Football spiked: Obama to address nation on Bin Laden anniversary live from Afghanistan

posted at 3:35 pm on May 1, 2012 by Allahpundit

The official reason for the trip is to sign the new strategic partnership agreement with Karzai, but of course that doesn’t require his physical presence in Afghanistan. We all know why he’s there and why he chose today to visit. One word: Scoreboard.

Hope he has a giant photo of Bin Laden with his eyeball hanging out set up as a backdrop for the speech, just in case the very low-information voters watching at home are slow on the uptake about what they’re supposed to glean from this speech.

President Barack Obama is in Afghanistan for a whirlwind visit that will culminate in a live, televised address to the American people.

Obama is expected to sign a strategic partnership agreement shortly with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.Obama’s scheduled to speak to the nation just after 7:30 p.m., eastern time, from Bagram airbase.

Pool, which assembled Monday night at Andrews, has been under an embargo preventing reporting of the trip up til now.

Obama left at 12:09 AM Tuesday morning. And arrived at Bagram at 10:20 pm local time.

It was smart to key this to the partnership agreement since now he’ll have a big stage to announce a significant drawdown of American troops, which should please swing voters. You can see the political message coming: We won in Afghanistan by killing Bin Laden and destroying his network so now we can responsibly and victoriously withdraw. It’s a two-fer — an end-zone dance over Al Qaeda’s deterioration and an unofficial declaration that the war is ending and the boys are coming home. Shrewd politics. If he pulls out Bin Laden’s empty skull and sets it on the podium, you can probably call the election right now.

Stand by for updates.

Update: Before he declares victory, can we get a final accounting on just how many Afghan soldiers have fired at their American mentors? According to the AP, the Pentagon’s been conspicuously quiet about non-lethal “green on blue” attacks.

I’d be keen to hear O’s and Panetta’s reaction to this Guardian piece too before those ephemeral peace talks with the Taliban start heating up again:

Documents found in the house where Osama bin Laden was killed a year ago show a close working relationship between top al-Qaida leaders and Mullah Omar, the overall commander of the Taliban, including frequent discussions of joint operations against Nato forces in Afghanistan, the Afghan government and targets in Pakistan…

The news will undermine hopes of a negotiated peace in Afghanistan, where the key debate among analysts and policymakers is whether the Taliban – seen by many as following an Afghan nationalist agenda – might once again offer a safe haven to al-Qaida or like-minded militants, or whether they can be persuaded to renounce terrorism…

“Questions and issues come up. They don’t see eye to eye on everything but it’s clear they understand they have an interest in co-operating [on attacks against Nato, Afghan government and Pakistani targets],” the source said. “Of those engaged in the conversation, two [Zawahiri and Omar] are still alive today and there is no reason to believe that either has substantially changed his views in the last year.”

The Taliban’s never going to turn on Al Qaeda.

Update: BuzzFeed’s Michael Hastings hears from some SEALs that they’re getting tired of Obama’s end-zone dance:

The frustration—or, even anger—within the SEAL community is real, and has been brewing for months, particularly among a politically conservative core of operators. It started immediately after the raid, with questions among the Special Forces and intelligence community of whether the president should have waited to announce the kill to exploit the intelligence cache at Osama’s compound. It simmered after a Chinook helicopter was shot down, killing 30 Americans, 22 of them Navy SEALs from Team Six…

Over the past few days, I’ve reached out to a number of SEALs, both active duty and former. Most active duty SEALs were reluctant to go on the record venting or praising their boss, but one of the most interesting responses I received from an operator was to direct me to Leif Babin, a SEAL who left active duty last year.

Babin, who runs the consulting firm Echelon Front, wrote a little noticed op-ed in Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal four months ago. The headline: OBAMA EXPLOITS THE NAVY SEALS. Babin took aim at “the president and his advisors, writing: “It is infuriating to see political gain put above the safety and security of our brave warriors and our long-term strategic goals.”

Update: Obama, Biden, Panetta, Hillary, Jack Lew, Ryan Crocker: Imagine it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

i like that image, sitting in his office in his mom jeans, hitting the kill button again and again..

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:13 PM

I prefer the image of Obama in mom jeans trying to throw a baseball over home plate, and having the cameras positioned so we couldn’t see it fell short.

Wethal on May 1, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Sure hope someone had the presence of mind to lock up all them Afghan Hounds, AKA, the other other white meat.

Why Kabul?

Why not from Coronado?

Just have a small and dignified personal thank you and offer a bit of praise for the SEALS from where those wonderful guys all made it through BUDS training?

Why Kabul?

After all, he slaughtered a Moslem just across the border and has killed hundreds of Moslems, to include uncounted numbers in Afghanistan, since he took office.

Why Kabul?

For cheap short-term political gain.

Just plain spiking the ball in the end zone.

The only reason I can come up with.

And I’ve been thinking about this since early this morning when Obama’s heading to Kabul first crossed the horizon.

Just spending more of our tax dollars to make yet another campaign stop…this time in Kabul.

Wonder how many donors and voters Obama will round up out there?

coldwarrior on May 1, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Barry’s campaign has got to be in full-on crisis mode right now. This speech, obviously scheduled before the football spiking story turned against him, has the potential to turn a disastrous couple of days into a total flame-out. Look for a self-consciously patriotic speech. He’ll be trying to appear humble, deflect “credit” for Osama. If he goes all in with his typical raging hubris, I’ll be shocked. Every word will be dissected tomorrow. There is plenty of time to line up some Navy Seals for interviews, and absolutely no downside to this for Romney at all. He can just keep his mouth shut and let Barack bury himself in the cheap and sleazy Preezy self-congratulation. The Obama team has got a campaign crisis on its hands.

Rational Thought on May 1, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Afghanistan has been a complete disaster since Obama took it over. We’ve lost more than twice as many soldiers with 3 years of Obama than almost 8 years of Bush. April was the deadliest of the year.

This is all Obama has. I say let him enjoy it. He can give a speech Friday to coordinate with the next awful jobs report from an abandoned Best Buy.

Chuck Schick on May 1, 2012 at 4:10 PM

we lost more soldiers because we started taking the war seriously, and shipped more personnel there to launch an offensive? just a hunch.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Hope he has a giant photo of Bin Laden with his eyeball hanging out set up as a backdrop for the speech, just in case the very low-information voters watching at home are slow on the uptake about what they’re supposed to glean from this speech.

..ROTTING CARCASS OF THE BASTID STRAPPED TO GEEK COLUMNS AS A BACKDROP?

Why? It would only be marginally more obscene that this fool doing what he is already doing.

But you know what this really, really is, doncha boys and girls? It’s YET ANOTHER distraction.

The War Planner on May 1, 2012 at 4:19 PM

yes! there’s also a way not to land on an aircraft carrier adorned with a ‘mission accomplished’ banner while thousands of American kids are still going into their deaths or to get maimed, in a war he started needlessly.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Interesting. I always though the “Mission” being referred to on that banner was that of making libtards foam at the mouth.

Kataklysmic on May 1, 2012 at 4:19 PM

…but will he land on a carrier and give his speech in a flight suit?

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 3:51 PM

You do know that he changed into a suit to give the speach right?, Right????? Of course you did.

D-fusit on May 1, 2012 at 4:19 PM

I prefer the image of Obama in mom jeans trying to throw a baseball over home plate, and having the cameras positioned so we couldn’t see it fell short.

Wethal on May 1, 2012 at 4:18 PM

would you prefer him to be able to throw a strike or to hit the kill button we he needs to? difficult question, take a minute to answer.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Let’s be honest and admit he could have flown there in a helicopter. And/or, he could have changed out of the flight suit. Of course he wanted the optics of being in the flight suit. I don’t see anything really wrong with it, but let’s not pretend politics did not play a part in it.

Monkeytoe on May 1, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Monkeytoe – what are you doing be all rational and sensible about things?
That’s not gonna fly here.
It’s only ‘political’ or ‘offensive’ when Obama does this stuff – or thanks the troops, etc.
When Bush did the same thing…he was just a patriot loving his country…get it?
And when Romney – after all his wining about Obama bringing up the OBL mission – meets with Rudy G. at an NYC firehouse this week, why that won’t be political at all. Of course not.
I think the two of them planned all this long before Romney even thought about running for office. He’d be there regardless…I’m sure.

verbaluce on May 1, 2012 at 4:20 PM

But I assure you Bush’s team thought plenty about it – that shot, that angle, that backdrop…and they loved it and ran with it.

verbaluce on May 1, 2012 at 4:04 PM

And what might the Obama team be thinking at the moment ?

Jabberwock on May 1, 2012 at 4:20 PM

There is plenty of time to line up some Navy Seals for interviews, and absolutely no downside to this for Romney at all. He can just keep his mouth shut and let Barack bury himself in the cheap and sleazy Preezy self-congratulation. The Obama team has got a campaign crisis on its hands.

Rational Thought on May 1, 2012 at 4:18 PM

..in other words: Swiftboat the Bastid!

The War Planner on May 1, 2012 at 4:20 PM

yes! there’s also a way not to land on an aircraft carrier adorned with a ‘mission accomplished’ banner while thousands of American kids are still going into their deaths or to get maimed, in a war he started needlessly.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Ever read the 2002 Authorization to use force? It was signed by many many Democrats, including our current “Secretary of State” as well as the current Senior “Senator” from MA, who would love to take her place as SOS. And many of those Democrats have never apologized for their yea votes.

E-

Del Dolemonte on May 1, 2012 at 4:21 PM

we lost more soldiers because we started taking the war seriously, and shipped more personnel there to launch an offensive? just a hunch.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:18 PM

So we won?

Chuck Schick on May 1, 2012 at 4:21 PM

I was thinking they should be Russian ZiL limos, he can ask his buddy Vladimir for some.

Trafalgar on May 1, 2012 at 4:17 PM

I was thinking a nice Lada.

gravityman on May 1, 2012 at 4:21 PM

You do know that he changed into a suit to give the speach right?, Right????? Of course you did.

D-fusit on May 1, 2012 at 4:19 PM

well, that changes everything.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:21 PM

would you prefer him to be able to throw a strike or to hit the kill button we he needs to? difficult question, take a minute to answer.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:20 PM

He’s incapable of doing both.

Wethal on May 1, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Sure, the middle finger is great and all. But he wouldn’t be giving that middle finger if he weren’t up for re-election. Seriously, if he’d gotten bin Laden this time in 2009 or if Bush had gotten bin Laden as his last act in office, you think Obama would be doing this?

Waggoner on May 1, 2012 at 3:53 PM

If Obama got him in 2009, he would still be doing this today, because it would serve the same political purpose. If Bush had gotten bin Laden in 2003 and done something like this in 2004, Obama would certainly have been carping from the sidelines about the impropriety of spiking the football. Point being, I have no doubt that Obama is only doing this to boost his electoral chances, but I don’t care.

If the American President wants to go to the doorstep of those double-crossing rat b@stards in Pakistan, and celebrate how us infidels killed bin Laden deep inside their country, and brag about the success of our infidel Hellfire-armed drones that are stalking the skies of Pakistan with impunity, I’m all for it.

Lawdawg86 on May 1, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Declare War on Terror practically over — check.

Talk about “gutsy” bin Laden decision, over and over and and over again — check.

Declare victory in Afghanistan and announce troop withdrawals and follow up stratgic partnership — check.

Repeat it all on stage in televised prime time speech from Kabul — check.

Yeah, I think anyone with an IQ over 60 gets it. But it may not take more than an IQ of 75 to see through it all.

farsighted on May 1, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Seriously?

Guy has the biggest ego of anybody I have ever seen. I’ll give him that.

gophergirl on May 1, 2012 at 4:22 PM

would you prefer him to be able to throw a strike or to hit the kill button we he needs to? difficult question, take a minute to answer.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:20 PM

You’re reaching.

It’d be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.

Nah – who am I kidding, it’s damn funny.

CycloneCDB on May 1, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Del, tingles will be singing a different tune

All hail!

cmsinaz on May 1, 2012 at 4:23 PM

If the American President wants to go to the doorstep of those double-crossing rat b@stards in Pakistan, and celebrate how us infidels killed bin Laden deep inside their country, and brag about the success of our infidel Hellfire-armed drones that are stalking the skies of Pakistan with impunity, I’m all for it.

Lawdawg86 on May 1, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Sure, me too, but you know that ISNT what he’s doing.

And the last thing Obama will ever do is intentionally offend muslims.

wildcat72 on May 1, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Sleazy Preezy makin’ us queasy
Call to kill so d*mn easy
Campaign ad oh so cheesy

Bam’s heart… cold & breezy

LetsBfrank on May 1, 2012 at 4:23 PM

well, that changes everything.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:21 PM

No it only shows your talking point from Soro’s & Co. was wrong, numbnutz.

D-fusit on May 1, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Ever read the 2002 Authorization to use force? It was signed by many many Democrats, including our current “Secretary of State” as well as the current Senior “Senator” from MA, who would love to take her place as SOS. And many of those Democrats have never apologized for their yea votes.

Del Dolemonte on May 1, 2012 at 4:21 PM

remind me… who was the president at the time? you know, the one who deceived us with the yellowcake nonsense? the one who believed an informator named ‘curveball’? the one who told us with a straight face that saddam and aq were cooperating?

my question is, why did he let kerry and clinton launch the war?

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:24 PM

It’s all fine and good til AQ bombs another US embassy.

southsideironworks on May 1, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Chuck Schick on May 1, 2012 at 4:10 PM

we lost more soldiers because we started taking the war seriously, and shipped more personnel there to launch an offensive? just a hunch.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:18 PM

No, because O’bama and his team changed the rules of engagement in 2009.

But you knew that.

F-

Del Dolemonte on May 1, 2012 at 4:24 PM

we lost more soldiers because we started taking the war seriously, and shipped more personnel there to launch an offensive? just a hunch.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:18 PM

That could be some of it, of course there’s this:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2012/04/more-green-on-blue-murder-as-afghan-sf-soldier-kills-american-counterpart.html

Fighton03 on May 1, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Barry Hussein Soetoro is TOTALLY DESPERATE to keep his poll above Romney from day to day, from week to week that he’s going to throw everything he can at it SIX MONTHS OUT.

wildcat72 on May 1, 2012 at 4:07 PM

That’s because Benchwarmer Barry has never learned to come from behind.

He has always been handed a lead, given a pat on the back and a “don’t blow it for us, pal” admonition from the achievers.
On his high school basketball championship team, at Harvard, at Columbia, at Chicago, in the Illinois and US Senates.

It wasn’t his racial heritage that opened up the Presidency to all [male] Americans–it was the fact that he is the poster child for ineptitude and mediocrity. If Barry can become President, anyone–no, I mean anyone–can!!

rwenger43 on May 1, 2012 at 4:25 PM

No it only shows your talking point from Soro’s & Co. was wrong, numbnutz.

D-fusit on May 1, 2012 at 4:24 PM

soro is my friend, he’d never lie to me.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Yes to the question
No to the statement

Jabberwock on May 1, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Am I the only one besides AllahP who has absolutely no problem with Obama rubbing it in the faces al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Pakistani ISI, live from Afghanistan??? Sure its a campaign event aimed at a domestic audience. But it is also a prime-time middle finger to those terrorist, Islamist goat-****ers who attacked our country ten years ago.

Lawdawg86 on May 1, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Jabberwock:
Thank you for the answer to the above!!!

tomshup on May 1, 2012 at 4:26 PM

..in other words: Swiftboat the Bastid!

The War Planner on May 1, 2012 at 4:20 PM

You do know that term is now understood as meaning to denigrate someone through false stories…right?
I won’t be surprised if you don’t.

verbaluce on May 1, 2012 at 4:26 PM

i like that image, sitting in his office in his mom jeans, hitting the kill button again and again..

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:13 PM

I’m sure you stroke yourself fast & furiously to that very image. Did Code Pink make you turn in your outfit?

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/code-pink-sweetie.jpg

HumpBot Salvation on May 1, 2012 at 4:26 PM

i like that image, sitting in his office in his mom jeans, hitting the kill button again and again..

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Schadenfreude on May 1, 2012 at 4:26 PM

I knew liberals who were convinced in 2004 that Bush had Bin Laden stashed away someplace and was going to announce his capture a week before the November elections.

Right Mover on May 1, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Break out the Greek columns, dust them off and put up the hopeandchanage sign in neon.

On the news front: The Obomwa economy still sucks, housing is in the tank, record foreclosures, record food stamp use, record deficits, record debt, 2 million jobs lost, payoffs to donators, payola for pay, crony capitalism, deals on nuclear missiles, Arab spring catastrophies, Iran bomb, middle east turmoil, tension generated by Obowma class warefare……..

Obowma is a scumbag.

dthorny on May 1, 2012 at 4:26 PM

This makes me want to throw up.

He was taking serious heat from the SEALs for exploiting them so what does he do—hauls a** to Afghanistan to exploit those troops.

Will he be speaking tonight in front of our soldiers for a nice photo-op while he brags about getting OBL.

Maybe another photo of him saluting like the one at the ceremony for all those SEALs shot down in Afghanistan.
After families said no pictures Obama did it anyway.
I don’t know how the military can possibly respect this president.

I’m praying that the world will see Obama for who he truly is–a self-serving little man without an ounce of integrity or honor.

bailey24 on May 1, 2012 at 4:26 PM

remind me… who was the president at the time? you know, the one who deceived us with the yellowcake nonsense? the one who believed an informator named ‘curveball’? the one who told us with a straight face that saddam and aq were cooperating?

my question is, why did he let kerry and clinton launch the war?

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:24 PM

2 separate bi-partisan Senate committees cleared the administration of lying or manipulating intelligence. But you knew that.

Chuck Schick on May 1, 2012 at 4:27 PM

verbaluce on May 1, 2012 at 4:20 PM

You seem to have this strange idea that every conservative/Republican loves Bush. I can assure you, that is not the case.

Does every liberal/Dem love Obama? I’m betting not (even if you couldn’t tell from the way the media treats him).

You know, a little intelectual honesty would be nice from both sides of the political aisle. But, the nation has become so damn polarized that no one seems to be able to have a shred of honesty when it comes to politics.

gravityman on May 1, 2012 at 4:27 PM

I knew liberals who were convinced in 2004 that Bush had Bin Laden stashed away someplace and was going to announce his capture a week before the November elections.

Right Mover on May 1, 2012 at 4:26 PM

IIRC, senile Walter Cronkite said as much.

Wethal on May 1, 2012 at 4:29 PM

verbaluce on May 1, 2012 at 4:20 PM

I meant to follow up by asking…

Can you not admit that maybe the left was a bit Bush-crazy during his presidency, and would find any tiny thing to shred him on, right down to the color of his underwear?

And I will grant, the right does it now with Obama.

gravityman on May 1, 2012 at 4:29 PM

would you prefer him to be able to throw a strike or to hit the kill button we he needs to? difficult question, take a minute to answer.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:20 PM

He can’t do both?

Bush could.

Democrats didn’t want him throwing the kill switch, though. Fought him every step of the way.

Remember?

Good Lt on May 1, 2012 at 4:29 PM

No, because O’bama and his team changed the rules of engagement in 2009.

Del Dolemonte on May 1, 2012 at 4:24 PM

that has to be it! because pops says so! definitely not because we have more soldiers over there and engage the enemy more often.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:29 PM

All you need to know about Obowma and his support of the troops, The last part you wonder if he believes in them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C61mSTJDjU

dthorny on May 1, 2012 at 4:30 PM

We all know why he’s there and why he chose today to visit.

Scoping out future vacation spots for Michelle?

TN Mom on May 1, 2012 at 4:30 PM

He can’t do both?
Bush could.

Good Lt on May 1, 2012 at 4:29 PM

tora bora.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Monkeytoe – what are you doing be all rational and sensible about things?
That’s not gonna fly here.
It’s only ‘political’ or ‘offensive’ when Obama does this stuff – or thanks the troops, etc.
When Bush did the same thing…he was just a patriot loving his country…get it?
And when Romney – after all his wining about Obama bringing up the OBL mission – meets with Rudy G. at an NYC firehouse this week, why that won’t be political at all. Of course not.
I think the two of them planned all this long before Romney even thought about running for office. He’d be there regardless…I’m sure.

verbaluce on May 1, 2012 at 4:20 PM

As far as being rational – I can admit that often our side does the same thing we condemn the other side for doing. It goes with the game. I have never had a liberal admit the same to me. For instance – what happened to all of the war protestors once Obama was elected? I guess they really weren’t so much against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as against the idea of a republican president. Same with drone strikes. Same with GITMO (that place closed down yet?). Same with renditions (they continue under Obama). Same with almost every aspect of Bush’s war on terror that Obama simply keeps doing.

So, both sides will attack the other for political gain on things that they let slide when their own side does it. Why does it bother you now when the same tactics used for 8 years against Bush are being used against Obama?

Yes, every president (or politician) wants photo ops and wants to use successes (whether they truly deserve credit or just happened to sit in the chair when the success occurred – a la OBL). That’s the nature of politics. But, with all that said, there are differences in context, scale and approach. Obama is handling this poorly thus far. there are ways to claim credit for the success of the OBL raid without being unseemly or seeming to try and take too much credit for something you merely “ok’d”.

But, we are both going to see these things through our partisan glasses. I just try not to be blind to the reality that the partisan glasses color.

Monkeytoe on May 1, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Is Letterman doing his show from Afghanistan? ‘Cause that be a two-fer for President Limelight.

LetsBfrank on May 1, 2012 at 4:31 PM

You seem to have this strange idea that every conservative/Republican loves Bush. I can assure you, that is not the case.
gravityman on May 1, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Via my conservative Republican dad –
I am under no such illusion.

verbaluce on May 1, 2012 at 4:31 PM

You do know that term is now understood as meaning to denigrate someone through false stories…right?
I won’t be surprised if you don’t.

verbaluce on May 1, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Oh, bullshit, lefty. It means the people whose coattails you are trying to ride to victory come out and tell the truth about what a lying, impotent, cowardly bastard you are.

YOU can try to define things the way YOU want them defined, but that won’t make your definition any truer than it made it when John Kerry was LYING about his military service and got busted for it.

Rational Thought on May 1, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Desperation shows when “you’ve got nuttin’”

ProfShadow on May 1, 2012 at 4:32 PM

How much is the fine for inappropriate celebration?

One term.

Jim Treacher on May 1, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Del Dolemonte on May 1, 2012 at 4:21 PM

remind me… who was the president at the time? you know, the one who deceived us with the yellowcake nonsense? the one who believed an informator named ‘curveball’? the one who told us with a straight face that saddam and aq were cooperating?

my question is, why did he let kerry and clinton launch the war?

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Translated: “I can’t credibly respond to Del’s facts so will try to change the subject.”

Bush wasn’t the first one to link bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Democrat pResident Bill Clinton did that in 1998. Read the DOJ indictment.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

- V-

USAMA BIN LADEN,

a/k/a “Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Laden,”

a/k/a “Shaykh Usamah Bin-Laden,”

a/k/a “Mujahid Shaykh,”

a/k/a “Abu Abdallah,”

a/k/a “Qa Qa,”

Defendant

-snip-

4. Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in
the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.

In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

And let’s not forget that in 2003, a Federal Judge in that very same US Court in Manhattan ruled, based on the evidence presented at a trial by 9/11 family members, that Iraq was in fact involved in the 9/11 attacks. That Federal Judge, Harold Baer, was appointed by Bill Clinton.

It’s fun to watch you flail madly.

A+

Del Dolemonte on May 1, 2012 at 4:32 PM

You know, a little intelectual honesty would be nice from both sides of the political aisle. But, the nation has become so damn polarized that no one seems to be able to have a shred of honesty when it comes to politics.

gravityman on May 1, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Dude? Intellectual? Honesty? Liberals/Democrats are capable of neither.

It’s a nice thought…but you’d be better served teaching pigs to ride unicycles.

HumpBot Salvation on May 1, 2012 at 4:32 PM

tora bora.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Clinton. Somalia. Too busy getting BJs from Democratic feminist icon Monica Lewinsky to take bin Laden when offered.

Linda Tripp should get a medal for telling Monica not to dry clean the navy GAP dress.

Wethal on May 1, 2012 at 4:33 PM

soro is my friend, he’d never lie to me.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Soros bought $62 million worth of Halliburton 5 years ago.

You must be so proud of him.

Del Dolemonte on May 1, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Hope he has a giant photo of Bin Laden with his eyeball hanging out set up as a backdrop for the speech, just in case the very low-information voters watching at home are slow on the uptake about what they’re supposed to glean from this speech.

Oh that there was hilarious. Here’s another funny from the NY Post after they snuffed the story saying he was over there

The White House informed the Post today the report on its website that President Obama was in Kabul was not accurate and that, in publishing it, the paper was endangering the President’s life. With due respect to the White House and out of an abundance of caution, the Post removed the story from its website. We are impressed the White House believes the Taliban, while hiding in caves and dodging American drones, are, like millions of others, avid readers of nypost.com.

scalleywag on May 1, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Barry gets his moment in the sun today and for a few days following this. But the election is six months away. I’m thinking that the I-killed-Osama meme as his primary accomplishment just isn’t going to matter much come November.

Bitter Clinger on May 1, 2012 at 4:34 PM

yes! there’s also a way not to land on an aircraft carrier adorned with a ‘mission accomplished’ banner while thousands of American kids are still going into their deaths or to get maimed, in a war he started needlessly.

You do know that the “Mission Accomplished” banner was for the aircraft carrier group returning home from a successful deployment, and not for the President. For the men and women on the carrier returning home after months at sea, their mission WAS accomplished.

tdarrington on May 1, 2012 at 4:34 PM

I wonder how many Afghan soldiers there are in his security detail??…

PatriotRider on May 1, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Rational Thought on May 1, 2012 at 4:31 PM

The word swiftboating is an American neologism used pejoratively to describe an unfair or untrue political attack. The term is derived from the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth (formerly “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,” or SBVT) widely publicized,then discredited, campaign against 2004 US Presidential candidate John Kerry

verbaluce on May 1, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Sorry I’m late. Our daughter’s employer shut down and I was helping her move back into our basement after she lost her house.
 
What did I miss?
 
/

rogerb on May 1, 2012 at 4:35 PM

And I will grant, the right does it now with Obama.

gravityman on May 1, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Not true. The right uses Obowma’s own words against him. Obowma believes what he says and is not shy about it. The liberal media fails to report Obowma’s gaffs which is frustrating as Bush said nu-cu-lar and the media went apes_*t over that. Obowma says 57 states,he wants to redistribute your wealth, corpsmen and Austrian language spoken in Austria and not one report except for Fox News.

dthorny on May 1, 2012 at 4:35 PM

I wonder if everyone present at his speech will have their shoes taken away…???…

PatriotRider on May 1, 2012 at 4:35 PM

in other words: Swiftboat the Bastid!

The War Planner on May 1, 2012 at 4:20 PM

You do know that term is now understood as meaning to denigrate someone through false stories…right?

I won’t be surprised if you don’t.

Jean F. Kerri on May 1, 2012 at 4:26 PM

LOL, don’t believe what wiki tells you, Mama T.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating

Was Senator Thurston Howell the Third able to refute any of the facts lobbed at him by the Swifties? Nope.

F-

Del Dolemonte on May 1, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Ever read the 2002 Authorization to use force? It was signed by many many Democrats, including our current “Secretary of State” as well as the current Senior “Senator” from MA, who would love to take her place as SOS. And many of those Democrats have never apologized for their yea votes.

Del Dolemonte on May 1, 2012 at 4:21 PM

remind me… who was the president at the time? you know, the one who deceived us with the yellowcake nonsense? the one who believed an informator named ‘curveball’? the one who told us with a straight face that saddam and aq were cooperating?

my question is, why did he let kerry and clinton launch the war?

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:24 PM

that’s just silly. All of the dems who signed on to the 2002 Authorization were privy to the same intel as Bush was. Your claims about bush lying us into war are silly and untrue. You can argue that his analysis/interpretation of the intel was wrong and he made a bad decision, but not that he lied. Otherwise, you have to claim that all of the dems who signed off on the authorization also lied – including Hillary.

I know that doesn’t fit your narrative, where republican presidents are evil and do everything to try and create unjust wars and steal from the old, but your narrative is not based in reality.

Monkeytoe on May 1, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Flash: Obama to announce a new statue to be built in his honor for this glorious occasion.

faraway on May 1, 2012 at 4:37 PM

2 separate bi-partisan Senate committees cleared the administration of lying or manipulating intelligence. But you knew that.

Chuck Schick on May 1, 2012 at 4:27 PM

he started a catastrophic war based on false pretenses – the yellowcake story was utterly bogus and contemporaneously questioned by analysts, the infamous aluminum tubes, he trusted that huckster chalabi etc., etc., etc. – but i’m relieved to know that the most despised institution in America cleared him of malice, pronouncing him merely idiotic instead.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Turd in Chief

Schadenfreude on May 1, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Sorry I’m late. Our daughter’s employer shut down and I was helping her move back into our basement after she lost her house.

What did I miss?

/

rogerb on May 1, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Obowma claiming for 3 1/2 years of “it was Bush’s fault”

dthorny on May 1, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Did he bring along Sandra Fluke to talk about the GOP’s “war on women”?

Wethal on May 1, 2012 at 4:39 PM

What did I miss?

/

rogerb on May 1, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Good times. It takes a village, you know.

faraway on May 1, 2012 at 4:39 PM

The word swiftboating is an American neologism used pejoratively to describe an unfair or untrue political attack. The term is derived from the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth (formerly “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,” or SBVT) widely publicized,then discredited, campaign against 2004 US Presidential candidate John Kerry

verbaluce on May 1, 2012 at 4:34 PM

So says Wikipedia — on a page probably edited by John Kerry’s staff? Give me a break. That response is an impotent as John Kerry’s war record is.

Rational Thought on May 1, 2012 at 4:39 PM

No, because O’bama and his team changed the rules of engagement in 2009.

Del Dolemonte on May 1, 2012 at 4:24 PM

that has to be it! because pops says so! definitely not because we have more soldiers over there and engage the enemy more often.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:29 PM

from al-AP, 2009:

The U.S. commander in Afghanistan will soon order U.S. and NATO forces to break away from fights with militants hiding among villagers, an official said Monday, announcing one of the strongest measures yet to protect Afghan civilians.

The most contentious civilian casualty cases in recent years occurred during battles in Afghan villages when U.S. airstrikes aimed at militants also killed civilians. American commanders say such deaths hurt their mission because they turn average Afghans against the government and international forces …

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who took command of international forces in Afghanistan this month, has said his measure of effectiveness will be the “number of Afghans shielded from violence” — not the number of militants killed.

McChrystal will issue orders within days saying troops may attack insurgents hiding in Afghan houses if U.S. or NATO forces are in imminent danger, said U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Greg Smith.

“But if there is a compound they’re taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that’s the option they should take,” Smith said. “Because in these compounds we know there are often civilians kept captive by the Taliban.”

But you knew that.

Keep flailing!

Del Dolemonte on May 1, 2012 at 4:40 PM

scalleywag on May 1, 2012 at 4:33 PM

The White House telling the press [The Post] to kill the story did nothing more than affirm that Obama was wheels up. So, the White House is the entity that placed the President in “danger.” Not Drudge, nor the New York Post.

A competent Administration would have said nothing at all. Let the rumors fly. But not ham-handedly confirm the rumor.

coldwarrior on May 1, 2012 at 4:40 PM

All of the dems who signed on to the 2002 Authorization were privy to the same intel as Bush was.

intelligence that was faulty and some in the admin were aware of that.

Your claims about bush lying us into war are silly and untrue. You can argue that his analysis/interpretation of the intel was wrong and he made a bad decision, but not that he lied.

Monkeytoe on May 1, 2012 at 4:36 PM

i’m happy to discuss whether bush was evil or just stupid. i’m on the fence still, but more inclined to think that he was an easily manipulable idiot.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:40 PM

How much is the fine for inappropriate celebration?

One term.

Jim Treacher on May 1, 2012 at 4:32 PM

“There’s a term for President Obama. Not two terms.” – Kimmel.

p.s. congratulations on making the dog-eater ‘legendary’…if only PETA wouldn’t be such hypocrits.

Schadenfreude on May 1, 2012 at 4:41 PM

This is way, way over the top.

SC.Charlie on May 1, 2012 at 4:41 PM

All I want to know is if the damned speech is going to interfere with NCIS?? Come on man. Make it snappy

bluealice on May 1, 2012 at 4:41 PM

he started a catastrophic war based on false pretenses – the yellowcake story was utterly bogus and contemporaneously questioned by analysts, the infamous aluminum tubes, he trusted that huckster chalabi etc., etc., etc. – but i’m relieved to know that the most despised institution in America cleared him of malice, pronouncing him merely idiotic instead.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Still no evidence that they intentionally manipulated intelligence or lied to the American people.

But again, you knew that.

Chuck Schick on May 1, 2012 at 4:41 PM

…it’s a circus…and JugEars is a clown!
.
.
.
…it’s the ECONOMY stupid…!!!

KOOLAID2 on May 1, 2012 at 4:42 PM

widely publicized,then discredited, campaign against 2004 US Presidential candidate John Kerry

verbaluce on May 1, 2012 at 4:34 PM

I hear leftist claim that the Swiftboat claims were discredited, but have never seen any actual discrediting of their claims. there were a lot of people there who claim things went one way – and then there are a few people who claim that things went another way.

How can a he said / she said situation, where there is no physical evidence or other “objective” evidence to rely on, end in one side being declared “correct”? If we were going to declare one side correct, wouldn’t it be the side with the most witnesses? Which was the swift boat veterans for truth.

It is one of those things that nobody but the people that were there no the truth about. And 1/2 or more of the people who were there dispute Kerry’s account.

Regardless, Kerry brought that on himself by portraying himself as a war hero. If he did not go so overboard with the whole “I’m a war hero, vote for me” then the counter argument by those who served with him would not have been so effective.

Monkeytoe on May 1, 2012 at 4:42 PM

easily manipulable idiot.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Even assuming this, Obama is just a destructive narcissistic idiot.

Schadenfreude on May 1, 2012 at 4:42 PM

I hate to admit this. I have 2 daughters and they are both liberals and voted for Obama. Worse they are going to vote for him again.

I’m so ashamed.

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Can I be completely honest? I am so freakin’ happy we don’t have a TV so I don’t even have a chance of even possibly catching a second or two of this speech tonight while flipping through channels.

Thank God for huge blessings.

Sinatra_98 on May 1, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Obama is just a destructive narcissistic idiot.

Schadenfreude on May 1, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Rational Thought on May 1, 2012 at 4:31 PM

The word swiftboating is an American neologism used pejoratively to describe an unfair or untrue political attack. The term is derived from the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth (formerly “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,” or SBVT) widely publicized,then discredited, campaign against 2004 US Presidential candidate John Kerry

Teresa Heinz Kerry on May 1, 2012 at 4:34 PM

You fell for my trap. In this case, wiki is not your friend.

Which charges by the Swifties were “discredited”? None.

Del Dolemonte on May 1, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Del Dolemonte on May 1, 2012 at 4:40 PM

i was expecting evidence linking US deaths to changes in the roe, but all i see is a report on mcchrystal implementing a version of petraeus’s iraq surge, the main objective of which was to protect civilians.

you gotta have more, surely.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:44 PM

intelligence that was faulty and some in the admin were aware of that.

Who? Name names.

Good Lt on May 1, 2012 at 4:44 PM

i’m on the fence still, but more inclined to think that he was an easily manipulable idiot.
 
sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:40 PM

 

you know, the one who deceived us with the yellowcake nonsense?
 
sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:24 PM

 
There’s a joke in there if you’ll look for it.

rogerb on May 1, 2012 at 4:45 PM

intelligence that was faulty and some in the admin were aware of that.

Your claims about bush lying us into war are silly and untrue. You can argue that his analysis/interpretation of the intel was wrong and he made a bad decision, but not that he lied.

Monkeytoe on May 1, 2012 at 4:36 PM

i’m happy to discuss whether bush was evil or just stupid. i’m on the fence still, but more inclined to think that he was an easily manipulable idiot.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Yes we should discuss whether it was stupid to rely on anything prepared by the clinton administration.

Fighton03 on May 1, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Why is Obama in Afghanistan?

“Part of my job is to scout out where I may want to bring Michelle back later for vacation.”

Fallon on May 1, 2012 at 4:46 PM

I hate to admit this. I have 2 daughters and they are both liberals and voted for Obama. Worse they are going to vote for him again.

I’m so ashamed.

gerrym51 on May 1, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Gerry, you need to lock them in a closet on 11/6. Someday they’ll thank you for it.

Kataklysmic on May 1, 2012 at 4:46 PM

my question is, why did he let kerry and clinton launch the war?

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:24 PM

At the time, Mrs. Clinton stated that her “yea” vote was based not on what Bush’s intel people told her, but instead based on what her husband’s intel people told her.

You know, the same bunch who gave Chimpy Bush 9/11 as a welcome gift? bin Laden himself said those attacks were supposed to happen on Clenis’ watch, but Mohammed Atta told him they needed more time to train.

Del Dolemonte on May 1, 2012 at 4:46 PM

rogerb on May 1, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Well played.

coldwarrior on May 1, 2012 at 4:46 PM

intelligence that was faulty and some in the admin were aware of that.

Your claims about bush lying us into war are silly and untrue. You can argue that his analysis/interpretation of the intel was wrong and he made a bad decision, but not that he lied.

Monkeytoe on May 1, 2012 at 4:36 PM

i’m happy to discuss whether bush was evil or just stupid. i’m on the fence still, but more inclined to think that he was an easily manipulable idiot.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Not worth discussing with you. You are to far gone down the rabbit whole of conspiracy theories and believing everything lefty blogs tell you.

I’m glad to know that you know that admin officials knew that intelligence was bad. I’ll accept your say-so on that and move on.

It’s obvious you believe all this. too bad none of it is true. but you can keep fighting the 04 election while your idiot – Obama – the most dishonest, incompetent, ignorant person to be president in at least 100 years – loses the ’12 election. That’s fine with me.

Monkeytoe on May 1, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Which charges by the Swifties were “discredited”? None.

Del Dolemonte on May 1, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Dan Rather, of yesterday, still claimed that CBS did him wrong, he was right, even though he spent 5 million+ defending himself, lost and etc…

Schadenfreude on May 1, 2012 at 4:47 PM

There’s a joke in there if you’ll look for it.

rogerb on May 1, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Hey..I found it!

sesquipedalian

Fighton03 on May 1, 2012 at 4:47 PM

i was expecting evidence linking US deaths to changes in the roe, but all i see is a report on mcchrystal implementing a version of petraeus’s iraq surge, the main objective of which was to protect civilians.

you gotta have more, surely.

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2012 at 4:44 PM

You realize more troops have died in Afghanistan on Obama’s watch of 3.5 years than on Bush’s 8, right?

Has Obama won yet?

Good Lt on May 1, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5