President Obama has made a surprise visit to Afghanistan on the one-year anniversary of the killing of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.
bin Laden had used Afghanistan as his base of operations until he was routed by US forces in 2001.
Thus Obama is campaigning again, using his decision to take out bin Laden as another prop for his re-election.
This is one of the most unseemly undertakings in the history of the American presidency, Obama again ‘spiking the football’ (taking every political advantage) over bin Laden. But Obama knows that his re-election prospects are dim and so he is pulling out all the stops.
It will backfire, friends, rest assured.
This continued gloating comes one year after Obama took a shameful victory tour around America over the killing of bin Laden, milking it for every ounce of publicity as if Obama himself had executed the raid.
Oh, wait, Obama never served in the US military. And as a leftist Democrat he has criticized our military ruthlessly.
The killing of bin Laden in Pakistan on May 1, 2011 (US Eastern time) was a long-term military process that required the best intelligence and the most heroic soldiers. Our Navy SEALs performed flawlessly.
(Then just over three months later 15 of those SEALs died in a military operation in Afghanistan in which they were loaded onto a slow-moving Chinook helicopter and sent into a combat zone.
Were the SEALs intentionally sabotaged? Where is the congressional investigation into this national tragedy?
Answer: There is none but there damned well should be. Because many questions need to be answered about that tragic incident (see below).)
The killing of bin Laden was a result of years of tough-minded military intelligence gathering, the kind that Obama and his Democrat cronies oppose at every turn.
Likely GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney is calling Obama’s repeated exploitation of the bin Laden killing a "politically divisive event." And he is correct. Romney said that it is "very disappointing for the president to try to make this a political item” while millions of Americans are offended by Obama’s tactics.
Meanwhile Obama has had the audacity to suggest that Romney would not have ordered the bin Laden killing. This is pure arrogance. Obama should be ashamed.
Navy SEALs (SEALs means SEa – Air – Land) are criticizing Obama’s tawdry gloating. Ryan Zinke, a former commander in the US Navy who spent 23 years as a SEAL and who once led an assault unit of SEAL Team 6 (the team that killed bin Laden), said:
“The decision (to kill bin Laden) was a no brainer. I applaud (Obama) for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call. I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice – it was a broader team effort.”
Zinke is now a Republican state senator in Montana. And it is important to note Zinke’s humility and the restrained nature of his statement, not boasting about his SEAL experience or expressing anger over Obama but only saying that it was a “broader team effort”. This is typically classy behavior from a real patriot.
Because it truly was a team effort. A military team effort, that is. And you can rest assured that during the years that Obama was working as a community organizer in Chicago stapling posters to phone poles that there were more than a million people serving quietly and effectively in the American military who, through years of discipline, have made such actions like the killing of bin Laden possible.
Obama even is using the bin Laden ploy in a new campaign ad. And there apparently will be a Follywood movie about the event this Fall just in time for the election. This comes after Obama himself said that “we don't trot out this stuff as trophies. Americans and people around the world are glad that (bin Laden is) gone. But we don't need to ‘spike the football’."
As Obama repeatedly spikes the football. It is utterly shameful.
Meanwhile the National Journal recently reported that a senior State Department official has announced that “the war on terror is over.”
“Now that we have killed most of al Qaida,” the Journal reported the official saying, “now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.”
Oh, sure. War over.
Preposterous. It is when we start to become complacent like this that evil will strike again. In fact 9/11 itself was a result of years of Democrat complacency. Here’s how:
On February 26, 1993, Islamic terrorists parked a huge truck bomb in the garage underneath the North Tower of the World Trade Center – the second to fall on 9/11 – and detonated it. Six people were killed and 1,500 were injured. The terrorists had hoped to topple the tower that was filled with 25,000 office workers, and although the blast was very powerful, it was not big enough to bring the building down.
Instead of treating that attack as terrorism, however, the newly-installed Clinton administration treated it as a criminal act with civilian trials for the perpetrators. And for the remainder of Clinton’s term, until January 2001, terrorism was essentially ignored, as if there was no War on Terror.
Because liberals and leftists in America and around the world are working – through benign negligence, through intentional negligence, or through surreptitious or overt cooperation – with Islamic terrorists who wish to infiltrate and disrupt Western societies.
So rather than tracking, surveilling, arresting and convicting terrorists for eight years under Clinton, nothing happened. When suspicious Middle Eastern males in their twenties were reported to the FBI because they were taking flying lessons, no action resulted.
Indeed the 19 hijackers who took part on 9/11 were able during the latter years of the Clinton administration to give false and misleading information on their visa applications; overstay their visas; take aviation lessons and even simulator lessons for flying jetliners; travel freely around the country; get money wired in from overseas; obtain American drivers’ licenses; take reconnaissance flights on commercial airlines; and then perpetrate the 9/11 attacks using… box cutters??!!
Are you serious? If this type of scenario were presented to a Hollywood studio to make a film, it would have been laughed out of town as utterly implausible.
Before September 11, 2001 that is.
9/11 in fact was a travesty of the first order. And of course we are never supposed to blame Clinton because it happened under Bush. But Bush had started to ramp up anti-terrorist surveillance in Spring 2001 as soon as he took office. Unfortunately, however, the Bush administration was handed an empty briefing book on terrorist activity from Bill Clinton, and so had to start from scratch.
Just think if Clinton had decided to commence a nationwide dragnet on suspicious activities right after the 1993 attack. There is no way in hell that 9/11 would have happened.
But 2001 was far too late. Even though the laptop of a very suspicious Moroccan named Zacharias Moussaoui of Minneapolis was seized during an immigration violation less than one month before 9/11, legal foot-dragging prevented law enforcement from accessing the contents of the computer, which would have blown the whole 9/11 plot wide open. Moussaoui was said to be the “20th hijacker”.
Regarding our Navy SEALs killed August 6, 2011 in Afghanistan we need answers to the following:
*Who precisely authorized the mission in which our armed forces lost 15 SEALs from the bin Laden raid in the Afghanistan Chinook helicopter crash incident?
*Who loaded all these elite troops, from the same SEAL Team Six group that took out bin Laden, onto one slow-moving CH-47D chopper, notorious for its lack of maneuverability, and sent it into a combat zone?
*Was this sabotage of our SEALs an inside job among the Afghans traveling with the SEALs? Or is this just an example of our newly incompetent and ‘diversified’ military, with homosexuals now being ushered in and women taking over command in places they’ve never earned it? Or was it outright sabotage by a US military official from the political left?
*Are not elite forces usually broken up into smaller units and do not they use faster choppers like the Black Hawk so that they don’t get bogged down, sometimes without backup, or shot down in one big juicy target like the 16.5 ton Boeing-made Chinook which was introduced to the US military in…. 1962? The Chinook is a two-rotor, multi-mission transport unit that is generally used to move troops, ammo, fuel and other supplies. It is not a combat chopper.
*Were there any verbal protests beforehand from the SEALs over the dangerous arrangement that ferried them in one group into a hot landing zone (LZ)?
*Were any Afghan army higher-ups involved in the decision to send the troops in, the higher-ups who are supposed to be “helping” our effort?
*Did traitor translators pass on the “information” that important Taliban leaders were meeting in the target zone when in fact it was all a trap?