Here's a former Navy SEAL calling in to Rush Limbaugh's show yesterday:
CALLER: ...I believe that President Obama's hand was forced in this, and this is really just a crass political decision. When I hear people say that this took courage, I just believe he was absolutely forced into doing this.
RUSH: Yeah, because somebody came and said, "We got Osama." So he's got to do something.
CALLER: Exactly.
RUSH: We've got Osama so we've got to do something....
CALLER: If he wouldn't have acted I assure you the information would have been leaked prior to the election cycle.
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: And he would have had to have dealt with that, and frankly if that came to knowledge late in the election cycle, our next president would be either Hillary Clinton or whoever the Republicans nominated.
Mickey Kaus works a similar theory this morning:
Attention, Republicans: Looking for a theory that will allow you to reconcile Obama’s Abbottabad success with the unfavorable portrait of him that before Sunday was just beginning to come together and burn itself into the collective mediamind–that’ he’s an inexperienced, indecisive leader, constantly debating with himself, who fatally hedges every bet? ... [Consider] the possibility that Obama’s hand was forced by WikiLeaks–i.e., he had to act quickly or else Osama might realize we were on his couriers’ trail and flee...
In other words, Obama’s still a natural ditherer and hedger–it’s just that in this case he was forced into taking decisive action by something bigger: the prospect of a devastating political attack (“He let bin Laden escape”) no candidate entering a reelection campaign could survive. Our young elected leader may not know how to wield global power or reconcile realism and idealism, but he knows a deadly negative sound bite when he sees it. So (maybe after talking it over with his political brain trust) he decided he could not afford not to pull the trigger. Kind of wussy when you think about it!
Kaus denies believing the theory himself, noting that Obama is actually a bit trigger happy: "He’s been shooting drones into Pakistan for years, and recently greenlighted an unnecessary war in Libya." He's been shooting-from-the-sky trigger happy. This shoot-him-in-the-face thing is new, isn't it? It would have been so much easier — and so much more in character — to annihilate the Abbottabad compound from high above.
पोस्ट्स
१२२ टिप्पण्या:
So (maybe after talking it over with his political brain trust) he decided he could not afford not to pull the trigger
Is it true he went to bed after being presented with the kill request? Took him 16 hours to make a decision on this?
DHOTUS probably wet his pants and had to change into depends before the next SitRep.
Finally, Obama is eating his waffles.
Yes, Obama had to act. However, he could have chosen to bomb the compound.
Wikilinks didn't figure into the decision to hold off on bombing in March, so why would it figure into a call to send in boots?
The hypothetical does pose a problem for a sitting President, though, regardless if it's Bush or Obama. How can you not make the call to go, whether it be boots or 2000lbs bombs? The President's political advisers had to be well-aware of the potential fallout should it leak out (and it would) that we had a chance to get OBL and passed it up. Just think about all the caterwauling Clinton endured after 9/11 for not getting him when we had the chance.
I think the decisions a president makes based purely on his internal moral compass are few and far between. Especially a first-termer seeking re-election.
This is some sorry ass speculation on all fronts.
I hate arguments that speculate on motivation or project perfect alternatives.
A week ago Bin Laden was alive.
Today he's dead.
Unravel that.
This shoot-him-in-the-face thing is new, isn't it?
No. Obama authorized SEAL snipers to take out a couple Somali pirates while they were holding an American hostage. Obama has demonstrated that his actions as President (at least when it comes to terrorism) are grounded in reality.
I'm not sure I am going to call them 'courageous decisions' but again, as Fen said before, this is called meeting expectations. He's CinC and making those kinds of decisions is part of the job description. Every military commander understands that his orders are probably going to result in deaths of the men who follow those orders. The courage is with the guys who storm the hill.
That said, trying to diminish Obama over this is silly. He made the call, it was the right call and bin laden is sleeping with Luca Bratzi. Now lets start making those same kind of hard decisions on fixing the economy and the debt.
There are always pressures in all directions. Obama made a good decision on this and deserves credit. If he made decisions like this every week I might vote for the guy...but all we have to do is look at the record.
sarge here hahahahahahahahahahaha
thar 101st chairborn again strike with devisive quickness
At the end of the day, it was President Obama's National Security Team that made it happen. His first and most important act was when he decided to keep Gates on at Defense, put Hillary at State and Panetta at CIA.
There isn't much good I give President Obama credit for, but I think he deserves it here. Everything lined up and it happened.
Regards — Cliff
Mick, when you scan any kind of paper document it will be automatically divided into layers. Trust me, I'm a graduate student and basically all I do is scan and read pdfs.
Well, as I recall, in the pirate incident the orders made the 'you can shoot if' requirements so restrictive that it was almost impossible to satisfy. The Captain finally said to hell with it, declared the situation that had developed met the specs and ordered 'Shoot'.
Yeah, drones don't seem to bother Obama much: actual troops on site and shooting bad guys he has REAL problems with.
This debate strikes me a little bit like the rallying around Bush after 9/11- Bush was great at 9/11, no doubt, but did he do anything that any other president wouldn't have done? Not really. Although I think calling Obama "courageous" is silly, he did what needed to be done at the time that it needed to be done, and I'm grateful for that.
And I'm grateful that "trigger-happy" Obama is so much more Bush-like than I ever anticipated during the election. (Not that I still don't think he's awful on a ton of other things, but hey, I'll take them where I can get them.)
- Lyssa
I think it was pretty clear Obama had reservations about it. The problem is that this decision should have been simple. So yes, he's a hedger and ditherer, but we already knew that. There seems to have been some conflict of principle here, and we all know what it is: killing Osama went against his principles. But politics forced his hand. He couldn't not kill Osama. He couldn't catch him (for reasons we've all covered in the Holder thread). He boxed himself in, and now he's gotten Osama and will gain little from it.
Think about that for a moment. His administration has killed the most wanted, hated terrorist in the world, and he'll get no real benefit from it. It takes a certain special kind of political idiocy to pull that result out of the hat.
I am glad Obama made the call, however easy or difficult it was.
Still, many on the left are silent. After all, Obama sent out an execution squad to kill Bin Ladin, while he was unarmed. They could have used a Taser instead.
Yeah, I support the crass execution, but people on the left are horrified. Their peace prize winning president is sending out execution squads? Moreover the execution squad is known as Cheney's assaination team?
But as someone said above, if only Obama would make a trigger decision on cutting spending.
thar 101st chairborn again strike with devisive quickness
The 101st has been air assault since 1974. At least get your sarcasm correct.
US was alerted of Compound in Pakistan, by Paki security in 2009.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383067/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-Pakistan-alerted-US-suspicious-compound-2009.html
The admiral gets two sentences into his briefing when Obama interrupts with, "yeah, yeah, whatever."
That's how the military gets its green light.
"Did Obama demonstrate leadership in pulling the trigger on Osama... or did he merely do the only thing he could do?"
We may never know.
This question however points to one thing; a search for an instance when the Zero 'actually' may have demonstrated leadership.
That is pathetic, isn't it?
The best thing about having a left-wing POTUS taking out Osama? He'll never be immortalized by western progressives.
They'll have to stick with the Che t-shirts for another few years, at least.
I wonder if this is the first time in history that a Nobel Peace Prize winner has ordered an assassination?
Think about that for a moment. His administration has killed the most wanted, hated terrorist in the world, and he'll get no real benefit from it.
Yeah, but Bin Ladin's death is mostly symbolic, since Bin Ladin does not lead by a cult of personality. Killing him doesn't change much of anything in the way that killing Khadafy would right now.
(The Crypto Jew)
I wonder if this is the first time in history that a Nobel Peace Prize winner has ordered an assassination?
No I’m fairly certain Yasser Arafat ordered many of them……
Libtard: sarge here hahahahahahahahahahaha
thar 101st chairborn again strike with devisive quickness
No. Several of us are former military with extensive time on the FEBA, in the COCs and OpCenters, etc.
Killing Bin Laden goes against everything that Obama has said and done over at least the past 4 years.
Not hurting his reelection chances was the main decision made here.
Obama remains a campaigner, it's the only thing he is, the only thing he's good at.
Meanwhile:
Alinsky Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules.
Obama ordered the assassination of an unarmed criminal without a trial, and violated a nations sovereignty in the process. The only remedy is impeachment.
This is what the left would say, so I'm saying it too. Politics is a dirty, dirty game, eh?
This seems like paranoia. The NSC has plenty of data to act upon at a time of their choosing. Strategically, you do not necessarily spring to act because you know the location of a target. Sometimes you start turning the vice grips on your so called partners in the pursuit of the target.
POTUS has to weigh to risk of a decision to strike inside Pakistan a stones throw from their military officer training academy.
You can basically speculate yourself into a very lonely box hypothesizing about every minute detail.
According to published reports, this safe house was known as early as 2006. We knew al-Libi(mini-KSM) used it.
(The Crypto Jew)
I’ll give Obama some “props”…supposedly the first recommendation was air strike. It’s relatively low-risk, hi-reward….BUT you can’t KNOW you got UBL. So, the POTUS ordered the Special Operations forces to assault the compound, even though that runs the risk of a Desert One/Mogadishu scenario, and the subsequent finger-pointing, and comparisons to Carter. So, yes, President Obama made a tough and correct call here, IMO.
I just don’t understand everything else. Why act like killing Usama was “wrong” having to say, “He resisted.” Look Mossad and the SAS have eliminated a LOT of IRA and Palestinian terrorists. Look at the Hunt for the Red Prince, the Israelis hunted down and KILLED every Fatah member they could, who had a hand in the 1972 Olympic Massacre. What’s wrong with that? A number of IRA operatives were killed by the SAS, one set in Spain, under Thatcher. I say “Grow up”…it’s ok to order Usama’s execution, we don’t need to say he resisted, only that he was USAMA.
Fen:
Your ex-military so maybe you can answer this question.
I have seen reports that they could not use drones in that area because it is home to many ex-officeerrs in Pakistani military. Yet other reports claim we could have used manned bombers? But Obama chose this Seal raid to get 100% evidence.
Which of these [maybe all?] stories are true? Do you know because they seem contradictory to me?
Killing Bin Laden goes against everything that Obama has said and done over at least the past 4 years.
Its certainly ironic.
We've been saying for 2 years now that Obama's naive "crimminal justice" approach meant that our troops on the ground would simply find it more practical to kill rather than capture.
And here's Obama, hoist on his on petard. I'm sure Greenwald & Co will be calling for a War Crimes tribunal any day now....
All I said is I scan things frequently. That is basic minim wage work, but it gives you enough knowledge to know that "proof" is just silly.
I'm always surprised at the anti-university sentiment on a professor's blog.
Obama's reality show: Political Survivor. He had to hold his nose and eat the slug (so to speak) in order to make it to the next show. He is in decline and will continue to do so as 2012 approaches and he is sent out to pasture.
I'll go so far as to predict that Obama will increasingly fail as he: a) cannot admit that he's wrong and b) continues to double down in his efforts to prove that he's right. In doing so, he will increase the damage to our economy and our credibility in the world.
Obama has never demonstrated leadership, he's simply been a mouthpiece that spews lefty rhetoric.
Isn't it odd that Bush tried to take his prisoners alive - such as KSM or Saddam, while Obama ordered an execution.
Which is better for the country?
Sorry AJ, my experience is ground-based. Light Armored Recon, CAS, TRAP missions, MEU-SOC, etc. I can't speak with any authority on your bomber vs drone questions.
Let's not forget that there was never conclusive proof that OBL was in this compound.
(The Crypto Jew)
I have seen reports that they could not use drones in that area because it is home to many ex-officeerrs in Pakistani military. Yet other reports claim we could have used manned bombers? But Obama chose this Seal raid to get 100% evidence.
As I understand it, Abbottabad, is within the Islamabad Air Defense Zone. Drones simply are NOT stealthy, yet, and cannot operate in the face of an effective air defense system. So UNLESS we were willing to take down Islamabad’s Air Defenses, drones were out. Low-level penetration by B-1’s moving at high sub-sonic speeds is an entirely different matter, and conceivably the B-2 could have intruded with little risk of detection.
Take-Away: Pakistani Air Defenses, not Pakistani officers prevented the use of drones, other aerial platforms could have accomplished the mission.
So yes, he's a hedger and ditherer, but we already knew that.
And yet, OBL is dead. Maybe it could have been done more efficiently or last month. That falls under the realm of speculation.
That he was supposedly unarmed does not trouble me. So were many of the people on 9/11.
@Molly -- Mick isn't worth replying too. He's a true believer in Mickness.
With respect to Rush's caller, he is on the trigger-pulling side of the equation..not the critical intelligence gathering side. It took a while for the CIA and agents within Pakistan to verify a high value target, likely Binnie, was there...then to decide what to do.
Before striking, the CIA wanted to know who was coming and going, and who they met outside the compound..info that could lead them to other AQ and hopefully, Pakis in the ISI. The Craft is to not rush in when you have a big fish, but to see what that big fish is connected to.
Yes, the trigger pullers are heroes and all that...but I applaud Obama for having the patience Panetta and CIA people wanted him to have. I applaud Obama for not going with a quick, easy Hellfire missile strike but sending in teams to get intelligence materials that would have been destroyed in a missile strike.
The only downside was Obama following the NY Times, ACLU, EuroLeft and John McCains anti-Bush lead and saying no more interrogations...we need to "win the friendship and trust of enemy suspects - so they talk willingly and give the sort of accurate information" Great War Hero McCain asserted was impossible to get if it came from coercion....
Then Obama and folks thought...if we capture bin Laden alive and have to deal with Holder, the progressive Jews and Left of the activist lawyer community demands for Binnies "precious rights under the US Constitution", the EuroLeft, the demand of Muslims to build him a virtual private Mosque if he is captured? What is the upside? Will we win bin Laden's trust and friendship so he cooperates willingly?
No?
OK, tell the trigger-pullers it would be best if at any even slight chance he is resisting...hands up and a 'sudden movement' is thought to have happened..well, the President understands the Chicago police rules...
Molly: I scan things all the time too. Layers are not as common as you think. It depends on your scanning device. A university likely has more modern equipment. The White House? Well, Team Obama tried to convert everything to Macs because they thought the existing equipment was too old.
I also have to fix these scanners.
Molly said...
"Mick, when you scan any kind of paper document it will be automatically divided into layers. Trust me, I'm a graduate student and basically all I do is scan and read pdfs."
Oh yeah, I believe you!!
Re supposed OCR:
Some claim that the layers are the result of OCR having been run on a scanned image. I do not believe that explanation holds water, for the following reason…
1) Try searching the original PDF for the letter ‘e’ (the most commonly used letter in the English language). You will get a popup window that says, “Acrobat has finished searching the document. No matches were found.”
2) I ran OCR on the original PDF and saved it as a new PDF, which I have uploaded here. (http://itooktheredpill.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/birth-certificate-long-form-with-ocr.pdf)
3) Try searching the new, OCR-enabled PDF for the letter ‘e’. You will find multiple words containing the letter ‘e’.
CONCLUSION: The PDF that was “released” on the White House web site was NOT OCR-enabled.
So, what’s the new explanation for why that PDF is multi-layered?
If the original document is authentic and legitimate, why not “release” a hard copy of it directly from the State of Hawaii (the Certificate Authority, after all)?
Why are we asked to trust a multi-layered PDF on a web site, when that is not considered “acceptable documentation” by the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification?
Regardless. By the information on this LFBC, which Obama has attested to before, he is not a natural born Citizen. He was born to a British subject, and is therefore born a British subject. Natural born Citiaens are born with singuar allegiance to the US.
Joe said...
(The Crypto Jew)
I wonder if this is the first time in history that a Nobel Peace Prize winner has ordered an assassination?
No I’m fairly certain Yasser Arafat ordered many of them……
================
Begin, Kissinger, Le Duc Tho, etc. the list is long. Menachim Begin was a terrorist assassinating people while Arafat was still a toddler.
Obama is part of a distinguished tradition of Peace Prize Laureates, that you also have to add Noble Algore to, as part of the Clinton "torture and rendition" policy creation team.
It would be a fun list to create.
Nobel Peace Prize Laureates who torture, kill people..
@Molly on scans ...
Physically a scan is just a photograph. Raw image data with no layers. That raw data is then sent through software (Adobe, GIMP, embedded software within the scanner, whatever) that may, or may not, use algorithms to break up the single photo into layers like you see on the .pdf released by the White House.
Using Adobe software does automatically convert the raw scan data into regions of interest for an artist to play with. It also adds an interesting dimension for digital document issues when the software is not designed for use within the world of law. It is designed for artists to alter the scanned image as easily as possible.
What is an authentic digital copy if it has been altered by software?
How do you know when alterations are introduced by software without human interaction ( harmless? ) versus introduced by software with human interaction ( fake? )?
Something for programmers and mathematicians ( encryption and digital sigs ) to work on.
If he made a decision that virtually anyone else in the country would have made the same way, then it doesn't say anything about him one way or the other. All of us, on the other hand, have a choice to make up shit or not. The pile is getting huge.
As far as I can tell from the reports, one of the Seals pulled the trigger, and based on their experience and training, I will have to assume they made the right choice during the fire fight. And I should hope that Obama weighted the options as there was always the risk that OBL was not in the compound, so to him and the security council, credit must be given.
Henry said...
"@Molly -- Mick isn't worth replying too. He's a true believer in Mickness."
Really?? SO if the irrefutable reason for the natural born Citizen requirement was to prevent foreign influence in the White House, how is it possible that Obama, ADMITTEDLY born British, is a natural born Citizen, eligible for POTUS?
NO ONE here can answer that question, including the "law prof".
this carping from the Right is really getting old.
Ohhh, boy the Asia Times has an interesting article:
...unaware that it was in fact Bin Laden until this was announced by the Americans after the al-Qaeda leader had been shot dead by US Special Forces.
The operation to get Bin Laden was similar to the one that netted Indonesian al-Qaeda operative Umar Patek - the mastermind of the Bali bombings in Indonesia in 2002 that killed more than 200 people - from Abbottabad in late January.
So when Pakistani intelligence gave the approval for American gunship helicopters to fly from Tarbella Ghazi, 20 kilometers from Islamabad and the brigade headquarters of the Pakistan army's elite commando unit, to capture a high-value target in Abbottabad, the Pakistanis assumed it was for the seizure of Umar Patek's companions.
Once permission had been granted to the helicopters, Pakistani security forces were put on high alert in Abbottabad to provide necessary assistance to the American operation, which was led by American Navy Seals...."
Brennan said...
"Molly: I scan things all the time too. Layers are not as common as you think. It depends on your scanning device. A university likely has more modern equipment. The White House? Well, Team Obama tried to convert everything to Macs because they thought the existing equipment was too old.
I also have to fix these scanners."
A PDF file on the internet is PROOF OF NOTHING, and not admissable evidence. Whay isn't Congress (or "law profs" or the media for that matter)demanding the hard original copy to verify? If the document is real, then Obama has just admitted he is not eligible, since he was born to a British subject father, and was himself Born British.
I think it needs to be put in context. Obama showed courage...for Obama. That's a low bar for sure, and as always the only motivation is "what is best for my image?".
The real fun in all this is watching the left jettison all their precious principals (we always knew they were hollow platitudes wielded solely to increase their political power) in order to cheer-lead Dear Leader.
This whole conversation confuses me.
Obama did the only thing he could do. It's inconceivable that he didn't *want* to get Bin Laden, whatever the concerns or even delays, there is no downside to it. His own feelings on the matter seem pretty irrelevant as is the question "was it leadership."
Sure, I'm willing to make fun of anyone who slides into "military mastermind" mode, and Holder is... Holder.
But I don't see the point of wondering if Obama was somehow compelled unless it's actually positioning to placate his Code Pink types with a comforting fiction.
@Mick on scans ...
Adobe does have an algorithm to search for and create the best possible layers when dealing with a scanned document. It is an artist feature that is rather nice to have. It makes manipulating a scan ( which is what the software is designed to do ) much easer for the artist.
Not so smart to use if you are trying to show an original document. To me it would have been smarter to whip out a smart phone, take a picture, and upload it to facebook.
Phil 3:14 said...
"this carping from the Right is really getting old."
The undermining of the Constitution by the Left (and right) is getting old. You support treason against the US. Obama is ineligible, and is giving illegal orders to our military, including the order to kill OBL in cold blood in front of his family, while unarmed. So where is the anti-war Left?
"I wonder if this is the first time in history that a Nobel Peace Prize winner has ordered an assassination?"
I wonder which one people would prefer in a President - Nobel Peace Prizer or Devil killer? I believe Devil killers should be the ones winning that prize, but the Noble Committees disagrees.
I bet they would still give him the Prize today despite all the war he is waging. The prize really is just a leftist political statement, plain and simple.
this carping from the Right is really getting old.
Carping or Karma?
this carping from the Right is really getting old.
We're a bit unpracticed in it, but we're learning fast. If it weren't for carping, there wouldn't be a left.
Yes, Obama had to act. However, he could have chosen to bomb the compound.
Yes, but he didn't because he wanted proof of death. And now he is denying the proof of death to the American people.
Just trust me, he says. If I show you it will be dangerous for you. A frightening precedent.
bin laden is sleeping with Luca Bratzi
@Hoosier
Thanks for this one. Made me laugh.
...In essence, by 2011 al-Qaeda had turned into a kind of hornet's nest capable of opening war fronts in different places at the same time, or focusing its energies on a single front. Bin Laden's killing has frozen all previous plans and according to sources in North Waziristan, schemes have morphed into two parts: immediate reaction against Pakistan and a long-term scheme against the West and India.
Could I ask a question? Re the picture of Obama and the others watching the TV feed in the sit room, were they watching the live feed from the helmet cams on the Seals or were they just watching Panetta as he relayed info, more like a conference call? I haven't found a report that makes that clear. Did they actually watch OBL get shot?
If I show you it will be dangerous for you. A frightening precedent.
...we have always been at war with Eastasia.
"Did they actually watch OBL get shot?"
From the look on Hillarys face I'd say yes.
Obama did pretty much what any President would have had to do given the facts of the situation. I don't think he deserves any great credit for agreeing to let the military go in and kill Osama and take the body along for proof. That is pretty obviously the right choice. It's funny for him to strut around like HE accomplished something, but then I suppose most any President would try to get some positive press out of it. It's just that the guy is such a preening egotist all the time anyway that it's kind of grating to watch him be proud of something he actually had almost nothing to do with accomplishing...though, again, the same would be true of any President in his situation. A graceful President would direct the credit where it belongs, to the military and intelligence communities who enabled him to have to do nothing more than say the words "it's a go". Kind of like the way they sometimes let some kid push the plunger on a demolition box that is wired to explosions meant to bring down a building.
Did they actually watch OBL get shot?
I thought I'd read they were just listening to a video feed from Panetta.
Mick: I agree the a scan of a PDF is inadmissable. Would a real copy suffice? Even that could be altered. I don't see any end to the questioning on the subject.
I do know that Ann Dunham was an American Citizen. So even with a British father, Barack is still an American. Natural born? Well, what evidence would answer that for you?
The electoral college accepted his credentials.
He did the only thing he could do short of being an absolute idiot, but hey, he did it. And it was the right thing to do.
I'm no fan of our national Rohrschach blot, but UBL is dead on his orders, shark food in the North Arabian Sea. We did it and the world knows it. That's what counts.
The practical difficulty of coordinating which video feed from the Seals was being shown in the situation room (I assume all the Seals were streaming video from the House) would have been immense. And I don't think they'd show all the feeds on one screen.
One of Sarge's favorite movies is Cabaret.
It's funny for him to strut around like HE accomplished something,
He put this together
He picked the team
what else did HE take credit for?
It seems very strange that Obama took 16 hours to make the decision.
This is the sort of scenario that certainly was thought through long ago, all its ramifications studied by State and Defense Dept analysts.
That it took Obama 16 hours suggests that either he was dithering or that he had never actually bothered to think about these things. Both possibilities seem highly plausible: We already know that he likes the trappings of office but hates to make tough decisions, and we also know that he is uninterested in foreign policy and defense issues, preferring the fun exciting world of "wealth redistribution".
Natural born? Well, what evidence would answer that for you?
A time machine to go back and watch the birth. Even then the focus would just change to the "switched babies" theory of illegitimacy.
Yes, but he didn't because he wanted proof of death. And now he is denying the proof of death to the American people.
Ooops. Another contradiction in the narrative that WH Comms will have to correct. Expect another revision to the revised revision of the narrative.
OBL_kill ver 3.1
Coming soon...
NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...
Killing Bin Laden goes against everything that Obama has said and done over at least the past 4 years.
Yep.
It is almost as if the 2008 campaign, and everything he said as a US Senator, never happened.
Getting re-elected, that is all that matters after all...
"Did they actually watch OBL get shot?"
From the look on Hillary's face I'd say yes.
No. That was her response to Obama voiding himself again.
I'm looking forward to hearing her account of it all.
More proof that layers on LFBC were not caused by OCR. IT'S FAKE!! But why? And why no media? Why no Law profs?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW_PWzhgvDs
From today's Hill news:
“House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said she called former President George W. Bush on Tuesday to congratulate him on the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden. Following a classified briefing on the operation to take down bin Laden, Pelosi told reporters that she called the former president earlier in the day to ‘congratulate him and thank him for the leadership role he had played in this quest over the years.’”
Interesting...
Interesting...
Horrible woman. I would tell her to take an extremely long walk on an extremely short pier at high tide, all the while pounding sand up her flat ass.
I realize the above is uncharacteristic, but I really...can't...stand Pelosi. Much of it has little to do with actual politics.
Brennan said...
"Mick: I agree the a scan of a PDF is inadmissable. Would a real copy suffice? Even that could be altered. I don't see any end to the questioning on the subject.
I do know that Ann Dunham was an American Citizen. So even with a British father, Barack is still an American. Natural born? Well, what evidence would answer that for you?
The electoral college accepted his credentials."
Really, so you're OK w/ the POTUS (putative) putting an OBVIOUSLY faked Official document in the public Domaine. Obama HIMSELF admits that he was born British at Fight the Smears:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
As such, he is not natural born, which requires singular allegiance at birth. The evidence is his birth Cert. saying that Barack Obama Sr. was his father. He has just admitted again that he is not a natural born Citizen.
No. That was her response to Obama voiding himself again.
LOL!
Tully said...
"Natural born? Well, what evidence would answer that for you?
A time machine to go back and watch the birth. Even then the focus would just change to the "switched babies" theory of illegitimacy."
The evidence is his admission that Obama Sr. is his father. Obama Sr. was a British Subject, therfore Obama 2 was born a British Subject.
Here is a link to Seeing Red's Asia Times link. It's juicy, but is it true?
"Begin, Kissinger, Le Duc Tho, etc. the list is long. Menachim Begin was a terrorist assassinating people while Arafat was still a toddler..."
The difference here is that the above mentioned had their days of rage and destruction then they beat their swords into plowshares. Obama is beating his plowshares into swords.
The evidence is his admission that Obama Sr. is his father. Obama Sr. was a British Subject, therfore Obama 2 was born a British Subject.
Why do you accept that admission and not his other admissions?
"Interesting. . ."
I'm with Scott. If I were Dubya, I'd have told that traitorous bitch to shove the phone up her botoxed ass. She must be looking at the internals and seeing that Little Black Jesus' Rambo moment isn't polling well.
I've been laughing at this whole "don't give Obama any credit" meme because, if things had gone the other way, the same people would be heaping blame onto him personally. If the mission had resulted in failure and/or lost American lives, we'd be hearing that it was Obama's fault. The crassly political always want it both ways.
Well, for those interested, there is the story, off PajameasMedia, that, once again, Little Zero had to be dragged kicking and screaming into it and that Leon Panetta made the call.
It fits him, certainly.
Regarding Fen's comment, here's the gushy story from the Daily Mail that Zero had to sleep on it.
Even the good version makes him look bad.
PS Look at that photo again. Barry's body language is very bad. That is not a man in charge. Gates OTOH...
Brennan said...
"The evidence is his admission that Obama Sr. is his father. Obama Sr. was a British Subject, therfore Obama 2 was born a British Subject.
Why do you accept that admission and not his other admissions?"
Why do you NOT accept the admission of Obama's British birth, yet believe all of his other stories?
IF the well known reason (irrefutable) for the natural born Citizen requirement was to prevent foreign influence, then how can Obama, admittedly born British, be eligible? Care to weigh in Law prof? Anybody?
Mick: I'll let my question to you stand on its own.
I don't care what Obama has written or said about this subject. The electoral college verifies eligibility to hold the office. They verified it.
Thanks Joe for the explanation.
Brennan said...
"Mick: I'll let my question to you stand on its own.
I don't care what Obama has written or said about this subject. The electoral college verifies eligibility to hold the office. They verified it."
He is there, therefore he is eligible is a false argument. There is means to eject an ineligible POTUS from office, as the 25th Amendment provides:
"Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office."
"or of such other body as Congress may by law provide" is the DC District Code, which contains the Quo Warrant provision for removing an ineligible Officer in the DC District.
It would have been so much easier - and so much more in character - to annihilate Abbattobad from high above.
Not a scintilla of military experience here but I'd imagine the reason Obama - in consultation with his generals - didn't go that route because a compound could be obliterated from high above and survivors might still crawl out of the rubble.
Mick
The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Either you've got to change your tactics, or admit yourself.
Brennan, there is no evidence that will ever unconvince a conspiracy nut.
Mick, the standard for "natural-born citizen" is simply being born as a US citizen, subject to the laws thereof. Obama was born on United States soil (jus solis), to an American-citizen parent (jus sanguinis), does not fall under the sole potential* disqualifying exception of being the child of foreign-nation diplomatic/military personnel not subject to the laws of the nation, thereby being born in the US while not being subject to its laws, and is not known to have ever renounced his US citizenship. Ergo, he is a natural-born American citizen by both parentage and place of birth.
There is nothing in the COTUS or US law about having (real or potential) dual citizenship via jus sanguinis that magically strips natural-born citizenship status from a natural-born citizen, however much you may hysterically Wish It Were So. It takes voluntary action as an adult for a natural-born citizen to lose their US citizenship.
John McCain was born in the Republic of Panama as the child of US military personnel stationed there on US government orders, and he is also a "natural-born" US citizen under rules of jus sanguinis despite having a claim to jus solis Panamanian citizenship.
I am aware that there is nothing that will unconvince you, I post that simply to show others how hollow your rants are as a matter of law.
[*--I know of no cases where that principle has been applied to exclude someone from jus solis citizenship, though the possibility exists. EX: A child born in the US or in embassy to two parents themselves in the US on diplomatic passports.]
They didn't obliterate by air strikes because of the real difficulty of target-kill confirmation.
So Obama is a trigger happy cowboy? I can't believe what I'm reading.
They didn't obliterate by air strikes because of the real difficulty of target-kill confirmation.
The first reports I read were more descriptive. The President had authorized bombing, but later canceled after advisers convinced him of the lack of evidence of a kill.
Not sure which is actually true, but they are worlds apart.
Tully said...
Brennan, there is no evidence that will ever unconvince a conspiracy nut.
Mick, the standard for "natural-born citizen" is simply being born as a US citizen, subject to the laws thereof. Obama was born on United States soil (jus solis), to an American-citizen parent (jus sanguinis), does not fall under the sole potential* disqualifying exception of being the child of foreign-nation diplomatic/military personnel not subject to the laws of the nation, thereby being born in the US while not being subject to its laws, and is not known to have ever renounced his US citizenship. Ergo, he is a natural-born American citizen by both parentage and place of birth.
There is nothing in the COTUS or US law about having (real or potential) dual citizenship via jus sanguinis that magically strips natural-born citizenship status from a natural-born citizen, however much you may hysterically Wish It Were So. It takes voluntary action as an adult for a natural-born citizen to lose their US citizenship.
John McCain was born in the Republic of Panama as the child of US military personnel stationed there on US government orders, and he is also a "natural-born" US citizen under rules of jus sanguinis despite having a claim to jus solis Panamanian citizenship.
I am aware that there is nothing that will unconvince you, I post that simply to show others how hollow your rants are as a matter of law.
[*--I know of no cases where that principle has been applied to exclude someone from jus solis citizenship, though the possibility exists. EX: A child born in the US or in embassy to two parents themselves in the US on diplomatic passports.]
First of all, you're wrong where does it say a Citizen at birth" is a natural born Citizen" eligible to be POTUS? (HINT: No where). As a matter of fact in the USC 8 SS1401 there includes "citizens at birth" who are born abroad to 1 US Citizen, and 1 alien---are you saying that those "citizens at birth" are natural born Citizens, eligible for POTUS? Surely you jest. See how the logic of a liar twists him into a pretzel?
Further, subject to the jurisdiction means "subject to the jurisdiction of the US and no other foreign power" (See Elk v. Wilkins, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the citizenship oath). Those WITHIN the jurisdiction are subject to US LAW, but are not necessarily SUBJECT to the JURISDICTION. Jurisdiction is used in 2 contexts in the 14A, and liars like you like to conflate them.
As for McCain, Resolution 511 said that since McCain was born in US Controlled territory to 2 US Citizen PARENTS he is a natural born Citizen. They all agreed to those 2 conditions, and Obama even sponsored the bill. They ALL know that Obama is not eligible. They also know that McCain is not eligible. US military posts are certainly NOT considered US territory--FACT (look it up yourself). Furthermore the territory was Leased not owned by the US. McCain, by the Panamanian Constitution, had the right to claim Panamanian Citizenship, a choice that no natural born Citizen would have.
Your post is the symbol of the Obfuscation of the Left re their hero, the Usurper. Many people read these posts and do not post, as this is a top read "law blog". I am educating many.
So you never answered the question. Of course.
Scott M said...
"Mick
The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Either you've got to change your tactics, or admit yourself."
Plenty of people read this blog, and are getting educated. Not everyone posts. You still cannot answer the question. Judging by the FACT that the natural born Citizen requirement was inserted to prevent foreign influence into the Oval Office, how is it possible that Obama, born British, is a natural born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS? Your inability to answer that question speaks volumes.
Your inability to answer that question speaks volumes.
It really doesn't. I simply don't care. I might care if I thought there was a plausibly realistic possibility of this becoming an actual liability, ie, ending the Obama administration. However, given the realities of politics (an oxymoronic phrase if ever there was one), it won't, so I don't.
My point was merely to suggest that you're continued tilting at windmills doesn't appear to be getting you anywhere.
there is no evidence that will ever unconvince a conspiracy nut.
QED.
A great commentary about the politicization of everything
We can cheer on the death of the worst terrorist we hopefully will ever know, we can even get behind various efforts to flex American muscles and might, we can rally around the flag, we can get jingoistic even about chess matches and piano recitals and the Olympics, but trying to lock down how every freaking thing in the world will erase one party's "wimp factor" (anyone else remember the equally pathetic ramblings about George H.W. Bush around the time of the first Gulf War?) isn't going to inspire confidence in the two-party system. Or the testeroney goodness of Bush the Elder, Barack Obama, or anyone else.
Tully said...
"there is no evidence that will ever unconvince a conspiracy nut.
QED."
You provide NO evidence. "Because I say so is not evidence". But you still can't answer the question.
The natural born Citizen requirement is UNDOUBTEDLY inserted to prevent foreign influence into the Oval Office. So how is it possible that Obama, admittedly born British, is a natural born Citizen, eligible for POTUS. The fact that you can't answer speaks volumes.
Scott M said...
"Your inability to answer that question speaks volumes.
It really doesn't. I simply don't care. I might care if I thought there was a plausibly realistic possibility of this becoming an actual liability, ie, ending the Obama administration. However, given the realities of politics (an oxymoronic phrase if ever there was one), it won't, so I don't.
My point was merely to suggest that you're continued tilting at windmills doesn't appear to be getting you anywhere."
I am educating many on blogs like this. Not everyone posts. If you are a "Republican" and don't care about an ineligible POTUS, then you don't care about the Constitution and you stand for nothing but a "team". I am not a member of any political team, only the "team Constitution". So answer the question, how can one whose "citizenship was GOVERNED by Britain be a natural born Citizen of the US, eligible for POTUS. This whole OBL operation was caused by his fear that this fact would be exposed. It is Obama's Kryptonite.
I am educating many on blogs like this. Not everyone posts. If you are a "Republican" and don't care about an ineligible POTUS, then you don't care about the Constitution and you stand for nothing but a "team".
I'll say this and be done with it, Mick. From what you're saying, you seem to believe that there is nobody as informed or as smart as you are that would count themselves as patently anti-Obama. In other words, out of all the people that would like to see his administration come to an end, you're the most informed and best educated on how to go about it. The only logical conclusion I can draw from that is, wtf are you doing blogging about it when you should be camped out in DC somewhere, making personal calls on your representatives, ie, knocking it up a notch. Blogging as a commenter here will get you next to nowhere.
Scott M said...
"I am educating many on blogs like this. Not everyone posts. If you are a "Republican" and don't care about an ineligible POTUS, then you don't care about the Constitution and you stand for nothing but a "team".
I'll say this and be done with it, Mick. From what you're saying, you seem to believe that there is nobody as informed or as smart as you are that would count themselves as patently anti-Obama. In other words, out of all the people that would like to see his administration come to an end, you're the most informed and best educated on how to go about it. The only logical conclusion I can draw from that is, wtf are you doing blogging about it when you should be camped out in DC somewhere, making personal calls on your representatives, ie, knocking it up a notch. Blogging as a commenter here will get you next to nowhere"
More nonsense "logic". So I guess you nor anyone of the other smarties here cannot answer that simple question. The truth sets me free, and is acid in the face of a liar. Logic kills. Cat got your tongue? Obama's Kryptonite is British Citizenship at birth.
@scott, you might as well argue with Cedarford about the Jews.
There are many times when the best course of action is to say, Uh Huh. And then change the subject.
It's not an issue for me because there don't appear to be legions of Micks trampsing down Penn Ave to remove the guy. My personal feelings about the validity or invalidity of your points are moot. Remove the guy from office. Start a PAC. Raise money. Get some operatives.
Don't sit in your basement sans probably even a frayed bathrobe, and hurl stones.
Put it this way. If you truly believe what you espouse and you think the republic is at risk because of it, you're a shitty patriot for leaving your actions at your monitor's event horizon.
So Obama succeeds in having OBL killed, and the criticism from Rush is that somehow Obama's heart wasn't pure enough when he gave the order.
It must be nice to live in Rush's pure Kantian paradise where all that matters are intentions, not results.
Scott M said...
"It's not an issue for me because there don't appear to be legions of Micks trampsing down Penn Ave to remove the guy. My personal feelings about the validity or invalidity of your points are moot. Remove the guy from office. Start a PAC. Raise money. Get some operatives.
Don't sit in your basement sans probably even a frayed bathrobe, and hurl stones.
Put it this way. If you truly believe what you espouse and you think the republic is at risk because of it, you're a shitty patriot for leaving your actions at your monitor's event horizon."
You have no idea who I am, and your ad hominem means nothing. Cat got your tongue? How is British born Obama eligible when the very purpose for the natural born Citizen clause is to prevent foreign influence?
You have no idea who I am, and your ad hominem means nothing.
Only the frayed robe was ad hominem and I stand by it. Whether you're wearing sweats or boxers, doesn't matter.
The thrust of the comment, though, also stands. What are you doing to affect this change that you feel passionately about outside posting on a blog with dubious national influence? How is it that you feel so strongly about it but won't tell me what you're doing beside blogging about it.
The Founders followed up pamphleteering by putting their lives, lands, and fortunes at stake. What has Mick done?
I don't pretend to know who you are. I'm asking you directly. What action, besides blogging, are you taking to ensure this Usurper is removed from his ill-gotten office?
Scott M said...
"You have no idea who I am, and your ad hominem means nothing.
Only the frayed robe was ad hominem and I stand by it. Whether you're wearing sweats or boxers, doesn't matter.
The thrust of the comment, though, also stands. What are you doing to affect this change that you feel passionately about outside posting on a blog with dubious national influence? How is it that you feel so strongly about it but won't tell me what you're doing beside blogging about it.
The Founders followed up pamphleteering by putting their lives, lands, and fortunes at stake. What has Mick done?
I don't pretend to know who you are. I'm asking you directly. What action, besides blogging, are you taking to ensure this Usurper is removed from his ill-gotten office?"
I have a plan to challenge his eligibility in the next election cycle if he is still around, since the election law in my state gives me standing to challenge a candidate's eligibility. Obviously, I am 1 guy, and critical mass of this knowledge hasn't been achieved. So are you trying to get me to say I would do something illegal? You have no idea who I am, but this whole conversation shows how bereft of principle or knowledge you are.
Anyway, If the reson for the natural born Citizen requirement is to prevent foreign influence, how can Obama, admittedly born British, be eligible? You still can't answer, but I am educating lots of people who see the reason why you can't answer. Logic trips up a liar every time. A true Constitutionalist would never stand blithely by while Obama Usurps the Presidency. We are a nation of laws.
@ScottM, Fair enough.
So are you trying to get me to say I would do something illegal?
I'm really trying, but I can't see how anything I asked suggests you doing anything illegal.
You have no idea who I am, but this whole conversation shows how bereft of principle or knowledge you are.
Please expand on how you arrive at that conclusion so that I and others here can judge whether or not you have sufficient evidence of my lack of principle. On the lack of knowledge, please specify what knowledge I'm lacking. If you are suggesting I'm lacking knowledge about what you plan to do about your core issue, I'd suggest you review the previous QUESTIONS about just that topic I ASKED because I DON'T KNOW what you're doing besides blogging.
If the reson for the natural born Citizen requirement is to prevent foreign influence, how can Obama, admittedly born British, be eligible?
You could 100% right about this. That's not been my point. My point has been, and remains, if it IS 100% correct what are YOU doing about it. How this puts me in the camp of Obama supporters or whether or not I'm a "birther" cannot be contrived from that info.
Even if you are 100% correct, you don't appear to be going about it in a very effective way judging by the results on the ground. For all you know, I could be trying to help and you're being purposely difficult.
That being said, what are you doing to create the critical mass of knowledge besides blogging on this website?
He waited 16 HOURS to decide.
He told us on Sunday that he made getting Osama a top priority, that the often took briefings on the matter and stayed abreast of the information.
Then - he's given the chance to get Osama and he waits 16 hours - sleeps on it! Doesn't make sense.
Most people - with this kind of purpose - would have given the go-ahead fairly quickly. But this president just can't decide and therefore waits.
The President thought over a consequential decision and therefore Osama Bin Laden got away.
Wait, what?
I was wrong before. The "16 Hours" meme is actually dumber than Rush's "I can see into his heart" argument.
"The President thought over a consequential decision..."
I think my point was that, according to Obama, he'd been 'thinking' about this from the begining of his administration. Then the moment comes and he needs to sleep on it.
Analysis Paralysis.
iftheshoefits said...
The best thing about having a left-wing POTUS taking out Osama? He'll never be immortalized by western progressives.
Let's hope you're right, but the temptation may be too great after Obama leaves office.
I'll bet BHO is especially glad to terminate Osama before the 10th anniversary of 9/11 this Sept.
The President thought over a consequential decision and therefore Osama Bin Laden got away.
To be more precise, Obama stalled for 16 hours hoping OBL would get away. He didn't want to put his chips on the table. But Panetta outflanked him. Give credit where its due. Panetta set up the mission, Panetta weighed the options, Panetta made the call. Even though he knew Obama had set him up as the scapegoat should things go wrong.
The only thing Obama did was defer to Valerie Jarret and crap his pants.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा