Posts Tagged ‘Gitmo’

The Moral Idiocy Of Obama’s Attitude Toward The Five Taliban Generals: Meet Five ‘Old Men’ Who Won World War II

June 9, 2014

I have been amazed – as I always am when I listen to liberals endlessly recycle stupid, morally idiotic arguments from other liberals – about the meme that the five Taliban generals Obama released to return to killing Americans are somehow “old men” who are “out of the loop” and therefore no threat to the United States.

First of all, allow me to point out that the Defense Department experts Obama himself consulted ALL warned against the trade, likening it to “handing over five four-star generals of the Taliban”:

Senior military officials had advised President Obama not to make the Taliban-for-Bergdahl trade, a senior Defense official told Fox News, likening it to “handing over five four-star generals of the Taliban.”

The claim adds to the picture that is emerging about the tense internal debate over whether to proceed with freeing five hardened Taliban leaders from Guantanamo in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s release.

Sources told Fox News earlier this week that the Obama administration largely bypassed the intelligence community to green-light the swap, after such an exchange was first floated several years ago.

The Defense official, in explaining internal military opposition to the exchange, said many in the military considered Bergdahl to be a traitor — a reference to allegations that he deliberately abandoned his post in 2009.

What we keep being told is that these five Taliban four-star generals are all “old men” who are therefore “has beens.”  How old are they?

Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa was born in 1967.  He’s 47 years old.

Mullah Mohammad Fazl was likewise born in 1967.

Mullah Norullah Noori was born in 1967 and is the apparently popular-with-terrorist-generals age of 47.

Abdul Haq Wasiq was born in 1958, making him a really old fifty-six years old.  Clearly the grandpa of the group of war criminal terrorist murderers.

Mohammad Nabi Omari was born in 1968, making him the baby of the group.  He is 46 years old.

Wow.  These guys were old.  I mean, really, really old, right?  WAY to old to be effective generals, Obama and his cockroach minions assure us.

And yes, these five were an incredibly high price to pay.

Let’s compare them to OUR old “has been” men who defeated the Nazis and the Japanese during World War II.

Meet five men who were ALL older than the OLDEST of the Taliban generals who were released:

Dwight (Ike) Eisenhower, born October 14, 1890: Dwight D. Esienhower was fifty-five years old when he accepted Nazi Germany’s unconditional surrender after leading the Allies to complete victory.  Not bad for an old man who had last fired a shot at the enemy in anger during World War I.

George S. Patton, born November 11, 1885: at the time World War II ended, this particular old, washed-up old man was sixty years old.  He was regarded by the Nazis – somehow in site of his dotage – as the Allies’ very best attacking general.  He was used as bait for the D-Day invasion, as the Germans simply refused to believe that America would sideline its greatest warrior.  And then he ultimately drove a tank division right up Hitler’s whazoo at the Battle of the Bulge when he led the greatest armored counterattack in the entire history of warfare to relieve the critically important garrison at Bastogne.

It’s actually kind of interesting: the man the Nazis considered our very best general also happened to be our very OLDEST general in the European theater.

Omar Bradley, born February 12, 1893: Bradley was fifty-two years old when he got through kicking Adolf Hitler’s ass.

Douglas MacArthur, born 26 January 1880: which makes “the god of war” 65 years-old when he defeated Imperial Japan and brought an end to World War II.  Not bad for such a ridiculously old man.

Again, fascinating: our “god of war” who was our most brilliant military strategist in the Pacific was also our very oldest general in that theater.

Raymond A. Spruance, born July 3, 1886 was fifty-nine years old when he defeated Japan and with MacArthur was most responsible for winning World War II in the Pacific.

So just in case anybody happens to be stupid enough to believe the liberal’s utter bullcrap, guess what: YOU CAN BE OLD AND BE AN AWESOME, AWESOME GENERAL WHO WINS WARS AND DEFEATS ENEMIES, DUMBASS.

And anybody who has the brainlessness to believe that if you’d put these men away for a dozen years and then released them that they’d be of no use to America in the war has to be considered beneath the level of drooling moron.

These five terrorist generals are the very best the enemy had that were in our custody.  Obama - in his desperation for a “photo-op” - literally allowed our enemies to ask for these five BY NAME.  And now they are free to kill Americans for years and years to come.

It turns out that far more important than the trigger pullers who actually fight wars are the old men who know how to recruit, organize, , fund, train and lead the trigger pullers.  And Barack Obama just let the five best generals the Taliban had go free for one low-ranking traitorous deserter turd.

This isn’t a question of whether Obama had the right to do it.  According to the law he signed, he didn’t, HE BROKE THE LAW.  But consider that a president has the “right” to pardon anyone he wants.  So now imagine a president pardoned every single one of the millions of vicious criminals who are in our jails – every murderer, every rapist, every gang member – and put them back on the street to return to their lives of oppressing good people.

What would your response to such an insane act be?

Impeach that worthless president’s ass, that’s what.

The lies straight out of hell that have characterized this whole miserable presidency are amazing.  The same Susan Rice who went to every major Sunday morning political show and lied to the American people as per her master’s instructions did it again when she told us that the deserter Bowe Bergdahl “served with honor and distinction.”  Do you know what an absolute outrage that is?  Do you understand that this administration has literally slandered every single member of Bergdahl’s platoon that did NOT desert and describe themselves as being “ashamed to be an American” and later tell us that they were warriors for Islam.

In practically the same breath she told another lie straight out of the devil’s mouth: she claimed that Bergdahl “was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield.”  And no, these demon-possessed liars who want to warp bad people into good people and good people into bad people have so turned their backs on the truth and so turned their backs on justice and so turned their backs on America that it is unreal: Bowe Bergdahl is – and this according to every single member of his platoon or company who have spoken out in any way – an American DESERTER who abandoned his post and his brothers and intentionally sought out the enemy.  That’s what he is.

The Obama administration just told a plain lie about why they refused to notify Congress AS THE LAW REQUIRES OBAMA TO DO.  Obama claimed that it was because Bergdahl was so sick he was just about to die.  Which became a blatantly obvious lie when the turd got out of a truck and walked just fine to the helicopter that took him away.  And the American physicians at the overseas base pronounced him healthy.  Oh, and the “evidence” that Bergdahl was “at death’s door” was contained in a proof-of-life video that Obama had for several months and therefore he had plenty of time to notify Congress as the law requires.  But being Obama, Obama just switched lies.  And explained that, oh, he’d forgotten until just now: there had been a threat to execute Bergdahl if any word got out about the trade.  Only such threat does not exist in any intelligence report.  And since Congress had been notified about the Osama bin Laden raid, they could clearly be trusted to handle this.  Oh, and the only people who should not be trusted with secrets actually turn out to be Obama and his entire administration rather than Congress.

Keep in mind that this is an administration that just blew the cover of its top CIA official in Afghanistan - and they’ve got the elephant balls to point fingers about “leaks”?

It’s this simple: Obama was desperate and determined to get the Veterans Administration scandal that proved the deadly incompetence of socialized medicine once and for all out of the headlines.  And so he came up with the idea of trading a probable traitor for five generals who will kill tens of thousands of people with many of those being Americans.

Obama’s presidency is a disgrace.

You watch that video that the terrorists took of the Bergdahl exchange and you see that it was a masterpiece of propaganda that frankly just shows America for the cowardly disgrace that it is under Obama.  The terrorists are clearly in charge; they’ve got the guns and the US troops sent to pick up the trash (that’s Bergdahl) are weaponless.  Who are the strong?  They are.  Who are the weak?  We are.  They shake the hands of the terrorists, legitimizing them and showing again who is in control (they are) and who is the beggar (that’s us).  They shaved Bergdahl’s beard and figuratively disgraced all Americans as unmanly just like Obama is decidedly unmanly.  They tell Bergdahl not to come back or else they’ll kill him in a warning that is clearly for the entire cowardly United States of America.  And then the whole sorry group of Americans climbs into a helicopter and flies away, a la the last helicopter out of Saigon in the Vietnam War as we bailed out in disgrace.

You must understand: ALL of these things are true about America under Obama.  That’s why an emboldened Putin is seizing territory just like Hitler and Stalin did to launch the world into WWII.  And that’s why Obama is having to go to Asia and to Europe to desperately try to reassure panicking allies who realized they bet on the wrong horse that – all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding – you can count on Obama’s “God damn America” to protect you.  But when you’re constantly having to verbally assert that you’re not weak, it’s only because YOU ARE WEAK.

I’ve been saying this for years: Obama is the worst of Neville Chamberlain, who was an absolute dictator in tyrannously imposing his domestic agenda while being a totally weak little boy in the face of threats such as Hitler.  If Obama treated America’s enemies the way he treats Republicans, he would have emptied America’s nuclear arsenal in strikes by now.

And then of course there’s the jubilant video of the five terrorist generals being welcomed as heroes in Qatar, where they’ll be virtually entirely free to do whatever they want as they live in luxury.  Brothers in arms coming home to heroic welcome, and hey, little Muslim boy, wouldn’t YOU like to be this cool?  Just be a terrorist!  I have no question that the five Taliban four-star generals can and probably already ARE directing more deadly actions against America over the phone, over the Internet, over Skype, etc.

On our end, of course, we had Obama who spiked the football as if he’d actually done something WONDERFUL rather than evil for trading a deserter and probable collaborator for five enemy generals while the war against us still rages.  He has Bergdahl’s father come on so he can praise Allah for the release of his son.  I can only suspect that Obama wanted Allah’s name to be praised but was too much of a coward to do it himself and so did it by proxy.

America has become such a pathetic joke under this president.

I don’t have any doubt at all that Bergdahl – who said he was ashamed to be an American BEFORE he removed his uniform and deserted his unit to collaborate with the enemy – has created a lot more Americans who are ashamed to be Americans.  Because any country that would have a disgrace like Obama lead them and any country that would trade five top generals for one collaborating deserter is a place to be ashamed of, indeed.

‘A Vast Hypocrite Conspiracy’ Alert: Obama Demonized Waterboarding – But He Is Murdering Americans With Predator Death Lists

February 6, 2013

Just to make sure you all get the “vast conspiracy” part: yes, there’s a vast, right wing conspiracy going on here.  We’d better blame Bush.

Only the real crisis is being caused by a conspiracy of abject hypocrisy.  And that one’s got Democrats all over it (and for the record, Hillary Clinton’s “vast, rightwing conspiracy” turned out to be a predatory lizard that was living in Bill Clinton’s pants).

I’ll make you a deal, liberal: you can waterboard me the way the CIA waterboarded those terrorists who ended up singing like birds.  The exact number of pours will be rigorously monitored, a doctor will be present to verify that my medical condition is never threatened at any time during the procedure, etc.

Then I get to smash you into so many pieces they won’t be able to fill a little girl’s shoe box with your remains.

Is that a deal?  Obama – being incredibly stingy with his toys – probably won’t let me have a Predator drone, so I’ll be using a big giant axe for my part of this test as to whether waterboarding or killing is worse.  And I’ll get 183 whacks at you to correspond with the 183 pours ultimately used by one of the three terrorists during waterboarding.

That’s right: Obama tried to criminalize the Bush administration and literally prosecute top Bush officials for their role in trying to protect the American people by using enhanced interrogation measures in order to get people who were willing to die to kill as many of us as possible to tell us what we needed to know to stop the next murderous attack.

It’s wrong to waterboard terrorists.

But it is perfectly okay in our “good is evil and evil is good” administration to order the killing of American citizens without any kind of due process.  And without even having to have any actual “evidence.”

I have a theory for why liberals believe it’s wrong to waterboard but perfectly okay to kill without any kind of due process.  You see, liberals are evolved cockroaches on their own theology of Darwinian evolution.  They just randomly mutated and evolved; there’s no meaning, or value or purpose to their evolved insect lives, so why not treat human beings like herd animals and kill them?  At the same time, they are very squeemish, indeed, about aforementioned herd animals being maltreated prior to their slaughter.  So kill them without due processs, yes, but waterboard them, no.

I just want to point out for the official record that every single Democrat on earth who is not loudly crying out for Barack Obama, Joe Biden and top Democrat officials to resign and be criminally prosecuted is a demon-possessed hypocrite – every single one of you weasels:

EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans
By Michael Isikoff, National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” — even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the  September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.

The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week’s hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director.  Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses  “an imminent threat of violent attack.”

But the confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described  by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches.  It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.

“The condition that an operational  leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

Instead, it says,  an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American  has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is  no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

As in Holder’s speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful:  In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be “infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to “law of war principles.” But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect  would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes.

The undated memo is entitled “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or An Associated Force.”  It was provided to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees in June by administration officials on the condition that it be kept confidential and  not discussed publicly.

Although not an official legal memo, the white paper was represented by administration  officials as a policy document that closely mirrors the arguments of classified memos on targeted killings by the Justice Department’s  Office of Legal Counsel, which provides authoritative legal advice to the president and all executive branch agencies. The administration has refused to turn over to Congress or release those memos publicly — or even publicly confirm their existence. A source with access to the white paper, which is not classified, provided a copy to NBC News.

“This is a chilling document,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which is suing to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans.  “Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”

In particular, Jaffer said, the memo “redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning.”

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on the white paper. The spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, instead pointed to public speeches by what she called a “parade” of administration officials, including Brennan, Holder, former State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh and former Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson that she said outlined the “legal framework” for such operations.

Pressure for turning over the Justice Department memos on targeted killings of Americans appears to be building on Capitol Hill amid signs that Brennan will be grilled on the subject at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday.

On Monday, a bipartisan group of 11 senators — led by Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon — wrote  a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to release all Justice Department memos on the subject. While accepting that “there will clearly be circumstances in which the president has the authority to use lethal force” against Americans who take up arms against the country,  it said, “It is vitally important … for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how  the executive branch interprets the limits and boundaries of this authority.”

The completeness of the administration’s public accounts of its legal arguments was also sharply criticized last month by U.S. Judge Colleen McMahon in response to a  lawsuit brought by the New York Times and the ACLU seeking access to the Justice Department memos on drone strikes targeting Americans under the Freedom of Information Act.  McMahon, describing herself as being caught in a “veritable Catch-22,”  said she was unable to order the release of the documents given “the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for the conclusion a secret.”

In her ruling, McMahon noted that administration officials “had engaged in public discussion of the legality of targeted killing, even of citizens.” But, she wrote, they have done so “in cryptic and imprecise ways, generally without citing … any statute or court decision that justifies its conclusions.”

In one passage in Holder’s speech at Northwestern in March,  he alluded – without spelling out—that there might be circumstances where the president might order attacks against American citizens without specific knowledge of when or where an attack against the U.S. might take place.

“The Constitution does not  require the president to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning, when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear,”  he said.

But his speech did not contain the additional language in the white paper suggesting that no active intelligence about a specific attack is needed to justify a targeted strike. Similarly, Holder said in his speech that targeted killings of Americans can be justified  if “capture is not feasible.” But he did not include language in the white paper saying that an operation might not be feasible “if it could not be physically effectuated during the relevant window of opportunity or if the relevant country (where the target is located) were to decline to consent to a capture operation.” The speech also made no reference to the risk that might be posed to U.S. forces seeking to capture a target, as was  mentioned in the white paper.

The white paper also includes a more extensive discussion of why targeted strikes against Americans does not violate constitutional protections afforded American citizens as well as   a U.S. law that criminalizes the killing of U.S. nationals overseas.

It  also discusses why such targeted killings would not be a war crime or violate a U.S. executive order banning assassinations.

“A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination,” the white paper reads. “In the Department’s view, a lethal operation conducted against a U.S. citizen whose conduct poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States would be a legitimate act of national self-defense that would not violate the assassination ban. Similarly,  the use of lethal force, consistent with the laws of war, against an individual who is a legitimate military target would be lawful and would not violate the assassination ban.”

Obama’s policy would literally allow him to order a lethal predator drone strike on an American citizen in the United States, according to Judge Andrew Napolitano, who read the White House memo.

And Obama has already defined pretty much everybody who disagrees with his socialist agenda as “a terrorist.”  You know, while using actual terrorists who murdered American servicemen to help him do so.  It is amazing that Obama has STILL refused to call Major Nidal Hasan’s attack “terrorist” even though the man carried business cards stamped “Soldier of Allah” and even though he was screaming “Allahu Akbar!” while gunning down his victims.  But he HAS called pro-life Christians, soldiers returning from Obama’s wars and pretty much everybody else who disagrees with Obama a “terrorist.”

Why is there not more outrage in the media and in the Democrat Party?  Because liberalism is quintessential hypocrisy.  And the more liberal you are, the more of a hypocrite you are.  And because to be a Democrat is to be an abject moral idiot.

That’s why the left demonized and slandered Gitmo while Bush was running it, but hasn’t said a damn word going on five years after Obama – after personally demonizing and slandering Bush over Gitmo himself - promised to shut down the place that is still very much open as he begins his second term.

Here’s the rock that Republicans constantly find themselves under: vile, slanderous, dishonest liberal hypocrites demonize Republicans for their very reasonable methods to deal with evil.  They attack us every single day as some kind of fascist Nazis for doing what needs to be done.  Then when they get elected, they do the very damn things – and far WORSE – than the stuff they poured liquid hate on us for doing.  Obama is literally killing Americans with no due process and claiming that he is above the Constitution.  But when the Democrats do this, the fact that they are demon-possessed hypocrites and slandering liars somehow gets conveniently overlooked.

Obama gets to benefit by demonizing and slandering his political enemies.  Then he gets to benefit again by justifying his policies with comparisons to the very people he demonized and slandered.  And it doesn’t matter that he’s a criminal who ought to be lined up against a damn wall and shot for his own words about the people he is now using to justify his actions.

To be a Democrat is to be somebody who doesn’t give one flying damn about human rights unless it helps them politically.

This is why the beast is gong to come and why America won’t be much more than a banana republic when he takes over the world: because one party is fundamentally hypocritical and profoundly dishonest, and the other party is the constant victim of an endless stream of propaganda smears from that wicked party.  Everything the Republicans do is slandered and demonized by propoganda even when the ideology doing that slandering and demonization does far worse.

One day you people are going to burn in hell for what you’ve done.  Every single one of you voted for more than fifty-five million innocent babies to be murdered in the abortion mills.  Every single one of you voted for Obama to write kill lists that target Americans without due process.  And the day is coming when the fire of hell is going to consume you forever and ever and ever.

Laugh now, Democrat.  You’ll be screaming in eternal agony later.

Obama To Release One-Third Of Gitmo Detainees AFTER Learning That Terrorist Who Led Attack That Murdered US Ambassador Had Been A Gitmo Detainee

September 24, 2012

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned very much (read: not at all anywhere but on Fox News), but the terrorist attack on American soil in Libya that Obama repeatedly denied for more than a week did not merely occur timed with the anniversary of 9/11; it also occurred along with Obama announcing that he was reversing the surge that he began and that all 33,000 American troops in that surge were now out of the country.

Not only did the Obama administration and many of its top officials – including US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney) explicitly deny that the terrorist attack which they now admit was “self-evidently” a terrorist attack had been a terrorist attack for well over a week, but now we find that in fact the United States Ambassador to Libya had been left without any armed security prior to his murder:

American Marines were not stationed at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli or the American mission in Benghazi, as would typically have been the case. In the spirit of a “low profile,” the administration didn’t even want an American company in charge of private security. Blue Mountain, the British firm the State Department hired, was willing to abide by the “no bullets” Rules of Engagement (ROE), so were a logical fit for the contract. These sub-standard protections for American diplomats were signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the ROE. 
 
In essence, the Obama Administration tasked an unarmed British firm with security responsibilities that should have been handled by armed American servicemen, and it was all approved by the Secretary of State. Needless to say, the plan failed and an Ambassador was murdered, along with several others.
 
As of now, the State Department has not disclosed the full State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya.

You want to talk about an administration being COMPLETELY and CRIMINALLY UNPREPARED for a threat that any FOOL should have seen coming (unless “9/11″ is merely a date on a calendar)???

But now you find it’s far worse than that; Obama clearly doesn’t even CARE about American foreign policy.  After all, he’s the guy who got bin Laden (gag me); he’s invulnerable to criticism of his foreign policy.  It doesn’t matter if Iran is just about to get a nuclear bomb under his watch (and if Obama is reelected, there is ABSOLUTELY no question Iran WILL get nuclear weapons because of Obama’s weakness); it doesn’t matter if Vladimer Putin – very contrary to Obama’s ill-fated “reset” – is telling America to go to hell as Russia restores itself to its former Stalinist glory; it doesn’t matter if China is more aggressive under Obama’s weak foreign policy than it had been at any time since the Chosin Reservoir surprise attack of US forces during the Korean War; and it doesn’t matter if fully 33 Muslim nations - more than EVER in history – have burned America’s flag in their streets and attacked sovereign American territory.

Name just ONE Muslim country that the US has better relations with than the day Bush left office.  There ISN’T one.  You could have at least said “Libya” a few weeks ago (and that would have been the ONLY possibility); but then again a few weeks ago Libya had NEVER MURDERED AN AMERICAN AMBASSADOR PRIOR TO THAT, HAD IT?

Maybe you could say Egpt – but only because Obama is far more sypatico with the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood than he ever could have been with the Egypt that had been a staunch American ally until Obama helped topple that regime:

And now what do we have under this demon-possessed turd who has worked mightily to bring the world ever closer to that day the Bible described as “Armageddon”???

Obama to Release One Third of Gitmo Inmates
by AWR Hawkins22 Sep 2012

President Barack Obama is about to release or transfer 55 Gitmo prisoners, despite reports that the Libyan believed to be behind the killing of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens was a former Guantanamo inmate transferred to Libyan custody.
 
The large percentage of those scheduled to be released are Yemeni, according to a list made public by the Obama administration.
 
Obama stopped the release or transfer of Yemeni inmates in 2010, because the conditions in the country were viewed as too “unsettled” at the time.
 
A release or transfer of 55 inmates means Obama is moving out one third of the prisoners at Guantanamo. And while it doesn’t represent a shutdown of the facility, it’s certainly indicative of a move toward that end.
 
Could it be that Obama is trying to set himself up to campaign as the man who is taking steps to finally close Gitmo, just as he recently reversed the Afghanistan surge in order to campaign as the man who’s winding down the war in the Afghanistan?
 
The ACLU has praised the releases as “a partial victory for transparency.”

[CBS News video about former Gitmo detainee leading Libyan attack at site]

That and cutting the funding of the security for American embassies have got to be the two stupidest things that one can possibly imagine in light of the murder of a US Ambassador – the first since the failed Jimmy Carter days of 1979.

We’re showing the Muslim world all the weakness that Obama and Democrats falsely and stupidly promised the American people would make the Muslim world love us: we’re pulling out of Afghanistan; we’re refusing to protect our ambassadors lest we create some sort of “profile” that will somehow anger Muslims; we’re apologizing for our 1st Amendment’s guarantee of free speech as some sort of tragic mistake that Obama will surely remedy if he is reelected; and we’re releasing all the terrorist monsters who we’ve been holding at Gitmo.

What Obama has demonstrated is that he is the most nakedly cynical political weasel who has ever so much as VISITED the White House let alone lived in it.  He will exploit ANYTHING no matter how vital to America and no matter who has to die for him to get reelected.

As Israel faces a very urgent decision as to whether to attack Iran as its only hope of national survival, Obama refused to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu and then lied about refusing to meet with him.  Of course, he’s got plenty of time to meet with Pimp with a Limp and the cast of the view in lieu of doing any interviews where he might get asked questions about why his presidency has been such an abject failure.

You get the essence of this coward in two snapshots: snapshot one is where Obama goes before the United Nations to denounce the man who made that stupid practically homemade Youtube video attacking Muhammad; snapshot two is when “Piss Christ” comes back to New York with Obama’s complete silence.  And of course it was liberals just like Obama who forced Christians to not only accept a Crucifix of Jesus being placed in a jar of urine and calling it “art” but to subsidize it with their tax dollars in the name of free speech, just as it is liberals who are now desperate to denounce that same free speech to protect a hateful and murderous fascist political system masquerading as a “religion.”

The beast of the Book of Revelation is coming.  Democrats will worship him and take his mark on their right hands or on their foreheads.  And someday very soon hell will swallow and devour them all.

FACT: Obama Regime Completely LIED About The Riots Burning The Muslim World That Prove The Obama Foreign Policy A Catastrophic Failure

September 20, 2012

As I easily document below, the official Obama position was that the violent anti-American riots that began across the Middle East (and which have now spread to 33 Islamic countries) were “spontaneous” outbursts that were – and this was what the Obama White House said – “in response not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people.  It is in response to a video.”

We now know that that was an outright lie.  And it is a lie that was spawned not because of any inability to understand the facts, but rather because Obama’s reelection has resulted in EVERYTHING – including American foreign policy – to be cynically and deceitfully politicized.  Obama could not face these attacks having been in any way preplanned or coordinated, because then he would have to answer for his administration’s abject failure to be able to see such attacks coming and prevent them or at least limit the damage.  Obama failed in his most basic duty to protect America and protect her territory and her interests at home and abroad.  But as a political weasel, he demanded his appointees fabricate and conflate his political interests with American foreign policy concerns.

We now know for a FACT that the very first protest (read “riot” given that they overran the walls of our American embassy and not only destroyed the grounds but took down the American flag and put up a sharia/al Qaeda flag in it’s place ON UNITED STATES TERRITORY) had absolutely NOTHING to do with the movie/video that Obama’s goons repeatedly cited:

Report: Riots Actually About Release of Blind Sheik
Alana Goodman | @alanagoodman 09.12.2012 – 2:20 PM

USA Today reports that the riot at the U.S. embassy in Cairo appears to have been planned well before the Egyptian media reported on the anti-Islam YouTube film that was blamed for sparking the protest. The protest was reportedly announced on August 30 by Gamaa Islamiyya, an Egyptian terrorist group, to call for the release of its leader, Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman — aka the blind sheik, who is serving a life sentence for the first World Trade Center bombing:

Days of planning and online promotion by hard-line Islamist leaders helped whip up the mobs that stormed the U.S. Embassy in Egypt and launched a deadly attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya that killed an ambassador and three others. …

The protest was planned by Salafists well before news circulated of an objectionable video ridiculing Islam’s prophet, Mohammed, said Eric Trager, an expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

The protest outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was announced Aug. 30 by [Gamaa Islamiyya], a State Department-designated terrorist group, to protest the ongoing imprisonment of its spiritual leader, Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman, who is serving a life sentence in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

Based on the report, it sounds like the anti-Islam YouTube video was a secondary issue — a way for Islamist leaders to stoke anger and draw more bodies out to the embassy protest. If the storming of the embassy was organized by Gamaa Islamiyya — as opposed to a spontaneous uprising — why hasn’t the State Department’s response reflected that? It’s hard to imagine they’re not aware of the group’s activities. In June, the State Department actually issued a visa to a member of Gamaa Islamiyya — again, this is a designated terrorist organization — and met with him in Washington, as part of a delegation of Egyptian leaders. During the meeting, he reportedly asked White House officials to release the blind sheik. Here was the State Department’s defense at the time, which is even more astonishing in light of the latest news:

“We neither had then, nor do we have now, any reason to believe that this particular individual — who at the time of his application was a member of parliament — would pose a threat to the United States,” [State Department spokesperson Victoria] Nuland told reporters.

Nuland pointed to rapid changes in the Middle East, where an Islamist was declared the winner Sunday of Egypt’s first democratic presidential elections a year and a half after street protests toppled strongman Hosni Mubarak.

“It’s a new day in Egypt; it’s a new day in a lot of countries across the Middle East and North Africa. So new political personalities are coming to light,” Nuland said.

“We have more folks who want to come here, want to know us, want to learn about the US, want to develop relationships with us. We have the same interest with regard to them,” she said.

Apparently State miscalculated on that “develop relationships” part.

It was previously documented that the worst attack which resulted in the murder of a US ambassador (the first time since the pathetic CARTER was president) had nothing to do with the movie/video.  I wrote on September 18:

Obama White House, State Department LIE Exposed: There Were NO Demonstrations Over Movie Clip Prior To Terrorist Attack On Consulate In Libya

An article ran on Yahoo News cuts right to the gist of the crucial issue about this story:

The Obama administration’s claim that the murderous Benghazi attack was a unpredictable byproduct of a spontaneous protest gives White House officials a short-term way to fend off media questions.

Any investigation may create a damaging pre-election scandal for the president, who touted his ability in 2008 to build peace between the United States and conflict-prone Muslim countries.

But accumulating media reports — and Libyans’ statements — suggest the administration severely underestimated the danger of jihadis in Libya, many of whom have seized weapons from the armory of former Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. (RELATED: Susan Rice, US ambassador to the United Nations: ‘We’re quite popular in Libya’)

It is frankly amazing that no matter how much information has come flooding out that proves the White House and the State Department completely wrong and in fact flat-out lying, they are holding to that same story nevertheless. White House Press Spokesman Jay Carney had this to say:

JAKE TAPPER: [unintelligible] that the anniversary of 9-11 would be a time when you would want to have extra security around diplomats and military posts?

JAY CARNEY: Well, as you know, there, we, are very vigilant around anniversaries like 9-11. The president is always briefed and brought up to speed on the precautions being taken. [crosstalk] But let’s be clear. This, these protests, were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region. [crosstalk] We don’t know otherwise. You know, we have no information to suggest that it was a pre-planned…attack.

More from Jay Carney:

This is a fairly volatile situation, and it is in response not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video – a film – that we have judged to be reprehensive and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it. But this is not a case of protests directed at the United States, writ large, or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive and – to Muslims.”

Obama’s handpicked U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice had this to say:

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last week was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.

“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”

“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated,” Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Protesters in Cairo breached the walls of the U.S. Embassy, tearing apart an American flag.

“We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,” Rice said. “And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”

The facts scream that these people and the administration itself are simply LIARS.

There were NO demonstrations going on prior to the attack on the US Consulate in Libya, as Obama’s “cover story” demands you believe. Rather, the attack was a pre-planned and coordinated terrorist attack that displayed command and control, coordinated movement, direct and indirect fire, all in a multi-pronged and well executed attack. Oh, an attack that by “coincidence” just happened to occur on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

No demonstration before attack on US Consulate, source says
Published September 17, 2012
FoxNews.com

An intelligence source on the ground in Libya told Fox News that there was no demonstration outside the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi prior to last week’s attack — challenging the Obama administration’s claims that the assault grew out of a “spontaneous” protest against an anti-Islam film.

“There was no protest and the attacks were not spontaneous,” the source said, adding the attack “was planned and had nothing to do with the movie.”

The source said the assault came with no warning at about 9:35 p.m. local time, and included fire from more than two locations. The assault included RPG’s and mortar fire, the source said, and consisted of two waves.

The account that the attack started suddenly backs up claims by a purported Libyan security guard who told McClatchy Newspapers late last week that the area was quiet before the attack.

“There wasn’t a single ant outside,” the unnamed guard, who was being treated in a hospital, said in the interview.

These details appear to conflict with accounts from the Obama administration that the attack spawned from an out-of-control protest. The Libyan president also said Sunday that the strike was planned in advance.

U.S. officials, in response to the claim that there was no demonstration at the time of the attack, told Fox News there was a small protest earlier in the day — but they did not dispute that there was no significant or sizeable demonstration at the time.

But a senior Obama administration official told Fox News on Monday morning that the Libyan president’s comments are not consistent with “the consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community,” which has been investigating the incident, and are accordingly not credible.

“He doesn’t have the information we have,” the U.S. official said of Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif. “”He doesn’t have the (data) collection potential that we have.”

The Libyan leader told CBS News’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday that the government in Tripoli harbors “no doubt” that the Sept. 11 attack that killed U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was “preplanned, predetermined.” That assessment conflicted directly with the preliminary conclusion offered on Sunday by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who appeared on all five Sunday morning talk shows.

There, Rice maintained that the Benghazi incident “was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo, as a consequence of the video,” and that after the protest outside the U.S. consulate gathered steam, “those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons.”

Asked if the timing of the Benghazi incident – the eleventh anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks — was simply a coincidence, the senior U.S. official said on Monday: “It is coincidental. All evidence we have points to this video being the spark of these events. In all of the intel and traffic, there was no one out there saying, ‘Oh, it’s September 11th, we must avenge…'”

The senior U.S. official added that this is “the consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community at this point,” and that Rice “was not out there volunteering her own opinions.”

The official also discounted as “not accurate” reports that staff at U.S. embassy in Egypt warned the State Department — in a cable purportedly sent on the afternoon of Sept. 10 — about the effect the anti-Islam video was having, and the likelihood of violent protests in Cairo, but received no response from Washington.

“There was cable traffic, involving discussion of the video and the potential for protests, the Embassy was aware,” the U.S. official told Fox News. “There were discussions about protests between the relevant agencies — intel and State — but the idea that there was no response from State is false.”

Officials at the State Department and the White House continue to express satisfaction with the cooperation they are receiving from foreign governments in the protection of American diplomats and their families. This is said to be especially the case in those instances where President Obama has reached out to foreign heads of state, namely Egypt, Yemen and Libya.

Still, the State Department over the weekend — in a shift of plans that occurred sometime after Friday evening — announced the evacuation of diplomats’ family members and “non-essential” personnel from U.S. Embassies in Tunisia and Sudan, sites of some of the most violent scenes on Friday.

Fox News’ Catherine Herridge, James Rosen and Pamela Browne contributed to this report.

The president of Libya – who as president of his country would probably be surprised to learn that he has nowhere near the knowledge of what is happening in his own country than the CIA has – couldn’t have been much more clear:

“The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous,” Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif told the liberal National Public Radio network.

Instead, the killing was a military-style attack, he said.

And if that isn’t clear enough:

On Sunday, Libya’s president refuted the White House’s claim that the Benghazi attack was a simple anti-video protest that went berserk.

“We firmly believe that this was a pre-calculated, pre-planned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. Consulate,” el-Megarif said.

There are now anti-American protests going on in 33 different Muslim countries.

Anti-Obama? Yep. The mobs of demonstrators in Cairo, Egupt chanted, “Obama, Obama, there are still one billion Osamas.”

And they burned pictures of Barack Obama in effigy in cities like Karachi, Pakistan. While Obama watched lots of football. And tweeted about Beyonce and Jay-Z, you know, to show “he was in touch.”

In fact, they burned American flags and pictures of Obama pretty much all over everywhere.

It would be inappropriate for me to suggest that all Obama did while the Middle East burned was to watch football games and tweet about Beyonce and Jay-Z. He did more than that.

He also squeezed in an interview with a radio host who calls himself “Pimp with a Limp” (although he had to skip some more of those silly Daily Intelligence Briefings) to do so.

As was the phrase, “Death to America!”

I’d say that Jay Carney is about as documented a liar as you can get with his “not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people.” And both he and Susan Rice are just so full of crap and so dishonest when it comes to declaring that an obviously preplanned attack was “spontaneous” that it is beyond unreal.

Caught in so many transparent, documented lies that its beyond belief, Obama has now instructed his State Department to play his “Fast and Furious” game and refuse to answer any more questions.

The mainstream media have a plan, though: cover for their failed messiah at all costs and make sure to demonize Mitt Romney at every single opportunity.

We now now that al Qaeda in a preplanned attack – not a “spontaneous mob” that erupted as the result of some stupid cheap basically homemade movie clip – was behind the attack on the US Consulate in Libya that resulted in the targeted murder of an American ambassador.  We now even know the name of the al Qaeda terrorist who led the attack.

Obama and his entire administration lied like the vicious weasels they are.

This is now also out as a confirmed FACT: that the Obama administration had TWO DAYS OF WARNING PRIOR TO THESE ATTACKS AND DID NOTHING:

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and “lockdown”, under which movement is severely restricted.

Everything about Obama and his failed foreign policy is just lie after lie after lie.  The entire Obama administration lied and lied and lied for an entire week in an attempt to deceive the American people to cover up their pathetic ineptness.

Obama and his supporters HAVE to lie about EVERYTHING – whether it be his failed foreign policy or his failed domestic policy – because if Democrats told the truth for once in their lives, they would lose in a landslide.

Terrorist Suicide Bomber Who Murdered Jewish Teens In Bulgaria All You Need To Know To Understand Bush Right, Obama Damn Fool, Re: Gitmo

July 20, 2012

Forty Israeli tourists - most of them teens – were murdered two days ago.  The story explains it all:

Bulgarian press names bomber: Mehdi Ghezali
Terrorist said to have been a Swedish citizen with a history of Muslim extremist activities
July 19, 2012, 6:11 pm

Bulgarian media on Thursday named the suicide bomber who blew up a bus full of Israeli tourists, killing five Israelis and a local bus driver, in the Black Sea resort of Burgas on Wednesday as 36-year-old Mehdi Ghezali.

Ghezali reportedly arrived in Bulgaria five weeks before the bombing and arrived at the airport via taxi, Channel 2 reported. He was also reportedly given the bomb by someone else, but no further details were provided.

There was no independent confirmation of the veracity of the information. The reports surfaced soon after Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had publicly accused Hezbollah, directed by Iran, of responsibility for the bombing. The Prime Minister’s Office made no comment on the reports.

The Bulgarian reports, rapidly picked up by Hebrew media, posited various versions of how the bomber had detonated the bomb, including the suggestion that the bomber had not intended to die in the blast, but may have wanted to place the bomb on the bus and flee.

Ghezali has a Wikipedia page, which describes him as a Swedish citizen, with Algerian and Finnish origins. He had been held at the US’s Guantanamo Bay detainment camp on Cuba from 2002 to 2004, having previously studied at a Muslim religious school and mosque in Britain, and traveled to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, it says. He was taken into custody on suspicion of being an al-Qaeda agent, having been arrested along with a number of other al-Qaeda operatives.

Following a lobbying effort by Swedish prime minister Göran Persson, Guantanamo authorities recommended Ghezali be transferred to another country for continued detainment, and he was handed over to Swedish authorities in 2004. The Swedish government did not press charges.

A 2005 Swedish documentary about the Guantanamo Bay detention camp starred Ghezali, who detailed his experience in American custody.

He was also reportedly among 12 foreigners captured trying to cross into Afghanistan in 2009.

Earlier on Thursday the Bulgarian police released a brief video clip that claimed to show the suicide bomber, responsible for Wednesday’s terror attack on a tour bus full of Israeli citizens, walking around shortly before the blast at Burgas International Airport.

The Bulgarian news agency Sofia reported that the bomber was carrying an American passport and Michigan driver’s license, both believed to be forgeries.

Sofia also reported that the Bulgarian Interior Ministry managed to recover the fingerprints of the bomber, which they submitted to the FBI in the United States and the international police organization Interpol. The FBI and CIA joined Israeli and Bulgarian officials in investigating the attack.

Interior Minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov told Sofia that DNA tests were being run to determine the identity of the Caucasian man, who the minister described as casually dressed with nothing suspicious about his appearance to set him apart from the crowd of people at the airport.

The ministry did not indicate how the police came to the conclusion that the man was the suicide bomber.

Question: Why did Bush build Gitmo?  Answer: Because we were catching terrorists from all over the world whose host countries would not bother to prosecute or even detain them, which meant our only way to protect ourselves and our allies from these terrorist psychopaths was to detain them at Gitmo.

Question: Why did liberals like Obama demonize Gitmo and demonize George Bush for building it?  Answer: Because liberals are bad people who are contemptible, naive fools.

Barack Obama and the entire Democrat machine spent the Bush years DEMONIZING him for Gitmo “by taking the moral high ground” – which basically means by asserting depraved liberal political correctness. 

All those times Obama attacked Bush for the evil of Gitmo.  And then the sanctimonious self-righteous hoity-toity little weasel swore on the first day of his presidency to close Gitmo within one year of assuming office.  Well, Gitmo is still open, because Barack Hussein Obama is both a liar and a fool.

And a bunch of innocent Jewish children are DEAD now because Democrats are wicked, depraved little cowards.

If Evil, Orwellian Republicans Come To Power, They Will Force Terrorists To Drink ‘Ensure’ – And Mainstream Media Asks How Can That Not Be Evil?

May 11, 2012

This bit is almost as funny as it is revealing about just how psycho and how radically propagandist your average mainstream media “journalist” is:

Lesley Stahl Insulted to No Longer Have a Monopoly on the News
May 07, 2012

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: This is gonna be close to my all-time favorite or this is close to my all-time favorite. I can’t say it is my all-time favorite ’cause I don’t remember them all, but this is clearly in the top five. On April 29th, Lesley Stahl, 60 Minutes, interviewed Jose Rodriguez who is the chief interrogator of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed at Club Gitmo. And I love this bite because, as I listen to it, I firmly believe that Jose Rodriguez knows exactly who he’s dealing with and is having fun with her and she doesn’t know it.He knows he’s talking to somebody who thinks raising your voice at somebody is torture. He knows he’s dealing with somebody who thinks that he committed atrocities and crimes. So he describes the harmless activities he engaged in with Sheikh Mohammed as “dire techniques,” these “dire techniques.” That’s my favorite line in this bite: “Oh, yes, it was one of those dire techniques.” Here it is, her question. “So what happens? Did the Sheikh break down? Does he cry? Does he fall apart after your waterboarding?”RODRIGUEZ: No. He gets a good night’s sleep. He gets his Ensure. By the way, he was very heavy when he came to us and he lost 50 pounds.STAHL: What, his Ensure? You mean like people in the hospital who will drink that stuff?RODRIGUEZ: Yes. Dietary manipulation was part of these dire techniques.STAHL: So sleep deprivation, dietary manipulation, I mean, this is Orwellian stuff. The United States doesn’t do that.RODRIGUEZ: Well, we do.

RUSH: “Well, we do.” (laughing)

“Dietary manipulation was part of these dire techniques.” Dietary manipulation! Ensure. A product that keeps cancer patients alive in the hospital considered “torture” by Lesley Stahl. And I think Jose Rodriguez knew it and when he calls “dietary manipulation … part of the dire techniques,” he was taunting her and she didn’t even know it! So I pointed this out. We played it two or three times, maybe more. We played it again just now. This past Thursday in New York City at the New York Historical Society, they had a panel discussion there about the 2012 presidential race. The moderator… (interruption) Snerdley, stop screening for a minute. You gotta listen to this in case we get phone calls about it. New York Historical Society on Thursday, Lesley Stahl moderating a panel discussion on the 2012 presidential race, said this about the campaign and the media…

STAHL: Here’s something that’s happened over the last couple of years that’s frustrating to me, and that is when you say “we, the press” and then the press is this big salad bowl, and who’s in the press? It’s Rush Limbaugh is in the press. Fox is in the press. MSNBC. I mean, all these people who are devoting themselves to little slices of the pie are in with the so-called “mainstream media.” We’re all the same thing now to the public. We’re not the same thing.

RUSH: Awww. See, they used to have a monopoly. And now the monopoly is gone. And I’m now considered to be in the same business as Lesley Stahl. I can’t tell you how insulted I am. That’s right: A little slice of the pie. All these people have little slices of the pie. I would dare say that the EIB Network rivals CBS News, CBS Evening News. I’d say our audience is larger than the CBS Evening News is. I don’t think there’s any question about it if you want to start talking about slice of the pie.

But that’s not the point.

The point is, I am the turd in the salad bowl. That’s what the point is. I am the [Baby Ruth] in the swimming pool at Caddy Shack. And she just can’t stand it because the salad used to be pure and clean and now, ladies and gentlemen, their monopoly has been destroyed. And it’s no longer ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post manipulating the minds of the American people. Now there’s too much freedom in the media. But I guarantee you I got mentioned first because I keep playing this sound bite with Jose Rodriguez that “dietary manipulation” is part of their “dire techniques.”

I love it.

I just love it.

END TRANSCRIPT

My personal favorite segment:

RODRIGUEZ: No. He gets a good night’s sleep. He gets his Ensure. By the way, he was very heavy when he came to us and he lost 50 pounds.

STAHL: What, his Ensure? You mean like people in the hospital who will drink that stuff?

RODRIGUEZ: Yes. Dietary manipulation was part of these dire techniques.

STAHL: So sleep deprivation, dietary manipulation, I mean, this is Orwellian stuff. The United States doesn’t do that.

RODRIGUEZ: Well, we do.

The actual terrorists love Lesley Stahl, mind you.  And given what she thinks about how evil it is to give terrorists “Ensure,” you can kind of understand why.

Lesley Stahl joins Andrea Mitchell in showing us how “journalism” has become an outright disgrace of leftist propganda.

Hopefully, you agree with me that mainstream media “journalists” ought to be regarded with contempt and suspected of being liars and propagandists unless and until they prove otherwise.

Our Disgrace-In-Chief: Obama Frees Terrorist Who Murdered Five American Soldiers Rather Than Send Him To Gitmo

December 22, 2011

When I call Barack Obama a traitor, I am using that term in the most accurate and technical sense:

DECEMBER 19, 2011
The Daqduq Disgrace
Obama releases a terrorist rather than send him to Gitmo.

One of the most widely photographed acts of President Obama’s first year in office was his symbolic pre-dawn salute to the caskets of U.S. soldiers returning to Dover Air Force Base. In the case of a terrorist named Ali Musa Daqduq, who was released yesterday from U.S. custody in Iraq, the President is letting down those fallen soldiers and their families.

Daqduq is a Lebanese national and top Hezbollah operative who in January 2007 masterminded the ambush, kidnapping and murder of five American soldiers in the Iraqi city of Karbala. Arrested by U.S. forces in Basra two months later, Daqduq is said to have initially pretended to be deaf and mute. But he eventually talked, giving U.S. interrogators an extensive picture of the ways in which Iran was arming and training Iraq’s insurgents.

Now Daqduq is in Iraqi custody—released, according to the Administration, because it could not lawfully do otherwise. “We have sought and received assurances [from the Iraqi government] that he will be tried for his crimes,” said Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council.

Mr. Vietor surely knows the likelier outcome is that Daqduq will be released or acquitted so that he can rejoin his comrades in Beirut or Tehran. The Iraqi government has already released some 50 other prisoners responsible for attacks on U.S. forces.

The Administration contends that its hands were tied by the U.S.-Iraq status-of-forces agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration, which required Iraq’s consent—not forthcoming—to remove any prisoners from the country. But it’s hard to see why that stipulation would apply to Daqduq, who is not an Iraqi citizen.

The Administration also thought of bringing Daqduq to the U.S. for trial in federal court or a military tribunal. Both ideas would have meant taking political heat, but at a minimum it showed that the status-of-forces deal was not an insuperable obstacle to keeping Daqduq in U.S. custody provided the Administration was determined to do so.

Alas, it wasn’t. The one place Daqduq unquestionably belongs is in the prison at Guantanamo, which also happens to be the one place the Administration wouldn’t countenance having him. By now, even Mr. Obama understands that Gitmo serves a vital role in housing terrorists who either can’t be safely released or easily tried. Daqduq, the most senior Hezbollah figure in U.S. custody and a man who conspicuously disdained the laws of war, fits that bill.

But even if Mr. Obama can’t close Gitmo as he promised, neither can he bring himself openly to acknowledge its benefits. Leftist furies are more than he’s willing to face. Instead, the Administration has made the calculation that one more terrorist kingpin on the loose with American blood on his hands is an acceptable price to pay for not establishing the precedent that new prisoners may again be brought to Guantanamo.

In a different world, Daqduq would not be heading for a hero’s welcome in Beirut or Tehran but instead would be on a military flight to Cuba, with the (feigned) indignation of the Iraqi government receding in the distance. In a different world, too, the families of Daqduq’s victims would have the solace that he is behind bars and unable to do further harm. That’s a world that will have to await a different Administration.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page 16

These are the same treasonous anti-American cowards who are saying “The Taliban are not our enemy” while preparing to hand over still more terrorist prisoners WHO BELONG IN GITMO.

If this doesn’t make you puke, please don’t write to me.  Because if it doesn’t, YOU make me puke.  And I don’t want to have anything to do with you.

Obama Orders American Citizen MURDERED Without Due Process

October 1, 2011

Rise up, ye liberals who demonized George Bush (see also here) for his “outrages.”  Demand that Barack Obama resign from office.  Do not vote for him for any reason. 

Be consistent for at least one time in your entire worthless lives.

But most of you are genuine hypocrites to the very cores of your tiny little shriveled cockroach souls.  So you damn Bush and praise Obama for the same stuff.  It’s just who you are.

There is this tiny, infinitesimal percent of liberals for whom the following is any real problem.  And even that tiny fraction of a percent of you hypocrites are going to vote for Obama anyway.  Because you are amoral slime and you frankly disgust me:

Debate Erupts Over Legality Of Awlaki’s Killing
by Carrie Johnson
September 30, 2011

Within moments of Anwar al-Awlaki’s death, debate erupted over whether the U.S. had a legal basis to target one of its own citizens with deadly force.

Last year, President Obama put Awlaki on a secret list that gave the intelligence community a green light to target him in a deadly drone attack.

The move bothered human-rights advocates so much that they sued, enlisting Awlaki’s father as a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

“The government should not have the unreviewable authority to carry out the targeted killing of any American, anywhere, whom the president deems to be a threat to the nation,” says Hina Shamsi, who leads the national security project at the American Civil Liberties Union.

But the Justice Department responded that Awlaki wasn’t just any American. He transformed himself from a cleric who inspired young Muslims with words to an operational leader who helped equip terrorist plotters with deadly bombs.

A judge ultimately threw out the ACLU lawsuit, saying it involved state secrets and raised political questions that should be answered in Congress, not the courts.

All those questions came roaring back again today with word of Awlaki’s death at the hands of the U.S. government.

“The requirements of the Constitution with respect to due process for killing an American are not clear,” says John Bellinger, a lawyer in the State Department under President George W. Bush.

After 10 years of talking about legal authority when it comes to terrorism, he says, there’s still no international consensus on the legality of drone strikes — and no clear precedent for using those drones to kill a U.S. citizen.

“Wherever they are in the world, they have a constitutional right to due process,” Bellinger says. “But due process doesn’t necessarily mean an adversarial judicial hearing.”

So, Bellinger says, under his view of the law, a criminal trial or even an indictment doesn’t have to happen to satisfy the Constitution.

Instead, a legal finding by the Justice Department and debate among lawyers from multiple government agencies might have satisfied Awlaki’s rights under the Fifth Amendment.

Ken Anderson, who teaches at American University’s Washington College of Law and follows U.S. policy on drones, says the analysis starts with whether Awlaki amounted to a lawful target — U.S. citizen or not.

“The U.S has always seen somebody who is planning attacks against the United States as a lawful target,” Anderson says.
Either because Awlaki presented an imminent threat to American citizens or because he had become an enemy fighting alongside al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, Anderson says, he could be seen as a lawful target.

Anderson says in the legal analysis, the place where a target is located matters too.

“[The government's] standard is we’re not going to be targeting somebody in London or Paris or someplace that’s got the effective rule of law,” Anderson says.

But by hiding in Yemen, Awlaki couldn’t be served with a subpoena or easily taken into custody, putting himself in a different category.

The Justice Department wouldn’t talk about specific operations or individuals. Nor did it want to describe the process the government used to put Awlaki on a target list.

One administration official did agree to speak in general about targeting terrorists. “We’re not commenting on any specific individual or operation,” the official said. “As a general matter, it would be entirely lawful for the United States to target high-level leaders of enemy forces, regardless of their nationality, who are plotting to kill Americans both under the authority provided by Congress in its use of military force in the armed conflict with al-Qaida, the Taliban, and associated forces as well as established international law that recognizes our right of self-defense.”

Experts say that while it might not be required under the law, it would make good political sense to share more information with Congress and the public. Awlaki’s case might be the first case to present these difficult questions, but it won’t be the last.

I would say that I’m on Obama’s side on this one.  These rat bastards declared war on our women and children, and we should hunt them down in every single cockroach hole on the planet and we should kill them.  But then there’s the embarrassing little fact that Barack Obama repeatedly demonized George Bush for the very sorts of things that he is now himself routinely doing as president.  Which qualifies him as a liar without shame or honor or integrity.

Barack Obama came to power on lofty rhetoric that was an abject lie.  And from the moment he came to power he has cynically betrayed everything he said and lied to every single American whether that American voted for him or not.

Obama demonized Bush on Guantanamo Bay.  The weak, posturing fool swore that he would shut it down within ONE YEAR of taking office.  Now he was either the worst kind of cynical and frankly truly depraved liar – and therefore ought to be driven out of office – or he was so incompetent and so fundamentally ignorant of the job of a president that he ought to be driven out of office.  You choose which.  Either way, Guantanamo Bay continues to be a shining example of the fact that Barack Obama is an abject disgrace to presidential leadership.

He did the same damn thing on issue after issue: whether it was the Patriot Act, domestic eavesdropping, rendition, you name it, he violated his word and did the exact opposite of what he said he would do.

Just take a look at Democrats.  Consider what they said about Iraq and WMD before Bush attacked Iraq:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm 
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Then consider how they betrayed their own previous statements to attack a president at war.  Like the traitors they are.  Then consider how they praised themselves for the same exact war they had been for before they hypocritically turned against it as Vice President Joe Biden said:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

The sheer unadulterated hypocrisy and chutzpah of the entire Democrat Party is mind-boggling.

It’s long past time that liberals fell flat on their face and openly admitted that they were treasonous pieces of garbage for attacking George Bush the way they did.

Liberals Saying Obama Sounds Like A Fool Because He’s Just So Darned Brilliant

May 28, 2011

Do you remember how liberals went off on Bush as stupid for eight years (not including the primary season leading up to the 2000 election) because of the way he talked?

Bush and the word “nuclear” was a favorite, of course.  And there were always a few awkward sentence constructions from a president who - unlike Obama - wasn’t slavishly attached to a teleprompter:

Obama has relied on a teleprompter through even the shortest announcements and when repeating the same lines on his economic stimulus plan that he’s been saying for months — whereas past presidents have mostly worked off of notes on the podium except during major speeches, such as the State of the Union.

.

The same left that ridiculed George Bush over his every verbal slip are now rushing in with “intellectual” defenses as to why Obama sounds like a babbling fool every single time he can’t read his lines off a screen.

Case in point from today’s Los Angeles Times:

Meghan Daum: Obama’s fast brain vs. slow mouth
It’s not that the president can’t speak clearly; he employs the intellectual stammer.

Apparently, a lot of people consider President Obama to be bumblingly inarticulate. “The guy can’t talk his way out of a paper bag!” a reader wrote to me recently. “Sarah Palin is a brilliant speaker. It’s the president whose sentences are undiagrammable,” said another in response to a column I wrote about Palin. It’s not just my readers, nor is it exclusively conservatives, who hold this view. A Google search of “does Obama have a speech impediment” turns up several pages of discussion among the president’s supporters and critics alike.Admittedly, the president is given to a lot of pauses, “uhs” and sputtering starts to his sentences. As polished as he often is before large crowds (where the adjective “soaring” is often applied to his speeches), his impromptu speaking frequently calls to mind a doctoral candidate delivering a wobbly dissertation defense.

But consider this: It’s not that Obama can’t speak clearly. It’s that he employs the intellectual stammer. Not to be confused with a stutter, which the president decidedly does not have, the intellectual stammer signals a brain that is moving so fast that the mouth can’t keep up. The stammer is commonly found among university professors, characters in Woody Allen movies and public thinkers of the sort that might appear on C-SPAN but not CNN. If you’re a member or a fan of that subset, chances are the president’s stammer doesn’t bother you; in fact, you might even love him for it (he sounds just like your grad school roommate, especially when he drank too much Scotch and attempted to expound on the Hegelian dialectic!).

If you’re not, chances are you find yourself yelling “get to the point already!” at the television screen every time Obama’s search for the right word seems to last longer than the search for Osama bin Laden. And thanks to its echoes of the college lecture hall, you may think it comes across as ever so slightly (or more than slightly) left wing.

That’s kind of ironic, given that the godfather of the intellectual stammer is arguably none other than the paterfamilias of the conservative movement, William F. Buckley Jr. With his slouch, his glazed-eyed stare and a speaking style that suggested the entire Oxford English Dictionary was flipping through his mind while he searched for a word like “dithyramb,” he makes Obama’s extemporaneous speech seem canned — not to mention pedestrian — by comparison. In fact, if the people critiquing Obama’s meandering speech patterns were to see an old “Firing Line” segment, I daresay they would think Buckley was drunk or otherwise impaired.

Granted, Buckley didn’t hold political office (he made an unsuccessful run for mayor of New York in 1965). He was more an observer than a decider, which is pretty much the opposite of what you need to be to lead a nation. Obama, as much as his critics might hate to admit it, is more than a phlegmatic egghead. He’s proved he can act decisively; whatever his faults, he’s leading the nation far more effectively — albeit less colorfully — than Buckley would have led New York. (When asked what he’d do if he won the mayoral election, he famously responded, “Demand a recount.”)

Obama’s problem is not that he’s an intellectual (for the sake of argument let’s define it as someone who is scholarly, broadly informed and distinguished as a thinker). It’s that he sounds like an intellectual. Unlike other presumed political brainiacs — Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich, for example — he isn’t able to bury his ideas behind a folksy regional accent or good-old-boy affectations when he wants to. Nor is he effective at “keeping it real” when he falls into traditionally African American cadences that he clearly never used when he was growing up.

By speaking as though he hails from everywhere, he ends up being from nowhere. The result is that people look at him and see not a Hawaiian or a Chicagoan or even a black man, but a university man.

Of course, the president enables that stigma by stammering his way through town hall meetings and other public dialogues as though they were philosophy lectures. Irritating? Sure. But inarticulate? Sorry, folks, but you’ll have to find another adjective. And take your time. The right word is usually worth waiting for.

Okay.  I understand.  Obama sounds so stupid because he’s so damned BRILLIANT.  And here, look.  There’s a conservative out there who did the same thing.

Or not.  I don’t recall William F. Buckley Jr. having moments like this one:

But that is a fact.  And such things are hindrances to most of the mainstream media’s “narratives.”

I don’t recall Buckley telling us about the 57 states (with one left to go) he’s visited in those sophisticated tones of his:

Nor do I remember Buckley making a visit to Westminster Abbey and getting the date wrong by three years as Obama just got through doing:

I don’t remember Bush – who of course was a moron (just ask any liberal) doing anything this braindead either.

Nope.  It’s brilliant, intellectual “university men” who ascend to such marvellous heights of intellect.

One fellow pointed out that “Bush could not pronounce Nuclear but he knew what it was (Iran, Obama).”  And, of course, that stupid Bush was right, and those “brilliant” Democrats were all wrong.

THE NATION – Democrats rip Bush’s Iran policy – Presidential candidates say a new intelligence report shows that the administration has been talking too tough.
By Scott Martelle and Robin Abcarian
December 05, 2007

Democratic presidential candidates teamed up during a National Public Radio debate here Tuesday to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric.

While the candidates differed somewhat over the level of threat Iran poses in the Mideast, most of them sought to liken the administration’s approach to Iran with its buildup to the war in Iraq.

“I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change,” said New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. “We do know that pressure on Iran does have an effect. I think that is an important lesson.”

Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the new intelligence report indicated that Iran dropped its program before international pressure came into play.

“It was like watching a rerun of his statements on Iraq five years earlier,” Biden said. “Iran is not a nuclear threat to the United States of America. Iran should be dealt with directly, with the rest of the world at our side. But we’ve made it more difficult now, because who is going to trust us?”

The debate was aired without a studio audience over NPR, live from the Iowa State Historical Museum. It covered Iran, China and immigration, offering the contenders a chance to delve more deeply into subjects that often receive less detailed debate treatment.

Clinton and Biden were joined by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Connecticut Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel.

But why should it matter that Bush was right, and we are now facing a disastrous crisis that it’s just a damn shame that liberals basically ENTIRELY created with their abject REFUSAL to deal with a crisis, and their DEMONIZATION of anyone who tried?  Bush said “nuclear” funny, and that’s really all that matters if you’re properly sophisticated and, you know, professorial.  Bush was stupid even though he was entirely correct and the liberals who attacked him (including the three top liberals of the Obama administration with VP Biden and Secretary of State Clinton) were entirely wrong.

It doesn’t matter how many times we’re right and how many times they’re wrong.  Because they won’t acknowledge the truth and because the facts don’t really matter worth a damn to them.

There’s a concept in psychology called “accommodation and assimilation” that fits liberals in their steadfast refusal to follow the rules of normal learning.  In normal psychology, one assimilates new information into one’s worldview and accommodates one’s worldview as new facts come in that run contrary to the picture one has of the world.  Liberals don’t bother with that nonsense.  Rather, they rigidly adhere to their doctrines and simply paste-over whatever reality happens to get in the way.

I think of Harold Camping and his followers.  It didn’t matter than he falsely predicted the end of the world before in 1994.  It didn’t matter that the Bible that he’s doing all his “calculations” from specifically says no man can know the day or the hour of such things.  It doesn’t even matter that his prediction for the end of the world on May 21 turned out to be wrong.  Such facts don’t work, so so much the worse for the facts.  Now we’re assured that the world will end on October 21.  Really.  Better get ready.

Like Harold Camping and his followers, liberals are immune from any genuine learning.  They simply lack the character to deal with reality in an honest way.

Obama is brilliant because he graduated from Harvard, but Bush is stupid even though he graduated from Yale.  Previous Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry was brilliant because he graduated from Yale, even though Bush had also graduated from Yale and even though Bush actually had a better accumulated grade average (77 versus 76) than Kerry.  Oh, and by the way, even though Bush also actually had a higher IQ than Kerry.  But so what?  Kerry had that arrogant Massachusett’s tone that just sounded so… so smart.  And of course, Bush was stupid because he had a few gaffes; ergo sum Obama is brilliant whenever he’s off his teleprompter because his gaffes are supposedly somehow kind of similar to brilliant people’s.

Or Bush was evil because of Gitmo, and rendition, and the Patriot Act, and domestic eavesdropping, and indefinite detentions, and military tribunals, etc. etc.; ergo sum, when Obama goes back on his demagogic rhetoric and pursues all the same policies that he demonized when Bush did them, it is Obama magnificently adapting his foreign policy.  Bush was evil for using enhanced interrogation and Obama was righteous to dismantle the CIA program that relied on such intelligence – even though Obama should get all the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and even though enhanced interrogation and the CIA program that Obama dismantled were absolutenly essential to getting Osama bin laden.

Or Bush was a poor leader because he wanted to raise the debt ceiling versus Obama showing his magnificent leadership in demanding that we raise the debt ceiling.  Or Obama standing for the Constitution when he attacked George Bush for wars that he got congressional approval for, versus being the bold defender of human rights when he launches a third war in Libya without bothering to get congressional approval.  Or Bush was a partisan hack and a failure as a leader because he divided the country, but the fact that Obama divided the country far more than Bush EVER DID after promising to “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics” and “end the partisan and ideological wars ” is entirely due to conservatives.  Because Democrats have a moral obligation to attack a Republican president, but Republicans have a moral obligation to bow down before a Democrat messiah.  That sort of thing.

One has to wonder how their heads don’t just explode from containing all the contradictions.  But it turns out that when you live in your own little world – and particularly when you get to control the media and shape the “narrative” for society to consume – irritating things like facts and contradictions just don’t really matter.

Remember How Liberals Said Every Aggressive Move Against Terrorists Was ‘A Provocation’? Why Is It A Good Thing Now?

May 3, 2011

I remember how Obama and the rest of the left decried every agressive move President George W. Bush made as being a provocation that would only result in more violence and make the new wave of terrorism being waged against America even worse.

The war on terror was a provocation.  The Iraq War was a provocation.  The terrorist prison facility at Guantanamo Bay was a provocation.  The surge strategy was a provocation.  And “provoking” the terrorists was the worst possible way to react, we were constantly told.

On the surge strategy that won the Iraq War, Obama had said:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Sending more troops to win the fight will increase the violence.  And that is a bad, bad thing. 

On the Iraq War as provocation (and therefore a bad thing), a critique of Obama’s apology in his Cairo Speech says it all:

On “violent extremism” Obama clung to the meme of “Afghanistan War good/Iraq War bad.” Obama said, “Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.”

This does not make sense. Iraq was not a “war of choice.” Saddam Hussein, for a variety of reasons (not just on WMDs, which everyone believed Hussein had and which he was certainly pursuing) had made himself intolerable. And Saddam was certainly not responding to diplomacy; that was the main reason the coalition forces marched.

Obama also made his first cringing apology. “The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals.” Well, no we did not. That is a flat out lie and a pander not only to liberal opponents of the war on terror but to the Muslim extremists Obama says he abhors.

It doesn’t matter that because of the very surge strategy that Obama personally demonized that Obama’s vice president was able to actually say the following about the Iraq War that Obama also demonized:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration.”

I would point out that George Bush won his “war of choice” that “provoked strong differences.”  And Obama – even after eventually abandoning his own demqgoguery on the “surge” to implement a surge of his own in Afghanistan, and even after using Bush’s own general which the left demonized to implement that surge – is floundering badly in “the good war” of Afghanistan.  Which is why Afghanistan sure won’t be “one of the great achievements of the Obama administration.”

George Bush “stupidly’ chose to fight a war against a tyrant in a terrain that the United States could actually win.  The vastly more brilliant Obama chose to put all his marbles in an Afghanistan that has been the graveyard of empires for a thousand years.  Afghanistan also happens to feature a terrain that almost entirely nullifies our vast tactical and strategic advantages.  But that’s what you do when you think you’re too damn smart for your own good, I guess.

On Guantanamo Bay as a provocation, Obama said:

Guantanamo is probably the No. 1 recruitment tool that is used by these jihadist organizations,” Obama said. “And we see it in the websites that they put up. We see it in the messages that they’re delivering.”

It didn’t matter that Guantanamo Bay was absolutely necessary, no matter how much it provoked people who were determined to be provoked.  That is just a fact, and facts don’t matter to demagogues.  It’s just an “inconvenient truth” that Gitmo is still open, and WILL REMAIN OPEN as long as Obama is president.

Then there was that nasty rhetorical phrase “war on terror” that was clearly too provocative, so Obama rebranded it as an “overseas contingency operation.”

The one thing that couldn’t be more clear: don’t you dare provoke these people.  It’s bad to provoke.  The mainstream media would crawl all over you if you dared to provoke.

So I’m left sitting here wondering how provocation suddenly went from a bad thing to a good thing just because the guy doing all the provoking was a Democrat.

Obama’s Middle East policies have resulted in dramatically escalated increases in violence throughout the Arab world.  Which would have been terrible if Bush had had anything to do with it, but which is okay because a liberal did it.  So the mainstream media has refused to harangue Obama on that unintended consequence of his budding Utopia.

In Libya, you’ve got a lot more of this “untended consequence” regarding Obama’s nearlty forgotten little third war he started in Libya:

TRIPOLI, Libya – Libyans shouting for revenge buried Moammar Gadhafi’s second youngest son to the thundering sound of anti-aircraft fire Monday, as South Africa warned that the NATO bombing that killed him would only bring more violence.

Libya’s leader did not attend the tumultuous funeral of 29-year-old Seif al-Arab, but older brothers Seif al-Islam and Mohammed paid their respects, thronged by a crowd of several thousand. Jostling to get closer to the coffin, draped with a green Libyan flag, mourners flashed victory signs and chanted “Revenge, revenge for you, Libya.”

Three of Gadhafi’s grandchildren, an infant and two toddlers, also died in Saturday’s attack, which NATO says targeted one of the regime’s command and control centers. Gadhafi and his wife were in the compound at the time, but escaped unharmed, Libyan officials said, accusing the alliance of trying to assassinate the Libyan leader.

NATO officials have denied they are hunting Gadhafi to break the battlefield stalemate between Gadhafi’s troops and rebels trying for the past 10 weeks to depose him. Rebels largely control eastern Libya, while Gadhafi has clung to much of the west, including the capital, Tripoli.

But of course NATO is denying that we’re hunting Gadafi in violation of United Nations policies against targeting political leaders.  After all, we’ve even denied we’re at war at all, preferring the nicer-sounding euphamism of “kinetic military action.”  “War” sounds so mean, and hardly something a brilliant liberal would do, after all.  The far more erudite liberals launch wave after wave of “kinetic military actions” instead.  And no matter how many of Gaddafi’s compounds somehow accidentally get targeted and blown up, that’s clearly all it is.

Now we’ve got Obama (almost as though Obama were himself one of the machine-gun toting SEALs) killing Osama bin Laden.  That clearly won’t provoke anybody.

America’s relationship with Pakistan was already at an all-time low due to Obama incessantly flying Predators over their country and launching rocket attacks on them.  But so what?  Provocation is a good thing now, because Obama is doing it instead of George Bush.  And if you’re brilliant, you don’t have to kowtow to such trivialities as consistency.

And so what if Obama ordered American troops to launch a military attack on Pakistani soil without bothering to even inform the Pakistanis?  No harm, no foul.  So what if we violated their sovereignty?  Obama is the leader of the world, and the sooner the world recognized that he is an imperial president, the better.  If you don’t like Obama pursuing “cowboy” tactics, or engaging in “you’re either with us or you’re against us” policies, well, you’re just not very enlightened.  Because it’s not fascist unless Republicans do it.

And al Qaeda, whom the left was so worried about provoking when George Bush was the guy doing the provoking?  They’ll get over it.  So we can ignore the little threat they just made less than a week ago about unleashing a “nuclear hellstorm” upon America if we killed or captured Osama bin Laden.

You think of Gitmo, the surge strategy, rendition, domestic eavesdropping, the Patriot Act, indefinite detentions, military tribunals and a host of other things Obama demonized George Bush and Dick Cheney over, and not only are they doing the same things, but they’re doing even worse.  But the same mainstream media that tore into George Bush like pitbulls going after raw bloody meat don’t seem to have time to dwell on Obama’s blatant hypocrisies.

Nor does Bush get any credit for having been right when Obama and the Democrats were so completely wrong by their own massive reversals to the Bush policies now.

We are watching a level of propaganda and fundamental hypocrisy overtake the United States of America by both the media and the White House that ought to simply stun you.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 530 other followers