Posts Tagged ‘Osama bin Laden’

Undeniable PROOF That Barack Obama Entirely To Blame For The Collapse of Iraq And The Rise Of Islamic State.

April 18, 2016

Let me just get straight to the facts.  It is an amazing thing the way Bush got blamed for the wars but Obama cut and ran AFTER BUSH WON HIS WAR and now the terrorists as a direct result of Obama’s stupidity are far stronger than they EVER were when Bush was president.  While the dishonest leftist propaganda mill otherwise known as the mainstream media has never done it and never will do it, this is an easy thesis to document:

  1. Obama HIMSELF announced we were victorious in Iraq: “Today, I can announce that our review is complete, and that the United States will pursue a new strategy to end the war in Iraq through a transition to full Iraqi responsibility,” said Obama. “This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant. To achieve that goal, we will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe-haven to terrorists.” — President Barack Hussein Obama, February 27, 2009.  That wouldn’t have happened if Iraq was still in chaos.  Because Bush won his war.  As point 2. further documents:
  2. Vice President Biden went further and called Iraq “one of the great achievements of this administration.”  You explain to me how he could say that in 2010 and Bush be to blame now.  Because if Bush had ruined the world in 2008, what is Biden doing calling it a “great achievement” in 2010???  No, rather, Bush handed Obama a peaceful, stable Iraq that Obama proceeded to flush down the toilet with his idiotic stupidity as he failed to listen to his own generals and foreign policy experts and ruined the world.  Here’s Biden’s quote: “I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”  — Vice President Joe Biden, 2010
  3. Our enemy in Iraq announced themselves that they were defeated (until Obama gave them life with his treason): “By the end of 2008, in the beginning of 2009, President Bush’s surge strategy led by General Petraeus and General Odierno, now the chief of staff of the Army, defeated the al Qaeda in Iraq.  I saw the transmission because I was advising Petraeus on the ground in Iraq. They showed me the transmissions from al Qaeda that they were intercepting. They said we are defeated, don’t send any more foreign fighters.” — General Jack Keane
  4. Obama ignored all of his generals and advisors in pulling out of Iraq:US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
    By Gareth PorterWASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.Gates and Mullen had discussed the relabeling scheme with Obama as part of the Petraeus-Odierno plan for withdrawal they had presented to him in mid-December, according to a Dec. 18 New York Times story.Obama decided against making any public reference to his order to the military to draft a detailed 16-month combat troop withdrawal policy, apparently so that he can announce his decision only after consulting with his field commanders and the Pentagon.The first clear indication of the intention of Petraeus, Odierno and their allies to try to get Obama to amend his decision came on Jan. 29 when the New York Times published an interview with Odierno, ostensibly based on the premise that Obama had indicated that he was “open to alternatives”.The Times reported that Odierno had “developed a plan that would move slower than Mr. Obama’s campaign timetable” and had suggested in an interview “it might take the rest of the year to determine exactly when United States forces could be drawn down significantly”.The opening argument by the Petraeus-Odierno faction against Obama’s withdrawal policy was revealed the evening of the Jan. 21 meeting when retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, one of the authors of the Bush troop surge policy and a close political ally and mentor of Gen. Petraeus, appeared on the Lehrer News Hour to comment on Obama’s pledge on Iraq combat troop withdrawal.Keane, who had certainly been briefed by Petraeus on the outcome of the Oval Office meeting, argued that implementing such a withdrawal of combat troops would “increase the risk rather dramatically over the 16 months”. He asserted that it would jeopardise the “stable political situation in Iraq” and called that risk “not acceptable”.
  5. In fact Obama has ALWAYS ignored all military advice.  Allow me to quote that Washington Times headline: “Obama ignores generals’ advice on troop levels for unprecedented sixth time.”  Obama is the worst kind of fool, and such fools cannot learn wisdom.  Obama in fact has never ONCE listened to a single decent expert who knew what the hell he was doing.  Obama’s own leaders as well as the military advised him what he needed to do; Obama ignored their wisdom over and over and over again.  And the very hell those generals and leaders predicted came to pass just as they predicted it.  It is a stupid, pathetic, trivial and demonic mind that blames Bush for that.
  6. Furthermore, Bush was RIGHT and Obama was demonically WRONG:  George W. Bush predicted EXACTLY what would happen if we listened to Great Satan Obama:Bush, as discussed on “The Kelly File,” made the remarks in the White House briefing room on July 12, 2007, as he argued against those who sought an immediate troop withdrawal.  “To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States,” Bush cautioned.  He then ticked off a string of predictions about what would happen if the U.S. left too early: “It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaeda.”  [Bush could not conceive that Obama would give birth to an even MORE vicious monster Islamic State that made al Qaeda look, well, “JayVee” in comparison]. “It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale.”  [Yep, that sure happened thanks to Obama].  “It would mean we allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan [Yep, check again: for the first time in the history of the world we have a true terrorist army that has created its own giant CALIPHATE.  We never saw anything close to that when George W. Bush was president.  That is simply a fact].  “It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”  [Check yet again.  And since Obama stupidly gave Russia hegemony over the region, it would mean risking World War III.  All because Barack Hussein Obama is the worst fool who ever lived].  I DEFY anyone to explain to me how Bush wasn’t COMPLETELY CORRECT in his warning and Obama wasn’t an abject FOOL not to heed it.  Because absolutely EVERYTHING Bush said would happen turned out to be completely true and everything Obama said would happen under his policies turned out to be completely false.
  7. Now add to that unmitigated disaster, that totally unforced error, Obama’s “red line fiasco” in SyriaJohn Kerry admitted that Obama “altered perceptions” of both our friends and our enemies when he declared a red line in Syria and then backed away from his red line and even outright lied about having given it; both Obama’s Secretaries of Defense Robert Gates and Leon Panetta declared it destroyed American credibility; Obama’s Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said the same, adding that Obama micromanaged the Defense Department with arrogant know-nothing idiots and tried to destroy him when he decided he had to do what was right for America.  The president of the foremost foreign policy think tank in the world – the Council on Foreign Relations – said American credibility took a major hit after Obama’s red line fiasco.  As a result of Barack Obama, our enemies have been rabidly emboldened and know for a fact that the United States WILL NOT act in its interests or protect its allies against tyranny and even hostile attacks (think Ukraine, think Egypt); and our historic allies are dismayed, uncertain and looking anywhere other than America for a strong power who will support them.  Every single one of those people is an Obama appointee and even THEY admit that Obama’s foreign policy was beyond foolish.
  8. Both military leaders, civilian leaders of the military and national security and foreign policy, and numerous conservatives such as MYSELF stated that Obama’s idiotic plan to pull out of Iraq would lead to disaster.  In any valid scientific laboratory, we were verified to be 100 percent scientifically proven RIGHT and Obama and every fool who believes in Obama was proven to be a demoniac jackass who hates the United States of America and is plotting its destruction.  In August 2008, I predicted, and I quote: “A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for forfeiting Iraq, and then having to come back in a few years to do it all over again – this time against a determined Iranian insurgency.”  You tell me I was wrong, you demon-possessed Nazicrat Party liars, because all you have is a demonic delusion in your fool minds and I have all the actual facts.
  9. And as a result, I have with all those facts and evidence and history itself behind me written articles like this one: ‘The Tide Of War Is Receding’: Barack Obama Is ENTIRELY Responsible For The Disastrous Meltdown In Iraq And Across The Middle East and Iraq: Bush’s Victory, Obama’s Despicable Defeat.
  10. And therefore Iraq has been in meltdown, Syria is a shambles, Libya is a shambles, Yemen is a shambles (and CONSIDER the debacle in Yemen given what Obama stupidly said), Egypt is a shambles, etc. etc.  Obama guaranteed Iran would have nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles to deliver them to us and so terrorize us from acting in the region.  Russia and Iran are now without any question have hegemony over the Middle East.  And Israel is isolated and abandoned.  Which is why Israelis say Obama is the WORST American president in history.  And as I document three paragraphs below, Obama has cursed the world with more refugees than it has ever seen in all of human history.

I defy anyone to argue with ANY of those points.  And those ten truths directly lead to an abundantly obvious conclusion: that Barack Obama failed America and failed the world and that the Democratic Party has become the party of treason and literally the extermination of not only Western Civilization but our very existence.

You are a Democrat for one reason and one reason only: because you are a citizen of hell; because something deep within you knows that you should be screaming in hell and you therefore have an innate psychological need for self-destruction.  And you are voting that into reality culminating in your vote for and worship in the coming big government beast of the Book of Revelation.  It becomes the only rational explanation for obvious deranged insanity.

You prove what 1 Corinthians 2:14 says: “The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.”

And that is why you are blind to reality when you should see and deaf to reality when you should hear.  Which is why the words of Isaiah 28:15 so completely apply to you:

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.”

Which is EXACTLY your strategy in the war on Islamic terror that you so wickedly and foolishly deny a) is a war or b) is Islamic or even c) is terror (’cause it’s just workplace violence!!!).

This is an incredibly important thing to report the FACTS on.  Because if you listen to Democrats, George Bush is somehow responsible for all the evils of the world both BEFORE he became president (when Bill Clinton allowed in EVERY SINGLE 9/11 terrorist AND allowed them to get funded AND allowed them to get trained before Bush took office so they could attack us eight months into Bush’s presidency) and AFTER he left office.  Under Obama – who looked the American people in the eye and promised them that his way was so much better and told us that he would END the war on terror – terrorism has skyrocketed under any metric you want to name; be it the number of terrorist organizations, the number of attacks those terrorists have launched, or the lethality of those attacks in sheer death toll.  Terrorism under Obama DWARFS anything that existed under Bush.  And we now have the worst, the most violent, the most extreme, terrorist group in the history of the world under Obama.  Which basically did not even EXIST when Bush was president.  When Bush left office, ISIS was a hundred bitter guys who had split off from al Qaeda in Iraq THAT BUSH HAD BROKEN when HE WON THE WAR IN IRAQ.

Now we have THE largest AND worst refugee crisis in the entire documented history of planet earth.  UNDER OBAMA.

Somehow Obama took a profoundly and fundamentally different path than George Bush took and the world has exploded as a result: but it’s “Bush’s fault.”

Bush And This Is MY Fault

Bush's fault

But whose fault is it, seriously?  Well, the liberal narrative that a mainstream media that is so dishonest that only SIX PERCENT of Americans believe is actually credible “report” is that Bush “destabilized” the world when he invaded Iraq as SIXTY PERCENT of Democrat Senators (including Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer) supported.  Because, you see, the world was “stable” throughout the Clinton years as Islamic terrorism began to ascend and Clinton did NOTHING: such as: the February 26, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center; the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole.  But particular focus ought to be on Clinton’s incredible failure in Somalia, which he first escalated and then retreated from.  It was as a result of that failure in 1993 that a hitherto unknown figure named Osama bin Laden boasted:

“After leaving Afghanistan, the Muslim fighters headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians,” bin Laden said. “The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat. And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda … about being the world leader and the leader of the New World Order, and after a few blows they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat.”

Osama bin Laden and the terrorist movement he gave birth to were EMBOLDENED and INCITED by American weakness.

Just as Islamic State was given birth to by Obama, al Qaeda was given birth to by Bill Clinton.  The very first al Qaeda attack occurred after the election of Bill Clinton. And their second and third attacks were directly against the United States.  And Bill Clinton did NOTHING.

They smelled blood.  Just as they smell blood now.

But while all that was happening, America was “stable,” according to Democrats.  That is such a demonic lie to anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear, given the fact that there was a crystal clear trajectory of increasingly bold and big attacks.  Until 9/11/2001.

It’s interesting how we had the same scenario unfold when Obama took office, but in reverse.  I vividly recall reading 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed give a statement after his capture that the US response to 9/11 was so massive and so devastating that he personally doubted that terrorists would ever dare launch such an attack again.  Even the reliably leftist New York Times put it this way:

Yet for all his professed wisdom about the United States, Mr. Mohammed later admitted that he had completely misjudged what the American response to the Sept. 11 attacks would be. He did not expect the American military campaign in Afghanistan, and he did not anticipate the relentless hunt for Al Qaeda leaders throughout South Asia and the Middle East.

He even misjudged his own fate. When he was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, he thought he would soon be traveling to New York, where he would stand trial under his indictment for the Bojinka plot.

Instead, he was hooded and spirited out of Pakistan by C.I.A. operatives, who took him first to Afghanistan and eventually to a former Soviet military base in northern Poland.

Mr. Mohammed’s initial defiance toward his captors set off an interrogation plan that would turn him into the central figure in the roiling debate over the C.I.A’s interrogation methods. He was subjected 183 times to the near-drowning technique called waterboarding, treatment that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has called torture. But advocates of the C.I.A’s methods, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, have said that the interrogation methods produced a trove of information that helped dismantle Al Qaeda and disrupt potential terrorism attacks.

Mind you, they totally misreported the entire thing about waterboarding.  For example, they got the number of times that K.S.M. was waterboarded completely wrong: he was waterboarded FIVE times, and that process was so tightly controlled that in those five waterboarding sessions they counted 183 times that a little water was poured over him.  They knew what they were doing; but waterboarding a terrorist five times was quite reasonable; so they had to manufacture and fabricate a bogeyman to make the reasonable seem unreasonable.  Hence the liberal [and therefore dishonest] narrative that we were waterboarding these guys 200 times and that it obviously didn’t work.

When it DID work.  And according to people who were NOT liberal bogeymen who could be summarily dismissed the way the left could do with Dick Cheney.

For the record, KSM’s waterboarding directly led to the U.S. finally learning where Osama bin Laden was hiding.  Obama’s own CIA Director acknowledged that a waterboarded terrorist gave up the name and location of Osama bin Laden’s courier (Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti).  And tracking that courier directly led the U.S. to bin Laden’s location in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

“The first indication that he (al-Kuwaiti) was close to bin Laden and was a serious player came from (Sept. 11 architect) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), right after he was waterboarded. Before that, KSM basically gave up nothing. After he was waterboarded, KSM gave an answer on the courier. This put the courier on the map. That was the first time they saw that he was close to bin Laden…”

If Democrats had been running the show, we NEVER would have found Osama bin Laden.  Period.  And Obama getting bin Laden was no different than Obama ending the war in Iraq; because his BETTER did it FOR him so HE could falsely take credit – only to utterly ruin every positive effect with his own despicable and pathetic incompetence if not treason.  Because WATERBOARDING got bin Laden.  And Obama vilified and even attempted to criminally prosecute what GOT bin Laden.

Interestingly enough, for the first couple of years after Bush left office, terrorism was minimal.  Because Bush had substantially defeated it.  Al Qaeda in Iraq admitted they were defeated.  In Iraq, state terrorist dictator Saddam Hussein was dead.  In Libya the state terrorist dictator – AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE OVERTHROW OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN IRAQ – cooperated with the United States for the first time in decades.

But just as with Clinton, under Obama the terrorists realized they had a weak, pandering coward who would not stand up to their attacks.  And so the attacks began again, and grew worse, and worse, and worse.  We’ve been attacked by Islamic terrorists over and over again since Obama took office.  But amazingly, Obama not only denies the “Islamic” part but even the “terrorist” part, claiming all the “Allahu Akbar” screaming Muslim terrorists are actually merely perpetrators of “workplace violence.”

It’s hard to directly track how massively terrorism has skyrocketed because of the profoundly dishonest way the media reports it.  For example, I can tell you that terrorist attacks increased by 35% and fatalities due to terrorism increased 81% between 2013 and 2014.  And we keep getting these reports comparing last year to this year.  So I can tell you what this headline sums up comparing Obama’s 2015 to Obama’s 2014: “2015 Global Terrorism Index: Deaths From Terrorism Increased 80% Last Year to the Highest Level Ever; Global Economic Cost of Terrorism Reached All-Time High at US $52.9 Billion.”   So I can tell you that, under Obama, deaths from terrorism increased 81% year-to-date in 2014 and under Obama, deaths from terrorism increased another 80% year-to-date in 2015.  But good luck finding anything that tells us what has happened from the moment Obama took office compared to when Bush was president.  The media won’t give you that because we’d be screaming for Hussein’s impeachment if they did.

And you tell me what you think will happen when we compare 2016 to 2015 when that report comes out in about seven months (most likely right after the election).

Meanwhile, Barack Obama has our warriors walking around in women’s high heels. I kid you not.  Because he is not merely morally insane; he is truly evil.

Seriously, what do you think Islamic State thinks of this image:

soldiers high heels

Do you seriously NOT think this is part of their recruiting, that America is such a wicked – and WEAK – place, that even our WARRIORS are weak, pathetic, effeminate females?  They’ve been wiping our faces with FECAL matter, and we’re strutting around in women’s shoes???

For Obama, our military has nothing to DO with our defense; this man literally WANTS us defenseless as a people (hence the hatred of the 2nd Amendment) and as a nation (hence his contempt for the military).  For Obama, the military is nothing short of a cultural laboratory, where the left can impose their hateful values on a people who have signed away their liberties over to the commander-in-chief to serve their country.  Obama has cynically exploited their patriotism and forced them to do things they would NEVER have otherwise done.

So Obama has been hell-bent on imposing homosexuality and transgenderism on our military.  What has he done for our defense?  It’s best explained by Leon Panetta, lifelong Democrat and Obama appointee to head the CIA:

“Facing such large reductions, we would have to reduce the size of the military sharply. Rough estimates suggest after 10 years of these cuts, we would have the smallest ground force since 1940, the smallest number of ships since 1915, and the smallest Air Force in its history.”

Here are the facts which even the leftist Politifact acknowledges are true:

This is the lowest number of soldiers since 1940. Before the draft went into effect later that year, there were about 264,000 troops in the Army.

Turning to the Navy, there are currently 289 deployable battle force ships. According to the quadrennial review, there will be an estimated fleet of 234 ships in Fiscal Year 2019.

That is the lowest number of ships since 1915 — two years before the United States got involved in World War I.  That year, the Navy had 231 deployable ships. In 2016, it jumped up to 245 ships.

But these leftist fools precede to tell us with actual straight faces that technology never existed before Obama.  As if when Bush was president we were living in caves afraid of fire, but Obama has led our military into the glorious light such that one ship under Obama is more powerful than all the ships in the fleet under Bush.  It is ASANINE and only the worst kind of fools believe it.

Let me ask a common-damn-sense question: if the leftist thesis is true – and just one ship under Obama and one soldier under Obama and one plane under Obama is so  much more powerful than anything that Bush fielded such that we can gut our numbers, WHY IS IT THAT WE CAN NO LONGER FIGHT TWO WARS AT THE SAME TIME which we have been able to do since Reagan rebuilt the military after the LAST roach liberal gutted it???

We’ve got the worst threats facing us in all of history, and Obama’s response was to GUT a military that was the most powerful in the history of the world when he took office.

With that in mind, now let me talk about some other stuff that isn’t in my title, but it’s just such an all-encompassing trend of WEAKNESS in the face of our ENEMIES.

I haven’t even discussed all the other myriad ways that Obama has failed the world and failed America, such as his now REPEATEDLY forcing the American military to abjectly cower while Russia intimidates our once-all-powerful Navy by sending frequent Russian bombers to simulate attack runs right over them.  As I write this, Russia just flew dangerously close in an obviously aggressive and provocative manner FOR THE THIRD TIME THIS WEEK.  America is looking weak and foolish and impotent all at once.  Putin KNOWS Obama will do nothing just as the terrorists who are murdering us both here and overseas know Obama will do nothing.  And just as our dismayed former allies know Obama will do nothing.  That’s why Putin seized Georgia in 2008, when a Democrat-demonized George Bush was leaving office and Obama was on the verge of becoming president.  Obama responded with Hillary Clinton’s infamous and laughable “reset” of relations.  In other words, he didn’t respond at all other than to say, “Why not seize more territory because it’s not like I’m going to do a damn thing about it.”  And so in 2012 Obama sent signals to Putin that he would be “have more flexibility” in assuming various postures in bending over America’s foreign policy to be sodomized.  And so Putin seized Crimea.  And again, no response whatsoever.  And so now Putin is preparing to seize all of Ukraine.  Because the same kind of abject moral coward who gave us Hitler’s seizures until World War II was necessary is in office in America.

Meanwhile, in the South China Sea, China is making “acts of war” a daily event, first building an artificial island in the strategic center of the most economically powerful sea lane on earth; then placing warplanes on that island which shouldn’t exist in a sea lane that isn’t theirs to begin with, and now placing missiles on that island which places China in control of that sea lane because Obama yielded control to them.  China’s State-controlled media is officially threatening America with further acts of war, declaring that China ought to ram US ships and fire missiles in further act of war.  And they do all this because they KNOW Obama will do NOTHING.  They know Obama is an abject moral coward who doesn’t fear killing US soldiers but rather only cravenly fears his wicked, vile, treasonous liberal base turning on him.

And now China is doing the same thing all over again in a different place it has seized:

The question now is whether China is planning to build a military base in the Scarborough Shoals similar to its bases in the Spratly  Islands. Admiral Harris, head of the US Pacific command has said that China’s “complex of missile sites, fighter jets and surveillance stations based on newly constructed artificial islands will give China de facto control of the South China Sea in any scenario of war.”

According to Bonnie Glaser of the Center for Strategic and International Studies: “A base at Scarborough would have enormous significance for China, especially in combination with the other facilities they have built on Mischief Reef and Fiery Cross. The Chinese will be able to extend control over larger swaths of air space and water.” Glasser believes that the Chinese “intend to dredge at the Shoal and build another base.”

THIS is what Obama just HANDED China with little more than a whimper:

The South China Sea functions as the throat of the Western Pacific and Indian oceans — the mass of connective economic tissue where global sea routes coalesce.

Here is the heart of Eurasia’s navigable rimland, punctuated by the Malacca, Sunda, Lombok, and Makassar straits.

More than half of the world’s annual merchant fleet tonnage passes through these choke points, and a third of all maritime traffic worldwide.

We will ultimately HAVE to fight World War III because Barack Hussein Obama failed America and failed the world.  And we will fight with a diminished military from a strategically far weaker position having given up strategically-critical geography to our enemies that Obama refuses to understand are our ENEMIES.  Obama has given Russia a naval stronghold and direct access to the Black Sea and therefore the Atlantic in rebuilding its Soviet powerbase; and Obama has given China an economic stranglehold over the most prosperous sea lane on earth.

Do you remember what Obama stupidly said when he mocked Mitt Romney?:

“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years….When it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s, and the economic policies of the 1920s.”

You wretched, wicked FOOL.

And it will ultimately cost us millions of lives to take BACK what Obama wickedly and foolishly just gave away.  Both of these countries have now proven time and time again that they aint stopping.  And by the time we finally have a leader with the resolve to fight them we will have no other choice BUT to fight them.  Because just like Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, after our pathetic display of weakness they won’t believe we have regained our resolve to be strong.  And so we will now have to repeat the lesson of World War II all over again in terms of what happens when you give vicious dictators the perception that we won’t stop them.

Meanwhile, Obama gave terrorist state Iran $150 billion to get them to agree to a deal that was quite simply suicidal for us.  And Iran is using Obama’s money to massively increase its military arsenal including ballistic missiles from our good friends in Russia.

Thanks to Obama, we will NEVER be able to restore a United Nations embargo against Iran (Russia and China will simply veto it).  The cat is out of the bag, and it turns out the kitty is a vicious tiger bent on devouring American and Israeli flesh.

And thus Obama either intentionally if he has a scintilla of intelligence or incredibly foolishly just massively intensified an arms race in the craziest part of the world.  Again, absolutely guaranteeing that World War III WILL be fought.

Too late, the most profoundly stupid and wicked man in the history of the world seems to realize the consequences of what he has so stupidly and wickedly done:

With Russia blocking sanctions at the United Nations, the Obama administration is looking at other international avenues to rein in Iran’s ballistic missile program.

The White House insists it has all the unilateral authorities it needs to slap new sanctions on Iran for defying the spirit — if perhaps not the letter — of the UN Security Council resolution implementing the nuclear deal. That resolution “called upon” Iran “not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons.”

Russia insists that language is not a legal prohibition, in effect ruling out more missile-related UN sanctions. But the Obama administration, eager to calm jittery lawmakers, insists it has a number of other multilateral tools outside of UN action that it can use to counter threats from Iran’s missile program.

Obama is a weakling and a coward and he can do nothing but TALK meaningless gibberish that no one is listening to.

Thomas Sowell said this back in 2010 (and I quoted him in a September 30, 2010 article titled, “On How Obama Will Damage America For Decades To Come“:

Of course, the one that trumps them all is on the international scene. That’s where Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons. I’m just staggered at how little attention is being paid to that compared to frivolous things. If a nation with a record of sponsoring international terrorism gets nuclear weapons, that changes everything and it changes it forever.

Someday historians may wonder what were we thinking about when you look at the imbalance of power between the U.S. and Iran, and we sat there with folded hands and watched this happen, going through just enough motions at the United Nations to lull the public to sleep.

Iran has threatened to withdraw from Obama’s stupid, evil, demonic deal: they got everything they wanted and all they had to give up in return was a promise that everyone who wasn’t insane knew they would break the moment it suited them.

So they tested their new missiles and they’re threatening to walk away from Obama’s deal that Obama and his Stooge of State John Kerry blathered about with so much pompous grandeur.

It’s hilarious in its own way: right after they signed this stupid agreement, Iran accounced that it had just “discovered” a massive new supply of uranium.  Surprise.

Now they feel strong because Obama MADE them strong.  And they are joining the Russian and Chinese parade to directly threaten and intimidate us with their new arsenal that Obama funded for them:

There used to be a time when the Islamic Republic showed some discretion with regards to its regional hegemonic and ideological ambitions, or skirting and breaching international laws. At least the ruling clerics of Iran preferred soft power and were more covert about these issues.

But not anymore.

Iran’s partial discretion was limited to the period before the nuclear deal was reached between P5+1 and the Islamic Republic, and before President Obama began pursuing appeasement policies with the ruling clerics in order to secure the agreement.

Currently, Iran’s blatant aggression and provocative attitude has reached an unprecedented level, ranging from launching ballistic missiles in the middle of the day, to publicly supporting Bashar Al Assad, militarily and financially, and galvanizing the Shiite proxies to engage in war.

But Iran wants more. More recently, Iranian Deputy Chief of Staff Brig. Gen. Maassoud Jazzayeri was quoted by the Fars News Agency as warning the United States to stay away from Iran’s redlines- one of which is Iran’s ballistic missiles. Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh was also quoted by the ISNA agency as stating, “The reason we designed our missiles with a range of 2000 km is to be able to hit our enemy the Zionist regime from a safe distance.” Iran has increased its short and medium-range ballistic missiles, and currently has the largest ballistic missile stockpile in the Middle East.

Just as Bush RIGHTLY warned us what would happen if a fool like Obama were allowed to destabilize – because HE is the fool who actually destabilized the world – Iraq, Bush warned the world about the nuclear threat posed by Iran.  And Democrats running for president in 2008 mocked and attacked him for it:

“DES MOINES — 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’ve been warning about the fact that Iran’s yoking of its nuclear bomb program with its ballistic missile program since 2008 when I concluded in an article:

I kid you not.  Even as the Russians are basically tearing new orifices into Georgia on an hourly basis, and setting up the toppling of a previously democratic government in favor of a puppet, Iran is busily working on developing their nuclear weapons and their delivery systems.  Given their ability to stop traffic in the oil-critical Strait of Hormuz at will, and given their penchant for terrorism and insanity, a nuclear-armed Iran is absolutely unacceptable.

If they are allowed to develop nuclear weapons and the corresponding delivery systems, Iran will be able to launch destabilizing terrorist attacks or drive up oil prices to stratospheric levels with impunity.

In January 2010 I put it this way in the conclusion of an article:

When Iran gets its nukes and the ballistic missiles to deliver them (and they are very close to both goals), the world will become a different place.  They don’t have to launch atomic Armageddon to use their nuclear weapons; all they have to do is block the Strait of Hormuz and drive up oil prices tenfold, or send out a wave of international terror attacks.  Will we go to war with them, knowing that if we do they will destroy several of our cities and kill millions of our people?

In other words, we haven’t even BEGUN to see the fruit of Obama’s failures in his “man-caused disasters.”

So Obama makes this suicidal deal with Iran THAT DIDN’T EVEN MENTION IRAN’S BALLISTIC MISSILES.  If that isn’t insane, there is no such thing as insanity.

A point which Iran has driven home: Iran mocks Obama deal with another ballistic missile test

And as I’ve already documented, the most profoundly stupid and wicked man in the history of the world finally realized the consequences of what he has so stupidly and wickedly done.  Just too damn late to matter.

Iran ALREADY HAD the uranium to manufacture when Obama came to officeCNN reported that Iran reached “nuclear weapons breakout capability” in February 2009. And by 2012, they already had enough to build at least five nuclear bombs.  What do you know, that awful George W. Bush was RIGHT and every single Democrat should scream in hell forever for how WRONG they were.  It was actually ALREADY too late when Obama “negotiated” his stupid deal that has now obviously already completely collapsed in every way it is meaningful for such an agreement to collapse.  Iran ALREADY had what it needed in terms of nuclear research.  All Iran needed at the time of this stupid deal was the intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver their nukes they could have already built at any time.  There was never any point for Iran to go all the way UNTIL they had the delivery system.  And once they get that ICBM, they will be IMMUNE from ANYTHING.  Unless an American president wants to kiss away a few – or maybe a few dozen – major American cities.

And Obama gave them $150 billion to either fund their ICBM research or just buy the damn missiles from Russia.  And what the hell is Obama going to do about it?  You know, SINCE IT’S HAPPENING RIGHT THE HELL NOW.

That’s IF the terrorists don’t detonate a nuclear bomb here first.

It truly is an amazing world we live in, isn’t it?  How there can be such massive failure and such massive treachery in reporting such failure.

 

Advertisements

The REAL Political Legacy Of Bill Clinton Is NOT What The Left Wants You To Know

November 12, 2012

I responded to a typical weasel comment with enough facts and frankly enough words to turn the truth about the Clinton presidency into an article.  Here’s the typical weasel comment:

This post is a bunch of lies.. Clinton left a surplus

And my response:

Just can’t get away from stupid people, can I?

U.S. National Debt

09/30/1993    –    $4,411,488,883,139.38

09/30/1994    –    $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/29/1995    –    $4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1996    –    $5,224,810,939,135.73

09/30/1997    –    $5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1998    –    $5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1999    –    $5,656,270,901,615.43

09/30/2000    –    $5,674,178,209,886.86

09/30/2001    –    $5,807,463,412,200.06

These are official Treasury Dept taken from the Treasury’s site.  The numbers between 1993 and 1999 are here and the numbers from 2000 to 2001 are here.

I want you to notice, you deluded dumbass, that every single year of the Clinton presidency the national debt went UPTHAT IS A FACT.  In the very real world, Bill Clinton never left us with so much as a penny of “surplus.”  Every single year of Slick Willie’s presidency, we got more debt and then more debt.

Bill Clinton assumed office in 1993.  Two years later, in 1994, the people were so angry at the fact that “Clinton gold” turned out to be Iron Pyrite that they voted overwhelmingly for Republicans in the greatest historic asskicking of all time.  Clinton lost both the House and the Senate to Republicans, and in fact never got either back for his entire presidency.

Bill Clinton said “the era of big government is over” in January 1996, which put the kibosh on liberal ideas for the rest of the Clinton presidency as Clinton governed as a moderate Republican from that point on.

In 1997, the Taxpayer Relief Act was passed by the Republican House and the Republican Senate before being signed into law by Bill Clinton.  As a result of those REPUBLICAN TAX REFORMS, federal income tax revenues surged just as they ALWAYS surge when the American people are allowed to keep more of their own money and invest that money far better than bureaucratic government EVER has or ever WILL.  And as a result, we actually briefly got to a federal budget surplus.  Because of Republicans and because “the era of big government was over” and because Democrats had had their asses kicked and ONLY because of those things.

It’s interesting.  Republicans controlled both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate when we actually got our “balanced budget.”  And yet historically somehow the mainstream media gave Bill Clinton and the Democrat Party ALL the credit and the Republican majorities that had actually passed all the legislation that created that balanced budget zero credit.  It’s particularly amazing given the fact that Barack Obama controlled the White House, held a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, AND controlled the House of Representatives his first two years in office, but the failure of the Obama economic policy is blamed on the fact that for two of Obama’s first four years Republicans held the House.  Basically, Democrats can never be blamed and must be given all the credit; whereas Republicans cannot receive any credit and must be given all the blame.

The same people who constantly lecture the Republicans about “obstructionism” somehow never recall the years when George Bush was confronted with massive Democrat obstructionism.  Obstructionism, was, of course, good and noble when Democrats were blocking virtually every single thing Bush tried to accomplish.  It is only evil if Republicans try to block anything their messiah Obama wants to do.

Now, sadly, 9/11 happened because Bill Clinton left America weak and blind.  Why did America get attacked on 9/11?  Because Bill Clinton showed so much weakness in 1993 in Somalia that a man we would one day know very well 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…” — Osama bin Laden

Osama bin Laden began to prepare for a massive attack on America.  Oh, yes, he and his fellow terrorists hit America again and again: they hit the World Trade Center for the first time in 1993.  In 1996 they hit the Khobar Towers where hundreds of American servicemen were living.  In 1998 two embassies in Africa (Kenya and Tanzania) were bombed and destroyed by terrorists.  And in 2000, terrorists hit and severely damaged the U.S.S. Cole.  And Bill Clinton proved bin Laden’s thesis correct by doing exactly NOTHING.

Meanwhile, all throughout the Clinton presidency, al Qaeda was preparing to strike us.  They brought in all the terrorists who would devastate us with their second attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11 2001 during Bill Clinton’s watch.

America was both weak and blind due to Bill Clinton’s gutting both the military and our intelligence capability.  And of course, being blind and unable to see what was coming would hurt us deeply:

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.”

And so we were hit on 9/11 and were completely blindsided by the attack because Bill Clinton gutted the military and the intelligence budget leaving us weak and blind.  And of course our spending skyrocketed because of the DotCom economic collapse that Bill Clinton left for George Bush that happened on Clinton’s watch but gutted $7.1 trillion in American wealth (almost as much as the Great Recession, btw) and which collapsed the value of the Nasdaq Valuation by fully 78% of its value as Bush was still trying to clean all the porn that the Clinton White House had left on the White House computers.  And so Bill Clinton handed George Bush a massive recession and like whip cream on top of his economic disaster he handed George Bush an even more massive terrorist attack.

But, hey, don’t worry.  Barack Obama is making all the same mistakes that Clinton made and then a whole bunch of even dumber mistakes that Clinton didn’t make.

Anyway, as you keep hearing that Obama will pave the streets with gold because Bill Clinton paved the streets with gold, please realize #1 that Clinton hardly ever paved the streets with gold and #2 realize that Barack Obama has not and will not govern the way Bill Clinton governed.

Do you know what bothers me the most about Obama’s reelection?  It’s that we have entered a profoundly different reality as a nation.  Barack Obama did NOT get reelected because he gave us a strong economy.  And both the polls before and AFTER the election document that many of the people who actually voted for Barack Obama believed that Mitt Romney would have given us a better economy.

Obama’s economic policy was a complete unmitigated disaster.  But what you need to understand is that a terrible economy makes for good politics for Democrats.  Because the worse the economy gets the more that increasingly amoral Americans will demand a stronger government safety net and welfare state.  Such that the worse Obama does economically the better he and Democrats will actually fair politically.

The beast is coming.

Yet Another American Ambassador Attacked And Threatened In Obama’s God Damn America

September 20, 2012

Why not attack our ambassadors?  We are a nation led by a weak, gutless, pathetic, failed little turd masquerading behind lies and arrogance.

Obama’s not going to do anything about it. That would take courage and resolve.  Obama would have to take personal responsibility for something for the first time in his life.

I’m past sick of Obama claiming credit for killing Osama bin Laden.  If you listen to the left, Obama’s giving the order was the most courageous act since Thermopylae.  Obama’s idiot Joe Biden said it was the most audacious plan in 500 years.  The men who waded ashore as their buddies were torn apart by machine guns at Omaha Beach didn’t have the courage that Obama has in his pinky finger.

It’s such pure distilled bullcrap that I’m amazed every single time going on the 16th trillion time that I’ve heard it.  The Democrats demonized Bush as a warmonger from hell up one side and down the other, but now Bush is suddenly the president who wouldn’t have DARED to send a SEAL Team into Pakistan to take out the psychopath who murdered 3,000 Americans.

If Obama had refused to give the order to take out bin Laden after our intelligence and special operations community had dedicated their lives to kill the sonofabitch, you don’t think some seriously pissed off intelligence professional would have leaked that disgrace the way pretty much every OTHER secret has been leaked during the Obama regime???  And just what to you think would have happened to Obama’s reelection chances by running as “the president who refused to get bin Laden”???  I don’t just think he would have kissed his reelection chances bye-bye if he hadn’t made that “audacious call,” I think he would have been impeached and Democrats would have voted his skinny little weasel ass out of office.

Other than giving the order to kill Osama bin Laden, just what the hell else has Obama done that hasn’t been an abject disaster???

If the Chinese militaristic regime did not want this protest that threatened an American ambassador WITHIN EIGHT DAYS of one of our ambassadors being humiliated and murdered to happen, it wouldn’t have happened.  They wanted to send a message, and they sent it.

Crowd Attacks The US Ambassador In Beijing
Malcolm Moore, The Telegraph|Sep. 19, 2012, 6:19 AM

A crowd of around 50 Chinese protesters surrounded the official car of the United States ambassador in Beijing, who escaped unharmed, a State department spokesman said.

The melee occurred outside the gates of the US embassy on Tuesday and security guards had to intervene to protect Gary Locke, 62. The protesters caused minor damage to the vehicle, a statement from the embassy said.

“Embassy officials have registered their concern regarding today’s incident with the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and urged the Chinese Government to do everything possible to protect American facilities and personnel,” the statement said.

The incident happened on Tuesday, while large crowds of protesters were massed outside the Japanese embassy nearby, to demand that Japan relinquish control of an island chain claimed by China in the waters between the two countries.

The statement gave no details about the demonstrators who blocked Mr Locke’s car, or what angered them.

However the Chinese artist and dissident Ai Weiwei tweeted a photograph of the protest on Tuesday afternoon, and said the crowd had chanted: “Down with US imperialism” and “Pay us back our money!” referring to the trillion dollars or so of US government debt that China holds.

Some Chinese observers have blamed the US for standing behind the Japanese on their claim, and suggested that the US is attempting to foment unrest in the region as a pretext for “pivoting” its naval forces back to the Pacific.

The incident came as the US Defence secretary, Leon Panetta, was meeting with senior Chinese leaders to reassure them that the US does not intend to “contain” China by building up a military presence in Asia.

On Wednesday, Mr Panetta met with Xi Jinping, the 59-year-old Chinese president-in-waiting who recently disappeared for two weeks without explanation, cancelling a scheduled engagement with Hillary Clinton.

Meanwhile, the protests against Japan have now evaporated. The road outside the Japanese embassy in Beijing has reopened and there was no sign of any discord.

“It seems the protests in front of our embassy have subsided,” the Japanese embassy said in an email to Japanese citizens.

Beijing police sent out a mass text message telling the public not to stage any more protests, according to the Japanese embassy.

Mass protests across China over the weekend, and running into Tuesday, forced many Japanese businesses to shut their doors or close down factories. However, most, if not all of these businesses are now returning to normal.

Did some American film a homemade Youtube movie about Chairman Mao?

I don’t know about you, but I am waxing in my enormous power (according to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, etc. etc.) that I can send the entire planet into a frothing, violent rage merely by gluing a fake beard on my face and making a video that insults Muhammad.

According to the Obama regime, if I or any of the other 315 million Americans in this country used his or her cell phone camera to make an anti-Islam Youtube video, the entire Muslim world would erupt in violence.  It’s a heady feeling, having this kind of power.  I can create a Youtube account and have the command of one billion Muslims at my instant disposal!!!

Obama says the other villain is free speech.  Because that damned stupid 1st Amendment means that Americans aren’t forced to live under Sharia law and we foolishly have the right to express our views.  Not to worry, though; because if you vote for Obama he’ll make sure that mistake is corrected.

Do you think the White House has received an extortion letter threatening to make a Youtube video unless somebody gets paid off?

So, you can see why it would be nice for me to have this same power Obama says I have because of that cursed 1st Amendement over one billion Chinese that I enjoy over one billion Muslims who will all riot any time I want them to.

Have I mocked the stupidity of the idiocy of the Obama White House yet?  Because I could blather on if I had to.

But if you read this article, you will see the ample documentation that the Obama regime says some stupid cheap homemade movie did exactly what I’m laughing my ass off about:

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/fact-obama-regime-completely-lied-about-the-riots-burning-the-muslim-world-that-prove-the-obama-foreign-policy-a-catastrophic-failure/

America is such a laughing stock under this failed fool president.

Obama took his oath as Messiah and promised that he would lower the level of the oceans and heal the planet and create worldwide peace and a new beginning for the human species.

And now we know what that “new beginning” looks like: sodomized murdered ambassadors, American flags adding ten degrees to the global temperature due to all the burning of them, and Muslims chanting, “Obama, Obama, there are still a billion Osamas!”

Now China is looking at our chump-in-chief and deciding its their turn to humiliate America.

For The Record, If Bush Were Still President, GM Would Still Be Just As Alive And Osama Bin Laden Would Still Be Just As Dead

September 7, 2012

Apparently, that was Joe Biden’s – who by even both the liberals’ accounts (Kirsten Powers and Joe Trippi) on Fox News gave a better speech than did Obama – best line.  Osama bin Laden is dead and G.M. is alive.

First of all, who seriously believes that if George Bush were still president Osama bin Laden would still be alive?  Because unless you are so demon-possessed that you literally believe crap like this, that is as stupid as it is crazy (whereas if you DO believe that aforementioned crap like this it is as crazy as it is stupid).

I talk about this at some length in another article.  First of all, the vision to get bin Laden was not Obama’s; it was George Bush’s back in 2001:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush pledged anew Friday that Osama bin Laden will be taken “dead or alive,” no matter how long it takes, amid indications that the suspected terrorist may be bottled up in a rugged Afghan canyon. The president, in an Oval Office meeting with Thailand’s prime minister, would not predict the timing of bin Laden’s capture but said he doesn’t care how the suspect is brought to justice. “I don’t care, dead or alive — either way,” Bush said. “It doesn’t matter to me.”

You don’t think that George Bush would have approved the mission to kill that bastard?  Seriously?  I make the comparison between the way that the leftwing media gives John F. Kennedy exclusive credit for the 1969 moon landing even though the man had been dead for six years when we landed on the moon and Richard Nixon was president.  It’s just funny how the same people who refuse to give the Republican any credit because it was the previous president’s vision would so hypocritically refuse to give the Republican any credit for the bin Laden killing even though getting bin Laden was his vision.

It was the intelligence that was developed by George Bush by means of WATERBOARDING that we ultimately got bin Laden:

Of all the terrorists we captured, we only waterboarded three of them.  And it was those exact same three terrorists who told us that Osama bin Laden was living somewhere in the city of Abbottabad in Pakistan and that he was depending on a courier to stay in contact with al Qaeda.  From that point on, it was just a matter of time to develop more information about identifying and tracking that courier to the precise location in that city.

Interestingly, whether we’re talking about the survival of G.M. or the killing of bin Laden, if it hadn’t been for George Bush, Barack Obama wouldn’t have been able to accomplish either.  Because it was George Bush who provided the $13.4 billion stopgap loan that allowed G.M. to survive before Obama took office.  And it was George Bush who developed the intelligence that allowed us to make the ultimate breakthrough to finally get bin Laden.  Unless you think Obama would have had the moral courage to do what needed to be done and waterboard those three terrorists to ultimately break them and psychologically bring them to the point where they would tell us what they otherwise would never have told us.

Was Obama’s decision to get bin Laden courageous?  Not really.  First of all, he pulled a “cover your ass” trick by giving the authority to decide to launch the raid to the admiral in charge of the Special Operations Command.  So if the mission ended in disaster, it wasn’t going to be Obama’s fault; it was going to be Admiral McRaven’s fault and Obama would have been positioned as a victim of poor military leadership.  But that’s hardly the only reason it wasn’t anything at all the most courageous decision ever-ever the way the Democrats keep saying.

Let me put it to you this way: what would have happened had Obama refused to get the terrorist leader who murdered 3,000 Americans and started a massive war?  Don’t think for a second that fact wouldn’t have come out, because there would have been hundreds of military and intelligence professionals who had dedicated their entire lives to get that sonofabitch, and there is no question they would have leaked the cowardice of the president for refusing to do what had to be done.  You can argue that Obama would have been criticized if he’d gone in there and the mission had ended in disaster; but if he hadn’t gone he would have been DONE.  I literally believe that Republicans would have brought up articles of impeachment for Obama’s refusal to protect and defend the American people and enough Democrats would have voted for it to force Obama out of office.  And I claim that because the American people would have been furious that American intelligence had identified precisely where the worst mass-murderer of Americans in history was and the president refused to take him out when he had the chance.  As happy as we were that bin Laden was dead, we would have been TWICE as pissed if we learned he had been allowed to get away scott free.

If George Bush were still president, the American intelligence apparatus would have still done its job and tracked bin Laden down; and George Bush would have killed him just as dead as he killed Saddam Hussein.  Unless you think that if Bush were president the SEALs wouldn’t have been able to pull of the mission; because the SEALs were afraid and prayed to Obama, “Oh, Messiah-Obama, steady my hand,” and Messiah Obama looked down from heaven and answered their prayers, and lo, Obama guided their hands such that their bullets found their mark.

If you’re not that stupid or just plain nuts, Osama bin Laden’s days were numbered from the moment the towers collapsed.

That is a fact.  And if you’ve got a case to show otherwise, I welcome you to produce it.  It’s going to be something like, “Only Barack Obama could have got bin Laden because he’s got unicorn-messiah power and Bush didn’t.”

Osama bin Laden would have been every scintilla as dead if George Bush were still president.  And the only difference is he would have very probably been dead sooner – because Obama knew where bin Laden was for nine damn months prior to going in to get him which put the entire operation at substantial risk.  Had bin Laden moved, we would have been back to square one – only we would have had a president who wouldn’t have waterboarded the information out of bin Laden’s followers.

And General Motors would have been just as alive if not more so.

As I’ve already pointed out, it was GEORGE W. BUSH who approved the stopgap loan that kept General Motors and Chrysler:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — President Bush announced a rescue plan for General Motors and Chrysler LLC Friday morning that will make $13.4 billion in federal loans available almost immediately.

The money will come from the $700 billion fund set aside to bail out Wall Street firms and banks in October.

With these loans, Treasury will have committed virtually all of the $350 billion of that fund that it can hand out without additional authorization from Congress. Once Congress releases the other $350 billion, the two automakers will be able to borrow an additional $4 billion.

GM (GM, Fortune 500) will get $9.4 billion from the first allocation of federal loan money, while Chrysler would get the other $4 billion.

The loans are for three years, but the money will have to be repaid in full within 30 days if the firms do not show themselves to be viable by March 31.

Bush: “Preventing disorderly bankruptcy”

During brief remarks at the White House, President Bush said in normal times he would have not been in favor of preventing a bankruptcy of the two companies. But the current state of the economy and credit markets left him no choice but to act.

Bush kept G.M. and Chrysler alive as much as Obama did.  If it hadn’t been for Bush,there wouldn’t have been anything left for Obama to bail out.  And if the media weren’t anything other than rabidly biased and dishonest, they’d point that fact out.

The same rabidly biased and dishonest media that would rather spit in Bush’s face than give him credit for anything positive have deceitfully fabricated a line that they have since repeatedly demonized Mitt Romney over: “Let Detroit go bankrupt.”  Nobody is more irresponsible or dishonest than liberal journalists.  The dishonest New York Times literally provided the headline for Romney (writers almost NEVER get to title their pieces) and then demonized him for the title that THEY had given his op-ed.  If you read the pieces that Mitt Romney wrote – here and here – what you will find is that Romney favored a managed bankruptcy in which G.M. and Chrysler would enter the bankruptcy process and the government would partner with the auto manufacturers and provide assistance as needed to ensure that the companies remained viable and ALIVE.

If you read the pieces, you will also see a fact mentioned that liberals never bother to mention when they demonize Mitt Romney for letting G.M. go bankrupt: G.M. DID FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY UNDER OBAMA, just as it would have under Mitt Romney.

LOTS of American companies have famously gone into and emerged successfully out of bankruptcy.  And particularly given the fact that Obama let G.M. go bankrupt, the self-congratulatory crowing by Obama and the attacks against Mitt Romney is simply a profoundly dishonest ploy from incredibly dishonest people.  

Liberals are pathologically dishonest people who don’t give a DAMN about the facts or about truth when they can fabricate a straw man and then demonize their straw man with deceitful rhetoric.

There is simply no way that George Bush or Mitt Romney would have allowed General Motors to go the way of the Dodo bird.  Any more than either of them would have passed up the opportunity to rid the world of bin Laden.  As both Bush and Romney pointed out, General Motors and American auto manufacturing were too important to the nation.  It was only a matter of how to get GM to health.  All that Obama truly did was make sure the unions had enough power to ultimately destroy GM in the future, quite frankly.

Excuse my language, but whenever Democrats pull the lines out of their butts that Obama got bin Laden or Obama saved General Motors, realize that what they are really admitting is that the Obama presidency has been such a massive and catastrophic failure that they have absolutely nothing to run on but pure rhetorical bullshit.

Hypocrite-In-Chief Obama Calls Slick Willie BACK To Sell His ‘FORWARD’ Snake Oil

May 1, 2012

It might work in “Back to the Future”; it doesn’t work in logic.

Obama says he wants to move America “forward”:

But just like “Hope and Change,” what does that really mean?  “Forward” in which direction?  “Forward” toward communism?  “Forward” toward totalitarianism?  Just like “hopey changey,” this is an intrinsically meaningless slogan that pretends to stand for something.

Hope is looooooong gone in Ohio under Obama’s wildly failed policies (LA Times):

MINGO JUNCTION, Ohio — Hope has been absent for so long from Appalachian Ohio that many people have forgotten what it’s like.

Idle steel mills run the length of several city blocks, empty and rusting on the thickly wooded banks of the Ohio River, like hulking tombstones for a past that died and the promise that died along with it.

What optimism exists has little, if any, connection to the presidential campaign, which for all its import feels distant and somehow beside the point.

James Rogers worked happily in the mills for 23 years, until he was laid off in 2009. He is studying to be a nurse; a job, true, but one he doesn’t really want. Still, at 44 he has a mortgage, a home deep underwater and two kids to put through college. He figures healthcare offers his best shot at a reliable paycheck.

With the coal mines giving out and the steel business decimated — about 1,500 people work in the few surviving mills, compared with 30,000 at the peak — the medical industry is by far the largest employer in Jefferson County. Young people here tend to escape if they can, leaving the frail and aging behind.

To Rogers, it doesn’t matter who wins the White House in November. He’s a Democrat and supports President Obama but doubts much would change in a second term.

“We elect this guy and all they do is bicker,” said Rogers, still big and burly from his days manning a blast furnace. “Nobody will do this, nobody will do that, it’s all partisan [bull] and what did we do? We lost four years.”

That utter lack of enthusiasm, shot through with anger and cynicism, is shared by many in rural Ohio, a target state for both sides in November. Timothy Bower, 30, runs Mama G’s pizza place, a few miles up the river in Toronto. Rolling and slicing a mound of dough, he described Mitt Romney, the likely Republican nominee, as a “typical empty suit. I don’t believe a word he says.”

Still, Romney has this going for him: He’s not Obama. The president frightens Bower with his expansive healthcare overhaul, his rhetorical shots at the rich and the red ink that has gushed over the last three years. More frightening still, Bowers said, is the prospect of Obama spared future elections and thus free to push even more radical policies.

Hope is looooooooooon gone in Los Angeles due to Obama’s policies.  South Los Angeles has a bleaker jobs picture than they had back in the day when they burned down their own neighborhoods:

Blacks in South L.A. have a bleaker jobs picture than in 1992
Median income in South Los Angeles is lower now than during the 1992 riots, and the unemployment rate has reached even more dire levels.
April 28, 2012|By Ricardo Lopez, Los Angeles Times

 Two decades after the L.A. riots brought pledges of help to rebuild South Los Angeles, the area is worse off in many ways than it was in 1992.

 Median income, when adjusted for inflation, is lower. Many middle-class blacks have fled in search of safer neighborhoods and better schools.

 And the unemployment rate, which was bad at the time of the riots, has reached even more dire levels. In two areas of South Los Angeles — Florence Graham and Westmont — unemployment is almost 24%. Back in 1992, it was 21% in Florence Graham and 17% in Westmont.

 Last summer, thousands of South Los Angeles residents showed up to a job fair that brought out almost 200 employers at Crenshaw Christian Center on Vermont Avenue. The event, organized by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), was seen by some as grandstanding.

 “People were really skeptical,” said Kokayi Kwa Jitahidi, a community organizer with the nonprofit Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy. “People thought, ‘Another job fair?'”

Of course, the same people who burned down their lives in 1992 are the same people who burned down their own lives when they voted for Obama in 2008 and will burn vote to burn down their own lives again in 2012.

Well, if Obama ran on “hope and change” again, even his own voters would openly laugh in their Fool-in-Chief’s face.  Hope is gone because Obama has poisoned hope in America.  And the only “change” you’re going to see is the change to open communism and (“hopefully”) a few cents’ worth of “change” in your otherwise empty pockets.

So we’re going to go “Forward” in some nebulous undefined direction now instead.  And if we re-elect Obama, the United States is going to go “forward” into more ruin and depression and implosion than this once unconquerable nation has ever seen.

To make the hypocrisy even MORE hypocritical, Obama is selling “Forward” by pimping the past: Slick Willie Clinton is doing the voice-over for his campaign now.

What’s funniest about that is that the centerpiece of the ad is how Obama was the guy who made the courageous decision to get Obama; and the Obama campaign then asserts that Mitt Romney never would have had the balls to do that.  That ad is vile for ALL KINDS OF REASONS, as I pointed out yesterday.

Beyond all the other issues – such as the fact that Obama didn’t actually make the “courageous decision” at all; Obama delegated the decision to Admiral McRaven so he’d have a scapegoat if something went wrong; such as the fact that the decision to get bin Laden was pretty much a political no-brainer given that had Obama NOT gone in to get bin Laden he very definitely would have lived in infamy as the president who refused to get the man most responsible for the murder of 3,000 innocent Americans – there’s the fact that Slick Willie is a guy who could have prevented the 9/11 attack altogether if he’d just accepted Osama bin Laden’s head when the man was literally offered to Clinton on a silver platter by the Sudanese (and see here for more background on Slick Willie and terrorism).  If Slick Willie had wanted to be honest, he could have at least have said that Obama made the hard decision that Bill Clinton was too much of a gutless coward to make or something to that effect.  The media would have loved him even more, if anything.

“We’re going to go forward … back to Clinton.”  It works in the movies even if it has no relation to real life.  Just like Hollywood liberalism itself, which Obama exemplifies as no president ever has:

Obama’s Incredibly Cynical Exploitation Of The Osama Bin Laden Killing Is Positively Vile For ALL KINDS Of Reasons

April 30, 2012

“Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive,” the Obama campaign says.

Obama treated the anniversary of ObamaCare like it was the leper waiting to appear before the death panel (which is of course what ObamaCare truly is and how it ought to be treated).  But the killing of bin Laden is different: Obama has been doing victory lap after victory lap after victory lap on that one.

It’s supposed to be besides the fact that Obama once attacked then-presidential rival Hillary Clinton for “invoking bin Laden to score political points”:

In a new web video titled “One Chance,” the Obama team features former President Bill Clinton praising Obama for deciding to launch the strike last year. “Why path would Mitt Romney have taken?” the clip asks.

But four years ago this April, the Obama campaign criticized Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for using Osama bin Laden in a political ad.

On the eve of the 2008 Pennsylvania primary, Clinton’s campaign released a television commercial featuring an image of bin Laden and invoking President Harry S. Truman’s quote: “If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.”

The ad never mentioned Obama by name, but it was part of the Clinton campaign’s effort to brand the Illinois Senator as inexperienced, especially in the foreign policy arena.

“Who do you think has what it takes?” the ad’s narrator says as an image of Clinton flashes on the screen. (The ad showed a brief clip of bin Laden as well as images of Pearl Harbor, the 1920′s stock market crash, Fidel Castro, the fall of the Berlin Wall). “You need to be ready for anything, especially now.”

The Obama campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, accused the Clinton team of playing “the politics of fear” just like George W. Bush.

Burton, now the head of the Democratic super PAC, Priorities USA, said at the time: “When Senator Clinton voted with President Bush to authorize the war in Iraq, she made a tragically bad decision that diverted our military from the terrorists who attacked us, and allowed Osama bin Laden to escape and regenerate his terrorist network. It’s ironic that she would borrow the President’s tactics in her own campaign and invoke bin Laden to score political points. We already have a President who plays the politics of fear, and we don’t need another.”

And yet we have another in the person of the very slimeball hypocrite who is so quick to demonize everybody else for stuff you ought to KNOW he himself will soon be doing himself.

Here we are, a few years later, and Barack Hussein Hypocrite is doing the EXACT same thing he demonized George Bush for doing and attacked Hillary Clinton for doing.  Because his DNA is pure weasel.

But let’s step aside from the “Obama, one blatant hypocrite sack of fecal matter” point and move on.

Let’s first point out that the ONLY reason that General Motors is still alive is because George Bush provided the bailout that allowed incoming president Obama to do ANYTHINGBecause if George Bush hadn’t taken that step, General Motors would have filed bankruptcy before Obama even took office.  That is simply a documented historical fact; and for Obama to try to use General Motors as a political bludgeon against Republicans is, well, just another in an incredibly long series of “weasel-in-chief” garbage rhetoric.

There were a LOT of ways to rescue General Motors without all the failed idiotic crap, boondoggle pork politics and frankly illegal partisan politicking that accompanied Obama’s bailout of GM.

The bottom line is that Obama is a president who cynically politicizes and demagogues absolutely everything under the sun.

So, just with those two above facts alone, Obama is sitting on a stool that aint got any legs with his skinny butt planted firmly in midair.  But let’s continue.

Our weasel-in-chief has tried to depict the decision to nail bin Laden as an incredibly “gutsy call.”  It wasn’t.  First, consider what would have happened when Obama’s opponents learned – and in this era of Wikileaks they most assuredly would have learned – that Barack Obama had a clear shot at Osama bin Laden and refused to take it.  So, yeah, something could have gone wrong and Obama would have probably been blamed for it.  But if he hadn’t done anything THERE IS NO QUESTION HE WOULD HAVE BEEN BLAMED FOR THAT.  So just how “gutsy” was it, really?

I mean, Obama faced a “possibly damned if you do, VERY DEFINITELY damned if you don’t” decision.  How “gutsy” of a call was it to avoid the “VERY DEFINITELY damned if you don’t” decision???

But it turns out that that isn’t the half of it.  Because remember how I said Obama has weasel DNA?  Ask yourself how a true weasel would have handled the above dilemma in which he potentially stood a chance to be blamed for deciding to go get bin Laden or to refuse to go get bin Laden.  It turns out that Obama took “the most weaselly option” possible:

What ‘Gutsy Call’?: CIA Memo Reveals Admiral Controlled bin Laden Mission
by Ben Shapiro   4/26/2012

 Today, Time magazine got hold of a memo written by then-CIA head Leon Panetta after he received orders from Barack Obama’s team to greenlight the bin Laden mission. Here’s the text, which summarized the situation:

Received phone call from Tom Donilon who stated that the President made a decision with regard to AC1 [Abbottabad Compound 1]. The decision is to proceed with the assault.

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. Those instructions were conveyed to Admiral McRaven at approximately 10:45 am.

This, of course, was the famed “gutsy call.” Here’s what Tom Hanks narrated in Obama’s campaign film, “The Road We’ve Traveled”:

HANKS: Intelligence reports locating Osama Bin Laden were promising, but inconclusive, and there was internal debate as to what the President should do.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: We sat down in the Situation Room, the entire national security apparatus was in that room, and the President turns to every principal in the room, every secretary, “What do you recommend I do?” And they say, “Well, forty-nine percent chance he’s there, fifty-one … it’s a close call, Mr. President.” As he walked out the room, it dawned on me, he’s all alone. This is his decision. If he was wrong, his Presidency was done. Over.

Only the memo doesn’t show a gutsy call. It doesn’t show a president willing to take the blame for a mission gone wrong. It shows a CYA maneuver by the White House.

The memo puts all control in the hands of Admiral McRaven – the “timing, operational decision making and control” are all up to McRaven. So the notion that Obama and his team were walking through every stage of the operation is incorrect. The hero here was McRaven, not Obama. And had the mission gone wrong, McRaven surely would have been thrown under the bus.

The memo is crystal clear on that point. It says that the decision has been made based solely on the “risk profile presented to the President.” If any other risks – no matter how minute – arose, they were “to be brought back to the President for his consideration.” This is ludicrous. It is wiggle room. It was Obama’s way of carving out space for himself in case the mission went bad. If it did, he’d say that there were additional risks of which he hadn’t been informed; he’d been kept in the dark by his military leaders.

Finally, the memo is unclear on just what the mission is. Was it to capture Bin Laden or to kill him? The White House itself was unable to decide what the mission was in the hours after the Bin Laden kill, and actually switched its language. The memo shows why: McRaven was instructed to “get” Bin Laden, whatever that meant.

President Obama made the right call to give the green light to the mission. But he did it in a way that he could shift the blame if things went wrong. Typical Obama. And typical of him to claim full credit for it, when he didn’t do anything but give a vague nod, while putting his top military officials at risk of taking the hit in case of a bad turn.

This was NOT a “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!” moment for Obama.  It was not a “I have not yet begun to fight!” moment.  It wasn’t even a “You may fire when ready, Gridley” moment.  It was the tepid decision by a career bureaucrat to choose the least risky political decision while having a sacrificial lamb tied to the stake to take the blame if the least risky political decision went wrong.  Period.

With that, let’s further consider that without George Bush, without the complete overhaul of the intelligence system that George Bush created, without Gitmo and without waterboarding, Obama never would have had a shot at finding out that Osama bin Laden was hiding out in Abbotabad, Pakistan.  Nor would our intelligence have known that Osama bin Laden was relying on couriers to remain in contact with his organization.

Here’s the proof of that in the form of another memo:

Having this information – which resulted from WATERBOARDING – was absolutely critical to identifying the location of Osama bin Laden.  Without the information that bin Laden was hiding in Abbottabad (a small dot on a very large globe), and without the information that bin Laden was relying on a courier who could be followed to an even smaller dot on that globe, we had butkus.

Obama’s own handpicked guy – Leon Panetta – confirmed that FACT:

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.”

And all the other principal players in the CIA confirmed that waterboarding was a sine qua non – a “that without which” – in the nailing of Osama bin Laden.  Without that information about bin Laden’s courier and the city he was hiding in, he could have been literally in any one of a few billion caves for all we knew.  In order to find Osama bin Laden, we needed somewhere to start looking and something specific – like the courier – to start looking into.

So Obama is taking all the credit for getting bin Laden when he not only opposed but even tried to criminalize the personnel and the tactic that directly led to getting the most vital information involved in getting bin Laden.

And while I myself believe that going into Pakistan to get bin Laden was the right thing to do, let’s not forget that there have been rather awful repercussions from that act – particularly the surrender of BILLIONS of dollars in stealth technology that will surely go into the hands of every single one of our worst enemies and the even more worrisome now-glaciated relations between the United States and vital ally Pakistan.  There were huge costs to what we did – which is yet more reason that a “victory lap” is a very inappropriate thing for Obama to do.

So let me refer now to the title of this article and explain what I mean.

If I asked 100 Americans who were old enough to have lived through the time “Which president deserves credit for the moon landing” the answer would be “John F. Kennedy.”  And I mean he would get the credit 100 percent of the time.  After all, it was John F. Kennedy who said:

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the Presidency.

But here’s the thing: we didn’t actually land on the moon until 1969.  And just who was president in 1969? 

Richard M. Nixon.  The guy who gets no credit for anything partly because of Watergate but mostly simply because he was a Republican.  JFK had been in his grave for six years when his dream of putting a man on the moon became a reality – TWICE the time it took for George Bush’s goal to get bin Laden.

George W. Bush was every bit as instrumental in the eventual nailing of Osama bin Laden was as John F. Kennedy was in the eventual putting a man on the moon:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush pledged anew Friday that Osama bin Laden will be taken “dead or alive,” no matter how long it takes, amid indications that the suspected terrorist may be bottled up in a rugged Afghan canyon. The president, in an Oval Office meeting with Thailand’s prime minister, would not predict the timing of bin Laden’s capture but said he doesn’t care how the suspect is brought to justice. “I don’t care, dead or alive — either way,” Bush said. “It doesn’t matter to me.”

And:

“Make no mistake, the United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts.”

RICHARD CLARKE, White House Terrorism Advisor, 1998-01: President Bush said to us in the basement of the White House on the night of 9/11, “You have everything you need.” And that was true because as soon as we went to the Congress, they said, “Just tell us what you need.” Blank check.

NARRATOR: The president was determined to spend whatever was necessary and do whatever was necessary to conduct a new kind of war.

JOHN ASHCROFT, Atty. General, 2001-05: The president turned to me and said ─ in my direction anyhow ─ he said, “Never let this happen again.”

FRAN TOWNSEND, White House Terrorism Advisor, 2004-07: I understood that to mean there was no end of the earth we weren’t willing to go to, there was nothing we weren’t willing to ask for, there was nobody we wouldn’t work with. […]

J. COFER BLACK: This is a very highly classified area. All you need to know is that there was a before 9/11 and there was an after 9/11. After 9/11, the gloves come off.

Bush put all the infrastructure in place to get bin Laden.  He transformed the American intelligence community.  And yes, he waterboarded the terrorists who yielded the vital information we needed.  It simply took time.  Osama bin Laden could have been literally in any of a few billion different caves spread over half the planet.  And it wasn’t like Barack Obama got out his mail-order investigator kit and found out where bin Laden was hiding by himself, was it?

Finally, Obama demagogues Mitt Romney by insinuating that Romney wouldn’t make the tough decision to get Osama binLaden had he been president.  And Obama’s “evidence” for that demonization is this quote from Romney in 2007:

LIZ SIDOTI: “Why haven’t we caught bin Laden in your opinion?”

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: “I think, I wouldn’t want to over-concentrate on Bin Laden. He’s one of many, many people who are involved in this global Jihadist effort. He’s by no means the only leader. It’s a very diverse group – Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and of course different names throughout the world. It’s not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person. It is worth fashioning and executing an effective strategy to defeat global, violent Jihad and I have a plan for doing that.”

That clearly doesn’t mean that Mitt Romney wouldn’t have made the decision to go in and nail bin Laden in the event that GEORGE BUSH’S WATERBOARDING had led to his location.  He was merely pointing out that we undermined ourselves if we made getting bin Laden the end-all given the fact that there are MANY TERRORISTS and even MANY TERRORIST LEADERS and getting bin Laden wouldn’t magically win the war that these terrorists started.

As an überliberal website documents, HILLARY CLINTON – now serving as Obama’s own Secretary of State – COMPLETELY AGREED WITH MITT ROMNEY.  And completely DISAGREED with Barack Obama.  As did the man who would have been THE most experienced “foreign-policy” president America had ever had since Dwight Eisenhower, Sen. John McCain.

The only reason – THE ONLY REASON – Barack Obama has been allowed to make the incredibly cynical credit-grabbing statements about getting bin Laden is because the mainstream media are incredibly biased and dishonest propagandists.

America’s Enemies Saying, ‘Thanks For Giving Away BILLIONS In Hi-Tech Stealth Technology, Obama!’

December 13, 2011

Barack Obama said something a few days ago that festers like a nasty strain of brain cancer.

When mainstream media “reporters” handed Obama a softball question about Republicans calling him out for appeasement (in a question that failed to mention ANY of the reasons the Republicans had given for accusing Obama of appeasement in the first place), Obama said:

“Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top al-Qaida leaders who have been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement. Or whoever is left out there, ask them about that,” the president said during a news conference.

Now, it’s hard to find because our media is so in the pocket of liberalism, but the Republcians’ charge occurred during a Republican Jewish Conference forum.  They put a little content into their charge; for instance, pointing out that – due to Democrats in general and Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton in particular blocking George Bush from confronting Iran over its growing nuclear program, and due to Obama’s weakness and appeasement since taking office – Iran is now six months away from a nuclear weapon and it is too late to stop them from getting one.  Which of course exalts Islam and directly threatens our ally Israel.

Iran is going to have a nuclear weapon SOON.  That day will be a dark and terrible one, because Iran will ultimately be able to a) shut down the Strait of Hormuz and send oil prices skyrocketing above $14 a gallon; b) launch an international wave of terrorism; or c) even attack Israel with IMPUNITY when they get nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles to deliver them.  Because if we attack a nuclear – and frankly crazy and truly evil – Iran, we get to kiss a few cities and tens of millions of Americans goodbye.

There were several other reasons the various GOP rivals rightly accused Obama of appeasement.  But let’s just ask ourselves: if those biased leftist hyper-partisan psuedo-journalists had confronted Obama with the disgrace of Iran’s nuclear program in the context of their question about “appeasement,” wouldn’t that have made it just a little bit harder for a biased leftist hyper-partisan pseudo-president to give us such a smash-that-lob response???

In any event, Obama is a great, strong, powerful leader and NOT a timid appeaser because he got Osama bin Laden – and just don’t you mind the rest of the foreign policy disasters he’s presided over.  That’s the Obama line.

Let’s forget about your apology tour (see also here) when you went around the rest of the world damning America.  Let’s forget about how you repeatedly insisted on a timetable for withdrawal in both Iraq and Afghanistan that would make any victory possible.  Let’s forget how you abandoned commitments made to Czechoslovakia and Poland to needlessly appease Russia.  Let’s forget that even Europe has recognized your spinelessness.  Let’s forget how you refused to denounce Iran even as that country was massacring its own people for demonstrating for freedom.  Let’s forget that you are demanding that the U.S. pull out its troops from Iraq after we fought so hard for it to the shock and disgust of our generals.  Let’s forget the many times you have undermined Israel, such as when you demanded Israel return to indefensible 1967 borders after America promised Israel it would NEVER do such a thing.  Let’s forget how you undermined valuable ally Egypt under Mubarak and proceeded to give us a country instead that will be run by terrorists and based on Shariah law.  Let’s forget that Iran initiated an act of war against the United States – and you spinelessly did NOTHING about it.  Let’s forget that you actually are DEMANDING that the defense budget be gutted $600 billion more than the $450 you already gutted it.

Let’s forget that, mainstream media, so we can lob Obama a softball question devoid of any context at all – and allow Obama to say something like, oh, “Ask Osama bin Laden if I’m an appeaser.”

So let’s consider Obama’s answer: does Obama being the brave, brave Sir Robin who happened to be the carbon-based lifeform inhabiting the Oval Office at the time we got Osama bin Laden make up for all of the above appeasement???

Well, first consider the FACT that the waterboarding Obama opposed, demonized and in fact actually tried to criminalize-after-the-fact was ESSENTIAL to finding out where Obama was (see also here).  If Obama had got his way, and Bush had not waterboarded terrorist suspects, we can toss out the only link we had to Obama (courier) and we can toss out the city where he was hiding (Abbottabad):

Oops.  Did I forget to mention that Obama has actually had many more acts of appeasement than what I had above?  Because not only did he denounce the very waterboarding that got us Osama bin Laden, but he also denounced the Gitmo where we got that information.

So why does Obama get all the credit for getting Obama and Bush none?

Please refer to my previous statements regarding the level of bias in American pesudo-journalism.

But then there’s also “the decision” to get Osama bin Laden.  Wasn’t that like really brave?

Well, I’m going to the dentist this week to get some really painful work done.  I’m just as brave as Obama was to get in my car and show up at that dentist office.

Imagine if Obama had REFUSED to get Osama bin Laden (after making a campaign promise that he would do so if he knew where bin Laden was hiding).  What do you think are the odds that that information would never get out?  What are the odds that no so much as one single member of the armed forces or the intelligence community would be outraged by such an act of cowardice and not leak the fact that Obama refused to get the world’s number one terrorist in the world?  And what are the odds that Obama would have been re-elected with Republicans running that ad again and again and again like Bush Sr.’s “Read my lips, no new taxes” line???

It wasn’t “brave” for Obama to approve that mission; it was an act of self-political-survival.

And that mission to get Osama bin Laden had some huge consequences that for some strange reason the media has refused to lay at the door of the guy they gave all the credit for getting him to. 

If Obama deserves the credit, does he not also deserve the blame?

For one thing, U.S. relations with vital partner in the war on terror Pakistan are at an all-time-low because of the thing that Obama claims so much credit for having done.

Imagine if Mexico launched a commando raid into the heart of the United States to kill someone their government was after.  Or imagine if Canada did that to us.  How would we respond to the fact that soldiers with guns flew into our country without our knowledge or consent to start shooting people?

Combine that with the fact that Obama “air raided villages and murdered innocent Pakistani soldiers” – to the tune of 24 dead Pakistani soldiers killed in their own country by Obama – and our relations with Pakistan couldn’t get much lower if we started firing nuclear missiles at each other.

Do you remember when Obama falsely and in fact demonically attacked Bush for bringing down the U.S. image to the rest of the world.  Now the world hates us more than it ever did under Bush.  Even the ARAB WORLD hates us more, because they at least had some respect for Bush.  Versus Obama who is just a simpering – and yes, appeasing – scrawny-necked dumbo-eared little weasel.

But hey, I’m not a “journalist” or a “reporter,” so I can bring facts like that up, can’t I???

There was another casuality to Obama’s grand mission that everyone gave him total credit for: we gave away BILLIONS in stealth technology to our enemies in China and Russia.

Remember that helicopter tail section Obama left behind in Pakistan?

Pakistan Shares US Stealth Technology With China: Did That Bring Down The Chinook With SEALs?
Posted by Jason Bradley Aug 15th 2011 at 9:10 am

Several of us at Big Peace have reported in the past about the noticeable warming relationship between China and Pakistan. This has concerned the US because of the amount of cooperation and assistance – worth billions of dollars — given to Pakistan. It was eventually decided that that we would have to accept Pakistan’s warts if we were to have a regional partner in the War on Terror. It was an uneasy concession from the start and hard pill to swallow. In fact, that pill hasn’t fully worked its way down.

Just recently there were immediate questions over the successful downing of Chinook that did more damage to US forces in an instant in what otherwise could not be accomplished by the Taliban in over ten years of war. Those questions were directed to the highest reaches of the Pakistan government and its intelligence arm, the ISI.

Now comes in what appears to be an open betrayal by our so-called mission partners.

The US employed new stealth technology in the successful raid on Osama bin Laden. Special Forces used a previously unknown capability, and so far as we know, is unduplicated by any other country, when they swooped down on Osama’s compound in stealth-modified Blackhawk helicopters. One of those helicopters had a mechanical malfunction and crashed on site as a result. Despite urgent requests by the CIA and the US government, Pakistan allowed China to view the new machine.

“The US now has information that Pakistan, particularly the ISI, gave access to the Chinese military to the downed helicopter in Abbottabad,” the paper quoted a person “in intelligence circles” as saying.

Pakistan, which enjoys a close relationship with China, allowed Chinese intelligence officials to take pictures of the crashed chopper as well as take samples of its special “skin” that allowed the American raid to evade Pakistani radar, Reuters reported.

No one from the Pakistani army was available for comment, but the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Pakistan’s top spy agency, denied the report. The paper said Pakistan’s top general, chief of army staff Ashfaq Kayani, denied that China had been given access.

Do you know how much it cost to develop that technology that China can now easily reverse-engineer for pennies on the millions of dollars?

You don’t want to know.  Seriously.

Our enemies can not only reverse engineer our stealth technology and make their own stealth helicopters to use against U.S. interests, but it can also now devise better countermeasures against our stuff to leave us weaker in the future.

And Obama isn’t through on that score.  He just left behind a hi-tech radar-evading stealth drone for Iran to find.

Now, again, being a weak, appeasing COWARD Obama isn’t going in and GETTING his damned drone; he’s saying, “Please, pretty, pretty, pretty please, Mr. Ayatollah, can I have my drone back?”

And what did it cost us to develop that thing?  A bunch.  What’s it going to cost Iran – and its allies Russia and China to develop?  Nada.

But, hey.  That kind of thing gets in the way of the mainstream media narrative that anything that we don’t want to credit Obama for we will blame Bush for.

We’re back in the days of the Marxists and the Nazis (fellow socialist travellers) rising to power.  All it would have taken for the ugliest period in the history of the human race to have been averted was a little honest reporting by the medias of those countries.  But the media had become ideological pawns of totalitarian agendas.  It had become an actual ally of those agendas.

Deja vu all over again.

Pawlenty on Obama: ‘You can’t be pro-job and anti-business. That’s like being pro-egg and anti-chicken.’

June 13, 2011

Tim Pawlenty just went way up on my list of candidates after that particular remark in my title.

Is Obama anti-business?  Well, how about this for a factoid: 77% of investors think he is.  He was anti-business in 2009.  He was anti-business in 2010.  And he is still anti-business in 2011.  How many eggs are you going to get when you’re out to get all the chickens and when the chickens know you’re out to get them?

Here’s an article that talks about this former governor who has been successful where Obama has failed, failed and failed some more.  What is interesting is how we hear Pawlenty talk about how to fix our broken economy, and Obama talking about wtf???

Republican presidential candidate Pawlenty: ‘We are in deep doo-doo’
By Abdon M. Pallasch Political

How badly has President Barack Obama managed the United States’ economy?

Pretty badly, says plain-talking former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty in a campaign stop in Chicago Tuesday.

“We are in deep doo-doo. We are in deep crap,” Pawlenty said Tuesday, in a locale meant to drive home the Republican presidential candidate’s differences with the president.

In a classroom at the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy Studies, located across the street from the law school where Obama used to teach, Pawlenty laid out his tax-slashing, budget-cutting proposal that he says will save the U.S. economy:

There would be only three tax rates: Zero, for low-income earners who currently pay no federal tax; 10 percent, for single people earning up to $50,000, or married couples who earn up to $100,000; and 25 percent, for people who earn more than that (down from a top rate of 35 percent now). He would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent and end the estate tax.

Those tax cuts, plus a freeze on federal spending, would spur growth of 5 percent a year, he said.

Democrats immediately said Pawlenty’s proposed tax cuts would disproportionately benefit the wealthy.

Obama senior advisor David Axelrod, who finished a speech on the North Side just before Pawlenty started his, credited Pawlenty with “good stagecraft” for holding the speech on Obama’s old stomping grounds. But he said Obama’s budget-fixing recipe is better.

Pawlenty “left his own state with a $5 billion deficit and now he’s counseling the rest of the country on how to handle finances,” Axelrod said. “He proposes massive new tax cuts for upper-income Americans … that would produce huge new deficits. He wants to replay the same formula that got us into the jam in the first place.”

But Pawlenty told the classroom full of students at the university that people should not focus on “whether this makes some group a little more wealthy or a little less wealthy. You can’t be pro-job and anti-business. That’s like being pro-egg and anti-chicken.”

Flirting with the so-called “third rail” of American politics, Pawlenty said he would raise the retirement age for younger workers to start collecting Social Security in the future. People nearing retirement now would not be affected, he said.

“If you’re coming in new to the work force, gradually, over time, we are going to raise the retirement age,” Pawlenty said. “If you’re wealthy, you’re not going to get the cost-of-living adjustment.”

Proposals that can be short-handed as “cutting Social Security” can kill campaigns, but Pawlenty said, “It’s going to be the ‘Jack Nicholson election.’” Referring to the movie “A Few Good Men,” Pawlenty said, “There’s that famous line when he’s on the witness stand and he said, ‘You can’t handle the truth.’ The American people, I think, can handle the truth. It doesn’t mean we freak ’em out. It doesn’t mean we scare ’em. … I’m only doing this because I love the country. We’ll only get it to a better place if people are willing to tell the American people the truth. I am. President Obama isn’t. He’s ducking, bobbing, weaving.”

In a speech at the Misericordia, a home for children and adults with disabilities, Axelrod told the story of how, back in April, he and Obama were crafting a joke about Pawlenty for Obama to use at the White House Correspondents Association dinner. The two were interrupted by a National Security Council staffer who had to brief Obama on something, so Obama asked Axelrod to leave the room.

When Axelrod came back in, Obama rejected a suggestion for a joke about how Pawlenty “could really be a strong candidate but for his unfortunate middle name: bin Laden.”

“ ‘That’s so hackneyed, bin Laden, that’s so yesterday, Why don’t we take that out,’ ” Obama said, Axelrod recalled. “ ‘We’ll put in “Hosni.’’ ’ ” Axelrod didn’t think that was as funny, but he agreed to it.

“It was only the next day that we realized that he had not only eliminated Bin Laden from the joke. He had given the order to eliminate bin Laden from the face of the Earth,” Axelrod told the crowd.

Later, speaking to reporters, Axelrod laughed when asked if he agreed with potential Republican candidate Sarah Palin, who said over the weekend that Paul Revere’s famous ride was an attempt to “warn the British’’ — that the British were coming.

“I think that’s a good reflection of why we can’t abandon education,” he said. “We need good education so everybody knows their history lessons and gets them properly.”

Pawlenty just laughed when asked the same question. He proceeded to a fund-raiser.

Well, first of all,we are – to put it in Pawlenty’s accurate term – ” in deep crap” – and the best Axelrod can do is talk about a joke that Obama’s people are going to go after Sarah Palin for an impromptu remark about Paul Revere when their guy is on the record saying he’d visited 57 states with one more yet to go?

And Obama’s going to talk about Pawlenty’s $5 billion deficit?  Seriously?  And just how many TRILLIONS of deficit does he have just so far???  Obama’s budget just for this term would add THIRTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS to the national debt.  From McClatchy:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama proposed a $3.73 trillion budget Monday  for fiscal 2012 that he said will start reining in runaway budget deficits, but  his plan envisions the gross national debt swelling by almost $13 trillion over  a decade.

Obama’s budget sets up a clash with the  Republican-led House of Representatives over how to recover from the deep  recession of recent years and strengthen the economic foundation for the future,  with federal spending the pivotal battleground.

Obama added $3 trillion to the deficit in less than two years.  Another way to put it: In just nineteen months, Obama added more to the debt than every single US president from George Washington to Ronald Reagan – combined.

And this idiot is talking about $5 billion???  Like we’re not supposed to laugh our asses off and then impeach Obama as a clear and present danger to the United States?  Particularly when in fact Pawlenty in fact DID actually leave office with the budget balanced?  If you’re going to talk about devastating developments after the guy was gone – especially when that characterization is being made by the guy’s political enemies – at least have the courtesy to do the same sort of redacting with Bill Clinton’s legacy – who managed to take all the credit for balancing the budget but wasn’t in any way responsible for the disastrous Dotcom crisis that unfolded on his watch.

Which is to say, Democrats should either give Tim Pawlenty plenty of credit for balancing the budget or at least shut the hell up.

Tim Pawlenty as a man has a good, solid life.  And he’s got the background and the bona fides to get behind.  He is a candidate worthy of consideration.

On Cavuto’s Fox News program on Friday, Cavuto pointed out that the White House was questioning whether Tim Pawlenty was being realistic about whether he could create the kind of 5% GDP that he is talking about.  Pawlenty’s response was almost as good as his quip in my title.  I don’t have an exact quote, but basically he said “I’m an optimist, and I have an optimistic view of America’s future.  We’ve been great before, and I believe we can be great again.  And if Barack Obama could say that he was going to provide jobs for the all the jobless, slow the rising oceans, heal the planet, end all the wars and basically remake our nation, I think I can talk about doubling our GDP.”

Touché.

Tim Pawlenty wants to increase our GDP and grow our economy and create jobs by NOT being anti-chicken while claiming to be pro-egg.  In other words, the man actually makes sense.

Obama has spent three years demonizing and attacking businesses while demanding that they create more jobs.  That, by stark contrast, is 100% pure insane, no additives or preservatives.

Pawlenty wants profound tax cuts.  And while liberals want to ignore history and argue that the more you tax, the more you collect in tax revenue, Pawlenty cites the fact that every single time we have cut tax rates, we have dramatically increased our tax revenues.  See my article “Tax Cut’s INCREASE Revenues; They have ALWAYS Increased Tax Revenues” for that documented history.

Think of it in terms of gas (as I’ve argued before in more detail).  As the price of gas went up and up and up, did people buy the same amount of gas?  No way; they very quickly cut back on their driving.  If you increase the price of something, you sell less of it.  And in the same way, if you increase tax rates, you invariably end up encouraging counter-productive behavior, as the wealthy find it worthwhile to quit investing and instead pursue tax shelters and loopholes to protect their assets.

It is simply a repeatedly documented fact that every single time we have cut tax rates, we have ended up with increased revenues, as businesses and individuals were encouraged to invest because they were being rewarded with the ability to actually keep more of their own profits.  It comes down to this: if I give you a job, and you work hard, but at the end of the day the tax man comes and takes it all away, you’re not going to bother to take my job.  With total taxes exceeding 50% in a number of states, businesses and individuals are put in a position in which they take all the risks in hiring and investing – and if they lose they lose big – but even if they win they aren’t allowed to keep enough of their money to make the risks worth taking.

Democrats claim that the deficit has increased with lower tax rates.  And that is true.  But that isn’t the fault of the lower tax rates – WHICH AGAIN ACTUALLY INCREASED THE GOVERNMENT REVENUES DRAMATICALLY.  The bizarre argument that Democrats are making is analogous to the argument that the guy who lives in his parent’s basement and makes minimum wage and lives within his modest means actually makes more money than the multi-millionaire who buys multiple mansions, yachts and cars and then finds himself in debt.  It was the reckless spending that put us into the hole, not the tax policies that resulted in the politicians who spent that money having more money to spend.  Pawlenty is arguing that we need to profoundly cut tax rates and simultaneously have a balanced budget amendment and dramatically cut our spending.

That isn’t even mentioning the constant hypocrisy of the Democrats as they fail to live up to their own demagogic rhetoric.

Then there’s the issue of the Bush tax cuts.  Democrats say we’ve had the Bush tax cuts, and look what’s happened.  Two things.

First, consider this: Obama signed the compromise to extend the Bush tax cuts for two more years on December 17, 2010.  Many experts believed Obama would be forced to do this as a result of the Republican landslide victory that changed the political landscape in early November.  So let’s look at what has happened to the jobless rate since November:

November 2010: 9.8%
December 2010: 9.4%
January  2011: 9.0%
February 2011: 8.9%
March    2011: 8.8%
April    2011: 9.0%
May      2011: 9.1%

Interestingly, Obama initially appeared to be reaching out to the business leaders he had been attacking.  After getting his head handed to him in November 2010, Obama began to reach out to Republicans.  And then in mid December, he began to reach out to business – with his signing of the Bush tax cuts extension a major part of that reaching out.  In early January, he appointed as his new chief-of-staff a man who had a “business-friendly” persona.

And the market, the investors, the businesses, ordinary Americans, liked what they heard.  The public clearly, overwhelmingly wanted to see Obama reach out to the party that had just won massively.  Republicans are the party of business; reach out to business.  Let’s get to work growing this economy rather than attacking the people who grow the economy.

But even as people liked what they heard, there was always a question, as asked in this case by CNN Money:

“So is Obama really changing his tune on big business? Or is the president merely glad-handing big business while plowing ahead with his 2012 goal of making the rich pay more?”

Unfortunately, it didn’t take long before the business and investment community realized that Obama hadn’t changed his spots at all.  It’s either “same lies, different tune,” or “different lies, same tune” with this guy.

Before hardly any time had passed, “William Daley” became an afterthought and Obama was right back to attacking business with the same ferocity as before.

Obama’s senior economist Austan Goolsbee – now the FIFTH senior Obama economist to jump Obama’s HMO Titanic (with “HMO” standing for “His Majesty Obama” had this to say shortly before HE left.  And this according to an obvious liberal:

When Amanpour asked [Goolsbee] what the Administration could or should be doing to improve conditions, he ticked off items you’d expect to hear from a typical GOP Presidential adviser:  we’ve got to get the debt under control; we have a White House effort to identify and get rid of governmental regulations that are preventing the private sector from growing the economy; we should pass “free trade” agreements backed by the Chamber of Commerce; and we should leverage limited public dollars to release billions in private funding for investments.

Goolsbee’s bottom line:  “It’s now up to the private sector.”  That’s exactly what you’d expect from President Romney’s economic adviser.

And, of course, that brief flash of clarity was immediately followed by Goolsbee’s resignation.  We won’t be having any anti-Marxist heresies on Comrade Obama’s watch, no sir commissar.

Just in case you’re wondering why the economy seemed to be improving before going back into the toilet, there’s your answer.  The people who actually create jobs began to think that Obama finally had some level of actual awareness about how the economy and business and job-creation works, before Obama slammed the door on that idiotic thesis.  They believed Obama’s lies right after the election, then Obama demonstrated (“dictated” is more like it) that he hates business as much as he ever did, then he renewed his war on business, and it’s right back into the crapper with the U.S. economy.

So there’s the backstory behind the economy appearing to improve before diving headfirst back into the gave.  Obama is right back to being “pro-job” but “anti-chicken.”

Up above, I said there were “two things” about the Bush tax cuts and their impact on the economy.  The first point is that the extension of the Bush tax cuts DID work for five months of straight improvement – at least until Obama and the Democrats made sure that businesses and investors knew that they were as hated as ever.

The SECOND point about the Bush tax cuts – or ANY other tax cuts, for that matter – is that they have to be consistent and long-term before they will truly succeed.  This is because businesses need to know their operating environment before they will be willing to take risks such as hiring more workers.  They need to have a clear, long-term picture (most think at least five years) of what their tax liability will be.  And they need the same kind of knowledge about their health care liability and their regulatory liability.  If you start or expand a business, you’ve got one primary question: “Am I going to be able to make this work?”  And in order to answer that fundamental question, you need to know what your costs will be.

Obama signed the Bush tax cut extension for two years – and then very quickly went back on that signature by demagoguing the very thing he’d signed.  Will these tax rates be there for them in two years?  Certainly not, if Obama wins.  And there goes the window to make important investment/growth decisions.  Obama made sure that business owners wouldn’t have a long-term understanding of their taxes.  ObamaCare has thousands of pages being written as we speak; Obama’s regulations are being written as we speak; and nobody knows anything about how any of it will affect them.

Hence the paralysis.

Tim Pawlenty knows that no nation and no economy has ever had a recession that lasted forever – save when leftists have been allowed to run those nations/economies.  He also knows that economic growth and expansion are there just waiting for Obama to leave us the hell alone and get off our backs so that business owners can build better lives for themselves and their families – and create the jobs that result from those businesses growing – by allowing wealth creators to keep more of their own money.

He knows that if you really want to be pro-job, you had better be pro-business.  And that is something that Barack Obama has now proven he will never be, regardless of what he might say to the contrary.

[Update, 8/13]: Today, Michelle Bachmann won the Iowa Straw Poll, versus Pawlenty – who had spent a lot more time and money – coming in a very distant third.

I can’t explain why Iowans basically walked away from Pawlenty, but I can tell you why I’ve been annoyed with him.  It’s simple: his non-stop attack on Michelle Bachmann.

You want to go after people, Tim?  Go after Obama.  Heck, go after Mitt Romney like a lot of people said you should have done during the first debate.  But to go after Michelle Bachmann is just dumb.

To not go after Romney and then go after Bachmann makes you look like a guy who was afraid to fight the star quarterback and then started punching a cheerleader to show you were still “tough.”

You’re trying to present yourself as a true-blue conservative.  Everyone KNOWS Michelle Bachmann is a true conservative.  So why go after her when you could be going after a Mitt Romney who has held whatever position made him look good at the moment?

To continue, some of your attacks against her are just stupid.  Like the one that Michelle Bachmann didn’t stop things like cap and trade and ObamaCare being passed in the House.  As if she was somehow the Imperial Queen of the chamber rather than one minority Republican (at the time) in a chamber with 434 other representatives.  That was just a plain dumb attack.

You finished a distant third, Tim.  Which apparently will allow you to survive.  But if you keep tee-ing off on Bachmann, you won’t be around much longer.

Latest AP Poll Giving Obama 60% Approval Assumes There Are 59% (+17 Points) More Democrats Than Republicans

May 12, 2011

This just another example of the legion of bias in the mainstream media:

59% more Democrats than Republicans?  Really?  And we’re supposed to believe that after that vicious asswhipping Democrats got in 2010?  Riiighhhttt.

Let’s quickly do the math: 46% Democrats – 29% Republicans equals a difference of 17.  And 17 divided by 29 (the base number) is .58.6.  So there are 58.6% more Democrats than Republicans for this poll to be valid.

All The President’s Pollsters: AP Poll Skews Democrat by 58%
By John Romano

(YBH) – Covering American politics is a minefield even working with good information which eschews partisanship.

The AP was not helpful today in that lonely quest for unbiased intel.

They released poll numbers which have President Obama lurching forward with a 60% approval rating.  Sounds great for the President doesn’t it?

However, the AP polled a full 58% (+17 points) more Democrats in this poll than Republicans.  The AP always polls more Democrats for some reason (no explanation is given why), but this month’s partisan gap is the largest since April and May of 2009 when the Dem-Rep gap was +18 and +14 points respectively.   The poll released today had 46% of respondents self identify as Democrats and just 29% who identify as Republicans.

Not surprisingly, the President’s approval ratings in the three polls noted above that skewed most Democratic were the highest of his administration.  Each had the President’s approval numbers at 60%+.

Conversely, the two lowest approval numbers reported by the AP during Obama’s time in office was when poll respondents were distributed evenly among Democrats and Republicans.  In April and November of 2010 Democrats edged Republicans in the poll by just one point (November = Dem. 39%, Rep. 38% and April = Dem. 41%, Rep. 40%).  President Obama’s approval in those polls were 49% and 47%.

So when the AP releases its own poll and reports that, “In worrisome signs for Republicans, the president’s standing improved not just on foreign policy but also on the economy, and independent Americans,” perhaps the poll should be taken with a grain of salt.  What the heck?  Make it a grain of salt and a shot of Tequila for good luck.

The poll was joint effort between the AP and GfK Roper Public Affairs.  A call from YBH! to AP/GfK asking for a reason for the discrepancy was not returned.

If you trust the media farther than you can throw your giant-screen television across the front yard, you are a genuine fool.  It literally appears that they decided to give Obama 60% approval, and then figured out how many Democrats would have to be in their sample to obtain that pre-determined result.

Here’s a poll that is a little more based on reality:

Poll: Economy hampers Osama bin Laden boost
By JENNIFER EPSTEIN | 5/10/11 6:17 AM EDT
 
President Barack Obama’s approval rating continues to show a boost after the successful mission to kill Osama bin Laden, though it’s being weighed down by his lowest marks on the economy since taking office, a new poll suggests.

The president’s overall approval rating is at 52 percent in an NBC News poll released late Monday – a gain of three points since last month – while his disapproval rating dropped four points to 41 percent. The post-bin Laden bounce wasn’t quite as pronounced in this poll, conducted Thursday through Saturday, as it was in some polling done in the first two days immediately after the terrorist leader was killed.

Obama’s approval ratings are buoyed by big improvements in how Americans view Obama’s handling of foreign policy, with 57 percent approving, up from 49 percent in April. Meanwhile, Obama’s disapproval on foreign policy has dropped 11 points to 35 percent. Views of his handling of the war in Afghanistan have also improved, up 10 points since last month to 56 percent.

But views of how the president is handling the economy have dropped since April to their lowest levels since Obama took office. A month ago, 45 percent of Americans said they approved of his handling of the economy. That number is now down to 37 percent, while disapproval has risen six percentage points to 58 percent. Before this month, his lowest ratings on the economy came last August, when 39 percent approved and 56 percent disapproved of his job performance on the issue.

The poll was conducted May 5-7 and surveyed 800 adults. The error margin is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

So AP and those who follow them claim that 58% of the country are enthusiastic Democrats, while in reality 58% of the REAL people are looking at Obama, then looking at their empty pocketbooks and their foreclosure notices, and then looking to anyone who can save them from Obama.

And the unjustified approval Obama is receiving for relying on Bush policies to get Osama bin Laden EVEN AS HE DEMONIZES THOSE VERY POLICIES is going to have a very short shelf life, indeed, according to most pollsters.  We can all remember George H.W. Bush having more than 90% approval after winning Gulf War I, only to lose to Bill Clinton.  And yet you’d think that Obama must surely be unbeatable given the media propaganda.

I think back to the World War II generation.  If you read the German propaganda at the time, Adolf Hitler was beloved to the point of deity.  The fact of the matter was that he never received more than 37% of the vote in any legitimate election.  Which only goes to tell you that fascism always works much, much better when the journalists embrace it.

I don’t know if we’re heading toward a 1984 society or an Animal Farm society.  But either one of them starts with massive disinformation that just keeps getting worse and worse.

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.