The American Spectator : Do I Hear Cheers for George Bush?

Text Size

The Current Crisis

Do I Hear Cheers for George Bush?

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 5.5.11 @ 6:08AM

Not in bucolic Abbottabad, perhaps, and especially not inside the editorial compound of the New York Times.

WASHINGTON — I in my innocence was, in the aftermath of SEAL Team Six’s disruption of Osama bin Laden’s bucolic life in posh Abbottabad, reading editorial comment by the great newspapers of this republic. As always the Wall Street Journal was superb, pausing to congratulate President Barack Obama for “ordering a special forces mission rather than settling for another attack with drones or stand-off weapons from afar.” The Washington Post was, likewise, informative and appreciative of the President’s prudent decision to let SEAL Team Six do its thing, skirting the laws of a sovereign nation and acting unilaterally to put a bullet hole in Osama’s head.

Then I turned to our nation’s newspaper of record, the New York Times. Not once but twice the Times’ editorialists departed from heaving confetti to remind us all of George W. Bush, the war criminal. They could have maintained a gentlemanly forbearance. They could have stifled their urge to again vent their hatred of this man and instead join in our national celebration. Rather, they allowed that little creep that lurks in the back of their minds and serves as a conscience to squeal. All fellow ritualistic Liberals have one. It is what lowers every political moment in America, every historic occasion in recent years, to the level of juvenilia. What cads they are!

Now, of course, we know, that Osama was caught precisely because of those much reviled “enhanced interrogation techniques,” including the dreaded “waterboarding” of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and several other barbarians. Such actions led to the identification of the courier who traveled the dusty byroads of Afghanistan and Pakistan to deliver Osama’s many bulls and fatwas to his agents. We also know that the CIA interrogators, whom the Democrats and Liberals at the Times wanted to prosecute, spent several years sifting through the information, some reliable some not, to find the one place in this world where the dog Osama was hiding. Doubtless over these many years they have been wrong. But this time they were right, so in the event that some had their careers set back and others destroyed, can we now return these intelligence officers to favor? They performed brilliantly. Maybe we can all get a respite from Hollywood’s portrayals of American heroes as brutes.

We also know that our intelligence community resorted to intercepted communications to identify Osama’s agents. Some of these communications were probably routed through America. This at some point involved the “domestic wiretapping” that the Times exposed some years ago. Very few complained, for the Times was securing our civil liberties and those of foreign agents. In fact there was general celebration among the Liberals at the Times’ heroics. Did that make it all the more difficult to get Osama? Oh, well, Obama got him. As one Jimmy Fallon joked on NBC’s “Late Night,” “Bin Laden is dead! Just like the Republicans’ chances in 2012.”

Yet, to answer Mr. Fallon, there is no bump for Obama. Rasmussen reports a one-point bump. Thirty-seven percent of the American people strongly disapprove of our President’s behavior. Twenty-four present strongly approve. Over the next few weeks the White House will continue to make a hash of things, changing its stories, reversing itself on what pictures of the deceased to publish, committing as yet unimagined pratfalls. An incompetent president will continue to be incompetent. The White House is a hell of a place to learn on the job.

One story reported in the news after the operation in Abbottabad suggests the antics we shall be savoring in the weeks ahead. It took Obama 16 hours to make up his mind about the SEALs going in. While around the world the heads of the SEALs’ vastly complicated project were on pins and needles, the President went off to sleep on his decision. What would he decide when he awakened? Reportedly he informed a national security meeting, “I’m not going to tell you what my decision is now — I’m going to go back and think about it some more.” And then he went off to “sleep on it.” The next morning he said, “It’s a go.”

Yet maybe the next time there will be no go. Many of the techniques used by our military and intelligence people have been outlawed. They were Bush’s tactics and they have been discredited, no?

About the Author

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (404) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

jd| 5.5.11 @ 6:25AM

Ironic that Obama is taking credit for something that happened because of Bush's policies. At a minimum he should acknowledge that. If Obama were president after 911 we would never have seen the interrogations at Gitmo and never have caught bin Laden. Kudos go to our elite special ops, and Presient Bush's war on terror policies -- both of which were totally vindicated.

Intelligent Design| 5.5.11 @ 8:12AM

Amen.

jon b| 5.7.11 @ 4:14PM

I'm curious: why did the Bush Pentagon order the US Army to not go in and get Usama in December 2001 when we had him trapped at Tora Bora? Is it possible that they wanted Usama alive so they could keep lying their way into Iraq?

Why did Bush become friends with Musharef after he made a peace treaty with Usama in September 2001 giving him safe harbor? http://blogs.abcnews.com/thebl.....ives_.html

Why did the FBI's deputy director of counter terrorism John O'Neil resign under protest in February 2001? Anyone?

Why did "W" disband the special unit assigned to find Usama in 2005?

Why did Bush pull troops and intelligence off Usama's trail in the fall of 2002? Any takers?

canuckistani| 5.5.11 @ 10:36AM

You are assuming 9/11 would have happened under Obama in the first place.

victor| 5.5.11 @ 10:47AM

And you assume that 9/11 wouldn't have happened at all?

Given what facts?

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 11:09AM

Warned that Osama Bin Laden is planning to attack the United States in August - had we a competent President like President Obama, it might very well have been avoided. But, with Bush in the White House, "swatting flies" was not of interest to the President

victor| 5.5.11 @ 11:27AM

Oh, look, it's purplegoo.

Explain what steps Obama's crack staff would have taken to prevent 9/11, eh?

Doorgunner| 5.5.11 @ 12:54PM

When first alerted to 9/11-type realities, we had a "competent" president like Obama: his name was Clinton...

your name is dirt.

mike| 5.5.11 @ 1:21PM

9-11 happened after George Bush and his advisers ignored the warnings. Once again a democrat had to clean up after a republican. It's not a coincident that the Obama team killed Bin Ladin. It's called competent leadership and priorities.

Drunken Sailor| 5.5.11 @ 1:30PM

And if Clinton hadn't ignored the early warning and destroyed our intelligence communities it might never have happend.

http://www.infowars.com/saved pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

See how easy it is to point fingers?

mike| 5.5.11 @ 1:53PM

Riiiiiiiight...Clinton made Bush ignore the warnings. Okaaaayyyyy...

Drunken Sailor| 5.5.11 @ 2:23PM

OK, I'll break it down it down for you. If Clinton had not ignored the warnings and had gotten Osama, there would have been no need for George Bush to try to capture a already captured man. Does that make sense to you now?

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 1:58PM

Clinton was busy shtupping Monica ... not a valid finger pointing exercise

Frisbee| 5.5.11 @ 1:59PM

The WTC was bombed in 1993. Clinton did nothing about it for 7 years.

The ONLY reason Obama took out Osama (illegally by the way) was that he's on the campaign trail.

mike| 5.5.11 @ 2:16PM

Those perps are in prison for life. Put there by Clinton's administration.

victor| 5.5.11 @ 3:11PM

Terror is NOT a "crime", it is an ACT of WAR!

Cindy| 5.5.11 @ 6:27PM

Also on Clinton's watch as he was 'busy' with the many women that were not his wife....the USS Cole attack and the bombing of the American Embassy in Africa.

DanMingo| 5.11.11 @ 1:14PM

The perpetrators were arrested, tried, and convicted.

idalily| 5.5.11 @ 3:21PM

That is a flat out lie. Bush and his advisors did not ignore any warnings. The moment Bush took office, he ordered report on terrorism and a plan for countermeasures to deal with it. That plan was literally on his desk, placed there just before the 9/11 attacks happened. Why do libs have to lie?

As for Dems "cleaning up" after Republicans, you've got it backwards. After the Dem, Clinton, was offered Bin Laden on a silver platter and refused to take him, we got 9/11. The Republican, Bush, spent almost 8 years trying to clean up that mess. Why do libs ignore facts that don't suit their agenda?

As for competent leadership, giving the go-ahead to get Bin Laden was the first sign of leadership we've had from Obama since he started, and that decision took him 16 hours to make.

jon b| 5.7.11 @ 3:54PM

You're a wee bit misguided idalily. The plan on his desk was the Clinton plan that Richard Clarke tried to get on his desk in January 2001. Bush "ordered" a report on terrorism because he TOTALLY IGNORED the just completed and released Hart/Rudman report on terrorism. Bush's commission on terrorism NEVER EVEN MET. Clinton was NEVER offered Bin Laden on a silver platter either. The offers from Sudan were false, and not from the government, but rather an investor in oil fortunes in Sudan, who went to work for FOX news shortly after he made the declaration. yes, BU$H made the biggest mess of the US economy after he was handed record budget surpluses. You were almost right on the last on Ida :)

nina in ma| 5.7.11 @ 7:56PM

Ahem, I beg to differ as to Obama's leadership. It did take hours, as usual judging by his past decisions to do anything of significance, to "decide" after he was coerced to do so by Clinton, Gates and Panetta. He was persuaded against doing much of anything by Valarie Jarrett. Should have dropped the bomb on them in March and we wouldn't have had to subject our Navy to burying "within Islamic law" the man responsible for the attack on the USS Cole, for which Clinton did nothing about.

Fretgenie| 5.8.11 @ 2:19PM

The notion that one side handled this well and the other poorly is just intellectual laziness. Bush's almost indecipherable, misguided over-response to 9/11 probably added at least a wasted $2- 3 trillion in costs. It also reduced our effectiveness in responding to terror. It was a complete misfire. Obama's weakness has been the economy and a complete lack of understanding of how business and the free market both function. I voted for Bush and attended his initial inaugural. I also believe he was the worst president in American history.

DanMingo| 5.11.11 @ 1:25PM

reality check; Cheney's terrorism task force did not meet until sept 2001.
Also, the PDB titled 'bin laden determined to strike the US was ignored, as was the CIA briefer who was told ;you've covered your ass, now go back to work.
Then Mr. Bush went fishing, or golfing that August of 2001. Just check out the book by Richard Clarke who was the head of counter-terrorism under Clinton, then Bush. The focus on the Bush administration was not on terrorism; it was focused on the oil fields of Iraq. You can also look up the PNAC which had the same goals (iraq's oil fields) and had members throughout the administration (Cheney, Libby, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Feith etc) advocating for the overthrow of Saddam.
They did not care about terrorism or bin laden, as Bush clearly demonstrated by DISBANDING the bin laden strike force team, and saying he did not really think about bin laden too much.
He did not care!
You have no proof of any of your assertions, like Clinton was offered bin laden on a silver platter, or that Bush spent years cleaning up Clinton's mess.
What mess? The budget surplus?

BD57| 5.5.11 @ 5:02PM

Oh please ....

simon templar| 5.6.11 @ 12:09AM

Historical revision at its best. Stay there in fantasy land, please. You are not worth the trouble.

frank Raiden| 6.16.11 @ 1:36PM

What are you smoking? I'd like to buy some.

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 1:57PM

Unfortunately, Clinton was shtupping Monica, so he's not a valid comparison ...

victor| 5.5.11 @ 3:10PM

If your boy Billy did his job and snuffed Obama when he had the chance, and he had EIGHTof them, we wouldn't be here talking about any of this.

Bubba| 5.5.11 @ 4:56PM

If Clinton and Obama were not cowards in the first instance, you might have a point. I served under good CICs and the difference was palpable.

Antidote| 5.8.11 @ 9:32PM

And let's not forget of W's complete indifference to Osama in his last term, despite the fact that everyone knew he was hiding in North Pakistan under and agreement with the Pakistani government. Could it be that W's loyalty to the Saudis was stronger than his loyalty to the USA?

Jive Bomber| 5.5.11 @ 10:48AM

A safe assumption, we assure you.

BD57| 5.5.11 @ 10:51AM

You're assuming it wouldn't?

You think KSM started working on the plan on 1/20/2001 because "Thank Allah, I don't have to deal with Bill Clinton or Al Gore anymore"?

JimmyMac| 5.5.11 @ 4:55PM

Yes, you fool.

GW| 5.5.11 @ 7:00PM

Miss me yet?

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 11:47PM

Yup.

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 11:16PM

Yes, it would. Fort Hood happened under Obama, as did the underwear bomber, oodles of "honor killings," ad nauseum.

Zombies eat brains, they don't care about your reasoning or actions.

Zombies in Da House| 5.6.11 @ 3:34AM

Occam's Tool:
"Zombies eat brains, they don't care about your reasoning or actions."

You asked for it:

http://www.amazon.com/Obama-Zo.....1439172072

Rick | 5.5.11 @ 2:32PM

Credit should go to Dubya? For being asleep for 9/11? For plunging us into Iraq? For failing to catch Osama bin Laden? Let me know where, and I'll start applauding.

dragon6actual| 5.5.11 @ 3:35PM

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Kishego| 5.5.11 @ 4:19PM

Awesome !

jb| 5.5.11 @ 6:21PM

dragon6actual is a hero

Ruth Bacon| 5.5.11 @ 6:39PM

Many thanks for that list of quotes. I once had a similar copy (two full pages) that I took off the Internet. I get sooooo MAD when I still hear "no WMD!" The only thing they didn't find was loaded, ready to fire warheads; it was suspected that Hussein was waiting for the inspectors to give up and leave before loading any. All these "quoters" turned on Bush and blamed him for actually going after what they assured him existed. But libs conveniently forget that!

nina in ma| 5.7.11 @ 8:03PM

They conveniently forget that all those mentioned above, dems and repubs, all agreed with the WMD threat. Now,they turn on Bush calling him a liar for saying that. Unbelievable.

frank Raiden| 6.16.11 @ 1:39PM

Still drinking the kool-aid eh?

Alan Brooks| 5.6.11 @ 4:01AM

Bush deserves thanks for:
NOT BEING PRESIDENT ANYMORE.

good riddance to bad president

Poppakap| 5.6.11 @ 2:24PM

I was hoping we could say the same thing to you.

...and while you're making comparisons, Obummer isn't worthy to lick the dirt off Dubya's ranch boots.

Jon B| 5.6.11 @ 11:41AM

Just curious, which policy? Pulling the FBI and CIA off Bin Laden's trail in February 2001, when the FBI's deputy director of counter terrorism, John O'Neal resigned under protest over it? Or ignoring the Hart/Rudman report on counter terrorism in early 2001? Did you mean ignoring George Tenet's plea to Condi in the summer of 2001, "There WILL be an attack!?" or do you mean ignoring Richard Clarke's constant stream of warnings about attacking al Qaida as the #1 priority as soon as Bush took office until 9/11? Maybe you meant bush's ignoring 13 countries warnings about the coming attacks? Or the FBI intelligence showing which airlines would be hijacked, and what day the attack would occur, but not what city, and how Bush did absolutely NOTHING about it? or did you mean ignoring and then lying multiple times about the August 6, 2001 PDB telling of Osama's determination to attack inside America? Or perhaps you were referring to the Pentagon, under orders from Cheney, telling the US Army to NOT get Osama at Tora Bora in December 2001 when we had him trapped? Or did you possible mean when Bush lied his way into Iraq and pulled intelligence and troops/special ops off Osama's trail a second time in 2002? It's hard to understand which policy you mean, sir JD

jon b| 5.7.11 @ 3:58PM

In Bush's first week in office he ordered two US attack subs aimed at Bin Laden's camps to stand down. In february, he ordered the FBI and CIA off of Bin Laden's trail. He ignored warnings from 13 countries about the forthcoming attacks. Bush ignored George tenet's plea to Condi in the summer of 2001 "There is GOING TO BE an ATTACK!" Bush ignored the 8-6-2001 CIA PDF telling of Bin laden's coming attack in the United States, then he lied about it multiple times. Bush ignored FBI intelligence about the day of the attack, and which airlines would be hijacked. Bush ignored the Hart/Rudman report on terrorism, and the "puts" on stocks of companies in the WTC buildings.

Even with dozens of warnings of coming attacks on "important symbols of American culture" Bush did absolutely NOTHING.

Fretgenie| 5.8.11 @ 2:23PM

The Democrats do deserve some credit for never suggesting the 9/11 attacks were Bush's fault. They would have been decapitated for doing it at the time but in hindsight, these attacks could clearly and obviously been easily prevented.

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.5.11 @ 6:39AM

Well Emmett,
I guess we should be sorta' glad that if we have to have a totalitarian communist, (pardon the shorthand), president, it's good that he is indeed incompetent.

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 10:43AM

When the great Mike Royko asked the great Carl Sandburg at a cocktail party what Sandburg would do in the event of a nuclear war, all paused to listen.

Sandburg replied, slowly and precisely: "I would be sure [pause] to have plenty of receptacles [pause] for what Norman Mailer [pause] would refer to as shit."

If gas stays above $4.00 a gallon (my prediction is up to $6.00 by mid -2012), that will decide the 2012 election, and Obama's chances will closely approximate Sandburg's comments regarding necessities for Nuclear War. Ken is the expert on gas prices, though, and I defer to him.

The Bishop| 5.5.11 @ 1:20PM

Occam, love the Royko anecdote. We could use a few Mike Royko today.

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 11:10AM

Results to the contrary old one.

victor| 5.5.11 @ 11:41AM

Explain why your boy Barry is choosing a bloody lizard over countless unemployed Americans in his pursuit of energy independence, eh?

Alaska and the Rockies and the Gulf off-limits will also ensure 6.00 a gallon gas.

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 2:01PM

And you think that wasn't coming sooner or later? Grow up. Oil is a finite resource (means there's an end to the supply), so the day was coming. If $6.00 gas gets us off oil, so be it, before it's $12.00 gas.

victor| 5.5.11 @ 3:09PM

"None so blind as those who will not see"

You will protect the annointed one's butt no matter what price you have to pay, eh?

Read this study and tell me we arerunning out oil.
And what is your alternative?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/i.....a5eaead952

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 12:06PM

Are you dense? When was oil created? How was it created? Are we creating anymore? If you know the answers, then you know we WILL run out of oil. It's not Red/Blue, Right/Left, it's a fact. You know, those pesky things that get in your way of ideology.

If you don't know the answers, then don't open your mouth and prove how uninformed you are - go read a book on the Carboniferous Age - you will learn something.

Poppakap| 5.6.11 @ 2:38PM

The aggregate supply of oil is irrelevant long-term. What is relevant is the impact of innovative technologies that allow us to maximize the utility of any given amount of oil.

The libs have been using the canard of "getting us off oil" as an excuse to not increase short-term oil supply for almost 40 years. Despite billions of tax incentives, not a single feasible, economically sustainable alternative has emerged. We use crude because it produces the greatest amount of energy per dollar spent to procure it. Until we find another source of energy with similar productive capacity, it would be arrogant, selfish, and foolish to stop using it. Millions of lives have been lifted from poverty due to the value chain associated with the use of crude. No amount of well-wishing, tax-and-spending, or kumbaya singing will change that fact.

Nunya| 5.5.11 @ 4:10PM

Purp, a quick lesson in economics--First, oil would be a LOT cheaper if our current idiot-in-chief (as well as some former ones and Congress-critters) would allow our companies to drill and release the reserves we have in this country. Second, $6 oil won't "get us off it", by any stretch of the imagination. It will only make everything you buy more expensive. Think about this: EVERYTHING is brought to you by trucks. It may go by train for a distance, but you don't see storefronts next to rail stations. Trucks must deliver the products to where you purchase them. When we hit $6 gas, diesel is likely to be at $7. Do you think the trucking companies are just going to absorb that cost and take a loss?? Not hardly. They pass that cost through higher rates and "fuel surcharges" to the retailer they're delivering to, who then passes them on to you, the consumer. Anyone advocating for $6 gas is an idiot--and is being led by our idiot-in-chief.

Nunya| 5.5.11 @ 4:14PM

One other thing I forgot to mention. Oil is the most common hydrocarbon that used for almost everything plastic made in our world. Higher oil prices drives the price up of manufactured goods as well, before they even get to the shipping dock.

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 12:08PM

Yes, it does, so it's stupid to use this most valuable resource when there are alternatives for heating and transportation. When the oil is gone, it's gone forever. Price is immaterial to the rich that the R's support - so what's the problem? the R's don't care about the "little" people that can't support their campaign war chests. Raise the price, conserve the oil. It's simple.

Poppakap| 5.6.11 @ 3:32PM

When was the last time you read a newspaper or paid attention to campaign contributions? Starting with Clinton's campaign, the big money corporate folks have been solidly in the pocket of the lefties. GE, General Motors, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Microsoft, Apple, Morgan Stanley, etc. all gave huge donations to the dems. The old class warfare Maxist dogma doesn't fly anymore. If anything, the reverse is true. Conservatives, not Republicans, represent the values and ideas of Americas common people. That's why less than 20 per cent of the US population identify themselves as pinkos while almost 50 per cent identify themselves as conservatives. Furthermore, more conservatives give more money to charitable causes by an almost 2 to 1 ratio than pinkos do. Finally, over 80 percent of all America's job are provided by small businesses; entrepreneurs that make up the heart of the tea-party movement.

So spare me the krapola about dems representing the little guy. It ain't true and hasn't been true for a long time, and won't change anytime soon due to the dems constant need for hundreds of billions of dollars to finance their Marxist dreams.

W| 5.5.11 @ 4:50PM

spoken like a guy who does not work, sits at home collecting welfare

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 12:10PM

I'll take bets I make more than you ever will. I simply have a conscience and a brain - I am not led by politicos or journalista whores for ratings. It would be good if you all would read about oil - where it came from, what's left, and why there will be no more for your descendants... if not us too.

Poppakap| 5.6.11 @ 3:33PM

Just more evidence that money doesn't equal intelligence or good judgment.

W| 5.7.11 @ 10:52AM

ok, state your income

W| 5.5.11 @ 4:50PM

spoken like a guy who does not work, sits at home collecting welfare

Ruth Bacon| 5.5.11 @ 6:50PM

Hey Purple, I am sitting practically on top of enough oil to last for many years; certainly beyond the time when other energy sources are feasible and even marginally affordable. In the meantime, it is too soon to stop drilling, and stupidly relying on oil from countries that hate us. Can you afford an electric car? I surely can't, in fact can't afford a newer one that could be converted to natural gas (20 thousand dollars to convert a diesel truck to natural gas). So I say, "drill!" - off-shore in Gulf and Alaska and in the Bakken Incline (before the gov. grabs all the land for a buffalo run!)

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 12:15PM

As you all are aware, market forces set the prices for cars - if you all would start buying d* electric cars, the auto companies would kick it into high gear, mfg more of them, the price comes down - just like cameras, calculators, vcrs, dvd players and the like. Standing on the side yelling "drill baby drill" just delays the inevitable. China is getting ahead of us in this arena - we need to compete and win. What is not American about that?

We're only stuck with oil, until we're not. Would it not be better to have the decision in our own hands, instead of when we run out worldwide?
You people need to wake up - don't believe me - but please don't believe the politicians or the news people - go find out the facts for yourself. Read about the Carboniferous Era, what it gave us today, and why it is gone forever.

Lagiusmeatius| 5.5.11 @ 2:35PM

Victor,

We saw what happened in the gulf. It's pretty clear that if engineers paid by BP couldn't fix the disaster (even hypothetically), then BP overstepped their bounds as "responsible" drillers and took the risk anyways. Should we really risk more economic disaster in those fishing communities, and more environmental disaster in those waters and on the shoreline in the name of more gasoline consumption?
$6 per gallon I can handle. It's well worth it to preserve the environment in those areas. If environmental costs were actually included in the true "cost" of gasoline, people would have curbed their use long ago -- but since it hasn't, rather the price has been left up to the market (with no environmental / natural-capital cost included), combined with monopolization to some extent, finally raised these prices above some amount that some people find "unfair". I'll gladly pay $8 per gallon or more if it means better conservation of resources, a smaller carbon footprint, and better conservation of the environment. Rising gas prices are a sign that we as a country, secondly as a globe, need to make serious lifestyle changes. Removing our foreign dependence on oil is important, which is why we need just a couple more percent of our GDP worth of investment in alternative energy and its implementation. Above all, we need to curb the amount of energy use, rather than trying to find alternative ways to meet the current energy demands. I find this to be a much more conservative approach, as opposed to a band-aid approach of dealing with a status quo rate of consumption, regardless of the cost to the environment. Once lines are crossed, the line itself disappears -- the drilling that precipitates in regions of the country that are deemed conservatories, parks, wetlands, etc., will all be overtaken. One only needs to look at the simple fact that we have a limited amount of oil underground, period, and so alternative energy is critical meeting energy needs of the future, perhaps sooner than later -- regardless of environmental impact, we will run out. As populations continue to exponentially increase, and as blind consumerism continues the same increase with no regard to energy demands, we will hit a peak eventually and then the realities of energy via oil will come crashing down.

Peace and love to you Victor,
-Lagius

victor| 5.5.11 @ 3:12PM

Same goes for you too, LongNosius:

"None so blind as those who will not see"

You will protect the annointed one's butt no matter what price you have to pay, eh?

Read this study and tell me we are running out oil.
And what is your alternative?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/i.....a5eaead952

Ruth Bacon| 5.5.11 @ 7:00PM

I have a suggestion. Lagius (latin for lazy?) should come to MT and ND and see how the oil wells destroy the environment. But he needs to ask someone to take him on a tour because he would have one heck of a time finding any wells on his own in the vastness.

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 11:49PM

I love North Dakota. Thinking of retiring there.

Nunya| 5.5.11 @ 4:18PM

"...better conservation of resources, a smaller carbon footprint... "

Smaller carbon footprint? Really? Do you actually believe in Algore's vision of global warming? Really?

Al Gore did not invent the internet. He invented global warming. ;-)

Kishego| 5.5.11 @ 4:55PM

Aha! That's the answer, you nailed it, "all we need is a couple more percent of our GDP worth of investment in alternative energy and its implimentation" Why didn't I think of that!!!
When will you morons learn, there are numerous ways, I repeat, numerous ways to generate electrcity for the energy we need. THERE IS NO WAY TO STORE IT!!! The batteries we use are limited and expensive. The only thing more economical than oil as a store of energy is nuclear power. Don't you eggheads realize if someone could figure out how to store energy cheaply, efficiently and EFFECTIVE, they would not become uber billionares over night? Ask the UK how all those windmills worked last winter when they had to shut them down because of the cold. People died so pinheads like you can feel good thinking you want to be "good stewards of the environment and mother earth". Photo cells have been around for decades, you can improve on the materials and make them sturdier but, you can only generate a finite amount of electricity per cell, THEN THE SUN GOES DOWN! NO MORE ELECTRICITY TILL MORNING (if it's not raining), unless you can afford a barn full of batteries and have the means to maintain them. I'm happy for you that you can afford to pay $8 a gallon for gas, most people can't, nor should they have to. There is no reason we should have to pay so much, other than political greed and power over the masses. Which is facilitated, no, enabled by useful idiots. As for BP making a mess in the Gulf, again, there is no need for this. We should be drilling on land where it can be handled and maintained safely. The only reason we need to drill a mile under water is because of useful idiots that are tools of the thiefs that call themselves enviornmentalists.

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 11:48PM

Sir:

there has been no long term environmental damage to the Gulf by the BP incident.

Rick | 5.5.11 @ 2:34PM

Incompetent? Communist? Obama's policies led to the capture of Osama bin Laden, something Dubya failed to do.

W| 5.5.11 @ 2:51PM

identify the specific policies, ricky

Josh| 5.5.11 @ 6:00PM

The only policy that led to the capture of bin Laden is persistence. If GW did not have that we would have given up long ago. Obama is the lucky recipient of that persistence and would have given up on finding bin Laden faster than Clinton did.
And please do not take that as me being a fan of GW. Worst President I voted for (too young to have voted for Ford)

Poppakap| 5.6.11 @ 3:43PM

Not a single policy implemented by Obummer led to the killing of OBL. He merely continued the policies implemented by Dubya and his defense secretaries including Robert Gates. I guess you forgot that until this week Gates has also been Obummer's SecDef as well. Furthermore, during his campaign, the Anointed One decried almost every policy used by the Bush administration to bring terrorists to justice. Fortunately, when reality struck, and the Marxist from Chicago had to actually govern instead of campaign, smarter-heads prevailed and all the Bill Ayers-inspired ideology got flushed down the toilet in lieu of time-tested practices that actually work in geopolitic. Come to think of it, and for the grace of God, those policies are still in place today and providing results as so very well evidenced last Sunday night.

Jon B| 5.6.11 @ 11:43AM

Relax, Ken, Bush is gone, and the wealth redistribution/communism to the top away from working Americans has been temporarily slowed down. the only thing you have to fear, Ken, is your own ignorance.

Lawrence Boccardi| 5.5.11 @ 6:57AM

Ditto, Ken!

Rick | 5.5.11 @ 2:35PM

See my last comment to Ken the Texican: Incompetent? Communist? Obama's policies led to the capture of Osama bin Laden, something Dubya failed to do.

cuban pete| 5.5.11 @ 2:56PM

What "policies"? Mr. Obama kept the Bush procedures in place, ie Gitmo, interrogations,etc.
I'm sure the CIA/Navy Seals operation had been ongoing. Mr.Obama, despite I'm sure to his discomfort, allowed this to continue and the results took care of themselves.

idalily| 5.5.11 @ 3:24PM

Which Obama policies? Please, enlighten us.

Jon B| 5.6.11 @ 11:44AM

The Obama policy of NOT calling the CIA and FBI off Usama's trail twice, like Bush did. The Obama policy of ordering the attack instead of ordering the Army to NOT get Usama like Bush did at Tora Bora in December 2001. Stuff like that, you know...

Poppakap| 5.6.11 @ 3:46PM

Revisionist history at its finest. Breathless in its silliness and inaccuracy. Par for the course when "Mother Jones" and BSNBC are ones sources for information.

Appleby| 5.5.11 @ 7:16AM

History will sort this all out and the right people will get the credit. Meanwhile, most people under 30 have no idea who Osama actually was or why it matters that he is dead, and people between 25 and 40 are far more interested in who is winning Dancing with the Stars. The flood of patriotic enthusiasm seen in flyover country and in the military academies and at Ground Zero mystifies them. (It also mystifies a good many of my Canadian friends, who never see this kind of solidarity in their own country.)

Dan Hirsch| 5.5.11 @ 8:33AM

Appleby,

You obviously don't know many twenty somethings.

As to the efficacy of history getting it right, I say 'Good luck.' The Obama administration has so confused and confounded this that it will never be sorted out because they have wandered all over this thing!

George S| 5.5.11 @ 9:30AM

People under 30? I'll bet most of those SEAL members who took out Bin Laden didn't even hit puberty on 9-11-2001.

canuckistani| 5.5.11 @ 10:49AM

It also reinforces to many of my Canadian friends how flyover country can be so naive and sycophantic in the last 10 years.

The comments by knowledgable observers will record the last ten years as the dark ages for American democracy. Marked by a frothy willingness to sacrifice freedom for a porous security, $1T blown on the Iraq folly, and a tactical disaster in abandoning Afghanistan to satisfy Junior's daddy complex and a neocon's coup de gras. Topping it is the spectacular audacity of leaders to not only not tax for war needs but to actually cut taxes leaving the entire debt like a flaming paper bag on the doorstep for my children to stamp out.
My kids will be told the truth about this decade - no sugar-coating, much like my father told me about Vietnam and my grandfather about the depression and WW2.

BD57| 5.5.11 @ 10:52AM

Make sure you remember to tell them how Obama's a war criminal too.

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 11:11AM

sour grapes, poor loser

Richard H. Davis| 5.5.11 @ 1:03PM

Obama really has violated the Geneva Conventions. His administration has pressured allies not to prosecute members of the Bush administration for their war crimes. Applying pressure not to prosecute is also a war crime. Obama may not be in the same league with Bush and Cheney, but it's only a matter of degree.

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 2:02PM

Whatever - Obama got Osama; Obama got Osama - no one can take that away from him, try as anyone might. Go Prez!

victor| 5.5.11 @ 3:14PM

He "slept" on it for 16 HOURS!

Probably had a few Kools too!

SpiralArchitect| 5.5.11 @ 11:20AM

War hero don't you mean - ROFL.

Rick | 5.5.11 @ 2:36PM

Obama a war criminal? WTF? That's Al Jazeera talk.

George| 5.5.11 @ 1:12PM

And all this from a citizen of a nation that has a Navy that couldn't even sink itself much less defend the county. You are lucky you are our neighbor, remind your son that we protect YOUR chicken tail.

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 2:02PM

Nice neighbor YOU are ... that's just stupid

Nunya| 5.5.11 @ 4:34PM

Oh, I'm sure they could sink themselves....

(just sayin')

:-)

Sean| 5.5.11 @ 2:37PM

Canada? You and your know it all family can shut the f##k up.

Poppakap| 5.6.11 @ 3:50PM

Wow, Howard Zinn couldn't have said it any better.

The trolls are in rare form today. Why is it that every time conservatives try to express patriotism through the use of the armed forces the pinkos are apoplectic, but when they on rare occasion use the military, all is justified? Extraordinary hypocrisy.

bluecollarbytes| 5.5.11 @ 7:36AM

Good thing this assassination took place now in Obama's term....while voters had already been paying more attention to politics & govt than usual.

Voters will figure this out. Obama did do what he was obligated to do, what a majority expected out of any president, which was to order bin Laden's killing whenever possible. What if it came to pass that we found out Obama had the opportunity, but passed on it. That would have sealed Obama's fate in 2012.

Obam risks jumping the shark on this, but then he needs distractions, new narratives, a reconstituted public persona. I heard some nameless Democrat claim bin Laden's killing 'was one of the biggest things in the last 100 years'. Expect this to continue.

SpiralArchitect| 5.5.11 @ 11:25AM

A fine point you make. Dare we think the majority of the decision process was based on 2012 not much on any moral grounds none the less much else.

Lagiusmeatius| 5.5.11 @ 2:48PM

Spiral Architect,

I asked you this in the past but perhaps you didn't see it. I was just curious if you got your pseudonym from the progressive metal band from Norway? Or are you just an architect with a spiral staircase going up to the loft? I picture a carpeted spiral stair case, in a townhome somewhere in Illinois -- otherwise a man (or woman) jammin' to the Norwegian tunes...I was just wondering. I know it has nothing to do with this article. I think Spiral Architect was named after a Black Sabbath song (album; "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath"). Anywho, talk with you later.

Peace and love to you SpiralArchitect,
-Lagius

Richard H. Davis| 5.5.11 @ 1:40PM

Just as it ended Clinton's career when we didn't kill Osama BEFORE 9/11 and Bush's when his administration let Osama escape at Torra Borra some 90 days after 9/11.

NedB| 5.5.11 @ 7:47AM

It took Obama 16 hours to make a decision. I seem to recall that it took Reagan all of 5 seconds to make a decision to send F-14's after the Achille Lauro hijackers once he was told we could get them.

Even Carter could make decisions in less time then Obama. They would invariably be the wrong decisions, but they would be decisions.

This is the difference between a leader and an idiot.

loulou| 5.5.11 @ 9:33AM

I don't see why all this praise should be lavished on the manchild President for doing what a president SHOULD do. Why should it be such a surprise that Barry acted appropriately?

Of course, the truth is coming out that he dithered and was more or less forced into the decision by the real men in the room.

Barry is probably kicking himself that this couldn't wait until October 2012!

BD57| 5.5.11 @ 10:54AM

loulou ...

No snark intended by this .....

Those of us who've been watching Obama in action since he became President are surprised because we've been watching Obama in action since he became President.

Nunya| 5.5.11 @ 4:36PM

LOL!

Sam Levi| 5.6.11 @ 3:34PM

When I was in Boot Camp, I once thanked a Drill Instructor for something. He looked me dead in the eye and said, "Recruit, never thank a man for just doing his job."

Why are we thanking ObombMao?

canuckistani| 5.5.11 @ 10:58AM

How long did RR wait before cutting and running from Lebanon? Or 41's decision to abandon Iraq and extract zero concessions from the Kuwaitis? Or Junior's whole mystical appraisal of Iraq? Or Junior's abandonment of Afghanistan that likely extended our stay there by years, money and men?

You suggest weakness is Obama waiting 16 hours after getting confirmation OBL 'might' be there, and then deciding to send choppers into a sovereign country in a military town?
Ask an 'adult' military mind what are the knowns and unknowns of a such an operation and the political blowback if we missed.

Grow up.

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 11:13AM

Well said ... but there are few grownups here; lots of false machismo though.

BD57| 5.5.11 @ 5:05PM

I'm sure you're one of the grownups ....

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 12:17PM

You would be right about that.

victor| 5.5.11 @ 11:31AM

canuckanucki:
"Ask an 'adult' military mind what are the knowns and unknowns of a such an operation and the political blowback if we missed."

Maybe you should ask your boy Bill Clinton about EIGHT missed opportunities to snuff out Bin Laden, eh?

Tim the Enchanter| 5.5.11 @ 12:21PM

"Adult Mind" and "Obama" are mutually exclusive terms.

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 2:03PM

Oh, another brilliant opinion ... how comical - did you mean to be funny?

victor| 5.5.11 @ 3:16PM

No, purpleshadedone,
he was serious a bloody heart attack.

Nunya| 5.5.11 @ 4:42PM

While still being hilarious. :-)

mike| 5.5.11 @ 1:31PM

George W, the conservative hero, had a chance in 2005 to take out Bin Ladin and other high profile Al Qaeda leaders in Tora Bora. He decided to pass on it and sent in the vaunted Afghan troops instead of our Seals. Now that's leadership for ya!

Richard H. Davis| 5.5.11 @ 1:42PM

December, 2001

Lagiusmeatius| 5.5.11 @ 2:52PM

NedB,

So a "leader" makes decisions at the drop of a hat, and an "idiot" thinks carefully about an extremely important decision? I'm not following you here...Are you saying leaders should just "do" first without giving much thought, and idiots should "think" before doing...? I guess I'm an idiot too by that rationale. I'm guessing quite a few people on this site (as well as I) are "idiots" by that rationale.

Peace and love to you NedB,
-Lagius

Nunya| 5.5.11 @ 4:44PM

Lag, as I've stated to others: The decision to take out the SOB Bin Ladin should have taken less than a second to make--NOT 16 hours of dithering. The planning and intelligence gathering should have been what took all the time to do.

Obozo is completely out of his league, and shows his inabilities by situations like this. His inexperience shows.

Mattled| 5.5.11 @ 7:57AM

I think Michael Ramirez' cartoon today sums it up:
Obama (in a Superman outfit) is at GZ and the announcer (supposedly Bloomberg?) announces that our Super-Prez simultaneously turned up the volume on the monitor while also turning down the AC in the Situation Room. That is pretty much the extent of his whole presidency (small "p" for a small man).

Yes, and Mr. Jimmy Fallon has the political acuity of a jackass----which is after all the symbol for Democrats.

Mimi| 5.5.11 @ 7:57AM

For the task before the American VOTER this year and next...A tresure from R. Emmett Tyrrell on May 5 ,2011 and good advice.....

" THE WHITEHOUSE IS A HELL OF A PLACE TO LEARN ON THE JOB"

da monk| 5.5.11 @ 9:57AM

Mimi: Please cite a individual who initally became president of the United States who came into office and had previous experience as president of the United States. They all learned in office!

victor| 5.5.11 @ 10:35AM

da monk:
"Please cite a individual who initally became president of the United States who came into office and had previous experience as president of the United States."

Another successful graduate of the Government School System, eh?

How about Grover Cleveland?

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 10:46AM

Victor! Good to see you back! I missed YOU so MUCH!

victor| 5.5.11 @ 7:06PM

Yes, OT, long time no post.

Nice to see you too.

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 11:22AM

Well, now, brainiac, I guess you don't know what "initially" means. Were you home schooled, or are you always this dense?

Lagiusmeatius| 5.5.11 @ 2:58PM

Victor,

Yes, I believe "da monk" wrote "initially" in the comment, indicating that it's impossible to "initially" be president (a person being president for their first time ever), and having previous experience as president. You may have misread what "da monk" said?

Peace and love to you Victor,
-Lagius

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 10:45AM

Grover Cleveland, monk. Two non-consecutive terms as President. (Separated by 1 term Benjamin Harrison) He was a Democrat. I'm surprised you don't know him.

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 2:06PM

I do, and that wasn't the question, oh Brilliant Tool. Let me explain in simple terms so even YOU can understand it. If you've ever been president, regardless of consecutiveness, then you are not initially president ever again. But the first time around you had no experience as President, and that was the point. Get it now, my little timmy?

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 11:52PM

He is counted as two seperate Presidents. Incidentally, my IQ is much higher than yours, as is my knowledge of US history.

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 12:21PM

I highly doubt it ... or you would not have made that mistake again ... 2 separate Presidents that could only be initially president once since they are in fact the same person - you still don't get it, do you? And your IQ is what again?

Lagiusmeatius| 5.5.11 @ 2:58PM

Occam's Tool,

Peace and love to you Occam's Tool,
-Lagius

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 11:45PM

He (Grover Cleveland) is considerd to be two separate Presidents of the US, guys. Guess you don't appreciate snark, or facts.

Realist317| 5.5.11 @ 10:46AM

True, but most POTUS have executive, or leadership experience. They have been governors or VPs etc. Our current president's experience is very lacking.

victor| 5.5.11 @ 11:32AM

Not even any experience running a lemonade stand, for instance.

Dustoff| 5.5.11 @ 12:37PM

But, but, but. O-bummer did vote "present"

LOL

Frisbee| 5.5.11 @ 2:05PM

Oh, and he voted for partial birth abortion and against infant protection.

Milwauken| 5.5.11 @ 1:18PM

What experience did Abraham Lincoln have?

Drunken Sailor| 5.5.11 @ 1:40PM

Are you honestly going to compare Obama and Abraham Lincoln? Are you going to compare today's life difficulties growing up to back then? Lincoln was used to hard work just to survive. Obama, not so much, his life was handed to him.

Lincoln was a member of the United States House of Representatives before his presidency and unlike Obama, he did not vote present.

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 11:56PM

Well, for one thing, he was one of the most successful corporate attorneys in the US (Abe was...). He is also the only President to have a patent. his speeches and debates (pre-presidential) are models of information and argument put together. His Gettysburg address demonstartes that he did not lose that ability when he became President, and he wrote it himself.

I'm sorry, but Mr. Lincoln is generally considered to be one of the 5 most influential men in history. Barack will be remembered for his skin color only. His speeches are void of data and intelligent argumentation. 75% of his class at Harvard graduated with Honors, many by taking classes at the school of education and bumping up their GPAs in that fashion.

mike| 5.5.11 @ 1:39PM

and yet has accomplished more in the short time as leader of the free world than George Bush did in 8 years. Has started turning around the economy that W almost completely wiped out. Has begun ending the two unfunded wars. Started to finally get some admittedly small yet significant changes to healthcare AND...now this is what really gets conservatives panties in a bunch...got that cowardly Bin Ladin. Sorry boys and girls. That's leadership!

Drunken Sailor| 5.5.11 @ 1:42PM

The number of Americans filing for jobless aid rose to an eight-month high last week and productivity growth slowed in the first quarter

Tell me again how that economy is recovering? I'll be sure to keep repeating that to myself as I buy $4 a gallon milk and pump $4 a gallon for gas this weekend.

mike| 5.5.11 @ 1:51PM

look at the charts. It's easy to see where the economy and job growth was heading and when it turned around. Stats don't lie. Check it out.
Sorry to burst your bubble.

http://www.businessinsider.com.....ion-2010-2

Drunken Sailor| 5.5.11 @ 2:29PM

Stats don't lie? Now that is funny. And you link me to a website that shows a graph from Nancy Pelosi's office? The same Nancy Pelosi, that was in took leadership of the Senate and then killed the economy. Wow.

mike| 5.5.11 @ 3:06PM

show me which of the figures are wrong in the chart. Ya can't can ya? Didn't think so. Nice try though. Ooooooh!!! Nancy Pelosi actually used facts and figures to back up an argument! Well since you can't refute the figures on the graph...attack Pelosi. Yup that's a wonderful argument. Typical conservative.
By the way since you have obviously not been paying attention. It was deregulation and job exporting that destroyed our economy. Compare policies and regulations during our good years to the Bush fiasco.
Truth hurts when ya don't want to see it, huh?

Drunken Sailor| 5.5.11 @ 3:27PM

show me how a decrease in the # of jobs lost equals the economy is improving. Can't can ya? Did it ever cross your mind that simply decreasing the # of jobs lost does not equal re-hires? Simply slowing the rate of a sinking ship is far from righting it and sailing away into the sunset. And you might want to take a look at all the jobs created in the Bush Admin before the Democrats took over Congress.

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 11:57PM

Mike,

wait and see what $6.00 gas does to your recovery.

Lagiusmeatius| 5.5.11 @ 4:07PM

Drunken Sailor,

It's also important to note that when Obama became president, he inherited an already degrading economy. Jobs were already being lost due to the economic crash at the end of the Bush term. Just because a new president with new policies takes office, does NOT mean that the recession ends. It does NOT mean that job losses will necessarily cease right away. The recession will continue to affect job growth/decline until it reaches a certain threshold whereby new policies will actually precipitate change in the number of jobs (a continual regression or a turnaround). Any economist can tell you that. What complicates things is that we don't know, nor can we know, when exactly Obama's policies and efforts will dominate the effect on jobs, because we can't know exactly when the prolonged effects of the recession from the Bush era recede. This can take years (just as the depression did), and unfortunately (in cases like this), unless Obama remains president for a long enough time, we can't know how effective his policies are long term -- even more so because he took office during the start of a recession. The same goes for every other president in office. If they are only in office for 4 years, how much change can really precipitate during that time, where if benefits start to finally surface and a new president takes office with opposite partisanship -- he gets the credit. Economics are certainly complicated, and economics during a recession -- even more so.

Peace and love to you Drunken Sailor,
-Lagius

Frisbee| 5.5.11 @ 2:07PM

waiting 16 hours isn't leadership

it was just triangulation, while on the campaign trail

Rick | 5.5.11 @ 2:38PM

Grover Cleveland. But he was a lousy President.

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 11:58PM

Yes he was. That's why he also shares the distinction of being the only two time one termer.

W| 5.6.11 @ 11:54AM

yeah, but they named the candy bar,baby ruth, after his daughter

Strider| 5.6.11 @ 1:30PM

In fact, Cleveland won a majority of the popular vote in 1888, but lost the electoral vote.

Also in fact, he was the last decent Democrat to occupy the White House.

Intelligent Design| 5.5.11 @ 8:18AM

The Pakistani government said, according to the Jerusalem Post, that they gave info about the compound to the CIA in 2009. Not sure that is accurate (it may be), but there is a reasonable doubt about why it took so long to find bin Laden "hiding" in plain sight.

Milwauken| 5.5.11 @ 1:18PM

There is reasonable doubt that the Jerusalem Post got the story right.

RCV| 5.5.11 @ 4:53PM

The Pakistani government is full of what Norman Mailer would refer to as "shit".

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 11:43PM

It is a GREAT line, isn't it, RCV?

Gordon W.| 5.5.11 @ 8:24AM

Didn't Bush pass on the opportunity to kill Osama while he was passing into Pakistan from Afghanistan? At least that was proposed in Delta force operative Dalton Fiery. Maybe Bush didn't believe the secret force didn't exist...

Realist317| 5.5.11 @ 10:48AM

No.

mike| 5.5.11 @ 1:43PM

Tora Bora 2005. He outsourced it to the Afghans instead of sending in our seals. Typical Bush. At least he wasn't reading "My Pet Goat". He just didn't have the balls.

Frisbee| 5.5.11 @ 2:08PM

respect for Afghan sovereignty. Didn't the Dems want out of everywhere anyway?

mike| 5.5.11 @ 2:29PM

respect for Afghan sovereignty? Hate to have to point out to you that we had tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan at the time. You don't remember us kicking the Talibans ass in 2003? The question here is why didn't Bush get Bin Ladin when he had the chance? Leadership.

Cpm| 5.5.11 @ 6:57PM

What a maroon. Tora Bora happened in Decenber of 2001, 3 months after 9-11. We had all of 8 CIA guys directing airstrikes along with Afghan fighters, and we had a couple of infantry brigades in the whole country. This was back when everybody of your stripe was warning that it was a "quagmire" and we shouldn't send troops.

RCV| 5.5.11 @ 4:58PM

The reality is that among the casualties of President Bush's ill-conceived adventure in Iraq was the focus on Al-Qaeda and the hunt for Bin-Laden. It got to that famous point where an expasperated President Bush disclaimed any interest in finding him and said it no longer mattered that much.

Whether or not you dislike Presient Obama for his domestic policies, the reality is that he promised to refocus on capturing Bin Laden and to stop kowtowing to the conniving Pakistanis, who have been sponsoring the Taliban and coddling Al-Qaeda for decades now. He did so.

W| 5.5.11 @ 9:25PM

What specific policies or actions did obama do to kill obama? none, except give the order when the CIA found osama. read Woodward book "Obama War," which covers the time to summer of 2010. there is absolutely no evidence in all the discussions about capturing or killing osama. obama's main concern was putting in as few troops as possible in afghanistan. he never used the term "war on terrror."
obama made the right decision to kill UBL. But what else could he have done when the CIA located him, and the military presentead a good plan to kill UBL? the praise should go to the CIA for the intelligence, and the military for the plan, and the men for doing the dangerous work.
at least obama gave the order, unlike clinton who passed 8 to 10 times on killing UBL

Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 12:03AM

RCV,

Correct, he did get him. He could have been more gracious in triumph, but he is a narcissist.

However, his coddling of a warrior , aggressive faith is going to get him lumped in with Neville Chamberlain in the annals of history, sad to say. I am going to see nothing but crap until I retire.

cchase| 5.5.11 @ 9:10AM

Obama trying to claim creadit for the killing of Osama is like Richard Nixon trying to claim credit for the moon landing. Even tricky Dickie wasn't that dumb. Both were 10 year projects that everyone knows who was responsible. Bush and Cheny put Osama in the crosshairs. At least Obama was smart enough to pull the damn trigger.

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 11:26AM

Hmmm, Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama gets Osama with decisive command of the operation, protecting America. President Nixon watches NASA, who he is not commander of, put men on the moon. He doesn't even control the launch button. Wow, that's exactly the same, huh? Ditz.

victor| 5.5.11 @ 11:38AM

Another successful graduate of the Government School System, eh?

Purplehaze:
"President Nixon watches NASA, who he is not commander of,"

NASA comes under the jurisdiction of the Dept of Defense, which comes under the jurisdiction of the Executive branch, which is headed by the President.

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 2:11PM

No, really? Wow, when did you learn that one? And, yet he didn't give the COMMAND to launch, now did he, my little no-nothing? You're so impressive with your logic. He is not the commander of NASA. Not even same role or function as President. Again, poor comparison.

cchase| 5.5.11 @ 2:58PM

OK smart guys, what president do you give credit for the moon landing?

Most folks credit JFK.

Cpm| 5.5.11 @ 7:00PM

Any president, given the circumstances, would do the same thing. To do otherwise would be dereliction of duty.

cchase| 5.5.11 @ 10:36PM

Cpm, you are el corectoo!

This idiot in charge, (IIC), was presented with a chance to take Osama bin-Laden, like Bill Clinton was 3 or 4 times, (and passed), and then when Bush and Cheny gave him a chance to take him out he let Leon Paneta decide to do it.

Thank GOD, this idiot let the real adults take this guy out.

After the dead was done, this stupid PC Administration can't seem to get it's story straight.

Was he sooting at the SEALS and using his wife as shield? NO! He was unarmed and shot defensively. NO! He had a AK$& and a Pistol within arms reach when they blew him away.

This is the most incompetent Presedent and Administration in the history of the USA.

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 11:39PM

Not THE most incompetent administration---that still belongs to James Buchanan. But the most incompetent administration since 1861? Sure, and I'll agree on that, Mr. Chae.

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 12:23PM

So glad you all agree with yourselves ... Got a nice circular firing squad here, now dontcha?

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 11:42PM

Cpm,

obviously, Mr. Purpleguy suffered a traumatic brain injury from his active service. Just as obviously, he was referred to the Army's premier TBI facility at Darnell Medical Center, where he obviously prospered under the neuropsychiatric ministrations of my at one point potential colleague, Dr. Nidal Hasan.

It really is not nice to make fun of TBI victims.

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 12:27PM

You're correct - then why do you do it? Didn't Mommy teach you anything? For all your IQ and wealth, you are no better than a 7th grader. Your egotism is showing. Nobody here cares what your impressive curriculum vitae says.
Oh, I suppose I should correct you on your mistake description of my service - but you aren't worth the bother. And a doctor no less?

edward del colle| 5.5.11 @ 12:27PM

uh, purplehaze goof ball. obozo was dragged into this position , more of a fait accompli. he is a ditherer as facts have shown. a navy counter terroroism guy hunted this guy down. his vulgar talk to the nation required many narcissistic references. your guy is an empty suit and you obviously have memorized some leftist shibboleths about the evil of the USA and capitalism. your pathetic

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 2:14PM

Au contraire - this is my country and I couldn't be prouder of her. As ex-military, I can say that we need to protect her from foreign AND domestic enemies. The enemy comes in many forms, but those that don't support capturing and killing Osama are the evil in this USA. You seem to be one of them that is not proud of what we as a nation just did, granted under the command and direction of our President. Obama got Osama, and that's the story, period.

Cpm| 5.5.11 @ 7:03PM

Now you're claiming ex military? Is this Jesse MacBeth??

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 11:37PM

Cpm,

it is not in good taste to make fun of victims of traumatic brain injury.

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 12:29PM

And, yet, you participate. Do you read what you write? Really?

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 12:28PM

Yes, that's correct. Are you? Who the bleep is jesse macbeth, and why should I care?

Milwauken| 5.5.11 @ 1:19PM

Bush and Cheney shuttered the bin Laden operation in 2007.

mike| 5.5.11 @ 2:01PM

I think it was in 2006. Yeah but ya see, that's why they should get the credit instead of President Obama. If they had actually killed or captured Bin Ladin during those 7 years...there wouldn't have even been a Bin Ladin for President Obama to order killed. See? They enabled President Obamas success with their own incompetence.

Frisbee| 5.5.11 @ 2:13PM

War monger Comrade Obama assasinates (begrudginly) a defenseless little puke and some civilian women on foreign soil and all the pacifist socialists scream with glee about their "strong" and fearless leader? This is comedy. When is fearless leader going to empty Guatanamo and end violence on the planet? You ridiculous hypocrite socialist useful idiots!!

mike| 5.5.11 @ 2:25PM

Oh I get it. That mean ol Obama was pickun on that poor defenseless Bin Ladin and his people. Sorry to disappoint ya. We got Bin Ladin. Public enemy #1 is now dead. If you aint psyched by that then you aint a true American. Pack yer bags and move to Libya where you can find another hero for yerself. Qaddafi is still alive....for a while anyway.

Ruth Bacon| 5.5.11 @ 7:33PM

Violence will "end" on the planet when everyone left is a devout Muslim and the rest of us have been separated from our heads.

Rick | 5.5.11 @ 2:43PM

False analogy, cchase. The Moon landing objective was a JFK vision. But... Had Nixon personally ordered a rescue of men trapped on the Moon, others could properly boast of Nixon's leadership. And Obama deserves the same credit here.

G.S. Patton| 5.5.11 @ 9:18AM

How politically expedient, to selectively forget that demonization of the infrastructure and logistics required to be in place to make this happen, was the very center-point of a election campaign. I believe, Mr. Obama, you owe the "Dick Cheney Death Squad," JSOP and the Seals, a few 12 packs and pizzas. Oh, wait a minute..... Eric Holder was suppose to be prosecuting these people..... ooops.

simon templar| 5.5.11 @ 10:11AM

Excellent observation and the most critical in this situation....missed by so many. We can only hope the American public can be reminded of this fact and see through this whole charade.

G.S. Patton| 5.5.11 @ 10:32AM

Simon Templar - I really hope you are right; that the American public does remember. I fear unfortunately, "we the people," will be drowning in our own apathy and American Idol in 2012. Let us hope and pray that does not happen.

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 10:47AM

Fortunately, Simon, pissed offedness over $6.00 gas will make memory unnecessary---we'll get the same result. Beautiful post, and same for my favorite General.

G.S. Patton| 5.5.11 @ 11:10AM

Great point Occam's Tool. A hundred bucks to fill your tank will resonate !

Frisbee| 5.5.11 @ 2:17PM

Great insights, G.S. Patton. If Obama's freaks had had their druthers, all those Seals would be in prison (like they tried with Chesani) not in the field.

cuban pete| 5.5.11 @ 5:10PM

Not so fast Frisbee. We haven't heard from Holder in a few days. He may be reviewing the matter for possible civil rights violations.

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 11:30AM

An informant gives a name, a satellite surveys the area, CIA analysts pull a thousand points of unrelated information together, a Commander-in-chief gives the "Go" command - and you congratulate Cheney? The Navy Seals have been around before we ever heard of Cheney ... so just be glad and congratulate your President for doing an outstanding job in killing Osama. Obama got Osama. Anything else is sour grapes and poor sportsmanship.

Drunken Sailor| 5.5.11 @ 1:46PM

Your almost right. Seal team 6 got Osama after Obama was forced to give the go-ahead. I'll give him credit for getting this right (deservedly or not). I mean, even a broke clock is right twice a day. So he got one right in almost 3 years. Impressive

mike| 5.5.11 @ 2:08PM

Forced? and Bush was forced to not give the order to our Special Forces at Tora Bora in 2005? Got any more of that good smoke? wow.
Those are called decisions. It's part of what makes a competent leader. Just thank God we have one now after 8 years of Bush.

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 2:18PM

Very well said. The fringe here is beside itself because their boy couldn't get the job done. He raped this country of treasure and blood, freedom and civil rights and still couldn't get a 6'4" Arab in almost 8 years. Then he left and left the mess in President Obama's hands. Say what you will - but Obama got Osama ... ! God Bless America

Drunken Sailor| 5.5.11 @ 3:34PM

I gave Obama credit. But as I said, he got one thing right in 3 years. And he did that by continuing the Bush policies that the left so despises. You guys kill me, you scream bloody murder when he continues a Bush policy and then thump your chest in triumph when those policies lead to victory. Whatever, keep thumping that chest then explain to me how you rationalize that his Osama victory was brought to him by the very same men that he was not going to pay just a few short months ago. Real leadership.

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 12:32PM

People on the left are not happy that Obama didn't reverse more of Bush's policies against civil liberties in the interest of security. I don't happen to be one of them. On the other hand, how will we ever go back to the America we once had - no wiretapping without a warrant (in the Constitution), writ of habeas corpus (in the Constitution) just to name 2 items?

Bob Grant| 5.5.11 @ 9:21AM

The best post-presidency decision to date is President George W. Bushe's decision not to attend Thursday's taping of a political commercial. I must admit, it was also the best PP decision President Bill Clinton made as well.

It's clear these two ex presidents dislike the man who currently occupies the white house. Maybe Jimma C. can take their places. That would be more fitting.

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 11:33AM

Even Bush realizes the embarrassment, as well as Clinton before him, that neither could get Osama Bin Laden. The inevitable comparisons and questions would be heightened by their attendance. I'd like to think they were magnanimous and are letting President Obama bask in his success and glory as Commander-in-Chief, but I'm afraid it's self-serving for them not to attend.

victor| 5.5.11 @ 11:43AM

purplesomthin:
"as well as Clinton before him, that neither could get Osama Bin Laden"

EIGHT chance to snuff Bin Laden and he whiffed on all EIGHT!

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 2:19PM

That was the point, oh astute one.

Rick | 5.5.11 @ 2:46PM

Purpleguy, methinks you are really blue. But I agree with every word.

victor| 5.5.11 @ 3:23PM

The point was to allow Bin Laden to KILL 3000 of your allegedly fellow Americans?!?

The point was to allow the twin towers to FALL?!?

Is that your bloody point?!?

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 12:38PM

Really? You have to ask that question?

Tim the Enchanter| 5.5.11 @ 12:27PM

The intelligence gathering process takes a long time, and also a few lucky breaks. It was simply the luck of the draw that the final pieces were gathered during Obama's presidency- not that he did anything to expedite the process- in fact it could be said that his policies may have hindered it.
Also, in your case, the intelligence-gathering process of your life appears to extend to infinity.

Frisbee| 5.5.11 @ 2:21PM

Obama is using Osama to get his birth certifcate off the headlines, the same way Clinton hurled bombs to get Lewinsky off the headlines.

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 2:28PM

Really? So you would agree that the intelligence gathered under Clinton was passed to Bush who ignored it because it came from a Democrat and instead ended up favoring the 9/11 attacks to happen?
Our current President Obama heeded the warnings, the intelligence gathered, regardless of source, and pounced with amazing powers of resolve and decisiveness to kill our Public Enemy #1.

Nunya| 5.5.11 @ 5:14PM

WTF? Clinton had multiple opportunities to capture or kill Bin Ladin, those are documented. He was too busy with Monica to do what he should have done, and the result was 9/11.

As to your "amazing powers of resolve and decisiveness " in reference to Obozo, that is truly funny. Nice one. LOL

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 12:40PM

Obama got Osama - remember that will go done in history as a supreme achievement ... long after we are all long gone. Bush couldn't, Obama could. period.

mike| 5.5.11 @ 2:14PM

After Bush declined, the offer was not made to Clinton. Nice try though. I can't blame Bush for putting his fragile ego ahead of closure for families and friends of our 911 victims/hero's. He couldn't stand the comparisons between him and President Obama. A weak personality will always opt out in that situation.

nina in ma| 5.7.11 @ 8:14PM

I think it was more like class. He's not riding Obama's coat tails, patting himself on the back for this. He has stayed out of the limelight unlike other Dem presidents from the past. Comparisons? Obama took hours to make the decision just like all the other pertinent ones he's had to face - too long a decision on sending in more troops at a General's request (and who would know what was needed more), too long a decision on the gulf spill, no drilling, high gas prices, food prices...all that will be remembered more than "getting Osama".

Theo Prinse| 5.5.11 @ 10:17AM

No dead body, no photo's, no distancing by the kenyan from the photoshopped pictures from the Pakistani television hoping the world would buy these pictues as "proof" of the future electoral victory of the kenian.
The lies about the assasination of somebody but Bin Laden and the war against Libya's grant children are merely a diversionary tactic by the kenyan, Clinton, Rice, Power etc. from the Kenyan's indecisivness towards Iran and Syria because the kenyan cs want to support Hamas and Fatah jihad against Israel.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/S.....5Df01.html

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 10:49AM

Nicely put, Theo.

RCV| 5.5.11 @ 5:09PM

Ocaam - you can't really believe that garbage. I hope you were being facetious.

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 11:35PM

It's the part about the Kenyan supporting the jihad I agree with, RCV. I really think our Pres is an antisemitic schmuck.

However, I have no doubt that we got Bin Laden.

Hopefully, that clarifies my position.

RCV| 5.5.11 @ 11:40PM

And he's no more Kenyan born than you, Ocaam.

Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 12:12AM

Sorry, let me be precise, as I am not a birther.

I believe that Mr. Obama favors Islam over Israel, and is willing to sacrifice the latter in his pursuit of appeasement, just as Chamberlain sacrificed the Czecks, and with much the same outcome. He is not a Kenyan, etc., etc. That he is misguided and profoundly incompetent, however, based on false economic and geopolitical theories which he believes in (again, as Chamberlain disdained America's military/economic potential and Churchill did not), he is likely to bring on the next World War.

However, I am not a birther, etc., etc. But I do believe that he supports the Hamas jihad, and is finding a way to do so subtly. That's obvious from the way he treats Bibi.

I strongly suspect that his name, like Chamberlain, will become a synonym for mistaken groveller in the future, and he will be cursed for failing to see what is obvious to see---namely, we are losing the demographic and ideological war with our enemies because we no longer believe in ourselves.

Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 12:17AM

Sorry for the tortured syntax, RCV. Let me simplify this.

I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories about Obama's birth, etc.

However, all of his early role models politically were swine, his pastor was swine, his early supporters (Ayers, etc.) in Chicago were swine, his appointments (to the Supreme Court and to the UN, and, of course, Van Jones) have been swine, in short...I just look at what he has done and who he has affiliated himself with. He's not going to do well in the books 200 years hence.

So, I agree with Theo that he sympathises with Hamas. I really do.

Realist317| 5.5.11 @ 10:50AM

wow.

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 11:33AM

Twaddle from the fringes

Tim the Enchanter| 5.5.11 @ 12:28PM

...as compared to your twaddle.

mike| 5.5.11 @ 2:34PM

Ahhhh hahahahahahahah!!!Bwaaaahahahahahaha. Hey! Is that you Glenn Beck?!?! Michele???

Louis Jenkins| 5.5.11 @ 10:17AM

GW Bush # II, a terrorist in his own right! Hardly. Obama was able to perform due to Bush's foresight and he is the one who prepared the military. I find it difficult to believe and give all the credit to Obama's hard work and diligence that brought Osama to justice. A great deal of the investigation took place on Bush's watch, and Obama was around to get the laurels. Even though Obama went to bed and slept, dreaming the dreams of a dictator, he eventually reached the correct conclusion, plus, after Clinton's antics and refusal to receive Osama, he knew he'd better do something.

mike| 5.5.11 @ 2:36PM

You do know of course that Bush disbanded the intelligence unit tasked with finding Bin Ladin in 2006? Oh... you didn't? Yeah, I can tell.
Sheeesh.

Rick | 5.5.11 @ 2:49PM

You, sir, are clueless. Look up some facts before spouting about giving Dubya an ounce of credit. "A great deal of the investigation took place on Bush's watch" should read Bush turned up ZERO during his watch, and focused all of his resources on Iraq when he should have been tracking down Osama bin Laden.

David W| 5.5.11 @ 10:18AM

I read on another site that if not for Hillary and Panetta forcing the issue Obama may never have made the decision to get Osama. If that is true (apparently an unknown insider described the situation - especially how Obama was taken from the golf course halfway through the round to go to the situation room) then let us hope that it comes out before the election - that will show how unqualified to be President Obama really is.

victor| 5.5.11 @ 10:40AM

It's too bad that the Duhnamic Duo could not prevail in the same fashion on Bill Clinton.
He had, what, eight opportunities to snuff out Bin Laden?

If he took one of them, we would be talking about this today.

nina in ma| 5.7.11 @ 8:27PM

I read that same article. And it was Clinton, Panetta and Gates, the plan was already in place, and he was "told" that it was going to happen. Given the fact that the source wished to not be ID'd, it could be suspect. However, it is very articulate and concise and with his past record of not being able to make a decision on important issues, it's not too unbelievable. He really does not like to be on the spot, does not like to be questioned, and especially doesn't like his golf game interrupted! He wants everything he says and does to just be taken for granted. Then out comes all the congrats, visits to Ground Zero, I, I, I, me, me, me! I'm just wonderful! Pat my back! Just sayin - coincidence, BC issues, academia, royal snub, gas prices.....guess time will tell.

solidground| 5.5.11 @ 10:21AM

Obama's approval rating has failed to lift more than a tick because for the vast majority of Americans, Usama was an abstraction, no more genuinely real to any of us than The Joker or The Penguin. People care little about killing cartoon characters when the fast-rising cost of gas and food, entrenched high unemployment, the malignant budget deficit and the potentially fatal national debt, but a few of the maladies Obama contemptuously manipulates to his political ends, are painful, omnipresent, and show no signs of abating. Usama needed killing, but once again Obama's ego-centric behavior in gathering the entire mantel of credit on his own shoulders reveals the dysfunctional personality of this truly creepy president.

As for the New York Times, et al -- fish wrappers, all.

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 10:49AM

Part of the problem, too, was the lack of true joy with Obama. No fist bump with Michelle here (which would have been appropriate, and human).

DRed| 5.5.11 @ 12:25PM

And how would you know that he lacked 'true joy'? Were you there when he got the word that Osama was dead? Good grief, people, there are plenty of things you can criticize Obama for but you're really grasping at straws here. Osama's dead. After 10 years, he's finally dead. That's great news. Whatever Obama did, it worked. And as Americans, we should be happy.

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 11:32PM

There were photos of him watching the operation in real time, DRed. Also, there was his speech and his behavior afterwards. This is a guy capable of fistbumps. Nothing there.

nina in ma| 5.7.11 @ 8:28PM

Because his hand was forced. He had no choice per Gates, Clinton and Panetta! It was going to happen regardless of what he wanted!

Anthony| 5.5.11 @ 10:49AM

The dithering graceless and self absorbed Obozo comes to NY today for his victory lap. He has eschewed Ground Zero for almost 3 years, like a Muslim eschews pork.
The man who mocked those of us who find the Ground Zero mosque an insult to the memory of the 9/11 victims, comes to NY not to offer praise, but to be praised.
This empty suit stood on the shoulders of men like Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, who were pilloried, mocked, scorned and accused of committing war crimes, yet Obozo's " bold accomplishment" was the result of what these men set in place, despite the efforts of Obozo and the left.
Bush was correct in not participating in this obscene self congratulatory gesture of 'The One" for "The One". Even Clinton had some grace not to participate.
Wonder what the cajoled family members of the 9/11 victims, who will be mere props for Obozo's spectacle, will think when Obozo returns to NY and sets the cornerstone for the Ground Zero mosque after he is safely re-elected?

solidground| 5.5.11 @ 12:06PM

And making it all doubly sad, tragic and ironic is that the American public, in general, has been too dumbed-down by the left-wing mainstream media to think through, and see through, The Great Pretender's transparent self-congratulations. Obama deserves to be met at Ground Zero with both ridicule and rotten eggs--but that would be going way too easy on him.

Tim the Enchanter| 5.5.11 @ 12:30PM

Anthony... it's good that the muzzies eschew pork. Means more bacon for the rest of us!

Anthony| 5.5.11 @ 1:49PM

Tim, The only thing missing from Obozo's obscene victory lap today in NY, was not having Rev.Wright give the benediction at Ground Zero!!!!
Obozo's chickens will be coming home to roost in 2012!!!

Oldefarte| 5.5.11 @ 10:55AM

Absolutely, Bob, we should all give thanks also to George W Bush regarding this matter. Upon assuming the presidency, he and his administration was confronted with the dastardly actions of 9/11/01, after Clinton had botched the situation after we were attacked at out foreign embassies, the first twin tower truck bomb attack and the USS Cole assualt [Clinton did manage to send a missle assault that blew up a candle factory somewhere in the middle east in his futile attempt to kill UBL; of course that was as effective as his attempts to escape Monica within the oval office I suppose]. The Bush administration faught these Muslim terrorists to the best of their ability after 9/11, and even though I would have simply Nagasakied the middle east thereafter in retaliation, I give them credit for doing it their way. For the NYT or any other liberal/radical rag to perpetuate its propaganda of extremism and use Bush as its weapon of choice in doing same is dispicable but typical!!!!!!!!!

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 11:07AM

What a bunch of sour grapes. Your guy couldn't catch the bad guy, so now let's downplay the outstanding leadership of President Obama. "Now, of course, we know, that Osama was caught precisely because of those much reviled "enhanced interrogation techniques" - what hogwash. If it was true, what took so long? It's not true, it has never been true - and military leaders and professional interrogators attest to that. Of course, politicians don't and their politico-journalist whores - big surprise - they're playing politics.
"Thirty-seven percent of the American people strongly disapprove of our President's behavior." - hmmm, that means 63% approve. Not bad, chuckie, eh?

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.5.11 @ 11:25AM

The real sour grapes are from the left. It took two days for the administration admit that they got the operation going thanks to George W. Bush and his policies.

Those are the same policies liberals in the country decried for 8 years.

In fact, during that time Bush was characterized as a war criminal, Democrats referred to the troops as murderers and Nazis, and Bush Derangement Syndrome was on display 24/7.

The Democrats invented sour grapes. It's the foundation of their entire view of America. They hate America.

Milwauken| 5.5.11 @ 1:23PM

George Bush admitted to ordering the water boarding of prisoners. Water boarding is torture. Torture is a war crime. Ergo, George Bush is an admitted war criminal. Facts are a bitch.

W| 5.5.11 @ 1:35PM

What is your authority that waterboarding is torture, besides your opinion?
If waterboarding is torture, then what is killing osama, and killing others by the drones? is that a war crime? are you calling obama a war criminal, or just fixated and obsessed with GWB

mike| 5.5.11 @ 2:46PM

Killing Bin Ladin is called justice. WTF do you call it???The authority for calling water boarding torture comes from us, the victors of WWII. We prosecuted and executed Japanese soldiers for it.

reference the Tokyo Trials, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as 'water cure,' 'water torture' and 'waterboarding,' according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning." Politifact went on to report, "A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps."

W| 5.5.11 @ 3:01PM

your logic is that killing osama, which caused you and your alter ego purpleguy, to come out from under your rock to praise obama, is justice; but the waterboarding of three terrorists that produced the information that led to the killing of osama is a war crime.
the trials you refer to were TRIALS where evidence was presented and a court rendered a judgment. Do you want a trial for the CIA agents who waterboarded the terrorists?

mike| 5.5.11 @ 3:16PM

water boarding did not produce the info. KSM gave up a nick name one full year after the water boarding ceased. As for trial of Americans who tortured enemy combatants. If we are a Nation of principles and of laws then, yes, we should have a trial. We won't though.. Torture used to be what the other guys did. Not the United States. We were ALWAYS above that.

W| 5.5.11 @ 4:59PM

what is your source that ksm gave up the nickname one year after his last waterboarding, and if what you say is true, how do you know he did not give it up because he thought he would be waterboarded, or worse? do you have to go check with the talking points supplied by your lefty handlers?
and it is ok to kill osama but not waterboard ksm? if we took osama alive, then according to you we could not waterboard him, and would have to appoint a lawyer to represent him. is that your opinion?
and you want to prosecute the CIA agents who waterboarded ksm, do you also want to prosecute the SEALS team that shot ksm? you must be eric holder, he still is investigating the agents and wants an independent prosecutor.
typical lefty,authoritarian logic, ok to kill, not ok to question.
you are a moron, mike/ricky/purpleguy.

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 12:44PM

Enjoy your facts. By your calculation - Reagan had little to do with ending communism and the Soviet Union - it was Harry Truman, a Democrat, who put the containment policy in place and started the "cold war". So if one is true, so is the other. You want Bush, you can't have Reagan - it's that simple. You want Reagan as the scourge of communism, then you must have Obama as the scourge of Osama bin Laden. Agreed?

W| 5.7.11 @ 10:57AM

many causes for the fall, principal ones were:
1. pressure from solidarity union in poland, along with John Paul II
2. Reagan's military buildup
3. war in afghanista
4. general brutality and incopentence of communism

Gordon W.| 5.5.11 @ 6:55PM

Water boarding is by definition torture according to American precedent as well as international precedent.

The jury is out on drone attacks, but most likely they are not. They do not "torture" by any known definition.

W| 5.5.11 @ 9:27PM

so killing is not torture, but waterboarding is torture. good to see the lefty logic.

nina in ma| 5.7.11 @ 8:39PM

Oooph! Really? Water boarding, playing loud music, sleep deprivation, all done under medical supervision, all done my trained men to do just a little bit that is necessary to get terrorists to talk, all of which is done in military boot camps as a part of training, is torture? In the meantime, skinning a man alive, decapitating a man, burning and hanging men and dragging our dead soldiers thru the streets in celebration is what? Were any of these men afforded proper burials? While our Navy buries OBL who masterminded the attack on the USS Cole. Progressive pansies who think that is torture will be wishing for it if the Islamic radicals get their way in this country! Oh, sorry, progressive pansies will be converted to save their sorry asses!

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 2:55PM

Au Contraire - the America you grew up (unless you're under 30) was created by the Democrats. If you love America -- that IS the America you love. It is St. Reagan and his ilk that have been destroying America in an effort to kill the government with their rich buddies in mind. And GW Bush nearly finished us off with the economic collapse under his watch, the 9/11 attacks on his watch, no capture of Bin Laden, and Trillion dollar wars on his watch. If you're under 30, what's wrong with this country you know, but now you know who created this mess. They've been in charge for most of the last 30 years.

Bob Grant| 5.5.11 @ 11:27AM

No one here has discounted obama's role in nabbing osama. The issue is his predictable tendency to overstate his role, and by omission, understate the role of others. He's not the first president to do so but has made it the number one goal when issuing statements or making speeches.

The bottom line is he is a b-rate political hack, one with the worst political instincts by a president ever. It shows in the way he conducts himself, it shows when he "leads", and it showed Sunday night.

mike| 5.5.11 @ 2:52PM

"No one here has discounted obama's role in nabbing osama."
Yes they have. You are either a liar or you have not read much of the posts and shouldn't be commenting on the subject.
He gives all the credit to those who carried out the mission. At least that's what he says...as apposed to what you would have liked him to say so that your lies wouldn't be lies.

W| 5.5.11 @ 11:49AM

hey purp:
1. do you believe that the information to track down osame came from information obtained after january 20,2009? if you do, please inform us of your sources for this, and what information was obtained, and how was it obtained.
2. obama, if you will recall, ended the enhanced interrogation on january 22, 2009, and his administration published the interrogation methods that would be used. explain to us how this assisted us to obtain any information.
3. read Woodward's book, Obama's Wars. in spring 2009 obama was to be briefed on a review of afghanistan done by his staff. the reviewer was given ONE HOUR to brief obama during obama's flight to L.A. to do the Leno show. after Leno, obama went to Hollywood parties to raise money. on the flight back he watched FIVE HOURS of basketball. so where were his priorities?

Rick | 5.5.11 @ 2:50PM

Hmm, apparently this works better than the Bush "11 to 2" work schedule.

W| 5.5.11 @ 5:01PM

Obama should adopt a 11 to 1 schedule. i would rather have him playing golf, watching basketball, than signing bills to prevent oil drilling, spending money, and signing bills to kill unborn babies.

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 2:58PM

Nope - do you believe that the information that America was going to be attacked came after 1/20/2001? Obama acted on it, Bush did not. End of story. One is a Commander-in-Chief - the other is Cheerleader-in-Chief. I, for one, am glad the cheerleader hung up his pom poms. Obama got Osama

W| 5.5.11 @ 5:02PM

there was no specific information that we would be attacked, and you know it. go back to you insane lefty blogs.
what did obama do to prevent the attack at the army base killing 15 americans?

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 11:29PM

I was offered a job at Fort Hood before I took my current one. As a psychiatrist at Darnell. As a colleague of craphead. Except for the grace of G-d, I would have been one of his victims. I take Obama's dereliction of duty at Fort Hood very seriously.

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 12:49PM

Really? you've never heard of the FBI, the CIA? who sits on top of both in 2001? Bush baby ... and missed the cues all the way. No specific information - how about issuing an alert in August that could have saved us from 9/11. Naw, that would be like swatting flies - a lack of imagination caused it - because dunderhead in chief was a drunk and coke head til he was 40. What powers of critical thinking could he possess. "You're with us or your against us" ... brilliant deductive reasoning that one.

W| 5.7.11 @ 12:12PM

that claim was thoroughly debunked by the 9/11 commission. try some facts, purp

Mark Shepler| 5.5.11 @ 12:01PM

Yeah, because after all LavenderBoy, it's all about the President, isn't it? That's what's sticking in liberals' craws- that insufficient numbers of Americans are ready to fall at the Prez's feet in adoration for doing his job. Doing it well for sure, but his job as he's expected to. For once. Contrary to what the smug set thinks normal Americans know that Obama making an angst-ridden, dithering 16 hour decision is not quite the heroics as actually dropping into that compound and all this shouldering into the limelight about it is just a bit tawdry. Your comments here confirm it.

Well, bask in the vibes while you can because even now this whole affair is unraveling into a contradictory mess of unloveliness that is certain to take the shine off it as a singular achievement of this administration. And not the least because they insist on congratulating themselves too much. In the end it will be considered a wonderment they didn't screw it up ala Desert One and the congratulations are due for no more than just a bit of self-restraint when it counted most.

See my full take at: www.rightwingmuse.com | Obama Killed Osama? Don't Bet On It...

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 12:50PM

Au contraire, many R's have switched - he has shown himself to be powerful, decisive, and unafraid. They now know they've been lied to, and hurt people don't forget who lied to them. Fixed News and R's anyone?

solidground| 5.5.11 @ 12:12PM

37% strongly disapprove. Most of the rest at least "disapprove," which makes Obama an unpopular president. By the way, nailing Usama had nothing to do with Obama's "leadership," which by any stretch of the imagination is barely that of a Boy Scout troop leader. I give him credit for risking live capture over a bomb crater in the ground, but really--how much "leadership" does it take to issue an order? The leadership to collect the combatants, grill them down to toast, extract the necessary information and put it into play had already been done by the previous administration -- all steps decried by Obama the Fabulous humanist. So now the sucker uses that info to enable our special forces to kill the criminal, and then parades around the ring like some jizzed-up WWF parody. And you think this guy is a leader? Put your bong away, please.

Anthony| 5.5.11 @ 12:42PM

Hey moron, even with the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, ie waterboarding, the difficulty in "finding the tallest man in Afghanstan", to quote the mocking Madam half-bright Hillary, is such that it does not produce results in real time.
By the time Islamic twerps give up the info, the tallest man in Afghanstan might have moved and suprise... he did.
But what would you know, your lefty head is up vtwins tailpipe.

Oldefarte| 5.5.11 @ 4:52PM

Wow,Purple, keep on giving your Monicajob to El Chosen One, since its pure bullexcrement. No rational person should deny that YOUR BOY got UBL, and all of same are giving him his due credit for effectively pulling the trigger, once the intel proved sufficient/accurate [so cut the excrement about YOUR versus OUR guy, okay?]. The essential points are [1] Hillbilly Boy Bill played fast and loose and as a consequence numerous terrorist attacks were suffered previous to OUR guy taking office [2] YOUR guy had the benefit of enhanced intel supplied by OUR guy [3] YOUR guy attempted to facilitate terrorism through his desire to close Gitmo and have his incompetitent AG legally grandstand in NYC courtrooms [4] YOUR guy's bowing/scraping in front of Muslims, his ignoring Muslim terrorists' murders, ie Fort Hood massacre and attempts in NYC etc failed bombings is detrimental to this country, while insulting our friends England and Israel, etc are testaments to his arrogance, incompetance, ineptness and Muslim partiality. So don't give YOUR boy more credit than is due him from simply taking advantage of what was made available to him by OUR guy, okay fool?????????

Oldefarte| 5.5.11 @ 4:56PM

PS: Purple Fool, you're ignoring the obvious fact that 11/2/12 is quickly approaching, YOUR guy has recently delcared his re-election bid for another four years of destruction to OUR country, and no doubt YOUR guy's decision to go after UBL was partially if not totally due to the current minor bump up in the public opinion polls that he is now receiving due to same [since he's nothing but a community-organizing empty suit at heart and has been campaigning 24-7 since his election in November of 2008]!!!!!!!!!

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 12:54PM

And, yet, he made the promise to get Osama to the American people before the election of 2008. My, my, he kept his word - and didn't have to lie about anything. Obama got Osama! Bush couldn't. The rest is blather.

nina in ma| 5.7.11 @ 9:32PM

Here here! One right decision, if you can call it a decision, does not erase all his other problems. His lack of leadership, lack of experience, indecisiveness, arrogance...
Larry K - exactly!

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 12:52PM

Nice job stopping the YOUR vs OUR guy speech.... . You might try another approach if you get my point.

Ruth Bacon| 5.5.11 @ 7:51PM

Have to correct you on this one. 37% STRONGLY disapprove and another 20 some percent "disapprove" which leaves less than 50% approval (it keeps changing but the last I heard it was like 44% and going down.

LarryK| 5.5.11 @ 11:33AM

There is enough praise to go around for the Justice done to bin Laden.

However, the Big Thank You needs to go to Leon Panetta who had the cajones to press the issue winning over Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Daily. The trio continued to press the President for a decision. The President continued to vote "present" , the Ditherer in Chief. Valarie Jarrett opposed any action and kept the President from making a decision. Once Leon Panetta gave the "go" order, the 48 hour operations clock started and the decision was made for the President. Just look at the situation room photo. President Obama looks like someone who is not confident at all.

What an empty suit!

Well done Mr. Panetta!

DaBurg| 5.5.11 @ 12:45PM

You must be a Quinn and Rose listener.

Nathan| 5.5.11 @ 7:19PM

Somebody needed to make a decision!

Richard| 5.5.11 @ 12:22PM

Gees, this contention is juvenile. Obama and the Seals should be commended. And the CIA, and the prior administration should be too. Why can't we all leave it at that?

Who Knows?| 5.5.11 @ 12:28PM

I hope y’all read what the indispensable Michael Ledeen blogs at “Faster, Please!”

His latest escapade, pretending to use a Ouja board to talk to the long dead CIA operative, James Angleton, about the OBL affair, is quite edifying.

Things are NEVER just what they seem to be.

Reminds me of an old “logical” joke, which I used to pop on high school kids, once in a while, when subbing---it always exposed who was smart from who was not smart:

I read this joke in a 60’s Reader’s Digest!

A shy man wanted to ask out this young lady, but was afraid of getting turned down. So, he created the following question, that he asked her—

“If my next question is, will you go out with me, will you answer that the same as this question?”

Get it?

Yes, a question inside a question, and I just wonder how deep one can go with this.

We are all, ALWAYS ALREADY---questioning!

And, SURPRISE!

The Universe is NOT in the form of a question!

THAT’S the answer, blowing, or NOT, in the wind.

Dustoff| 5.5.11 @ 12:47PM

In a few months with our econ still in a hole. NO-one will remember or care about what O-bummer may have or may not have done. It didn't work for Bush Sr and it won't work for O-bummer.

That is the facts.

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 11:27PM

Dustoff:

Correct.

mzk1| 5.5.11 @ 1:03PM

Canuckistani:

So you will lie to your kids about this war as your father lied to you about Viet Nam and your Grandfather about WWII?

Sandy| 5.5.11 @ 1:04PM

Operation Cannonball June 2008 - Finally, finally, implement a special ops into the tribal regions of Pakistan. Nowhere near where Bin Laden was found.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06.....85430.html

mzk1| 5.5.11 @ 1:07PM

To Richard: I listened to Obama's speech, and there was the part at the start where a decent person (like Reagan and Bush II) would have given credit to his predecessor. But it was left out. The man simply has zero class.

And, c'mon, this was more important that overthrowing him in the first place?

I credit Obama for carrying out Bush's policies.

Pat| 5.5.11 @ 1:09PM

R. Emmett (can we call you just plain R.?), if you go to the Washington Post or New York Times you will be upset – just like all those other times you went there and grew angry. And you must realize you are helping the parent corporations of the Post and the Times with your visit – they log you as a loyal reader and make sure their paying advertisers know all about your visit. So, R., even though these media outlets are no friends of Conservatives, you still help them out economically? Is it to gather fodder for another piece on the hypocrisy of Liberals? Juicy reader topic that – the hypocrisy of Liberals and one which never seems to grow stale among Conservatives. So, perhaps you believe bolstering the Liberal media’s quarterly profits is worth it in order to bring us important insights about Liberals – we thank-you, I think.

But more important than Liberal hypocrisy is the delicious irony of it all. Our guys go on a mission to murder a fanatic and succeed – Osama richly deserved his fate and no one will lose sleep over what the Seal team did. Even Liberals are OK with deliberate murder and refuse to criticize Obama for ordering up a “hit” in our name. But float the concept that torture generated intelligence useful in tracking down Osama and the reaction is completely different – Liberals become unhinged, murder is OK, waterboarding is never OK – this torturous (pardon the pun) logic is as difficult to follow as Bill Clinton’s definition of what was and was not considered sex with “that woman”.

But, R., you don’t need to frequent the web pages of the New York Times to learn being a Liberal is downright painful – forced to embrace logic a chimpanzee could easily refute in order to avoid relinquishing any of your self-righteousness - or allowing pigeon poop to spatter your personal monument to moral superiority - is the daily price of admission to Liberal World. It’s never easy being Liberal, takes a special kind of person but fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, America seems blessed with vast herds of them. And R., stop hanging out at the New York Times in order to gather valuable ammunition for future columns – there’s a crack house in Detroit which houses a much saner class of citizens and definitely worth the occasional visit.

Milwauken| 5.5.11 @ 1:11PM

"Now, of course, we know, that Osama was caught precisely because of those much reviled "enhanced interrogation techniques..."

We do? Has that been proven?

MarkR| 5.5.11 @ 1:34PM

No Obama was able with his "smile", and his Messiah like presence on the world stage to find out who the courier was and to know the place and to do the deed. No interrogation was needed as Obama was just able to determine without the military where Osama was and who he was aligned with-its all that simple. Obama dont need no stinkin interrogations- he could just lovingly get the information out of them by sitting them down and reasoning with them- after all its a NEW age and Obama is the pilot! All the intelligence of 2002-2009 on this thing was not needed as Obama with his keen military background and ability to pacify the Muslim community just decided to get Osama. Its just like the campaign photo of him in 08-the uplift chin and the eyes to the heavens- hes the ONE! Aren't we lucky! -Yea thats the ticket!

DRed| 5.5.11 @ 2:56PM

Nobody has said that we got the information we used without interrogation. The issue is if it came from 'enhanced interrogation' (torture).

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 2:59PM

Exactly, and there's plenty of evidence that torture never works.

victor| 5.5.11 @ 3:26PM

Cite some if you please.

DRed| 5.5.11 @ 3:57PM

I think Purpleguy has gone too far. If I had information you wanted, and you tortured me, I'd certainly give it to you. But the problem is I'd also agree to say anything else you wanted. Furthermore, it's pretty difficult to say that any information you obtained through torture could not have been obtained some other way.

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 11:27PM

KSM wasn't talking until waterboarded. His data was actionable. Sorry, DRed, our guys did a good job on KSM.

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 12:55PM

Ask one of your own chuckles - ask John McCain. Or go read something - I have.

Oldefarte| 5.5.11 @ 4:59PM

The best indication that torture does work can be seen from YOUR boy's possession of pictures depicting a crumpled corpsed Muslim terrorist with a precision bullet hole above his left closed eye!!!!!!!!!

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 12:55PM

Go ask John McCain how well torture works - he seems to know more than you do, old one.

rightasrain| 5.5.11 @ 6:04PM

Leon Panetta, who has been uncommonly candid throughout this whole episode, said the intel was gained through EIT.

DRed| 5.5.11 @ 7:36PM

Panetta said SOME of the intelligence that in some way helped find Obama was obtained through torture. But he added "I guess the question that everybody will always debate is whether or not those approaches had to be used to get the same information. And that, frankly, is an open question."

Which sounds about fair to me.

Lee Zehrer| 5.5.11 @ 1:17PM

Just because there’s another idiot in the White House doesn’t mean the last idiot was any better.

Margie| 5.5.11 @ 1:24PM

Yeah, Obama ordered the hit on Osama. He did it.
There, I just gave him credit.
Next.
Now how long do I have to wait for the Obama autographed pic of the body?

MarkR| 5.5.11 @ 1:26PM

Here is how it works- and I have noticed this my entire life. I am 55 years old and have seen quite a few administrations come and go. But one overarching theme occurs over and over. --The liberals make a mess- republican-conservative (more conservative than republican) ideas bail them out and then the conservatives are labeled cold hearted war mongering- grandma starving in the street- torturers who have no heart.--This incident- utilizing Bush's policies and still calling Bush an evil man is entirely typical of this mindset. The liberals live off the successes of conservatives and then trash those who have done the heavy lifting and take a bow in the spotlight as Obama is doing today. --Clinton was the same- attempting to go socialist and having to hire Morris- come to the center- adopt conservative policies- live off the fruits of the ending of the cold war and declaring thatLIBERAL fiscal policies led to the surplus- all while Bin Laden and the terrorist were treated as a domestic law enforcement issue. ---Its all so typcial and never changes.

Margie| 5.5.11 @ 2:21PM

Very well said!
RIGHT ON.
And they'll never change.
Heh, and the glory goes to God, anyway. His justice was performed and carried out and He willed Obama to do it!

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 3:02PM

Oh, really - you missed the Bush I recession, the Clinton magnificent boom 90's and the Bush II dot com bust and 2008 Depression, did ya? Really?

victor| 5.5.11 @ 3:29PM

Purplehaze:
"the Clinton magnificent boom 90's"

Which part of the boom was Billy Boy responsible for?

Reduction of the Capital Gains Tax?

The 1996 Welfare Reform Act?

The Dot Com Boom?

Holding down spending in the late 90's?

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 12:57PM

He signed them all - do you need to read "How a bill gets passed"? You do realize without Bill Clinton, you would have had none of that. You do know that, right?

Oldefarte| 5.5.11 @ 5:02PM

Purple Fool, the only '''''BOOM''''' that Clinton scored was from the sound of Monica's fat behind hitting the floor in the oval office from WildBill 's elderly expansion and subsequent recession!!!!!!

simon templar| 5.6.11 @ 12:44AM

I read this the first time and did not get it..then I did, the second time, and could not stop laughing..my sides hurt from the laughter.

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 12:58PM

Okay, fart blossom, yep, Clinton was shtupping Monica. Old news - and?

Rick | 5.5.11 @ 1:27PM

No fan of the President but I'm sickened by the failure of American Spectator to give this administration full praise fordoing something the last administrtation failed to do. This is a time for national rejoicing, for prayers for 9/11 victims, and for thanks to President Obama. Get past the hate, folks.

solidground| 5.5.11 @ 1:37PM

What an excellent example of critical thinking. Congratulations!

Margie| 5.5.11 @ 2:18PM

Hey Ricky~

As soon as you "get over the hate" of hating us for not bowing in worship to your king.

Jesus Christ is Lord, bow to Him before it's too late.

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 3:03PM

Maybe you should practice what he preached. Or do you not believe in Jesus' teachings?

victor| 5.5.11 @ 3:32PM

Here's some of Jesus' teachings:

http://thecornerstoneonline.co.....-pacifism/

victor| 5.5.11 @ 3:55PM

Purpleguy, like many, has created his own Jesus.

Oldefarte| 5.5.11 @ 5:04PM

Yes, and his [along with Monica's] saviour now resides at the WH!!!!!!

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 1:02PM

Who said anything about pacifism. I'm thrilled we killed Osama - too bad we couldn't 3000 more times. My point was "love thy neighbor", which clearly Margie does not.

Margie| 5.7.11 @ 1:00AM

And you know this how, PurplePunk?

Josh| 5.5.11 @ 1:36PM

Once again someone is defending the use of torture that can not be defended. Agree with much that is written here torture will never be one of those. The use of torture does nothing but lower ourselves to the level of those we are fighting against. We should be better and find better ways.

Now to discredit the use of torture, simple if it was so effective why did it take so long for it to work?

Wrong is wrong no matter how much you wish it to be otherwise.

solidground| 5.5.11 @ 1:37PM

How do you feel about abortion?

Josh| 5.5.11 @ 2:38PM

Wrong is wrong, what part of that do you not understand?

Purpleguy| 5.5.11 @ 3:04PM

Abortion? Let's see, a part of a woman's body that can't live on it's own.... like her arm? Is that what you mean? Or the fallacy of a human fetus being a person?

John Navratil| 5.5.11 @ 3:26PM

Purpleguy,

In comparison with other mammals, and because of our bipedal nature and narrow hips, the human infant is born premature, cannot see, cannot feed itself, has an incompletely developed digestive tract, cannot walk and cannot survive without protection from the mildest of the elements. Perhaps we should make the ability to walk the cut-off point for abortion, no? You could, of course, keep the arm tissue alive by artificial means, could you not? It seems clear that you are surviving quite well without a brain when you equate a fetus with an arm.

victor| 5.5.11 @ 3:33PM

Hey Purplygauze,

Why don't you ask your Mom this Sunday if she wanted the "right" of "choice"?

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 1:03PM

She did, and is glad it was available for my sister and niece.

Texas Chris| 5.5.11 @ 4:31PM

Sorry chief, but a fetus is human from conception.

If a squatter lived on your private property you would have NO RIGHT to simply murder them. You may evict, but do no harm to them.

Same with abortion. A fetus is an unwelcome tennent, but mommy has NO RIGHT to murder it.

There are plenty of couples who would love to adopt and raise that child. But no, you support mommy's "right" to murder her child for convinience.

As usual, governemnt meddling in adoption procedure makes it terribly difficult for unwilling mothers and willing parents to come to terms. Unwanted unborn children could easily be a financial boon to mothers, but no, "selling" the right to raise a child is more wrong than murdering it.

Nice logic there.

Josh| 5.5.11 @ 5:19PM

"Selling" of newborns for adoption a quick slide to corruption. I do agree with you that adoption procedures are over the top draconian not too mention very expensive. I know people who have adopted and the hoops they must jump thru and the extreme expense is a nightmare.

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 1:06PM

Actually no. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny - so technically a fetus is not human until it has passed through all the previous developmental stages of it's species. Now, I know you don't all understand that - so ask Occam's Tool - he should know.

Oldefarte| 5.5.11 @ 5:06PM

The only ''''ABORTION''''' [or should I say afterbirth] is that to which I'm now replying to!!!!!

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 1:07PM

Nice neighbor, this one.

C.K. Amos| 5.5.11 @ 11:49PM

"Or the fallacy of a human fetus being a person?"

In testimony before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, in late April 1981, Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman of the Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, said: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

I'm neither a molecular biologist nor medical doctor, but I'll take the doctor's opinion to support my own religious view of life beginning at conception.

Seems to me the camp that calls a human fetus "fallacious" commits the same moral depreciation that allows one person to kill another: Degrade that other person by calling him or her a gook, spic, wop, n*gger, honky, dago, frog, slope, whatever.

Once someone depreciates someone else's humanity, any action which follows against the depreciated becomes easier.

However, what I find so grotesque is that life's most fragile and innocent must suffer from such prejudice and hatred--and that people who have been born believe they can assume the role of God in deciding who even gets a chance to become born.

Not uncommonly, those very people have more compassion for cats, dogs, seals, etc., than they do for the unborn.

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 1:08PM

Life is not the same as human, and surely all life is not a person. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Say it with me...

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 1:11PM

I should add for this "Seems to me the camp that calls a human fetus "fallacious" commits the same moral depreciation that allows one person to kill another:" - and, yet, the adult person is put to death (why?) and is allowed to go to war to die (why?) . if you really believe in the sanctity of life - why are we killing polar bears? or any living creature, let alone humans? Either you are pro-life or you are not. Which are you?

Pat| 5.5.11 @ 4:44PM

Solidground: Ouch, a “solid” zinger and in very few words as well. But Liberals are black belts when it comes to compartmentalizing issues – for example, a recent study by the Jack Kevorkian Institute titled “Investigation into Alternatives to Natural Death” offered volunteers a chance to experience abortion first hand. Volunteers could be doused with toxic chemicals or super-glued to a wall of medical gel and then scraped off with sharp knife. For a generous payment to their families, the more adventurous among the volunteers could have their skulls pierced with surgical scissors and part of their brain sucked out, the extracted gray matter preserved within an attractive canopic jar and presented to the volunteers as they exited.

The New York Times condemned the Kevorkian Institute’s study as barbaric, claiming “simulated abortion” is “almost as immoral as waterboarding”. Going further, the Times stated there is no medical resemblance between a fetus and a human being, although they declined to offer any specifics. So, what is wrong is wrong when it comes to certain practices, not so wrong when it comes to other practices. Maybe the CIA should take a page from the feminists who claim abortions should be safe, cheap and rare. If the CIA’s Chief Spook announces that waterboarding, in the future, will be safe, cheap and rare would that solve the Liberals’ moral dilemma?

Josh| 5.5.11 @ 5:36PM

Let me get this right you are fine with "simulated abortion"? If so you have a very poor sense of right and wrong.
Tho you see Solidgrounds comment as a zinger, I see his comment as more of finding out if I am a liberal or not. You obviously did not understand my reply to his/her comment

MarkR| 5.5.11 @ 1:48PM

Yea- I sure wish we wouldve sat down with the Germans and Japanese and reasoned out the ending of those wars! We could have avoided all the bloodshed. Hitler and Tojo were just waiting to reason with us. ANd the Japanese they wouldnt have had the Bataan death march and used torture on us if we hadnt on them.--I remember watching the beheadings of our people and they certainly wouldnt have done it if we wouldnt of waterboarded them terrorists. I mean I see all the law enforcement people who have gone through that procedure and how they have taken to the streets to kill and maim American citizens. I think Osama and Osay and Qusay and Saddam were just misunderstood freedom fighters that we led astray. Hey, I think its time to hold hands and sing cumbya- if only all the world could sing together in love!

Josh| 5.5.11 @ 2:49PM

Good mindset. They do wrong so it is fine for us.
Play your weak of mind games all you wish but never even came close to suggesting to reason with unreasonable people. I would no more try to reason with Hitler/Tojo/Osama/Saddam that I would try to explain to Obama why raising taxes/increasing entitlements is a fools play.

David| 5.5.11 @ 1:44PM

Mr Tyrell is upset that Mr. Obama wanted to consider his actions? Apparently Emmett favors gut reactions over thoughtful behavior

Texas Chris| 5.5.11 @ 4:22PM

I, too, was waterboarded. Twice. And worse.

KSM was waterboarded over 180 times. There's a line...

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 11:25PM

Dear Texas Chris,

I thank you for your service, as no doubt your waterboarding came during training.

But your overfastidiousness could kill us all. I speak as an expert in dealing with psychopaths.

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 1:14PM

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin.

Richard H. Davis| 5.5.11 @ 2:18PM

You know, of course, Mr. Tyrrell, that it is not known for sure at this time whether ANY of the information obtained thru torture played a part in this. The preponderance of the what we have been told is that it did not, but that's hardly evidence. The implication of your essay, however, is that we can for sure draw a straight line from torture to the killing of bin Laden, and that that's the only way that we would have gotten there. You can't possibly know that.

Richard Baker| 5.5.11 @ 2:20PM

Been waterboarded during my time in the Army. It doesn't do ANY physical harm and if it yields the intel which allows operations like this to proceed successfully then onward with all dispatch. The problem is that the lefties would rather have Americans suffer and die than possibly discomfort or disturb their hallowed Moslem heroes. As General McAuliffe said during the siege of the 101st at Bastogne, "Nuts!"

Tom Filkins| 5.5.11 @ 2:33PM

Are we expected to believe that the SEALS landed helos, broke down doors, engaged in firefights for upwards of thirty minutes before gaining the third floor bedroom where they found an UNARMED UBL? And why was the body destroyed within hours of his "killing?" And now our fearless leader says he's not going to show the photos of UBL in permanent repose. This whole thing doesn't pass the smell test.

Bush Did It| 5.5.11 @ 2:39PM

For once, LR, AB and all the other moles are right: Bin Laden is dead. Bush Did It.

USAttorney | 5.5.11 @ 2:42PM

Though I much prefer the intelligence and foresight of the elder Bush, the single-minded focus of “W” certainly laid some foundation for this week’s catch and release (to his virgins of course) of Osama. Who can argue with Texas Governor Rick Perry though? Let us not extend exorbitant gratitude to elected leaders for doing what they are tasked and paid to do…not partisan bickering but rather making the tough choices and accept the accolades or blame for subordinates’ actions. A tip of the hat to W and Obama, and I think some people here missed the extension of invitation by Obama to “W”, but enormous gratitude for the risk and sacrifice of our armed forces. Even without physical or mental scars, these service men spend time training that Obama, “W”, Boehner, and Pelosi all get to spend on luxurious planes with their families traveling to France, Hawaii, or Crawford.

MattZ| 5.5.11 @ 3:42PM

Yes, how tawdry of many liberals to point out George W Bush's unethical and legally-dubious decisions; I suppose they should be really ashamed of themselves, right?
MZ

Texas Chris| 5.5.11 @ 4:19PM

No, Bush II is well worthy of said shame, and a jail cell as well.

And Obama should be his cell mate.

You could fill a whole prison with the impeachable presidents of the past. There are roughly 40 of them, and they are responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths, 15+ trillion in debt, and 99% decline in the dollar.

Richard C. Andrews| 5.5.11 @ 4:03PM

Until Americans wake up to the gigantic shafting they have received from corporate america, banks and wall street, the fact that our politicians are bought and paid for and do not work for America, we will continue to think Bush is untouchable as are congress, the senate and corporation. NONE of them are held responsible or liable for their greed, stupidity and incompetence! Americans have become transfixed on reality Television which has nothing to do with reality and are fed a steady diet of distraction by the media. Where is Jesus when we need him to wade into these hallowed halls and beat the moneychangers out of our temples of capitalism. I just wish they would grow some spines and stand up for truth, justice and the left for a change. That is all of the Americans left behind by the greed of the elite. It is such a subtle line of bull that we have allowed ourselves to accept it as truth as long as they print money that isn't backed by anything other than the consumer, who is out of money to consume with, out of jobs, and soon I pray will run out of patience to be filled instead with wrath guided toward those who have dishonored the right to call themselves American.

Richard C. Andrews

Texas Chris| 5.5.11 @ 4:16PM

Sorry, but torture is wrong, no matter what "good" may have come of it.

Some will say "but Americans will die if we don't" but let's be realistic. Americans will die. Period. Because we have been over there in that hornet's nest called the Middle East for 60 years. Of course we are going to get stung.

But to sink to this level as a people where we accept rendition, torture, and habeus corpus abuse is to abandon what our ancestors came here for: freedom, indivudualism, and privacy.

tonypal| 5.5.11 @ 7:21PM

As is often stated, the US Constitution is not a suicide pact. While some of us might appreciate your sensibilities, if it came down to a family member or friend, I'd skin someone alive if I had to in order to save their life. The fact that you wouldn't do what it takes to protect loved ones says quite a bit about where your priorities lie.

As for habeas corpus (that's the correct spelling, not habeus) abuse, here's a bit of a history lessen for you. It goes back to 14th century England. Until 5 law school grads decided their collective wisdom exceeded that of over 700 years of collective wisdom and jurisprudence, never was an enemy combatant afforded such a right. The left in this country has propagated the myth that George Bush denied habeas corpus rights and you've bought into it. But that's utter nonsense. I do not consider Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and the other 3 clowns on the Supreme Court the ultimate arbiters in this matter.

Assuming you agree that Abe Lincoln was a fairly decent president, are you aware that he suspended habeas corpus during certain periods of the civil war? Pretty fascinating, eh? But Pres. Bush did no such thing. Instead, he simply treated enemy combatants as every other leader has since the inception of habeas corpus. There is simply no historical record anywhere supporting the notion that enemy combatants should be afforded habeas corpus rights. Again, it's me and 700 + years of history versus you and 5 law school grads. Incidentally, I'm a law school grad and trust me when I tell you that you shouldn't be too impressed with me or Stephen Breyer, etc.

As for your last point, where you state "But to sink to this level as a people where we accept rendition, torture, and habeus corpus abuse is to abandon what our ancestors came here for: freedom, indivudualism, and privacy.", here's a few thoughts. First, can you say with any certainty that during the course of the Revolutionary War, not once did any of our ancestors forcibly coerce information by means repugnant to you? How do you know George Washington didn't stick a hot poker up someone's ass to get vital information necessary to save lives. Second, from your point of view, what the hell do freedom, individualism and privacy have to do with extracting information during a war via any means necessary? For me, doing whatever is necessary to preserve our way of life is what matters, not worrying about the sensibilities of people who don't have the stomach for the fight.

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 11:22PM

Tony, please be my pal. I like the cut of your jib.

There are too few Conservative Lawyers, sir. You underestimate yourself.

C.K. Amos| 5.5.11 @ 11:29PM

". . . if it came down to a family member or friend, I'd skin someone alive if I had to in order to save their life."

There are some people who simply do not understand what you're saying.

Either they've never had to face that situation or ponder such action, or they truly do think that it's a Mr.-Rogers-Wonderful-Neighborhood in which we all happily exist.

They also do not understand the morality of what you suggest.

Such people could not comprehend even what Lt. Col. Allen West (Ret.) did in Iraq to get information to save his troops.

Paterfamilias| 5.8.11 @ 2:27PM

If you're so smart how come YOU aren't a Supreme Court Justice? Could it be that there's more to the job than simply having a loud mouth?

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 11:23PM

Dear Texas,

if I had to torture a million Islamists to protect my little girl, call me Pol Pot.

Drunken Sailor| 5.5.11 @ 4:25PM

Sure are a lot of Bush hating trolls out today. If I didn't know better I would think he was still in the political scene.

C.K. Amos| 5.5.11 @ 11:30PM

DS, he is in their BDS-diseased minds and souls.

Richard Baker| 5.5.11 @ 4:43PM

Sounds as if some of you lefties don't have even a loose grasp on reality. If scaring the Hell out of someone who has vowed the death of my country allows me to gain the intel that stops said destruction then by all means continue. The rest of us will just have to endure your phony scorn. Big Fat Hairy Deal.

JimmyMac| 5.5.11 @ 5:06PM

Richard, I think that either the Central Park restrooms are closed for remodeling or our trolls have run out of liquor early today. I guess their welfare checks aren't cutting it these days.

Intelligent Design| 5.5.11 @ 5:17PM

For those interested in some facts, from President Bush's book titled Decision Points, published in 2010, page 171: "Of the thousands of terrorists we captured in the years after 9/11, about a hundred were placed into the CIA program. About a third of those were questioned using enhanced techniques. Three were water-boarded. The information the detainees in the CIA program revealed constituted more than half of what the CIA knew about al Qaeda. Their interrogations helped break up plots to attack American military and diplomatic facilities abroad, Heathrow Airport and Canary Wharf in London, and multiple targets in the United States. Experts in the intelligence community told me that without the CIA program, there would have been another attack on the United States." ....... And President Bush adds, "I asked the most senior legal officers in the U.S. government to review the interrogation methods, and they assured me that they did not constitute torture." Medical doctors were also consulted.

Paterfamilias| 5.8.11 @ 2:23PM

But nobody is claiming that there was a direct connection between information used in bringing down bin Laden and information obtained as a result of waterboarding. For all we know the information obtained by means of waterboarding was totally useless.

Curtis Rasmussen| 5.5.11 @ 5:47PM

Osama was not a dog. He was a pig.

Mary| 5.5.11 @ 5:51PM

Am I the only one who is having trouble with the news, confusing Osama & Obama regularly? I have to triple-read everything to make sure I know which one is being talked about.
Anyway, I beleive that Osama would not have been found if it weren't for the work done under Bush's administration. Yay, Bush!

Intelligent Design| 5.5.11 @ 8:06PM

Amen.

C.K. Amos| 5.5.11 @ 11:24PM

Yes.

Anthony| 5.5.11 @ 5:55PM

Reading the 400+ posts on RET's blog and that of Mr. Cline's today, I am struck by the fact that the killing of Osama, and the way it has been bungled by the narcissist -in-chief, has turned a rallying event for all Americans precisely into the opposite.
Today's tasteless and tacky victory tour at Ground Zero, the failure to release the pictures for Muslim sensitivities, with no regard for Americans and our sensibilities, and the hourly changes in precisely what happened at the compound, has inflamed Americans to such a degree, we are more divided than we were before Osama's death. Wow, what a divider this man is!!
If Obozo the uniter can do this to America over Osama, imagine what we have in store for us over the next two years.
If this keeps up, the 2012 elections will be canceled on account of revolution!!!

Paterfamilias| 5.8.11 @ 2:18PM

Revolution? By who? You? LOL

SittingMooseShaman| 5.5.11 @ 7:13PM

...he "learns on the job" @ the Constitutions,' the nation and our personal expense.

WAKE UP| 5.5.11 @ 8:02PM

Way back at the top , canuckistani| 5.5.11 @ 10:36AM said:
You are assuming 9/11 would have happened under Obama in the first place.
----------------------
Acytually , Canuckistani, given how long it would take to plan such an event, it was undoubtebtedly planned during Clinton's watch, and my bet is that they had it ready to go on election day. Thank goodness they picked the wrong President to tackle; Bush kept us safe for eight years and laid the groundwork for the success that the MSM is now trying to award Obama.

ps: Notice that nobdy's mentioning the Nobel Peace Prize any more. Hypocrites, as ever..

syd chaden| 5.5.11 @ 8:45PM

Fact #1. Clinton allowed bin Laden to get away at least twice. He fired a cruise missile at bin Laden's camp in Afghanistan, which missed bin Laden.
Fact #2 Bush allowed bin Laden to get away at least once. He bombed the al Queda camps in Afghanistan into oblivion, but missed bin Ladin. He sent the US military and CIA on missions in Afghanistan and Pakistan to capture or kill bin Laden, but failed to get him.
Fact #3 Obama continued the Bush tactics for pursuing bin Laden, and, to his credit, when bin Laden was located, he did not let him get away. Clinton, Bush and Obama all left our borders wide open for terrorists to come into the country. Bin Laden could have walked across the border and hid out in a sanctuary city in the US for the rest of his life, but chose to remain in Pakistan. Any of the remaining al Queda leaders could walk into the US if they chose to.
Fact #4 We badly need a president who will protect the country better than Clinton, Bush or Obama.

Bob From District 9| 5.5.11 @ 9:02PM

What a venomous little weasel you are. You turn a moment of national rejoicing into another opportunity to attack those guilty of disagreeing with you.

You compound it by ranting about Seal Team 6 violating the laws of a sovereign nation and unilaterally putting a bullet in OBL's head. Well, I really don't care if they violated Pakistan's sovereignty. In fact, that would be right in keeping with GWB's statement that those who help the terrorists will be treated like the terrorists. As to "Unilaterally" putting a bullet in his head, in war in covert action against a known mass murder, I would have done the same thing. Tough, live with it.

Your lie about CIA interrogators sifting through all that intel... how dumb. Interrogators don't sift through intel, analysts do. Those CIA officers were analysts, and they were never held out as brutes. However, the *CONTRACTORS* who were the real torturers were brutes, and criminals.

If you want to ask about restoring the careers of CIA analysts, lets start with Valerie Plame Wilson, who has been proven to have had her career destroyed because her husband told the truth about the lies that led to the invasion of Iraq.

Osama Bin Laden should not have lived out 2001, but he did because the Neo-Cons, esp Cheney and Rumsfeld et al wanted a war for oil in Iraq. Note I do not blame Bush, GWB was nothing but a puppet dancing on Cheney's strings.

Oh, and I have been searching for any authoritative reports that torture led to the killing of OBL. Not even evidence from KSM about this can be shown to have been obtained under torture. In reality, it didn't work. KSM knew the courier's real name, all the evidence indicates that. Yet he never gave that up, did he? Every report I see says KSM gave up the 'nickname' well after the torture ended. He played the contractor interrogators on that, and you still buy into it.

Give Obama the credit for doing something great, and do it without demeaning yourself with more BS.

C.K. Amos| 5.5.11 @ 11:22PM

"Give Obama the credit for doing something great."

When he does, I will.

But with bin Laden, he did what, one hopes, any president would've done.

Maybe, though, without so much deliberation, thus giving the appearance he had been backed into a figurative corner or had entered such corner by his own machinations.

Cpm| 5.5.11 @ 9:37PM

So the president was asked today by a sister of a 9-11 victim to end the investigations into the CIA interrogators that helped find bin Laden and he said they would continue. Prosecutions of the participants of the raid for the crime of first degree murder will no doubt be announced by Holder soon.

Bruno2007| 5.6.11 @ 3:46PM

Cpm: have you considered thinking before writing?

Kent Lyon| 5.5.11 @ 9:54PM

In the spirit of this column, one wonders if, in addition to Abbottabad in Pakistan, there is a Costello-abad.

Nite| 5.5.11 @ 11:08PM

President Bush is a class act and a gentleman. Big difference between him and Obama. Obama has blamed the problems and missteps of his administration on Bush rather than accepting accountability for his own actions. Obama is in over his head and a joke. He wants voters to give him another 4 years. The country will not survive if that happens.

Purpleguy| 5.6.11 @ 1:16PM

Oh, you have forgotten "It was Clinton's recession... " and "we went to war with the Clinton army... " and "Clinton didn't get Osama when he had the chance..." Oops on the last one - neither did Bush. Obama got Osama, no other president did.

C.K. Amos| 5.5.11 @ 11:18PM

Part of ad nauseam BDS is the inability to give GWB any credit for anything.

But for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others, the processes, resources and momentum to reach the death of bin Laden would not have happened.

From Megalomaniac-and-Whiner-in-Chief Obama, I never expect he'll have a good word for anyone--he didn't even have any of his National Security team with him at the announcement--but especially GWB.

Same goes for the Democrats, liberals and leftists.

Being afloat without a moral anchor and reflecting Obama, they also believe that if they did not do it, it could not possibly have happened.

Their delusion is matched only by their arrogance and ignorance.

Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 11:18PM

Nunya,

Beautifully played, sir.

dumdedumdeum| 5.6.11 @ 6:16AM

It must suck to be so bitter and partisan that your first thought after seeing we've finally succeeded at a decade-long goal is, "How can I use this to tear down Obama?" If I could interrupt your whining for a second to interject with a little reality: Which the history books are written, which President will be described as having caught and killed bin Laden? Do you really think it will be George W. "I don't know where he is. I just don't spend that much time on him" Bush?

Both Presidents said they would hunt down bin Laden. One succeeded. But keep it up -- I'm sure "the guy who finally brought closure to those who lost friends and loved ones didn't give Bush enough credit" will be a winning campaign issue that doesn't look the least bit petty or bitter. Go with that.

ps. Tyrell... dude... seriously: Economy of language. Write for clarity. Your thesaurus doesn't make you a good writer. Quite the opposite.

dumdedumdeum| 5.6.11 @ 6:19AM

Oh, and neat trick with the wiretapping stuff. Yeah, based on the irrefutable standard of "probably happened," the whole thing has clearly been vindicated.

What a bunch of idiots.

rowley| 5.6.11 @ 8:54AM

Stark Contrast between Obama vs Bush
CRASS vs CLASS

Jon B| 5.6.11 @ 11:13AM

Are you kidding? Cheney pulled US intelligence off Bin laden's trail after he set-up the OSP, the Pentagon office run by Doug Feith, that bypassed US intelligence and created the lies to invade Iraq. Goerge Tenet ADMITTED under oath during a congressional investigation that the Bush administration coerced him to lie about the intelligence they had. Then, when they needed Osama free to keep fear alive to invade Iraq, they ORDERED the US Army to NOT get him at Tora Bora in December 2001. Or do you believe that the administration was not in control of that decision too?

Come on man, when you guys print articles with all the bullshit spin, anyone informed knows you're full of shit.

Julieanne| 5.6.11 @ 11:34AM

I would like to know how long they have really known where he was. I no longer believe anything this government tells us any longer. He picked a location he felt safe. Why did he think he was safe in this location? He should not have felt safe "anywhere". He is dead, and that is all that matters now, along with the additional information found on him revealing future plans by the "evil doers"... The CIA got him, the Seals got him. Bush and Obama .. who knows what is really going on behind the scenes. We don't. That is the biggest fear I have.. I wasn't afraid of any blasted terrorist. I am more afraid of my own government. If these backward terrorists wait long enough, seems like the Obama administration will have us ripe for the taking if the Socialists have their way.

Jon B| 5.6.11 @ 11:46AM

Pakistan made a peace treaty with Osama and al Qaida in September 2001. ABC Brian Ross reported this

jon b| 5.7.11 @ 4:00PM

I apologize, the peace treaty was made in September 2006, a typo. Here's the link: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thebl.....ives_.html

Nightwing| 5.6.11 @ 1:25PM

Actually, some kudos should go to Donald Rumsfeld. It was his contention from the gitgo that the best way to go after bin Laden was by means of swift, stealth swat-teams rather than massive troop deployments which would look like an occupation.
So, at the end it was the Rumsfeld strategy that finally accomplished the mission, not the 100,000 boots on the ground.

demz taters| 5.7.11 @ 5:51PM

Kudos for Rumsfeld? If anything, it makes him look even worse to have gone ahead with 100,000 boots on the ground when it was his contention that we should use swift, stealth swat teams.

Bruno2007| 5.6.11 @ 3:42PM

If I recall, among many events that dilute the significance of your story, one example is the Bush administration disbanded in 2005 the Agency unit focused on finding Osama. How much did the Speculator press you to write this dribble?

jon b| 5.7.11 @ 4:01PM

The Spectator has made it a life's work to feed the trolls who will only believe along partisan lines.

demz taters| 5.7.11 @ 4:36PM

Do I hear the endless fapping sound of Obama Derangement Syndrome? I believe that I do. That takedown of the most wanted man in the world - with NO casualties - was EPIC and maybe the first time we've truly looked strong in our "war on terra." Why do you hate America?

Nunya| 5.9.11 @ 5:26PM

I don't hate America, I just think Obozo's out of his league. He needs to go back to organizing communties and quit trying to destroy my country.

Cheers to Seal Team Six and their leadership, God bless them all.

Paterfamilias| 5.8.11 @ 2:06PM

I'd be willing to share Obama's glory with the Bush-ites if the Republicans would agree to stop crediting Ronald Reagan with having singlehandedly won the Cold War. Sauce for the goose, you know.

Dee See| 5.8.11 @ 11:30PM

"We are using MASSIVE third world
(largely muslim) immigration to destroy
British culture once and for all forever---"
-TONY BLAIR
(SEE Alan Watt 'Annihilation of Britain'
on Youtube for Daily Mail citation and
breakdown)

---And so goes America?

AS our borders are wide open, while some 50 MILLION
American unborn have been 'terminated', while
Janet Napolitano secretly signs 80 MILLION Mexicans into 'Trusted Traveller' (ie Green Card) status ---while our REAL economy
has been moved to RED China ----with NO mention of the word TREASON -----even as the
greatest 'EUGENICS friendly' world nuclear
disaster in history is buried by media -----really
STOP worshipping the playoffs, porn and your rectums.

HUAC meets NUREMBERG for 2012.

Honor| 5.24.11 @ 9:49PM

President Bush did get credit for his administration's role in getting Osama Bin Laden - but not from the media. It came from the Obama administration National Security Advisor Tom Donilon on Meet the Press:

MR. DONILON: I'm not, I'm not going to comment on specific intelligence except, except to say the following, that intelligence was gathered from detainees, it was gathered through interrogation, it was gathered from other liaison services, it was gathered technically, it was gathered through human sources, right, over time. And it was gathered, by the way--and this is a very important point I think for your viewers and for Americans generally to understand--this was an effort across two administrations. Indeed, many of the same professionals who worked for President Bush on this project work with us today. Right? So it is not a matter of, of partisanship. And indeed, one of the messages I think that goes out from this is this, that the United States, about its goals, has persistence and determination. That the United States does what it says it's going to do and, very importantly, last Sunday night the world saw, it has the capabilities to do so.

THANK YOU PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR FOSTERING NON-PARTISAN INCLUSIVENESS AND NOT THIS BITTER, VICIOUS SNAPPING AT YOUR HEELS BEING CARRIED ON BY REPUBLICANS. I'M PROUD TO HAVE SUCH A PRESIDENT!

David| 6.16.11 @ 1:50PM

No, you don't hear anything close to cheers for George W. Bush.

I await the judgment of history (and not the instant historians of the Left and Right) but I'm pretty sure he's secure in a place on the Worst Five Presidents in U.S. History.

Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 5:50AM

Then I turned to our nation's newspaper of record, the New York Times. Not once but twice the Times' editorialists departed from heaving confetti to remind us all of George W. Bush, the war criminal. They could have maintained a gentlemanly forbearance.

Latest Headlines

From the Obama Ministry of Truth

Ben Stein|44 comments

Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal

Quin Hillyer|40 comments

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

Jeffrey Lord|53 comments

McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal

Ross Kaminsky|84 comments

Anyone Still Believe Me?

Aaron Goldstein|27 comments

The Book We Still Can’t Spare

Lars Walker|40 comments

Delivering Serbs to the Wolves

Doug Bandow|17 comments

Wincing at Cumberbatch

James Bowman|8 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Lois Lerner to Plead the Fifth

Kaylin Bugos | 4:27PM

Did Virginia Republicans Just Elect Terry McAuliffe?

Ross Kaminsky | 3:41PM

Lois Lerner Will Take the Fifth

Ross Kaminsky | 3:27PM

Cook Insists: No Income Shifting, Tax Avoidance

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 3:01PM

Democrats Outraged Over IRS, But Not the Right Aspect of It

Kaylin Bugos | 2:10PM

What Happens If the Uninsured Can’t Register Under Obamacare?

Patrick Ryan | 1:22PM

Whitehouse Berates Republicans for Causing Tornadoes

Claire Healey | 1:11PM

UPDATED: Former IRS Chief Refuses to Apologize

Kaylin Bugos | 12:45PM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?