The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I'm really surprised no one has brought this up but this should get it going. I love Huckabee. I think he does a great of job of dealing with people from both parties. His blog today nailed it. We are kind of screwed in a several ways right now and will have to do something drastic to earn our place in the world. We have been reduced to being too peace loving hippyish to do anything and it will continue to have more of a negative impact to the world because of it.

Mar 05 2014

Russia's Uncontested Arrival

Mike Huckabee

As Russia sent troops into Crimea over the weekend, President Obama warned Russian President Putin that there will be costs. But if Putin shivered, it was probably just because he was going shirtless… Vladimir Putin is making it clear that Obama’s threats won’t deter him at all from cracking down in Ukraine. And why should they? This is an administration that issues warnings but never does anything about them. The red line in Syria, we’re gonna get control of Benghazi, we will not tolerate Iran building nukes. It all means nothing. And Putin knows it. When Obama threatens to “push the button,” it means that silly giant prop button that illustrated how we were going to “reset” our Russian policy to be nicer. You don’t disarm aggressors by smiling at them, especially when you’re toothless. I’m not saying we should intervene militarily, but making empty threats just diminishes our power and standing in the world even further. It’s like the parent who keeps warning, “Don’t make me come up there!,” when the kid knows they’ve never come up there, and they never will.

We’re supposedly the super power, yet Russia is acting like the super power because they know nobody’s going to stop them. Obama already ceded leadership to Putin when he backed down from his “red line” threat in Syria and let Putin swoop in and take control. He did it again when he stood idly by as Egyptians overthrew Mohammed Morsi, convincing Egypt that America was an unreliable ally so they cut an oil deal with Russia.

To be fair, it’s easy to criticize, but harder to suggest what Obama SHOULD do. The problem is that there’s very little he can do, because he’s spent five years creating this situation. It’s one of the great ironies of all time, but one most leaders have understood for millennia: to preserve peace, you must prepare for war. Your potential enemies have to know that you’ll respond to any challenges with an iron fist, not a limp wrist. Instead, all around the world, we’ve abdicated our role as a world leader, made threats we haven’t backed up, allowed chaos to reign without consequence, refused to take sides when citizens risked their lives to stand up to tyrants, and now, we’re issuing vague threats to Russia in the same week that Chuck Hagel is announcing to the whole world that we’re slashing our troops back to pre-World War II levels. It’s no surprise that Putin isn’t intimated by Obama’s threats. The only surprise is why he still bothers to pretend to listen when his agenda is so packed with planning the next invasion.

By the way, from the same administration that gave us such creative new euphemisms as “man-caused disaster” for “terrorist attack” and “kinetic military action” for “war,” comes this great new one. Russian troops aren’t “invading” Ukraine. They’re staging an “uncontested arrival.” It’s sad that comedian George Carlin has died, but at least someone at the State Department is carrying on his life’s work.


http://www.mikehuckabee.com/2014/3/russia-s-uncontested-arrival

Holy shit, a Republican whose life's ambition is to become president is criticizing Obama. Color me shocked...

::)

Let me ask a few questions just to clarify your position.

1 - What is your stance on the role of america in the world ?
2 - What SHOULD we be doing internationally?

"I'm not saying we should intervene militarily" followed by military strength retoric. It isn't hard to see through the thinly veiled disguise of what he is suggesting.

Duh ... thank you for that enlightenment but I kind of thought that was a given. Maybe I should write that out next time just to be clear for those of you who might feel duped.  

It doesn't change what's going on. What did he say that was false? We have turned into a country that threatens and does nothing about it. We are weak in the eyes of the world and that means people do not respect us and will do what they want without fear of repercussion.

Here's a thought. Don't make silly threats your chicken little ass can't cover. Is that too much to ask. Next we can work on the military aspect.

Countries, including North Korea have made us look weak. It will only get worse.

I'm really disappointed in you guys. I though he was pretty clear. You act as if you broke code or something. Maybe I gave you too much credit.

That's funny, because I thought Putin went into Ukraine based on the Bush Doctrine.  You know, the doctrine that says you can invade whatever country you want for no reason at all.

But maybe Huckabee is right and it has more to do with how many troops the U.S. had protecting its embassy in Libya, or which words Obama used in his speeches.  Maybe that carries more weight with Putin than the actual precedent of military invasion that GWB set.

How has North Korea made us look weak?

Launching long range missile and nuclear blasts the US and UN were threatening them not to do. This doesn't even count all of the threats directly towards the US.

If you are referring to the missiles they launched this week. Anyone who feels that makes us look weak as a military or nation has some sort of complex they need to get corrected. As for nuclear testing, they haven't done that in a year but threatened more were coming. Not sure how their lack of doing it anymore is our weakness.

CF, do you expect a bunch of liberals to admit that their hero is weak and unqualified for the position that he begged for? But when in doubt about Obama's weakness and failures, blame Bush. I mean it was ONLY like 5 years ago when he was president, so obviously it's all his fault.

Let's ignore the fact that all the top congressional Democrats voted to invade Iraq. Let's also ignore the fact that top congressional democrats had access to the same intelligence sources as Bush did - US Intelligence, British Intelligence, Israeli Intelligence, U.N. Intelligence. So ignoring those facts, even if it was a mistake for both republicans and democrats voting to invade Iraq. Aren't we supposed to learn from our mistakes? Or is the status quo OK as long as you can say that the prior administration "did it", even though we agreed with him.

So tell me again, what does Bush have to do with our "community organizer in chief" being weak, unqualified, and ineffective at the job he begged for?

I don't think we should intervene militarily in other countries. We should bring our troops home from overseas, station them at every port and airport and on our borders and we should get out of the business of policing the world.

If russia invades the Ukraine  .. that's too bad for the ukranians .. it's a raw deal for them. Maybe they should invest more in their military like we do and secure their borders. Or join with someone that does.

It's too bad .. but my tax dollars can't be expected to fix ukranian independence, nor should they.

Of course it was a given, as is your predictable posting of ridiculous GOP tripe. My response was sarcasm. I'd advise you to look it up, but I heard that the Tea Party had the term removed from their dictionary.

Of course, the reflexive conservative response towards any mentioned of George W. Bush is "there go the liberals blaming Bush again!  get over it already!"

But just like the decision to abandon the search for Bin Laden and the decision to decimate the Clinton surplus, the decision to embark on a war of choice in Iraq with no substantial justification sits firmly at the foot of the Bush Administration.  No matter how many you want to hope people forget about it, it's still an historical fact.

So if we want to talk about where the blame lies, the precedent set when the United States (with a Republican president and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress) chose to invade Iraq with no cause is the smoking gun.  The shrieks of "Benghazi!" and "Fast and Furious!" and "IRS!" from the right are nothing but more smokescreens designed to shift the blame.

The most hilarious excuse of them all is the claim that Obama's decision to allow the Egyptian people to work out their own problems is the culprit.  Talk about a backward interpretation of democracy...

I tend to agree with you on the first part. We can't police the world successfully for much longer before it becomes our downfall.

As for the many countries and citizens of those countries that can't protect themselves from invasion. Maybe they should think about securing the right to arm themselves so that they can protect themselves. Even without the US armed forces, the United States would fare pretty well against a conventional ground invasion. Better than any other country on earth.

And for the record

With the help of the following democrats.

H.J.Res. 114, 107th Congress, A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea

I guess they were all republicans during the vote, hahaha

I'm kind of torn on this particular situation.  On one hand, I agree with the general principle that we shouldn't meddle in other people's affairs.  However, in this case, it's pretty clear that we're in better shape if we have a country that becomes an ally rather than not.

It's good for the US if the Ukraine joins the EU.  It's bad if they buddy up with Russia.   It seems like there is a pretty clear path to victory, too -- prevent Russia from taking over the country and putting in their guy.

So, I am OK with intervention.  It doesn't necessarily have to be military strikes, but you start with sanctions and talking and escalate as needed.  I don't want an all-out war with Russia, of course, but I guess you have to be prepared for that if you get too involved.

It's a tough situation.

I was against the Iraq war at the time (against my own party, which I agree went along for the ride) because it seemed that there was no victory to be had.  What was considered victory?

I support (retroactively) the first Iraq war against Kuwait, because there was victory to be had.  This seem like a similar situation.

I see Fausto's point in not getting involved at all, but that level of isolationism scares me a bit, as one day, I'd like to see the whole world on more or less the same page, for things to be better for all of us.

It sounds like you agree that the Iraq invasion (supported by the Democratic minority) is the relevant precedent here, in which case Obama has nothing to do with it.

Actually, I don't think the whole world will ever be on the same page. Shit, the United States will never be on the same page with itself.

What precedent would that be? This thread has to do with Obama and his lack of foreign relation skills. Bush and the Iraq war have nothing to do with Putin's manhandling of Obama. What happened 11 years ago has no relevance to what is happening now, stick to the topic.

Maybe not, but I think that eventually it's a possibility.  I feel that as we know more about ourselves and people are more educated around the world, that our divides will become less and less.

Now, I don't think everyone will always see eye to eye, but like "the West" is basically on the same page in terms of what is generally socially appropriate (don't behead your neighbor for their differing beliefs).  I think that we can all get there.

Actually they do. Since the pro GOP members here have a short memory, let me remind you of a similar incident. In 2008 Putin invaded Georgia, and Bush did nothing to stop him. In fact there were no real repercussions for Putin and Russia. This led Putin to believe he could do something again in the future...which he has.
Our military is tired, and needs a refitting after over a decade of warfare. The assets, and manpower we wasted in Iraq could have be used as a deterrent to Putin, but they are not available.
Putin knows we are not in a position to react militarily after our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rattling a saber is only good if you have an actual sword to wield.
Putin is a sociopath, no GOP president would have been able to back him down with our current state of affairs...not even the mighty Reagan.

And my friends in Atlanta were pissed.   ;D ;D ;D ;D

Like bsmooth, I too have wondered why all the folks who are so upset about this event had zero problems with Bush allowing the Russians to do the same thing in Georgia.  It's as if the right wing pundits are  deliberately forgetting recent history because it doesn't fit their narrative, and they know the people who eat their garbage up don't care about facts as long as Obama is made to look bad in some way.  

I think many conservatives have a man-crush on Putin.  I'd also be willing to wager that these same folks would rather see Putin succede than their own president, which would speak volumes about where their sympathies really lie...party over country.

You guys can be fruitcakes. No one wants Putin to succeed. And I haven't heard anyone saying Bush handled the situation correctly. The difference is Obama made threats and hasn't followed through several times. Bush said lets talk it out and mediate.

In either case Obama should learn from his mistakes and he doesn't seem to be doing so. I knwo several people who talk about kicking someone ass. They are the ones anyone should fear. That's what Obama seems like to me.

You wouldn't know it from this forum but many Democrats are very concerned with Obama right now. Republicans and Democrats realize the importance to having to deal with this. LEt's not forget who labeled Putin "Hitler". 

Thanks Dave for being able to carry on a discussion.

So if I understand you correctly, the complaint that conservatives have is NOT that a precedent was set (by Bush) of invasion without cause, nor is it that a precedent was set (by Bush) of allowing Russia to invade its neighbors.

No, the problem is that Obama talks too tough because he issues threats that he doesn't follow up.  Oh, and it's also that he doesn't talk tough enough, because he uses euphemisms like "uncontested arrival" instead of "invasion," and "man-caused disaster" instead of "terrorist attack."

This is why it's a waste of time to discuss Obama with most conservatives.  He is both a clueless empty suit and a ruthlessly calculating tyrant, a weasel-wording wimp and a loudmouthed schoolyard bully, a devout Marxist and a corporatist pawn of the health insurance companies.

You can only cry wolf on both sides of the issue so many times.  But maybe we should return to discussing how the insurance mandate is an unconstitutional attack on our freedom, and how Obama should be impeached for delaying it.

Seriously? I don't think you even try any more.

There an issue in the Ukraine and again, democrats put side of this forum get it. Pretending the GOP is evil because they do the same things liberals do (pointing out flaws they  themselves also do) is stupid. It's also why nothing gets done.

Sorry Charlie but even many of the most supportive democrats out there aren't happy with where his presidency has gone in this term. Unless he gets a handle on foreign affairs he will continue to burn out and the next guy/gal with walk into a disaster.

It's already going to be a disaster. What do you want to bet that if the next administration is democrat that they will blame what they "inherited" was still Bush's fault. It's all they got. And why are people still bringing up an in "invasion without cause" by Bush. We've already proven that the war in Iraq was voted on by not only republicans, but also almost all of the top democrats. You people imply that only the republicans wanted to go to Iraq. How convienient, hahaha.

Thankfully, no matter how hard you pray (read: close your eyes and talk to yourself), the "next guy" won't be one of the Tea Party religious Yahoos...

Maybe if we get a "white" Democrat in office this next time, the GOP won't spend 99.999% of their energy and resources trying to gridlock the government and block everything the President does, just so they can say "look how little the President is getting done!!"

You are part of the problem. Your extremist views and non-tolerant attitudes are no different than the extremes to the right. Pretending Fox extremists are any different than MSNBC extremists shows ignorance. Both parties do X and then point out X when the other guys do it. It laughable that your argument is "well the extremist right are crazy so no matter what my guy does it isn't wrong." Ok. Whatever. And drugs and alcohol don't cause any harm. Party on Garth!   

As a solid independent .. i'm of the opinion that while the democrats have a bunch of crazy .. the republicans and the american taliban (tea party) is just way out there .. it's like they don't inhabit the same reality we exist in.

Obama 38% approval rating.  Lowest of all time.  Just sayin'...

Being called non-tolerant by a religious zealot is high comedy...

A couple of things for the record, since you are automatically applying all of your closet list of ills to me, based on a couple of symptoms:

1) I don't think the far left is much better than the far right. If I had my way, we'd all meet in the middle for a group hug.

2) My first three elections, I voted Republican. I have never in my life voted for a Democratic presidential candidate.

3) I have taken an active part in only one presidential campaign, for H. Ross Perot in 1992, and that was solely because of his fiscally conservative deficit reduction plans.


Amen (or the non-religious equivalent) to that...

The issue is certainly not the toughness of Obama's speeches.

You're not even reading, because I didn't accuse the GOP of being hypocrites (that would be an unspectacular accusation of a politician).

I criticized conservatives for attacking Obama from BOTH sides of the issue.  In your own posts, you cite Mike Huckabee, who criticizes Obama for talking too tough (making threats that are not followed on) while simultaneously criticizing Obama for not talking tough enough (using phrasing that is insufficiently aggressive).

Much like the oft-cited "a majority of Americans are unhappy with the ACA" statistic, if you think Democrats are unhappy with Obama's presidency for the same reasons you are, you're sadly mistaken... and addressing your complaints would only make them MORE unhappy.

Ended the Iraq War.
Eliminated Bin Laden.
Didn't get thousands more troops killed "spreading democracy" in the Middle East, instead (mostly) choosing to let countries handle their own affairs.

If he ends the war in Afghanistan before his term is up, he will have undone nearly all the foreign policy blunders of his predecessor.  Not a bad haul in my eyes.

No, I imply that the Bush Administration invented the rationale for the Iraq War and Congress went along with it, because they were unaware that the administration was incompetent and/or lying.

Do you mean his "lowest of all time"?  Because GWB's second-term average (not his lowest point, his average) was 37%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx

Sorry, forgot a word.  Yes, his lowest of all time.  Hey, George sucked too, and he has company.  Arguing against is like the Browns saying, "At least we're not the Jags!"  Both suck.

Bill Clinton's low was 37%, even lower than Obama's now.
GHWB's was 29%.
Reagan's was 35%.
Carter's was 28%.
etc.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ratings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx

If 38% is the lowest Obama ever hits, I'd say that's a pretty good job.

Spin it any way you want, he has about the same approval rating as Bush in 5 years...like I said, they both suck.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/166964/obama-averages-job-approval-year-five.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/166964/obama-averages-job-approval-year-five.aspx)

Probably the most truthful thing I heard about this all day came from Don Imus's radio show.

Obama probably got out maneuvered by Putin again in the grand scheme of things, but by the same token, there isn't a whole hell of a lot Obama or anyone else for that matter can do about it. 

Also I'd like to take this opportunity to cyber-slap the living shit out of John McCain for that speech he made on the Senate floor the other day.  The last thing I want is to see the US military getting involved in this particular conflict.

The statement he released yesterday can be read here http://www.politicususa.com/2014/03/01/john-mccain-push-united-states-full-scale-war-russia.html (The article is an editorial and the writer's bias is a bit obvious). 

I'm one of the first people to jump on Obama's back when he screws up.  So when he does something right or is in a situation where his hands are pretty much tied, like when he whacked Bin Laden or like now, I have an obligation to point that out too.

Given that year 5 was a relative high-point in GWB's second-term, I guess we'll just have to disagree.

Maybe if Obama craters the economy in year 8, we can talk.

Russia and North Korea are not countries anyone can threaten.  Their leaders are bat shit crazy.  The financial markets were punishing Russia a bit the other day, that's probably the best way to deter Putin.

Actually almost every conservative pundit and meme on the internet is bashing Obama for letting Putin do this and not stopping him. SO again the question is, what did Bush do? He did not stop Putin, and he certainly did nothing that made Putin fear this kind of action in the future.
I have seen numerous meme's by my friends who are very conservative, and the meme's show Obama asking Bush what to do, and they talk like you and pondwater about how weak Obama is. So my question to you is this.
What did Bush do any differently to Putin, than Obama is? I am asking you because Pondwater is a troll who has ignored my posting of the fact Bush allowed Putin to invade Georgia and annex territory.

I think I can answer that one:

So it seems to me that conservatives are saying one of the following:

a) Obama should have made more efforts to talk this out, like Bush did
or
b) Obama should have done something different from what he did; what particular thing he should have done is anyone's guess, but it should have been something other than what he did

First of all, if you want to call each other names, we can do that. Although I don't think that Dave would appreciate me putting you in your place. So act accordingly like an adult or kindly STFU.

Now that that's out of the way. No one has ignored your silly comparison. The fact of the matter is that Bush didn't handle the situation correctly and was also just as weak with Russia, maybe even weaker. However, you seem to think shit that happened 5-6 years ago has damn thing to do with what is happening NOW. It doesn't. A lot of things Bush did were fucked up. Does that mean that it's OK for Obama to so that same things? Fuck no it doesn't. If Joe robs a bank, is it OK for me to rob a bank? Fuck no. Since Andy killed his wife, is it OK for you to kill your wife? Of course not. See, that's what's wrong with you people. You're so caught up with justifying EVERYTHING the idiot does. When Obama fails, fucks up, or makes a mistake. All you have is to say it's Bush's fault. Or, Bush did it, so why can't Obama do it? We're supposed to be making progress. Or don't you remember those bullshit campaign slogans - hope, change, and forward. If you can't realize that Bush and Obama are two fucktards that are more suited to managing an Office Depot than running this country, then you sir are a blind homer of the highest order.

So no, no one is ignoring your irrelevant posts about Bush. The fact is that Bush is an idiot and has NOTHING to do with this discussion. He makes no decisions and hasn't for 5 years. Too bad that just because the current POTUS is a black, he can do no wrong and doesn't have to answer for anything because it would be racist. Yeah right, GTFOH with that shit, give me a fucking break.

pondwater, I have a question:  Since Bush's actions were clearly wrong (as you say), why did conservatives not say so at the time?

Because this seems like more of the standard "we don't like whatever Obama does, even if it's the same thing we praised our guy for doing" (see: Obamneycare).

Bush made his share of mistakes, just like all they all do. So I guess it depends on which you are referring to. However, contrary to what the liberals or democrats say. A previous president making a mistake doesn't justify a current or future president from the same mistake. It's actually worse in that case, no matter how you want to spin it.

I am referring to his actions during Russia's "uncontested arrival" in Georgia.

That's not even what we're saying.  What we are saying is that when Bush was doing it, conservatives insisted that it was a GOOD decision.  This is a very common theme with Obama.

To expound upon my other example, conservatives presented a private-insurance-based healthcare-for-all system (with mandatory individual participation) back in the '90s as the alternative to Hillarycare, and cheered wildly when Romney passed it in Massachusetts, but the moment Obama proposed it, it was The Death Of Liberty In America.

When you oppose your own ideas just because Obama supports them, it makes it hard to take your criticism seriously.  This is why the conservative response to Russia's invasion of Georgia matters; if they were fine with Bush's response (when it happened) but denounce Obama's response, they're basically just saying "We hate whatever Obama does" and should rightly be ignored.

I would be willing to bet what is said behind the scenes and what is said publiclly directly correlates which party did it. I find it hard to believe that either party is thrilled when "their" guy does the same things as the "other" guy who they were publicly bashing.

The main thing I am aware of is how Obama makes threats and doesn't follow up. I don't remember anyone else doing that  ... not that it would matter if they did. You can't expected to be taken seriously when you lay out a red line that someone can't cross (Syria) and do nothing about it.  How is Putin to know he is serious this time ... by his tone or the fact he is counting to three?

So are you saying that conservatives were not happy to see Romneycare passed, but just acted like they were?  In that case, you're basically saying that cross-party criticism should be ignored, because privately they may actually be happy with it.

Bin Laden disagrees.

North Korea tested their first nuclear weapon in 2006 and confirmed that they had nuclear weapons in 2007.  That seems like another "red line" to me.

Cross party criticisms many times should be ignored and especially if its something they were against 4 years earlier.  Individuals should look at each situation through objective eyes and not just adhere to playing the role of a lemming who has already made up  their mind... or argues just to argue.

The Bin Laden reference is stupid. No one ever gave up looking for him.

Did George Bush tell or insinuate to N Korea if they did this it would be crossing the "red line" and then later try to redefine who's red line it was? I missed that so maybe you can show me but in either case it doesn't change where we are today. I'm concerned for tomorrow not where we were last week.

Where would the creation of this thread fall on that scale?

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

Emphasis added:

Q    Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden.  Why is that?  Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive?  Final part  --  deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of  --

THE PRESIDENT:  Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all.  Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time.  And the idea of focusing on one person is --  really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person.  And he's just  --  he's a person who's now been marginalized.  His network, his host government has been destroyed.  He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match.  He is  --  as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide  --  if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is.  You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.  I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan.  There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly.  We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy.  We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Q    But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him.  And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure.  And, again, I don't know where he is.  I  --  I'll repeat what I said.  I truly am not that concerned about him.  I know he is on the run.  I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country.  I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

---

Not sure what else you want.  GWB abandoned Bin Laden to set his sights on Iraq.

Does the answer to that question even matter?  Well...

...obviously not, so why even ask?

I honestly don't get that Bush quit searching for him from what you have provided. Maybe if I was looking to trap him I could but no way am I swayed by that any more than I think Obama turned up the heat to find him. I applaud Obama for giving the go ahead but he was just lucky to have been president when "our military" got the break in finding him.

I'm not sure how much clearer it can get than "I don't know where he is...  I truly am not that concerned about him."  If you don't know where someone is and you aren't concerned with finding him, how else can it be described but you quit searching?

I can't say I'm surprised that you think Obama was "lucky" that the military made it a priority to get Bin Laden under his watch, as if his personal order was not directly responsible for it.

Bush has 7 years to find Bin Laden and 6 months in, declares that he is not a concern.  Bin Laden remains at large for Bush's entire presidency.
Obama declares Bin Laden a priority in the 2008 presidential debates (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/may/01/obama-vowed-kill-osama-bin-laden/), and two years after taking office, Bin Laden is taken out.
This is not "luck."  It is prioritization.

I hate to break it to you but neither Bush nor Obama did one thing in finding him. Bush didn't do once single thing to help our military and neither did Obama. Regardless of whatever was going on they were in nice comfy beds somewhere.

Bush could come across as a bumbling idiot but I'm pretty sure it was him trying to divert attention off he fact we hadn't caught him. Now Like I said before about talking out both sides of the mouths ... the same democrats who claim they caught him were trying to bash the fact we were even still fighting under Bush. A lot of BS on both sides

So if the commander-in-chief isn't actually responsible for the actions of the military, what is the point of this thread, again?  If Obama is not responsible for the actions of the military under his command, then how is he responsible for any actions that Congress does or does not take?  Whatever it takes to deny credit to Obama, I suppose.

I would love to see you cite any instance of elected federal Democrats opposing the war in Afghanistan prior to Bin Laden's elimination.

Oh you finally stopped ignoring it. Yes what Bush and the West failed to do in 2008 has repercussions down the road. Putin was not punished for his transgressions against Georgia. So five+ years later he does it again. Yet somehow it is worse under Obama than Bush?
So the actions, or lack of actions, by the previous administration(s) can come back to haunt down the road. No one has stood up to Putin prior to the Crimean escapade, and it has come back to bite us in the ass. The fact your failure to realize that actions undertaken, or failed to be undertaken by countries and their leaders can have effects years down the road speaks volumes to your lack of history, politics, and foreign relations.
Bush's and Europe's failure to shut Putin down in 2008 over Georgia is a direct causation to his decision to go into Crimea without fear of a western reprisal...especially with the lack of any casualties.