Posts Tagged ‘bin Laden’

Liberalism: The Gateway Ideological Drug That ‘Fundamentally Transformed’ Islam Into A Terrorist Threat

April 15, 2016

If you listen to a liberal, the West and in particular the United States deserves to be destroyed.

If you listen to a radical Muslim, they completely agree with the liberal and in fact justify their jihad by citing liberal “experts” to justify their hatred and their violence.

Osama bin Laden was a huge Noam Chomsky fan.  Both of these men shared the same passionate hatred.  And the latter was ideological fodder to the former.

Noam Chomsky claimed he didn’t view the killing of bin Laden any different than he would have viewed the killing of George W. Bush:

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.

One of the interesting things you might ask yourself as you read this venomous bile is, why did Chomsky cite George Bush’s name when Barack Obama was the one who ordered the “assassination” and has publicly praised himself for it over and over and over again?  And the answer is that to be a liberal is to be a hypocrite without shame and without honesty and without virtue of any kind.  And so to the poisonous, toxic, vile soul of a liberal, it frankly doesn’t even MATTER if Obama did it and took credit for it, it’s STILL Bush’s fault and Bush should pay for the crime.

America is a wicked, evil place.  Just ask the man Obama made his mentor and spiritual leader for 23 years:

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people,” he said in a 2003 sermon. “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.” — Jeremiah Wright

Barack Obama has a long history both with radical Islam and the Noam Chomsky-types who fuel their already poisonous ideology into “righteous hatred.”  He would be IMPEACHED if the Los Angeles Times were to ever release the video of an event Obama willingly attended featuring radical Islamist and PLO operative, Rashid Khalidi.  The same newspaper that sent reporters digging through the trash to find every email they could from Sarah Palin and published 24,000 of them has refused for the entire presidency of Barack Obama to release the video of Obama toasting a known terrorist murderer.

Liberals and Democrats will protect Barack Obama from being exposed by the truth to the very bitter end.

That is the truly wicked heart of the man who is now the president of the United States.  Obama falsely and dishonestly promised that he would transcend the political divide and”unite” America.  And in every other way he failed but this: we can now all agree that the United States of America is an evil place that truly deserves complete and utter destruction.  Barack Obama spent 23 years stockpiling his soul with that belief; and if it had bothered him in the slightest, he wouldn’t have stayed in that hellish place.

Barack Obama has spent his entire life believing that the United States and Israel should be wiped off the map for their moral crimes.

So I came across this article and it is absolutely spot on.  I love the title, a play on “radical Islam” given the fact that it is NOT merely “Islam” that has become “RADICAL”:

Islam and the Radical West
The political orthodoxy of the left is the gateway drug to jihad.
By Bret Stephens
April 11, 2016 7:18 p.m. ET

Years ago I had a chat with three young Muslim men as we waited in a Heathrow airport lounge to board a flight to Islamabad. I was going to Pakistan to report on the fallout from a devastating earthquake in Kashmir. They were going there to do what they vaguely described as “charitable work.” They dressed in white shalwar kameez, wore their beards in salafist style and spoke in south London accents.

I tried to steer the conversation to the earthquake. They wanted to talk about politics. Had I seen  Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11”? I avoided furnishing an opinion about a film they plainly revered. The unvarnished truth about Amerika—from an American. Authority and authenticity rolled into one.

I think of that exchange whenever the subject of Islamist radicalization comes up. There’s a great deal of literature about how young Muslim men—often born in the West to middle-class and not particularly religious households—get turned on to jihad. Think of  Mohammed Emwazi, the University of Westminster graduate later known as Jihadi John. Or Maj.  Nidal Malik Hasan, of Fort Hood infamy. Or Najim Laachraoui, who studied electrical engineering at the prestigious Catholic University of Louvain before blowing himself up last month in Brussels. Or Boston’s Tsarnaev brothers and San Bernardino’s Syed Farook.

It’s a long list. And in many cases investigators are able to identify an agent of radicalization. Maj. Hasan corresponded with extremist cleric  Anwar al-Awlaki. Laachraoui seems to have come under the spell of a Molenbeek preacher named  Khalid Zerkani. The Tsarnaevs took their bomb-building tips from “Inspire,” an online English-language magazine published by al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen.

But the influence of the Awlakis of the world can’t fully account for the mind-set of these jihadists. They are also sons of the West—educated in the schools of multiculturalism, reared on the works of  Noam Chomsky and perhaps Frantz Fanon, consumers of a news diet heavy with reports of perfidy by American or British or Israeli soldiers. If Islamism is their ideological drug of choice, the political orthodoxies of the modern left are their gateway to it.

Take the most recent issue of Inspire. Mixed in with step-by-step photos on how to build a timed hand grenade and an analysis of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, there’s a long article on the oppression of blacks in America, starting with the killing of Ferguson’s  Michael Brown. The Spring 2013 issue contains a “message to the American nation” from al Qaeda Commander  Qassim Ar-Reimy in which he asks whether “meddling in our affairs and installing whomever tyrant agents and lackeys you want who kill and oppress [is] forgivable?”

“Leave us with our religion, land and nations and mind your own internal affairs,” the commander—now Emir—writes. “Save your economy, look after your concerns, for it is better than what you currently are.”

This isn’t the language of Islam, with its impressive tradition of conquest. It’s the language of the progressive left, of what  Jeane Kirkpatrick at the 1984 Republican convention called the “Blame America First” crowd. It fits the left’s view of the West as the perennial sinner and the rest of the world as its perpetual victim. It is the language of turning the page on a decade of war, of focusing on nation building at home.

It strikes us as radical only because it comes from the pen of a terrorist. If it had appeared as an op-ed in the Guardian, it would elicit nodding approval from many readers, a dismissive shrug from others, but no big whoop either way.

In the early 1990s my former columnist colleague  Thomas Frank came up with the clever phrase “commodification of dissent” to explain how capitalism turned all kinds of countercultural beliefs and radical ideas into just another product in a box, to be sold and distributed through the usual channels. “Fahrenheit 9/11” might have been a political revelation or even a call to arms for some impressionable young Muslims from Tower Hamlets, but to Hollywood it was $222.5 million of box office gold. That made it a winner in the marketplace of ideas, and who can quarrel with that?

The commodification of dissent may have the effect of blunting the impact of all kinds of extreme notions. But it can dull us to their extremism, leaving us astonished when someone turns notion into action. The catharsis of violence seems like an interesting idea in the pages of “The Wretched of the Earth.” In practice, it’s scores of young men and women gunned down in a Paris concert hall.

We’ve become lazy in our thinking about Islam and the West. Whether the Islam practiced by al Qaeda or ISIS is “radical” or merely traditional isn’t the question. It’s whether the West can recognize that the moral nihilism of today’s Jihadi Johns is the logical outgrowth of the moral relativism that is the default religion of today’s West.

I’ve been trying to describe this direct ideological connection between radical Islam and American liberal progressivism for some time.  As some examples:

In May of last year I wrote: Progressive Liberalism Is Responsible For The Spread Of Islamic State Among U.S. Youth

Back in February 2015 I wrote this: Why Do Liberals Hate ‘Intolerant’ Christianity But Embrace Viciously Intolerant Islam? Liberals Just Hate Jesus, Just As Jesus Said They Would.

If that doesn’t go back far enough, let’s try February of 2011 when I wrote this: Crisis In Egypt Underscores The Problem Of Islam – AND LIBERALISM.  I also wrote this the same month: Liberals Seeking To Bring Chaos Of Islamic World To America

Maybe you want to go back to June 2009 when I made a rather bold, prophetic prediction that I submit to you has CLEARLY come to pass to any with eyes to see and ears to hear when I wrote this:Islamist Anti-U.S. Terrorism Rejuvenated Under Obama Weakness

Or let’s go back all the way to just before Obama got elected president when I wrote this in October 2008: Why Islamic Extremists Support Democrats and Obama

History has proven me right.  History has utterly and savagely refuted the moral idiocy otherwise known as “liberalism” or “Democrat Party policies.”  Terrorism has UTTERLY EXPLODED under our Terrorist-in-Chief, Barack Obama.  And it doesn’t matter if we elect Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, they are both joined to the hip and the neck to “I’m with Stupid” when it comes to foreign policy.

I recently laid out the only hope for reform within Islam: Islam’s ONLY Hope For True Reform Comes From A Surprising Source. And What Of America’s Only Hope For Reform?  In that article, I go into detail and explain the reason that Islam has an inseparable connection with VIOLENCE that Christianity does not have and never has had.

But to be a Democrat is to be a true moral idiot who cannot and will not see truth.  Which is why Barack Hussein Obama demonized Christianity for a false narrative of something that happened a thousand years ago while absolving Islam today: Obama Newsflash: Terrorism Has NOTHING To Do With Islam, Folks. But, Hey, Let’s Blame Christianity For Crusades A THOUSAND Years Ago

It comes down to the mindset of self-destruction that the prophets described far longer than a thousand years ago which fits the Democrat Party and liberalism to a “T”:

You boast, “We have struck a bargain to cheat death and have made a deal to dodge the grave. The coming destruction can never touch us, for we have built a strong refuge made of lies and deception.” — Isaiah 28:15

It doesn’t matter how many times liberalism and Democrats are refuted by reality: because they hate truth and they hate the One who came to testify to the truth.

Advertisements

Why Wasn’t Bill Clinton Responsible For The DotCom Collapse And 9/11 When Bush Is Still Responsible For Obama’s Economy FOUR YEARS LATER???

October 1, 2012

As we near the end of Obama’s FOURTH YEAR IN OFFICE, we had an amazing claim from our blamer-in-chief:

KROFT: The national debt has gone up sixty percent in — in the four years that you’ve been in office.

OBAMA: Well, first — first of all, Steve, I think it’s important to understand the context here. When I came into office, I inherited the biggest deficit in our history. And over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but ninety percent of that is as a consequence of two wars that weren’t paid for, as a consequence of tax cuts that weren’t paid for, a prescription drug plan that was not paid for, and then the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  Now we took some emergency actions, but that accounts for about 10 percent of this increase in the deficit, and we have actually seen the federal government grow at a slower pace than at any time since Dwight Eisenhower, in fact, substantially lower than the federal government grew under either Ronald Reagan or George Bush.

In his devastating Washington Post fact check that gave Obama 100% of the pinnochios for the worst possible example of lying, “Kessler says it’s the other way around — that Bush policies account for about 10% of the current annual structural budget deficit, and the rest is evenly split between bad projections from the CBO and Obama’s spending and economic policies.”

Four years.  It took the media four freaking years to say, “ENOUGH WITH YOUR DAMNED LYING EXCUSES!!!”  FOUR YEARS.

George Bush gave us $4 trillion in debt over eight years and Obama said that was “irresponsible” and even “unpatriotic.”  Obama has given America $6 trillion in debt in just four years.  And a hell of a lot more than that, if you look at our actual debt which is now well over $222 trillion.

I point out in a comment to a liberal demagogue how Obama tries to blame Bush for the massive spending.  Bush left office having produced a budget containing a $400 billion deficit that Democrats decried for the cuts.  What Obama then does is spend the first nine months of his presidency spending like a lunatic: he spends $79 billion of taxpayer money on his GM bailout – and of course has taken complete credit as the president who saved GM – while blaming Bush for its entire cost.  Obama spends $862 billion – which according to the CBO will ultimately cost American taxpayers $3.27 trillion – on his stimulus.  Then in March 2009 Obama spends another $410 billion in his Omnibus bill.  Meanwhile, Obama is spending the second half of the $350 billion in TARP funds that he voted for and which funds he demanded.  So what Obama dishonestly does is add all that spending up – HIS OWN spending – and attributes it to Bush so that he can claim this horrendous deficit that he “inherited.”  And so Obama artificially and deceitfully manufactures this enormous Bush deficit that he’s somehow a victim of – even though ninety percent of the spending in that deficit is HIS.

But that’s just the beginning of Obama’s dishonesty.  Look what he does to “the two wars.”

First the Iraq War.  Bush WON the Iraq War before Obama took office and signed the status of forces agreement before Obama took office.  We had won the war such that Bush was beginning to withdraw surge forces as early as 2007.  And yet somehow when US troops finalize their withdrawal according to Bush’s victory and according to Bush’s status of forces agreement, it is Obama who takes full credit.  Joe Biden actually had the chutzpah to claim that the Iraq War victory that he and his boss Obama had done everything they could to prevent was going to be “one of Obama’s great achievements.”  What Obama then does is equally despicable: he assumes in his numbers that the Iraq War that was already won when he came into office would have gone on forever if Messiah Obama had not won it, looks at the high-point of Bush’s spending during the war and creates another “baseline,” and then announces that in winning the war he has saved America more than $700 billion.  That Obama can spend on his policies while simultaneously blaming that spending on Bush.

Now the Afghanistan War.  Rather than look up the spending in dollars, I’ll produce the cost of the war under Bush and under Obama in American lives (as of September 28, 2012):

Whether you look at it in dollars or in lives, you’ll find that Obama is responsible for over 70 percent of the cost of the Afghanistan War.  Because you see, what Obama did was perform an incredibly cynical political calculation.  Obama demonized Iraq as “the bad war” and made Afghanistan – in which Bush was merely performing a holding action – into “the good war” as a way to attack Bush in Iraq.  Obama in effect said we shouldn’t be fighting in Iraq where the flat terrain allowed full movement and maneuver of our air, artillery and armored power and an educated population made victory possible; we should be fighting in a mountainous hellhole where we couldn’t utilize our military advantages and where the people were so ignorant they would believe every lie they were told and go on fighting forever instead.  That is literally what Obama effectively said.  And Obama is saying, “It’s not MY fault that I massively increased the war in Afghanistan; it’s Bush’s fault I did that.”  And Obama is claiming credit for the Iraq War that Bush won and blaming Bush for the Afghanistan War that he has virtually lost.

Let me move on to the economy.

You have to ask the question, why was George Bush responsible for ninety percent of Obama’s entire presidency as far as the mainstream media was concerned, but Bill Clinton wasn’t responsible for the DotCom bubble collapse that happened on his watch and that Bush inherited???  Why did we never hear 900,000 stories from the media on how Clinton was to blame and in conclusion nobody could reasonably blame Bush for it???

Clinton’s DotCom crash resulted in $7.1 trillion in American wealth being vaporized:

The Market Capitalization of the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Full Cap was $16.7 Trillion as of April 30, 2008. Comparatively, the market cap at the end of Q1 in 2000 was approximately $16 trillion (only slightly smaller). However, between 2000 Q1 and Q1 2003 the index lost a stunning 43% of its valuation. In other words, $7.1 Trillion of wealth was lost. This stunning number includes the completeness of the crash.

Who was still president in the first quarter of the fiscal year 2000 when this disaster began to blow up?  It was the guy who was still president on January 20, 2001 when George Bush assumed – and dare I say “inherited” – the office of the president.

Here’s another number to think about: 78%.  Because “The Nasdaq Composite lost  78% of its value as it fell from 5046.86 to 1114.11” as it collapsed between March 11, 2000 to October 9, 2002.

Obviously, there was a problem. The first shots through this bubble came from  the companies themselves: many reported huge losses and some folded outright  within months of their offering. Siliconaires were moving out of $4 million  estates and back to the room above their parents’ garage. In the year 1999,  there were 457 IPOs, most of which were internet and technology related. Of  those 457 IPOs, 117 doubled in price on the first day of trading. In  2001 the number of IPOs dwindled to 76, and none of them doubled on the first  day of trading.

I want to know why Bush is still responsible for Obama’s entire economic mess four years later when Bill Clinton was never held responsible for so much as one second of Bush’s mess.  I want to understand why Democrats are lying, dishonest, hypocrite slime whose only talent is bankrupting America and then demagoguing Republicans for what they did.

You find out that the Dotcom bubble began to grow huge in 1995 and virtually all of Clinton’s economic “success” that didn’t have to do with the policies of the Republican House and the Republican Senate that swept into power in 1995 as a result of the historic 1994 asskicking as a result of Clinton’s and the Democrat Party’s abject failure had to do with the inflation of that damn bubble.  Clinton fanned the flames of that Dotcom bubble because he knew that it would explode on the next president’s watch and that Democrats were far too personally and pathologically dishonest to ever blame HIM for it.

And yet Bill Clinton saunters before the 2012 Democrat National Convention and gives a speech saying “You can’t blame Obama for this disaster of an economy.  Why, even I couldn’t have fixed it.”  And the liberal media listen to their former messiah absolve their current messiah and ignore the fact that Bill Clinton is a serial liar who was DISBARRED by the Supreme Court for LYING as well as a serial womanizing sexual predator who sexually abused five women and they said, “Well, that settles it.  NO one can blame ‘the One’ now; the former ‘One’ has spoken.”  And the “War on Women” party cheers.

Let’s see: Juanita Broaddrick credibly accused Bill Clinton of raping her. There’s no question Bill Clinton had a sexual affair with Gennifer Flowers – and lied about it. Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle her sexual harassment case against him. Kathleen Willey was a loyal Democrat and supporter of Bill Clinton until he grabbed her hand and placed it on his genitalia. And then we all know about how he lied about his sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, even calling her a “stalker,” until it was revealed that she had a dress with his semen on it.

Yeah, I’d trust Bill Clinton.  Every bit as much as Monica Lewinsky’s father would trust Bill Clinton with Monica’s younger sister.

As a result of his “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky” bullcrap, Bill Clinton was DISBARRED FROM PRACTICING LAW.

Lawyers constitute the fourth most distrusted profession in America.  And Bill Clinton was too dishonest to remain part of it.  That should only add to the weight that the slickest politician of all time – he was nicknamed “Slick Willie” as governor of Arkansas for damn good reason – is the king of the second most distrusted profession in America as a politician.

And so, yeah, if I were in the market for a used car, and Bill Clinton came out as the salesman, I would go find myself another used car salesman.

And I actually failed to mention Paula Jones, who successfully SUED Bill Clinton for his sexual harassment.

Yeah, let’s trust Slick Willy.  Because we are as evil as we are stupid on the days that we aren’t as stupid as we are evil.

But I’m just getting started.

Why is it that George Bush is still held responsible for the Obama’s presidency four years later when the same people who hold George Bush responsible wouldn’t hold Bill Clinton responsible for a disaster that happened seven months and 22 days into Bush’s presidency (still during Clinton’s fiscal year, for what it’s worth).  Because we had a terrible terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, just seven months into Bush’s presidency, and it was a) Bush’s fault and b) we shouldn’t be wasting time passing blame, anyway, if you began asking too many questions about just why the hell it was Bush’s fault.

It wasn’t George Bush who decimated the CIA; it was Bill Clinton:

Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:13 a.m. EDT
Pulitzer Winner: Bill Clinton Decimated the CIA

Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”

In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.”

The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.

 “Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “

After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

“Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”

The Clinton era of risk aversion also hobbled CIA efforts to get Osama bin Laden. In early 1998, Risen says, the agency was prepared to launch a special operation to kidnap the al Qaeda chief in Afghanistan.

“To be sure the operation was high risk, and there was a strong possibility that it would be so messy that bin Laden would be killed rather than captured. [CIA Director George] Tenet and the CIA’s lawyers worried deeply about that issue; they believed the covert action finding on al Qaeda that President Clinton had signed authorized only bin Laden’s capture, not his death.”

Frustrated by restrictions that made dealing with the big challenges too difficult, the agency turned its energy to lesser problems.

Reports Risen: “Thanks to Vice President Al Gore, for example, the CIA briefly made the global environment one of is priorities.”

What Clinton did to the CIA he did to the Pentagon and the military.  He gave them less and less and less money while simultaneously tasking them with more and more and more costly missions.

Add to that the infamous Blackhawk Down fiasco in which Clinton expanded the humanitarian mission to Somalia began under George H.W. Bush into a military action without bothering to provide the US forces the heavy armor they needed.

It was after that disaster that an emboldened Osama bin Laden said:

Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim. …

And bin Laden said that America was a weak paper tiger and we’d crawl out dragging our dead because that’s exactly what Bill Clinton had done in Somalia in 1993.

On 9/11/2001, the United States was both weak and blind.  And to quote Obama’s “reverend,” “our chickens came home to roost” for our weakness and blindness as we were hit with the worst attack on American soil in our history.

Just why the hell is it that the same damn hypocrite left that says, “One year of failure, two years of failure, three years of failure, four years of failure, hell, EIGHT years of failure, it doesn’t matter – IT’S BUSH’S FAULT!” never ONCE blame Bill Clinton for either the Dotcom implosion that vaporized $7.1 trillion and sank America into recession?  Why didn’t these liberals say, “What happened during the Bush presidency was ENTIRELY Bill Clinton’s fault and Bush was forced to clean up Clinton’s mess and America is paying the price for Clinton’s sins.”???  Nobody in the media said that, in spite of the facts.  And now, very nearly everybody in the media is saying exactly that regarding George Bush being entirely to blame for Obama’s mess even after Obama has presided over his mess for four miserable years.

Why?!?!?  Other than the fact that if you are a liberal, you are therefore ipso facto and ergo sum a pathologically dishonest human being whose soul swims in lies?

You have to go back to the 1930s and the propaganda of Goebbels in Germany and TASS in Russia to find this level of media manipulation and deceit.  And we’re heading in the same direction: because we are being railroaded into making increasingly stupid and immoral decisions based on the constant stream of fabrications and dishonest narratives we’re being told.

Special Operators And Intelligence Professionals Form OPSEC To Attack Obama For His Cynical Politically-Motivated Betrayal Of National Security

August 16, 2012

Remember when Kerri Strug injured herself and then incredibly won the gold medal for the USA women’s gymnastics team but hurt her ankle in the process?  The announcer said, “She’s hurt!  She’s hurt badly!” as Kerri Strug bravely stood on one leg after sticking her landing only to collapse on the ground in pain as soon as she finished her vault?  Remember her coach running over to pick her up and carry her?

I sure remember that.  What a great moment!!!  You could say that girl landed on the national heart.  That little sub-five-foot girl was magnificent when she was the only one who could win for her USA.

Well, the thing that isn’t quite as well remembered is that that scene of the coach carrying the wounded hero was overused in the media to such a degree that Saturday Night Live mocked it and then ESPN’s Sports Center did a parody of it as well.  Those spoofs weren’t mocking Strug; they were really mocking Bela Karolyi as a guy who clung desperately to his star to clutch at her fame.  In the SNL parody, Kerri Strug is basically saying six months later, “I can walk now, you know,” while Coach Karolyi constantly holds her at every appearance.

I don’t frankly don’t have a clue if Coach Karolyi was trying to pirate off the fame that his gymnast deservedly won or not; but that was how he was savaged by SNL.

And that parody is actually a great analogy for SEAL Team Six and Barack Obama.  SEAL Team Six, of course, are the professionals who took out Osama bin Laden, and Obama is your Bela Karolyi determined to pirate their place as heroes of American history which THEY ALONE risked their lives to secure.

But ask a question about all the glaring areas where Obama has failed – in the Middle East as tens of thousands have been murdered by brutal regimes and longstanding allies like Egypt have slipped into terrorist group control, and specifically in Iran where the brutal regime is practically at their goal to be attack-proof because of the nuclear weapons arsenal that they will have built under Obama’s watch – and what do we hear?  Obama got bin Laden, didn’t he?

It’s like history has been rewritten so that it was actually Bela Karolyi who stuck that vault.

Obama IMMEDIATELY went on national television to reveal the successful raid – when if he’d just waited a couple of damn days the intelligence gains could have been exploited.  And ever since then we have seen one betrayal of national security after another as Obama cynically leaked secrets at the cost of our national security and at the cost of our foreign assets and our allies in order to deceitfully and cynically exploit everything for his political posturing.

We have now had REPEATED and INCREDIBLY DAMAGING leaks that CLEARLY and in fact WITHOUT ANY QUESTION came out of the Obama White House.

Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein put it best:

In an interview with Wolf Blitzer on the Situation Room, Feinstein said, “I think what we’re seeing, Wolf, is an avalanche of leaks and it is very, very disturbing. It’s dismayed our allies. It puts American lives in jeopardy. It puts our nation’s security in jeopardy.”

Feinstein also recently said:

I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks,” Feinstein said in an address at the World Affairs Council, The Associated Press first reported.

These leaks are crippling America’s national security for years and years to come, intelligence experts say.  And it all began with the Osama bin Laden raid – because when we got bin Laden, Obama essentially concluded that he could sacrifice US national security and exploit it for his political present in order to get himself re-elected running as “the man who got bin Laden.”

The idea, of course, is that had George Bush had four more years in office to benefit from the success of the intelligence programs and tactics that HE created, Bush could not have got Osama bin Laden.  Why not?  Well its simple: Bush was not a messiah.  And only messiah could have got bin Laden.  And Barack Obama, of course, is the messiah.  Otherwise, Obama’s argument that “I’m the one who got bin Laden” is a truly asinine argument: because it just took until 2011 for US intelligence to track bin Laden down and Obama made the call that ANY president would have made – EVEN Barack Obama.

Forget the Navy SEALs.  Their glory is NOTHING as compared to messiah Obama’s.  I’m frankly surprised that the White House didn’t take pictures of Obama in SEAL garb and depict him as personally leading the raid and personally pulling the trigger that took out the terrorist.

The special operations community is red-hot pissed about it.

OPSEC, Special Forces Group, Attacks Obama Over Bin Laden Bragging, Leaks
Reuters  |  Posted: 08/14/2012 9:16 pm
By Mark Hosenball

WASHINGTON Aug 14 (Reuters) – A group of former U.S. intelligence and Special Forces operatives is set to launch a media campaign, including TV ads, that scolds President Barack Obama for taking credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden and arg u es that high-level leaks are endangering American lives.

Leaders of the group, the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc, say it is nonpartisan and unconnected to any political party or presidential campaign. It is registered as a so-called social welfare group, which means its primary purpose is to further the common good and its political activities should be secondary.

In the past, military exploits have been turned against presidential candidates by outside groups, most famously the Swift Boat ads in 2004 that questioned Democratic nominee John Kerry’s Vietnam War service.

The OPSEC group says it is not political and aims to save American lives. Its first public salvo is a 22-minute film that includes criticism of Obama and his administration. The film, to be released on Wednesday, was seen in advance by Reuters.

“Mr. President, you did not kill Osama bin Laden, America did. The work that the American military has done killed Osama bin Laden. You did not,” Ben Smith, identified as a Navy SEAL, says in the film.

“As a citizen, it is my civic duty to tell the president to stop leaking information to the enemy,” Smith continues. “It will get Americans killed.”

An Obama campaign official said: “No one in this group is in a position to speak with any authority on these issues and on what impact these leaks might have, and it’s clear they’ve resorted to making things up for purely political reasons.”

Obama has highlighted his foreign policy record on the campaign trail, emphasizing how he presided over the killing of bin Laden, as well as how he ended the war in Iraq and set a timeline for winding down the war in Afghanistan.

However, Obama has come under sharp attack from Republican lawmakers who have accused his administration of being behind high-level leaks of classified information.

They have pointed to media reports about clandestine drone attacks, informants planted in al Qaeda affiliates and alleged cyber-warfare against Iran that Republicans say were calculated to promote Obama’s image as a strong leader in an election year.

The White House has denied leaking classified information.

The president of Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc, Scott Taylor, is a former Navy SEAL who in 2010 ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for a congressional seat in Virginia.

Calling itself “OPSEC” for short – which in spy jargon means “operational security” – the anti-leak group incorporated last June in Delaware, a state that has the most secretive corporate registration rules in the U.S.

It also set itself up as a nonprofit organization under section 501(c)4 of the U.S. Tax Code, allowing it to keep donors’ identities secret. Spokesmen for the group declined to discuss its sources of financing.

Several group representatives say their main motivation for setting up OPSEC was dismay at recent detailed media leaks about sensitive operations.

In an interview, Taylor denied OPSEC had any political slant. He described the group as a “watchdog organization” but added that the current administration “has certainly leaked more than others.”

OPSEC spokesmen said the group has about $1 million at its disposal and hopes to raise more after the release of its mini-documentary, entitled “Dishonorable Disclosures,” which aims, in spy-movie style, to document a recent spate of leaks regarding sensitive intelligence and military operations.

Following the film’s release, OPSEC’s spokesmen said, the group expects to produce TV spots on the anti-leak theme that will air in a number of states, including Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Colorado, North Carolina and Nevada – key battleground states.

Fred Rustmann, a former undercover case officer for the CIA who is a spokesman for the group, insisted its focus on leaks was “not a partisan concern.” But he said the current administration had been leaking secrets “to help this guy get re-elected, at the expense of peoples’ lives…. We want to see that they don’t do this again.”

Chad Kolton, a former spokesman for the office of Director of National Intelligence during the George W. Bush administration who now represents OPSEC, also said the group’s message and make-up are nonpolitical.

“You’ll see throughout the film that concern about protecting the lives of intelligence and Special Forces officers takes precedence over partisanship,” he said.

Responding to criticism about the president taking credit for the bin Laden raid, an Obama campaign official pointed to an interview with CNN last month in which Admiral Bill McRaven, commander of the raid, said: “At the end of the day, make no mistake about it, it was the president of the United States that shouldered the burden for this operation, that made the hard decisions, that was instrumental in the planning process, because I pitched every plan to him.”

“I think Admiral McRaven knows more about the President’s role in the bin Laden operation than this group,” the campaign official said.

When I read that article, I was actually most enraged by the way the Obama administration responded at the conclusion: pitting Admiral McRaven against the credibility of the SEALs. Stop and think about it: Admiral McRaven serves at the pleasure of the president. If you don’t believe me, does anybody remember General Stanley McChrystal??? So now Admiral McRaven is put in the position of defending a president who will fire him if he doesn’t properly defend him??? Is that the kind of position our military leaders ought to be placed in???

So the Obama administration is literally saying here, “We’re as guilty as sin of doing everything our critics say, but if any active duty service member says so we’ll fire his ass.”  We might as well start doing what Nazi Germany did and have our military swear loyalty oaths of personal allegiance to their Führer rather than to their nation’s Constitution.

Exploiting Admiral McRaven for cover is every bit as cynical, every bit as dishonest, and every bit as treasonous, as everything else this administration has done.

SEALs aren’t guys who generally want the national glory for themselves; whatever “bragging” they do they tend to do within their own community because frankly nobody else would understand them to be able to appropriately honor them.

They also know that “loose lips sink ships.”  That was true during World War II and it is just as true today: when you reveal secrets of operations, you jeopardize current and future operations and you literally get good men killed.  And contrary to populist notions, there IS a limit of how many good men America has; such that every single ONE of them is a national treasure.

So the special operators aren’t pissed off at Obama for trying to leech off of their glory.  That isn’t what they’re about.  In that way, they are the OPPOSITE of Obama or most any other politician; they’re the kind of guys who go do what has to be done and do it in secret rather than the guys who call press conferences to boast about what other people just got through doing.  So it isn’t that Obama is trying to pirate their glory that is pissing them off; it’s that Obama is a reckless fool who is destroying national security and betraying secrets that will get men like themselves killed or worse (e.g., tortured and then murdered).  THAT’S what’s pissing them off.

Stunning Development: Same President Who’s Been Blaming Bush For Four Years Drafted CYA Memo To Blame Military If Bin Laden Raid Failed

May 7, 2012

Let me get this straight: the man who has blamed George Bush for FOUR YEARS of his own failures actually stood up and made a courageous decision all by himself? Seriously?

It’s time to take another drink again, you liver-failed alcoholics who are still in the Obama drinking game.

Every time there’s “unexpected” news – such as poor economic news or anything that would undermine the liberal thesis that Obama is our messiah – ye who are playing must take a drink.

Most of the players are dead now and the few who are still living are very, very sick waiting for their new donor organs (the argument being, “I’m NOT an alcoholic; I’m just a guy who trusted Obama”):

Former AG Michael Mukasey: Obama Officials Drafted Memo to Blame Military If OBL Mission Failed (Video)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, May 4, 2012, 10:39 PM

Leadership: Obama Administration Drafted Memo to Blame Military if OBL Mission Failed

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey told Sean Hannity tonight that the Obama Administration drafted a memo to protect the president from blame if the mission to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden would have failed. That way Obama could blame the general instead of taking the blame himself. Mukasey wrote about it this week in The Wall Street Journal.

“That was a highly lawyered memo (designed to protect the president politically)… I think there’s going to be more that’s going to be tumbling out about that escapade but so far that memo is enough.

And, of course, this surprises no one who is familiar with Obama’s leadership style.

Mukasey also contrasted Obama’s leadership style tonight to Lincoln and Eisenhower as he did in his WSJ Opinion piece earlier in the week.

Lincoln took responsibility in August 1862 for failures that had been attributed to General George McClellan—eventually sacked for incompetence—and Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Lincoln told a crowd that McClellan was not at fault for seeking more than Stanton could give, and “I stand here, as justice requires me to do, to take upon myself what has been charged upon the Secretary of War.”

Dwight Eisenhower is famous for having penned a statement to be issued in anticipation of the failure of the Normandy invasion that reads in relevant part: “My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”

A week later, when the success of the invasion was apparent, Eisenhower saluted the Allied Expeditionary Forces: “One week ago this morning there was established through your coordinated efforts our first foothold in northwestern Europe. High as was my preinvasion confidence in your courage, skill and effectiveness . . . your accomplishments . . . have exceeded my brightest hopes.

Eisenhower did mention himself at the end: “I truly congratulate you upon a brilliantly successful beginning. . . . Liberty loving people everywhere would today like to join me in saying to you, ‘I am proud of you.’”

Here’s what Mukasey said in the Wall Street Journal:

Updated April 30, 2012, 7:43 p.m. ET.Michael Mukasey: Obama and the bin Laden Bragging Rights
It’s hard to imagine Lincoln or Eisenhower claiming such credit for the heroic actions of others.
By MICHAEL B. MUKASEY

The first anniversary of the SEAL Team 6 operation that killed Osama bin Laden brings the news that President Obama plans during the coming campaign to exploit the bragging rights to the achievement. That plan invites scrutiny that is unlikely to benefit him.

Consider the events surrounding the operation. A recently disclosed memorandum from then-CIA Director Leon Panetta shows that the president’s celebrated derring-do in authorizing the operation included a responsibility-escape clause: “The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out.”

Which is to say, if the mission went wrong, the fault would be Adm. McRaven’s, not the president’s. Moreover, the president does not seem to have addressed at all the possibility of seizing material with intelligence value—which may explain his disclosure immediately following the event not only that bin Laden was killed, but also that a valuable trove of intelligence had been seized, including even the location of al Qaeda safe-houses. That disclosure infuriated the intelligence community because it squandered the opportunity to exploit the intelligence that was the subject of the boast.

The only reliable weapon that any administration has against the current threat to this country is intelligence. Every operation like the one against bin Laden (or the one that ended the career of Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S. citizen and al Qaeda propagandist killed in a drone attack last September) dips into the reservoir of available intelligence. Refilling that reservoir apparently is of no importance to an administration that, after an order signed by the president on his second day in office, has no classified interrogation program—and whose priorities are apparent from its swift decision to reopen investigations of CIA operators for alleged abuses in connection with the classified interrogation program that once did exist.

While contemplating how the killing of bin Laden reflects on the president, consider the way he emphasized his own role in the hazardous mission accomplished by SEAL Team 6:

I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority . . . even as I continued our broader effort. . . . Then, after years of painstaking work by my intelligence community I was briefed . . . I met repeatedly with my national security team . . . And finally last week I determined that I had enough intelligence to take action. . . . Today, at my direction . . .”

That seems a jarring formulation coming from a man who, when first elected, was asked which president he would model himself on and replied, Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln, on the night after Gen. Robert E. Lee’s surrender ended the Civil War, delivered from the window of the White House a speech that mentioned his own achievements not at all, but instead looked forward to the difficulties of reconstruction and called for black suffrage—a call that would doom him because the audience outside the White House included a man who muttered that Lincoln had just delivered his last speech. It was John Wilkes Booth.

The man from whom President Obama has sought incessantly to distance himself, George W. Bush, also had occasion during his presidency to announce to the nation a triumph of intelligence: the capture of Saddam Hussein. He called that success “a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq.” He attributed it to “the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator’s footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers. . . . Their work continues, and so do the risks.”

He did mention himself at the end: “Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them.”

That is not to say that great leaders, including presidents, have not placed themselves at the center of great events. But generally it has been to accept responsibility for failure.

Lincoln took responsibility in August 1862 for failures that had been attributed to General George McClellan—eventually sacked for incompetence—and Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Lincoln told a crowd that McClellan was not at fault for seeking more than Stanton could give, and “I stand here, as justice requires me to do, to take upon myself what has been charged upon the Secretary of War.”

Dwight Eisenhower is famous for having penned a statement to be issued in anticipation of the failure of the Normandy invasion that reads in relevant part: “My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”

A week later, when the success of the invasion was apparent, Eisenhower saluted the Allied Expeditionary Forces: “One week ago this morning there was established through your coordinated efforts our first foothold in northwestern Europe. High as was my preinvasion confidence in your courage, skill and effectiveness . . . your accomplishments . . . have exceeded my brightest hopes.

Eisenhower did mention himself at the end: “I truly congratulate you upon a brilliantly successful beginning. . . . Liberty loving people everywhere would today like to join me in saying to you, ‘I am proud of you.'”

Such examples are worth remembering every time President Obama claims bin Laden bragging rights.

Mr. Mukasey served as U.S. attorney general from 2007-09, and as a U.S. district judge from 1988 to 2006.

A version of this article appeared May 1, 2012, on page A15 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Obama and the bin Laden Bragging Rights.

You’ve got to understand the situation Obama faced: what would have happened to Obama politically if he had been told exactly where bin Laden was hiding and he refused to get him???  When you ask yourself that question, it wasn’t a courageous decision to go after Osama bin Laden: it would have been a far more politically courageous decision NOT to go get him; because furious intelligence and military professionals would have resigned in protest and then made very sure that Obama paid politically for refusing to get the man who murdered 3,000 Americans.  And let’s not forget that this is now the age of Wikileaks.

Obama would not have politically survived if he had refused to get bin Laden; he might literally have been impeached – with Democrats joining Republicans to wash their hands of this turd.

Obama did what Obama had to do to protect Obama. 

And the memo pretty much proves that Obama took the “protect Obama at all costs” meme as far as he could possibly take it.

Don’t blame Obama.  Never blame Obama.  Obama is he who must never be blamed.  You are not allowed to hold him responsible for anything that ever has happened or ever will happen or you are a racist.  Well, if you vote Republican you’re already a racist a priori; so you’re a DOUBLE racist.

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.

Just Asking: How Much Credit For Getting Osama Bin Laden Does Obama Truly Deserve?

May 7, 2011

When I first heard about the assault on the compound in Pakistan that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden, I was happy and proud as an American.  And willing to give Obama credit where credit was due.

It seemed like a gutsy move – which the mainstream media narrative quickly seized upon: the political consequences for Obama would have been quite negative if the mission had failed.  It would have reminded everyone yet again that Obama is a reincarnation of Jimmy Carter.  And the whole “Desert One” fiasco would have surely been remembered.

But take just a second and look at it from the opposite perspective; you know, the one that the mainstream media has never once considered for even a nanosecond.  What would have happened had Barack Obama decided NOT to try to take out bin Laden?  What would have happened – more to the point – when the American people were informed that Barack Obama had known for certain where Osama bin Laden was, and refused to try to get him?

Wouldn’t that have had even MORE DISASTEROUS consequences???

And, the thing is, it is a near certainty that that information would have gotten out.  There would have been sufficient disgust in both the CIA and in the Pentagon that somebody would have made sure that the news got out that Barack Obama – who had PROMISED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE that he would go into Pakistan to get bin Laden – had cowardly refused to keep yet another promise.

Imagine for just a second the abundant campaign ads: slow-moving video of Osama bin Laden, followed by footage of the twin towars collapsing, followed by Barack Obama giving his word to get bin Laden, followed by the evidence that Obama knew for at least half a year where bin Laden was hiding, and refused to even try to get him.

It would have been just as “bold” for Obama to decide that an operation to get bin Laden was too risky, and jeopardized critical U.S.-Pakistani relations to too high a degree.

Barack Obama was forced into a position where he had to rely on the U.S. military to save his political hide.  And the U.S. military came through for him.

And how does Obama repay that military?  By literally gutting their budget, that’s how:

President Obama has targeted the Department of Defense to absorb more than 80 percent of the cuts he has proposed in next year’s budget for discretionary programs.

Does Obama deserve credit for that?  Really?  Is he out right now campaigning as the guy who just gutted the military he commands, or is he out campaigning as the commander-in-chief of a glorious military?

People should hear that RIGHT NOW Barack Obama is taking an axe and gutting the Navy SEALs, and the Nightstalkers who brought them in and out of that compound, and the Screaming Eagles he visited yesterday, and the entire rest of the military.

People should know that Barack Obama demonized the primary means of interrogation that got us Osama bin Laden.  And there is no question that waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation” methods led us to the breakthroughs we needed to get bin Laden:

Ex-CIA Counterterror Chief: ‘Enhanced Interrogation’ Led U.S. to bin Laden
By Massimo Calabresi Wednesday, May 4, 2011

A former head of counterterrorism at the CIA, who was investigated last year by the Justice Department for the destruction of videos showing senior al-Qaeda officials being interrogated, says the harsh questioning of terrorism suspects produced the information that eventually led to Osama bin Laden’s death.

Jose Rodriguez ran the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center from 2002 to 2005, the period when top al-Qaeda leaders Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and Abu Faraj al-Libbi were taken into custody and subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques” (EITs) at secret prisons overseas. KSM was subjected to waterboarding, sleep deprivation and other techniques. Al-Libbi was not waterboarded, but other EITs were used on him.

“Information provided by KSM and Abu Faraj al-Libbi about bin Laden’s courier was the lead information that eventually led to the location of [bin Laden’s] compound and the operation that led to his death,” Rodriguez tells TIME in his first public interview. Rodriguez was cleared of charges in the video-destruction investigation last year.

Even career Democrat and Obama appointee for Director of Central Intelligence Leon Panetta has openly acknowledged that waterboarding was an instrumental part of this intelligence effort:

Asked by NBC-TV’s Brian Williams about the information obtained from detainees that led to the bin Laden takedown, Panetta replied:  ‘We had multiple series of sources that provided information with regards to this situation.  … Clearly some of it came from detainees [and] they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of those detainees.”

When Williams asked whether “waterboarding” was one of those techniques, Panetta replied:  “That’s correct.”

We have the following from the CIA analysts and the CIA director at the time, describing how essential the enhanced interrogations were to the knowledge that the CIA learned:

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, FOX NEWS NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): March 2003, Rawalpindi, Pakistan, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured and according to U.S. officials, the self-described architect of 9/11 was immediately taken into the CIA enhanced interrogation program and waterboarded. It was three to four months later, according to U.S. officials, that KSM was asked about the courier who was known only by an Al Qaeda alias. He downplayed the courier’s importance. The top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee says the implications of the CIA’s early leads are clear. […]

A former senior intelligence official says the waterboarding of KSM, quote, “took his spirited defiance into a zone of cooperation,” adding that the harsh interrogation tactic critics described as torture was not used to elicit information but rather to alter the detainee’s mindset. Philip Mudd is a former CIA analyst.

PHILIP MUDD, FORMER CIA ANALYST: Having seen this stuff on the inside, that’s not a debate. That is a done deal. The information we got was invaluable. So debate the cultural side and the political side, but please don’t debate the intelligence side.

HERRIDGE: In a radio interview with FOX, former CIA Director Michael Hayden said there is no question the CIA program including waterboarding laid the foundation for bin Laden’s capture.

MICHAEL HAYDEN, FMR CIA DIRECTOR ON FOX NEWS RADIO (via telephone): That database was kind of like the home depot of intelligence analysis. You know, it was incredibly detailed stuff.

HERRIDGE: As for its role in identifying this compound in Pakistan —

HAYDEN: It would be very difficult for me to conceive of an operation like the one that took place on Sunday that did not include in its preparation information that came out of the CIA detention program.

HERRIDGE: 2004 and 2005 are described as turning points. Both Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi, a gatekeeper for Osama bin Laden, were both in the CIA secret prisons. U.S. officials say for a second time, KSM downplayed the courier significance and al-Libi denied knowing him. The men’s adamant denials appeared to be an effort to protect the courier and U.S. officials say it, quote, “sent up red flags for the CIA” because other detainees consistently claims the courier maintained bin Laden’s trust.

And if you don’t believe EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE KEY PEOPLE INVOLVED, just accept that Bush and HIS gutsy decision to approve waterboarding led us to the knowledge that Osama bin Laden (UBL) was using couriers, the pseudo-names of those couriers that led to intelligence ultiamtely finding their actual names, and even the very city where Osama bin Laden was hiding:

Which is to say that the entire Obama presidency was spent mining information from waterboarding that Obama personally demonized and from a program that Obama shut down.

And we now know that Osama bin Laden was in this compound that we learned about from waterboarding for at least five years.

Every single major fact that we learned we learned from waterboarding and from enhanced interrogation techniques.  And the rest of it was simply a matter of confirming what we knew from waterboarding and from enhanced interrogation techniques.

People should KNOW that Barack Obama demands that the United States of America should be nearly blind.

People should also know that on his second day in office Barack Obama shut down and terminated the CIA intelligence program that actually developed the information that got bin Laden.  They should know that America no longer has that capability, and that thanks to Barack Obama we could never even begin to do that again – likely for years to come, given the difficulty of developing such intensive programs.

And people should know that RIGHT NOW Barack Obama is continuing to try to criminally prosecute the incredible men and women who gave us the intelligence breakthroughs that got Osama bin Laden:

In normal times, the officials who uncovered the intelligence that led us to Osama bin Laden would get a medal. In the Obama administration, they have been given subpoenas.

On his second day in office, President Barack Obama shut down the CIA’s high-value interrogation program. His Justice Department then reopened criminal investigations into the conduct of CIA interrogators — inquiries that had been closed years before by career prosecutors who concluded that there were no crimes to prosecute. In a speech at the National Archives in May 2009, Mr. Obama accused the men and women of the CIA of “torture,” declaring that their work “did not advance our war and counterterrorism efforts — they undermined them.”

Now, it turns out that those CIA interrogators played a critical role in the killing of Osama bin Laden, which the president has rightly called “the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al-Qaida.”

Even NOW Obama is refusing to do anything to stop the prosecution of the men and women who gave us bin Laden, even as he flies around taking credit for getting bin Laden.  Should we be giving Obama credit for that???

This nation should be grateful to George W. Bush, and for his courage and foresight to develop the programs and to create the capabilities that ultimately won us this victory against Osama bin Laden.  It was the courage of George Bush that resulted in waterboarding – which Bush and his key advisors KNEW would be used by vile cowards like Barack Obama to demonize them.  But they knew it had to be done, and they did it.

In the same way, Bush created the Guantanamo Bay (“Gitmo”) detention facility.  Bush expanded the rendition program that had been used by Bill Clinton.  Bush created the Patriot Act.  Bush approved of domestic surveillance.  Bush set up the military tribunals that had been used by Democrats like FDR in previous time of war.  Bush established the indefinite detentions of the most hardened terrorists.

Barack Obama personally demonized and vilified all of these things.  But he is using them to this day because they had to be done.

I would argue that the hero of this is George Bush; and that Barack Obama is a self-aggrandizing coward who was forced to use virtually all of the programs that he self-righteously demagogued for political advantage in a way that is frankly treasonous.

Right now we have a treasure trove of intelligence that is likewise nearly entirely the result of the work of George W. Bush.  But be advised: if we don’t shut down al Qaeda now, we probably never will due to the massive failures of the man who sits in the Oval Office as we speak.

In terms of Mr. bin Laden himself, we’ll get him running. We’ll smoke him out of his cave and we’ll get him eventually.” — George W. Bush, October 11, 2001

It was always just a matter of time.  And the time came during the misrule of a hypocritical fool.

On Keith Olbermann’s Deceitful and Depraved Attack of Dick Cheney

May 25, 2009

I remember exactly what I was doing the morning of September 11, 2001.  I was a grad student at the time, getting ready for my first class with the television running in the background.  Just before the first large passenger plane crashed into one of the towers of the World Trade Center something caught my attention just in time to see it happen live.  [Note: please see the update at the conclusion for a correction].

And the day froze into shock, numbness, dismay, terror, and a rising anger.

The broadcasters were talking to themselves about whether this was an accident, or an intentional attack.  I didn’t need them to tell me what it was: like many other Americans, I knew exactly what had just happened.

And then the second plane struck the second tower.  And shortly afterward the cameras began to catch specks falling out of the towers that turned out to be Americans throwing themselves out of top story windows to their deaths in order to avoid the even more agonizing death by burning.

President George Bush had been President for just over six months.  But I would have felt EXACTLY the same sense of horror and outrage whether Bill Clinton, or Al Gore, or George Bush was President.

It wasn’t about being a member of a political party, or who was President or what party he was from; it was about being an American whose country had just been attacked.

That’s just no longer the case, though.  I no longer feel that way.

Barack Obama’s constant unrelenting blaming of the Bush administration for virtually every problem under the sun was bad enough; Obama’s description of Bush “torture” and his releasing of CIA memos intended to politically hurt the Bush administration at the expense of informing our enemies exactly how we would and would not interrogate them was bad enough; House Speaker Nancy Peolosi’s demagoguery of the Bush administration over its “torture” and her subsequent lies that she herself had been informed about such “torture” and done nothing was bad enough; but it just never seems to end.

But the following example of Bush Derangement Syndrome finally sent me over the top:

Transcript of Keith Olbermann’s remarks on MSNBC:

The delusional claims he has made this day could be proved by documentation and firsthand testimony to be the literal and absolute truth, and he still, himself, would be wrong because the America he sought to impose upon the world and upon its own citizens, the dark, hateful place of Dick Cheney`s own soul, the place he to this hour defends, and to this day prefers, is a repudiation of all that our ancestors, all that for which our brave troops of two years ago and two minutes ago, have sacrificed and fought.

Olbermann acknowledges that EVEN if Dick Cheney is telling the truth and his own liberal allies are lying, it doesn’t matter.  Because he thinks Cheney and his vision for America are evil.  So truth be damned.  That is the warped mind of the true ideologue.

And he then uses a rhetorical flourish to indicate that our troops have suffered for Cheney’s hateful vision.

What Olbermann, evil liar that he truly is, fails to mention is that our “brave troops” who “have sacrificed and fought” actually think JUST LIKE Cheney and DON’T THINK like Olbermann.

I can cite the political polls of our soldiers to show that they overwhelmingly supported the conservative agenda and opposed the liberal one.  We find that 68% of active duty military personnel supported John McCain, versus only 23% for Barack Obama.  But it’s better to simply let you see another story that features a video as to how our Marines felt about George Bush versus how they felt about Barack Obama.

Another example occurred just this morning on The View, with two veterans who lost legs to roadside bombs answering Barbara Walters’ “was it worth it” question by saying without hesitation that they would both return to the fight if they could.  Barbara Walters was clearly stunned by their answer, and didn’t say another word.  Our veterans are NOT victims of Bush or Cheney or anyone else; and every attempt to portray them as such is a contemptible lie.

If Keith Olbermann had even a shred of personal honesty, integrity, character, or virtue, he would not have dragged American soldiers into his hateful polemic given that they themselves are on the very side that Olbermann so utterly despises.  But Olbermann doesn’t have any honesty, integrity, character, or virtue.

So he warps the men and women who supported George Bush and Dick Cheney so overwhelmingly into victims.

Olbermann says:

Gee, thanks for being motivated by the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans to go so far as to take a serious second look. And thank you, sir, for admitting, obviously inadvertently, that you did not take a serious first look in the seven months and 23 days between your inauguration and 9/11. For that attack, sir, you are culpable, morally, ethically. At best, you are guilty of malfeasance and eternally lasting stupidity. At worst, sir, in the deaths of 9/11, you are negligent.

Again, if Keith Olbermann had so much as a shred of personal or professional honesty, he wouldn’t say something like this.

Let’s review the list: 1) In 1993 Bill Clinton ran from Somalia after a battle with Islamic insurgents that left 18 American servicemen dead; 2) Also in 1993 the US suffered a terrorist attack in the form of the first World Trade Center bombing that killed 6 and wounded more than 1000 Americans; 3) In 1995 the US suffered its first domestic terrorist attack at the Oklahoma Federal Building that left 168 Americans dead; 4) In 1996 19 American servicemen were killed in a Saudi Arabian terrorist bombing of the US military Khobar Towers barracks; 5) In 1998 there was a simultaneous terrorist bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed more than 200 people; 6) In 2000 the USS Cole was attacked by terrorists, leaving 17 American servicemen dead.

There may well have been more, but that is all I can remember.

Most of these attacks were revealed to have clearly been done under the direction of Osama bin Laden by his al Qaeda terrorist organization.  In spite of this fact, President Clinto repeatedly passed up on opportunities to take bin Laden into custody even when Somalia literally offered his head on a platter.

How can Keith Olberman in good conscience so blame Bush and Cheney for 9/11 when the Clinton administration had never taken terrorism seriously themselves?  But Olbermann doesn’t have a good conscience.  He is a truly depraved human being.

Bill Clinton failed to take 9/11 seriously for the same reason George Bush failed to take it seriously in the six months of his administration preceding the 9/11 attack: because we hadn’t been hit hard enough yet.  Clinton should have learned from the attacks America suffered throughout his entire presidency; and Bush should have paid attention to Clinton’s disastrous track record.

Olbermann said:

You saved no one, sir. If the classified documents you seek released really did detail plots other than those manufactured by drowning men in order to get it to stop, or if they truly did know plans beyond the laughable ones you and President Bush have already revealed, hijackers without passports, targeting a building whose name Mr. Bush could not remember, clowns who thought they could destroy airports by dropping matches in fuel pipelines 30 miles away, men who planned to attack a military base dressed as pizza delivery boys, forgetting that every man there was armed, and today, the four would-be synagogue bombers, one of whom turns out to keep bottles of urine in his apartment, and is on schizophrenia medicine.

Olbermann is simply lying here.  CIA director George Tenent – who was appointed to his position by Bill Clinton – said that the enhanced interrogations by themselves were “Worth more than the FBI, CIA and NSA put together.” Career intelligence professional and CIA Director General Michael Hayden said, “fully half of the government’s knowledge about the structure and activities of al Qaeda came from those [harsh] interrogations.” In fact, President Obama’s very own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, put it this way: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” A Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005 notes that “the CIA believes ‘the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.’ . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques.”

So the man popping schizophrenia medicine and washing it down with his own bottled urine is none other than Keith Olbermann and everyone at MSNBC and everyone who watches the network.  It certainly isn’t Dick Cheney.

Olbermann saves his ugliest and most hateful remarks for last:

You saved no one, Mr. Cheney. All you did was help kill Americans. You were negligent before 9/11. Your response to your complicity by omission on 9/11 was panic and shame and insanity, and lying this country into a war that did nothing but kill 4,299 more of us. We will take no further instructions from you, sir. And let me again quote Oliver Cromwell to you, Mr. Cheney. “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of god, go.”

I’ve written about other things that Keith Olbermann and his “guests” have said.  Only very recently Janeane Garofalo said:

This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. And there is no way around that. And you know, you can tell these type of right wingers anything and they’ll believe it, except the truth. You tell them the truth and they become — it’s like showing Frankenstein’s monster fire. They become confused, and angry and highly volatile. That guy, causing them feelings they don’t know, because their limbic brain, we’ve discussed this before, the limbic brain inside a right-winger or Republican or conservative or your average white power activist, the limbic brain is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person, and it’s pushing against the frontal lobe. So their synapses are misfiring. Is Bernie Goldberg listening?

And there was Keith Olbermann and Michael Musto engaging in about as hateful of an attack as one can possibly imagine against Miss California Carrie Prejean for the simple reason that they despise her right to express her own views about an issue that most Californians and most Americans agree with her over.

Keith Olbermann is a vain, petty, vindictive, vicious, hateful, and truly ugly human being.  And MSNBC would do far better broadcasting in place of pro-terrorist al Jazeera than it is doing here.  Both networks run basically the same message.

But Keith Olbermann’s rant against Dick Cheney and every conservative who agrees with him rose to such a level of hatred, such a level of vicious, bitter, ugly, deceitful, and frankly evil rhetoric, that it transcends anything I have ever heard.

Right now, liberals like Keith Olbermann are teeing off on conservatives for waterboarding when we now learn that liberals like Nancy Pelosi and many other Democrats were fully briefed on “enhanced interrogation techniques that had been employed,” and neither said or did anything to prevent such techniques.  And even the very liberal new CIA Director under Obam0, Leon Panetta, essentially says Pelosi is lying.  How are their attacks now anything but partisan demagoguery?

And right now, liberals including Barack Obama himself are deceitfully claiming the moral high ground even as the new liberal administration takes many of the same positions that it hypocritically and demagogically found so hateful on the campaign trail.  As many policies as Obama has undone that will make this country less safe, there have been almost as many that he once demonized, only to follow himself once in office.

For instance, President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate.  Given that President Bush used the technique against only three individuals shortly after the worst disaster in US history, how is Obama any different?  In fact he’s worse, because Bush and Cheney never demagogued the issue as Obama has repeatedly done.

Obama demonized Bush over the Bush policy on rendition.  But now this demagogue is quietly continuing to carry out the same rendition policy – abducting terrorist suspects and sending them to countries that will use harsh interrogation methods – even as he congratulates himself in front of a fawning media for his being better than Bush.  But Obama isn’t better than Bush and Cheney; he’s worse.  Because he’s a hypocrite and a demagogue.

In the words of the New York Times, military commissions was “a concept he criticized bitterly as a presidential candidate.”  But now the hypocrite and demagogue is going to quietly use them himself.

And Obama has indicated that he likewise reserves the right to continue to hold some prisoners without trial indefinitely – a position he demonized during the campaign.  How can such a man who so hypocritically employed such demagoguery only to come to the same position as the man he demagogued claim any semblance of moral high ground?  Obama is lower than Bush in his character, not higher.  Bush and Cheney didn’t self-righteously demagogue; only Obama did.

Obama decided against the release of the remainder of the infamous Abu Ghraib photos.  But only because he had to bow to the reality of the massive resitance against his decision to release them and the consequences such a stupid and depraved act would have had both for our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and for Democrats at home.  In electing not to release them, Obama took the SAME position that Bush/Cheney had taken.  Obama is not better than Bush or Cheney; he’s worse.  They didn’t waiver and pander before going back on their decision out of the selfish interests of political survival.  They were consistent in their determination to do the right thing.

Obama has idiotically promised he would close Gitmo, but even his own party now realizes how foolish that would be and has twice denied him funding to do so until he come up with a plan that makes some kind of sense.  Obama wrapped himself up in puffed-up, posturing self-righteousness, but the reality is that Bush was forced to confront the same unsolvable dilemmas.  The only difference was that Bush was wiser than Barack Obama in recognizing the problems that made a closure of Gitmo nearly impossible; and that Bush – unlike Obama – was never a pandering demagogue.

Again, Obama isn’t one iota better than Bush or Cheney.  He’s worse.

Not that any of these FACTS matter to liberals.  Because far too many of them are exactly like Keith Olbermann: even if the facts support conservatives, it doesn’t matter.  Such liberals are completely false, vile people who routinely treat the truth with as much contempt as Olbermann does.

I said earlier that I no longer feel the same way about my country that I did following 9/11.  I wish it were not true, but the constant unrelenting barrage of lies, hypocristy, demonization, and demagoguery from the left – particularly on national security issues – have left me with an increasingly bitter taste in my mouth.  And following so many years of such hateful tactics, I fear that if we are attacked again, that I will react politically, rather than patriotically.  I wish it weren’t true, but there it is.

Update: I have since realized that the first attack was not covered live, and film footage of the first airplane was not made available until later.  What I would have seen was video footage of smoke billowing out of the World Trade Center shortly following the first attack, finally followed by live footage of the 2nd plane strike.  I attempted to describe from memory what I had seen 8 years ago, and it turns out that my memory was not perfect.

Hey, Obama: Here’s Why “Talking” To Evil Tyrants Won’t Work

August 15, 2008

I hope our nation’s leaders read about Tojo and learn from him.

Diary shows Japan’s wartime leader Hideki Tojo resisted surrender till end

TOKYO – Japanese Second World War leader Hideki Tojo wanted to keep fighting even after U.S. atomic bombs destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, accusing surrender proponents of being “frightened,” a newly released diary reveals.Excerpts from the approximately 20 pages written by Tojo in the final days of the war and held by the National Archives of Japan were published for the first time in several newspapers Tuesday.

“The notes show Tojo kept his died-in-the-wool militarist mentality until the very end,” said Kazufumi Takayama, the archives curator, who confirmed the accuracy of the published excerpts. “They are extremely valuable.”

Tojo, executed in 1948 after being convicted of war crimes by the Allies, was prime minister during much of the war. The notes buttress other evidence that Tojo was fiercely opposed to surrender despite the hopelessness of Japan’s war effort.

Can you imagine Barack Obama flying to Imperial Japan to “dialog” with Prime Minister Hideki Tojo? Can you imagine Obama convincing Tojo to get in line with American policy when a pair of nuclear bombs couldn’t?

I mean, understand something. This Barack Obama who says that as President he would talk with rogue leaders such as Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejab “without preconditions,” yet is somehow so afraid to talk with any conservative hosts (such as Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity) – or any real conservative media at all – that you’ve got to wonder how effective even Obama thinks he’d be.

But all that aside, why on earth would anybody but a genuine fool think that a leader like a Saddam Hussein, a Kim Jung Il, a Mahmoud Ahmadinejab, a Osama bin Laden, a Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, etc. etc. – who would let millions of their people starve, who would send out thousands of suicide bombers to murder women and children, who would inflict hell on earth if given half a chance – would turn from their evil ways if only Barack Obama talked with them? And if he really has the kind of persuasive powers he thinks he does, then why doesn’t he go on Hannity’s America and turn Sean into an abortion-loving liberal to prove it to the rest of us?

And yet this utterly stupid idea of “Barack Obama will talk to our enemies!” somehow holds sway over so many liberals.

You could paint string yellow and sell it to these people as gold.

Many tyrants respect only power, and fear only leaders who are willing to use it. But increasingly, there are more and more leaders arising in the world today who – like Tojo – won’t even restrain their evil in the face of catastrophic death and defeat. The only option, save bearing your throat to their knives, is to kill such people before they do more far more damage.

Had British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain recognized that Adolf Hitler was such a man, rather than trying to “talk” with him, millions who died would likely have been saved.

The reason Chamberlain (who was actually ruthless in domestic politics) is considered one of the greatest weaklings and appeasers in history is because he continued to try talking when he should have been fighting.

It was with that thought in mind that Robert Heinlein wrote:

“Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that violence never solves anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.”

Furthermore, there is a strange ignorance among liberals regarding the fact that the United States government under President Bush, like every President before him, is in constant communication with both friends and enemies alike. President Bush doesn’t personally give Mahmoud Whatanutjob the time of day, but the State Department, the CIA, and the U.S. military are in contact with intermediaries who are in contact with Iran. The same is true with every other rogue regime.

Another thing to consider is the size, power, wealth, and influence of the United States relative to other countries. In terms of size, if you overlay the United States over Europe, the U.S. literally either covers or overlaps Spain, France, Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Italy, Greece, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia Herze-govina, Serbia and Montenegro, Ukraine, Romania, Moldova, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania, Turkey, Russia, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Sweden, Libya, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Syria. To say that we should allow France or Germany to tell us what we should do in a given crisis is akin to letting Oklahoma run our nation’s affairs.

And given Obama’s documented penchant for arrogance as a mere presidential nominee, it’s frankly very hard to imagine that he would be any better or more humble of a listener than George Bush would he to win the office of President and become the leader of the most powerful nation on the face of the earth.

If that isn’t enough, then let me say one last thing: Obama really isn’t all that good of a talker. If he isn’t reading it off a teleprompter, chances are he isn’t making much sense:

I mean, yeah, maybe Ahmadinejab would say, “All right! Enough! Whatever you want! We’ll give up our nuclear weapons program! Anything! Just get this clown away from me before I lose my mind!” But you have to figure Ahmadinejab is tougher than that, and Obama’s ramblings would barely faze him.

However you want to slice it, the thinking that Barack Obama is somehow going to solve all the world’s problems by talking to the rogue leaders of the world is beyond irrational.