The Glade 4.0

We're trying to exit from Afghanistan, and this provides a "cleaner" way to do it. Remember, that's why we went to Afghanistan in the first place.

I find it disingenuous that many of you who criticized Gitmo and the torture/mistreatment of detainees without any kind of trial would applaud what amounts to the assassination of a powerless figurehead who has lived in exile for the last 10 years.

Would any of you be opposed to Osama's death being used as reasoning for finally withdrawing from Afghanistan in large numbers? Would it matter that his death didn't actually affect anything other than perception?

Afghanistan ran OBL (and the Taliban govermnent) out years ago. How does killing him in Pakistan help with a 'cleaner exit' ?

If anything it demonstrates that the focus on the war on terror should probably be Pakistan and not Afghanistan, Iraq, etc...

Thank you for demonstrating it's effectiveness for me.

I think I eluded to this, but allow me to clarify.

His popularity is at an all time low. How is this not a good time to reverse that trend?

By doing it now, he could gain some popularity without the suspicion of being 'close' to the election.

This was the perfect time to gain a little political capitol, and get some momentum going in the opposite direction.

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin

History Suggests a Rally in Obama's Job Approval Rating as a Result of Bin Laden's Death
President Obama’s surprise announcement Sunday night of the death of Osama bin Laden raises the possibility of a rally effect in his job approval ratings.

A rally effect is a sharp uptick in a president’s ratings as a result of a high visibility news event involving the U.S., usually internationally. History indicates that Americans in such instances rally around their leader in a sign of solidarity, at least in the short-term. That rallying produces an increase in the president's job approval ratings.

Obama’s approval ratings had been on a slight upward tick before the bin Laden announcement Sunday night. Gallup’s latest three-day average, based on interviewing conducted Friday-Sunday, does not reflect any impact of the late Sunday night announcement. Nevertheless, for that three-day period, Obama’s average was 46%, tied as the highest since April 9-11.

I would anticipate, based on history, that Obama’s job approval rating will increase further in the wake of Sunday night’s announcement. Of course, the reason we continue to conduct surveys is that our expectations are not always borne out by the actual data. So we will monitor job approval ratings carefully in the days ahead to see exactly what transpires.

One relatively recent example of a rally effect came about with the capture of deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, announced on Sunday, Dec. 13, 2003. Gallup was finishing a poll just as that announcement was made. President George W. Bush’s job approval rating in that Dec. 11-14 poll was 56%. We were back in the field Tuesday and Wednesday nights, Dec. 15-16, after the news of Saddam Hussein's capture. Bush’s approval rating jumped seven percentage points, to 63%.

Prior to the December 2003 Saddam Hussein event, we had seen Bush’s rating jump 13 points with the announcement in March of that year that the U.S. was going to war against Hussein.

And, in the largest rally effect in Gallup history, Bush’s rating went from 51% in a Sept. 7-10, 2001, poll to 86% in a Sept. 14-15 poll -- following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. Within a week thereafter, in Gallup’s Sept. 21-22, 2001 poll, Bush’s ratings reached 90%, the highest job approval rating in Gallup’s history.

Thus, a reasonable baseline estimate could be the expectation that Obama’s approval rating could rise at least seven points in the next several days, which would put him over the 50% mark.

Rally effect bumps in job approval ratings often dissipate fairly quickly. Bush’s December 2003 seven-point increase, for example, was short-lived, dropping to 49% by late January/early February 2004.

Thus, even if Obama gets a bump in his ratings over the next several days, it is not at all certain that this increase will be sustained. And, looking further ahead, the effect of the death of Osama bin Laden on Barack Obama’s re-election chances a year and a half from now, if any, will be very difficult to determine.

One additional observation. Prior to this weekend's events, Americans had more confidence in the military than any other institution we measure. The success of the U.S. Navy Seals' operation in Pakistan Sunday will certainly underscore and perhaps increase that confidence.

If anything it demonstrates that the focus on the war on terror should probably be Pakistan and not Afghanistan, Iraq, etc...

Pakistan has nuclear weapons, Afghanistan doesn't.

Remember, although people like to forget it now, everyone believed Bush when he first said Iraq had WMDs. Even the liberals. The primary liberal anti-war argument before the war was that ousting Saddam was not worth the risk of him using said weapons.

Afghanistan ran OBL (and the Taliban govermnent) out years ago. How does killing him in Pakistan help with a 'cleaner exit' ?

If anything it demonstrates that the focus on the war on terror should probably be Pakistan and not Afghanistan, Iraq, etc...

My point was more to the contention that killing OBL somehow showed enough 'progress' (whatever that means) in Afghanistan that we can pull out. I don't see how anything has changed there significantly since the Taliban were removed from power, so why are we still there at all? Most, if not all of the high profile terrorists left there a long time ago.

Pakistan is apparently safer for them, because apparently we fear their nuclear weapons ?

Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf on Monday accused the U.S. of violating his country’s sovereignty by sending in special forces to kill Osama bin Laden.

“American troops coming across the border and taking action in one of our towns, that is Abbottabad, is not acceptable to the people of Pakistan. It is a violation of our sovereignty,” Mr. Musharraf told CNN-IBN, an Indian news channel.

He added that it would have been “far better if Pakistani Special Services Group had operated and conducted the mission. To that extent, the modality of handling it and executing the operation is not correct.”

Bin Laden was killed Sunday in a firefight with Navy SEALs in a million-dollar, fortified compound located in an affluent neighborhood in Abbottabad, about a two-hour drive from Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad.

Senior U.S. officials, who briefed reporters early Monday, said the Obama administration did not inform Pakistani authorities of the mission until after it was concluded.

Mr. Musharraf said the “lack of trust is very bad.”

“If two organizations [are] conducting an operation against a common enemy, there has to be trust and confidence in each other,” he said.

Pakistan is “totally on board” on fighting al Qaeda and Taliban.

Mr. Musharraf said it was possible that some local Pakistanis had colluded with bin Laden.

“A battle has been won, but the war continues,” Mr. Musharraf said, warning that “al Qaeda is still there.”

Pakistan has nuclear weapons, Afghanistan doesn't.

Remember, although people like to forget it now, everyone believed Bush when he first said Iraq had WMDs. Even the liberals. The primary liberal anti-war argument before the war was that ousting Saddam was not worth the risk of him using said weapons.

The existence of the nuclear weapons means they can't be "the focus of the war on terror" the same way Afghanistan was. We can't "effectively" fight terror in Pakistan without violating their sovereignty, and nuclear weapons are a massive deterrent to that. We're limited to mostly drone strikes there because we have to respect said sovereignty. Only for targets as high profile as Bin Laden could we send in an actual raid. I'm pretty sure that if Afghanistan had had a nuclear weapons program comparable to what Pakistan has now we'd never have invaded. Remember the Taliban didn't do 9/11, they just sheltered some AQ leaders including Bin Laden. They even offered to turn Bin Laden over for trial as long as the trial wasn't administered by the US. While I don't disagree with the retaliation against Afghanistan, if they had nukes that kind of indirect culpability wouldn't have been worth the risk of attacking.

Why would Obama give a **** about his poll numbers now? If it were about timing then why not wait until just before the election? or just after forcing through health care? or after choking us with the bail-out? or after **** up the oil-spill clean-up? or right before the dem's got swept in the elections? or... (insert other admin-led **** here>

The meaningless timing of this is a strong indication to me that it's legit.

Simple. He started his campaign up and he needs both supporters he can pull volunteers out of and he needs donors.

He has just re-energized his base and they are ripe for recruitment and rally.

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Until someone decided it was a good idea to throw the only piece of material evidence into the Indian Ocean.

DNA, photos.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Photos of an unidentifiable individual do not count as material evidence ...

DNA without a tangible source do not count as material evidence ...

Neither can be verified against the object itself at this point.