not so cool hand barrak

[drobeski 3,061]

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/05/patriotism-is-last-refuge-of-liberal.html?m=1

 

 

Patriotism is the Last Refuge of a Liberal

 

 

 

 

The man who came into office promising multilateral engagement, no more torture and a civilian justice system for terrorists, now has only one accomplishment to his name. A unilateral invasion and assassination based on intelligence gained through enhanced interrogation, carried out by men whom his supporters had once condemned as a secret assassination squad. What a failure Obama is that even the one success to his name is a testament to the failure of his own ideas.

 

Liberals joyfully proclaimed that the One would redeem America's reputation. No longer would we torture terrorists, detain them in prison camps and try them with military tribunals. A shining new golden age was here. Two lawyers to every Al-Qaeda terrorist and a national apology for going outside the civilian justice system. Now three years later, the only thing they have to celebrate is that their man trashed every one of their hopes and dreams just to keep his head above water in the polls.

 

 

Samuel Johnson opined that, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". And now the scoundrels are flocking to the red, white and blue as a a failed leader and his gaggle of supporters eagerly trade in their counterculture cred for apple pie and the Fourth of July. News stories are reinventing Obama as the Rambo of the Monitor, fitting moniker for the JFK of the Teleprompter, the man who courageously authorized a decision that would have been a no brainer for any American. A failure on every other front, his last refuge is also the thing he hates the most.  

 

 

Smart power? Try stupid power. Obama wasn't willing to set aside his ideals for the sake of national security. Instead he did it because his ideals were too unpopular. The man who wouldn't sacrifice his politics for the sake of American lives, sacrificed them for his own popularity. It's not just that Obama suffers from the wrong ideas, but that he values his ideas more than America, but less than himself.

 

 

It wasn't smart power that took down Bin Laden. It wasn't the multilateral cooperation that Obama turned into his trademark when running for office. Instead it was an old fashioned unilateral operation that didn't even notify the Pakistanis ahead of time and even jammed their radar. An operation that assumed we couldn't trust our Muslim allies because they sympathize more with Al-Qaeda than they do with us. A unilateral assault that Pakistan would never have approved and that could even be considered an act of war.

 

 

Torture, Gitmo, Rendition and all those dirty words that stood for the dumb old war. The one where we grabbed terrorists and shook the truth out of them. Where we seized them wherever they were, without regard for jurisdiction or civil rights, got them into a room and dunked their heads until they talked. Where brave men went out into the night to get things done and it was best not to ask too many questions about how it got done or count the collateral damage when they were finished. That dumb old war is the one that scored a victory here.

 

 

And liberals have suddenly learned to love that dumb old war. The same one that not so long ago made them want to be Canadians. No more quibbles about waterboarding or giving Osama a trial. Now all you need is a kill order and a lot of stories about Obama heroically risking his life by watching it happen from thousands of miles away. Where Bush went to the trouble of getting Saddam alive and turning him over for trial, this administration decided it would be easier and more convenient to shoot Bin Laden full of holes the first chance they got. (Though it's anyone's guess if the decision was made at the top or really determined by the men in the field who weren't up for another round of debates on where to hold the trial.) Not better for America, better for themselves.

 

 

Obama's smart war died along with Bin Laden. The only thing his multilateralism has gotten us into is an entirely new war in Libya. The 'smart war' that ended up looking exactly like the dumb war he denounced in his widely circulated 2002 speech, a rash war, a cynical attempt to shove an ideological agenda down our throats, against a man who was no imminent or direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors. But now Bush's dumb war looks smart and Obama's smart war looks stupid.

 

 

Taking down Bin Laden didn't begin with Obama looking at a monitor, but with invading Afghanistan to capture and interrogate terrorists, beginning the long process of unraveling Al-Qaeda. All that Obama deserves credit for is that unlike Bill Clinton, when the word came up from the men in the field that they had a chance to get Bin Laden, he eventually went along. Which he might not have done without an election breathing down his neck.

 

 

Obama inherited a War on Terror that he never wanted, and after doing his best to scuttle it, he was forced to carry it on anyway. His administration has sabotaged terrorist prosecutions, but it was forced to back away from civilian trials or closing Gitmo. And by virtue of having his ass in the chair at the right time, he now takes credit for a victory that belongs to the men who were fighting and dying in the field, while he was yawning his way through Illinois State Senate sessions.

 

 

Truman didn't claim credit for defeating Hitler, even though the German surrender came while he was in office. It's just as ridiculous for Obama and his supporters to do cartwheels because a prolonged campaign against Islamic terrorists happened to bear fruit on his watch. He might as well claim credit for the highway system and the continuing implementation of every single law and safety regulation predating his administration.

 

 

The Bush Administration did the heavy lifting here, and the Obama Administration is taking the credit. That's nothing new in politics, where the policies of one administration carry over to the next, but the one most associated with a positive outcome gets the credit. It's cynical, but not extraordinarily so. What is cynical is how many media mouthpieces insist on hanging up a "Mission Accomplished" banner, as if we went into Afghanistan to get one man. And only that one man. As if thousands of lives had been lost just to kill that one man. 

 

 

Now we're told that security measures can be dismantled and the troops can go home. There's no more need to worry about terrorism. It was all taken care of when Obama watched a satellite pay per view execution.

 

 

Bin Laden was the public face of Al-Qaeda, but if he hadn't been, it would have been someone else. It didn't have to be Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda. We think of Islamic terrorism in terms of organizations, but the organizations are only functional executions of an idea. The idea is that for Islam to triumph, its followers must wage an armed conflict of terror around the world. Al-Qaeda was one projection of that idea. There were and are many others.

 

 

You don't need a Bin Laden to have an Al-Qaeda, and you don't need an Al-Qaeda to have terrorism. Bin Laden's death fulfilled the cycle of an Islamic terrorist's life as a martyr. In the short term, our enemies have been reminded that we can and will get to them no matter where they hide. But in the long term, Bin Laden's death is a canonization that completes his place in the Islamist narrative. Now his story is told and will be retold over and over again.

 

The problem was never one man in a cave in Afghanistan or an estate in Pakistan. Islamic terror derives from a culture of supremacy. And Obama has spent enough time in the Muslim world to know that. Osama's death allows him and us to count coup, but the problem is getting worse, not better. Afghanistan and Pakistan were the homeland of terror, but the road that Bin Laden's butchers followed lies through Europe and America. Muslim immigrants and students moving out into the West mark the trail of terror. That road is a dagger pointed at the heart of the free world.

 

 

The interoperability of Pakistan's intelligence service and military with Al-Qaeda is not some unique phenomenon, it reflects the will of the Pakistani people, only 3 percent of whom think Bin Laden was a terrorist. Muslim terrorists work hand in glove with Muslim countries, even when they fight and quarrel with them. Because they have more in common with each other, than they do with us. Just as we support people who share our culture and values, so do they. Muslims may have different views on Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, but they still like them more than they do us. Which is why Bin Laden was able to live comfortably not far from the capitol without any worries that he would be turned in.

 

 

The problem was never Al-Qaeda. The problem is Islam. While the SEALS were off putting an end to Bin Laden, the growth of Islam in the free world continues to pose a dire threat to the survival of the free world. Osama's quick burial showed that we were still cowed by his religion's demands even in death. Killing one man did not end that regime of terror. Not so long as it remains lodged inside the heads of our leaders. Patriotism is the first resort of patriots and the last resort of men who have already sold out their country.

[MedStudent 56]

Why do you hate America?

[NewbieJr 541]

Meh. I give you credit. You weren't a partison-hack-asswhole for three days. Welcome back.

[drobeski 3,061]

Why do you hate America?

[drobeski 3,061]

Meh. I give you credit. You weren't a partison-hack-asswhole for three days. Welcome back.

It's not about me, what's you're opinion on the piece ? Tough to argue, no ?

[heavy-set 39]

Obama 1

Osama 0

Bush 0

[MedStudent 56]

It's not about me, what's you're opinion on the piece ? Tough to argue, no ?

 

Tough to argue? LOL. Link to Obama taking all the credit for it like your artice says he does? LOL! I love how the article says Obama only did this because he had an election coming up. In hs debates with McCain he said he would kill Bin Laden. He also says he would pursue terrorists in Pakistan with or without their permission and the republicans were saying " Oh, No! How could you disrespect our trusted ally Pakistan!" LOL. Lets be honest here. Bush lost the focus on Bin Laden. Obama said he would refocus on getting Bin Laden and he did.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze_pG6Q62HA

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKHsjRzUTLQ

[heavy-set 39]

Tough to argue? LOL. Link to Obama taking all the credit for it like your artice says he does? LOL! I love how the article says Obama only did this because he had an election coming up. In hs debates with McCain he said he would kill Bin Laden. He also says he would pursue terrorists in Pakistan with or without their permission and the republicans were saying " Oh, No! How could you disrespect our trusted ally Pakistan!" LOL. Lets be honest here. Bush lost the focus on Bin Laden. Obama said he would refocus on getting Bin Laden and he did.

 

I not republican or democrat, I vote for the person that makes the most sense. But to say bush lost focus is a joke. killing OBL took years and years of intel, much of which started and took place under bush. If bush could have won a 3rd term, OBL would still be dead

[IMMensaMind 460]

Tough to argue? LOL. Link to Obama taking all the credit for it like your artice says he does? LOL! I love how the article says Obama only did this because he had an election coming up. In hs debates with McCain he said he would kill Bin Laden. He also says he would pursue terrorists in Pakistan with or without their permission and the republicans were saying " Oh, No! How could you disrespect our trusted ally Pakistan!" LOL. Lets be honest here. Bush lost the focus on Bin Laden. Obama said he would refocus on getting Bin Laden and he did.

 

Oh, how far your nose is up Obama's ass. Do you need a crowbar? Both Administrations deserve credit.

 

Bush deserves quite a lot, and Obama is taking credit that doesn't belong to him in the process

[penultimatestraw 473]

Oh, how far your nose is up Obama's ass. Do you need a crowbar? Both Administrations deserve credit.

 

Bush deserves quite a lot, and Obama is taking credit that doesn't belong to him in the process

Do you agree with the OP?

 

Also, I don't think losing focus means that W ignored OBL altogether. Clearly, the military/intelligence under both presidents are the ones who paved the way to catch and kill him. We'll never know if W would have executed endgame decisions like BO, however, so it is fairly pointless to argue.

[IMMensaMind 460]

Do you agree with the OP?

 

Of course. Do you find something in the article with which you disagree? I cannot find anything.

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

I not republican or democrat, I vote for the person that makes the most sense. But to say bush lost focus is a joke. killing OBL took years and years of intel, much of which started and took place under bush. If bush could have won a 3rd term, OBL would still be dead

I kinda think he did. Nothing much has changed in the way of policies.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Of course. Do you find something in the article with which you disagree? I cannot find anything.

But now Bush's dumb war looks smart and Obama's smart war looks stupid.

Bush's stated purpose, find and eliminate WMD, never came to fruition. Obama's did.

 

I realize the piece is emphasizing the tactics used to gain the objectives, where Obama ultimately chose old-fashioned hit-and-run assassination (not Bush's invention BTW) over diplomacy. As is often the case, this type of rhetoric is so black and white that it ignores the complexity behind such decisions.

 

Would you have preferred BO let Pakistan in on his plan? How does the author know OBL is not an "imminent threat"?

 

And the timing is fortunate, but I do not think BO's decision had anything to due with his popularity or impending election. Plus he is not taking all the credit.

 

Lastly, I think there are quite a few liberals who are not celebrating this event. To acknowledge this requires not labeling all with liberal viewpoints the same. But it is a lot easier to view BO and those with different political ideology than oneself this way, I guess.

[MDC 6,013]

It didn't take Republicans long to show their true stripes.

 

Don't worry drobeski, you can always keep rooting for another 9/11 to make the Great Decider look better.

[rholio 339]

Of course. Do you find something in the article with which you disagree? I cannot find anything.

 

Lots. It's a fluff piece just like the other article that was praising Obama.

[IMMensaMind 460]

Lots. It's a fluff piece just like the other article that was praising Obama.

 

I don't consider this a fluff piece; it's very critical. When you say 'lots', to what are you referring specifically?

[rholio 339]

I don't consider this a fluff piece; it's very critical. When you say 'lots', to what are you referring specifically?

 

It's very critical, agreed... doesn't seem to let facts get in the way either. It's an opinion piece from someone with an agenda, nothing more.

 

The man who came into office promising multilateral engagement, no more torture and a civilian justice system for terrorists, now has only one accomplishment to his name. A unilateral invasion and assassination based on intelligence gained through enhanced interrogation, carried out by men whom his supporters had once condemned as a secret assassination squad. What a failure Obama is that even the one success to his name is a testament to the failure of his own ideas

 

I've heard of Obamacare, surprised the author hasn't. Not agreeing with something doesn't mean it hasn't happened. There was something about a stimulus package as well.

 

Samuel Johnson opined that, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". And now the scoundrels are flocking to the red, white and blue as a a failed leader and his gaggle of supporters eagerly trade in their counterculture cred for apple pie and the Fourth of July. News stories are reinventing Obama as the Rambo of the Monitor, fitting moniker for the JFK of the Teleprompter, the man who courageously authorized a decision that would have been a no brainer for any American. A failure on every other front, his last refuge is also the thing he hates the most.

 

Anyone claiming the decision is a no brainer, likely doesn't have one. We went into an allied country to apprehend / assassinate a fugitive without that country's knowledge.

 

It wasn't smart power that took down Bin Laden. It wasn't the multilateral cooperation that Obama turned into his trademark when running for office. Instead it was an old fashioned unilateral operation that didn't even notify the Pakistanis ahead of time and even jammed their radar. An operation that assumed we couldn't trust our Muslim allies because they sympathize more with Al-Qaeda than they do with us. A unilateral assault that Pakistan would never have approved and that could even be considered an act of war.

 

Looks like he can't decide if it was a no brainer or not...

 

Most of the rest is strictly the writers opinion, with a strict agenda of making sure to give no credit at all to anyone involved that isn't a Republican.

[Brad GLuckman 518]

Obama 1

Osama 0

Bush 0

 

Whether you are for or against Bush, three of his extremely controversial decisions all played a vital role in finding Bin Laden.

 

Guantanamo

Secret American military files from Guantanamo Bay, leaked to Wikileaks and seen by The Daily Telegraph, suggest that al-Kuwaiti may have been with bin Laden ever since he disappeared from the Tora Bora mountains in Afghanistan in 2001.

 

EIT

Current and former U.S. officials say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, provided the nom de guerre of one of bin Laden’s most trusted aides. The CIA got similar information from Mohammed’s successor, Abu Faraj al-Libi. Both were subjected to harsh interrogation tactics inside CIA prisons in Poland and Romania

 

Iraq

The file suggests that the courier’s identity was provided to the US by another key source, the al-Qaida facilitator Hassan Ghul, who was captured in Iraq in 2004 and interrogated by the CIA. Ghul was never sent to Guantanamo but was believed to have been taken to a prison in Pakistan.

He told the Americans that al-Kuwaiti travelled with bin Laden…

The picture that emerges from al-Qahtani’s Guantanamo file supports statements given in the last 24 hours by US officials, who named Ghul as the “linchpin” in the intelligence operation to find bin Laden.

 

 

Daily Telegraph Article

Hotair.com Link - A conservative Blog

 

ETA because I know it's coming: I understand the goal of the Iraq War was not to find and capture Hassan Ghul

[MDC 6,013]

Whether you are for or against Bush, three of his extremely controversial decisions all played a vital role in finding Bin Laden.

 

Guantanamo

 

 

EIT

 

Iraq

 

 

Daily Telegraph Article

Hotair.com Link - A conservative Blog

 

ETA because I know it's coming: I understand the goal of the Iraq War was not to find and capture Hassan Ghul

 

KS Muhammed denied knowing bin Laden's courier while he was being waterboarded; he admitted it months later under ordinary interrogations.

 

How does that validate "enhanced interrogation techniques"? Seems to me like it proves the exact opposite.

[IMMensaMind 460]

It's very critical, agreed... doesn't seem to let facts get in the way either. It's an opinion piece from someone with an agenda, nothing more.

 

 

 

I've heard of Obamacare, surprised the author hasn't. Not agreeing with something doesn't mean it hasn't happened. There was something about a stimulus package as well.

 

Obamacare is not yet law, is it? It is still being fought; it still could lose funding.

 

Anyone claiming the decision is a no brainer, likely doesn't have one. We went into an allied country to apprehend / assassinate a fugitive without that country's knowledge.

 

A bit hyperbolic, agreed. However, I also agree that it would have been an easy decision to make wrt Pakistan. This was a long-standing warning from both Bush and Obama: that any country found to be harboring a known terrorist wasn't going to be cowtowed to in order to get him.

 

I do put this in the 'no-brainer' category, for most Americans. That is to say: very very easy choice.

 

Looks like he can't decide if it was a no brainer or not...

 

I don't think noting that you're acting with impunity against a faux ally makes it any less a 'no-brainer'. I think he's simply being honest with all the circumstances which would buckle the knees of those without the correct principles.

 

If you possess the proper principles, this was indeed a 'no-brainer'. This operation was many years in the making. The SEAL and Black-Ops teams repeatedly practiced this maneuver. Everything was in place. It didn't need to take Obama 16 hours to make this decision; my gut tells me that the reason it did was so Obama's team could have time to best strategize how to get the most mileage out of this feat; not about the geopolitical ramifications of it all.

 

Most of the rest is strictly the writers opinion, with a strict agenda of making sure to give no credit at all to anyone involved that isn't a Republican.

 

Perhaps, but this is just your opinion as a non-Republican, and you don't highlight at all what you mean for scrutiny.

[DanXIII 8]

werds tl;dr

[Phurfur 70]

Obamacare is not yet law, is it? It is still being fought; it still could lose funding.

 

 

Yet they have spent billions of dollars on it already. How does that wourk?

[Phurfur 70]

KS Muhammed denied knowing bin Laden's courier while he was being waterboarded; he admitted it months later under ordinary interrogations.

 

How does that validate "enhanced interrogation techniques"? Seems to me like it proves the exact opposite.

 

 

Priceless! First of all this is a lie (I heard the Director od the CIA discredit this himself) but the fact you could even believe it is a joke.

 

Let me see, they waterboard him for months with no success. Then they start sitting down with him with a cup of coffee and a dounut and he spills his guts. I guess gullible should be another trait we add to the leftist profile.

[MDC 6,013]

Priceless! First of all this is a lie (I heard the Director od the CIA discredit this himself) but the fact you could even believe it is a joke.

 

Let me see, they waterboard him for months with no success. Then they start sitting down with him with a cup of coffee and a dounut and he spills his guts. I guess gullible should be another trait we add to the leftist profile.

 

According to officials yes, that's what happened:

 

Mohammed did not reveal the names while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He identified them many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic.

 

Link

 

This also occurred years ago, which sort of blows the whole "ticking timebomb" argument for torture to smithereens. Not only was there no urgent need for torture but it didn't even glean better information than standard interrogation. On what planet does this justify torture?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Waterboarding isn't torture.

[rholio 339]

Perhaps, but this is just your opinion as a non-Republican, and you don't highlight at all what you mean for scrutiny.

 

You want me to point out the writers opinions? Instead of breaking it down to walk you through it, how about I just highlight what I'm talking about? Would that fit the agenda?

 

Patriotism is the Last Refuge of a Liberal

 

 

 

 

The man who came into office promising multilateral engagement, no more torture and a civilian justice system for terrorists, now has only one accomplishment to his name. A unilateral invasion and assassination based on intelligence gained through enhanced interrogation, carried out by men whom his supporters had once condemned as a secret assassination squad. What a failure Obama is that even the one success to his name is a testament to the failure of his own ideas.

Liberals joyfully proclaimed that the One would redeem America's reputation. No longer would we torture terrorists, detain them in prison camps and try them with military tribunals. A shining new golden age was here. Two lawyers to every Al-Qaeda terrorist and a national apology for going outside the civilian justice system. Now three years later, the only thing they have to celebrate is that their man trashed every one of their hopes and dreams just to keep his head above water in the polls.

 

 

Samuel Johnson opined that, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". And now the scoundrels are flocking to the red, white and blue as a a failed leader and his gaggle of supporters eagerly trade in their counterculture cred for apple pie and the Fourth of July. News stories are reinventing Obama as the Rambo of the Monitor, fitting moniker for the JFK of the Teleprompter, the man who courageously authorized a decision that would have been a no brainer for any American. A failure on every other front, his last refuge is also the thing he hates the most.

 

 

Smart power? Try stupid power. Obama wasn't willing to set aside his ideals for the sake of national security. Instead he did it because his ideals were too unpopular. The man who wouldn't sacrifice his politics for the sake of American lives, sacrificed them for his own popularity. It's not just that Obama suffers from the wrong ideas, but that he values his ideas more than America, but less than himself.

 

 

It wasn't smart power that took down Bin Laden. It wasn't the multilateral cooperation that Obama turned into his trademark when running for office. Instead it was an old fashioned unilateral operation that didn't even notify the Pakistanis ahead of time and even jammed their radar. An operation that assumed we couldn't trust our Muslim allies because they sympathize more with Al-Qaeda than they do with us. A unilateral assault that Pakistan would never have approved and that could even be considered an act of war.

 

 

Torture, Gitmo, Rendition and all those dirty words that stood for the dumb old war. The one where we grabbed terrorists and shook the truth out of them. Where we seized them wherever they were, without regard for jurisdiction or civil rights, got them into a room and dunked their heads until they talked. Where brave men went out into the night to get things done and it was best not to ask too many questions about how it got done or count the collateral damage when they were finished. That dumb old war is the one that scored a victory here.

 

 

And liberals have suddenly learned to love that dumb old war. The same one that not so long ago made them want to be Canadians. No more quibbles about waterboarding or giving Osama a trial. Now all you need is a kill order and a lot of stories about Obama heroically risking his life by watching it happen from thousands of miles away. Where Bush went to the trouble of getting Saddam alive and turning him over for trial, this administration decided it would be easier and more convenient to shoot Bin Laden full of holes the first chance they got. (Though it's anyone's guess if the decision was made at the top or really determined by the men in the field who weren't up for another round of debates on where to hold the trial.) Not better for America, better for themselves.

 

Obama's smart war died along with Bin Laden. The only thing his multilateralism has gotten us into is an entirely new war in Libya. The 'smart war' that ended up looking exactly like the dumb war he denounced in his widely circulated 2002 speech, a rash war, a cynical attempt to shove an ideological agenda down our throats, against a man who was no imminent or direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors. But now Bush's dumb war looks smart and Obama's smart war looks stupid.

 

Taking down Bin Laden didn't begin with Obama looking at a monitor, but with invading Afghanistan to capture and interrogate terrorists, beginning the long process of unraveling Al-Qaeda. All that Obama deserves credit for is that unlike Bill Clinton, when the word came up from the men in the field that they had a chance to get Bin Laden, he eventually went along. Which he might not have done without an election breathing down his neck.

 

Obama inherited a War on Terror that he never wanted, and after doing his best to scuttle it, he was forced to carry it on anyway. His administration has sabotaged terrorist prosecutions, but it was forced to back away from civilian trials or closing Gitmo. And by virtue of having his ass in the chair at the right time, he now takes credit for a victory that belongs to the men who were fighting and dying in the field, while he was yawning his way through Illinois State Senate sessions.

 

 

Truman didn't claim credit for defeating Hitler, even though the German surrender came while he was in office. It's just as ridiculous for Obama and his supporters to do cartwheels because a prolonged campaign against Islamic terrorists happened to bear fruit on his watch. He might as well claim credit for the highway system and the continuing implementation of every single law and safety regulation predating his administration.

 

The Bush Administration did the heavy lifting here, and the Obama Administration is taking the credit. That's nothing new in politics, where the policies of one administration carry over to the next, but the one most associated with a positive outcome gets the credit. It's cynical, but not extraordinarily so. What is cynical is how many media mouthpieces insist on hanging up a "Mission Accomplished" banner, as if we went into Afghanistan to get one man. And only that one man. As if thousands of lives had been lost just to kill that one man.

 

Now we're told that security measures can be dismantled and the troops can go home. There's no more need to worry about terrorism. It was all taken care of when Obama watched a satellite pay per view execution.

 

Bin Laden was the public face of Al-Qaeda, but if he hadn't been, it would have been someone else. It didn't have to be Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda. We think of Islamic terrorism in terms of organizations, but the organizations are only functional executions of an idea. The idea is that for Islam to triumph, its followers must wage an armed conflict of terror around the world. Al-Qaeda was one projection of that idea. There were and are many others.

 

 

You don't need a Bin Laden to have an Al-Qaeda, and you don't need an Al-Qaeda to have terrorism. Bin Laden's death fulfilled the cycle of an Islamic terrorist's life as a martyr. In the short term, our enemies have been reminded that we can and will get to them no matter where they hide. But in the long term, Bin Laden's death is a canonization that completes his place in the Islamist narrative. Now his story is told and will be retold over and over again.

 

The problem was never one man in a cave in Afghanistan or an estate in Pakistan. Islamic terror derives from a culture of supremacy. And Obama has spent enough time in the Muslim world to know that. Osama's death allows him and us to count coup, but the problem is getting worse, not better. Afghanistan and Pakistan were the homeland of terror, but the road that Bin Laden's butchers followed lies through Europe and America. Muslim immigrants and students moving out into the West mark the trail of terror. That road is a dagger pointed at the heart of the free world.

 

The interoperability of Pakistan's intelligence service and military with Al-Qaeda is not some unique phenomenon, it reflects the will of the Pakistani people, only 3 percent of whom think Bin Laden was a terrorist. Muslim terrorists work hand in glove with Muslim countries, even when they fight and quarrel with them. Because they have more in common with each other, than they do with us. Just as we support people who share our culture and values, so do they. Muslims may have different views on Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, but they still like them more than they do us. Which is why Bin Laden was able to live comfortably not far from the capitol without any worries that he would be turned in.

 

The problem was never Al-Qaeda. The problem is Islam. While the SEALS were off putting an end to Bin Laden, the growth of Islam in the free world continues to pose a dire threat to the survival of the free world. Osama's quick burial showed that we were still cowed by his religion's demands even in death. Killing one man did not end that regime of terror. Not so long as it remains lodged inside the heads of our leaders. Patriotism is the first resort of patriots and the last resort of men who have already sold out their country.

 

There might be more, take a look.

[IMMensaMind 460]

You want me to point out the writers opinions? Instead of breaking it down to walk you through it, how about I just highlight what I'm talking about? Would that fit the agenda?

 

 

 

There might be more, take a look.

 

I didn't need his opinions point out, rholio: I know it's an opinion piece. What I wanted you to offer is why his opinion is in error.

[rholio 339]

I didn't need his opinions point out, rholio: I know it's an opinion piece. What I wanted you to offer is why his opinion is in error.

 

Works as well... you agree with his opinion, so believe it's true. I see it as just as false as the last article posted praising Obama, so believe it isn't true.

 

'Bush Good, Obama Bad' seems to be the main point of the article, and it's full of crap. 'Bush Bad, Obama Bad, both got it right on this one' would be something I'd agree with.

[WhiteWonder 2,249]

[IMMensaMind 460]

Works as well... you agree with his opinion, so believe it's true. I see it as just as false as the last article posted praising Obama, so believe it isn't true.

 

'Bush Good, Obama Bad' seems to be the main point of the article, and it's full of crap. 'Bush Bad, Obama Bad, both got it right on this one' would be something I'd agree with.

 

What?

 

You disagree. I think he made very strong points. You offered arguments in response I consider rather easy to counter, and I did. You then said that the rest of it was opinion. Most of it was opinion. What matters is the strength of the opinion. Do you have something to counter the points in the opinion, other than "it's full of crap"?

[rholio 339]

What?

 

You disagree. I think he made very strong points. You offered arguments in response I consider rather easy to counter, and I did. You then said that the rest of it was opinion. Most of it was opinion. What matters is the strength of the opinion. Do you have something to counter the points in the opinion, other than "it's full of crap"?

 

Dude... you agree, I don't. You can consider it as strong as you like, it's just some hack's opinion. But, let me go ahead and break it down one more time before we get to the name calling phase.

 

A shining new golden age was here. Two lawyers to every Al-Qaeda terrorist and a national apology for going outside the civilian justice system. Now three years later, the only thing they have to celebrate is that their man trashed every one of their hopes and dreams just to keep his head above water in the polls.

 

Utter speculation, with nothing to back it except the writer's biased opinion.

 

And now the scoundrels are flocking to the red, white and blue as a a failed leader and his gaggle of supporters eagerly trade in their counterculture cred for apple pie and the Fourth of July. A failure on every other front, his last refuge is also the thing he hates the most

 

When we Republicans do it, it's good. When them Democrats do it, it's bad. Writer has a serious blind spot for anyone that isn't 'one of us'.

 

Smart power? Try stupid power. Obama wasn't willing to set aside his ideals for the sake of national security. Instead he did it because his ideals were too unpopular. The man who wouldn't sacrifice his politics for the sake of American lives, sacrificed them for his own popularity. It's not just that Obama suffers from the wrong ideas, but that he values his ideas more than America, but less than himself.

 

Obama did something right, so it has to be for the wrong reasons. Naturally, nothing else would fit the writer's agenda.

 

And liberals have suddenly learned to love that dumb old war. The same one that not so long ago made them want to be Canadians. No more quibbles about waterboarding or giving Osama a trial. Now all you need is a kill order and a lot of stories about Obama heroically risking his life by watching it happen from thousands of miles away. Where Bush went to the trouble of getting Saddam alive and turning him over for trial, this administration decided it would be easier and more convenient to shoot Bin Laden full of holes the first chance they got. (Though it's anyone's guess if the decision was made at the top or really determined by the men in the field who weren't up for another round of debates on where to hold the trial.) Not better for America, better for themselves.

 

Taking out Bin Laden must be bad, because them democrats did it. Makes sense. More 'Bush good, Obama bad'.

 

Obama's smart war died along with Bin Laden. The only thing his multilateralism has gotten us into is an entirely new war in Libya. The 'smart war' that ended up looking exactly like the dumb war he denounced in his widely circulated 2002 speech, a rash war, a cynical attempt to shove an ideological agenda down our throats, against a man who was no imminent or direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors. But now Bush's dumb war looks smart and Obama's smart war looks stupid.

 

Huh? Feel free to try to translate this tripe, but it looks like 'Bush good, Obama bad' again.

 

Taking down Bin Laden didn't begin with Obama looking at a monitor, but with invading Afghanistan to capture and interrogate terrorists, beginning the long process of unraveling Al-Qaeda. All that Obama deserves credit for is that unlike Bill Clinton, when the word came up from the men in the field that they had a chance to get Bin Laden, he eventually went along. Which he might not have done without an election breathing down his neck.

 

 

Obama inherited a War on Terror that he never wanted, and after doing his best to scuttle it, he was forced to carry it on anyway. His administration has sabotaged terrorist prosecutions, but it was forced to back away from civilian trials or closing Gitmo. And by virtue of having his ass in the chair at the right time, he now takes credit for a victory that belongs to the men who were fighting and dying in the field, while he was yawning his way through Illinois State Senate sessions.

 

 

Truman didn't claim credit for defeating Hitler, even though the German surrender came while he was in office. It's just as ridiculous for Obama and his supporters to do cartwheels because a prolonged campaign against Islamic terrorists happened to bear fruit on his watch. He might as well claim credit for the highway system and the continuing implementation of every single law and safety regulation predating his administration.

 

 

The Bush Administration did the heavy lifting here, and the Obama Administration is taking the credit. That's nothing new in politics, where the policies of one administration carry over to the next, but the one most associated with a positive outcome gets the credit. It's cynical, but not extraordinarily so. What is cynical is how many media mouthpieces insist on hanging up a "Mission Accomplished" banner, as if we went into Afghanistan to get one man. And only that one man. As if thousands of lives had been lost just to kill that one man.

 

Ah, okay... he's okay with taking out Bin Laden, but Bush deserves all the credit because... umm, he kind of loses me there. Didn't Bush shift the focus off of Bin Laden fairly soon to concentrate on attacking another country?

Don't recall seeing Obama take the credit either, as I recall he contacted W. Bush pretty soon after it happened to give him credit as well. The media is giving him credit, true... last I checked, media do stuff like that.

 

Bin Laden was the public face of Al-Qaeda, but if he hadn't been, it would have been someone else. It didn't have to be Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda. We think of Islamic terrorism in terms of organizations, but the organizations are only functional executions of an idea. The idea is that for Islam to triumph, its followers must wage an armed conflict of terror around the world. Al-Qaeda was one projection of that idea. There were and are many others.

 

 

You don't need a Bin Laden to have an Al-Qaeda, and you don't need an Al-Qaeda to have terrorism. Bin Laden's death fulfilled the cycle of an Islamic terrorist's life as a martyr. In the short term, our enemies have been reminded that we can and will get to them no matter where they hide. But in the long term, Bin Laden's death is a canonization that completes his place in the Islamist narrative. Now his story is told and will be retold over and over again.

 

The problem was never one man in a cave in Afghanistan or an estate in Pakistan. Islamic terror derives from a culture of supremacy. And Obama has spent enough time in the Muslim world to know that. Osama's death allows him and us to count coup, but the problem is getting worse, not better. Afghanistan and Pakistan were the homeland of terror, but the road that Bin Laden's butchers followed lies through Europe and America. Muslim immigrants and students moving out into the West mark the trail of terror. That road is a dagger pointed at the heart of the free world.

 

 

Okay, killing Bin Laden was pointless, and Bush deserves all the credit; got it.

 

The problem was never Al-Qaeda.

 

 

Anyone that lost loved ones on 9-11 would disagree.

 

Patriotism is the first resort of patriots and the last resort of men who have already sold out their country.

 

Again, we do it = good, they do it = bad.

[Gepetto 1,013]

Tough to argue? LOL. Link to Obama taking all the credit for it like your artice says he does? LOL! I love how the article says Obama only did this because he had an election coming up. In hs debates with McCain he said he would kill Bin Laden. He also says he would pursue terrorists in Pakistan with or without their permission and the republicans were saying " Oh, No! How could you disrespect our trusted ally Pakistan!" LOL. Lets be honest here. Bush lost the focus on Bin Laden. Obama said he would refocus on getting Bin Laden and he did.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze_pG6Q62HA

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKHsjRzUTLQ

 

[IMMensaMind 460]

Dude... you agree, I don't. You can consider it as strong as you like, it's just some hack's opinion. But, let me go ahead and break it down one more time before we get to the name calling phase.

 

I'm comfortable talking about this with you; I know we disagree. You're not the type to name-call, and you know I will not get into an insult war with someone who doesn't start it.

 

Utter speculation, with nothing to back it except the writer's biased opinion.

 

You don't have to tell me that something is opinion. We know this is opinion. What matter is whether there is substance to the opinion, and whether your counter-opinion is more valid. You aren't offering a counter-opinion.

 

In this case, the author is referencing the fact that Obama has approached the terrorist question from the softy/lefty 'civil rights' side of the equation. He's promoted closing Gitmo (hasn't); promoted getting out of wars (hasn't); promoted putting terrorists through the due process of civil courts (hasn't), and - now - when faced with capturing or killing the ultimate terrorist - couldn't see a way to put his Administration under the humiliating microscope of doing with bin Laden what he has claimed we should have been doing with terrorists: giving them access to our court system.

 

That's why the story about what really happened when the SEALS went in keeps changing. bin Laden was armed. bid Laden was unarmed. He resisted. There was 10 minutes before he was killed. He had bombs under his wrap. Etc. The Administration cannot bring itself to actually publicly proclaim that they went in to assassinate someone: it stands it stark contrast to everything Obama claims to have stood for.

 

When we Republicans do it, it's good. When them Democrats do it, it's bad. Writer has a serious blind spot for anyone that isn't 'one of us'.

 

Not at all; you're missing the point the author is making, and making well: he's pointing out - accurately - that the Obama Administration and birds of their feather were supposed to disdain the notion of such brutality. But there they were, doing those exact same things that are emblematic of the no-sense-take-no-crap-tough-guy-typical-Americanism that the Obama Administration (and birds of like feather) tut-tutted they were above: they were all about being "fair-minded" and "conscious of basic human rights".

 

What basic human right principle did Obama violate by intentionally assassinating an armed - then unarmed - then armed again - Usama?

 

Obama did something right, so it has to be for the wrong reasons. Naturally, nothing else would fit the writer's agenda.

 

That isn't the issue at all. The author is pointing out that it was the right thing, but it exactly opposed what Obama's prior agenda on the treatment of terrorists was. Reality forces one to adhere to what is actually necessary: not what sounds good.

 

Taking out Bin Laden must be bad, because them democrats did it. Makes sense. More 'Bush good, Obama bad'.

 

Huh? Feel free to try to translate this tripe, but it looks like 'Bush good, Obama bad' again.

 

Going over the same ground. Bush wasn't about molly-coddling terrorists. That was Obama. All the way up until he directly made the call which resulted in shooting one dead-to-rights and taking away their "right to a trial". At that point, all that high-minded elitist pap about how we should be considering these terrorists having "rights" died right along with bin Laden. Reality showed that Obama himself couldn't adhere to the principles he claimed to represent.

 

 

Ah, okay... he's okay with taking out Bin Laden, but Bush deserves all the credit because... umm, he kind of loses me there. Didn't Bush shift the focus off of Bin Laden fairly soon to concentrate on attacking another country?

Don't recall seeing Obama take the credit either, as I recall he contacted W. Bush pretty soon after it happened to give him credit as well. The media is giving him credit, true... last I checked, media do stuff like that.

 

It has already been posted in this forearm that the process to get bin Laden had been put in motion, and the reshuffling of CIA assets resulted in putting far more operatives on the ground in the Middle East. That is what resulted in this success; including the actions surrounding the informant who keyed in on the courier and finally got his family name. These things took place without Obama's involvement whatsoever. That's what the author is pointing out.

 

It had far more to with the Bush Administration's actions than with Obama. Obama made a public show of 'concentrating on bin Laden', but it was just that: a show. I give him credit for actually giving the go-ahead..but make no mistake: if Obama had been centrally involved, he would have anticipated this action, and not had to take 16 hours to make the call.

 

I believe he took 16 hours to line up his propaganda machine for maximum effect.

 

Okay, killing Bin Laden was pointless, and Bush deserves all the credit; got it.

 

No...this section was just about Bush's comment that "he wasn't worried about bin Laden", and that Al-Qaeda remains dangerous regardless. Killing bin Laden was symbolic, but also ran counter to everything this Administration publicly proclaimed it stood for.

 

Again, we do it = good, they do it = bad.

 

Not really. More like: we do it = consistent with our overall view of terrorists and terrorism. You do it = what happened to all that bloviation about stopping torture/giving terrorists trials in US courts?

[gocolts 300]

President Obama had a team of lawyers, translators and interrogators on stand-by in case Osama bin Laden was captured alive during the raid on his Pakistani compound last week.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

We had two brigades of lawyers storming the beach at Omaha in WWII.

[gocolts 300]

We had two brigades of lawyers storming the beach at Omaha in WWII.

[Greedo 13]

Of course. Do you find something in the article with which you disagree? I cannot find anything.

 

In general this piece is drivel, but a couple specifics:

 

1) Intel was not gained through enhanced interrogation.

2) To suggest Bin Laden was killed for poll numbers is absurd.

3) To argue about who deserves credit for this, Bush or Obama, is partisan hackmanship at its best. Even most of the folks on this board, with no shortage of partisan hacks, mostly agreed that this was a win for the USA, not a party or president.

4) We went into Afghanistan to eliminate those that specifically targeted us on 9/11 - bin Laden, and the Taliban that housed him.

5) Islamic terror cannot be defeated, there is no way to "win." This basic idiotic belief of neo-cons should have been extinguished long ago, not sure why this guy brings it up again.

 

Waterboarding isn't torture.

 

Regardless of your opinion, the world court and the US DOJ don't agree with you.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

In general this piece is drivel, but a couple specifics:

 

1) Intel was not gained through enhanced interrogation.

 

 

Yes, it was.