Well, Obama should have left "well enough alone." Here is what he has done.
Click on the image if you must, but why? Its the translation that is important.
For a second time in a year, he has decided to "ride the wave" of popularism coming from the killing of bin Laden. One wonders why he is making this effort, now . . . . 6 months before the election. One wonders why he is making the effort at all, in view of the fact that the original "wave of popularism" was a 5 point bump that lasted all of two weeks. Along the same line of thought, I am wondering why he pushed this political scheme, at this time. Let’s assume he gets a bump out of the current effort. What advantage will there be 6 months from now? I don’t get it. Anyone still think he is a marvel when it comes to running a campaign.? Understand this, you are not looking at a genius campaigner. Nope. Rather, you are watching what happens when a man can campaign full time instead of working, and has unlimited funds to spend. He is a cheap suit who has not done the job he was hired to do.
You should know that the longer we all have to think about what happened, one year ago today, the more exposure there is to the details surrounding both the event, itself, and the current effort to gain a political advantage using this event.
For example, we have this memo and its translation. Obviously, Obama made it clear, in the memo, there was to be no risk to him, personally, as the president of the United States, and so, he orders, "The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven's hands " As you can plainly see, Admiral McRavens is both the commander of the raid and Obama’s excuse should things go south. So, if McRaven was in charge, how can Obama make this shameless claim: I said that I’d go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him, and I did,’ and why NO MENTION of Admiral McRaven????
In the video (click on link to see video jds-midknightreview.blogspot.com/2012/04/we-wonder-will-obama-make-apology-for.html ) made to “celebrate” the bin Laden killing, we have Bill Clinton bragging about the grave risk taken by Obama. Besides the point, above, understand that Bill Clinton talking about courage in the face of political risk (he had 3 chances to kill bin Laden before 9/11 and refused each opportunity) is tantamount to Michael Moore writing a weight loss book and sending it to Elena Kagan for review.
While cheering the death of bin Laban, we have to ask ourselves this question, “Was the killing of bin Laden the reason Obama sent troops into Afghanistan?” Surely not, But Obama charges that Mitt Romney would not have made the same call (see Romney's 2007 comments below in "Notes"). The context of Romney's statement, with which Obama takes umbrage, had to do with the sovereignty of another nation's state, but more than Romney's concern, I see a serious problem with waging a war for the single purpose of killing bin Ladan ----- so, we ask the question again, “Did Obama risk the lives of hundreds of young men and women in the hope of finding and killing Osama bin Laban? ” In view of the Romney criticism, I must conclude the worst as to Obama's motivations and, if the case, what a pathetically self-serving decision [to invade Pakistan and kill bin Ladan] it was.
Finally, more and more we are remembering Obama's childish rush to the first open mic, naming the Special Ops force (Navy Seal Team 6) responsible for the assault.
No one thought this was a good idea, at the time, Everyone thought it put Seal Team 6 in great harm. And, sure enough, three months later, a transport helicopter was shot down, killing 38 Americans on board, 23 of whom were Seal Team 6 members. I regard this as a criminal act on the part of Obama and see no reason to amend my point of view. He has proven to be the worst kind of military leader, someone willing to politicize military risk and loss of life for the sake of personal gain. And, here, I thought that Richard Nixon was the only one capable of such treasonous leadership.
See the comments below made by members of the Navy Seals - you will not find this anywhere in the "major" media.
Romney's 2007 comments:
It’s wrong for a person running for president of the United States to get on TV and say we’re going to go into your country unilaterally. Of course America always maintains our option to do whatever we think is in the best interest of America. But we don’t go out and say “ladies and gentleman of Germany, if ever there was a problem in your country [and] we didn’t think you were doing the right thing, we reserve the right to come in and get them out”. We don’t say those things, we keep our options quiet.
Obama's response to Romney:
“As far as my personal role and what other folks [i.e. Romney] would do, I just recommend that everybody take a look at people’s previous statements whether or not they thought it was appropriate to go into Pakistan and take out bin Laden.”
Navy Seals speak out about Obama use of their work and his campaign video:
From the Daily Mail, we have this comment from former members of the Navy Seals. No mention of this in the Marxist media, by the way. We had to go to the UK for the story:
Serving and former US Navy SEALs have slammed President Barack Obama for taking the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and accused him of using Special Forces operators as ‘ammunition’ for his re-election campaign.
The SEALs spoke out to MailOnline after the Obama campaign released an ad entitled ‘One Chance’.
In it President Bill Clinton is featured saying that Mr Obama took ‘the harder and the more honourable path’ in ordering that bin Laden be killed. The words ‘Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?’ are then displayed.
Besides the ad, the White House is marking the first anniversary of the SEAL Team Six raid that killed bin Laden inside his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan with a series of briefings and an NBC interview in the Situation Room designed to highlight the ‘gutsy call’ made by the President.
Mr Obama used a news conference today to trumpet his personal role and imply that his Republican opponent Mr Romney, who in 2008 expressed reservations about the wisdom of sending troops into Pakistan, would have let bin Laden live.
‘I said that I’d go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him, and I did,’ Mr Obama said. ‘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.’