Osama bin Laden Killed

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Actually I don't think the word's safe so long as there is a single violent fanatic of any sort out there.

Or so long as there is a single thug out there.

Or so long as there is a single fatal human disease out there.

Or so long as there is a single man-eating animal out there.

Or so long as there is a possibility of a single natural disaster out there (like an earthquake, hurricane, tidal wave, drought, forest fire, etc.)

Or so long as someone or something has the propensity to kill us.

Now for the big problem.

How can we scapegoat all that stuff? After all, we're only the victims...

Woe is us!

Woe is us!

Woe, woe, is us!

Michael

(btw - I remember a time from the good old days when there was no hatred in the world, when young men helped old ladies cross the streets, when the forces of nature always unfolded tame and nurturing to mankind, when nobody ever got sick, when the wild animals would take a treat out of a child's hand, and when milk and honey flowed abundantly from the trees.

Then THEY came along and spoiled it all for everyone. If only we could get rid of THEM, we could get it all back. )

[Richard Wiig]

You're right, Ba'al. We'll never be safe as long as there's a single Jihadi Out There. So the obvious solution is to make up a list of every single Jihadi in the entire world.

The obvious solution is to destroy their faith in Allah.

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

. . . it drew the US, the Great Satan, into the bear trap;

2) 46,000 casualties later we are trapped;

end quote

I think our troops are due a rest. A person in civilian attire, but possibly a marine (he looked like your stereotypical marine, infantryman) was interviewed outside Camp Pendleton just after it was announced that Osama was killed.

His very first thought was that it was time to bring our guys home. That thought spoke volumes. More than anything, that caused me to not be so gung ho about Osama's death, and put a bit more thought into what the US should do next.

It has been a long, hot war. And we could "return fire" with fewer lost American lives, but possibly more collateral damage. I would trust a President Paul Ryan or any Tea Party worthy President to do the right thing but I am not so sure about Obama or Daddy Ron Paul, who seems to disregard what happened to us on 911.

Greybird, who won't sign his name wrote:

. . . all to keep up this Crusade.

End quote

No comment.

Semper fi,

Peter Taylor

Edited May 4, 2011 by Peter Taylor

[PDS]

President Obama should be quite pleased with himself, and it appears he is, upon a close reading of the remarks he made on May 2, this past Sunday. It is unfortunate that, in an otherwise pretty strong speech, he felt the need to insert that oft-repeated First Person Singular he is so fond of, especially in the speech's important middle narrative.

This might be quibbling, or perhaps even an unfair comparison, but Lincoln managed at Gettysburg to capture the meaning of the Civil War, and the meaning of those sacrificed on behalf of the Union, in the most critical battle of that war, without once referring to himself. There is no mention in the Gettysburg Address of Lincoln's decision to replace Meade with Fighting Joe Hooker, just days before the battle was joined, for instance. "I" or "me" or "my" will not be found in that Address, and that is one reason, among many others, why Lincoln's Gettysburg Address (which was not the main speech of cemetery's dedication, by the way) became "The Gettysburg Address." Similarly, Lincoln did not feel the need to remind anybody of his monitoring of the details of the battlefield, etc.

Nobody can reasonably have expected a "Gettysburg Address" out of the President on Sunday night, but he could have approached having given a Great Speech more so if he had merely kept himself out of it.

Edited May 4, 2011 by PDS

[Brant Gaede]

President Obama should be quite pleased with himself, and it appears he is, upon a close reading of the remarks he made on May 2, this past Sunday. It is unfortunate that, in an otherwise pretty strong speech, he felt the need to insert that oft-repeated First Person Singular he is so fond of, especially in the speech's important middle narrative.

This might be quibbling, or perhaps even an unfair comparison, but Lincoln managed at Gettysburg to capture the meaning of the Civil War, and the meaning of those sacrificed on behalf of the Union, in the most critical battle of that war, without once referring to himself. There is no mention in the Gettysburg Address of Lincoln's decision to replace Meade with Fighting Joe Hooker, just days before the battle was joined, for instance. "I" or "me" or "my" will not be found in that Address, and that is one reason, among many others, why Lincoln's Gettysburg Address (which was not the main speech of cemetery's dedication, by the way) became "The Gettysburg Address." Similarly, Lincoln did not feel the need to remind anybody of his monitoring of the details of the battlefield, etc.

Nobody can reasonably have expected a "Gettysburg Address" out of the President on Sunday night, but he could have approached having given a Great Speech more so if he had merely kept himself out of it.

Very interesting. Lincoln was a genius with language, but, as you've indicated, it ran deeper. If we can say Obama is shallower, maybe it follows he'll do less damage to the public weal.

--Brant

Edited May 4, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[anthony]

Nobody can reasonably have expected a "Gettysburg Address" out of the President on Sunday night, but he could have approached having given a Great Speech more so if he had merely kept himself out of it.

PDS,

I heard it was an excellent speech, delivered with his usual aplomb. You can't blame him for getting in a plug, can you?

Well, actually, yes, you can.

I must be missing something, but it's my supposition that no President could have backed down from the OBL assassination.

Surely, the policy and details were decided way back, beginning with GWB, right down to taking him alive, or not, his burial, or not, and so on - even the speech.

So, I ask you, why is Obama being given so much credit?

Tony

[PDS]

Nobody can reasonably have expected a "Gettysburg Address" out of the President on Sunday night, but he could have approached having given a Great Speech more so if he had merely kept himself out of it.

PDS,

I heard it was an excellent speech, delivered with his usual aplomb. You can't blame him for getting in a plug, can you?

Well, actually, yes, you can.

I must be missing something, but it's my supposition that no President could have backed down from the OBL assassination.

Surely, the policy and details were decided way back, beginning with GWB, right down to taking him alive, or not, his burial, or not, and so on - even the speech.

So, I ask you, why is Obama being given so much credit?

Tony

Tony: the President deserves the credit. It may be one few difficult decisions he has thus far made in his presidency. For instance, it would have been much easier for him to have ordered a drone attack, but he made, in my opinion, a more difficult decision because it was far more fraught with risk. Kudos to him. The man has more balls than I gave him credit for, quite frankly.

My quibble is purely with the odd tic that occupies most of his public utterances: i.e., his very hard to conceal self-regard. Normally, this is not a bad thing, if actually earned. Think of Hank Reardon in his prime. But this really doesn't make for a Great Speech. Not in these parts. Obama may have a chance to make about 4-6 Great Speeches on his watch: 2 Inaugurals, and 2-3 others in reaction to huge developments, and maybe a State of the Union address or two.

This was a huge development, and he marred the speech with too many references to himself; he would have better served to let others make the connection between himself and events on their own.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

David (PDS),

The mark of a determined leader is one who talks a lot about himself.

The mark of a truly powerful leader is one who does not do that, but instead lets everybody else talk about him--and they do.

That's real power and it's lasting.

Michael

[Greybird]

[...] Greybird, who won't sign his name, wrote: "... all to keep up this Crusade." No comment.

Semper fi,

Peter Taylor

Please stop it. I signed up at this site with "Greybird" because I'd been using it all over the Net for years. I don't want to have MSK change it, not with over 700 posts having been made here under that name.

My name is displayed here, here, and here. I'm not hiding it. I'm damned tired of this insinuation that I'm hiding it, or that I don't stand behind what I write.

As for your "Semper fi," it appears you actually do want a Crusade. Fine. Do it on your own time and your own resources, if any private outfit of mercenaries or gang of Mob hit men (not a government outfit of same, like the Marines or Navy Seals) will have you.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Greybird

[Peter]

Greybird pooped on my windshield:

As for your "Semper fi," methinks you actually do want a Crusade. Fine. Do it on your own time and your own resources, if any private outfit of mercenaries or hit men (not a government outfit of same, like the Marines or Navy Seals) will have you.

End quote

I was part of a government outfit.

Ninth Doctor wrote:

To start undoing the Patriot Act and even to end the foreign wars there would need to be a decisive event, like the surrender of Japan ending WWII. Bin Laden's death is about as close as we're going to get to such an event. So, the point that nothing will change as a result of his death, well, we shall see. I think the event needs to be capitalized on, and unplanned public celebrations are part of making that happen.

End quote

Wise words, Doc. It's as close as we are going to get when fighting a shadow enemy.

Your other quip about ethnocide was a bit Doctor Strangelovean. How about changing that to something more General George Pattonesque like, kill the sorry bastards who would kill us? I was wondering how the troops in Afghanistan will celebrate? Is it an opportunity for another victory?

I envision a decent Oliver stone movie coming out of this.

Our soldiers appeared to be drunken revelers at US firebase Alpha, after the death of Osama. The celebration draws an attack from the Taliban after our troops "supposedly" go to sleep it off. Of course it would be a trap, because the sentries would be very alert.

The scene could be made a bit Strangelovean when our psy-ops guys blare out over loudspeakers, just before our troops begin the extermination of the infiltrators:

Please allow me to introduce myself

I'm a man of wealth and taste

I've been around for a long, long year

Stole many a man's soul and faith

Pleased to meet you

Hope you guess my name

But what's puzzling you

Is the nature of my game

I rode a tank

Held a general's rank

When the blitzkrieg raged

And the bodies stank <BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break">

Pleased to meet you

Hope you guess my name, oh yeah

Ah, what's puzzling you

Is the nature of my game, ah yeah

Woo Who (whoo whoo)

Woo Who (whoo whoo)

Woo (whoo whoo) alright (whoo whoo)

Oscars go to Oliver Stone for best director and to the Rolling Stones for best soundtrack. Best actor goes to (fill in the blank) for his flashback portrayal of a zombie looking, dead ding-dong, Osama bin Laden.

Sorry. I guess I am still celebrating.

Peter Taylor

Edited May 4, 2011 by Peter Taylor

[Brant Gaede]

As far as I can guess, Peter thinks he's a movie.

--Brant

movie-star, yeah

[Martin Radwin]

You're right, Ba'al. We'll never be safe as long as there's a single Jihadi Out There. So the obvious solution is to make up a list of every single Jihadi in the entire world.

The obvious solution is to destroy their faith in Allah.

You mean you didn't like my idea about the international assasination squads? Or even, presumably, my idea about nuking all of those jihadi dogs and cats? I must say, I'm shocked and more than a little disappointed. I thought you would think that these were just swell ideas.

But since, instead, your solution is to destroy their faith in Allah, I guess I should ask just how exactly you propose that we accomplish this feat? There are about 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, most of whom presumably have a certain degree of faith in Allah. So, how are we to go about destroying all of that faith? I eagerly await your solution to this vexing problem. And it had better be at least as good as my idea of nuking all of those jihadi dogs and cats.

Martin

[9thdoctor]

Your other quip about ethnocide was a bit Doctor Strangelovean. How about changing that to something more General George Pattonesque like, kill the sorry bastards who would kill us? I was wondering how the troops in Afghanistan will celebrate? Is it an opportunity for another victory?

I went to all the trouble of formatting it as a quote, yet you attribute the statement to me?

[9thdoctor]

The obvious solution is to destroy their faith in Allah.

But since, instead, your solution is to destroy their faith in Allah, I guess I should ask just how exactly you propose that we accomplish this feat?

I bet Richard Dawkins could do it single handed. Look how he achieved the submission of no less an irrationalist than Mr. Garrison.

[George H. Smith]

The obvious solution is to destroy their faith in Allah.

But since, instead, your solution is to destroy their faith in Allah, I guess I should ask just how exactly you propose that we accomplish this feat?

I bet Richard Dawkins could do it single handed. Look how he achieved the submission of no less an irrationalist than Mr. Garrison.

I could never figure out why Parker and Stone picked Dawkins as a target to ridicule. They certainly agree with his views on religion, and he isn't obnoxious like their typical targets, such as Rosie O'Donnell and Rob Reiner.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

I could never figure out why Parker and Stone picked Dawkins as a target to ridicule. They certainly agree with his views on religion, and he isn't obnoxious like their typical targets, such as Rosie O'Donnell and Rob Reiner.

I lot of people do think he’s obnoxious, and his accent makes him come across as very snooty. Besides, they couldn’t very well pick on David Hume or Friederich Nietzsche.

[Selene]

LOL Nice Nietzsche.ND:

It seems that President O'bama, and his administration, have the unique ability to fuck up almost anything positive, even this successful killing of Osama Bin Laden.

Instead of controlling one line of information about the "raid," his staff has allowed different versions of the event to emerge.

First, he was armed and used a wife as a shield... oops, well no, he was not armed and he did not use anyone as a shield;

Second, he "resisted" being captured...well, not so much, because the Seal protocols would have had them subdue him and capture him.

Third, it is now a serious possibility that his own security team executed him as per their protocols to prevent him being captured and elevating him into martyrdom.

Fourth, it is now a known certainty that we have stealth helicopters. Pieces of that helicopter have, apparently, been gathered up by Pakistani "security forces" and are on their way to China for analysis.

Fifth, sadly, with this botched and blended story, our Seals have been exposed to a murder charge. If he was not armed and he did not effectively resist, they have to subdue and remove him.

Finally, what would possess the administration to announce that they had collected hard drives, dvd's, thumb drives, two (2) secret phone numbers, etc.? Absolute stupidity to tip off the network as to specifics.

One simple story with no detail was all that should have been put out by the administration. All questions should be met with no comment at this time.

Meanwhile, back at the Eric Holder "justice department," he and his minions are busy with their continuing investigation of the CIA and military folks who secured the information that led directly to this celebrated kill of Bin Laden!

Dissonance, stupidity and contradiction seems to be the word of the day from this administration.

Adam

How the hell did we get this Peter Principle President!

[Selene]

Reuters released graphic photos of several of the dead lying in pools of blood here.

CAUTION: GRAPHIC, GORY AND BLOODY

You have been notified .

[william.scherk]

I could never figure out why Parker and Stone picked Dawkins as a target to ridicule. They certainly agree with his views on religion, and he isn't obnoxious like their typical targets, such as Rosie O'Donnell and Rob Reiner.

I am not a regular watcher of South Park, so I too was initially puzzled that they would satirize Dawkins, so searched up some online clips of the two episodes (Go God and Go God II) in which his character appeared. I suspected before having a gander that the creators were acquainted with the mostly boring (and quite revealing) fisticuffs between the so-called New Atheists and the so-called Accomodationists, and that they found this fairly ridiculous - schisms in Atheism?

I have huge respect for Dawkins' work over the years, and tend to be on his side of the phony 'schism,' meaning I find his stance that science and religion are incompatible to be more or less correct (contra Stephen Gould's boring and erudite Non-Overlapping Magisteria). At the same time, I really enjoyed the satire of Dawkins and the future warring atheist cliques.

-- as it turns out, the obsessives at Wikipedia have searched out what looks like the genesis of the idea: indeed, the creators of South Park do not call themselves atheists . . . and had a bit of a ruckus with Penn Gillette over the distinction. Here's the link and an excerpt that if true tells us something about Matt Stone and Trey Parker:

Trey Parker and Matt Stone briefly describe one part of the inspiration for "Go God Go" in their director commentaries for the Season 10 DVD. During an appearance by the pair on TV's Nightline, an interviewer had asked, "May I assume you two are atheists, since you make fun of religious beliefs so often?" Surprised by the question, Parker and Stone emphatically said that they did not consider themselves to be atheists—leading to a phone call shortly thereafter from their friend Penn Jillette, an outspoken advocate for atheism who had seen the interview and was evidently disappointed to learn that the two were not "on the Atheist team."

Their subsequent conversations with Jillette about atheism and related topics (e.g., the difference between "atheism" and "agnosticism") gave rise to the idea of satirizing the "militant" or "evangelical" atheism as represented in the episode by Dawkins and Garrison.

-- I also found the text of a Dawkins response to a question on South Park:

I have repeatedly been asked what I think of South Park and of Ted Haggard’s downfall. I won’t say much about either. Schadenfreude is not an appealing emotion so, on Haggard, I’ll say only that if it wasn’t for people of his religious persuasion, people of his sexual persuasion would be free to do what they like without shame and without fear of exposure. I share neither his religious nor his sexual persuasion (that’s an understatement), and I’m buggered if I like being portrayed as a cartoon character buggering a bald transvestite. I wouldn’t have minded so much if only it had been in the service of some serious point, but if there was a serious point in there I couldn’t discern it. And then there’s the matter of the accent they gave me. Now, if only I could be offered a cameo role in The Simpsons, I could show that actor how to do a real British accent.

____________________

Boring postscript -- as for 'annoying accents,' I have sympathy for the man from Huntsville, as I have sympathy for the woman from Dundee and folks from upper Ottawa Valley, Come-by-Chance, Beauce, Witwatersrand, Puna, Delhi, Oxford and the San Fernando Valley. There are so many people who just get it their language wrong, doncha think?

My favourite English accent is the educated Indian English, with a runner-up in standard Oxford 'Recieved Pronunciation' -- that of Dawkins.

My favourite French accent is the educated Quebec City accent, a lovely, precise and archaic blend of Canadian sounds and metropolitan diction.

-- further boredom: I feel a pang of nostalgia for Ted Keer's linguistic disquisitions, his lordly knowledge of such things as the alveolar fricative and the glottal stop. I always felt both informed and accosted when he rang those bells.

One final extremely boring and instructive note. In the video below (from 2008) some more evidence that Canuckistanis are not like Murkins. These are some snippets from the French Debate amongst party leaders, three anglophones and two francophones. Those who listen to the various accents will realize that not only do these people speak a strange and unsettling version of French, they all use the now-standard Canadian accent; those who wonder why on earth we bother to have such debates during Federal elections will understand that above all are political calculations. Votes are votes, and the pols with learn the crazy language to get some.

Edited May 5, 2011 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

Why would the Seals kill Bin Laden if they could capture him for interrogation and he would be killed later? There are chemical ways, not torture, to make him tell everything he knows about what he had been up to and with whom for what. All that captured intelligence, so why not capture him too? If the IRS can torture Americans and the FBI get the goods on almost anyone and destroy their lives even without indictment and trial, a U.S. or allied intelligence service can avail themselves of anything imaginable. Even the President doesn't have to know. (Could it be he had a cyanide capsule?)

--Brant

the world we live in

[Selene]

Why would the Seals kill Bin Laden if they could capture him for interrogation and he would be killed later? There are chemical ways, not torture, to make him tell everything he knows about what he had been up to and with whom for what. All that captured intelligence, so why not capture him too? If the IRS can torture Americans and the FBI get the goods on almost anyone and destroy their lives even without indictment and trial, a U.S. or allied intelligence service can avail themselves of anything imaginable. Even the President doesn't have to know. (Could it be he had a cyanide capsule?)

--Brant

the world we live in

Brant:

Precisely. It does not make any sense. Additionally, there have been retired Seals that have been questioning the "Administration's rendition" of the event.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

LOL Nice Nietzsche.ND:

It seems that President O'bama, and his administration, have the unique ability to fuck up almost anything positive, even this successful killing of Osama Bin Laden.

Instead of controlling one line of information about the "raid," his staff has allowed different versions of the event to emerge.

First, he was armed and used a wife as a shield... oops, well no, he was not armed and he did not use anyone as a shield;

Second, he "resisted" being captured...well, not so much, because the Seal protocols would have had them subdue him and capture him.

Third, it is now a serious possibility that his own security team executed him as per their protocols to prevent him being captured and elevating him into martyrdom.

Fourth, it is now a known certainty that we have stealth helicopters. Pieces of that helicopter have, apparently, been gathered up by Pakistani "security forces" and are on their way to China for analysis.

Fifth, sadly, with this botched and blended story, our Seals have been exposed to a murder charge. If he was not armed and he did not effectively resist, they have to subdue and remove him.

Finally, what would possess the administration to announce that they had collected hard drives, dvd's, thumb drives, two (2) secret phone numbers, etc.? Absolute stupidity to tip off the network as to specifics.

One simple story with no detail was all that should have been put out by the administration. All questions should be met with no comment at this time.

Meanwhile, back at the Eric Holder "justice department," he and his minions are busy with their continuing investigation of the CIA and military folks who secured the information that led directly to this celebrated kill of Bin Laden!

Dissonance, stupidity and contradiction seems to be the word of the day from this administration.

Adam

How the hell did we get this Peter Principle President!

The U.S. assassinated Japanese admiral Yamamoto in 1943. P-38s shot him out of the sky. Intercepted Japanese coded messages gave his itinery.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Thinking that the death of bin Laden might be a Pyrrhic victory, I couldn't remember how to spell "Pyrrhic" -- 2 r's or 2 h's -- so I looked it up on Google and found this among the entries:

"America's pyrrhic victory over bin-laden"

Khalid Amayreh

Tuesday, 03 May 2011 11:00

The killing of al-Qaeda Chief Osama Bin-Laden by US special forces in Pakistan is likely to have more of a short-term psychological impact than concrete long-lasting political ramifications.

While Bin-Laden's death will generate a lot of satisfaction in Washington, the low-intensity war between the America and al-Qaeda will most probably intensify in ferocity.

Al-Qaeda has nearly sunk into oblivion having been eclipsed by revolutions across the Arab world; they have demonstrated that overcoming tyrannical regimes and pushing through political and civil reforms is more achievable if peaceful and nonviolent means are used rather than car bombs and terror, which were al-Qaeda's trademark.

It is clear that there was a real movement of Arab and Muslim public opinion away from al-Qaeda long before the assassination of Bin Laden, who had already become very much a symbolic figure. His death is unlikely to be the watershed or historical landmark some so-called experts would have us believe. It is not an organization built around a charismatic figure whose death would more or less close the group down. It is, rather, a highly dogmatic group dedicated to the nihilistic ideology of fighting disbelievers, especially belligerents, fighting Muslims or invading or occupying Muslim land.

There is no doubt that al-Qaeda represented a serious deviation from Islam which forbids targeting innocent people, Muslim or otherwise. This is the main reason which has prompted many otherwise devout Muslims to abandon the group and its methods.

The unjustified and often gruesome killing of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of innocent people in countries such as Iraq, Pakistan, Britain, Spain and the United States made many Muslims, including this writer, despise this and similar groups. Their tactics besmirched the image of Islam and gave its enemies, such as Zionist Israel, ready ammunition to smear our faith and vilify its followers.

Like most Muslims, I realise that the US and Britain are not the innocents abroad that they would like us to believe. America, for example, is anything but, especially with regard to its criminal, even genocidal, policies towards the Muslim of Palestine and Iraq.

[....]

I don't know anything about the publication or about the author of the article.

The possibility of al-Qaeda's efforts being intensified worries me.

Obama's increased popularity worries me even more. Better bin Laden alive (his death seems to me only of symbolic importance in any case) than Obama being elected for a second term. Obama would probably be re-elected anyway, but this coup might help -- unless it meanwhile backfires from mishandling.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why would the Seals kill Bin Laden if they could capture him for interrogation and he would be killed later?

Brant,

According to our President, a photo of bin Laden's death will not be released because we do not need that kind of trophy because that's not who we Americans are.

But, politically speaking, bin Laden needed to be killed dead and deceased so Obama could have a trophy story...

And the rest is history in the making...

Because that's who he is.

btw - I think Obama is trying to manipulate public image with his handling of the entire aftermath, but instead of being clever and cunning, I think he is being inept. He keeps making it so Americans don't trust him more and more. I think he literally does not know the moral side of the American public--the one Ayn Rand called its sense of life. I think he thinks it's all a matter of manipulating the message and you manipulate the person. That actually works with several subconscious triggers, but not with the trust trigger. Once you blow that one, it's hard to get it back.

So I'm not worried about Obama being reelected just because of his performance in nailing bin Laden. Bush Sr. was about as popular as a President could be after the first Gulf War. But the economy took care of that in short order. I predict the same thing will happen here, compounded by the eroding trust Obama insists on promoting while thinking he is outsmarting everyone.

Michael

[Selene]

Why would the Seals kill Bin Laden if they could capture him for interrogation and he would be killed later?

Brant,

According to our President, a photo of bin Laden's death will not be released because we do not need that kind of trophy because that's not who we Americans are.

But, politically speaking, bin Laden needed to be killed dead and deceased so Obama could have a trophy story...

And the rest is history in the making...

Because that's who he is.

btw - I think Obama is trying to manipulate public image with his handling of the entire aftermath, but instead of being clever and cunning, I think he is being inept. He keeps making it so Americans don't trust him more and more. I think he literally does not know the moral side of the American public--the one Ayn Rand called its sense of life. I think he thinks it's all a matter of manipulating the message and you manipulate the person. That actually works with several subconscious triggers, but not with the trust trigger. Once you blow that one, it's hard to get it back.

So I'm not worried about Obama being reelected just because of his performance in nailing bin Laden. Bush Sr. was about as popular as a President could be after the first Gulf War. But the economy took care of that in short order. I predict the same thing will happen here, compounded by the eroding trust Obama insists on promoting while thinking he is outsmarting everyone.

Michael

Michael:

Bush Senior was at 89% in late February/Early March and the Dems were ready to basically concede. Enter Bill Clinton and Perot with an abysmal economy and you have the results of the fast moving electoral events that are difficult to predict:

I am still surprised that President O'bama's overall favorable ratings are at 46-47% though. They should be in the high 30's to low 40's.

Adam