So Obama used information that was obtained from Gitmo detainees who have never been brought to trial, including men who were waterboarded like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to send American forces into a sovereign nation without even notifying its leaders and without seeking the approval of the United Nations, in order to assassinate -- not arrest -- Osama bin Laden, killing him outright regardless of his rights and without even giving him a military tribunal, much less a trial. For the life of me, I can't think of anything former President George W. Bush himself would have done differently, up to that point. Well done, President Obama. Too bad you just violated every statement you have ever made regarding every aspect of military and diplomatic operations, not to mention the ideals of most of your hard-core supporters on the Left. Now if you could just sign off on some tax cuts, you could use leftover 2004 "Re-Elect Bush" campaign posters in 2012. At least you'd be recycling.
Personally, I couldn't be more pleased that Osama bin Laden is dead. That sick, rotten piece of excrement has been a thorn in America's side, not to mention that of the entire civilised world, for more than two decades now. Obama definitely deserves credit for giving the order to take him out, although a more gracious man would have given the lion's share of the credit where it's due -- to the military, to the CIA and to the policies established by his predecessor. Still, justice has been served and every American should be glad. Don't let the pseudo-pious Left talk you out of this well-deserved moment by saying Christians shouldn't celebrate the death of this evil man. Just remind them that Proverbs 21:15 says, "When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers."
It may be surprising (to some) that everything the Left has been telling us for nearly a decade is wrong. Apparently, keeping detainees at Guantanamo Bay is a good idea. The information they have to share, though up to ten years old, is surprisingly useful after all. Waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques do, it seems, yield helpful results. And best of all, it appears that war is indeed the answer, especially when the question is "What do we do when we find bin Laden?" He brought his war to us. Now we've returned it.
The Left is correct about one thing, however. Killing bin Laden will not magically solve all of our terrorism problems. Others will step up to take his place, though they may not be as inspirational as he was, nor will they have his former air of invincibility. Bin Laden's death was an extraordinarily strong psychological blow to al Qaeda and other terror groups, but if we don't follow up they will recover, in time. Instead of putting General Petraeus behind a desk at the CIA, Obama ought to give him carte blanche to carry this war to our enemies like never before. Let's hope that in his new position, he can at least ensure that we continue to get actionable information from captured enemies at Guantanamo Bay, as we have been doing since 2002.
Meanwhile, I hear Obama is thinking about buying a ranch, so he can drive a pickup truck and cut brush while wearing a cowboy hat on the weekends.
|True-Blue Conservative |
November 20, 2011 09:19 PM PST
As I pointed out, some years ago: The issue of warfare support/opposition has NEVER been about "left" vs. "right." To say that most liberals oppose military intervention and war, while most conservatives favor it, is very off-base.
A lot of the reacton it is based upon which party is in the White House. Witness the widespread conservative & GOP opposition to Obama's current war in Libya, and to Bill Clinton's (1999) war in Kosovo. Even with respect to Afghanistan, many conservative Republicans have, within the past year, called for drawing down troops - while a troop escalation there was a key Obama campaign platform, which he implemented shortly after being elected.
On the left, there are the cleavages among:
1) the anti-war liberals (such as Dennis Kucinich and the pacifist left)
2) the liberal-internationalists (like top House Democrat foreign-policy leaders Howard Berman, and the late Tom Lantos - along with war-goddess Samantha Power, who clearly has Obama's ear)
3) the reactionary liberals and partisan Democrats (whose position on war is "whatever the politics demand"/dictate).
...And on the Right, there are the post-Cold War fissures between: the traditionalist conservatives (whose ideology seems to be on the rebound, including within the TEA Party movement) vs. the hawkish conservatives & neocons.
Furthermore, there are the foreign-policy divisions between the "realist" school (most of whom opposed the 2003 Iraq War - including former Pres. George Herbert Walker Bush) vs. those from the "idealist" school.
Real-life, real-world situations like this don't mesh well with binary, reductionist frames.
|Young Republican |
November 23, 2011 06:41 PM PST
Thank you for this post.
Many commentators, across the board, have pointed out that Obama escalated the foreign-policy actions of the Bush administration... & also expanded U.S. involvement in additional areas, such as Libya and Yemen. Some of these decisions are due to influence from SAMANTHA POWER, a leading Obama foreign policy advisor who is one of the foremost spokespersons for the foreign policy school of 'LIBERAL INTERNATIONALISM.'
Obama's Afghanistan troop escalation; the Libya war; the Egypt & Yemen situations; and other actions from the Obama administration are related to the geopolitical fact that:
When it comes to the issue of MILITARY INTERVENTION, support/opposition has never been about "left" vs. "right." There are long-standing cleavages, within both sides.
On the left, there are the divisions among:
1] THE ANTI-WAR LIBERALS
such as Dennis Kucinich & the pacifist left, VS.
2] THE LIBERAL INTERNATIONALISTS
like top House Democrat foreign-policy chiefs CONGRESSMEN HOWARD BERMAN & TOM LANTOS ~ along with war-goddess SAMANTHA POWER, who clearly has Obama's ear, VS.
3] THE REACTIONARY LIBERALS & PARTISAN DEMOCRATS
whose position on war is "whatever the politics demand"/dictate!
A lot of the reaction is impacted by which party is in the White House:
Many of the Congressional Democrat leaders were okay with the Iraq War in 2002 & 2003 (& in 1998, as you've also pointed out!)... but later attacked Bush & the GOP over this, when they thought it could score political points. When Donald Rumsfeld opposed sending additional troops to Iraq, many Democrats advocated it. Then in 2007, when Bush announced plans to send additional troops, the Democrats attacked the plan!
And: This corrupt, incompetent Democrat Administration has also prompted more Republicans to take a traditionalist-conservative approach. There was widespread GOP opposition to Obama's current (2011) war in LIBYA - as there had been, to Bill Clinton's (1999) war in KOSOVO. And with respect to AFGHANISTAN, many conservative Republicans have, within the past year, called for the end of nation-building operations there.
Obama will try to use the Osama news to help his re-election chances, & may also attempt to manipulate foreign policy actions for political purposes ("vote-seeking" operations), as we get closer to Election Day.
====> This lightweight president needs to be ousted ASAP though, and replaced by wise, principled, & true-blue CONSERVATIVE leadership!
|Rumah Hak Milik |
February 11, 2015 11:42 PM PST
Nice, in the lounge next article
|Leave a Comment:|