Ohio Poll: 15% Of Republicans Say Romney Deserved Credit For Killing Bin Laden

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Can you say GM?

Sure I can say GM. That would be the car company that is still around and is actually making significant investments in the US - almost $7 billion worth of investments adding thousands of jobs to the economy in 12 different states.

What bearing does that have on the troubles over at HP?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Sure I can say GM. That would be the car company that is still around and is actually making significant investments in the US - almost $7 billion worth of investments adding thousands of jobs to the economy in 12 different states.

What bearing does that have on the troubles over at HP?

You obviously are avoiding connecting the dots.

I recall hundreds of dealerships getting the axe and thousands losing their jobs. How soon we forget.

* GM losing as much as $49,000 per Volt sold * Tax dollars at work?

Edited September 11, 2012 by Pinocchio Liberal

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You obviously are avoiding connecting the dots.

I recall hundreds of dealerships getting the axe and thousands losing their jobs. How soon we forget.

* GM losing as much as $49,000 per Volt sold * Tax dollars at work?

All dealerships would have been gone had GM and Chrysler failed. In fact, even Ford's CEO is very clear on the action that the Bush and Obama administrations have taken on GM and Chrysler. Ford CEO: GM, Chrysler Bailouts Were 'Right Thing' to Do

"If GM and Chrysler would've gone into free-fall, they could've taken the entire supply base into free-fall also, and taken the U.S. from a recession into a depression," Mulally said. "That's why we testified on behalf of our competitors even though we clearly did not need precious taxpayer money."

Talk about connecting the dots. Ford's CEO is obviously capable of doing just that. You're quite obviously not.

The Volt, by the way, was a poor product decision that was made at GM long before Obama was elected President. Not sure what responsibility you believe he bears for that decision.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You're correct in that a lot of people wrongly blame Carter for the failed recue operation of the Iranian hostages. I personally have never put any blame on Carter for that because he had nothing to do with the mission other than giving the go ahead, I give him credit for attempting the rescue. Just because some people wrongly give credit to, or blame someone for something they are not responsible for, doesn't mean that most people will not see things for what they really are.

Actually, Carter decided to make it a joint mission, rather than use the forces already dedicated and trained to do that mission. Of course, Reagan failed to learn that lesson, and we ended up with the clusterfuck that was Grenada. Why we have various commands plan and train for every possible scenario, yet Presidents (and their staves) constantly reinvent the wheel is beyond me.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Actually, Carter decided to make it a joint mission, rather than use the forces already dedicated and trained to do that mission. Of course, Reagan failed to learn that lesson, and we ended up with the clusterfuck that was Grenada. Why we have various commands plan and train for every possible scenario, yet Presidents (and their staves) constantly reinvent the wheel is beyond me.

Was this ever stated as an official reason that the mission failed? Everything I find points to the "dust phenomon", "poor visibility" and "helicopter failure" as the main reasons for the mission failure.

Two factors combined to directly cause the mission abort: Unexpected helicopter failure rate, and low visibility flight conditions en route to Desert One.

If the dust phenomenon had not occurred, Helicopter #5 would have arrived at Desert One, or if one more helicopter had remained up, six would have arrived at Desert One despite the dust.

There were alternatives available that would have reduced the probability of an abort due to these factors, and they have been discussed in detail in terms of planning and preparation.

In fact in the Dept. Of the Navy's official Rescue mission Report, it states that:

Command and control was excellent at the upper echelons, but became more tenuous and fragile at the intermediate levels.

The command and control arrangements at the higher echelons from the NCA through the Joint Chiefs of Staff to COMJTF were ideal. Further down the operational chain, command relationships were less well defined and not as well understood.

My link

I don't see anywhere in the official report that blames the decision to make it a joint mission for any aspect of the mission failure. It also states in the report that the mission was completely feasable.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Teddy B

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Was this ever stated as an official reason that the mission failed? Everything I find points to the "dust phenomon", "poor visibility" and "helicopter failure" as the main reasons for the mission failure.

In fact in the Dept. Of the Navy's official Rescue mission Report, it states that:

My link"]My link[/url]

I don't see anywhere in the official report that blames the decision to make it a joint mission for any aspect of the mission failure. It also states in the report that the mission was completely feasable.

I had the "unofficial" briefing at a SAME luncheon in the Officer's Club at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The place was full of Pentagon types from just down the road.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Further down the operational chain, command relationships were less well defined and not as well understood.

You missed it. This is why the services don't like doing joint missions.

[Teddy B 17,252]

I had the "unofficial" briefing at a SAME luncheon in the Officer's Club at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The place was full of Pentagon types from just down the road.

Well then, that changes everything.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Well then, that changes everything.

It should.

[Teddy B 17,252]

You missed it. This is why the services don't like doing joint missions.

I haven't missed anything. Nowhere does it state that this being a joint mission as a reason for failure. Actually it sounds kind of foolish when you say it out loud, kinda like little kids that don't wanna play together at recess. Joint missions take place all of the time and are very successful. Sounds like you're reaching really far to lay blame where it doesn't belong.

[james&olya 1,121]

Political Groove doesn't have a ####### section because Polticical Groove is a ####### section. BTW the site is down, the unbathed occupiers must've forgot to pay for their bandwidth.

As for the poll, The 6 percent who thought Romney had anything to do with Osama Bin Laden's death are the usual nutjobs that don't have a clue what day it is. I'm more concerned with the 63% of uninformed folks that think Obama had anything to do with it.

Jimmy Carter will be most relieved to find that republicans now absolve him of any responsibility for not getting the Iranian embassy hostages released! Or doesn't it work that way?

[Teddy B 17,252]

Jimmy Carter will be most relieved to find that republicans now absolve him of any responsibility for not getting the Iranian embassy hostages released! Or doesn't it work that way?

You'll have to ask the people that blamed him to begin with, I'm not one of them.

[james&olya 1,121]

Just plain old luck? So what if the mission went south? You would said the same thing? Don't blame Obama. Ain't his fault? Get real, will ya'?

Yeah, the same group still blame Carter for the failed hostage rescue!

[james&olya 1,121]

I certainly would not have blamed Obama if the mission failed, he played no part in it.

I'm being very real about this, it's you who can't help but trip over yourself to praise Obama at every turn. Your blind love for Obama reminds me of how excited my dog gets when I return home from work at the end of the day, jumpin all over the place, tongue wagging and slober on her face.

Who is president DOES make a difference. Bin Laden was cornered in Tora Bora early in the war. The Marines wanted to get him. Bush said no, let the Afghans handle it. They let him go! Then Bush decided it was no longer important to get OBL. So they didn't. Same as when Bush and Rice decided OBL was not a real threat before 9-11, just one of Clinton's paranoias. Condi was scheduled for a speech on national security that day that had zero mention of OBL. Leadership matters. A lot!!!

[Teddy B 17,252]

Yeah, the same group still blame Carter for the failed hostage rescue!

Do you always show up late for lunch and then order breakfast?