I find it hard to buy into the stuff Hussein is selling:
Obama, in his most revelatory comments about his thinking in the days before the raid, said he weighed the risks and judged that he should proceed with what was, by all accounts, the most promising opportunity to capture or kill bin Laden in nearly a decade. In doing so, he rejected the counsel of a substantial number of his national security advisers, who worried that the plan to send ground troops deep into Pakistan was too risky, he said.
“I concluded it was worth it,” Obama said. “We have devoted enormous blood and treasure in fighting back against al-Qaeda, ever since 2001. And I said to myself that if we have a good chance of not completely defeating but badly disabling al-Qaeda, then it was worth both the political risks as well as the risks to our men, after a pursuit that cost billions of dollars and stretched for nearly a decade.”
Obama’s national security team was sharply divided over Osama bin Laden raid
By Joby Warrick and Karin Brulliard, Published: May 8
I doubt that Hussein and his advisors were divided over the feasability of the raid. I believe the primary discussion at the highest level focused on whether to kill bin Laden or take him alive? The decision was a foregone conclusion. The last thing the Democrats wanted was bin Laden involving Muslim governments by telling the world that al-Qaeda is only one part of Islam’s military. Such an admission would shoot down the “terrorists are criminals not soldiers” crap Democrats have been pushing all along.
A live bin Laden could have brought down the Democrat party’s entire house of cards. In fact, a talkative bin Laden would have drowned leading Democrats in their own war policy. No amount of intelligence about al-Qaeda’s operations would have justified his capture.
Now that bin Laden sleeps with the fishes, Hussein & Company, along with the WaPo and just about every other media outlet, is on a quest to convince Americans that concern for military personnel was a factor before the SEALs went in. That fairy tale originates with the political party that was responsible for the unnecessary deaths of thousands of American military people in Vietnam and Iraq. It makes no sense that those people would suddenly care about risking the lives of 40 or so SEALs.
Irrespective of what Hussein says after the fact, he cared about the political fallout if the mission failed. He also weighed the tremendous benefits he and every Democrat would harvest if the mission was a success, but to say the lives of American military people was a concern rings hollow coming from any Democrat.
Democrats today are the same people they were before bin Laden was killed. The success of the mission provided every one of them with a cloak of loyalty covering every traitorous act they engaged in throughout the Cold War, in Vietnam, in Latin America, In China, and in Iraq.
Note that Biden who is one of the worst going all the way back to Vietnam is remarkably subdued about the military taking out bin Laden. Ditto John Kerry and the rest of them who have been in Washington for so long.
And have you noticed that Democrats are stepping up the propaganda that says the war is against al-Qaeda? That’s like saying defeat the Mafia and the war against crime is over. Too bad Democrats did not think up the al-Qaeda scam during the Cold War. Defeat the KGB and you defeat communism?
The war America is fighting is against Islam not al-Qaeda. That’s a straightforward proposition until you realize the relationship between Hussein and al-Qaeda would make a great plot for a segment of the Twilight Zone:
Obama a Great Benefactor to Al-Qaeda
by Tara Servatius
Posted 05/06/2011 ET
No one on Earth has done more to help al-Qaeda in the last six weeks than Barack Obama. Don’t let the bin Laden assassination thing fool you. Even with the loss of bin Laden factored in, al-Qaeda’s prospects have improved dramatically in recent weeks, and the group has Obama to thank.
Sure, bin Laden is gone, and that was a bit of a PR hit to the group. But Obama more than made up for that by setting up al-Qaeda financially for years to come. One of the first things the U.S.-led coalition did when it invaded Libya in March was to help the radical Islamist led rebels capture the oil fields. Thanks to Obama, they will no longer need to depend on rich Saudi sheiks to fund jihad because they now control oil fields capable of generating $34 billion worth of black gold a year.
Within a week of the takeover of the oil by the rebels, and while the White House was still promising to send the CIA to Libya to “figure out” who the rebels really were, the U.S. and NATO had brokered a sweet deal for them to control Libya’s oil and sell it to Qatar. The rebels sent the first shipment, worth about $100 million, by tanker in the beginning of April.
It’s a windfall that the al-Qaeda infiltrated rebels, led by a former Gitmo detainee and two former jihadists fresh from battle in Afghanistan, couldn’t possibly have achieved without the help of US airpower in Libya . With billions they’ll eventually reap in profits from the oil each year, they could easily wage a multi-front jihad and have plenty of money left over for a bio weapon to wipe out the entire American East Coast. The thought of what these jihadist thugs could do inside our borders with the kind of money Obama and NATO helped secure for them ought to terrify Americans.
There is little doubt that al-Qaeda and like-minded groups are behind the Libyan efforts. Regional leaders tried to warn us that the rebel movement in Libya was al Qaeda-backed and affiliated, but the American media largely brushed that off. This week, as the world sat glued to the TV, taking in the bin Laden assassination story, the Christian Science Monitor reported that al-Qaeda fighters are streaming into Libya to help the Obama-backed rebels. Despite this, the rebels say they are expecting to receive $2 to $3 billion in aid from the U.S., France, and Italy in the coming week.
According to UPI, bin Laden himself was so ecstatic about these developments that he became almost sloppy in the weeks before his death, breaking cover and traveling between Afghanistan and Pakistan in an effort to “merge al-Qaeda's war against the West with the wave of uprisings across the Arab world.”
The pattern by the Obama administration is almost eerie. First, al Qaeda-led rebels capture part of a country and declare it an Islamic emirate or caliphate. Then Obama backs the overthrow of that country’s embattled leader, declaring that he must go in the interest of democracy, even when that goes against U.S. interests in the War on Terror.
That’s exactly what happened in Libya. It’s what happened again in Yemen. Within a week of al-Qaeda rebels seizing a province there earlier this year, Obama stunned foreign policy experts by suddenly calling for the ouster of Yemen’s president Ali Abdullah Saleh, a critical ally of ours in the war on terror.
Many of the recent attempted attacks on America were planned in Yemen, which has become a base of operation for al-Qaeda. So it was baffling to many that Saleh was thrown under the jihadist bus by Obama even though his help has been critical to the U.S. in tracking and apprehending the al-Qaeda and jihadist plotters attempting to overthrow Yemen. This raises a question. If Obama isn’t for Saleh in Yemen, exactly who is he for? The options are pretty awful—unless you are partial to radical jihadist thugs.
The whole pattern is similar to what Obama did in Egypt, where he backed a democracy movement that quickly proved to be a poorly disguised vehicle for those sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood to take over the country.
Which brings us back to bin Laden. His assassination is the one fact that doesn’t seem to fit Obama’s otherwise perfect pattern of aiding jihadist thugs in the overthrow of relatively stable countries. That’s because taking out bin Laden wasn’t about hurting al-Qaeda. It was about helping Obama get reelected. So far though, al-Qaeda seems to have come out way ahead in the deal.