The American Kafir

2012/05/01

SEALs slam Obama for using them as ‘ammunition’ in bid to take credit for bin Laden killing during election campaign

This is an interesting dilemma, first and foremost Obama did not take out Osama bin Laden, the brave men of the Navy SEALs did, also an internet article on The Ulsterman Report states that a longtime Washington D.C. Insider outlined shocking details of an Obama administration having been “overruled” by senior military and intelligence officials leading up to the successful attack against terrorist Osama Bin Laden, this is very believable considering Obama would have the best of two worlds, if something went wrong he could deny it and blame rouge individuals did it, and of course as we can see if it was successful he could take the credit. W

Source Link Mail Online

SEALs slam Obama for using them as ‘ammunition’ in bid to take credit for bin Laden killing during election campaign

By Toby Harnden

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.

Scroll down to the bottom for video

Taking credit: President Obama has used bin Laden's death as a campaign tool

Taking credit: President Obama has used bin Laden’s death as a campaign tool

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.’

Ryan Zinke, a former Commander in the US Navy who spent 23 years as a SEAL and led a SEAL Team 6 assault unit, said: ‘The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call.

‘I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice – it was a broader team effort.’

Mr Zinke, who is now a Republican state senator in Montana, added that MR Obama was exploiting bin Laden’s death for his re-election bid. ‘The President and his administration are positioning him as a war president using the SEALs as ammunition. It was predictable.’

Target: Bin Laden, pictured in his compound in Pakistan, was killed a year ago

Target: Bin Laden, pictured in his compound in Pakistan, was killed a year ago

Mission: Senior figures gathered to watch Navy SEALs invade the compound

Mission: Senior figures gathered to watch Navy SEALs invade the compound

Mr Obama has faced criticism even from allies about his decision to make a campaign ad about the bin Laden raid. Arianna Huffington, an outspoken liberal who runs the left-leaning Huffington Post website, roundly condemned it.

She told CBS: ‘We should celebrate the fact that they did such a great job. It’s one thing to have an NBC special from the Situation Room… all that to me is perfectly legitimate, but to turn it into a campaign ad is one of the most despicable things you can do.’

Campaigning in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Mr Romney responded to a shouted question by a reporter by saying: ‘Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.’

A serving SEAL Team member said: ‘Obama wasn’t in the field, at risk, carrying a gun. As president, at every turn he should be thanking the guys who put their lives on the line to do this. He does so in his official speeches because he speechwriters are smart.

‘But the more he tries to take the credit for it, the more the ground operators are saying, “Come on, man!” It really didn’t matter who was president. At the end of the day, they were going to go.’

Chris Kyle, a former SEAL sniper with 160 confirmed and another 95 unconfirmed kills to his credit, said: ‘The operation itself was great and the nation felt immense pride. It was great that we did it.

‘But bin Laden was just a figurehead. The war on terror continues. Taking him out didn’t really change anything as far as the war on terror is concerned and using it as a political attack is a cheap shot.

‘In years to come there is going to be information that will come out that Obama was not the man who made the call. He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn’t allowed to speak out against the commander- in-chief so his secret is safe.’

Rival: Mr Obama has questioned whether Mitt Romney would have done the same

Rival: Mr Obama has questioned whether Mitt Romney would have done the same

Senior military figures have said that Admiral William McRaven, a former SEAL who was then head of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) made the decision to take bin Laden out. Tactical decisions were delegated even further down the chain of command.

Mr Kyle added: ‘He’s trying to say that Romney wouldn’t have made the same call? Anyone who is patriotic to this country would have made that exact call, Democrat or Republican. Obama is taking more credit than he is due but it’s going to get him some pretty good mileage.’

Read the entire article at Mail Online

Watch the ad

Advertisements

2012/03/14

Wake Up, Panetta: UN, U.S. Have Opposing Interests

Source Article Link: PJ Media

Written By Ion Mihai Pacepa

On March 5, 2012, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated in the U.S. Congress that the United Nations and NATO have supreme authority over the actions of the United States military. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) reacted to Secretary Panetta’s statement, saying:

I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat. … The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president, and the law, and the Constitution.[i]

I paid with two death sentences for the privilege of becoming an American, I deeply love my adoptive country, and I highly esteem her leaders. But, with all due respect for Secretary Panetta, I have to say that his view reminds me of Ceausescu, who used to state over, and over, and over:

I wrote the Constitution! I will re-write it.

In 1988 when I became an American citizen, I ended the few words I said as a sign of my gratitude with the last paragraph of William Tyler Page’s creed:

It is my duty to my Country to love it; to support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.

I also have good reason to believe that the UN is not interested in defending the United States. In my other life, when I was one of the top members of the Soviet bloc espionage community, one of our main assignments was to turn the UN against the United States. We in the Soviet bloc poured millions of dollars and thousands of people into that gigantic project. Virtually all UN employees and representatives from the communist countries — comprising a third of the world’s population — and from our Arab allies were secretly working for our espionage services. Our strategy was to convert the centuries-old European and Islamic animosity toward the Jews into a rabid and violent hatred for the United States by portraying it as a country run by a rapacious “Council of the Elders of Zion” (the Kremlin’s epithet for the U.S. Congress), which allegedly wanted to transform the rest of the world into a Jewish fiefdom.

Unfortunately, we succeeded. In 2003, the UN expelled the U.S. from the Commission on Human Rights by the overwhelming vote of 33 to 3, and it appointed the tyrannical government of Libya to chair that body. A year later, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan decided to secretly make the UN even more anti-American.

On December 2, 2004, Annan endorsed the 101 proposals of the “High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change,” commissioned by him to build a UN “for the twenty-first century.”[ii] The panel recommended that the U.S. be further isolated by establishing the rule that only the UN could authorize preemptive wars against terrorism or any other threats. For that, the panel concluded that the UN’s bureaucracy should be significantly increased (by creating a ”peace-building commission”), its efficiency significantly decreased (by greatly expanding the already inefficient Security Council), and the treasuries of its member countries additionally raided by having them “donate” to the UN an additional 0.7% of their GNP to fight poverty. (On December 7, 2007, Senator Obama introduced into the U.S. Senate the Global Poverty Act of 2007, demanding that 0.7% of the U.S. gross national product, totaling $845 billion over the next 13 years, be spent to fight “global poverty.”[iii])

It is hard to believe, but true, that some of the authors of these proposals for “reforming” the UN were the same communist spies who had originally worked to subvert the UN. One eminent member of Kofi Annan’s blue-ribbon panel was the nouveau riche Yevgeny Primakov, a former KGB general and Soviet intelligence adviser to Saddam Hussein who rose to head Russia’s espionage service for a time — and to sing opera ditties with U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright while secretly running the infamous Aldrich Ames spy case behind her back. Another prominent member was Qian Qichen, a former Red China intelligence officer who worked under diplomatic cover abroad, belonged to the Central Committee of the Communist Party when it ordered the bloody Tiananmen Square repression in 1989, rose afterward to the Politburo, and in 1998 became vice-chairman of China’s State Council. And then there was Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League (another KGB puppet), who stated that he missed “the balance of power provided by the Soviet Union.”

Kofi Annan had a point. The three were professional saviors. Let me exemplify with Primakov, whom I know best. After the Soviet Union collapsed, he saved its espionage service, the PGU[iv], from going into oblivion. Primakov broke it off from its mother organization, the KGB, rechristened it with the American-sounding name of Central Intelligence Service (Tsentralnaya Sluzhba Razvedki, or TsSR), and pretended it was a new democratic institution. That saved Primakov’s skin as well. Five years later, he replaced Russia’s pro-Western foreign minister Andrey Kozyrev. In 1998, Primakov became prime minister. He reintroduced Soviet Communists into the government and decided to transform Russia into a “managed democracy” whose institutions were to become “representative of the state: loyal, obedient, and indebted to those who have chosen them.” Primakov even invented a word for his democracy: dogovorosposoniye, meaning, roughly, “deal-cutting.”[v]

Primakov is an old enemy of the U.S. His espionage service — like my former one — used to spend every single day thinking up new ways to portray the American land of freedom as an “imperial Zionist country” that intended to convert the Islamic world into a Jewish colony. His first major victory was UN Resolution No. 3379 of 1975, which declared Zionism “a form of racism and racial discrimination.” Officially presented as an Arab initiative, that projected resolution had in fact been drafted in Moscow under the supervision of Primakov, turned into the KGB’s main Arabist. The resolution was openly supported by the Arab League and the PLO, two organizations on our payroll. My DIE was deeply involved in Primakov’s UN operation.

Continue Reading The Entire Article At PJ Media

Lt. Gen (r) Ion Mihai Pacepa is the highest-ranking official ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc. He is currently writing a book on disinformation together with Prof. Ronald Rychlak.

2011/10/04

Panetta’s Pointless Warning to Israel

Filed under: Fatah, Hamas, Israel, Obama, Palestine, Panetta — - @ 5:23 pm

Source Article Link: Commentary Magazine

Panetta’s Pointless Warning to Israel

By Jonathan S. Tobin

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned Israel yesterday that its increasing isolation in the region means it must take “risks for peace.” This shot fired over the bow of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was made in comments to reporters traveling with Panetta, who is on his first trip to the Jewish state since assuming the leadership of the Pentagon.

But it is not likely to make much of an impression with the Israeli people for the simple reason that, unlike either the Obama administration and the international press corps, they understand Israel has been taking risks for peace for 18 years. Panetta’s statement, like so much of the rhetoric that has come out of the administration, seems to reflect a mindset that treats the events of the last 18 years as meaningless. After the Oslo Accords, the peace offers that both Yasir Arafat​ and Mahmoud Abbas rejected and the withdrawal from Gaza that turned that area into a terrorist state, how can any American speak as if Israel has stood pat all this time rather than, as the historical record proves, taken terrible risks for which it has gotten little reward?

The Panetta visit is meant to reassure the Israelis who are understandably worried about the way in which the Arab Spring has led to more hate for the Jewish state rather than democracy for the Arabs. It is an unfortunate fact that there is nothing Israel can do to repair relations with countries like Turkey and Egypt, whose governments are whipping up antagonism for reasons that have little to do with the policies of the Netanyahu government. As dangerous as this is, it is the helplessness of the United States in the face of these trends that is most troubling.

President Obama came into office hoping to curry favor with the Arab and Muslim world by distancing the United States from Israel. While that policy shift helped fuel Palestinian intransigence and doomed the already slim hopes for Middle East peace, it did nothing to make America loved. But as the situation in the region deteriorates, Obama still has no answers other than to blame Israel and to demand it take “risks.”

While it is to be hoped Panetta will reaffirm the U.S. security cooperation with Israel that has survived Obama’s predilection for picking fights with Netanyahu, there is reason to worry the administration is looking to set the stage for a new round of pressure on the prime minister. Despite the pledges that the United States will work to preserve Israel’s military edge over its hostile neighbors, the timing of the visit may mean Washington is looking to demand payment for its veto of Palestinian independence at the United Nations.

But even if Netanyahu were to make the concessions on settlements and Jerusalem that Obama wants, there is little reason to believe the Palestinian Authority is interested in signing any peace deal. Rather than muscling Israel, the administration needs to make it clear to the Palestinian Authority, whom Panetta is said to be hoping to “re-engage,” that they cannot continue to be the beneficiaries of American largesse while at the same time doing everything in their power to torpedo the peace process.

Weakening Israel or creating the impression the United States is seeking to undermine its government only makes it less likely the Palestinians and other nations in the region will work for peace. By arriving in the region demanding Israel take “risks” they have already undertaken, rather than making it clear to the PA they will get nothing from their refusal to talk, Panetta has only ensured the standoff will continue.