Don't Forget The Tahrir Square Rape - this isn't just about WOMEN! What about the Jewish Angle?

Arab Spring can happen here too!

Who attacked Lara Logan and why?

if the present day Logan went back to CBS and tried to explain what Islam is really about they wouldn't hire her...

...She’s turning her rape at the hands of Muslims into a politically correct, sexist, worldwide attack on “men” worldwide, claiming this is how all men treat women, including American and Western men. She says her rape “reaffirms the oppressive role of men in society.” Yup, Lara Logan’s rape by Muslims is a sign that all men around the world are rapists. Uh-huh. via debbieschlussel.com 

The attack on Lara Logan in Cairo was carried out

...by Muslims who believed it was their religious duty

...if this was only about "MEN" globally

...then why were the Egyptians shouting "Jew"?!

the solution for all Jews
...during the Arab Spring...

THIS INCLUDES JEWISH MEN TOO

REMEMBER JEWS...
COVER YOUR ORIFICES
FOR PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST
...THE MEDIA THINKS YOU SHOULD

I stand corrected... Stockholm Syndrome?

...but I'm sure at our Western Universities they will continue to take all of this out on Western men. I'm sure Western men will continue to face defamation and accusation... live in fear that what they do might be possibly perceived as harassment and face a judicial that believes men guilty till proven innocent.

Logan recounted that what set the mob upon her was when someone shouted, “She’s a Jew! She’s an Israeli!” There were other women in Tahrir Square that night, and for all we know others were attacked as well. But right then, Logan was a target not just because she is a woman, but because she was perceived to be a Jew and an Israeli, and therefore fair game.
What really upsets me about this story — in addition to Logan’s experience and the understanding of just how rampant sexual violence is in Egypt — is that CBS and the interviewer, Scott Pelley, did not seem to care about the Jewish angle. It was mentioned, just like that, and then forgotten. The implications for what this means about being a Jew or an Israeli in the world were just swept away, ignored... it is legitimate for women to be victims, it is not legitimate for Jews to be victims. It was as if that entire angle of the story doesn’t even exist. Like the world doesn’t know what to do with it. When the voiceover said, “Someone in the crowd shouted, ‘She is a Jew! She is an Israeli!’”, Pelley continued and said, “She is neither,” and that was the end of that. What does that imply, exactly? What if she had been a Jew or an Israeli? Would that have made the assault legitimate?

via blogs.forward.com

Lara Logan thought she was going to die in Tahrir Square when she was sexually assaulted by a mob on the night that Hosni Mubarak’s government fell in Cairo. Ms. Logan, a CBS News correspondent, was in the square preparing a report for “60 Minutes” on Feb. 11 when the celebratory mood suddenly turned threatening. She was ripped away from her producer and bodyguard by a group of men who tore at her clothes and groped and beat her body. “For an extended period of time, they raped me with their hands,”...She estimated that the attack involved 200 to 300 men.
...“The city was on fire with celebration” over Mr. Mubarak’s exit, she said, comparing it to a Super Bowl party. She and a camera crew traversed Tahrir Square, the epicenter of the celebrations, interviewing Egyptians and posing for photographs with people who wanted to be seen with an American journalist.
“There was a moment that everything went wrong,” she recalled.
As the cameraman, Richard Butler, was swapping out a battery, Egyptian colleagues who were accompanying the camera crew heard men nearby talking about wanting to take Ms. Logan’s pants off. She said: “Our local people with us said, ‘We’ve gotta get out of here.’ That was literally the moment the mob set on me.”
Mr. Butler, Ms. Logan’s producer, Max McClellan, and two locally hired drivers were “helpless,”...They estimated that they were separated from her for about 25 minutes. “My clothes were torn to pieces,” Ms. Logan said.
She declined to go into more detail about the assault but said: “What really struck me was how merciless they were. They really enjoyed my pain and suffering. It incited them to more violence.”

and

...Before the assault, Ms. Logan said, she did not know about the levels of harassment and abuse that women in Egypt and other countries regularly experienced. “I would have paid more attention to it if I had had any sense of it,” she said. “When women are harassed and subjected to this in society, they’re denied an equal place in that society. Public spaces don’t belong to them. Men control it...

PERVERTS!

Don't forget - Tharir Square has another symbolic meaning.

via myrightword.blogspot.com  image via blogs.houstonpress.com

but to the world Tahrir means Arab Democracy. The irony is Tahrir means Arab Democracy to those of us who know that know Islam and Democracy are contradictions.

Some sober analysis of the "Arab Spring"

Hamas condemns killing of Osama Bin laden

Haniyeh told reporters in Gaza on Monday...
that although Hamas had its differences with al-Qaida,
his group condemns the assassination of......
"a Muslim and Arabic warrior"
...and prays that bin Laden's "soul rests in peace."

...So much for Hamas being a party that strives for peace...

Bin Laden Loved American Products,
Especially Pepsi & Coke

(Gaza) The leader of the Palestinian militant Hamas government in Gaza has condemned the United States for killing al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden. Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh says the operation is "the continuation of the American oppression and shedding of blood of Muslims and Arabs."

via eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com
Seal Team 6 image via businessinsider.com

The bitter taste of Socialism in Cuba

(Havana) A few years ago, I had the pleasure to avail myself to the pleasures of drinking UN coffee...I can assure you it isn't something to write home about. It was grown and packed in Bolivia, and drinking mud would have afforded better health benefits. Which is why a couple of times a week I would don body armour, pack my wee rucksack with enough rounds to start a war, a couple of ration packs, a few grenades, toilet paper and a book, in which to go out on patrol with the police just so I could purchase some decent coffee when they dropped into the nearest NATO base which had a shop. (Our camp didn't have one, hence the UN coffee.) Of course, when word got around that I was off shopping, I would be undated with requests to buy coffee/biscuits (what is with squaddies and Hobnobs?) for those who couldn't leave the base.

The point I'm trying to make here is that state sponsored coffee is crap and people will go to the ends of the earth in which to rectify the situation. (In my case, around 50 miles.)
Well, it seems that in the socialist paradise of Cuba, they can't afford to provide the population with enough coffee to drink. (Ah, the pleasures of communism.) So in order to fill the shortfall, they have taken to adding ground up roasted peas in which to ensure that everybody gets to drink coffee during the day. I'll bet anybody here that Fidel and his cronies don't get to drink RedStarbucks' finest blend.

via eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com

image via roaste.com and via havanacoffeecompany.com  and via tinefiskrivnaord.wordpress.com

Bin Laden Loved American Products, Especially Pepsi & Coke

...NEW PEPSI LOGO QUEEFS...
@Coca Cola

The two polite Pakistanis who helped Osama bin Laden hide in the shadow of their country’s army bought bulk food orders, chose major brands and equally favored Pepsi and Coke, neighbors and a local shopkeeper said.

Rashid and Akbar Khan owned the fortified residence where U.S. commandos killed bin Laden in an early morning raid May 2, and did the daily shopping in the Pashtu-language accents of Waziristan, a region on the Afghan border, said grocer Anjum Qaisar, 27, who works 150 meters from the compound. Bin Laden’s men “never came by foot, they always drove a Pajero or a little Suzuki van, and they bought enough food for 10 people,” Qaisar said in an interview yesterday.
...Bin Laden’s protectors “always bought the best brands -- Nestle milk, the good-quality soaps and shampoos,” Qaisar said.

“They always paid cash, never asked for credit.” They purchased meat from a butcher nearby who stayed closed yesterday, he said.

Business Week via challahhuakbar.blogspot.com

Killing Osama bin Laden

Could we just stop with the "knock knock" jokes already? Bit of a sore point just now.........

..........The legal justification, explained.

* James Downie
Both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have long criticized the Bush and Obama administrations’ prosecution of the “War on Terror.” The two human rights groups have consistently pointed out sovereignty and human rights violations by the United States on issues ranging from black sites to drone strikes. But today, in the wake of American special forces’ raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan, both organizations merely noted that bin Laden had been responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians. But what about questions of national sovereignty and civilian casualties? And, more to the point, was it legal to kill bin Laden in the first place?
“There are targeted killing issues where the legal background is complicated,” says Brookings fellow (and New Republic contributor) Benjamin Wittes. But, as it turns out, “[t]his isn’t one of them.” One week after the September 11 attacks, Wittes explains, President George W. Bush signed Public Law 107-40, in which Congress authorized the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” No one fit this description more closely than Osama bin Laden. (By contrast, the NATO missile strike in Tripoli that allegedly killed Muammar Qaddafi’s son Seif Al Arab and three of his young grandchildren this past weekend has elicited greater controversy, because the U.N. resolution authorizing a no-fly zone over Libya, among many other differences from 107-40, did not include an authorization of force against Qaddafi or his family.) Still, some legal scholars have pointed to the thorny interpretational issues surrounding Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, which prohibited the U.S. from “engag[ing] in, or conspiring to engage in, assassination.” But Reagan’s advisers at the time, and the majority of scholars since, have interpreted E.O. 12333 as only applying in peacetime and not after a force authorization such as the one signed by Bush in 2001. The question of whether the United States violated Pakistan’s sovereignty, on the other hand, is somewhat more nebulous, Wittes admits. This is due in part to the fact that the public doesn’t have a clear idea about what kind of understanding the two countries share. Because of the lack of settled international law on the subject, Pakistan could decide, once it was informed, whether or not to retroactively consent. Fortunately, Pakistan did not object.James Downie is a reporter-researcher at The New Republic.
Articles on the death of Osama bin Laden: Dalton Fury on the near miss at Tora Bora; Lawrence F. Kaplan asks if we'll overestimate the importance of bin Laden's death; Heather Hurlburt on the reasons the U.S. was able to kill bin Laden; Leon Wieseltier on the celebration in Lafayette Park; Jonathan Kay on the emergence of conspiracy theories; Paul Berman on the symbolism of bin Laden's death in the history of American democracy; Sean Wilentz asks if bin Laden's demise will loosen the grip paranoid politics has on America; David Greenberg on the only satisfying resolution possible to the story of 9/11; Louis Klarevas asks if the loss of bin Laden will hasten Al Qaeda's demise; Jonathan Chait on what bin Laden's death means; a photo essay on how America responded to the news of bin Laden's death.
TNR Classics on bin Laden and Al Qaeda: Peter Bergen on the Bush administration's failed attempt to capture bin Laden at Tora Bora, on the troubling merger of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, on Al Qaeda's revolt against bin Laden (co-authored with Paul Cruickshank), how bin Laden beat George W. Bush, and on bin Laden's activities before 9/11; Nicholas Schmidle on what the murder of a bin Laden confidant says about Pakistan; Michael Crowley on Robert Gates; David Cole on Obama's war on terror.

via docstalk.blogspot.com

Will bin Laden killing pave way for similar moves by Israel?

Former top IDF intel official talks to Haaretz about a gradual change in the rules of confrontation in the framework of the global war on terror.

At the height of the second intifada, until the middle of the last decade, Israel developed and enhanced a system of assassinations of terrorists which was euphemistically referred to as "pinpointed assassinations." Maj. Gen. Aharon Ze'evi (Farkash ) headed the IDF General Staff intelligence branch at that time. While the American assault force's operation against al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was an operation on a much bigger scale than the Israeli actions and took place far from the borders of the United States, to a large extent it employed a similar format to that used previously by the Israel Defense Forces and the Shin Bet security service.Aharon Ze'evi (Farkash ), Will the assassination of bin Laden at the hands of the United States pave the way for similar moves by Israel in the future, against [Hezbollah leader] Hassan Nasrallah or even [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad?
We must not forget that we are not a power. Not everything that is permitted to the Americans is permitted to us as well. But nevertheless, there is a gradual change in the rules of confrontation in the framework of the war on terror. A wider maneuvering space has been opened. Nassrallah understands that too. It is no coincidence that he so seldom leaves his bunker in recent years.
Is there greater legitimacy today, for Israel also, to make moves against heads of terrorist organizations that refuse to hold any kind of negotiations?
In the past, the countries of the West were opposed to the Israeli claim that no distinction should be made between the so-called political echelon and the "military" echelon in the terrorist organizations. There is an important message in the Americans' decision to do away with bin Laden. It is not possible to distinguish between the leader and the operational echelon subordinate to him. The decision-makers have to be dealt a blow. Seven years ago, when we killed the senior Hamas officials such as Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi, our approach was not accepted by the international community.
In retrospect, did the Israeli policy of assassinations prove itself at all? Did it not merely provide encouragement for revenge attacks and the continuation of the cycle of bloodshed?
Since Israel unfortunately suffered more terrorist attacks, it became a kind of experimental laboratory for the front line in this struggle. The assassinations were an important tool. It can't be helped. These leaders don't like committing suicide. It's different than sending other people to carry out suicide missions for them. When they are being chased, they are less effective. The pinpointed assassinations are still a very important deterrent tool against senior leaders of the terrorist organizations. It is true that every terrorist leader can be replaced. Bin laden will also have a replacement. What is important is the continuum of assassinations that is directed at the heads of the organization and indicates to them that they too have something to lose.

The immediate question that a lot of Israelis asked themselves, following the reports of the American success, was: Why do we not succeed in locating Gilad Shalit who is not hidden at the other end of the world but just a few kilometers from our border?
Organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah have successfully learned our strengths and weak points. They understand what precautions must be taken in order to safeguard an asset like an abducted Israeli. I think that Israel shares the same determination to bring Gilad back home that the Americans demonstrated in striking bin Laden.
Here too we must find the right combination of circumstances - precise intelligence information, the ability to organize an operation within a few hours while the target is "hot," a reasonable ratio between the chances of success and the risk that there will be losses - we still remember the failed attempt to rescue [kidnapped soldier] Nahshon Waxman - and the possibility of avoiding excessive collateral damage. To my regret, this is a combination that occurs very rarely.
I don't agree with the claim that the Shalit affair is a resounding failure on the part of intelligence. If you had asked me about the American efforts to hit at bin Laden a month ago, what would we have said? We would certainly have described them as terrible schlemiels. I can safely say that tremendous efforts are being made and that it is possible that the right timing will enable such an operation to be carried it out in the future. Israel has excellent intelligence capability but things have to fall together. One cannot carry out a rescue operation at any price. If they had told President Obama that there was a great risk that the entire American force would be harmed, he would not have sent the troops to kill bin Laden this week.
Everyone is praising the Americans for their intelligence work in this operation. What does it actually mean?
We must give credit to the American intelligence agencies for their sustained effort. I know the significance of chasing a terrorist for years. The people who head the agencies change every few years. One needs a great deal of determination, perseverance, and a high level of organization in order to continue running an operation like this until it succeeds. In this era, there must be a combination of exact information, cooperation between the various intelligence arms and sometimes also with foreign services, and a very sharp capability on the part of the force that carries out the operation. Consider the ability shown here by the American forces: tremendous firing power, accuracy, self-confidence, the ability to hit those you have come to kill and to leave without a scratch. Zero casualties is not a result that is achieved by chance.
TV programs like "24" actually present these kinds of operations in a fairly realistic way. They are not science fiction. There is a never-ending puzzle of information that has to be collected and collated. Without a fusion of this information, the operation won't work. Even what appears to be the most minute bits of information have tremendous importance. We saw that in the media reports: The fact that the compound in which bin Laden was living did not have Internet activity increased the Americans' suspicions. Various kinds of intelligence gathering are in operation here: human intelligence, visual information gathering, and wiretapping and other signal intelligence. In the end, this combination of intelligence enables a warning to be issued to the fighter heading the force: "Don't go into the yard now, there is suspicious movement there."
By the way, I was somewhat surprised to see the presence of President Obama in the war room in real time, with the ability to watch on the screens what appeared to be the force in the field. As the head of the intelligence division, I didn't want leaders and senior officers to enter the war room of the unit that was instructing the advance guard. I also tried not to go there. The commanders don't need too many kibitzers giving them advice while the business is still going on. That could influence the effectiveness of the fighting force.

Amos Harel  - Haaretz 05 May '11 via calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Al-Aqsa Mosque imam: Obama will soon hang for "killing one of our Islamic lions", bin Laden

...Johnny Rotten doesn't
listen to your Propaganda...

(Ynet) An imam from the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem vowed to take revenge over "the western dogs" for killing Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan on Sunday.

In a Youtube video uploaded by the imam he said: "The western dogs are rejoicing after killing one of our Islamic lions. From Al-Aqsa Mosque, where the future caliphate will originate with the help of God, we say to them – the dogs will not rejoice too much for killing the lions. The dogs will remain dogs and the lion, even if he is dead, will remain a lion."
The imam then verbally attacked US President Barack Obama saying: "You personally instructed to kill Muslims. You should know that soon you'll hang together with Bush Junior."
"We are a nation of billions, a good nation. We'll teach you about politics and military ways very soon, with god's help," he vowed.
More...

via eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

.a video of a preacher at Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem calling for the death of Obama and Bush for killing Bin Laden.  It was deleted.

(original uncut video was uploaded by the preacher himself. YNet story here.)

Here is Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh condemning the assassination and calling Bin Laden a holy warrior.



He is now part of the Palestinian Arab government.

via elderofziyon.blogspot.com

Patriotism is the Last Refuge of a Liberal

The man who came into office promising multilateral engagement, no more torture and a civilian justice system for terrorists, now has only accomplishment to his name. A unilateral invasion and assassination based on intelligence gained through enhanced interrogation, carried out by men whom his supporters had once condemned as a secret assassination squad. What a failure Obama is that even the one success to his name is a testament to the failure of his own ideas.

Liberals joyfully proclaimed that the One would redeem America's reputation. No longer would we torture terrorists, detain them in prison camps and try them with military tribunals. A shining new golden age was here. Two lawyers to every Al-Qaeda terrorist and a national apology for going outside the civilian justice system. Now three years later, the only thing they have to celebrate is that their man trashed every one of their hopes and dreams just to keep his head above water in the polls.
Samuel Johnson opined that, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". And now the scoundrels are flocking to the red, white and blue as a a failed leader and his gaggle of supporters eagerly trade in their counterculture cred for apple pie and the Fourth of July. News stories are reinventing Obama as the Rambo of the Monitor, fitting moniker for the JFK of the Teleprompter, the man who courageously authorized a decision that would have been a no brainer for any American. A failure on every other front, his last refuge is also the thing he hates the most.  
Smart power? Try stupid power. Obama wasn't willing to set aside his ideals for the sake of national security. Instead he did it because his ideals were too unpopular. The man who wouldn't sacrifice his politics for the sake of American lives, sacrificed them for his own popularity. It's not just that Obama suffers from the wrong ideas, but that he values his ideas more than America, but less than himself.
It wasn't smart power that took down Bin Laden. It wasn't the multilateral cooperation that Obama turned into his trademark when running for office. Instead it was an old fashioned unilateral operation that didn't even notify the Pakistanis ahead of time and even jammed their radar. An operation that assumed we couldn't trust our Muslim allies because they sympathize more with Al-Qaeda than they do with us. A unilateral assault that Pakistan would never have approved and that could even be considered an act of war.
Torture, Gitmo, Rendition and all those dirty words that stood for the dumb old war. The one where we grabbed terrorists and shook the truth out of them. Where we seized them wherever they were, without regard for jurisdiction or civil rights, got them into a room and dunked their heads until they talked. Where brave men went out into the night to get things done and it was best not to ask too many questions about how it got done or count the collateral damage when they were finished. That dumb old war is the one that scored a victory here.
And liberals have suddenly learned to love that dumb old war. The same one that not so long ago made them want to be Canadians. No more quibbles about waterboarding or giving Osama a trial. Now all you need is a kill order and a lot of stories about Obama heroically risking his life by watching it happen from thousands of miles away. Where Bush went to the trouble of getting Saddam alive and turning him over for trial, this administration decided it would be easier and more convenient to shoot Bin Laden full of holes the first chance they got. (Though it's anyone's guess if the decision was made at the top or really determined by the men in the field who weren't up for another round of debates on where to hold the trial.) Not better for America, better for themselves.
Obama's smart war died along with Bin Laden. The only thing his multilateralism has gotten us into is an entirely new war in Libya. The 'smart war' that ended up looking exactly like the dumb war he denounced in his widely circulated 2002 speech, a rash war, a cynical attempt to shove an ideological agenda down our throats, against a man who was no imminent or direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors. But now Bush's dumb war looks smart and Obama's smart war looks stupid.

Taking down Bin Laden didn't begin with Obama looking at a monitor, but with invading Afghanistan to capture and interrogate terrorists, beginning the long process of unraveling Al-Qaeda. All that Obama deserves credit for is that unlike Bill Clinton, when the word came up from the men in the field that they had a chance to get Bin Laden, he eventually went along. Which he might not have done without an election breathing down his neck.
Obama inherited a War on Terror that he never wanted, and after doing his best to scuttle it, he was forced to carry it on anyway. His administration has sabotaged terrorist prosecutions, but it was forced to back away from civilian trials or closing Gitmo. And by virtue of having his ass in the chair at the right time, he now takes credit for a victory that belongs to the men who were fighting and dying in the field, while he was yawning his way through Illinois State Senate sessions.
Truman didn't claim credit for defeating Hitler, even though the German surrender came while he was in office. It's just as ridiculous for Obama and his supporters to do cartwheels because a prolonged campaign against Islamic terrorists happened to bear fruit on his watch. He might as well claim credit for the highway system and the continuing implementation of every single law and safety regulating predating his administration.
The Bush Administration did the heavy lifting here, and the Obama Administration is taking the credit. That's nothing new in politics, where the policies of one administration carry over to the next, but the one most associated with a positive outcome gets the credit. It's cynical, but not extraordinarily so. What is cynical is how many media mouthpieces insist on hanging up a "Mission Accomplished" banner, as if we went into Afghanistan to get one man. And only that one man. As if thousands of lives had been lost just to kill that one man. 
Now we're told that security measures can be dismantled and the troops can go home. There's no more need to worry about terrorism. It was all taken care of when Obama watched a satellite pay per view execution.
Bin Laden was the public face of Al-Qaeda, but if he hadn't been, it would have been someone else. It didn't have to be Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda. We think of Islamic terrorism in terms of organizations, but the organizations are only functional executions of an idea. The idea is that for Islam to triumph, its followers must wage an armed conflict of terror around the world. Al-Qaeda was one projection of that idea. There were and are many others.
You don't need a Bin Laden to have an Al-Qaeda, and you don't need an Al-Qaeda to have terrorism. Bin Laden's death fulfilled the cycle of an Islamic terrorist's life as a martyr. In the short term, our enemies have been reminded that we can and will get to them no matter where they hide. But in the long term, Bin Laden's death is a canonization that completes his place in the Islamist narrative. Now his story is told and will be retold over and over again.

The problem was never one man in a cave in Afghanistan or an estate in Pakistan. Islamic terror derives from a culture of supremacy. And Obama has spent enough time in the Muslim world to know that. Osama's death allows him and us to count coup, but the problem is getting worse, not better. Afghanistan and Pakistan were the homeland of terror, but the road that Bin Laden's butchers followed lies through Europe and America. Muslim immigrants and students moving out into the West mark the trail of terror. That road is a dagger pointed at the heart of the free world.
The interoperability of Pakistan's intelligence service and military with Al-Qaeda is not some unique phenomenon, it reflects the will of the Pakistani people, only 3 percent of whom think Bin Laden was a terrorist. Muslim terrorists work hand in glove with Muslim countries, even when they fight and quarrel with them. Because they have more in common with each other, than they do with us. Just as we support people who share our culture and values, so do they. Muslims may have different views on Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, but they still like them more than they do us. Which is why Bin Laden was able to live comfortably not far from the capitol without any worries that he would be turned in.
The problem was never Al-Qaeda. The problem is Islam. While the SEALS were off putting an end to Bin Laden, the growth of Islam in the free world continues to pose a dire threat to the survival of the free world. Osama's quick burial showed that we were still cowed by his religion's demands even in death. Killing one man did not end that regime of terror. Not so long as it remains lodged inside the heads of our leaders. Patriotism is the first resort of patriots and the last resort of men who have already sold out their country.

via sultanknish.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Good grief. It took Barack Obama 16 HOURS to make up his mind to get Osama Bin Laden.



(Tom in Paine)
He had to think about it.

The Daily Mail reported:

Barack Obama kept military commanders hanging by declaring he would ‘sleep on it’ before taking 16 hours to give the go-ahead to raid Bin Laden’s compound.
Hit squads of specialist Navy Seals – who were not even told who they were preparing to capture – had practiced the mission at two reconstructions of the terror chiefs sprawling compound.
The mission looked set to be given the all clear last Thursday when analysts confirmed beyond doubt that Bin Laden was in busy town of Abbottabad in northern Pakistan.
But the president stunned officials when he told a national security meeting that he wanted more time to think – and disappeared out of the room.

‘I’m not going to tell you what my decision is now – I’m going to go back and think about it some more,’ said Obama, according to the New York Times. He then added ‘I’m going to make a decision soon.’
The head of the CIA and other senior intelligence officers who were keen to proceed were left tense as they waited for the president’s decision.
But the next morning after 16 hours, Obama summoned four top aides to the White House Diplomatic Room. Before they could speak, the president put his fist on the table and declared ‘It’s a go’.

Ace of Spades added this on our sleepy president:

How does the media report this? Well, relying upon those in Obama’s inner circle (that is to say, his political flunkies and spinners), we’re told this:

“But the next morning after 16 hours, Obama summoned four top aides to the White House Diplomatic Room. Before they could speak, the president put his fist on the table and declared ‘It’s a go’.”

Why does it matter that he did this “before they could speak”? They had spoken already yesterday when they strongly, strongly urged the president to give the order, and he had decided to sleep on it.
They were only waiting on him, after all.
So, after 16 hours of vacillation, during which the operation might have been rendered a failure by intervening invents, he fist-bumps a piece of furniture and finally makes up his mind.
This is something to brag about? This is, in Howard Fineman’s words, “almost Biblical”?
Seems like a very cautious, feckless, indecisive individual delaying and delaying on critical decisions and then attempting to sound heroic when he finally does what he’s being paid to do.

That’s our Obama.

via gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com
image via blog.cartoonmovement.com