>>>>Yeah right...
>>>
>>>IMO he handles disengagement from Iraq while droning on the Taliban nicely balanced.
>>>Also he did not fumble Osama - and actually I like the way he presents that.
>>>Not basking in glory that Osama was found during his tenure but having guts and luck for the operation.
>>
>>Yeah. 'Droning' became almost signature of (his) presidency.
>
>But ending involvement in Iraq as well. Which many outside the US and GB criticized when it started WMD and all.
>
>>As for Osama, they murdered crime suspect without trial and buried evidence deep in the see.
>
>not tried before US court: true.
>Would a US court be the right arena ?
>How to prove involvement in 9/11 beyond earlier sent statements ?
>
>I happen to believe the earlier Osama communiquees, but in view of current technology that might be wrong -
>and even worse, set bad precedence for later when such things can be faked with more ease. Point for you.
>
>Do you think 9/11 warrants military action instead of police and extradition queries ?
>I do. "War on Terror" IMO is the correct response for killing such numbers.
>
>>I really struggle to see glory in any of that.
>
>War should not be glorified - that is done to get teens to fight where personal interest is not involved.
>And sometimes to win elections - refraining to do so I think is a good trait in a commander.
>Charles believes Obama would have made a political issue of his own practices if such were done by Bush.
>Quite possible - similarly I believe Bush would have tried to milk killing Osama via the media more.

And I think you are right on both counts. ( and also about war not being glorified - dulce et decorum est ... )

But also it should be added that Bush would have hyped killing Osama to feed public opinion and the reason Obama does not do so is not so much exercising good taste as being sensitive to his own constituency who are way further to the "left" on this than he is. ( see my comments on his effective and ruthless prosecution of targeted killings )