As we have amply demonstrated here, Obama never misses a chance to remind everyone that it was on his watch that Bin Laden was killed.
The left repeatedly made the claim that George Bush didn’t care about getting Bin Laden, taking words entirely out of context. Here is what Bush did have to say:
Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part — deep in your heart, don’t you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won’t really eliminate the threat of —
THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he’s alive at all. Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not; we haven’t heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is — really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission.
Terror is bigger than one person. And he’s just — he’s a person who’s now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He’s the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is — as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide — if, in fact, he’s hiding at all.
So I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I’m more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There’s going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I’m just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We’re tough, we’re strong, they’re well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.
Q But don’t you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won’t truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven’t heard much from him. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became — we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we — excuse me for a minute — and if we find a training camp, we’ll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That’s one of the things — part of the new phase that’s becoming apparent to the American people is that we’re working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.
And we’ve got more work to do. See, that’s the thing the American people have got to understand, that we’ve only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don’t know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it’s going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I’m not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.
“Terror is bigger than one person.”
You’d never know that from Obama. He left the impression that the war on terror was over and the world was completely at peace once Bin Laden went down. Wait a minute, Obama did declare the war on terror over.
More Bush sagacity:
“This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don’t know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it’s going to take a long time to achieve this objective.”
Prophetic. Yet he was constantly misquoted and derided for these comments.
My turn.
You might think by press reports that killing Bin Laden was always THE single most important thing in the world. Not so.
In 2009 Barack Obama was inteviewed by Katie Couric. About capturing or killing Bin Laden Obama said:
Couric: How important do you think it is, Mr. President-elect, to apprehend Osama bin Laden?
Mr. Obama: I think that we have to so weaken his infrastructure that, whether he is technically alive or not, he is so pinned down that he cannot function. My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him. But if we have so tightened the noose that he’s in a cave somewhere and can’t even communicate with his operatives, then we will meet our goal of protecting America.
That sounds pretty much exactly like what Bush said.
But he also said this:
President-elect Barack Obama: We took our eye off the ball when we invaded Iraq. And now it’s done. My job is to withdraw in a responsible way from Iraq and stabilize the situation there. But our real focus has to be on Afghanistan, the border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we have to put as much pressure on them as possible. I’ve already, you know, spoken to my national security team about how we’re going to do that. And I’m confident that we can keep them on the run, and ensure that they cannot train terrorists to attack our homeland. That’s my number one priority as President of the United States.
His priority is to prevent terrorist attacks on the homeland.
There have been five Islamic terrorist attacks in the US.
“I rise today to express grave doubts about the Obama Administration’s counterterrorism policies and programs,” said the freshman congressman from Arkansas. “Counterterrorism is often shrouded in secrecy, as it should be, so let us judge by the results. In barely four years in office, five jihadists have reached their targets in the United States under Barack Obama: the Boston Marathon bomber, the underwear bomber, the Times Square Bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, and in my own state—the Little Rock recruiting office shooter. In the over seven years after 9/11 under George W. Bush, how many terrorists reached their target in the United States? Zero! We need to ask, ‘Why is the Obama Administration failing in its mission to stop terrorism before it reaches its targets in the United States?’”
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H106iegUJpI[/youtube]
Count ’em. Five.
Boston was the most costly: 3 dead, 260 injured.
The economic cost could be as high as $1 billion. And no longer will marathons be safe venues.
All these attacks lead on to believe that Obama has taken his eye off the ball. He may well be too distracted by Hollywood and celebrity. Maybe he’s too focused on being a comedian.
Barack Obama, by his own measures, has failed. If he wants all the credit, take all the credit- including the credit for failure.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
He has not failed. His number one priority is himself. And he has managed to take care of himself very well indeed. 100+ golf outings. Mega vacations every couple of months. Air travel whenever he wants. Separate travel for his wife.
Foreign gifts: unlimited.
So do not tell me he failed. He One. He Won. He the King. He the Imam. He the Supreme Ruler. He the Dear Leader.
And, since he is an affirmative action appointee, he cannot be impeached or removed from office.
By the way, his cronies are doing very well on the Federal C-note, thank you very much.
So don’t tell me he failed.
@mathman: Agree completely but have to add:
Looks like dear reader is right — the war on terror is over — he has capitulated!
Sure, let’s start keeping score after that monumental event, which took place in the 9th month of George W’s presidency.
Cotton seems to be the main thing that this guy has got between his ears.
Bush= 2500 dead (9/11), trillions spend on a war with an innocent country, another 100,000+ killed.
Obama-14 Dead
You do the math.
@This one: Should be 15 right? Didn’t HE kill BinLaden? And your math might be off, you forgot all the drone kills…
@Greg: Because the first attack by Islam’s so-called warriors was on 9/11…….Please try again
@jj, #6:
You might need a history refresher there, bub. 9/11 was the second time the WTC had been attacked.
GWB might have missed class that day, too, for all the attention he was paying. I’d already made a good guess who was behind 9/11 before the first tower came down. The only intelligence gathering that was needed to make that guess was to have paid attention to the news, but when I said the name out loud, all I got were blank looks.
@Greg: Exactly what I meant…..bub. I guess you miss the sarcasm while white knuckling your ideology.
@Greg:Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what WJC did after the first WTC attack or don’t you want to go that far back in history because it doesn’t fit the narrative you are trying to present?
@another vet:
Perhaps he was designing new and innovative uses for cigars?
@retire05: Amazing how people forget the feel good ’90’s whereby the seeds for future problems were planted, 9/11 being one of them and the housing market crash being the other big one. Make no mistake, I don’t blame Clinton for 9/11 and anyone who blames Bush is one of the BDS folks that you just have to brush off. AQ and AQ alone was responsible for 9/11. The only way it could have been prevented (maybe) would have been for either one of those two presidents to have launched a preemptive invasion of Afghanistan in order to take out AQ. The American people wouldn’t have supported either one doing that without 9/11 to justify it.
@another vet: EXACTLY
@mathman: #1
I agree with almost all you said. His #1 goal is to bring down the USA, and he is close to accomplishing that.
@Smorgasbord: ^ Indeed, because remember…….., “The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”.
@jj: #14
The future belongs to those who take up arms against Islam.
@another vet, #9:
Four of the WTC bombers were captured. They were tried and convicted in 1994 and sentenced to 240 years each. Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, mastermind of the plot, was captured in 1995. He was convicted in 1997 and is also serving 240 years. The following year, in 1998, Clinton launched multiple missile attacks on al Qaeda training camps. Remember? Those were the attacks that were dismissed as an effort to distract attention from the far more important national business of the Monica Lewinsky 3-ring circus. . .
@retire05, #10:
. . .which you’re apparently still obsessing over.
I suppose that campaign turned out to be a major republican success. It led to the election of George W. Bush, and to the one of the biggest U.S. foreign policy blunders in living memory. The main geopolitical consequence was the removal of Iran’s long-standing regional foe, entirely at our expense. (A few borrowed trillion dollars, to make no mention of the body count.) This astonishing act of generosity freed the Iranians up to concentrate their full attention on their primary hobby—building themselves a nuclear weapon.
@Greg:
We were attacked on 9-11 because Clinton was such a pussy. Repeated attacks on US assets resulted in nothing. Clinton even refused to take custody of Bin Laden from the Sudan and begged off 8-10 times to kill Bin Laden and the only time he fired any missiles he warned the ISI who then warned Bin Laden of the attack.
Obama has all the benefit of hindsight and still fails.
@Greg:
I’ve often wondered how those who express such derision toward GWB concerning the Iraq war come to terms with the people Obama picked at key positions. Obama largely won the 2004 nomination because he was the anti war candidate. Then for his VP he picked Joe Biden, largely for his foreign policy expertise. At the time the biggest foreign policy issue was Iraq, so Obama the anti war candidate picks for his VP Joe Biden who voted FOR the Iraq war. For his next pick he needs a Secretary of State to handle other foreign policy issues. So he picks Hillary Clinton who voted FOR the Iraq war. When she retired from that position Obama selects John Kerry who also voted FOR the Iraq war. The logic escapes me, but then maybe logic has no place at the table with Obama.
@Greg: And how did that exactly stop AQ? Seems to me that strategy didn’t work out too well. Had it, the attacks would have stopped.
When enumerating the number of post-911 attacks on the US, I think Bush and Obama are about even.
politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/since.html
@DrJohn: That is true about Clinton giving up the opportunity to get OBL but in all fairness, it probably wouldn’t have prevented much of anything unless AQ as an organization was taken down. One only needs to look at what has happened since OBL was killed. AQ is still a threat and they have expanded their influence in the ME. Getting rid of AQ would have required boots on the ground, something the American public probably wouldn’t have supported pre- 9/11. We were too busy living in the “economic utopia” of the ’90’s to be bothered with threats to our National Security.
@another vet:
But you have to wonder how much less excitement there would have been had OBL been snuffed early.
@DrJohn: Of the two presidents, there is no doubt Clinton was in the better position of the two to launch a BOG strike. Had it been done earlier, it would have been easier because AQ wasn’t as big or entrenched. And paradoxically because of that, Clinton (and Bush) would have had a very tough sell, which isn’t to say it couldn’t have been done. Unfortunately most Americans don’t believe in an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure which is why I’m not holding my breath on us ever getting our financial house in order. It will take our economy going over the cliff to get something done and by then it will be too late. We have become very complacent and apathetic.
@another vet: #21
When Bill Clinton didn’t do anything when al-Qaeda attacked us different places around the world, and he wouldn’t take bin Laden the THREE times he was offered to us, this let bin Laden brag to others haw America fears him. It also let him get more recruits because people saw how America feared him.
Well, what the heck … Obama is slick! But he’s NOT slick enough.
Here’s what Obama said:
Obama: “‘I’m Not Familiar’ With Benghazi Whistleblowers Being Threatened”
Let’s examine this line carefully. I’m not familiar with Whistleblowers. Probably true, he doesn’t know them personally. “Being Threatened.” They are being threatened.
Hmmm. Benghazi is the death knell for Obama.
@Smorgasbord: Yes, there is no doubt OBL viewed 1990’s America as a paper tiger. That evidence has been posted here numerous times but some seem to keep “forgetting” it. With that being said, most Americans weren’t that concerned about National Security back then. Our military was also hampered by cutbacks and probably just as important, doctrinally the military was still stuck on a Cold War mentality of fighting a war in the Fulda Gap although the scenario was Iraq. Even in 2001 when we did invade, commanders were having to crack open counterinsurgency manuals to figure out what to do because their training revolved around lining up ‘x’ number of divisions to square off against ‘x’ number of enemy divisions.
@Greg: Yeah? How many deaths in the first attack? How many warnings did Bush have about the second?
Going after al Qaeda and other Islamist training camps on earth is like playing Whack-a-Mole.
Knock one out; another pops up elsewhere.
Mali, Tunisia, Yemen, Pakistan, and many more.
When Obama took out a charismatic Islamic leader, Anwar al-Awlaki, he was on the right track.
There are many, many others.
Muqtada al Sadr is one.
When Israel went after the charismatic Islamic leaders out of Gaza they took out one, then another took his place.
But by the time they had taken HIM out, the new leader wanted to ”lead from behind!”
As a result he was greatly weakened.
His movement faltered.
Bush made Muqtada al Sadr so scared he would be targeted he left Iraq for Iran until after Obama proved to be a weak leader himself.
Now al Sadr is trying to return to power in Iraq.
IF Obama doesn’t take him out before we leave, Iraq will soon be lead by this guy or his designee.
@another vet: @26
In my opinion, Bill Clinton did more to reduce our military and intelligence gathering agencies than any other president. This is how he balanced the budget back then. We even had to pull agents out of many countries, even two agents out of Iraq, because the budget was cut so much. We then had to rely on other countries for intel on Iraq. How did that work out?
In my opinion, there are only three basic rules in fighting enemies.
(1) Attack
(2) Destroy
(3) Go home
Now, there are so many things we have to consider before we attack an enemy, including how will it effect a politicians campaign donations from American companies in that country?
@Smorgasbord: I agree, it’s the only path at this point. We don’t decide when the war is over, the enemy does. And from what I can tell they are just getting started….
@Smorgasbord: Those of us who were in during his tenure can testify to the adverse effects his policies had on the military. He cut the military way too far. New found darling of the left, Colin Powell, was opposed to what he did. The left doesn’t like to talk about that, only his disagreements with Republicans or conservatives. The current CiC is no better.
@another vet: #31
My son served under Clinton, and one time my son said he hadn’t gotten a pay raise for three years. I don’t know how long it was before he did. One story told of soldiers in some parts of the world being housed in places that had been condemned.
@Smorgasbord: Today I spoke to two Senior NCO’s whom I served with. Neither painted a very flattering portrait of what is going on today as far as taking care of those in uniform. Those who are serving will just have to stand in line behind the illegals and permanent parasites when it comes to being taken care of. After all, they do represent a bigger base of votes than those in uniform.
@another vet: #33
For many years I have been hearing and reading of stories of VA hospitals aren’t taking care of the veterans very well. These are the ones who kept us a free country, and our politicians can’t find enough money to take care of them the way they should be. They ALWAYS find their hundreds of millions of dollars they vote for each other.
This is why the government should be funded by the numbers, and the military (including the VA) should be the ONLY #1.