Zo looks at Obama the warrior. While the left would like you to think that he killed Gaddafi, Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, AlfonZo Rachel cuts through the propaganda and brings you the facts.
Showing posts with label Osama Bin Laden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Osama Bin Laden. Show all posts
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Alfonzo Rachel - The Truth About "Obama Killed Osama"
Zo looks at Obama the warrior. While the left would like you to think that he killed Gaddafi, Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, AlfonZo Rachel cuts through the propaganda and brings you the facts.
Labels:
Alfonzo Rachel,
Barack Obama,
Liberal Lies,
Osama Bin Laden,
Zonation
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Mr. President - STOP Leaking Our Classified Secrets!
In a direct attack on one of President Obama’s political strengths, a group of former special operations and C.I.A. officers started a campaign Tuesday night(8/14/12) accusing Mr. Obama of recklessly leaking information about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and other security matters to gain political advantage. Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Steve Green - Hair of the Dog: Leak of the Week, Obama Killed Osama bin Laden with his Bare Hands
It's a leak a week in the Obama White House. Will we soon hear that Obama killed Osama Bin Laden with his bare hands? Hear more about the national security leak scandal, plus Obama's reelection chances, as Stephen Green summarizes the Sunday shows on this Hair of the Dog.Sunday, May 6, 2012
General Jack Keane - Obama Knew OBL's Hideout Since Summer of 2010 - Refused to Act
General Jack Keane (Retired), the former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, told Mike Huckabee tonight (5/5/12) that Barack Obama knew about Osama Bin Laden's hideout since the summer of 2010 but refused to act for several months. He wanted undeniable proof first that Osama was living there.PJTV Trifecta - Obama the Barbarian? Obama Parts with Left, And Wages War Across Globe
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Andy Card Reflects on the Morning of September 11, 2001
Andy Card, former Chief of Staff to President George W. Bush, reflects on 9/11. Mr. Card was with President Bush on the morning the World Trade Center was attacked. He discusses what happened after he told President Bush about the attack.NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Labels:
911 Videos,
George Bush,
Islamic Terrorism,
Osama Bin Laden
Never Forget September 11, 2001
Another 184 people were killed in the attack on the Pentagon in Arlington, VA. There were no survivors from any of the flights and the overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians, including nationals of over 70 countries.
A fourth plane was directed toward Washington, D.C.,
targeting either the Capitol Building or the White House, but crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after passengers tried to take control of the plane. The last words of those Brave Americans "Let's Roll" became a rallying cry all across America.Palestinians celebrating the fall of the twin towers on 911
Related Post: KILLING BIN LADEN - Thank You Seal Team 6
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Discovery Channel - KILLING BIN LADEN
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Doug Giles - Rebel Youth Scream, “USA!” at UBL’s Demise
Can you imagine the consternation the ubiquitous uberliberal profs of our nation’s radical Left-leaning universities must have felt as they watched the students they’ve worked their butts off to brainwash dispense with said profs’ anti-American blather and instead shout for joy that the SOB UBL is now officially ODPF (one dead porn freak)?
I can still hear the tens of thousands of college students from sea to shining sea screaming, “USA! USA! USA!” as they praised our wickedly lethal SEAL Team Six for putting the death axe to this tool.
Ah, yes, ladies and gents, the young ones still get that good and evil do exist, that some bad guys have got to die, and that on the grand scale of things America, well … rocks. Sa-lute!
This month’s ginormous and spontaneous youth-driven celebration of American exceptionalism in cities nationwide caused hope to spring once again in my gloomy, gloomy chest. It was precious, folks … I’m talkin’ precious with a capital P. I’m getting all verklempt just thinking about it. Hold on for a sec. I can’t breathe. I think I’ll light a cigar to regain my composure and celebrate a wee little bit.
Okay, I’m now officially back. Whew.
Allow me to digress a bit and yap about the porn cache found in Usama bin Spankin’s dank million-dollar mansion: What is up with all these Muslim holy men and their penchant for slapping their salami? Isn’t it interesting how the revelations have been pouring in lately that these “holy warriors” against western decadence were actually hooked on western decadence? Oh, the irony. I thought we were the “Great Satan”; I thought they hated cleavage and blamed all the current earthquakes on Lady Gaga’s ya-ya and Shakira’s truth-telling hips …
Sure enough, their defenders will prance out and say they had porn collections to stay afoot of America’s foul milieu. It’s “research.” Yes, that’s it! Bin Laden and his boys were “researching” us—or as Mark Sanford would say, they were “hiking the Appalachian Trail.”
Research? Please, player. Go sell crazy somewhere else because that excuse sounds just like the same scat my friend Dewey used to sell his mother right up until he went blind and grew hair on his carpel tunnel palms.
Yes, no doubt the apologists for Usama and his ilk are going to say that their Yoda “encoded microscopic intel on Miss April’s belly ring” or “they were only viewing Holly Madison’s hooters to keep abreast (no pun intended) of the United States’ degradation in order to stir afresh the embers of enmity for all things American.”
Call me weird, but from a prima facie standpoint, at least to me, it appears as if Usama’s bin Naughty and these spankmeisters are giving post pubescent teenage boys a run for their money when it comes to … uh … well… uh, you know. Now I’ll return to our righteously rebellious twentysomethings.
Yep, when bin Laden got a bin bullet to the bin noggin’, most of our youth from coast to coast did not lament “American imperialism” but instead starting singing about America’s exceptionalism. Matter of fact, I saw about 1,500 college kids during one report singing The Heavy’s hit, “How You Like Me Now?” And you know what? Me likey.
And lastly, I’ll return to the America-adverse professors at our liberal madrasah, the college campus: You dudes have got to be soiling your pants now, eh? Seems as if all your “America sucks” rhetoric didn’t stick as much as you thought it would. Yep, after years of your anti-American blah, blah, blah you’ve shoveled down the kids’ throats that our kids bounced back with a defiant, patriotic rebel yell when Usama fell, shouting, “USA! USA! USA!” To which I say, keep it up, patriotic young people— and don’t let these bastards grind you down.
(I would be remiss if I didn’t shamelessly plug my latest book, Raising Righteous & Rowdy Girls, which will make a superb Father’s Day gift. Andrew Breitbart says of my book: “Don’t pick a fight with the Giles girls.”)
Doug Giles
Doug Giles’ new book “If You're Going Through Hell, Keep Going!" is now available. Ann Coulter says "Doug Giles is a substantive and funny tour de force for traditional values.” Doug’s talk show and video blog can be seen and heard at www.ClashRadio.com.
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
I can still hear the tens of thousands of college students from sea to shining sea screaming, “USA! USA! USA!” as they praised our wickedly lethal SEAL Team Six for putting the death axe to this tool.
Ah, yes, ladies and gents, the young ones still get that good and evil do exist, that some bad guys have got to die, and that on the grand scale of things America, well … rocks. Sa-lute!
This month’s ginormous and spontaneous youth-driven celebration of American exceptionalism in cities nationwide caused hope to spring once again in my gloomy, gloomy chest. It was precious, folks … I’m talkin’ precious with a capital P. I’m getting all verklempt just thinking about it. Hold on for a sec. I can’t breathe. I think I’ll light a cigar to regain my composure and celebrate a wee little bit.
Okay, I’m now officially back. Whew.
Allow me to digress a bit and yap about the porn cache found in Usama bin Spankin’s dank million-dollar mansion: What is up with all these Muslim holy men and their penchant for slapping their salami? Isn’t it interesting how the revelations have been pouring in lately that these “holy warriors” against western decadence were actually hooked on western decadence? Oh, the irony. I thought we were the “Great Satan”; I thought they hated cleavage and blamed all the current earthquakes on Lady Gaga’s ya-ya and Shakira’s truth-telling hips …
Sure enough, their defenders will prance out and say they had porn collections to stay afoot of America’s foul milieu. It’s “research.” Yes, that’s it! Bin Laden and his boys were “researching” us—or as Mark Sanford would say, they were “hiking the Appalachian Trail.”
Research? Please, player. Go sell crazy somewhere else because that excuse sounds just like the same scat my friend Dewey used to sell his mother right up until he went blind and grew hair on his carpel tunnel palms.
Yes, no doubt the apologists for Usama and his ilk are going to say that their Yoda “encoded microscopic intel on Miss April’s belly ring” or “they were only viewing Holly Madison’s hooters to keep abreast (no pun intended) of the United States’ degradation in order to stir afresh the embers of enmity for all things American.”
Call me weird, but from a prima facie standpoint, at least to me, it appears as if Usama’s bin Naughty and these spankmeisters are giving post pubescent teenage boys a run for their money when it comes to … uh … well… uh, you know. Now I’ll return to our righteously rebellious twentysomethings.
Yep, when bin Laden got a bin bullet to the bin noggin’, most of our youth from coast to coast did not lament “American imperialism” but instead starting singing about America’s exceptionalism. Matter of fact, I saw about 1,500 college kids during one report singing The Heavy’s hit, “How You Like Me Now?” And you know what? Me likey.
And lastly, I’ll return to the America-adverse professors at our liberal madrasah, the college campus: You dudes have got to be soiling your pants now, eh? Seems as if all your “America sucks” rhetoric didn’t stick as much as you thought it would. Yep, after years of your anti-American blah, blah, blah you’ve shoveled down the kids’ throats that our kids bounced back with a defiant, patriotic rebel yell when Usama fell, shouting, “USA! USA! USA!” To which I say, keep it up, patriotic young people— and don’t let these bastards grind you down.
(I would be remiss if I didn’t shamelessly plug my latest book, Raising Righteous & Rowdy Girls, which will make a superb Father’s Day gift. Andrew Breitbart says of my book: “Don’t pick a fight with the Giles girls.”)
Doug Giles
Doug Giles’ new book “If You're Going Through Hell, Keep Going!" is now available. Ann Coulter says "Doug Giles is a substantive and funny tour de force for traditional values.” Doug’s talk show and video blog can be seen and heard at www.ClashRadio.com.
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Saturday, May 14, 2011
U.S. Analyzing Hard Drives, Documents Seized From Bin Laden Compound
In their raid on bin Laden's compound, Navy Seals were able to recover hard drives, computers, and other materials now being scoured by analysts for further intelligence. Cyberterror Analyst Morgan Wright on the techniques used to recover information.Thumb Drives or USB Drives come in all shapes and sizes. Osama Bin Laden had no Phone lines or Internet access in his compound. Instead Osama Bin Laden used Human Couriers to send and receive information.
UPDATE:
How Did OBL Stay Connected and Avoid Detection?
- Fri, May 13, 2011
- AP, Breitbart.tv
- Dateline:Pakistan
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Jeannie DeAngelis - Bullets Over Bubbles
Originally posted at American Thinker
The media is buzzing because for the first time in recent history a journalist actually demanded an answer from a liberal to a logical question. Following the Navy SEAL hit on Osama bin Laden, Chris Wallace, host of Fox News Sunday, interviewed Tom Donilon, President Obama's National Security Adviser, and broached the obvious inconsistency in the administration's argument that water boarding is "over the line," but "shooting an unarmed man in the face [is] legal and proper."
Although Wallace's audacious interview skills are commendable, it's obvious that Mike Wallace's son requires 60 Minutes' worth of a refresher course in basic liberal logic -- which, by the way, is an oxymoron.
Nevertheless, Chris asked Mr. Donilon a valid question which could be paraphrased in the following way: "Why is putting a couple of bullets into the head of an unarmed man acceptable, but pouring water over an enemy combatant's face ‘over the line?'"
The underlying principle on the left is that putting a wet cloth over someone's face is cruel and unusual treatment but holding a head underwater until the bubbles stop is permissible, encouraged and, if successful, even applauded.
Tom, who at first glance seems like a sane man, spoke on behalf of the Obama White House, which is on par with speaking for every liberal on the planet, and said, "Because, well, our judgment is that [water boarding] is not consistent with our values, not consistent and not necessary in terms of getting the kind of intelligence that we need."
According to Tom, obtaining intelligence through unacceptable means like facial holding, muscle fatigue, and being confined with a caterpillar in a small space is less tolerable than blowing a hole through the face of a person who nonetheless deserved it. Life-saving intelligence-gathering deemed illegal and achieved through the cruel and inhuman practice of feigned drowning is, according to liberals, better left not attempted, even if the potential interrogation "victim" is planning to murder a few thousand Americans.
To normal people, i.e., those who think clearly, Donilon's explanation is a bit peculiar, but to anyone who understands the skewed and illogical manner in which liberals think, the National Security Adviser's response makes perfect sense.
For liberals, killing is an acceptable route, but discomfort on any level is never "consistent" with liberal values. If the prevention of uneasiness ends in death, then so be it.
Case in point: Abortion. Think about it -- for some women, carrying a child to term can be as uncomfortable as water boarding. Just ask Planned Parenthood. Unplanned pregnancy is scary and problematic, not unlike enhanced interrogation. However, if "gutsy" liberals are in charge, terminating a pregnancy is, more times than not, the preferred solution.
Donilon confirmed that liberal judgment dictates that the finality of violent death is consistent with liberal values, while inconvenience, irritation, and minimal emotional pain are objectionable to liberal sensibilities. A suspected terrorist gasping for air for a few seconds is unconscionable, but a fetus bleeding out from a purposely inflicted mortal head wound is perfectly acceptable.
One thing is for sure: It's a good thing Osama bin Laden met Allah instantly, because had he survived a botched attempt to jettison him into eternity the al-Qaeda leader would find out that giving medical attention to those who survive a murder attempt is also inconsistent with liberal values. Obama would likely agree that to lend a hand to a dying terrorist would have "burdened the original decision" to deliver up a dead bin Laden.
In reality, Chris Wallace's probing question was a scratch-your-head inquiry and an honest attempt to understand an illogical way of thinking. The Fox News Sunday host acknowledged that most would agree that shooting Osama dead was justifiable. However, Wallace, as well as most right-thinking people, just couldn't grasp the dichotomy between the unbridled elation associated with blowing a hole through the skull of a vicious murderer and the endless moral indignation expressed over holding the head of an equally monstrous beast under water for 35 seconds.
Wallace pressed on: "What I am second-guessing is, if that's OK, why can't you do water boarding?" In other words - what's the rationale behind evading distress in favor of death?
Hey Chris, the answer is simple. There is none.
Why wasn't the relatively benign enhanced interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, "who was just as bad an operator" as the now-deceased Osama bin Laden, acceptable? It's because death is always embraced by the left as ethically superior to placing an individual in a painful situation. If the opportunity presents itself, the benefit gained through character-building coercive means will always take a back seat to offing someone. If the revered right-to-choose is presented, the left will almost always side with sacrificing a life over depriving comfort.
If Chris Wallace needs to better understand the rationale behind crazy liberal policies, maybe someone should remind him that the same group who decries water boarding lobbies for, funds, and defends the killing of unborn babies. All the cable news network Sunday morning talk show host needs to do is revisit abortion statistics which show that 98% of all abortions, a procedure liberals heartily endorse, are for the sake of convenience, and done almost exclusively to circumvent the anxiety associated with accepting moral and physical responsibility for one's own personal actions.
Abortion over adoption -- a shot to the skull over enhanced interrogation -- for liberals, the loss of abortion rights would be like subjecting America to an ongoing water boarding session. To liberals, abortion on demand is similar to shooting bin Laden in the head: necessary, better than the alternative, and lauded on the left as "gutsy" and worthy of rationalization.
So when Chris Wallace attempts to make sense out of what seems senseless and asks reasoned, well thought-out questions, the left's response exposes the foundational liberal principle that when given a choice, killing is preferred over avoidable discomfort and at all times will be vigorously justified by an ideology rooted in irrational absurdity.
Jeannie DeAngelis
Jeannie DeAngelis writes almost exclusively for American Thinker and has been published on the conservative website Pajamas Media, as well as hosting a blog. See Jeannie's Blog
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
The media is buzzing because for the first time in recent history a journalist actually demanded an answer from a liberal to a logical question. Following the Navy SEAL hit on Osama bin Laden, Chris Wallace, host of Fox News Sunday, interviewed Tom Donilon, President Obama's National Security Adviser, and broached the obvious inconsistency in the administration's argument that water boarding is "over the line," but "shooting an unarmed man in the face [is] legal and proper."
Although Wallace's audacious interview skills are commendable, it's obvious that Mike Wallace's son requires 60 Minutes' worth of a refresher course in basic liberal logic -- which, by the way, is an oxymoron.
Nevertheless, Chris asked Mr. Donilon a valid question which could be paraphrased in the following way: "Why is putting a couple of bullets into the head of an unarmed man acceptable, but pouring water over an enemy combatant's face ‘over the line?'"
The underlying principle on the left is that putting a wet cloth over someone's face is cruel and unusual treatment but holding a head underwater until the bubbles stop is permissible, encouraged and, if successful, even applauded.
Tom, who at first glance seems like a sane man, spoke on behalf of the Obama White House, which is on par with speaking for every liberal on the planet, and said, "Because, well, our judgment is that [water boarding] is not consistent with our values, not consistent and not necessary in terms of getting the kind of intelligence that we need."
According to Tom, obtaining intelligence through unacceptable means like facial holding, muscle fatigue, and being confined with a caterpillar in a small space is less tolerable than blowing a hole through the face of a person who nonetheless deserved it. Life-saving intelligence-gathering deemed illegal and achieved through the cruel and inhuman practice of feigned drowning is, according to liberals, better left not attempted, even if the potential interrogation "victim" is planning to murder a few thousand Americans.
To normal people, i.e., those who think clearly, Donilon's explanation is a bit peculiar, but to anyone who understands the skewed and illogical manner in which liberals think, the National Security Adviser's response makes perfect sense.
For liberals, killing is an acceptable route, but discomfort on any level is never "consistent" with liberal values. If the prevention of uneasiness ends in death, then so be it.
Case in point: Abortion. Think about it -- for some women, carrying a child to term can be as uncomfortable as water boarding. Just ask Planned Parenthood. Unplanned pregnancy is scary and problematic, not unlike enhanced interrogation. However, if "gutsy" liberals are in charge, terminating a pregnancy is, more times than not, the preferred solution.
Donilon confirmed that liberal judgment dictates that the finality of violent death is consistent with liberal values, while inconvenience, irritation, and minimal emotional pain are objectionable to liberal sensibilities. A suspected terrorist gasping for air for a few seconds is unconscionable, but a fetus bleeding out from a purposely inflicted mortal head wound is perfectly acceptable.
One thing is for sure: It's a good thing Osama bin Laden met Allah instantly, because had he survived a botched attempt to jettison him into eternity the al-Qaeda leader would find out that giving medical attention to those who survive a murder attempt is also inconsistent with liberal values. Obama would likely agree that to lend a hand to a dying terrorist would have "burdened the original decision" to deliver up a dead bin Laden.
In reality, Chris Wallace's probing question was a scratch-your-head inquiry and an honest attempt to understand an illogical way of thinking. The Fox News Sunday host acknowledged that most would agree that shooting Osama dead was justifiable. However, Wallace, as well as most right-thinking people, just couldn't grasp the dichotomy between the unbridled elation associated with blowing a hole through the skull of a vicious murderer and the endless moral indignation expressed over holding the head of an equally monstrous beast under water for 35 seconds.
Wallace pressed on: "What I am second-guessing is, if that's OK, why can't you do water boarding?" In other words - what's the rationale behind evading distress in favor of death?
Hey Chris, the answer is simple. There is none.
Why wasn't the relatively benign enhanced interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, "who was just as bad an operator" as the now-deceased Osama bin Laden, acceptable? It's because death is always embraced by the left as ethically superior to placing an individual in a painful situation. If the opportunity presents itself, the benefit gained through character-building coercive means will always take a back seat to offing someone. If the revered right-to-choose is presented, the left will almost always side with sacrificing a life over depriving comfort.
If Chris Wallace needs to better understand the rationale behind crazy liberal policies, maybe someone should remind him that the same group who decries water boarding lobbies for, funds, and defends the killing of unborn babies. All the cable news network Sunday morning talk show host needs to do is revisit abortion statistics which show that 98% of all abortions, a procedure liberals heartily endorse, are for the sake of convenience, and done almost exclusively to circumvent the anxiety associated with accepting moral and physical responsibility for one's own personal actions.
Abortion over adoption -- a shot to the skull over enhanced interrogation -- for liberals, the loss of abortion rights would be like subjecting America to an ongoing water boarding session. To liberals, abortion on demand is similar to shooting bin Laden in the head: necessary, better than the alternative, and lauded on the left as "gutsy" and worthy of rationalization.
So when Chris Wallace attempts to make sense out of what seems senseless and asks reasoned, well thought-out questions, the left's response exposes the foundational liberal principle that when given a choice, killing is preferred over avoidable discomfort and at all times will be vigorously justified by an ideology rooted in irrational absurdity.
Jeannie DeAngelis
Jeannie DeAngelis writes almost exclusively for American Thinker and has been published on the conservative website Pajamas Media, as well as hosting a blog. See Jeannie's Blog
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Monday, May 9, 2011
Political Animations - Bin Laden's Death Explained
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Doug Giles - Why Christians Should Rejoice That UBL Is Dead and in Hell
Let me go on the record stating that as a Christian I am completely cool with our Navy SEAL Team Six killing Usama. Or is it Osama? Does anyone know? I heard he liked it both ways. Anyway, the only thing that makes me sad about bin Laden’s death, as an orthodox Christian, is that a). It didn’t happen on Christmas or Easter, and b). The rude SEAL Team Six didn’t include me along to pull the trigger.
Apparently, the SEALs require those who go on their missions to be physically and psychologically fit to the nth degree and stuff—y’know, like being able to swim like Esther Williams during a hurricane with a wildebeest strapped to one’s back. When they told me that, I was like, “Whatever.” And the SEALs were like, “Pfff.” And thus they chose someone else to whack that wacky bastard. So, I guess I’ll have to settle for seconds and wait to play the forthcoming Xbox video game based on the Abbottabad raid entitled, SEAL Team Six: Who’s Yo’ Mama, Usama? But I digress.
So, why do I bring up my Christianity in conjunction with my satisfaction with Usama getting capped? Well, it’s principally because of the rank anti-biblical bollocks coming from pastors and priests who believe that Christians should not be happy that bin Laden has now been eaten by groupers at the bottom of the Indian Ocean (or wherever the heck they tossed his damnable corpse).
For instance, Bill O’Reilly had a Catholic priest, Father Beck, on his show this past week who not only said we should dial down on our biblical joy that this evil SOB was shot but that we should’ve “loved him,” “forgiven him,” and “not judged him” because “we don’t know what was in Usama’s wittle heart that caused him to kill tens of thousands of people worldwide.”
To hear this cat talk, it sounds like all UBL simply needed was some Xanax, a new coloring book and a little face time with Dr. Drew because his daddy didn’t love him enough or something.
Well, Father Crock—I mean Beck—call me a heretic because I believe those commands to “love, forgive and not judge” don’t extend to a sick, twisted, violent, God-hating, woman abusing, implacable, wicked dog like bin Laden but rather to personal verbal detractors of one’s faith (y’know, people who don’t pose a grave global security threat. Duh).
It’s like I wrote in my best selling book, Raising Righteous & Rowdy Girls, about how I raised my girls: If you’re made fun of, ridiculed, or maligned for your beliefs, don’t sweat it; love and pray for your enemies and learn what I’ve learned over many years: Other people’s animosity can actually sell a lot of books.
However, should someone want to physically harm you in some form or fashion (say, a rapist or a terrorist) then it’s okay for you to defend yourself and hurt him or, if need be, kill him. Call me the devil. In my world the good person should live and the evil person should die.
Hey, Christian Love Machine: Usama wasn’t some angry blogger who merely said mean crap about Christians and western culture; he was a malevolent, murderous Saladin wannabe who was part and parcel of the massive, heartless slaughter of men, women and children both here and abroad. Remember? If not, here’s UBL’s résumé of death.
Christians should rejoice because bin Laden was decidedly evil; his body is currently the main course for coconut crabs at 300 feet; and his soul is browning on Dante’s BBQ. Providence, via our ministers of death, the bad ass SEAL Team Six, plucked a foul weed from this planet and officially ended his reign of terror. I guarantee that when the SEALs’ 5.56mm round exited Usama’s brain at 3,000 feet per second the Father, Son and Holy Spirit stood up and said to each other, “High five!” and then after that congratulatory moment simultaneously said like preternatural triplets, “Who’s next?” And you know what? We should feel the same way.
Doug Giles
Doug Giles’ new book “If You're Going Through Hell, Keep Going!" is now available. Ann Coulter says "Doug Giles is a substantive and funny tour de force for traditional values.” Doug’s talk show and video blog can be seen and heard at www.ClashRadio.com.
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Apparently, the SEALs require those who go on their missions to be physically and psychologically fit to the nth degree and stuff—y’know, like being able to swim like Esther Williams during a hurricane with a wildebeest strapped to one’s back. When they told me that, I was like, “Whatever.” And the SEALs were like, “Pfff.” And thus they chose someone else to whack that wacky bastard. So, I guess I’ll have to settle for seconds and wait to play the forthcoming Xbox video game based on the Abbottabad raid entitled, SEAL Team Six: Who’s Yo’ Mama, Usama? But I digress.
So, why do I bring up my Christianity in conjunction with my satisfaction with Usama getting capped? Well, it’s principally because of the rank anti-biblical bollocks coming from pastors and priests who believe that Christians should not be happy that bin Laden has now been eaten by groupers at the bottom of the Indian Ocean (or wherever the heck they tossed his damnable corpse).
For instance, Bill O’Reilly had a Catholic priest, Father Beck, on his show this past week who not only said we should dial down on our biblical joy that this evil SOB was shot but that we should’ve “loved him,” “forgiven him,” and “not judged him” because “we don’t know what was in Usama’s wittle heart that caused him to kill tens of thousands of people worldwide.”
To hear this cat talk, it sounds like all UBL simply needed was some Xanax, a new coloring book and a little face time with Dr. Drew because his daddy didn’t love him enough or something.
Well, Father Crock—I mean Beck—call me a heretic because I believe those commands to “love, forgive and not judge” don’t extend to a sick, twisted, violent, God-hating, woman abusing, implacable, wicked dog like bin Laden but rather to personal verbal detractors of one’s faith (y’know, people who don’t pose a grave global security threat. Duh).
It’s like I wrote in my best selling book, Raising Righteous & Rowdy Girls, about how I raised my girls: If you’re made fun of, ridiculed, or maligned for your beliefs, don’t sweat it; love and pray for your enemies and learn what I’ve learned over many years: Other people’s animosity can actually sell a lot of books.
However, should someone want to physically harm you in some form or fashion (say, a rapist or a terrorist) then it’s okay for you to defend yourself and hurt him or, if need be, kill him. Call me the devil. In my world the good person should live and the evil person should die.
Hey, Christian Love Machine: Usama wasn’t some angry blogger who merely said mean crap about Christians and western culture; he was a malevolent, murderous Saladin wannabe who was part and parcel of the massive, heartless slaughter of men, women and children both here and abroad. Remember? If not, here’s UBL’s résumé of death.
Christians should rejoice because bin Laden was decidedly evil; his body is currently the main course for coconut crabs at 300 feet; and his soul is browning on Dante’s BBQ. Providence, via our ministers of death, the bad ass SEAL Team Six, plucked a foul weed from this planet and officially ended his reign of terror. I guarantee that when the SEALs’ 5.56mm round exited Usama’s brain at 3,000 feet per second the Father, Son and Holy Spirit stood up and said to each other, “High five!” and then after that congratulatory moment simultaneously said like preternatural triplets, “Who’s next?” And you know what? We should feel the same way.
Doug Giles
Doug Giles’ new book “If You're Going Through Hell, Keep Going!" is now available. Ann Coulter says "Doug Giles is a substantive and funny tour de force for traditional values.” Doug’s talk show and video blog can be seen and heard at www.ClashRadio.com.
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Kevin McCullough - Obama's Win, Bush's Credit!
President Barack Obama, who went after captured and killed Osama bin Ladin did his nation favorable service, accomplished an important threshold in the war on terror, and will secure for himself in history the signature act to date in that war.
And he couldn't have done any of it, without changing his views on important positions that he campaigned against, stood in opposition to, and publicly opposed on policies of his predecessor President George W. Bush.
Without "enhanced interrogation techniques and the fight against terror in Iraq" President Obama would not have been able to order the kill command against Osama bin Ladin.
Here's how it all tracks down: Sheikh Abu Ahmed turned out to be the single most important name to secure in the attempt to track and kill Osama bin Ladin. Sheikh Abu Ahmed had been previously known as Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti. (Abu Ahmed is actually of Kuwaiti dissent.) Abu Ahmed al-Kuawaiti became known to U.S. officials through the enhanced interrogations, CIA secret prisons--including Gitmo, and detainees captured in that "illegitimate" war in Iraq.
Beginning in early 2002 (under President Bush) multiple detainees in the secret prisons told interrogators of Abu Ahmed. None other than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (Al Queda number 3 and "architect" of the 9.11 attack) also confirmed knowing Abu Ahmed.
Then in 2004 Hassan Ghul was captured battling anti-terror forces in Iraq. Ghul told the CIA that Abu Ahmed was crucial to Al Queda. Ghul implicated Abu Ahmed as close to Faraj al-Libi (who had replaced Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as Al Queda's active number 3). Ghul was referred to by an Obama administration official as the "linch pin" in connecting the dots to identify Osama's courier Abu Ahmed.
In 2005 al-Libi was promoted to replace Mohammed and he received word through the courier named Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, but when al-Libi was captured and interrogated through enhanced techniques he revealed to authorities all they needed to know--that the courier for bin Ladin was the man that would lead them to him.
Connecting the dots was crucial, and painstakingly took years. Doing so was also made difficult because then Senator Barack Obama opposed and worked publicly against phone taps of terrorists, and eventually helped blow the story of our phone taps onto the pages of the New York Times. Oddly enough, Osama bin Ladin suddenly stopped using phones. His almost exclusive use of very old-school couriers became the only way bin Ladin communicated with his lieutenants.
President Obama campaigned against the use of phone taps of terrorists, he campaigned for the shut down of the very secret prisons that coughed up the name of the courier, and he went so far after being elected to imply that his Attorney General Eric Holder was ready to go arrest the CIA operatives, and military special forces personnel that had conducted enhanced interrogations.
Yet this single most important piece of information that led to the capture and execution of our worst enemy was obtained exclusively through those very mechanisms and means that President Obama demeaned, mocked, and ordered shut down.
There is no doubt that President Obama made the right call to send in the Navy Seals to extricate the corpse of Osama bin Ladin. His decision to do so with a surgically precise strike showed special wisdom in that members of his own national security team opposed him in meetings running up to making the decision. He was right in calling on the Seals because they are unlike any other special forces in all of military history. And he was right in reducing the collateral damage or the risk of any by not using predator drones and bombs.
History will reward him with the label of the one who captured and killed the worst terrorist of the past twenty years.
But he did so standing on the shoulders of a President who took political backlash, foul media coverage, and a toxically poisoned electorate (poisoned largely by the efforts of Obama directly) to do what was right, to press forward in obtaining the critical pieces of data to set up the eventual capture and kill of Bin Ladin.
President Obama owes his rightful success to a man he directly undermined, nearly the entire time he was setting the pieces in place for Obama's biggest national security achievement.
President Obama owes an apology to President Bush.
He also owes a huge debt of thanks to the men and women of the CIA and special forces who interrogated with enhanced techniques, and to the men and women who fought and died in Iraq to bring him the information needed.
And how 'bout you?
Have you hugged a water-boarder today?
Kevin McCullough
Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "The Kevin McCullough Show" weekdays (7-9am EST) & "Baldwin/McCullough Radio" Saturdays (9-11pm EST) on 215 stations & Sirius/XM . His new book from Thomas Nelson Publishers, "No He Can't" hits streets March 2011.
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
And he couldn't have done any of it, without changing his views on important positions that he campaigned against, stood in opposition to, and publicly opposed on policies of his predecessor President George W. Bush.
Without "enhanced interrogation techniques and the fight against terror in Iraq" President Obama would not have been able to order the kill command against Osama bin Ladin.
Here's how it all tracks down: Sheikh Abu Ahmed turned out to be the single most important name to secure in the attempt to track and kill Osama bin Ladin. Sheikh Abu Ahmed had been previously known as Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti. (Abu Ahmed is actually of Kuwaiti dissent.) Abu Ahmed al-Kuawaiti became known to U.S. officials through the enhanced interrogations, CIA secret prisons--including Gitmo, and detainees captured in that "illegitimate" war in Iraq.
Beginning in early 2002 (under President Bush) multiple detainees in the secret prisons told interrogators of Abu Ahmed. None other than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (Al Queda number 3 and "architect" of the 9.11 attack) also confirmed knowing Abu Ahmed.
Then in 2004 Hassan Ghul was captured battling anti-terror forces in Iraq. Ghul told the CIA that Abu Ahmed was crucial to Al Queda. Ghul implicated Abu Ahmed as close to Faraj al-Libi (who had replaced Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as Al Queda's active number 3). Ghul was referred to by an Obama administration official as the "linch pin" in connecting the dots to identify Osama's courier Abu Ahmed.
In 2005 al-Libi was promoted to replace Mohammed and he received word through the courier named Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, but when al-Libi was captured and interrogated through enhanced techniques he revealed to authorities all they needed to know--that the courier for bin Ladin was the man that would lead them to him.
Connecting the dots was crucial, and painstakingly took years. Doing so was also made difficult because then Senator Barack Obama opposed and worked publicly against phone taps of terrorists, and eventually helped blow the story of our phone taps onto the pages of the New York Times. Oddly enough, Osama bin Ladin suddenly stopped using phones. His almost exclusive use of very old-school couriers became the only way bin Ladin communicated with his lieutenants.
President Obama campaigned against the use of phone taps of terrorists, he campaigned for the shut down of the very secret prisons that coughed up the name of the courier, and he went so far after being elected to imply that his Attorney General Eric Holder was ready to go arrest the CIA operatives, and military special forces personnel that had conducted enhanced interrogations.
Yet this single most important piece of information that led to the capture and execution of our worst enemy was obtained exclusively through those very mechanisms and means that President Obama demeaned, mocked, and ordered shut down.
There is no doubt that President Obama made the right call to send in the Navy Seals to extricate the corpse of Osama bin Ladin. His decision to do so with a surgically precise strike showed special wisdom in that members of his own national security team opposed him in meetings running up to making the decision. He was right in calling on the Seals because they are unlike any other special forces in all of military history. And he was right in reducing the collateral damage or the risk of any by not using predator drones and bombs.
History will reward him with the label of the one who captured and killed the worst terrorist of the past twenty years.
But he did so standing on the shoulders of a President who took political backlash, foul media coverage, and a toxically poisoned electorate (poisoned largely by the efforts of Obama directly) to do what was right, to press forward in obtaining the critical pieces of data to set up the eventual capture and kill of Bin Ladin.
President Obama owes his rightful success to a man he directly undermined, nearly the entire time he was setting the pieces in place for Obama's biggest national security achievement.
President Obama owes an apology to President Bush.
He also owes a huge debt of thanks to the men and women of the CIA and special forces who interrogated with enhanced techniques, and to the men and women who fought and died in Iraq to bring him the information needed.
And how 'bout you?
Have you hugged a water-boarder today?
Kevin McCullough
Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "The Kevin McCullough Show" weekdays (7-9am EST) & "Baldwin/McCullough Radio" Saturdays (9-11pm EST) on 215 stations & Sirius/XM . His new book from Thomas Nelson Publishers, "No He Can't" hits streets March 2011.
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)











