• gansoblanco,
    Don't put words in my mouth! Your statement is a lie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But then you knew that when you said it. So I guess that makes you a LIER, doesn't it?

    May 8, 2011 at 11:06 a.m.

  • For whatever reason, I am so glad Obama was able to enforce justice and have a bullet put into the head of this terrorist. I am so glad he did not resort to the extreme measures that include torture such as waterboarding. On this one item, I would agree with his decision but I am a little confused as to why he would believe he is the judge and jury, and executioner, when he would open investigation into past incidences of what he considers torture concerning other terrorists. I guess in the next administration, instead of tending to the needs of an ailing nation, we will open investigations into why a president would resort to ordering the putting of a bullet into the head of an unarmed man.

    It seems for one step forward, we seem to want to take a few backward. Like our own accomplishments are ok by whatever means, but those of a past administration are criminal. Even if they were part of the plan that made the current one successful.

    May 8, 2011 at 8:36 a.m.

  • A lot of folks like Reader have been confused by the President's new role as a fighter of Islamic was much easier for them when they thought he was an Islamic terrorist.

    Thank you Stephen Colbert.

    May 8, 2011 at 6:31 a.m.

  • Will,
    I will give Obama some credit: he hasn't lied to the American public about his affair with a White House intern yet like Clinton did. He also didn't lose his law license because he committed perjury like Clinton did. He also hasn't been impeached like Clinton was.

    Now that we have both commented on FORMER Presidents, can we restrain ourselves to the present? I still maintain that the release of this operations' results was a political maneuver to increase his popularity. Neither Eisenhower nor Kennedy would have done this. You make your own pick on the ones in between. One of Obama's main failings has been his inability to get past the campaign stage and onto the Presidential stage. That's my comment and I'm sticking to it.

    May 7, 2011 at 4:52 p.m.

  • Reeder, I guess acting Presidential is to blame the CIA for the Iraqi war like Bush did.

    Being Presidential is Lying about a DWI to the FBI like Bush did.

    Being presidential is giving no-bid contracts to your vice president's company and not accounting for it.

    Presidential like Bankrupting several companies then our country is more appropriate.

    Being more Presidential like flying in the backseat of a fighter jet claiming "Mission Accomplished" while wearing a uniform of our armed services that he disgraced by not serving his assigned missions in the reserve.

    May 7, 2011 at 12:28 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    May 6, 2011 at 11:19 p.m.

  • It was important to let al Qaeda and other terrorist know that that their revered leader was brought to justice by the United States, much in the way the previous administration have... The only difference was that the Bush administration showed pictures of Saddam Hussein's sons,Uday and Qusay slain bodies and a picture of the leader of Al qaida in Iraq,Abu Musab al-Zarqawi...Saddam Hussein's sons or killed on July 22,2003.... Could that have been for presidential politics? I never thought so.

    Can politics enter into decisions of war? Evidently, president Bush wrote in his book that Mitch McConnell urged the president to "bring some troops home from Iraq" to help prevent the party from taking a beating in the 2006 mid-term elections...BTW President Bush didn't and we know how the 2006 election went.

    May 6, 2011 at 2:09 p.m.

  • There are those sceptics to which everything is political but in every administration there will be some confusion when it comes to public relations. I chose not to compare blunders of the previous administration but I was trying to make a point that semantics are not all that important.

    This mission had to be publicized because it could never be kept under wraps... The wife and others in that compound would've told their story to the world.And did.... The United States couldn't keep the fact that Pakistan had scrambled their jets to intercept our helicopters on the way out . It's best that we controlled the story but it wasn't necessary to fabricate. Throughout the years the military has been known to lie,i.e.Pat Tillman, Jessica Lange,Vietnam,Laos etc. But this is not a situation that warranted that.

    It's a very reason that I didn't mention president Obama in the part about at a nonbinding resolution. He doesn't need any more accolades because the world, the military, his administration, and others have given him credit for a job well done. All the partisan rhetoric will not take that away...As for presidential politics; if last night's GOP debate was any indication of the competition; I'm going to place my bets in Vegas on Obama but I won't make much because the odds are very heavily in his favor..:-)

    May 6, 2011 at 1:42 p.m.

  • In my opinion, this entire operation should have remained "black." We should never have disclosed our involvement in a military action inside a foreign country; an involvement which constitutes an act of war. The disclosure was a political statement by Obama whose approval ratings had been plummeting for several months. By making this "black operation" a public event, Obama has exposed himself for the candidate for presidency (not the President) that he is. Your title is appropriate for a confused President who doesn't know how to act presidential. The correct response to this action would have been to deny any U.S. involvement.

    May 6, 2011 at 1:22 p.m.