moonbattery logo

Apr 30 2012

Gutsy Call My Eye

Obama’s no-brainer “gutsy call” — by which he allowed the SEALs to kill Osama bin Laden — turns out not to be even half gutsy. From a memo written by the CIA head after getting the green light:

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.

Breitbart comments on the conspicuous lack of gutsiness:

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.

Now Obama is shamelessly running on McRaven’s success, preposterously implying that Romney wouldn’t have let the mission go forward. The basis of this smear is Romney’s awareness that Al Qaeda was never a one man operation.

Campaigning on the SEALs taking out Osama is pretentious and pathetic, but other than voter fraud, it’s all Obama has.

gutsy-call
Not quite how it happened.

On tips from J, Curtis, and Lee.

EmailFacebookGoogle+PinterestStumbleUponTwitter



  • StanInTexas

    This is apparently the only time when “ON HIS WATCH” will be used during the Obama Administration.

  • Sam

    I know one thing, it’s that Romney wouldn’t have taken 16 hours to make up his mind whether to proceed on the mission:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383010/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-Obama-took-16-hours-make-mind.html

  • Paul

    McRaven is a bad ass name though.

  • FrankW

    I am glad obama, oops I meant osama, got taken out (slip was the fault of Teddy K).
    Gutsy would have been denying the actions and then holding a presser to divulge that he did not allow it to proceed due to location of osammy.
    Neither this nor allowing the SEAL snipers to deal with the Maersk Alabama was a gutsy call, except that he ticked off the anti-military wing of the leftist party. The default position should be to let these things go forward. The gutsy (and wrong) call is to stop these actions.
    If liberals have the slightest bit of integrity (not likely) they will simply not vote this fall for the guy who authorized the death of these muzzie freedom fighters. Please pass the word on that, trolls.

  • lao

    Key words in blunt’s little preamble: From a memo written by the CIA head after getting the green light:.

    Who gave the green light?

    Here’s the memo: “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.”

    It really stings that Obama was in charge when bin Laden was taken out doesn’t it?

  • Doug

    It really stings when we know you get your marching orders from Soros and your talking points from Media Matters. Loser.

    Bwahahahahahaha!

  • Jill

    Osama was such a trivial target, why would Obama bother even looking for him?

    Obama: But let me make this clear: There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will. and he did.

    Romney: I think I wouldn’t want to over-concentrate on Bin Laden.

    Romney: I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally (Pakistan) of ours

    Bush: And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

    McCain: Will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan?

    But how dare he claim credit for a military achievement? Republicans would never, never, ever be that crass …

    Gillespie RNC Chair: If his (Kerry) policies were in place, Saddam Hussein would not only be in Baghdad today, he’d still be in Kuwait, and we would not be waging an aggressive war against terror.
    Pataki: President Bush understands we can’t just wait for the next attack. We have to go after them, in their training camps, in their hiding places, in their spider holes
    McCain He(Bush) ordered American forces to Afghanistan and took the fight to our enemies, and away from our shores, seriously injuring al-Qaida and destroying the regime that gave them safe haven. … President Bush made the difficult decision to liberate Iraq
    Bush: I faced the kind of decision (to take out Saddam) that comes only to the Oval Office.

    I think of the courage it took for our commander in chief to land on an airstrip in the dark of night, a world away, to be with our troops on Thanksgiving. He was there for them as he was for us right here in New York City – Kerik, the police commissioner of New York City on Bush spending two hours serving and eating dinner with U.S. troops at the Baghdad airport

    And who could forget Mission Accomplished?

    Obama’s an amateur compared with that

  • F.D.R. in Hell

    Obama’s D-Day*

    Douche Day.

  • Jill

    Oh – and please go on reminding everyone who reestablisher the search for Bin Laden, found him and ordered him taken out. Good election strategy.

    And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority. Barack Obama telling everyine what he would do. And no surprises, he did it.

    Waaahh Waaaahhh Waaaahhhh from the moonbattery antipatriots

  • lao

    Why Obama Owns bin Laden

    Republicans are — forgive the cliché — shocked, shocked to discover that a presidential contender is “politicizing” an important national event. In this sense, “politicizing” might be best translated as “beating us up and we don’t have anything much to say to stop it.” The ad itself raises intriguing, substantive, legitimate questions — and the ferocious, sputtering Republican reaction is proof positive that they know it, or at least suspect it.

    The ad’s theme is that Obama made a courageous and risky decision to send in the SEALs. Here the President has history and facts on his side: it was a courageous and risky call. Had the mission failed, had it been another Desert One, the very people now criticizing the President for trumpeting the achievement would be beginning their second year of excoriating Obama for weakness and fecklessness.

  • wingmann

    “Campaigning on the SEALs taking out Osama is pretentious and pathetic, but other than voter fraud, it’s all Obama has”.

    YES he is pathetic and YES they will use voter fraud.

    (:|http://www.westernjournalism.com/spanish-company-will-count-american-votes-overseas-in-november/

  • wingmann
  • StanInTexas

    So let me see if I have this straight…

    Obama tries to prosecute Nave SEALS for a terrorist that claims he got a bloody nose during his capture, tried to stop their pay when he and the Democrats didn’t get their way in a budget fight, and NOW he wants to take credit for THEIR actions and call them heros?

    Did he have to sleep on it overnight before he made THAT decision?

  • wingmann

    He maketh me think of Macbeth all the time:

    Now minutely revolts upbraid his faith-breach
    Those he commands move only in command,
    Nothing in love. Now does he feel his title
    Hang loose about him, like a giant’s robe
    Upon a dwarfish thief.

  • SR

    Thanks to George W Bush for laying the groundwork for the killing of Osama bin laden. By increasing the numbers of special forces, providing more funding for special forces, and providing better equipment.
    He gets some of the credit.

  • lao

    LOL!! The Special Forces were formed in 1952 so we better also give Harry Truman some of the credit for killing bin Laden.

  • wingmann

    Hey bHUSSEINo…now that you have spiked the football again,refocus that LASER back on the economy and jobs like you have been the last 3 1/2 yrs…mmmmmk.

  • StanInTexas

    SR, isn’t it interesting how George Bush is to blame for the war, the economy, the political rhetoric, the shootings, and even the weather in this country THREE YEARS after he left Office. But Obama gets ALL the credit for taking out bin Laden?

    But it does not surprise me that his campaign would be hammering this non-action so much. It is, after all, his ONLY positive accomplishment in his term!

  • Jill

    Stan gets it straight:

    Deflect Deflect Deflect. Look over here … lookie here ….

    Waaahhh Waaaahhhh

  • StanInTexas

    So Jill, when do you and your ilk start calling Obama a “ChickenHawk”? Here he is trying to take credit for the actions of brave men that he runs down? When did Obama serve?

    ??????

  • lao

    Speaking of the Special Forces, they are doing other good work…under Obama’s direction.

    US special forces help in hunt for warlord Kony

    Sent by President Barack Obama at the end of 2011, the 100 U.S. soldiers are split up about 15 to 30 per base, bringing in American technology and experience to assist local forces.

  • lao

    Chickenhawk is a political epithet used in the United States as ad hominem argument to criticize somebody who strongly supports a war or other military action (i.e., a War Hawk), yet who actively avoided military service when of age.

    When Cheney became eligible for the draft, during the Vietnam War, he applied for and received five draft deferments. In 1989, The Washington Post writer George C. Wilson interviewed Cheney as the next Secretary of Defense; when asked about his deferments, Cheney reportedly said, “I had other priorities in the ’60s than military service.” Cheney testified during his confirmation hearings in 1989 that he received deferments to finish a college career that lasted six years rather than four, owing to sub par academic performance and the need to work to pay for his education. Initially, he was not called up because the Selective Service System was only taking older men. When he became eligible for the draft, he applied for four deferments in sequence. He applied for his fifth exemption on January 19, 1966, when his wife was about 10 weeks pregnant. He was granted 3-A status, the “hardship” exemption, which excluded men with children or dependent parents. In January 1967, Cheney turned 26 and was no longer eligible for the draft.

  • StanInTexas

    Chickenhawk is a term used by cowards (LIBERALS) to run down any action by a Republican, whether they have served or not.

    Bush served and was called a ChickenHawk. The term was NEVER used to describe Clinton or Obama, neither of whom served.

  • wingmann

    Here comes mr.gutsy now.
    http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Obama-riding-a-bike.jpg

    And here is mr.gutsy again.
    http://www.ihatethemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/effeminate-obama-baseball.jpg

    So he gets him on his watch…I will give him that.
    Gutsy.Tough call??I don’t see it.
    It’s the other 99.99% of his policies and ineptness that I abhor.
    So the trolls don’t don’t come at me with their adenoidal screed of”hyperbole”I will back off to 99.98%.

  • Jill

    Bush had seven years to get the brother of his business partners, bin Laden, he declared Mission Accomplished in 2003 and gave up. But sure, he gets credit for bin Laden. If he hadn’t chickened out at Tora Bora and then gone after al Qaeda 1,500 miles away in the wrong country instead of looking less than a couple of hundred miles away, bin Laden wouldn’t have still been at large for Obama to order the mission to get him.

  • Winston Smith

    That photo is CREEPY – even creepier is Obama probably wishes it were real.

    Captions:
    Send in the Clones
    Clone Wars

  • StanInTexas

    Jill, you are a pathetic LIAR! Absolutely NONE of what you posted @9:41 is true.

    Please learn some history or STFU!

  • Jill

    Chicken Hawk deflector shields up Capn. Stan.

    Good job, Wingman – standby for Red Herring Torpedos

  • http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/activists/wilberforce.html Wilberforce

    Oh, look at all the cliches fly! A thing of beauty :)

  • StanInTexas

    Jill says: April 30, 2012 at 9:44 am Chicken Hawk deflector shields up Capn. Stan.

    TRANSLATION – “I can do nothing but spout meaningless phrases in response to anything anyone says to me. I am too stupid to counter their arguments, so I will call them a deflection and declare victory!”

  • Jill

    You don’t need Beck’s blackboard and six levels of separation to link the Bush and bin Laden families, nor the special privileges that got to be flown out of the US when all other flights were banned.

    Osama Bin Laden was as absent from Iraq as weapons of mass destruction were, but he was in Abbotabad 180 miles from Tora Bora, after he walked out of Afghanistan in december 2001

    But you’re right, I haven’t learned all the history that Moonbattery et. al. has been busy rewriting

  • StanInTexas

    Just as I thought, Jill. No proof, just your usual “Because I said so!”

  • Jill

    You want proof Osama bin Laden was in Abbottabad? That he wasn’t in Iraq? That Bush failed to capture of kill him at Tora Bora? OK Here …

    Or that Bush declared ‘Mission Accomplished‘ in 2003?

    Or would you rather whine about Accipiter cooperii?

  • SR

    Osama gone in 2011. Obama gone in 2012….

  • StanInTexas

    Jill, you said “Bush had seven years to get the brother of his business partners”. THAT IS A LIE!

    And Bush did not declare “Mission Accomplished”, that was put there by the ship as an acknowledgement that THEY had accomplished their mission.

    Very pathetic attempt at justifying your lies.

  • lao

    Seeking a Legacy, Bush Cites Security

    (Bush) did acknowledge that “not finding weapons of mass destruction was a significant disappointment” following the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. He added that his victory-lap flight onto an aircraft carrier two months after the war started was in error. “Clearly, putting ‘Mission Accomplished’ on an aircraft carrier was a mistake,” Bush said.

  • Bubba

    Who the hell is this jill – lao’s left nut?

  • JT

    Is Jill here posing as a Liberal to make them look stupid? Because it’s working.
    We already have lao for that. LOL!!

  • FrankW

    Ok if bammy owns osama, then bammy owns all else that happened on his watch as well, the economy, unemployment, lack of oversight in various governmental entities (secret service, GSA scandals, EPA leader commentary, wikileaks, oil prices, national debt, and all other screw-ups since 1-20-09). I will give him all of the credit for what has happened on his watch. He just has to take the blame as well.
    But back to reality for a moment, bammy is not a hero for doing what is right, he was simply not the one who stopped it. The intelligence was gathered (without bammy), the mission was planned (without bammy), the mission was executed (OK so bammy ok’d it). osama should have been a target of opportunity. A kill him when possible, wherever he is, let state dept sort it out later, mission.
    And for jill, the last dem pres let osama become the nuisance he was. So at best it is a wash between the two democrap presidents (if Lewinsky had been testifying that day I bet we would have got osama).
    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/4/03534.shtml
    Oh yeah, BTW, the problem with Desert One was not the mission, was the approval to go in, in opposition to those with operational experience. That mission should have been a go/no go at a lower level but was hosed up by bureaucrats (namely carter, a liberal icon). When I was in the service we used that mission as a training tool (unofficially) to indicate good times to have radio interference with higher.

  • Jester

    Why Obama Owns bin Laden
    OK Here
    Seeking a Legacy, Bush Cites Security

    Wow. Three far-left wing op-ed pieces referenced to by two far-left wing DNC political hacks. Gee. How shocking and original….(zzzzzzzzzzz……)

  • James

    It’s been documented that Obozo held up the operation while the generals waited for him to come in off the golf course to attend the meeting. Note the golf shirt he’s wearing in the original pic. Someone gave him a jacket to help cover it up.

  • Joe

    That picture (the original unmodified one) cracks me up. Oboob is sitting there in the corner looking like it was “bring your dopey kid to work day” and he’s the kid. He definately doesn’t look like he’s actually in charge of anything. Maybe getting coffee for the others. I could see that.

  • SR

    Mitt Romney, asked if he would have given the order to go after Osama Bin Laden, as President Obama’s new video and his campaign aides have suggested he wouldn’t have done, per POLITICO’s Ginger Gibson: “Of course, even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.”

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/04/romney-on-obl-even-jimmy-carter-would-have-given-that-122038.html

  • SR

    Obama’s bin Laden ad “despicable,” says … Arianna Huffington

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/30/obamas-bin-laden-ad-despicable-says-arianna-huffington/

  • IslandLifer

    Jill is Lao. Lao is Jill. Creepy!

  • Bob Roberts

    You know, chances are they would have grabbed bin Laden and brought him out had the 2nd chopper not crash landed.

    Getting someone like bin Laden isn’t something that is done overnight. It took years for him to get complacent and it took years, using THE TOOLS THAT WERE PUT IN PLACE UNDER BUSH THAT DEMOCRATS RAILED AGAINST, INCLUDING OBAMA, to get bin Laden. With the way Obama is decimating the military we likely won’t see future ops like this one for a long, long time.

    Instead we’ll see new wars from the “Peace Prize” winner, going after non-national security targets like Kony.

    Even moonbats are saying that Obama’s gone too far with this one. See SR post at 12:30, above.

  • http://Huh? 70Stage1

    Lao & Jill: Regarding blaiming Bush again about invading Iraq for not having WMD’s, etc:

    “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
    - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

    “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
    - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    “We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
    - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

    “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
    - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
    Letter to President Clinton.
    (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

    “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
    - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    “Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
    - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

    “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
    - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

    “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
    - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
    - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
    - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
    - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

    “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
    - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

    “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
    – Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

    “He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
    – Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
    – Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
    – Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

    “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
    – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
    - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    “We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”
    - Joe Biden in 2002:

    Damned if did,……damned if we didn’t.

  • Jill

    Jill, you said “Bush had seven years to get the brother of his business partners”. THAT IS A LIE!

    Ooooh scary ALL CAPS.

    So let’s see. Seven years? the 911 attacks were on Sept 1 2001. Bush’s two terms took him to January 2009. So THAT’S NOT A LIE! Of course he had briefings earlier about the bin Laden threat, so you could say he had more than seven years, but I’ll let that pass.

    Were the bin Laden family business partners with the Bushes? The bin Laden’s had over $2 million in Carlyle’s CPII program, Shafig bin Laden (Osama’s brother) was among a select elite of large investors at the Ritz when the attack went down. HW Bush was on the board of directors and a senior advisor to Carlyle. THAT’S NOT A LIE!

    in 1979, Bush’s first business, Arbusto Energy, obtained financing from James Bath, a Houstonian and close family friend. One of many investors, Bath gave Bush $50,000 for a 5 percent stake in Arbusto. At the time, Bath was the sole U.S. business representative for Salem bin Laden, brother to Osama. Wall Street Journal 1991 said “The number of BCCI-connected people who had dealings with Harken — all since George W. Bush came on board — raises the question of whether they mask an effort to cozy up to a presidential son” SO THAT’S NOT A LIE!

    Of course Mitt Romney would say he would have given the order. He’s said precisely the opposite in the past, so it would be surprising is he didn’t flip-flop. He has every position covered

    Romney: I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally (Pakistan) of ours

    But the key is that just as Bush was never in a position to give the order, Romney would never have been either since, like Bush, he wasn’t interested:

    Romney: I think I wouldn’t want to over-concentrate on Bin Laden.
    Bush: And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

    Fortunately we have a Commander in Chief who was concerned, and said:
    But let me make this clear: There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will
    AND HE DID. Unlike President All Hat and no Cattle and Wannabee Mitt Etch-a-Sketch

    Reality sucks for Moonbattery antipatriots, who would rather see Osama go free than a Democrat President bag him.

  • StanInTexas

    So, according to your own ALLEGED proof, Osama bin Laden was NOT the bother of George W Bush’s business partner.

    Thank you for admitting your lie, Jill. You may go now!

  • Adam

    Jill,
    Attempting to connect the Bushes to the bin Ladens is a moot point, for three reasons:
    1. The bin Ladens are a very large, very wealthy, and very influential family. Osama’s father had like a dozen kids, they brought him a ton of grandkids, and then there’s all the cousins, nieces and nephews. It would be pretty much impossible to have any kind of business dealings in the Middle East without at least one of the bin Ladens being involved in some way.
    2. With the obvious exception of Osama, the bin Laden family is known for being quite friendly towards the West.
    3. Tying into the previous point somewhat, Osama has always been the black sheep of his family. He was an illegitimate son to begin with, born from one of his father’s concubines rather than one of the family matriarchs, so already from birth he was not exactly held in a position of high regard among his family. The bin Laden family officially disowned Osama when he was in his twenties as they realized how radical and dangerous he had become, and when 9/11 happened, none of his family members had spoken to him for years.
    So, it really doesn’t prove any kind of point to attempt to connect Bush to the bin Laden family.

  • StanInTexas

    Adam, not only that, all she proved was that a member of the bin Laden family invested in some of the same businesses as the Bush family did. By that connection, I am business partners with Warren Buffet.

    But this is exactly the kind og twists and turns you get from a Liberal when they try to tie Bush to anything. She even ignorantly brought up the Presidential Daily Briefing (in passing) to further discredit Bush. But she only discredits herself as the PDF did NOT warn of the 9/11 attacks.

  • Bob Roberts

    Folks, since “Jill” is either our usual troll or a very close clone, it’s obvious that we should put “her” on the troll list and ignore “her”, except perhaps on Saturdays.

    What do you think?

  • Bob Roberts

    StanInTexas says: April 30, 2012 at 1:44 pm

    ————-
    The line that made me laugh?

    Reality sucks for Moonbattery antipatriots, who would rather see Osama go free than a Democrat President bag him.

    Every one of us is glad Osama is dead and none of us ever said we’re upset that it was done during Obama’s term.

    What idiot moonbat trolls don’t get is that we’re sick and tired of Obama making a big deal about an operation he had put in the hands of an Admiral who was “disposable” in case it went south.

    You know that if Osama hadn’t been there or if the Paki’s had gotten involved and it got ugly he would have simply thrown the Admiral under the bus then would have run over him several times.

    So, to recap, NONE OF US IS UPSET THAT OSAMA IS DEAD NOR ARE WE UPSET IT HAPPENED WHILE OBAMA WAS IN OFFICE. Better during Obama’s SINGLE TERM then later.

  • TrickleUpPolitics

    The hypocrisy of libs complaining about Bush ushering the Bin Laden family out of America right after 9-11 bugs me, although Jill’s posts illustrate why. According to her, Osama’s actions tar the entire family. Letting the Bin Laden family leave after 9-11 removed them from threats and possible physical harm. But the same libs complained about the FBI questioning Muslims after 9-11. So, which is it? Muslims are off limits or not? Hypocrite, thy name is lib troll.

  • FrankW

    btw jill, where is your condemnation of clinton for not finding politically expedient to kill osama on several occasions?
    No one here has ever said they were not happy osama was dead. We just feel (and have proven to some degree) that obama was not the lynchpin, in fact obama’s involvement came close to blowing the chance to get him.
    So if being in business with osama’s family is so evil, why are you supporting someone who was indoctrinated in the very same faith that trained the 9/11 hijackers?
    Anti-patriots? Because we dislike liberals? If libs had their way we would all be speaking German (they were against involvement in WWII). But then again with libs in charge it is a race between Arabic and Spanish for our future language (Spanabic???).

  • StanInTexas

    Frank, if Liberals had their way, we would still be a slave-owning nation.

  • wingmann

    Boy,I can’t wait for the movie.

  • SR

    He killed Osama. Now let him finish killing the economy.

    ttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NBN52yWiF1g/T54gS1Yr1rI/AAAAAAAAEZE/KGRWMXeIpoc/s640/OsamaGolfPoster.jpg

  • SR
  • Bad Barry

    It was 3am when the President was asked… “Do you want fries with that?”

    The President said in a load and clear voice with no hesitation what so ever… “Yes and super size it.”

    It doesn’t get more decisive than that.

  • lao

    @1:20 bobby sez: Getting someone like bin Laden isn’t something that is done overnight. It took years for him to get complacent and it took years, using THE TOOLS THAT WERE PUT IN PLACE UNDER BUSH THAT DEMOCRATS RAILED AGAINST, INCLUDING OBAMA, to get bin Laden.

    You are referring to torture, AKA “enhanced interrogation.

    Let’s see what John McCain had to say about that.

    Bin Laden’s death and the debate over torture

    Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently claimed that “the intelligence that led to bin Laden . . . began with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information — including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.” That is false.

    The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden — as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda.

    In fact, the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced false and misleading information. He specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married and ceased his role as an al-Qaeda facilitator — none of which was true. According to the staff of the Senate intelligence committee, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in al-Qaeda and his true relationship to bin Laden — was obtained through standard, noncoercive means.

  • Alan

    No, sorry. I’ll give credit where credit is due: killing bin Laden was one of Obama’s better decisions.

    I was long afraid OBL would be captured and put on trial, given fawning worldwide media coverage with his big puppy-dog eyes, and using the court as a sounding board to whip up yet more anti-American sentiment. Terrorism’s most important weapon today is the camera. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s trial will be a media circus, bet on it. Just shoot the bastard(s).

  • TaterSalad

    U.S. Navy Seals are now slamming the President for using them in bid to take credit for bin Laden killing during election campaign. Yet, The President tells everyone to keep things quiet so as to NOT stir up the Muslim world that could incite riots and American troops deaths.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137636/SEALs-slam-Obama-using-ammunition-bid-credit-bin-Laden-killing-election-campaign.html

  • Douchebag lao

    LOL!! John McCain!! As if he’s relevant anymore. You douche nozzle LOL!!

  • SR

    Former CIA counterterror chief: Pelosi was briefed in 2002 about “enhanced interrogation” waterboarding and didn’t object.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/30/former-cia-counterterror-chief-pelosi-was-briefed-in-2002-about-waterboarding-and-didnt-object/

  • SR

    SEALs slam Obama for using them as ‘ammunition’ in bid to take credit for bin Laden killing during election campaign

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137636/SEALs-slam-Obama-using-ammunition-bid-credit-bin-Laden-killing-election-campaign.html

  • Jester

    THAT’S NOT A LIE!
    THAT’S NOT A LIE!
    Bin Laden’s death and the debate over torture

    Wow. Three MORE far-left wing op-ed pieces referenced to by the same two far-left wing DNC political hacks. Gee. How shocking and original… AGAIN(zzzzzzzzzzz……)

  • Bob Roberts

    SEALs slam Obama for using them as ‘ammunition’ in bid to take credit for bin Laden killing during election campaign

    Serving and former US Navy SEALs have slammed President Barack Obama for taking the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and accused him of using Special Forces operators as ‘ammunition’ for his re-election campaign.
    The SEALs spoke out to MailOnline after the Obama campaign released an ad entitled ‘One Chance’.
    In it President Bill Clinton is featured saying that Mr Obama took ‘the harder and the more honourable path’ in ordering that bin Laden be killed. The words ‘Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?’ are then displayed.

    More than likely, Romney would have made it a bigger priority sooner rather than wasting time trying to destroy our economy and bloat our government.

  • Bob Roberts

    Caught the troll in another lie!

    lao says: April 30, 2012 at 6:16 pm
    You are referring to torture, AKA “enhanced interrogation.
    —————-
    No, I wasn’t.

  • lao

    LOL!!

    Oh? Well then what were you referring to? Here’s your quote.

    THE TOOLS THAT WERE PUT IN PLACE UNDER BUSH THAT DEMOCRATS RAILED AGAINST, INCLUDING OBAMA, to get bin Laden.

  • lao

    oops, incomplete quote: Getting someone like bin Laden isn’t something that is done overnight. It took years for him to get complacent and it took years, using THE TOOLS THAT WERE PUT IN PLACE UNDER BUSH THAT DEMOCRATS RAILED AGAINST, INCLUDING OBAMA, to get bin Laden.

  • Belfast

    Obama : We are gonna get Bin Laden. (vague)
    Military :Here’s the plan in detail. Do we go.
    Obama :Lemme think.
    Obama: provided everything in YOUR plan is accurate, and there is nothing missing, and I haven’t been misled anywhere. OK.
    In other words a lawyer’s qualified go-ahead. Ten to one a layer drafted it for him.

  • Belfast

    Sorry not layer, lawyer.

  • FrankW

    If torture was used I am fine with that. What I think of as torture probably was not used.
    I disagree with you on what constitutes torture. What defines torture has nothing to do with being unusual. Quite often I use unusual punishments for my kids, invisible chair, arms straight out while holding a guitar, painting a wall (no paint on brush while repeating their transgression out loud). Is that torture?
    Is torture something unpleasant or painful? If so I was tortured this morning (and it involved blood being extracted from me). I had a an appointment at the lab for yearly tests. Also I have had to stand in line for a drivers license (while rap played in the diverse office waiting area). That was certainly unpleasant.
    I do not care if they cut off KSM’s arm and feed it to him rectally. If you are a terrorist (muzzie or other) all options should be on the table.

  • Willowfield

    Speaking of the Special Forces, they are doing other good work…under Obama’s direction.

    US special forces help in hunt for warlord Kony

    Sent by President Barack Obama at the end of 2011, the 100 U.S. soldiers are split up about 15 to 30 per base, bringing in American technology and experience to assist local forces.

    Looking for a dude that disappeared five years ago?

  • Pingback: Why Obama will win. Or possibly lose. | Eternity Matters

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy