious little evidence that business acumen is correlated with making good government policy decisions.

Andrew Johnson was a very successful tailor before entering politics, but he hardy was a good president.

Hoover was without a doubt the president who had the most extensive business experience and yet proved a disaster.

Truman was an utter failure at business, but a reasonably competent president.

George W. Bush did reasonably well in the oil business, and was an average president.

George H.W. Bush did okay in oil and baseball businesses, but was hardly a stellar businessman.  Overall, he ended up a lower than average president.  Both Bushes got significant support in their business careers from the political careers of their fathers. (Significantly more than Mitt got from his father.)

Now maybe Mitt would prove to be the exception to the general rule, but so far good businessmen have generally been worse than average as president.

Ernest, I think that by the same token, you can look at past administrative experience.

FDR, a successful government administrator as Assistant Secretary of the Navy and a governor.

Truman, successfully ran a county, and a government commission investigating war spending.

Eisenhower, successfully managed Allied forces in Europe in WWII and NATO; president of Columbia University.

Reagan, while SAG might not have been a major administrative post, Governor of CA was.

GHW Bush, ran a federal agency, and his own oil business.

Clinton, long term governor of a state.

GW Bush, managed a midsized business and was a governor.

Romney, successfully managed a business and was a governor.

Obama, well... .

One that failed was Jimmy Carter.  One that was a success was JFK. 

[Zioneer]

Just want to let you know I checked and Bin Laden is still dead.

But AL-Qaeda lives.

Politico and Jfern actually have it right.  Libya itself is different from the rest of Islamic world.  Libya, singularly is a slight plus for Obama.  The rest of it is a twofold problem.

1.  It makes Obama look like he lost control of foreign policy.  That criticism is unfair, but that doesn't change the perception.

2.  It harkens back to how Obama hasn't changed the world and further frustrates expectations. 

Actually, I'd argue that Tunisia is a success as well, and I think Obama quickly backed the protesters there. The jury is still out on Egypt (a probable negative), and Syria (a mess in which no side is right).

[J. J.]

Just want to let you know I checked and Bin Laden is still dead.

But AL-Qaeda lives.

Politico and Jfern actually have it right.  Libya itself is different from the rest of Islamic world.  Libya, singularly is a slight plus for Obama.  The rest of it is a twofold problem.

1.  It makes Obama look like he lost control of foreign policy.  That criticism is unfair, but that doesn't change the perception.

2.  It harkens back to how Obama hasn't changed the world and further frustrates expectations. 

Actually, I'd argue that Tunisia is a success as well, and I think Obama quickly backed the protesters there. The jury is still out on Egypt (a probable negative), and Syria (a mess in which no side is right).

Possibly, but the coverage is scant.  I'm relatively friendly to Obama on foreign/military policy.  He has made some mistakes over the last week, and the perceptions are worse than the reality.

[Politico]

It wasn't a tough decision, There was more than a 45% chance ( some reports vary), We have had people in Pakistan for decades now, I wouldn't blame a failed military operation on the president if he didn't do anything wrong/unreasonable (some might, but that's kind of irrelevant).    

Bullcrap.  If Operation Eagle Claw had worked, then Jimmy Carter would have been reelected.  The decision to go after Bin Laden was definitely a tough one on many levels, one of which was political.  If Bin Laden hadn't been there, or worse, was there but got away, then Obama would have thrown away any chance of being reelected.

Rubbish. We probably never would have heard about it, and even if we did May 2011 - November 2012 is an eternity in politics.

Possibly if Obama had decided not to go it would have never been heard about, but if Obama gave the go ahead and the mission went wrong, it most certainly would have been heard about it, and we'd have a least a few Republican yahoos talking about impeaching the President for invading Pakistan in a failed mission that cost US lives.  Plus the diplomatic fallout could easily have been far worse.  Suppose instead of Bin Laden, the compound held the family of a retired Pakistani general who had an Arab wife or two?

Do you really believe the administration did not have a contingency plan in place to explain away the events had things took a turn for the worse, or had Bin Laden not been there? That's just political spin. I mean, no administration since Carter has been THAT incompetent. Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and David Petreaus are brilliant patriots who never would have allowed this operation to turn into Operation Eagle Claw 2011 regardless of what happened. Obama and Co. were fully aware of this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no evidence that having a slick tongue and a knack for campaigning is all it takes to be a good president (e.g., Obama and his record). You want to talk about correlation and causality, Romney has nothing to do with previous presidents who had business experience. Furthermore, Romney's stint as Governor of Massachusetts was every bit as successful as anything Bill Clinton did as Governor of Arkansas, for example. Romney is to competence what Obama is to rhetoric. This will be abundantly clear after we win the debates and blanket the airwaves in October.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ernest, I think that by the same token, you can look at past administrative experience.

J.J., all Presidents have had some previous administrative experience prior to being in office.  Granted, Obama's is among the lightest of any of them (president of the Harvard Law Review for a year), but you can find examples of both incompetence and competence among both presidents with minimal and maximal levels of prior administrative experience.  However, Romney's particular claim is that it is his business experience in particular, not his administrative experience in general makes him better suited to be our president, and based on the record so far, that hasn't been the case historically.  Admittedly, it's a very small subsample.  Certainly too small to make the case that business experience is a detriment to being a good president, but we'd need multiple businesspeople be good presidents without any bad presidents before the same even begins to look like it would be a wash.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Romney is to competence what Obama is to rhetoric. This will be abundantly clear after we win the debates and blanket the airwaves in October.

Does not compute.  If Romney is to competence what Obama is to rhetoric and Romney will win the debates, then logically you are saying Obama is more competent than Romney.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

It wasn't a tough decision, There was more than a 45% chance ( some reports vary), We have had people in Pakistan for decades now, I wouldn't blame a failed military operation on the president if he didn't do anything wrong/unreasonable (some might, but that's kind of irrelevant).    

Bullcrap.  If Operation Eagle Claw had worked, then Jimmy Carter would have been reelected.  The decision to go after Bin Laden was definitely a tough one on many levels, one of which was political.  If Bin Laden hadn't been there, or worse, was there but got away, then Obama would have thrown away any chance of being reelected.

Rubbish. We probably never would have heard about it, and even if we did May 2011 - November 2012 is an eternity in politics.

Possibly if Obama had decided not to go it would have never been heard about, but if Obama gave the go ahead and the mission went wrong, it most certainly would have been heard about it, and we'd have a least a few Republican yahoos talking about impeaching the President for invading Pakistan in a failed mission that cost US lives.  Plus the diplomatic fallout could easily have been far worse.  Suppose instead of Bin Laden, the compound held the family of a retired Pakistani general who had an Arab wife or two?

Do you really believe the administration did not have a contingency plan in place to explain away the events had things took a turn for the worse, or had Bin Laden not been there? That's just political spin. I mean, no administration since Carter has been THAT incompetent. Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and David Petreaus are brilliant patriots who never would have allowed this operation to turn into Operation Eagle Claw 2011 regardless of what happened. Obama and Co. were fully aware of this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no evidence that having a slick tongue and a knack for campaigning is all it takes to be a good president (e.g., Obama and his record). You want to talk about correlation and causality, Romney has nothing to do with previous presidents who had business experience. Furthermore, Romney's stint as Governor of Massachusetts was every bit as successful as anything Bill Clinton did as Governor of Arkansas, for example. Romney is to competence what Obama is to rhetoric. This will be abundantly clear after we win the debates and blanket the airwaves in October.

So you're saying that Romney's 4 years as Governor of Massachussetts, one of which he was barely in-state, we're just as successfully as Clinton's 12. Romney's only accomplishment was ObamaCare 1.0, and hes not even running on it. Clinton fully embraced his record as Arkansas Governor.

[Politico]

It wasn't a tough decision, There was more than a 45% chance ( some reports vary), We have had people in Pakistan for decades now, I wouldn't blame a failed military operation on the president if he didn't do anything wrong/unreasonable (some might, but that's kind of irrelevant).    

Bullcrap.  If Operation Eagle Claw had worked, then Jimmy Carter would have been reelected.  The decision to go after Bin Laden was definitely a tough one on many levels, one of which was political.  If Bin Laden hadn't been there, or worse, was there but got away, then Obama would have thrown away any chance of being reelected.

Rubbish. We probably never would have heard about it, and even if we did May 2011 - November 2012 is an eternity in politics.

Possibly if Obama had decided not to go it would have never been heard about, but if Obama gave the go ahead and the mission went wrong, it most certainly would have been heard about it, and we'd have a least a few Republican yahoos talking about impeaching the President for invading Pakistan in a failed mission that cost US lives.  Plus the diplomatic fallout could easily have been far worse.  Suppose instead of Bin Laden, the compound held the family of a retired Pakistani general who had an Arab wife or two?

Do you really believe the administration did not have a contingency plan in place to explain away the events had things took a turn for the worse, or had Bin Laden not been there? That's just political spin. I mean, no administration since Carter has been THAT incompetent. Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and David Petreaus are brilliant patriots who never would have allowed this operation to turn into Operation Eagle Claw 2011 regardless of what happened. Obama and Co. were fully aware of this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no evidence that having a slick tongue and a knack for campaigning is all it takes to be a good president (e.g., Obama and his record). You want to talk about correlation and causality, Romney has nothing to do with previous presidents who had business experience. Furthermore, Romney's stint as Governor of Massachusetts was every bit as successful as anything Bill Clinton did as Governor of Arkansas, for example. Romney is to competence what Obama is to rhetoric. This will be abundantly clear after we win the debates and blanket the airwaves in October.

So you're saying that Romney's 4 years as Governor of Massachussetts, one of which he was barely in-state, we're just as successfully as Clinton's 12. Romney's only accomplishment was ObamaCare 1.0, and hes not even running on it. Clinton fully embraced his record as Arkansas Governor.

I respect Clinton, but there is nothing in his record as Governor of Arkansas that is particularly noteworthy. Arkansas has always been poor, and still is. Clinton probably did the best job one could, but the same is true of Romney with regards to Massachusetts.

[Politico]

Romney is to competence what Obama is to rhetoric. This will be abundantly clear after we win the debates and blanket the airwaves in October.

Does not compute.  If Romney is to competence what Obama is to rhetoric and Romney will win the debates, then logically you are saying Obama is more competent than Romney.

I was hoping somebody would say this

To clarify, Obama is a great speaker, but even the best debater in the world could not adequately defend this abysmal record. It's going to be a laugh riot seeing Romney tear it all apart, replicating what he did to Gingrich right before Florida, leaving an insulated and out-of-touch Obama (and mainstream media) totally flabbergasted.

Romney is a man on a mission. He is the political version of Rambo, and nothing can or will stop him from becoming the 45th President of the United States of America. For those who cannot read between the lines: the expectations game is being played brilliantly in preparation for the debates.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

To clarify, Obama is a great speaker, but even the best debater in the world could not adequately defend this abysmal record. It's going to be a laugh riot seeing Romney tear it all apart, replicating what he did to Gingrich right before Florida, leaving an insulated and out-of-touch Obama (and mainstream media) totally flabbergasted.

Romney is a man on a mission. He is the political version of Rambo, and nothing can or will stop him from becoming the 45th President of the United States of America. For those who cannot read between the lines: the expectations game is being played brilliantly in preparation for the debates.

Gingrich did poorly in the Florida debate not because of Romney's brilliance but because the ground rules of that debate was a terrible match for Gingrich's confrontational style.  It also helped that Romney was able to overwhelm the other candidates in Florida with ads.

Other than domestic policy will be the subject of the crucial first debate, I don't see the ground rules as being advantageous to Romney.  Romney will not be able to overwhelm the spending to anywhere near the level he did in the primaries and there are precious few persuadable voters in any of the swing states by now.  Romney has let himself be defined and it looks like he will be paying dearly for it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Clinton probably did the best job one could, but the same is true of Romney with regards to Massachusetts.

The difference, of course, is that Clinton, while Governor of Arkansas, spent time in Arkansas, exhibited a reasonable familiarity with the culture of Arkansas, and actually devoted significantly more than two and a half to three years of his political career to pretending to specifically care about Arkansas. That, and he didn't try to balance budgets by charging people for being blind.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Clinton probably did the best job one could, but the same is true of Romney with regards to Massachusetts.

The difference, of course, is that Clinton, while Governor of Arkansas, spent time in Arkansas, exhibited a reasonable familiarity with the culture of Arkansas, and actually devoted significantly more than two and a half to three years of his political career to pretending to specifically care about Arkansas. That, and he didn't try to balance budgets by charging people for being blind.

It's worth noting that Clinton was Governor for ten years. Romney, on the other hand, served one term, spent half of this time prepearing to run for President. 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Clinton probably did the best job one could, but the same is true of Romney with regards to Massachusetts.

The difference, of course, is that Clinton, while Governor of Arkansas, spent time in Arkansas, exhibited a reasonable familiarity with the culture of Arkansas, and actually devoted significantly more than two and a half to three years of his political career to pretending to specifically care about Arkansas. That, and he didn't try to balance budgets by charging people for being blind.

It's worth noting that Clinton was Governor for ten years. Romney, on the other hand, served one term, spent half of this time prepearing to run for President. 

Exactly. More than two and a half to three years pretending to care.

[Politico]

I love when otherwise reasonable posters on the left somehow manage to out-hack me.

Romney obviously spent his four years as Governor of Massachusetts committed to the job every bit as much as Clinton was committed to his job as Governor of Arkansas. Only at the very end of his tenure did he start running for president, and he did not make it official until after he left Beacon Hill. And let's not pretend that Clinton did not have presidential aspirations long before he became Governor of Arkansas. It's in the DNA of these guys to want this job.

[J. J.]

J.J., all Presidents have had some previous administrative experience prior to being in office.  Granted, Obama's is among the lightest of any of them (president of the Harvard Law Review for a year), but you can find examples of both incompetence and competence among both presidents with minimal and maximal levels of prior administrative experience.  However, Romney's particular claim is that it is his business experience in particular, not his administrative experience in general makes him better suited to be our president, and based on the record so far, that hasn't been the case historically.  Admittedly, it's a very small subsample.  Certainly too small to make the case that business experience is a detriment to being a good president, but we'd need multiple businesspeople be good presidents without any bad presidents before the same even begins to look like it would be a wash.

Ernest, look however who didn't put on this list, JFK, Johnson, Nixon and Ford.  Of those three, I would only cite JFK as being a good president.

Also with Romney, we have his heading up the Winter Olympics.

I probably would not vote for a president with administrative experience solely in the private sector, but I like public/private combination.

[AmericanNation]

It wasn't a tough decision, There was more than a 45% chance ( some reports vary), We have had people in Pakistan for decades now, I wouldn't blame a failed military operation on the president if he didn't do anything wrong/unreasonable (some might, but that's kind of irrelevant).    

Bullcrap.  If Operation Eagle Claw had worked, then Jimmy Carter would have been reelected.  The decision to go after Bin Laden was definitely a tough one on many levels, one of which was political.  If Bin Laden hadn't been there, or worse, was there but got away, then Obama would have thrown away any chance of being reelected.

Rubbish. We probably never would have heard about it, and even if we did May 2011 - November 2012 is an eternity in politics.

Possibly if Obama had decided not to go it would have never been heard about, but if Obama gave the go ahead and the mission went wrong, it most certainly would have been heard about it, and we'd have a least a few Republican yahoos talking about impeaching the President for invading Pakistan in a failed mission that cost US lives.  Plus the diplomatic fallout could easily have been far worse.  Suppose instead of Bin Laden, the compound held the family of a retired Pakistani general who had an Arab wife or two?

Do you really believe the administration did not have a contingency plan in place to explain away the events had things took a turn for the worse, or had Bin Laden not been there? That's just political spin. I mean, no administration since Carter has been THAT incompetent. Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and David Petreaus are brilliant patriots who never would have allowed this operation to turn into Operation Eagle Claw 2011 regardless of what happened. Obama and Co. were fully aware of this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no evidence that having a slick tongue and a knack for campaigning is all it takes to be a good president (e.g., Obama and his record). You want to talk about correlation and causality, Romney has nothing to do with previous presidents who had business experience. Furthermore, Romney's stint as Governor of Massachusetts was every bit as successful as anything Bill Clinton did as Governor of Arkansas, for example. Romney is to competence what Obama is to rhetoric. This will be abundantly clear after we win the debates and blanket the airwaves in October.

..they also drafted a memo blaming everything on the military commander (can't remember if it was a general or an admiral) if something went wrong.  They had a fall guy in place.   

[AmericanNation]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9slquoIuPC8 no spin, all facts, documented, verified, witnessed, simple cold hard truth.  I would say I told you so, but I feel bad about it more than if I didn't know it was coming. It's like premonition guilt.

Niall Ferguson is not a valid source.

WOW, that's like saying "there is no such thing as a valid source." 

Plus, this is an example (different than a source) of virtually every non leftist/non Obama loving person in the world predicting exactly what would happen as a result of BO's (lack of a) foreign policy throughout the entire timeline of events.  I know this one of my fields of expertise, but get your head out of the sand.   

[Link]

I love when otherwise reasonable posters on the left somehow manage to out-hack me.

Romney obviously spent his four years as Governor of Massachusetts committed to the job every bit as much as Clinton was committed to his job as Governor of Arkansas. Only at the very end of his tenure did he start running for president, and he did not make it official until after he left Beacon Hill. And let's not pretend that Clinton did not have presidential aspirations long before he became Governor of Arkansas. It's in the DNA of these guys to want this job.

You obviously have never been to MA or spoken to people from there.  Clinton was Governor and involved in Arkansas politics way more than Romney ever was in MA.  Clinton may have had presidential aspiration but he didn't just do a half term as governor and then set off for the campaign trail.  And who cares when they make it official.  Making it official is the forthright thing to do.  Romney just put up a facade and then went to start constructing his White House run.  How can someone with the monikor Politico not know this?

I probably would not vote for a president with administrative experience solely in the private sector, but I like public/private combination.

That's a lie.  If there was a successful Fortune 500 CEO who had a solid two term senatorial career and he was the Republican nominee for president this board would be filled with your hack strawman posts attacking anyone that dared to question them.  Please.  Give us a break.

Romney is a man on a mission. He is the political version of Rambo, and nothing can or will stop him from becoming the 45th President of the United States of America.

You need to take a break.