Tag Archives: Osama Bin Laden

Obama Policy Speech

Posted on by
Reply

This afternoon, President Obama gave a major policy speech at the National Defense University near Washington D.C. It was a tough slog to listen to him rant on and on or to see his haughty demeanor on display again. The tone of voice he uses is accusatory and I don’t understand why more commentators don’t pick up on that. He always looks like he’s going to send someone to detention.

Here’s some of what he said along with some commentary:

Obama started off talking of 9/11. “Thousands were taken from us,” he said. No, thousands were brutally murdered. He makes it sound like they just drifted off in their sleep.

“We quickly won in Afghanistan (thank you President Bush and Don Rumsfeld) and then shifted our focus to Iraq.” Parentheses mine, but you knew he wouldn’t waste time getting to Bush and insisting that Iraq was a mistake.

Terrorism brought up issues of security vs. privacy, Obama said. “In some cases I believe we compromised our basic values by using torture to interrogate our enemies and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.” Mr. President, have you closed Gitmo yet? Did you watch Zero Dark Thirty? If we hadn’t used torture, you would never have gotten Bin Laden.

“The decisions we are making now will define the type of nation and world that we leave to our children.” Yes, that’s what’s so scary about what you want to do!

“No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” He attributed that quote to Madison.
“What we can do, what we must do is dismantle networks that pose a danger to us.” I don’t think Madison envisioned the shrinking of the modern world or that you could send a missile to your enemy in a matter of hours. I’m suspicious whenever Obama quotes a Founding Father.

“So after I took office we stepped up the war against al Qaeda, but also changed its course. We relentlessly targeted al Qaeda’s leadership. We ended the war in Iraq…we pursued a new strategy in Afghanistan.”

He could have said that he really gets a kick out of watching drone strikes kill people from the safety of his office. About that new strategy – doesn’t seem to be working so well now.

“We unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the rule of law and expanded our consultations with Congress.” Hmm. We haven’t gotten anyone recently either, have we? You may have affirmed the commitment to civilian courts, but even New Yorkers don’t like the idea of Khalid Sheik Mohammed getting a nice trip to New York and putting another bull’s eye on their backs. What consultations with Congress? Are you hallucinating?

“Today Osama bin Laden is dead and so are most of his top lieutenants. There have been no large scale attacks in the United States and our homeland is more secure.” You bragged early on about yourself, Mr. Obama, but no large scale attacks in the U.S.? What was Fort Hood? What was Boston?

“Our alliances are strong and so is our standing in the world,” Obama continued. Can’t help but think of Putin keeping our Secretary of State waiting three hours for his appointment. There was nothing but humiliation in that Putin tactic. I don’t remember Sec. Rice having to wait.

“We are safer because of our efforts.” He then mentions Benghazi and Boston. Maybe it’s just me, but that seems contradictory.

He continues: “The threat has shifted and evolved from what came to our shores…we spent well over a trillion on war, helping to explode our deficits and constraining our ability to nation build here at home.” Wow, suddenly you’re a penny pincher. As commander in chief, our defense should be your first concern. Obviously you resent any money spent on the military. If anyone exploded our debt it’s you! Nation build at home? Build what nation? The new United Socialist States of America?

Obama continued and unequivocally said that Al Qaeda did not plan the attacks in Benghazi and Boston. He can be unequivocal because the media will always back him up, even if evidence it was Al Qaeda came forward.

“Homegrown extremists, this is the future of terrorism,” he said, meaning that U.S. citizens are our enemy. Doesn’t that give him the right to spy on our own citizens in his world thinking?

He went on to say that the way we got Osama Bin Laden will not be the way of the future. Too much risk. He threw in one of his favorite Paakeestan pronunciations, along with a professorial “moreover” or two. Sometimes his reputation as a great orator completely escapes me.

The purpose of this speech, aside from his love of hearing his own voice and the chance it gives him to switch from the IRS scandal, appeared to be to tell us we’re going to have to depend on other nations and their cooperation for help; we’ll have to spy on our own citizens; and Bush spent too much.

We already knew that, didn’t we?

Media Always Blames Righty

Posted on by
Reply

The terrorism in Boston last week certainly revealed a lot about the media. Not that we didn’t already know what traitors they are; it merely put an exclamation point on them.

Chris Matthews – always one who’s reflex is to blame Righty, suggested quickly that “domestic terrorists …tend to be on the right.” Like the 9/11 guys? His MSNBC confrere, Lawrence O’Donnell, groped for words and vented his hatred on the NRA, which he charged with letting the Boston marathon bomber get away. How would that have happened? What a tangled conspiracy that would have necessitated!

Michael Moore aimed at the Tea Party, but that’s not a surprise. He wrote the book on the Audacity of Stupid. Actor Jay Mohr couldn’t resist either. He decided the second amendment must go because the gun culture was responsible for the bombing. In Hollywood logic, this non sequitur passes for intellectual thought.

David Sedaris at Salon.com delighted Lefties when he expressed the hope that a white American was the perpetrator. What’s the point of self loathing and spite if you can’t share it with everyone else?

Over the weekend Gerald Rivera showed himself in a tweet. “Regrets to my Muslim brothers/sisters. We know how Boston will aggravate life’s friction-Now’s the time for patience pride & understanding.” Wonder if he would have felt like that had the bomber been Sedaris’ white American male? What if his son/daughter had been on the Boston marathon bomber’s victim list? He probably would have had to be monitored.

The status of retired anchorman gives that person an almost godlike infallibility to the Left. Tom Brokaw took advantage of that to besmirch his own record with remarks on NBC’s Meet the Press. World Net Daily shared this:

Former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw strongly suggested Sunday that America is partly to blame for the gruesome terrorists attacks in Boston, because the young, Muslim men involved may have felt “alienated” and angry over U.S. drone strikes on “innocent civilians” in Muslim countries abroad.

Brokaw, who has been playing the role of media elder statesman since retiring, went on NBC’s “Meet the Press” with host David Gregory to discuss last week’s Boston bombings, which killed three and injured 183.

“There are a couple of things to remember here, David, I think for all of us,” Brokaw intoned. “With the death of Osama bin Laden, Islamic rage did not go away. In fact, in some ways it’s more dangerous. This is a perfect example.”

He said Americans need to take a hard look at “the roots” of why so many Muslims, including Americanized terrorists like the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston, want to kill them.

“There’s a lot that we still need to know about what motivated them, obviously,” Brokaw said, noting the Muslim faith of both bombers. “And the fact is that that Islamic rage is still out there.”

Added Brokaw: “But I think that there’s something else that goes beyond the event that we’ve all been riveted by in the last week. We have to work a lot harder (to understand) a motivation here.
“What prompts a young man to come to this country and still feel alienated from it, to go back to Russia and do whatever he did? And I don’t think we’ve examined that enough,” he added. “I mean, there was 24/7 coverage on television, a lot of newspaper print and so on, but we have got to look at the roots of all of this, because it exists across the whole subcontinent and the Islamic world around the world.”

Finally Brokaw offered an explanation: “I think we also have to examine the use of drones that the United States is involved (in), and there are a lot of civilians who are innocently killed in a drone attack in Pakistan, in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Even though the use of drones has been the hallmark of the Obama administration, these guys will willingly forget this.

Look for another round of blame Bush.

SEAL’s Story Reflects Poorly on Obama

Posted on by
Reply

Everyone should read the story in Esquire about the Seal who killed bin Laden. It is here: http://www.esquire.com/print-this/man-who-shot-osama-bin-laden-0313?page=all

Maybe it’s particularly poignant following the funeral of former SEAL Chris Kyle. Does all of this mean much to Obama? Probably not. He ordered flags be flown at half staff for Whitney Houston when she died. Kyle got nothing.

Obama took all the credit for the Bin Laden death. Truth is Obama was reluctant to go through with the mission. Once it happened, he covered himself in glory. The Shooter, as he is called in this excerpt, got no glory. Not that he would have wanted it; being a SEAL they don’t seek it out. But he could use some help in entering civilian life. It is a black spot on the Obama administration that the man is now homeless and has no medical coverage and no job. You’d think his expertise would be wanted by our government. He would be perfect for advising on training, wouldn’t he? Instead, they pushed him aside.

Remember that $25 million promised to whoever helped find and get Bin Laden? According to the Shooter, no one got anything. The administration claims technology did it. I don’t recall technology going into the compound and sending Bin Laden to his virgin demons. The poor Pakistani doctor who helped us got nothing as well. He’s languishing in a prison to our disgrace.

Hollywood, however, has profited with several movies and TV shows about the raid. They always get a cut, don’t they?

Reading this article, I can’t help but imagine what would have happened had this been executed in the Bush years. GWB would never have allowed the SEAL team members to have their covers blown or to suffer in civilian life later. Bush had too much integrity to see that happen.

Not Obama, though. He made the “I killed Osama” part of his campaign schtick. It worked. He’ll use it again, I’m sure. He’ll make sure the history books record him as the hero.

Zero Dark 30 Propagandizes

Posted on by
Reply

A review of “Zero Dark Thirty,” the movie about the capture of Bin Laden, allays concerns Republicans have had about lionizing President Obama. Evidently he doesn’t play much of a role in it.

Reviewer Roger Friedman says:

If anyone worried that Kathryn Bigelow’s movie about the killing of Osama bin Laden would be a political statement promoting Barack Obama they can relax. Bigelow and Mark Boal have made a very focused and harrowing thriller that centers on the real life female CIA agent who was obsessed with catching and killing bin Laden…

The most interesting thing right off the bat is that “Zero Dark Thirty” is not political. President Obama makes a brief appearance seen off a TV and it’s not necessarily positive. While American intelligence is waterboarding prisoners, Obama is seen saying he doesn’t believe in torture. The whole first fifteen minutes or so is taken up with the waterboarding of a prisoner. Once you see it, you’ll be writing to your congressman to prevent it from happening again. But Obama disappears after that. And the CIA and the military take over.If Bigelow and Boal got secret access to the Situation Room from the time Osama bin Laden was killed, you don’t see it.

OK. I stopped reading when he said I’d be writing to my congressman to prevent waterboarding from ever happening again. Uh, I don’t think so!

This is the world inhabited by liberals. Everyone plays nice and happiness ensues. Except, in the real world, that isn’t the conclusion. They have forgotten the nature of our enemy.

I haven’t. I remember the brutality of Nick Berg being beheaded on YouTube. Daniel Pearl being murdered by al Qaeda and then cut into pieces to be distributed around Pakistan. Closer to home, there were the people who jumped out the World Trade Center, choking on smoke so bad they preferred falling 90 stories to their deaths.
‘
A scene of waterboarding is going to alter my opinion of them and of the practice? Not likely.

In waterboarding the victims if you like, who aren’t really victims but performers of evil deeds, know they are not going to be killed. They know that they will experience unpleasantness but that their captors are more merciful than they are and will pull them up before they drown. Ask a relative of a 9/11 victim if he would have preferred that happening to his loved one rather than the death he or she endured.

I ask how these same liberals would feel should another act of terror occur and they lose a daughter or son on a plane downed by terrorists or in a bombing at a shopping mall.

I bet waterboarding would look pretty good.

Hits for Mitt

Posted on by
Reply

We all have points we want Mitt Romney to bring up at tonight’s debate on foreign policy. From our view, it should be easy. Obama’s foreign policy lies in ruin with the consulate in Benghazi.

Sure he takes credit for killing Osama Bin Laden. Big deal. Three times he was approached with intelligence on his position; twice he chose to wait. Some say Leon Panetta made the decision. I can believe it.

Even so, the SEALS were the ones who trained for the mission, took the risk and succeeded. You can link that back to policies by the Bush administration, not an Obama one.

Mitt will politely acknowledge that take down, but then he should bring up the wealth of indictments against Obama’s foreign policy.

Benghazi will come up, undoubtedly. It will be interesting to see how Obama squirms out of any responsibility (even though he said he takes it). Here are some things to bring up:

Do you still think the YouTube video had anything to do with it? Why did you, knowing from our intelligence that it wasn’t the YouTube, spend $70 million on ads to be shown in Pakistan? Why wasn’t protection provided to our embassy when they had asked for it, particularly on the obvious day of 9/11?

Why didn’t anyone go to the rescue of the ambassador when a drone was overhead? Why didn’t some help come from our ships close to this port city? Why no air support? Do you really think Americans will believe that your people (and you) in Washington couldn’t see what was happening in real time? Anyone who has watched Homeland knows Langley and DC know every move that’s made. Why was Stevens’ killer sitting without a care sipping mango juice just last week? Why didn’t you take him out? Why did the FBI stay out of Benghazi for almost three weeks? Wouldn’t all the good info be gone by then?

Here Romney can share his anecdote about one of the men killed, Glen Doherty, and tell how he met him, what he thought about him and be empathetic. He might want to bring up Sean Smith, another one killed, whose mother is still asking the administration for the truth on what happened to her son aka a “not optimal” “bump in the road.”

It will just be a matter of how much time moderator Bob Schieffer gives him because the ammo is there.

Romney will want to remind Obama of his comment to Russian leader Medvedev that he would have more “flexibility” in their relationship after the election. And what happened to that red reset button? Looks like it got run over.

While he’s on that topic, Romney might mention that he wouldn’t want the endorsement of Russia’s Vladimir Putin or Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro. No patriotic American would want to be anywhere near that trio.

That could lead him to ask the president why he felt the need to bow to the King of Saudi Arabia, the emperor of Japan and the Chinese leader. Why did the White House welcome the Muslim Brotherhood, a foe of ours around the world? Romney wrote a book on foreign policy called “No Apologies.” He should show viewers he means it.

Why do these opponents get the royal treatment while friends don’t? The Brits get a bust of Churchill they loaned us thrown back at them. His “good friend” Bibi Netanyahu was made to go out the back door without dinner when he visited the White House, as did the Dali Lama. That’s not the worst, however. If you’re a true American friend like the Pakistani doctor who cooperated with us and told us where Bin Laden was hiding out, you get thrown in prison. Why, Mr. President?

Nearer to home, try ‘splain’ Fast and Furious. What happened to those guns? How does he justify the hundreds of innocent Mexicans killed in that fiasco? Where are those guns now? Are we doing the same thing in Libya? Is that why Stevens went there so mysteriously and unprotected?

Romney should also ask why international monitors been allowed to watch our elections? Doesn’t Obama have faith in our governors?

Finally, Romney should not be afraid to use silence as a weapon. Obama and Bob Schieffer might start talking over themselves and Romney. All the other debate moderators weren’t afraid to enter the fray and let it get out of hand. If Romney pauses and waits til they stop blathering, he’ll catch the attention of TV viewers. They will then be waiting on his next words. Romney could then pounce.

Maybe Obama will make some dramatic announcement at the debate. Some speculate that he’s made a deal with the Iranians. If that happens, it can still be negated. A great number of us remember the 1979 Iran hostage situation. We don’t believe anything Iran says. They haven’t done anything trustworthy yet. They won’t now either.

The stage is set for Romney. He can easily take command with his performance tonight. He has shown himself remarkably able throughout the last two years. He probably will tonight.

Seals Club Obama

Posted on by
Reply

Some former Navy Seals and other veterans finally had enough of the leaks and credit taking of the Obama administration over Osama Bin Laden’s death (and other events). They banded together and produced this important film.

Like the Swiftboat campaign their efforts can have a significant effect on the presidential election.

This video is about 22 minutes long, but should be viewed by every American.

This Looks Like a Must Read

Posted on by
Reply

On August 21, Richard Miniter will debut his new book: “Leading from Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him.” It should be a bombshell.

Miniter is the author of two top-ten New York Times bestsellers, Losing Bin Laden and Shadow War, as well as Mastermind, the first biography of 9/11 planner Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. He knows what he’s talking about.

The book looks like it will confirm a scenario other than the one the media spun on the operation to kill Osama Bin Laden. This is in line with other reports I’ve read. Amazon describes it:

Barack Obama has never been fully vetted—until now.

In Leading from Behind, New York Times bestselling investigative journalist Richard Miniter presents the first book to explore President Obama’s abilities as a leader, by unearthing new details of his biggest successes and failures. Based on exclusive interviews and never-before-published material, Leading from Behind investigates the secret world of the West Wing and the combative personalities that shape historic events.

Contrary to the White House narrative, which aims to define Obama as a visionary leader, Leading from Behind reveals a president who is indecisive, moody, and often paralyzed by competing political considerations. Many victories — as well as several significant failures — during the Obama presidency are revealed to be the work of strong women, who led when the president did not: then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; and Valerie Jarrett, his closest adviser and an Obama family confidante, whose unusual degree of influence has been a source of conflict with veteran political insiders.

In Leading from Behind, you will learn:

· Why Obama’s relationship with Israel was poisoned years before he met Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu

· The real reason for Valerie Jarrett’s strong hold over both Barack and Michelle Obama

· ObamaCare wasn’t Obama’s idea. It was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s. And the real reason he danced to her tune.

· Obama delayed and canceled the mission to kill Osama bin Laden three times and then committed an intelligence blunder that allowed dozens of high-level members of al Qaeda to escape.

· Why Obama destroyed a secret budget deal with House Speaker John Boehner that would have reformed entitlements, slashed spending, and reduced the national debt—without raising taxes

· Why Obama is determined to save Attorney General Eric Holder, even though he has mislead and stonewalled Congress about “Operation: Fast and Furious”

· Why Obama decided to defy the Tea Party and ditch his plans to end earmarks

In Leading from Behind, Richard Miniter’s provocative research offers a dramatic, thoroughly sourced account of President Obama’s White House during a time of intense domestic controversy and international turmoil.

Did Obama Out Pakistani Informant?

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Michael Goodwin argues in the New York Post. The nugget about the Osama Bin Laden doctor is referenced by Rep. Peter King near the end of the piece. Here’s his story:

Panic is never pretty. When it involves a politician scrambling desperately to stay afloat, it is ugly. When it involves a president of the United States trading national-security secrets for political gain, it is obscene.

Twice last week, The New York Times published insider accounts of Obama-administration decisions. One involved “kill lists” of terrorists targeted by drones. The other described cyberwarfare attacks against Iran.

The articles revealed details of top-level meetings and quoted the president’s comments. They were so gushingly favorable to him that it’s clear they were based on authorized leaks by the White House designed to make Obama look tough against terror. Flattery was part of the bargain.

So we learned the president insists on giving final approval to each target, a “grim debating society” that tests his “principles.” We learned he “is a student of writings on war by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas” and follows the “just war theories of Christian philosophers.” Adviser John Brennan, described as a “grizzled” son of Irish immigrants, is compared “to a priest whose blessing has become indispensable” to Obama.

Naturally, campaign guru David Axelrod attends these “Terror Tuesday” meetings. Not that politics is involved, of course.

This is more than an unseemly spiking of the football. This is reckless politicking that reflects an his “anything goes” approach to November: Nothing is sacred except four more years.

The Times also outed Israel as our partner in launching the Stuxnet virus against Iran’s nuclear computers. While the United States and Israel were long suspected, the article shredded any deniability.

The Allies broke German military codes in World War II, but it remained secret until the 1970s. Now our president leaks secrets in real time.

The Times says the virus program, code named Olympic Games, started under President George W. Bush and was an effort to stop Iran from getting the bomb. While Bush “had little credibility,” the Times says, Obama “concluded that when it came to stopping Iran, the United States had no other choice.”

See, when Bush does it, it’s bad; when Obama does it, it’s good. Give the Times a gold star for its campaign contribution.

The paper also hinted that one or more Iranian technicians helped introduce the virus into the computers.

I asked Rep. Pete King, the GOP chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, if he saw anything wrong with the leaks. King had plenty to say:

“It’s a pattern that goes back two years, starting with the Times Square bomber, where somebody in the federal government, probably the FBI, leaked his name before he was captured. That’s why he tried to leave the country — he knew they were on to him.
“They did it with the movie about Osama bin Laden, leaking all kinds of operational details that are supposed to remain secret and setting up the producer with a member of the SEALs. They mentioned we had DNA, which is how the Pakistanis focused on the doctor they arrested.

“And now this. It’s like two press releases coming from the Oval Office. It’s unheard of. It puts our people at risk and gives information to the enemy. And it gives our allies a reason not to work with us because what they do might show up on the front page of The New York Times.”

King said it was “amateur hour” in the White House, and it surely is. But this is more than inexperience.

These authorized leaks go to the heart of integrity and presidential character. With the economy stuck in stall and with even leading Democrats bucking their attacks on Mitt Romney, Obama and Axelrod appear ready to abandon all principles in a frenetic quest for victory.

It is shocking, and it is June. One can only imagine the outrages they will unleash in the coming months to preserve their hold on power.

Bye Bye Coal Industry

Posted on by
Reply

No drilling off the coast of the Atlantic; no Keystone pipeline from Canada; now the Obama administration has set their sites on shutting down our coal industry.

And how do they do it? By working with Congress? No, through regulations decreed by the EPA. You see, this is how it’s done in a totalitarian administration (see Judge Napolitano’s comments in clip below this article).

If you’re the president, you just use executive orders or get one of your many alphabet agencies to get ‘er done.

Now it’s the coal industry’s turn, but some of the union leaders in West Virginia are objecting. From The Hill:

The coal industry will suffer the same fate as Osama bin Laden under new climate regulations proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, the head of the United Mine Workers of America said this week.

“The Navy SEALs shot Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan and Lisa Jackson shot us in Washington,” Cecil Roberts, president of the powerful union, said during an interview Tuesday on the West Virginia radio show MetroNews Talkline.

Roberts blasted Jackson, the EPA administrator, over the proposed regulations, which would limit greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants. Opponents of the regulations, including Roberts, say the new rules would be the death knell of the coal industry.

New coal-fired power plants would have to install technology to capture carbon dioxide emissions in order to comply with the rules. The technology, known as carbon capture and storage (CCS), “is not commercially available,” Roberts said.

“This rule is an all-out, in my opinion, decision by the EPA that we’re never going to have another coal-fired facility in the United States that’s constructed,” Roberts said.

The union chief used colorful language to underscore his point.

“I noticed this past week the vice president was talking about the campaign and he mentioned that Osama Bin Laden was dead and General Motors was alive,” Roberts said. “He should have gone on to say that the coal industry is not far behind with respect to what happened with Osama Bin Laden.”

While the United Mine Workers of America likely won’t actively oppose President Obama’s reelection bid, Roberts said the new EPA regulation could prevent the union from endorsing the president.

“That’s something that we have not done yet and may not do because of this very reason. Our people’s jobs are on the line,” Roberts said, adding that Obama has “done a lot of great things for the country.”

Roberts’s comments underscore the vehement opposition to the new EPA regulations in coal states whose economies rely heavily on the fossil fuel.

The rules would require new power plants that burn fossil fuels to release no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt‐hour.

The agency said new natural-gas plants will be able to meet the standard without adding any additional technology. But new coal plants would need to add new technology like CCS, in which carbon dioxide emissions are collected and sequestered in the ground rather than released into the atmosphere.

The rules give new coal-fired power plants flexibility to meet the standard. Instead of meeting the standard on an annual basis, new coal plants that install CCS can use a 30-year average of their carbon dioxide emissions, according to EPA.

The proposed standards come as plans to build new coal plants have been waylaid by competition from inexpensive natural gas — which is undergoing a production boom — and other factors.

Environmental groups have cheered the regulations, with Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune noting that they will “make it nearly impossible to build a new coal plant.”

What else is it going to take to get Americans to realize that this president wants to curtail your energy and to relegate the U.S. to lower standard of living and power in the world?