Publicado: 05-01-2012 06:41 PM
SE DERRUMBO- UNA GIGANTESCA ORGANIZACION TERRORISTA, QUIENES TARDARAN EN RECUPERARSE,
CON ESA GRAN BAJA,MIENTRAS EE. UU MANTIENE LA GUARDIA- Y LA SEGURIDAD DEL PAIS MAS SEVERA! OBVIAMENTE ESTO FAVORECE A NUESTRO PRESIDENTE OBAMA A MANTENERSE 4 AÑOS MAS EN EL PODER, Y A RESOLVER LOS RESTANTES PROBLEMAS ECONOMICOS SOCIAL DEL PAIS!
Publicado: 05-01-2012 11:14 PM
May 01, 2012 8:13:12 PM by chessplayer
The blowback continues from President Obama’s overreaching attempt to turn the killing of Osama bin Laden into a weapon with which directly to attack Mitt Romney. First, some Navy SEALS, the outfit whose members risked their lives to kill bin Laden, took exception. Then, a key operative at the CIA, who helped **noallow** intelligence that led us to bin Laden using practices opposed by Obama, balked.
"A recently disclosed memorandum from then-CIA Director Leon Panetta shows that the president’s celebrated derring-do in authorizing the operation included a responsibility-escape clause: “The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out.” Which is to say, if the mission went wrong, the fault would be Adm. McRaven’s, not the president’s."
Publicado: 05-02-2012 03:07 PM
Hotair ^ | 05/02/2012 | Ed Morrissey
The story of Chinese democracy activist Chen Guangcheng took a bizarre turn this morning. The dissident escaped house arrest and ended up at the US embassy in Beijing, with an injury to his foot in the escape. The US then announced that they had negotiated safe passage to a hospital with the Chinese government, where Chen could be reunited with his family. However, the AP reported a few minutes agothat the US told him that if he didn't leave, the Beijing government would beat his wife to death ... and now he fears for his life:
Blind legal activist Chen Guangcheng says a U.S. official told him that Chinese authorities threatened to beat his wife to death had be not left the American Embassy.
Speaking by phone from his hospital room in Beijing on Wednesday night, a shaken Chen told The Associated Press that U.S. officials relayed the threat from the Chinese side.
Chen, who fled to the embassy six day ago, left under an agreement in which he would receive medical care, be reunited with his family and allowed to attend university in a safe place. He says he now fears for his safety and wants to leave.
In a new deal between the United States and China, Chen has left to a local hospital and is reportedly under American protection, as U.S officials have guaranteed his safety. U.S. Ambassador Gary Locke escorted Chen, according to an AP report, to the Chaoyang Hospital and, on the way there, Chen called his lawyer, Li Jinsong, who said Chen told him: “‘I’m free. I’ve received clear assurances.’” …
As part of the agreement that ended the fraught, behind-the-scenes standoff, U.S. officials said China agreed to let Mr. Chen receive a medical checkup and be reunited with his family at the hospital; his wife and two children joined him there Wednesday afternoon. He would then be relocated to a safe place in China where he could study at university — all demands activists said Mr. Chen had raised.
Clinton, in a statement, said Mr. Chen’s exit from the embassy “reflected his choices and our values” and said the U.S. would monitor the assurances Beijing gave. “Making these commitments a reality is the next crucial task,” she said.
It doesn’t sound as though Chen feels particularly “free” at the moment. Did the Obama administration sell out Chen to the Beijing government? If so, that sends a chilling message to democracy activists and dissidents around the world about American commitment to freedom, and Obama’s own insistence that he would be on the side of freedom-loving activists.
Publicado: 05-02-2012 03:07 PM
What a sickening disgrace. How utterly typical of 0bama. Another kowtow to a communist.
How about telling the ChiComs that Chen and his wife and any kids are leaving, that they have US diplomatic immunity and any reprisals against Chen's extended family will be will be met with severe repercussions for US-China relations?
How much courage would it take to do that?
Apparently more than exists in the Zero WH and the State Dept.
These people make me sick.
Publicado: 05-02-2012 03:09 PM
The Osama Hit — It Wasn’t a Gutsy Call
By Ben Shapiro On May 2, 2012 @ 12:54 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage
Any reasonably astute observer of politics knew within hours of Osama Bin Laden’s killing that President Obama would take as much credit for the hit as humanly possible. What we didn’t know is that he’d turn it into a full-blown campaign issue – and that in the process, we’d find that he fulfilled all our worst fears about his weakness in the first place.
This week, President Obama’s campaign put out an ad suggesting that had Mitt Romney been President of the United States, he wouldn’t have authorized the mission to “get Bin Laden.” That ad featured Bill Clinton – yes, the same Bill Clinton who routinely missed opportunities to get Bin Laden – stating that Obama took “the harder and the more honorable path.” Then these words appear on the screen: “Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?”
Publicado: 05-02-2012 03:13 PM
The answer: the same path as every President of the U.S. in the history of the country. Even Jimmy Carter would have had no problem making this call. The fact that we were all surprised – and face it, we were – when Obama ordered the hit is evidence that we didn’t expect him to do the right thing.
In fact, as the evidence shows, Obama did the right thing only after safely ensuring that should anything go awry, he’d have someone to blame. Here’s the memo that then-CIA head Leon Panetta wrote about the Obama order:
Received phone call from Tom Donilon who stated that the President made a decision with regard to AC1 [Abbottabad Compound 1]. The decision is to proceed with the assault.
The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out. Those instructions were conveyed to Admiral McRaven at approximately 10:45 am.
Notice anything odd here? There are a few elements that are strange. First, Obama places all operational authority under Admiral McRaven (who, by the way, received exactly zero credit in any of this). To ensure that Obama would be able to throw McRaven under the bus should things go south, he spelled out that the approval was based only on the “risk profile presented to the President.” Any additional risks were to be “brought back to the President for his consideration.”
This is strange language. Typically, it is understood that a president is giving orders based on the risk profile presented – what else would he give approval for an operation based upon? The extra sentence here spelling out how Obama might stop the mission if the risk profile changed is extraneous. More than that, it’s troubling – military situations are always fluid, and the risk profile constantly changes. Were the military to update Obama with every change in risk profile, the operation would never take place.
But Obama did want the operation to take place. He just wanted to be able to cover himself if things went wrong. He could always say that the risk profile had changed and that he wasn’t informed. He could blame Panetta or McRaven.
Publicado: 05-02-2012 03:14 PM
That, of course, has been Obama’s M.O. throughout his presidency on foreign policy. When he gave the military fewer troops than requested in Afghanistan, he blamed it on his generals. When things go poorly in Afghanistan, it’s Bush’s fault. Everything is always someone else’s fault. But when things go right, he takes all the credit. In Obama’s new opinion, he’s the only man who would have made the call to get Bin Laden. As he said this week, “I said that I’d go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him, and I did. If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they’d do something else, then I’d go ahead and let them explain it.”
Even Ariana Huffington finds Obama’s grandstanding on this issue despicable. And so, apparently, do a number of Navy SEALs, who usually remain anonymous and silent for the most part, but have spoken out on this occasion.
As Toby Harnden of the UK Daily Mail reported, “Ryan Zinke, a former Commander n the US Navy who spent 23 years as a SEAL and led a SEAL Team 6 assault unit, said: ‘The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call. I think every president would have done the same.’” Zinke wasn’t the only SEAL speaking out. Harnden reports the words of Chris Kyle, a former SEAL sniper “with 160 confirmed and another 95 unconfirmed kills to his credit,” said“In years to come there is going to be information that will come out that Obama was not the man who made the call. He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn’t allowed to speak out against the commander- in-chief so his secret is safe.”
Not safe enough. The way Obama has turned the hit on bin Laden into a political issue has drained away the credit he deserved for ordering the mission in the first place.
Publicado: 05-03-2012 08:51 AM
Partido Comunista llama a los aliados a unirse detrás de la Oficina Oval
El Partido Comunista de este pais, no esta siempre feliz con los demócratas, pero en las elecciones de 2012 y segun su presidente, el apoyar a Barack Obama es ahora la mejor apuesta para avanzar en los objetivos del partido. En un informe titulado “La derrota de la derecha es el camino hacia el socialismo” entregado a la conferencia anual del Partido Comunista, el presidente del Partido, Sam Webb, se inclino a contener los sentimientos de descontento de los comunistas en este pais, Lea mas LibertadUSA
Publicado: 05-08-2012 10:46 PM
Bin Laden May Ironically Be Obama's Albatross
Election '12: The president seems to think bragging about killing Osama bin Laden will help get him re-elected. But the question is increasingly becoming why the president hesitated on such a no-brainer decision.
Jack Keane, the Army vice chief of staff from 1999 to 2003, told Mike Huckabee on Fox News over the weekend that the U.S. government knew exactly where Osama bin Laden was nearly a year before President Obama gave the order to send in the Navy SEALs to his compound in Pakistan.
The retired general told Huckabee, "We had the target in the summer (of) 2010, and it took until the following May to execute the mission."
Keane was surprised at the delay "because, you know, the longer you spend on something like that, the greater likelihood is that the target will be compromised because of your surveillance, and then that target will flee."
Keane added, "I know for a fact that we had it that summer, maybe even sooner than that."
So why didn't Obama act sooner?
"My sources tell me the White House was trying to verify that the target was actually there as opposed to just relying on circumstantial evidence," Keane said. "They actually wanted a photo ... and that without that there was a lot of delay and procrastination about it, because they wanted verification."
He said those few officials who knew that bin Laden had been located "wanted to get after" him "because they realized that the target could be compromised and it took so long to actually find it. And you sort of had the sense that this was it, it was real, and let's go get it."
Keane knew this information because he was "close to somebody who had knowledge and he trusted me and had confidence in me" not to reveal it.
What Keane says may not be true. Yet a president who knew where the man who gave the order for the 9/11 attacks was, but did not act, would be guilty of serious misconduct, a near-impeachable offense.
The gaffe-inator, Vice President Joe Biden, in March claimed that if the bin Laden raid failed "this guy would be a one-term president" — a comment exposing that even the White House knows this presidency is a failure. You mean all that "hope and change" in job creation and health care policy wouldn't make up for botching the bin Laden raid, Joe?
As shown in a Time magazine-revealed memo from Leon Panetta, the defense secretary who during the bin Laden raid was CIA director, the White House was setting up Adm. William McRaven, the Special Operations commander, as scapegoat if the mission failed.
"The timing, operational decision making and control are in Adm. McRaven's hands," Panetta's memo stated. "Any additional risks are to be brought back to the president for his consideration."
That wording would have made it easy to accuse McRaven of botching the mission by undertaking an "additional risk" the president supposedly didn't OK.
No wonder former and current Navy SEALs have accused Obama of politicizing the bin Laden killing.
As Montana Republican state Sen. Ryan Zinke, a 23-year veteran of the SEALs, told Britain's Daily Mail, it was a "no-brainer" to order bin Laden's elimination.
"I think every president would have done the same," Zinke pointed out.
George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney would all clearly have given the order — except much sooner.
The ghost of bin Laden may end up haunting not the GOP challenger, as many Democrats seem to believe, but procrastinator-in-chief Barack Obama.