Vice President Joe Biden’s changing up history. Actually, he’s ignoring successful historical military events unless they took place after the inauguration of President Barack Hussein Obama.
From Blackfive. At a fundraising event last night in New Jersey, Biden mentioned the following concerning the planned raid on the bin Laden compound in Pakistan.
You can go back 500 years. You cannot find a more audacious plan. Never knowing for certain. We never had more than a 48 percent probability that he was there.
The first thing that came to mind was World War II’s D-Day on June 6, 1944. I’d say that was a pretty audacious plan, where more than 200,000 Allied casualties were incurred. I’d suggest the probability for success was pretty low on D-Day. Blackfive reminds us of the North Vietnam Son Tay Raid in 1970.
But it’s not just Binden’s lack of historical knowledge here that should be noted, rather his constant desire to prove his boss is a real tough guy willing to make military decisions without concern for his political ambitions.
Do any one of you have a doubt that if that raid failed that this guy would be a one-term president? …
This guy is willing to do the right thing and risk losing.
I never got the impression President Bush (43) felt the need to justify his decisions by suggesting they could destroy him politically, rather he justified decisions since they were the right thing to do at the time, with the information available. There is an important difference.
MCQ at Blackfive notes…
This is an attempt to equate saying “yes” to the raid while sitting in a room in DC to the courage necessary to execute the raid. That supposedly risking your political future is akin to actually risking your life in the raid. This is an attempt to frame a decision that really wasn’t very tough at all into an agonizing, courageous and risky choice.
MCQ mentions the really tough decision would be to called it off, and risk learning later that he was definitely there, and have the information go public.
As an addendum, I want to point out claims from both the left and the right that the United States people have “never been so divided” when it comes to “political discourse” is total bull shit. It’s been this way for hundreds of years, the only difference is the speed of information as compared to, oh let’s just say the 1860s … during the time of the American Civil War.
If ever – God forbid – we get to the point of division and political discourse that leads to an armed conflict between the states, federal government and/or the people, only after that fight will we be able to re-define when we were most divided. To claim 2012 represents a time where we have “never been so divided” not only ignores the Civil War, but also devalues the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s as well as other events in American history when we were pretty opinionated.