The Help Turns: Obama Played Cards During Osama Raid; 'I Can’t Watch This Entire Thing.'

Reggie Love, the president's former 'body man', AKA his personal assistant, valet and court jester reveals a little something about the president's bold, hands on leadership.

Among other tidbits, starting at 6:20 Love reveals he and President Obama played cards during the Osama bin Laden raid.

“Most people were like down in the Situation Room and [President Obama] was like, ‘I’m not going to be down there, I can’t watch this entire thing,’ We must have played 15 games of spades," said Love at a public event.

Yes, that was one gutsy call...East bids 4!

Also enjoyable is  the way Love talks about how President Obama 'finally found his birth certificate'.

Unbelievable.

UPDATE: As you know by now, the White House saw to it that this video was deleted once it went viral on Drudge. But you can still see it here.

SecDef Panetta Admits Enhanced Interrogation Works, Led Us To Bin-Laden

Well, well.

Remember all of the noise from Democrats about waterboarding being torture? Remember how President Obama released confidential memos after the entire intelligence community begged him not to,because it would tell our enemies exactly the techniques we'd be using to interrogate them? Remember how Attorney General Eric Holder and the president were going to prosecute the CIA interrogators involved and the government attorneys who wrote legal opinions for the Bush Administration used to authorize waterboarding and enhanced interrogation techniques?

Remember how President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and a slew of other Democrats used this issue to play partisan politics and the media amplified it?

Today on NBC's Meet The Press, ex-SecDef Leon Panetta admitted that those techniques provided the intelligence that led the U.S. to Osama bin-Laden.

(h/t, Jim at Gateway)

Of course Panetta was quick to try to qualify it with a quick remark that 'we worked out most of it without resorting to those techniques', but he admitted that waterboarding and enhanced interrogation got the results we needed. And it's not the first time he's said it.

This is the same man who, at his 2009 CIA confirmation hearing conformation hearings called waterboarding "torture" and said it was something he would never use. Until he needed to, I suppose.

These same people demonized President Bush for making the same decision, one that, according to then Vice President Cheney, prevented subsequent al-Qaeda attacks and saved American lives. After all the obscene noise from the Left, no one has ever provided any evidence whatsoever that Cheney was wrong.

And of course, you're never going to hear Panetta, Mrs.Clinton or the president admit they were badly mistaken.

In other remarks in today's interview, Panetta touted Chuck Hagel's appointment as the new Secretary of defense, saying he had no doubt Hagel was 'ready to take over his job.'

If by that he meant being a clueless sycophant with no understanding or appreciation of national defense who would cheerfully carry out the orders for the hollowing out of America's military, Panetta might be right.

Heart Of Darkness - The Real Benghazi Coverup

The CIA is apparently not willing to fall on its sword to protect President Obama, Secretary Clinton , Ambassador Rice, and the rest of the Obama Administration.

It's now been leaked by officials within the Obama Administration that the CIA Head of Station in Libya reported within 24 hours that the attack on Benghazi that left four Americans dead was carried out by al-Qaeda and associated groups, that it was a planned operation, and that it had nothing to do with any protest or unrest over a video.

The linked story, which is essentially an AP rewrite says 'It is unclear who, if anyone, saw the cable outside the CIA at that point and how high up in the agency the information went.'

'Unclear'? It obviously went to various places - to the head of the CIA General Petraeus, to Obama's NSC Tom Donilon, and to Hillary Clinton as head of the State Department at the very least. That's how these things are routinely handled. Are we to believe Joe Biden and President Obama that nobody told them, and the entire attempt to spin this for nine days as a 'protest' over a video was due to misinformation and intelligence failure?

Or Hillary Clinton's claim that she didn't know either and that the obscene spin put on this was due to ' the fog of war'?

The AP does their best to shield the Administration, like always. They even repeated the falsehood Obama told at the last debate (with an assist from 'moderator' Candy Crowley) that he referred to Benghazi as a terrorist attack during his speech the day after in the Rose Garden, something I debunked previously.

But even if one takes a large leap in logic to assume that no one in the administration knew for certain what had happened, how does that explain the certainty with which the president and his minions declared for 8 days that what happened in Benghazi was a protest over a poorly made video on YouTube that turned violent?

How does it explain the deliberate removal of special forces security teams from Libya and the denials of Ambassador Stevens' own repeated requests for more of it? Even his request for a barbed wire fence around the Benghazi consulate was denied.

How does it explain situating an unprotected consulate and staff in Benghazi, known to be a hotbed of al-Qaeda and associated militias? Even the International Red Cross pulled out months before the attack because of the security situation. If the Red Cross knew, if most European intelligence bureaus like Britain's M15 knew, why didn't our own intel?

The answer of course, is fairly simple. None of it adds up.

What does add up is an attempt at a political coverup, and it possibly goes even deeper than just shielding the president and his administration from charges of gross incompetence during an election year when President Obama is chest pounding over his supposed foreign policy expertise.

Obama's big boast is 'I got bin-Laden'. What he also got (and its becoming more and more evident every day) is a relocation of al-Qaeda back into the Arab world.

He certainly deserved death, but along all the other disastrous fallout that occurred from assassinating a man who was essentially a retired terrorist, we settled a dispute between Osama bin-Laden and his second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri:

Bin laden was relatively comfortable in Abbotobad and wanted to keep al-Qaeda anchored in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Zawahiri, looking at developments in his native Egypt and elsewhere like the 'Arab Spring' , the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and President Obama's already announced retreat from the region was pushing to relocate al-Qaeda back to the Middle East and the roiling Arab world.

So now that Osama's dead (and according to my sources, there are pretty solid indications he was deliberately fingered) Zawahiri, a former Muslim Brotherhood member has taken over and we see increased al-Qaeda presence in both the Egyptian Sinai and Libya, as well as in Iraq where the Maliki government's marginalization of the Sunnis has given al-Qaeda new life.

And that's not all.

Libya is another case where President Obama's amateurism has led to dangerous developments.Moammar Khaddaffi was an odious tyrant, but he essentially retired from any support for terrorism. In fact, he was helping our CIA catch al-Qada fighters in the Maghreb and was actually receiving foreign aid from us.

It was known from the very beginning that the Libyan rebels had substantial elements of al-Qaeda and other salifist groups, yet President Obama intervened militarily, allowing the rebels to take over the country and murder Khaddaffi when he otherwise would have quashed the revolt.

Aside from allowing al-Qaeda and its associated militias to survive, it also allowed them to plunder Khaddaffi's armories and help themselves to his weaponry, including shoulder fired Stinger missiles capable of bringing down a helicopter or a commercial airline. In fact, a shipment of those missiles coming from Libya was intercepted on its way to the al-Qaeda forces in Sinai.

The mortars, RPGs and automatic weapons used in the attack on our Benghazi consulate were almost certainly obtained by al-Qaeda as a direct result of President Obama's intervention in Libya.

That's undoubtedly the Heart of Darkness, the real core of what President Obama and his minions  would rather  the American people weren't talking about right now.

Think of it as a Middle Eastern version of Fast and Furious, where innocent peopl egot murdered by weapons they obtained by this Administration's policies. Only  this one has  much more disastrous long term consequences for America.

Top Obama Fundraiser To Release Bin Laden Film 2 Days Before The Election

What a coincidence, eh?

Harvey Weinstein, a prominent Obama fund raiser and bundler is going to release a film dramatizing the Osama bin-Laden raid that is scheduled to air - wait for it - November 4th, 2 days before the election:

A film dramatizing the death of Osama bin Laden is set to debut next month on the National Geographic Channel, two days before the presidential election.

“Seal Team Six: The Raid on Osama bin Laden,” from The Weinstein Co. and Voltage Pictures, will air Sunday, Nov. 4, the channel said. {...}

National Geographic Channel chose the film’s debut date to help promote the start of its fall season, channel President Howard T. Owens said Thursday.

“Harvey obviously doesn’t schedule our network,” Owens said. He added that the channel is “not political. We are opportunistic from a programming perspective.”

National Geographic Channel did take into account Weinstein’s desire to get out ahead of a competitive movie about the U.S. Navy SEALs’ hunt for the al-Qaida leader, Owens said.

“Zero Dark Thirty,” from director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal, who won Oscars for “The Hurt Locker,” is scheduled to be released in theaters at the end of the year.

“Seal Team Six,” directed by John Stockwell (“Into the Blue”), also was intended for a big-screen release until the channel made what it called a “preemptive bid” for it. The film will be available to Netflix U.S. subscribers a day after its premiere.

Owens said he and Weinstein have a previous business relationship: Owens represented Miramax Television while working at the William Morris Agency.

Now it just so happens that Howard T. Owens is also an Obama supporter and donor. Just a coincidence of course.

So let's replay this scenario.

One Obama donor goes to his old agent, who's also an Obama donor. The first Obama donor has a first run movie ready to roll that he's spent millions (borrowed from one of the banks, actually) to make, but makes a deal to shelve his plans for a lucrative theater release in favor of a small screen debut on a relatively small cable network 'because he wanted to get out ahead of a competitive movie' that's not being released for 3 months...even though Weinstein obviously has his film already made and ready to go.

And just by coincidence, it airs the Sunday before the election!

Just for giggles, let's go Hollywood on this one.

A major, well connected donor to the campaign of a sitting president has a movie in the can that's ready for release. But instead of going to one of the majors for distribution, he contacts his pals working on the president's re-election campaign, shows them an advance copy of his movie and tells them, "I have a connection to get this released on cable the Sunday night before the election in prime time through my old agent. But I can't do this one as a freebie. I spent money on this, I need to at least pay the banks off and make a little profit. You wanna help each other out here?"

So the campaign pays of the major donor via the major donor's old buddy, now head of a small cable network. The donor's buddy, who also supports the president, is happy to help because not only does he assist the re-election campaign, he gets a first run movie to boost his ratings. And the donor gets his money and a major favor to call up in the future should he need it.

Badda-bam, badda-bing!

Now there's a script for you. After all, Weinstein obviously sold it once already.

How The NYT Commemorates 9/11: 'It Was Bush's Fault'

I ordinarily wouldn't even take notice of something like this appearing in Pravda-on-the-Hudson, especially given their record of endangering our troops and our country by leaking classified information. But these shameless,brazen lies demand a response.

This is an op-ed entitled 'The Deafness Before the Storm', and its premise is fairly simple - that the Bush White House was deaf to 9/11 warnings and thus allowed it to happen.

The writer is one Kurt Eichenwald, and he has top grade, cutting edge knowledge and experience with national security , since his credentials include being an ex-New York Times reporter and a contributing editor at Vanity Fair. Oh wait, maybe he doesn't.

At any rate, Mr. Eichenwald writes about a classified August 6th 2001 briefing President Bush received the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. As Eichenwald himself admits, this briefing mainly consisted of a history and description of bin-Laden and al-Qaeda with zero specifics on any actual or imminent operation or threat.There were good reasons why that's true, which we'll examine in a moment.

But then we get to the meat of Mr. Eichenwald's attack. He writes that while this declassified briefing revealed nothing of much use, there were other briefings that haven't been declassified that reveal 'negligence' - even though he hasn't read them. He bases this premise on what he claims were 'excerpts' he read.

Let's look at what he cites.

According to Eichenwald:

On May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.{..}

“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.

And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

So, what we have here, en toto, is vague information of a possible attack with no specifics, no named target and no real details. Damn that George W. Bush and those evil Republicans for not possessing clairvoyance!

Some of you might recall the many threats and warnings of a major strike al-Qaeda issued after 9/11 that never came to pass.There was no way to do anything more in those cases but follow up leads and continue digging, something the New York Times severely impacted by releasing the details of our surveillance program for al-Qaeda to read. Yet because this one unimaginable attack succeeded a few months after President Bush took office, it was - say it with me - Bush's Fault.

Of course, what we really had in the months before 9/11 was an intelligence failure. Let's examine exactly why our intel on 9/11 was so faulty.

Ever since the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the Clinton Administration regarded Islamist terrorism as a pesky law enforcement problem rather than a national security threat, and aside from lobbing a few cruise missiles at what turned about to be an aspirin factory, very little was done to take it seriously, even as the attacks increased in frequency and severity.

As part of this approach, Assistant Attorney General Jamie Gorelick built what amounted to a wall that prevented different intelligence agencies from sharing information on the grounds it might affect the terrorist's legal rights.

So intel operations like Able Danger, who had actually tracked the hijackers from Afghanistan to Germany and identified Mohammed Atta and most of the other hijackers months before 9/11 were prevented by the Clinton Justice Department's official policy from sharing this intel with other agencies.

Had the FBI been alerted to what Able Danger knew, Atta's name could have been put on a list that would have tagged him as someone to be watched from the moment he stepped off a plane in Newark, New Jersey. Surveillance of Atta, who lived openly in Florida for over a year, and who acquired a driver's license and even an FAA pilot's license in his real name, might well have made it possible for the FBI to stop the Sept. 11 attacks before they occurred. Except thanks to Gorelick's wall, the FBI wasn't given access to that information.

Even more poignantly, Gorelick was exempted from having to testify under oath in front of the 9/11 commission, none of this was examined by the commission in any detail and the Democrats on the panel were happy to gloss over it.

At this point, we also don't know exactly the extent of what the Clinton Administration concealed about 9/11, thanks to the theft of classified documents by former Clinton National Security adviser Sandy Berger. We do know that the government of the Sudan offered us Osama bin-Laden on a platter but the Clinton Administration refused to accept him. And that there were at least two other times we could have taken out bin-Laden but the orders weren't forthcoming from Mr.Bill, who had other pressing matters in the Oval Office to attend to. On one famous occasion, our CIA had bin-Laden's location pinpointed in Afghanistan and a missile targeted, but they simply couldn't find the president.

You might remember the threats to attack their broadcast license that the ex-president and the Democratic leadership in congress made to ABC and its then owner Disney over the film `The Path to 9/11' , which resulted in certain changes being made to the version of the movie that was shown to downplay all that.

Of course, you won't read any of this in Mr. Eichenwald's piece.

After an op-ed filled with asides and innuendos, he covers himself by writing:

"Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know."

But one thing we do know is that if the Clinton Administration had taken Osama bin-Laden as the serious threat he was and had been more concerned with national security than some terrorist's potential legal rights, there was a definite chance that Osama bin-Laden would either be in U.S custody or have been halal hamburger courtesy of a tomahawk missile prior to 9/11. And that Mohammed Atta and the other hijackers might have been apprehended before 3,000 Americans were murdered.

There’s much you can say about George W. Bush's presidency, but accusing him of being responsible ignoring intel he never received and being responsible for not preventing 9/11 is a ridiculous premise and an obvious exercise in disinformation.

Glass houses, stones, Mr. Eichenwald.

SecDef Panneta: Closure By Pakistan Of Supply Lines Costs U.S $100 M Per Month

Regular members of Joshua's Army might remember my mentioning the huge cost of the Osama bin-Laden assassination, not to mention that it might just have been a major strategic error. Fresh evidence of how costly President Obama's decision ( actually, Special Ops commander Admiral McRaven's decision that the president took credit for) actually has been surfaced yesterday.

Secretary of Defense Leon Pannetta told Congress yesterday that the Pakistani closure of the land routes into Afghanistan via the Torkhum Pass in response to the bin-Laden hit is costing the U.S. $100 million per month as more costly alternate routes need to be utilized.

The U.S. attempted to talk the Pakistanis into opening the routes again, and their response was to jack up what the 'transit fees' per truck to the point where our negotiators just left.

Bin-Laden was taken out in May of 2011, so if you do the math we're talking about a billion dollars in extra costs so far..not to mention all the other costs involved in the raid, the priceless stealth technology from the downed helicopter the Pakistanis showed to Iran, Russia and China, and the still to be reckoned cost of relocating al-Qaeda from AfPak to the Arab world.

That's quite a price tag to assassinate one inactive, semi-retired terrorist we didn't even bother to bring back home and interrogate.

Pakistani Who Helped Locate Bin-Laden Gets 30 Years For Treason - After Being Outed By SecDef Panetta

A Pakistani physician who helped the CIA locate Osama bin-Laden in Pakistan has been sentenced to over 30 years in prison for treason.

Dr. Shakeel Afridi was arrested three weeks after US Navy Seal Team Six assassinated bin-Laden at his hideaway in Abbottabad, only 30 miles from Islamabad.

Dr Afridi was not present in court on Wednesday nor was he represented by a lawyer:

“He has been sentenced for 33 years on treason charges and has been moved to Peshawar central jail after the verdict was announced by the local court,” said Mohammad Siddiq, spokesman for the administrative head of Khyber, where the case was heard.

Dr. Afridi set up Dr Afridi set up a hepatitis vaccination campaign in March last year, according to residents of Abbottabad.

The CIA had seen an al-Qaeda courier enter bin-Laden's compound there, they weren't sure that bin-Laden was actually present. Dr.Afridi's role was to attempt to obtain a DNA sample from a tall figure the CIA knew was inside because of satellite imagery.

Although he wasn't able to get a blood sample, Dr.Afridi was able to secure a telephone number for Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, bin Laden’s trusted courier, enabling the CIA to confirm his identity.

What evidence did the Pakistanis have against Dr. Afridi? Simple. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta outed him (on 'Sixty Minutes', no less) and gave the Pakistanis an open and shut case:



I seem to recall the Angry Left going absolutely berserk over someone allegedly outing Valerie Plame. I guarantee you that won't happen to Leon Panetta.

More to the point,imagine you're a CIA agent trying to recruit assets in a foreign country. How successful do you think you're going to be after potential informants see the Secretary of Defense performing on national TV and shooting his mouth off like this?

If we were actually in a declared war, this would be treason, by definition.

Ex-Attorney General Says Bin-Laden Memo "Heavily Lawyered" To Throw Blame For Failure On Admiral McRaven

Regular readers of these pages will remember that I commented some days ago that the memo which surfaced from then-CIA chief Leon Panetta tentatively authorizing the bin-Laden assassination was heavily weighted to give President Obama lots of running room if things had gone wrong and make Admiral McRaven, head of Special Ops the fall guy.

It appears the media has finally caught up. Here's ex-Attorney General Michael Mukasy weighing in:

MICHAEL MUKASEY, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL: That memo was significant.

HANNITY: Explain this.

MUKASEY: There was a memo from Leon Panetta that described the authority that was given to McRaven and it was to proceed according to the risks, only according to the risks that had been outline to the president.

And if he encountered anything else, he had to check back. You better believe if anything else had been encountered and the mission had failed, then the blame would have fallen on McRaven. That’s what that is about.

HANNITY: So in other words, here, the approximate president’s now, everything worked out in this case. But he had put in place a CYA that if it went wrong, McRaven would have been the fall guy.

MUKASEY: That was a highly lawyered memo.

HANNITY: Wow. So you are saying this was designed to protect the president politically.

MUKASEY: I think there is going to be more that comes tumbling out about that escapade. But so far that, memo is enough.

HANNITY: You went through a little bit of history here. You talked about General Eisenhower and you talked about Abraham Lincoln and you talked about–their handling of very delicate military situations that they faced.

MUKASEY: Well, I chose Abraham Lincoln, not on my own but because president Obama said that was the person he wanted to emulate. So I figured it was reasonably just to go to Abraham Lincoln.

The night after Lee surrendered, Lincoln delivered what turned out to his last speech from the window of the White House. He rejected taking any credit for it. Put it on General Grant and the troops and then talked mostly about the problems of reconstruction and in favor of black suffrage –

HANNITY: He actually did the opposite. He stood up for General George McClellan.

MUKASEY: Earlier in his career, he stood up for McClellan and for his defense secretary, who were being blamed. He said, no, no. The blame should be mine. The definition of a — one definition of a great leader is somebody who takes less credit than he should and takes more blame than he should. That’s not what we have now.

HANNITY: You also talked about Dwight Eisenhower.

MUKASEY: Dwight Eisenhower before the Normandy invasion wrote out a message to be given in the event the invasion failed and in the event that Germans threw us off the beaches. What it said was, I picked the place where we landed. The troops, the Navy, the airmen did their best and are most valorous. If anybody deserves blame, it’s me.

HANNITY: How many troops did we lose — what 7,000 or 8,000 men when they slammed the beaches of Normandy?

MUKASEY: Right.

HANNITY: A lot of people. A lot of loss. He prepared to actually take the blame, not –

MUKASEY: Correct.

HANNITY: Then he gave praise after.

MUKASEY: A week later when it became clear that it was a success. He wrote another message, giving all the credit to the troops. The only time he mentioned himself was at the end when he said, I’m proud of you.

Not only did General Eisenhower have a fully prepared message to take personal blame if the Normandy Invasion was a failure, ( you can read it in his WWII memoirs, Crusade In Europe) so did President Roosevelt, who also had a message prepared to read to the nation taking full responsibility as commander-in-chief.

They were men,prepared to make the hard decisions in peace and war and take responsibility for them ..unlike the current occupant of the White House.

'Gutsy Call'?? Obama Knew Bin Laden's Location Since Summer Of 2010

Per General Keane, Retired General Jack Keane, the former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army on Mike Huckabee's show:

"We actually had the target the summer before execution," Ret. General Jack Keane said on Mike Huckabee's FOX News show over the weekend. "In other words, we had the target in the sumer [of] 2010 and it took until the following May to execute the mission."

"I was surprised that it was taking that long to execute it because, you know, the longer you spend on something like that the greater likelihood is that the target will be compromised because of your surveillance and then that target will flee. That's the concern that we always have when we have a target like that. So I was sort of surprised it took until May before we actually executed -- I know for a fact that we had it that summer, maybe even sooner than that," Keane said.

It's really no surprise. President Obama is not noted for decisiveness, and would probably have been fine with not needing to make a decision on this if bin-Laden had moved location. Even after he agreed tentatively to allow things to go ahead, he likely wanted this as close to the 2012 elections as possible. This also seems to correlate with other accounts we seen stating that White Houses advisers like Valerie Jarrett had pretty much talked the president out of approving the operation, and the only reason the decision was made at all was because Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton threatened to resign and go public.

In the end of course, this president voted 'present' and left the actual decision in the hands of Admiral McRaven, head of Special Operations.

Navy SEALs Slam Obama For Using Them As 'Ammunition' In Political Ad Taking Credit For Bin-Laden hit

Yes, they're not at all pleased.

A serving SEAL Team member said: ‘Obama wasn’t in the field, at risk, carrying a gun. As president, at every turn he should be thanking the guys who put their lives on the line to do this. He does so in his official speeches because he speechwriters are smart.

‘But the more he tries to take the credit for it, the more the ground operators are saying, “Come on, man!” It really didn’t matter who was president. At the end of the day, they were going to go.’

Chris Kyle, a former SEAL sniper with 160 confirmed and another 95 unconfirmed kills to his credit, said: ‘The operation itself was great and the nation felt immense pride. It was great that we did it.

‘But bin Laden was just a figurehead. The war on terror continues. Taking him out didn’t really change anything as far as the war on terror is concerned and using it as a political attack is a cheap shot.

‘In years to come there is going to be information that will come out that Obama was not the man who made the call. He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn’t allowed to speak out against the commander- in-chief so his secret is safe.’ {...}

Senior military figures have said that Admiral William McRaven, a former SEAL who was then head of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) made the decision to take bin Laden out. Tactical decisions were delegated even further down the chain of command.

Mr Kyle added: ‘He's trying to say that Romney wouldn't have made the same call? Anyone who is patriotic to this country would have made that exact call, Democrat or Republican. Obama is taking more credit than he is due but it's going to get him some pretty good mileage.’

A former intelligence official who was serving in the US government when bin Laden was killed said that the Obama administration knew about the al-Qaeda leader’s whereabouts in October 2010 but delayed taking action and risked letting him escape.

‘In the end, Obama was forced to make a decision and do it. He knew that if he didn’t do it the political risks in not taking action were huge. Mitt Romney would have made the call but he would have made it earlier – as would George W. Bush.’

Brandon Webb, a former SEAL who spent 13 years on active duty and served in Iraq and Afghanistan, said: ‘Bush should get partial credit for putting the system in place.

Clint Bruce, who gave up the chance of an NFL career to serve as a SEAL officer before retiring as a lieutenant after nine years, said: ‘We were extremely surprised and discouraged by the publicity because it compromises the ability of those guys to operate.

‘It’s a waste of time to speculate about who would and wouldn’t have made that decision. It was a symphony of opportunity and intelligence that allowed this administration to give the green light. We want to acknowledge that they made that decision.

‘Politicians should let the public know where they stand on national security but not in the play-by-play, detailed way that has been done recently. The intricacies of national security should not become part of stump speeches.’

Note that this appeared in a British paper.I doubt you'll see it in The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post or on the alphabet networks.

Obama Campaign's Latest Claim - 'Romney Wouldn't Have Ordered Bin-Laden Hit'

The Obama Campaign is using - wait for it - Bill Clinton in an ad bragging about President Obama's 'decisive call' to assassinate Osama bin-Laden in Pakistan, and pairing that with an edited, out of context clip of Governor Romney saying that it 'doesn't make sense to spend billions of dollars chasing one man.'

This is so rich, so lacking in decency and honor on so many levels that it begs to be addressed.

To begin with, the use of ex-President Clinton to lay it on thick about being a decisive commander-in-chief borders on parody. This was the president who had three golden opportunities to get Osama bin-Laden prior to 9/11 and punted on all of them.On one occasion, authorities in the Sudan actually had OBL in custody and wanted to hand him over to the United States - only to have the offer refused by the Clinton Administration.

This was the president whose justice department actually built a wall between various U.S. intelligence agencies to prevent them from sharing intel on al-Qaeda and bin-Laden with a March, 1995 memo written by Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. This was the president who used to simply disappear for hours and was unable to be located by even his closest aides, and who did something unprecedented - losing the credit card with the codes for the 'football' that activates America's nuclear arsenal.

What would President Clinton know about being a commander-in-chief or about decisive decisions?

Next, let's look at President Obama's 'gutsy call' in some detail.

TIME magazine, hardly a media outlet unfriendly to this president managed to get hold of an interesting memo from then CIA chief Leon Panetta that shows that President Obama actually outsourced the decision to Admiral William McRaven, commander of Special Operations:

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.

Note the parts I've emphasized. The memo's quite clear- the “timing, operational decision making and control” are all up to Admiral McRaven. This wasn't a decisive commander-in-chief making a decision and taking the entire weight of it on his shoulders. This was a hollow man passing the buck to Admiral McRaven to make the decision..and setting up the admiral to be the fall guy if anything had gone wrong.

And then there's this - any other risks that arise are “to be brought back to the President for his consideration.” This was President Obama’s way of creating running room for himself if things went bad. He could then say that there were additional risks he hadn't been informed of, that his military leaders didn't tell him about.And under the bus would go Admiral McRaven. Gutsy!

Finally, let's look at what Mitt Romney is actually saying as opposed to what this singularly dishonest ad is implying. The actual quote by Romney is that he didn't see the sense of spending billions of dollars chasing one man, not that he wouldn't have ordered the raid on bin-Laden's compound once he was found.

But leaving that aside, let's take a good look at what assassinating Osama bin-Laden actually cost us and decide whether the price justified taking out a terrorist who definitely deserved death, but was essentially marginalized when we killed him.

Those of you whom read this site regularly know I've already analyzed the what the bin-Laden assassination cost us cost in some detail:

Like it or not, because this president made a decision to double down in Afghanistan to justify his campaign rhetoric about ' the good war', thousands of U.S. troops and NATO personnel are dependent on supplies that come through the Pakistani port of Karachi and overland through the Torkhum Pass. By assassinating bin-Laden, we exposed the Pakistanis, again, as a major aider and abettor of Islamic fascism and terrorism. Their honor/shame mentality kicked in and rather than express regret that they had been caught sheltering a mass murderer, they went into hysterics about the violation of their sovereignty and shut down the Torkhum Pass for several days. Because the stopped supply trucks were sitting ducks, the Taliban manged to destroy a number of them. Not only that, but we lost a painstakingly created network of Pakistani informers, almost all of whom are still in jail in Pakistan on charges of treason.

We lost one of our helicopters in the bin-Laden operation, a Blackhawk. Now, these normally cost about $20 million or so, but this one cost a great deal more, because it had been highly modified with top secret stealth technology that brought its cost up to more like $60 million. Even worse, the SEAL's were unable to completely destroy it, and the angry Pakistanis gleefully gave it to the Chinese to examine at their leisure. The Russians and the Iranians almost certainly got a look as well. The potential loss of technology is in the millions, not to mention our unfortunate but at this point necessary relationship with Pakistan, which has worsened considerably and is unlikely to recover for some time if at all. Not a good position to be in since they still control not only our major supply line but the  easiest route of egress out of Afghanistan if we chose to leave and had to do it quickly.

By taking out Osama bin-Laden, we resolved a long time argument between bin-Laden and  his chief lieutenant Ayman Zawahiri in Zawahiri's favor. Bin-Laden wanted to keep al-Qaeda anchored primarily in Afghanistan and Pakistan where he was comfortable. Zawahiri, looking at developments in his native Egypt and elsewhere like the 'Arab Spring' , the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and President Obama's already announced retreat from the region was pushing to relocate al-Qaeda back to the Middle East and the roiling Arab world. Now that Osama bin-Laden is out of the picture, Zawahiri, a former Muslim Brotherhood leader is now in charge of al-Qaeda and the organization has re-established itself in the Arab world, just as Zawahari wished.

We can already see increased al-Qaeda presence in both the Egyptian Sinai and Libya, as well as in Iraq where the Maliki government's marginalization of the Sunnis has given al-Qaeda new life.

Moreover, should Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist governments take over in Egypt and Libya as seems likely, Ayman Zawahiri, al-Qaeda and its affiliates like Takfir-wal Higra can count on a haven to train and recruit, with Libya's oil wealth and Egypt's population and rabid Islamism to draw on. Small wonder a number of my sources are adamant that bin-Laden was deliberately ratted out by Zawahiri.

 The SEALs were under orders not to bring bin-Laden back for interrogation, thus eliminating one of the chief possible benefits of the raid. It's decision on the President's part  I'm startled more people haven't questioned. President Obama has often said that we're at war with al-Qaeda. Wouldn't a nice chat with al-Qaeda's leader under the influence of scopolomine be an invaluable source of intel instead of  simply giving him a Muslim funeral and dropping his corpse off a ship?  Is it possible that the Obama Administration would rather not know  whom in the Muslim world was funding al-Qaeda, or more about Iran's complicity in the  9/11 attack?

In terms of what it cost us financially and strategically, especially since we didn't bring him back for interrogation, assassinating  Osama bin-Laden was a decision that a prudent and knowledgeable person might have questioned.

Unless, of course, you were a president facing re-election with a foreign policy record filled with debacles and missteps and needed something to point to as a 'success'. Then, it made perfect sense.

UPDATE: The actual Romney quote used in the ad is here. When you read it in context, you'll see that the ad distorted it's meaning 180 opposite from what Governor Romney actually had to say on this topic.

They will say and do simply anything...and if they can't find something, they'll just make it up.

Silent Scream;The Sudan Ethnically Cleanses Its Christians

The government of the predominantly Muslim nation of Sudan has stripped its 500,000 to 700,000 Christians of citizenship and has put them on notice that they have one week to leave the country. Even sub-jim crow dhimmi status is to be denied them.

According to an ENI report, the government of Sudan has declared that all whose “parents, grandparents or great grandparents [were] born in the South Sudan or [who] belong to any southern ethnic group” are no longer citizens of Sudan and must leave the Sudan by April 8..or else.

There's more to this than meets the eye, of course.

The Sudan has always been a borderland between Arab and black African, between slavemaster and slave. And increasingly, between Muslim and Christian. During the decades long jihad by the Sudan between the early 1980 and today against the black Africans to the east in Darfur and in the south, conservative estimates put the death toll at over 2 million.The Sudan's President Omar Al-Bashir has already been indicted by the International Criminal Court for genocide, something the Arab League has thumbed their collective noses at, with al-Bashir is able to freely attend meetings and travel all over the region without fear of arrest. The charges he was indicted for, the mass rapes, the slavetaking, the wanton murders make what's going on now in Syria look like a particularly sedate bridge party.

In July 2011, the jihad officially ended when the largely Christian South Sudan achieved independence, although sporadic attacks by al-Bashir's military and aircraft still continue in places like the Nuba Mountains and along the South Sudan borders.

Due to the discord caused by the breakaway, al-Bashir is under pressure to turn the Sudan into a extremist fundamentalist, Muslim Brotherhood ruled Islamist state.

The key figure involved is a Muslim cleric by the name Hasan al-Turabi, who leads the Sudanese branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Turabi is an interesting figure, rather like our old friend the late and unlamented Imad Mugniyeh in that he has the ability to transcend the usual Sunni/Shiah divide and stay on good terms with a lot of different players and factions.

Al-Turabi comes from an influential and wealthy family and has a legal background, having studied at Khartoum University, the University of London and, finally, at the Sorbonne in Paris.

As what passed for the Sudan's attorney general, al-Turabi has been credited both with starting the civil war by forcing the introduction of sharia law into the Sudan in 1983 and with providing its religious wrapping, that of jihad.It was al-Turabi's brother-in-law, Sadeq al-Mahdi, was the Sudan's dictator during the early stages of the civil war from 1985 until 1989, when the current strongman Lt.-Gen. Omar al-Bashir overthrew al-Mahdhi in a military coup with al-Turabi's assistance.

In the past, he's been an ally of secular dictators like Saddam Hussein, as well as terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. He was on good terms with Osama bin Laden (bin-Laden reportedly was married to one of Turabi's nieces), remains on excellent terms with current al-Qaeda head Ayman Zawahiri and was instrumental in inviting them to come to the Sudan and set up training camps during the Clinton years.

He's also on good terms with Shiite entities like Iran and Hezbollah, and was instrumental in cementing the alliance between Iran and the al-Bashir regime.

The Iranians already have an arms factory in the Sudan to supply Hamas and their allies in Somalia, Yemen and Central Africa. If my sources are correct, they also maintain training camps staffed by Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah members, some of whom have been killed by Israeli air strikes on arms convoys headed north in the desert towards Sinai and Gaza.

What al-Turabi and his allies want from Bashir is a full on Muslim Brotherhood- ruled sharia state, comparable to Iran, Gaza,Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan under the Taliban.

After South Sudan seceded, the Islamists demanded that Bashir implement this, and have pledged to drive him from power if he doesn't. They formed a party headed by al-Turabi known as the Islamic Constitution Front and drafted a sharia-based constitution that the imam of Khartoum’s Grand Mosque endorsed saying Bashir must “either rule by Islam or go.”

Picture if you will the beginnings of a Muslim Brotherhood ruled caliphate, with Libya and the Sudan's oil wealth combined with Egypt and Gaza's ' manpower and strategic locations..especially if it's allied with a Shi'ite bloc consisting of Iran, Lebanon and Syria.

That's what al-Turabi has been working for and what he may end up being instrumental in creating.

The ethnic cleansing of over half a million Christians is only a first step.

What's notable about this is the hideous silence. There's little or nothing being reported in the media on this. For all the noise about the new Responsibility To Protect Doctrine that was evoked on Libya, the United Nations has nothing to say about what's happening in the Sudan, even though it violates the organization's own charter.

No one is talking about a no-fly zone to protect black Christians under air attack in South Sudan by the Bashir regime, even though our huge air base in Djibouti is within flying distance. The infamously misnamed UN Human Rights Commission is preoccupied with Israel to the point of derangement, and the Muslim countries running it will see to it that it stays that way.

And President Obama is utterly silent. No speeches, no talk of sanctions or aid to the Sudan's Christians, not even any outrage expressed ....not a word.

I've been following what's been going on in the Sudan for quite some time. For all the demonization of Western Imperialism so popular these days, it was those hated imperialists that largely destroyed the slave trade in the 1870's and brought a measure of peace, civil order and decency to the country for a brief time. It is our supposedly more modern and compassionate societies that have seen the horror that has gone on in Darfur and in the South Sudan and done nothing...except react with silence.

That silence comes from fear of offending Islam, no matter how egregious and hateful the actions of a significant number of its followers become and no matter how deeply those actions offend our civilized norms. In the case of President Obama, it undoubtedly comes from his administration's deep seated policy of encouraging Islamists, specifically the Muslim Brotherhood. It reminds me of nothing so much as the1930's, when the appeasers in Britain and here in our own country reacted with the same indifference while Hitler armed his legions for conquest and ethnically cleansed Germany's Jews.

There will be a price for us ignoring the cries of our brothers. I believe in a just G-d who does His own accounting in His own time, and the Christians of the Sudan are going to be set down in those eternal records as a debt for us to pay in the future. We may not care for what that repayment, with interest entails.

"I Got Bin Laden" - And Why Obama's Big Boast Might Have Been A Huge Mistake

"..Osama bin Laden will never again walk the face of this Earth. That’s what change is."

So said President Obama at a recent fundraiser, the same one where he also claimed that Republicans threaten the "very core of what this country stands for."

Let's ignore his attacking the GOP's patriotism and focus on that first statement, because President Obama keeps coming back to it as a great foreign policy achievement of his. Was it?

Osama bin Laden certainly deserved death if any one did. But foreign policy is based on strategic goals, not on simply meting out justice to those who've murdered Americans. If President Obama's chief concern was punishing people who've murdered Americans, we wouldn't be aiding the Palestinian Authority, Hamas or the Hezbollah-controlled government of Lebanon and Iran would be a smoking crater right now, with the mullahs, President Ahmadinejad and a lot of other members of that government turned into halal crisps.

Since President Obama is touting this as a great foreign policy accomplishment of his and is using it to raise money, let's simply take a cold hard look at it in the light of what it actually accomplished from that perspective.

At the time he was assassinated, Osama bin Laden was essentially living quietly as a guest of the Pakistani government in Abbottobad. His health was not the best, so a great deal of the actual operational command was in the hands of his subordinate, Egyptian-born former Muslim Brotherhood leader Ayman Zawahiri.

As President Obama has pointed out, al-Qaeda has been weakened severely and marginalized, thanks to bin Laden's miscalculation in making Iraq a central front of jihad and suffering massive losses of men and material. That happened, ironically, because of military strategies like the surge Senator Obama did his very best to criticize and sabotage before he entered the White House.

At the time of bin Laden's death, Al-Qaeda had become more of a brand name, a proselytizing force over the internet and an inspiration to young jihadis rather than an actual source of many attacks.

We used a painstakingly created network of Pakistani informers and intel sources to nail down bin-Laden's whereabouts and plan the operation that assassinated him. We then sent the valiant men of Navy Seal Team Six into Pakistan via helicopter, broke into bin-Laden's compound, shot him down, removed his body, gave him a proper Islamic funeral ( which involves cursing Christians and Jews, if the usual text was used) and threw his body into the sea.

So we accomplished an act of retribution. Let's examine the results and see if they were worth it.

The Pakistanis were predictably livid at being exposed, again, as a major aider and abetter of Islamic fascism and terrorism. Their honor/shame mentality kicked in and rather than express regret that they had been caught sheltering a mass murderer, they went into hysterics about the violation of their sovereignty. They arrested every member of the Pakistani network they could get their hands on that helped the US find and assassinate bin-Laden and charged them with treason, which will likely end in a number of executions. Aside from our network in Pakistan being burnt, this assured that we're going to have great difficulty with intel from that country in the future.

The Pakistanis also closed the land route they control into Afghanistan through the Torkum Pass for several days. This route transports 75% of the supplies going into Afghanistan for our troops, who now simply had to make do without needed supplies for a few days. Also, because the stopped supply trucks were sitting ducks, the Taliban manged to destroy several of them.

Even more costly, we lost one of our helicopters in the bin-Laden operation, a Blackhawk. Now, these normally cost about $20 million or so, but this one cost a great deal more, because it had been highly modified with top secret stealth technology that brought its cost up to more like $60 million. Even worse, the SEAL's were unable to completely destroy it, and the angry Pakistanis gleefully gave it to the Chinese to examine at their leisure. The potential loss of technology is in the millions, not to mention our relationship with Pakistan, which has worsened considerably and is unlikely to recover for some time if at all.

But the worse is yet to come.

When we take a look at exactly why Osama bin-Laden was ratted out after all this time, some interesting intel surfaces. As I've mentioned on these pages before, we know that there was a substantial disagreement between Osama and his chief lieutenant Ayman Zawahiri, prior to Osama's death. Bin laden was relatively comfortable in Abbotobad and wanted to keep al-Qaeda anchored in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Zawahiri, looking at developments in his native Egypt and elsewhere like the 'Arab Spring' , the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and President Obama's already announced retreat from the region was pushing to relocate al-Qaeda back to the Middle East and the roiling Arab world.

So now that Osama's dead (and according to my sources, there are pretty solid indications he was deliberately fingered) Zawahiri, a former Muslim Brotherhood member has taken over and we see increased al-Qaeda presence in both the Egyptian Sinai and Libya, as well as in Iraq where the Maliki government's marginalization of the Sunnis has given al-Qaeda new life.

Moreover, should Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist governments take over in Egypt and Libya as seems likely, Ayman Zawahiri, al-Qaeda and its affiliates like Takfir-wal Higra can count on a haven to train and recruit, with Libya's oil wealth and Egypt's population and rabid Islamism to draw on.

So let's reiterate, shall we? The chief foreign policy triumph President Obama continually boasts about consists of taking out a largely defanged terrorist. It cost us millions of dollars, inflamed an already unfriendly but unfortunately necessary relationship between the US and Pakistan, burnt our intel network in that country, gave the Chinese and probably the Russians and Iranians a good look at American state of the art stealth technology that cost additional millions to develop, and helped relocate al-Qaeda to the heart of the Middle East after we had largely driven them out.

'Foreign policy achievement' or a fiasco being used for political effect? You be the judge.

The Most Dangerous Story In The News Today

In today's Washington Post..here's the opening paragraph:

U.S. counterterrorism officials are increasingly convinced that the killing of Osama bin Laden and the toll of seven years of CIA drone strikes have pushed al­-Qaeda to the brink of collapse.

The article quotes the usual unnamed sources.

The WAPO, being the relatively careful news organization it is covers its tracks carefully with caveats stuck away in odd corners like "al Qaeda might yet rally", "its demise would not end the terrorist threat" and "Even if al Qaeda is dismantled, its militant ideology has spread and will remain a long-term threat."

But the headline and the overwhelming thrust of the article is that al-Qaeda is finished.

Isn't that just wonderful? Wouldn't it be nice to believe that the war that began on 9/11 is all over now, and we beat the bad guys?

Sorry, but I'm afraid I have to pop your bubble.Let's look at something obvious. Why would this be fed to the media just now? And who benefits?

This story fits neatly into the Obama Administration's plans. And even though the WAPO isn't naming names, I can pretty much figure out whom they got it from and why.

We're getting out of Afghanistan, but if we - oh pardon me, President Barack Obama - killed Osama bin-Laden and defeated al-Qaeda, it's not a retreat anymore is it? On the campaign trail, it becomes a win. It can be touted as ''We've finished off the bad guys, and look at who it was that ended Bush's War brought our troops home!' So President Obama gets a totally undeserved label from the usual media suspects as a national security genius.

Not only that but since we've won, we can slash defense spending to the bone and spend that money on Obama's domestic agenda, can't we?

Now that we've figured out the why and who benefits, let's examine who the media almost certainly got this from..and why it's so dangerous.

Leon Panetta, until very recently was the head of our CIA, and just a couple of weeks ago was in Afghanistan saying "We’re within reach of strategically defeating al Qaeda."

Now, he's the Secretary of Defense charged with two major responsibilities. First, getting our troops out of Afghanistan in accordance with President Obama's set in stone date in time for maximum benefit for the president at election time, and selling it to Congress and the media as justified by the military situation. And second, to institute the massive defense cuts his boss is calling for.

All just a coincidence, of course. But I think it's a pretty good bet that he's the WAPO's source, that this was ordered directly by the White House and that we'll likely see more of these stories.

Aside from the despicable nature of playing politics with national security, this story is extremely dangerous in and of itself.

Contrary to what this president and his administration would have you believe, we were never really just fighting al-Qaeda, but a whole slew of Islamist organizations ( many of them associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and other Salafist groups) and the rogue states that support them. Al-Qaeda were at most just part of the parade, and slightly out of hand subcontractors. And the story also ignores the significant ties between al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood and what that might mean in countries like Egypt. If you'll recall, al-Qaeda's current leader, Ayman Zawahiri is both an Egyptian and a former member of the Brotherhood, and I've speculated on these pages that the one of the reasons Osama bin-Laden was ratted out was because of the disagreement between the two about staying in Pakistan versus relocating to the Arab World.

This story's also extremely dangerous because of the honor shame factor involved. Trumpeting al-Qaeda's defeat in the press could be just the impetus needed for them to put another operation against the Great Satan into action.

Deluding the American people into thinking that this war is mostly over and lulling them into a false sense of security is exactly what the Islamists want. In fact, that war, because of the desultory way our leaders chose to fight it is merely begun.

That's why this piece is the most dangerous story in the news today.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Pakistanis Allow China To Inspect Downed US Chopper - May Turn It Over To Them

Our 'allies' Pakistan have already allowed the Chinese to inspect that downed US Blackhawk helicopter with top secret stealth technology used in the raid to get Osama bin-Laden.

The FOX correspondent interviewed here says that there's not a chance the Pakistanis will comply with US demands to turn the wreckage back over to them, and the Chinese are bidding high tohave the Pakistanis turn it over to them.

Based on the value of that technology which is now almost certainly compromised, it certainly puts a hefty price tag on killing Osama bin-Laden.

(h/t, The Noisy Room)

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Pakistanis Refuse to Turn Wreckage Of Downed Stealth Copter Over To US: "China Wants A Look At It"

Unbelievable.

The Pakistanis are refusing to comply with US requests to return the wreckage of the downed US Blackhawk helicopter used in the raid to get Osama bin-Laden.

The helicopter was modified to contain top secret stealth technology, and the Pakistanis say they're interested in studying the remains. Besides, as one unnamed Pakistani government official told ABC News, the Chinese are very interested in looking at the remains of the helicopter.

A U.S. official was quoted as saying he didn't know if the Pakistanis had offered a look at the damaged helicopter to the Chinese, but said he would be "shocked" if the Chinese hadn't already been given access to the downed aircraft.

Let's hurry up and give our 'ally' some more money, shall we?

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD in Foreign Policy On Bin-Laden's Demise

Blogpal and Watcher's Council mate Courtney Messerschmidt, aka GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD has a nifty piece in Foreign Policy that sheds a great deal of light on how Osama's seawater nap looks to people who have literally grown up in the shadow of 9/11...plus you get a fetching photo of her in her lamb's ears hat! Here's a slice:

For those of us who were 10 or 11 years old on 9/11, the news of bin Laden's death is worthy of celebration. It is a tremendous moral victory for our nation and it validates what so many of us have learned in the past decade -- that America really is a magical nation -- the only one of her kind (more on this in a bit).

It's the triumph of good over evil. Sound passé'? Au contraire -- most of us reject moral relativism.

It's because for half of our entire lives we have lived with scary and creepy stuff like Taliban, al Qaeda, jihad, and the threat of terrorism on a mass attack scale from the indescribable horrors we saw live on TV that day -- with almost daily threats from various branches of aQ that they would gladly kill more Americans anyway and anytime they could.

Unlike the Soviet threat in ancient times -- al Qaeda had no embassies or diplomats at U.N. to double talk and speak of peaceful coexistence. aQ was always intolerant, and totally hot for murderous activities that targeted innocents by design.

9/11 was the pivotal day in our very young lives and OBL's timely demise seems to have closed a chapter that lasted forever.

Read the rest here.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Did Osama's Muslim Funeral Curse Christians And Jews And Ask For Pardon And 'Paradise'?

The Obama Administration has yet to release photos or give any details of the funeral it provided for Osama bin-Laden, but President Obama's terrorism czar John Brennan assured the press “It was done appropriately with the appropriate people there. Burial at sea takes place on a regular basis. The US military has the ability to ensure that that burial is done in a manner that is, again, consistent with Islamic law, as well as consistent with what the requirements are for a burial at sea. And so that burial was done appropriately.”

Anneke Green's story in the Washington Times which cites “Navy Military Funerals, (pp. 34-35)” which describes in explicit detail exactly what transpires during a Muslim burial as sea.

The body must have been washed and wrapped “as required for the bodies of Muslims,” which refers to ceremonial cleanings that must be done by another Muslim. Those who have gathered to pray at the burial—ostensibly crewmembers since family is not allowed at sea burials—must face Mecca.

Formal funeral prayers must be said—and are specifically listed in the service used by the Navy. In the part of the service in which supplication for the deceased is made, the prayer to be used includes the following:

“O Allah, forgive him, have mercy on him, pardon him, grant him security, provide him a nice place and spacious lodgings, wash him (off from his sins) with water, snow and ice, purify him from his sins as a white garment is cleansed from dirt, replace his present abode with a better one, replace his present family with a better one, replace his present partner with a better one, make him enter paradise and save him from the trials of grave [sic] and the punishment of hell.”

I'm sure the families of the people who had to chose whether to burn to death or leap to their deaths from the Twin Towers are gratified to know that prayers were said for Osama bin-Laden asking Allah to bestow Paradise on him, with a bigger house and nicer wives!

But it gets even worse. As Andrew Bostom reveals, according to Navy Military Funerals, the Islamic prayer service ( p. 34) must include the opening sura of the Qu'ran, known as “Fatiha”, before the above prayer which includes an eternal curse upon Jews and Christians:

“The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).”

For example, the 2008 English translation (by a pious Muslim translator) of the classical single volume Koranic commentary Tafsir al-Jalalayn, proclaims,

“This translation gives non-Arabic speakers access to one of the seminal works of classical tafsir literature. It is hoped that it will prove a valuable aid to the correct understanding of the Qur’anic Revelation throughout the English-speaking world.”

As the Koranic commentary Tafsir al-Jalalayn explains, Muslims are told in the preceding verse, Koran 1:6,

“Guide us on the straight path” means, direct us to it.

The commentary continues,

It is followed by its appositive [in verse 7], “…the Path of those You have blessed,” with guidance, “not of those with anger on them,” who are the Jews, “nor of the misguided,”who are the Christians. The grammatical structure here shows that those who are guided are not the Jews or the Christians. Allah Almighty knows best what is correct, and to Him is the return and the homecoming. May Allah bless our Master Muhammad and His family and Companions and grant them abundant peace always and forever. Allah is enough for us and the best Protector. There is no strength nor power except by Allah, the High, the Immense.

The modern Koranic commentary Ma’ariful Qur’an, written by Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi (1898-1976), former Grand Mufti of (pre-Partition) India, and founder of Darul Ulum Karachi, is the best known Koranic commentary in Urdu. This modern Koranic exegesis comports with the classical commentary on verse 1:7, highlighting the Koran’s strident Antisemitism, and accompanying Christianophobia:

Those who have incurred Allah’s wrath are the people, who in spite of being quite familiar with the commandments of Allah willfully go against them out of a calculated perversity or in the service of their desires, or, in other words, who are deficient in obeying divine injunctions.

This, for example, was the general condition of the Jews who were ready to sacrifice their religion for the sake of a petty worldly gain, and used to insult and sometimes even to kill their prophets.

As for (those who go astray), they are the people who, out of ignorance or lack of thought, go beyond the limits appointed by Allah, and indulge in excess and exaggeration in religious matters. This, for example, has generally been the error of the Christians who exceededthe limits in their reverence for a prophet and turned him into a god. On the one hand, there is the rebelliousness of the Jews who not only refused to listen to the prophets of Allah but went on to kill them; on the other hand, there is the excessive zeal of the Christians who deified a prophet.

Like the Adhan, the Muslim call to prayer that gets blasted at high volume from Islam's minarets, the funeral services are filled with disrespect for the 'other'.

Did the US Navy, on President Obama's orders follow its official protocol ( doubtless developed for them by one of those helpful Saudi -trained imams) in the funeral of Osama bin-Laden?

We have a right to know if this kind of disgusting dhimmitude was practiced in the burial of Osama bin-Laden - and who knows how many other Islamist terrorists.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

License To Kill....

Chris Muir at Day By Day, of course!

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!