Joescarp, I so totally agree with you every word you typed is how I felt.

Exactly.

Keep sipping the Koolaid Jon and Ben.

Joe, thanks so much for your though-provoking and highly insightful commentary. You've really moved this discussion forward. High five.

Democrats are more trustworthy on medicare and social security? They have effectively bankrupted both of these programs. Every time the Republicans try to put a plan in place to make them fiscally solvent, they Liberals try to scare America by talking about vouchers and privatization. Anyone on Medicare today who can afford it already uses a private supplemental insurance plan because the costs of procedures with Medicare are so expensive. Dems have mismanaged and raided these programs for years. Their solution of raising taxes only gives government more money to mismanage. Its time for a change.

How the heck was sending SEALs into Packistan a continuation of a Bush policy?

Obama has gone a long way to restoring a hugely damaged United States standing in the world. Look what happened during the Bush years: http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/314/opinions-of-us.html

Look at the worldwide opinion of President Obama: http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/08/27/does-world-want-romney-or-obama/

To pretend that this does not have strong implications for the United States is simply ridiculous. Repairing national standing and worldwide faith in the Presidency has made and will continue to make international dimplomacy easier and more effective.

@BenJackson...Read 'No Easy Day' the SEALs first hand account of the long effort of intelligence work and military intervention that led to the Bin Laden raid. The original lead on the courier who led us to Bin Laden came from interrogations of Guantonomo prisoners a year after Sept. 11th. OBama did a great job on approving the actual raid and should be praised for his handling of it. However, to say that OBama accomplished this when Bush couldn't is simply ignoring the facts.

If Obama has helped us regain some standing in the world, perhaps he's seeing it through rose-colored glasses? Because apparently the date September 11th still harbors some meaning for some "not so nice" groups of people in the Middle East.

Chris, you mean the date September 11, 2001? More than seven full years before Mr. Obama was elected? In countries which were not previously strong allies?

I'm talking about Europe. Japan. Countries what had a long positive associationw ith the Untied States, and who in a tiny period of time webnt from strong allies to near enmity (Remember the ridiculousness of *freedom* fries?). Mr. Obama has needed to repair relations with our *friends.* Which he has done resoundingly well.

Yes Ben....the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in world history. A day that should have set off alarm bells in every American's head when Benghazi was attacked. A day where (at least while I was still on Active Duty), we were always warned to be on guard. Has Obama become complacent in his protection of American interest overseas?

If he has improved relations with countries that already liked us...that's wonderful.

But if I recall correctly, and help me out if I'm wrong here, but no French nationals were involved in attacking us on 9.11.01

Will, I'm a Navy vet myself, and I have tremendous respect for the SEALs, but not sure how being on a SEAL team makes one an expert in foreign policy and international relations. That said, I've not read the book - mainly because it can not be independently verified as truth, so I'm fairly skeptical of anything contained within.

See, Ben, one more thing in common.

I'm also a Navy vet(95-07), and I did read No Easy Day. While I can't independently verify anything regarding the specifics of the mission or his time in Afghanistan or on the ground in Iraq, I can verify that at least his description of SEAL life and training was authentic. I was on an Amphibious Assault ship and dealt with a lot of SEALs in my time. He had the Navy and SEAL-specific lingo down, and at the very least, it was an interesting read.

Ben, I agree that the SEALs books are not official state documents. However, this and most books of its kind are screened by the state department for accuracy and stripped of any classified material that the government believes could hurt US interests. The book was not partisan in any way that I could see...and the author cites specific interactions with the intelligence team that had been tracking Bin Laden's courier for the better part of a decade. Give Obama the credit he deserves the the raid, but lets not pretend it was his policies that ultimately led us to Bin Laden. If you know different, I'd love to hear your fact based rebuttal. I suppose however, you will dismiss this as conjecture and pretend that the great Obama managed to find a kill Bin Laden on his own. Seems to be a trend with Liberals these days, bend the truth to fit your current political requirements....or, in the case of Libya, just flat out lie and hope no one figures it out before the election. Good luck with that.

Well, Will - here's fact number one: "No Easy Day" was not vetted by the Pentagon - as required by the non-disclosure agreement the author needed to sign to obtain and maintain his security clearance:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/11/us-usa-binladen-book-panetta-idUSBRE88A02020120911

So, it can't be used as the basis of a factual argument. It's not been vetted, it's not been screened, and by its very nature can not be indipendantly confirmed (which is a hallmark of good journalism).

That said, neither of us can know what happened in the halls of either administration regarding bin Laden. And I don't dispute that a long chain of intelligence led to the killing of bin Laden. But the fact of the matter remains that Mr. Bush refusing to allow troops into Packistan allowed bin Laden to escape into Pakistan and disappear for nearly a decade. Mr. Obama chose to not be similarly constricted, and, as the saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding."

Ben,

The irony of the last part of your statement has me in pain, as the sting of Pepsi in my nose is not comfortable.

You criticize Bush for going into the sovereign country of Iraq, but for NOT doing the same to Pakistan. And although the mission produced the desired outcome, Obama's approval of the SEAL mission could have been considered an unprovoked act of war in Pakistan. Granted, the UN would have told Pakistan to be quiet, since Bin Laden was found.

But what if he hadn't been? What if the mission was a failure and this became Obama's "Iran" or "Black Hawk Down" moment?

I find your hypocrisy about the invasion of foreign territories ironic, yet troubling. I thank god you are behind a keyboard commenting on Patch, and not acting on my country's behalf on the world stage.

Chris-

Where did I say anything about Iraq? Certainly not here. If I had voiced my problems with Iraq, there would have been nothing about crossing sovereign boundaries.

My problems with Iraq were muptiple - but above all, it was an *unnecessary* war which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. Obtaining bin Laden was a *necessary* operation, which resulted in at most tens of deaths, all of enemy combatants. Comparing the two is preposterous.

OK. it was deemed necessary because there was a good chance the intelligence had finally tracked down OBL.

But what if the intel on him was just as good as the WMD intel that led to an invasion of Iraq.

What ended up as a very nice "plus" in Obama's column could just as easily been his downfall.

Maybe not but the war he got us into without the approval of Congress (Lybia) has not been going well for us lately. And this administration has been lying to us about it for a month now.

Ugly, while I agree with you, its bugging the cr_p out of me....every time you've typed the word "Libya", you've typed it wrong. Many newer versions of browsers have spell-check.

OK, with that being said....which is more dangerous: lying to lead us into a war? Or lying to keep us (presumably) out of war?

As Bush and team possibly fabricated facts to get us into Iraq, Obama and team are ignoring facts to keep us out of Libya.

Again, PLEASE stop with the "but the last guy did ____" excuses. You sound childish. But, I'll play your game......the last President to have an Ambassador assassinated on his watch was Jimmy Carter....a one-termer.

Ha! Yeah, I do that sometimes. I'll take the criticism, you're right. But you may just have to get over it. There are just some words I always misspell. I don't worry about blog comments as I would a resume or business proposal.

And who knows, maybe the people there will fix my problem for me. A year from now the place could be some-other-name-istan.

That is the most amusing spin I have seen on the debates. I, too, am now shaking my head and chuckling like Joe Biden.

I agree. Joe Biden was well informed and right on the money!! I thought he set the record straight and uncovered "lies" from the other side. President Obama needs to step up his game on their next debate.

Mularkey!!!!

Perhaps he should have watched the Senate hearings held this week. Methinks someone is attempting to throw a coat of whitewash over the facts.

I'll manage my own time, thank you. As far as "just about every other post?" Well, that's simply right-wing math right there.

Make a point, debate issues, but keep the personal attacks out of it.

Dan, I m surprised that anyone would suggest that a candidate must be either rude or asleep as you put it. I would wager the majority would prefer some middle ground, kind of like Romney and Ryan demonstrated.