Osama Bin Laden News

Our Afghan Strategy

10:39 am EST June 23rd, 2011 | National Security, Terrorism | 17 Comments

I happen to agree with President Obama, though I understand the position of liberals who think we should accelerate leaving Afghanistan. The biggest problem with Afghanistan is that when it became difficult to get Bin Laden, Bush decided our mission in the country was about sending Afghan girls to school.

The problem is, that is not our mission. I’d like Afghan girls to go to school, but the first priority should have been the destruction of Al Qaeda. With the troop surge under President Obama, we’re a lot closer to achieving that goal – in addition to killing Bin Laden.

Afghanistan wasn’t a war of choice. They harbored the terrorist organization that attacked us. President Bush fumbled that conflict, badly, and many Americans died as a result while Bin Laden still lived to taunt us. That has changed, and we’re doing the right thing.

Topic: , , ,

 

“Due Process” For Nazis? David Sirota Hits A New Low.

10:34 am EST May 13th, 2011 | History, National Security, Terrorism | 20 Comments

David SirotaDavid Sirota is one of the drivers of the clown car on the progressive side. His arguments are generally weak, stupid, and unpersuasive. Today his argument – in the course of joining Glenn Greenwald and wailing about the time Barack Obama gave the order to shoot the world’s most wanted terrorist in the face – is that Nazis were subject to due process in World War II:

Why were the Nazis entitled to due process, but accused terrorists aren’t? Nazis killed millions of innocents and were convicted at the much-celebrated Nuremberg trials. Yet, many insist bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders must be executed or detained without a similar trial because a courtroom drama would supposedly generate a circus (this, as if Nuremberg were some low-key affair).

As roadkillrefugee notes on Twitter: “Remember D-Day, when the Allies landed at Normandy with 1000′s of process servers to issue arrest warrants to the Nazi troops?”

This is embarassing. I didn’t sleep through history class, so I know that the Nuremberg Trials came after we defeated the Nazis in the biggest war ever fought in human history. The most egregious charge – crimes against humanity – didn’t even really exist before the war was mostly over.

The vast majority of Nazis who committed their atrocities weren’t punished at Nuremberg (only 24 Nazis were charged at Nuremberg). They were punished on the field of battle, when Allied soldiers shot them in the face (and other body parts).

Topic: ,

 

VIDEO: President Obama Talks About Killing Bin Laden On 60 Minutes

9:19 am EST May 9th, 2011 | History, Terrorism | 17 Comments

A powerhouse interview.



Topic:

 

VIDEO: Biden Makes A “We Killed Bin Laden” Phone Call

12:10 pm EST May 6th, 2011 | National Security | 1 Comment

(via)

Topic: ,

 

9/11 Was Never Theirs, But It Really Isn’t Anymore

2:28 pm EST May 4th, 2011 | History | 22 Comments

The Republican party believes that they, and only they, have rights to 9/11. Take, for instance, this pro-Bush ad run by an outside group with extensive ties to the administration back in 2004:

The height of all this was the 2004 election, when the GOP essentially ran a campaign that all but accused Democrats of working hand-in-hand with Al Qaeda, an extension of the 2002 affair. They believed they owned this issue, and acted accordingly.

They never really did. Al Qaeda didn’t just attack Republicans, after all. But they behaved as if only their opinions mattered, only their strategies were worth pursuing in a global war against terrorism. Even when they made mistakes that led to the deaths of thousands and the escape of Bin Laden, they presented themselves as the party of 9/11 (even when Rudy Giuliani attempted to disappear the attack while smearing President Obama).

But now, thanks to history, they’ve lost it. Bin Laden was killed not on the orders of their “popular wartime president” but rather the signal to shoot Bin Laden in the eye was given by the “socialist” “muslim”. It drives them batty.

That’s why they push crazy, nonsensical theories.

They’ve lost the control of 9/11 they envisioned in their minds. It was never theirs to begin with.

Topic: , ,

 

Waterboarding Was NOT Used To Capture Bin Laden

10:36 am EST May 3rd, 2011 | National Security | 83 Comments

A quick death to a conservative talking point:

Mohammed did not reveal the names while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He identified them many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic.

It took years of work for intelligence agencies to identify the courier’s real name, which officials are not disclosing. When they did identify him, he was nowhere to be found. The CIA’s sources didn’t know where he was hiding. Bin Laden was famously insistent that no phones or computers be used near him, so the eavesdroppers at the National Security Agency kept coming up cold.

Then in the middle of last year, the courier had a telephone conversation with someone who was being monitored by U.S. intelligence, according to an American official, who like others interviewed for this story spoke only on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive operation. The courier was located somewhere away from bin Laden’s hideout when he had the discussion, but it was enough to help intelligence officials locate and watch him.

(via)

Topic: ,

 

Yes, We Were Right To Kill Bin Laden. Yes, We Should Celebrate It.

10:09 am EST May 3rd, 2011 | Liberals | 43 Comments

Things like this are why I often can’t stand liberals. Or, to be more precise, a very narrow, tiny sliver of liberalism that always has its head up its own rear. Since the killing of Bin Laden has been revealed, there have been two ridiculous reactions to it from people on that shelf of ice floating way off the coast of mainstream liberalism in America.

First, the bedwetting over whether we had the right to kill Bin Laden, as detailed in this article. Of course we did. Bin Laden was an international criminal, wanted for crimes against multiple states (the US for 9/11, England for 7/7 and Kenya for the embassy bombings). This isn’t the kind of man you just let go. You find him, you kill him. This is black and white morality 101.

Secondly, should we rejoice at his death? Yes. A million times yes. This is the man directly responsible for the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. 2,977 innocent lives were lost. In addition, Americans lost a sense of security that we’ve had, the idea that our two oceans could protect us. It wasn’t a loss of innocence, but it was something taken away from our collective psyche.

When the man directly responsible for this is killed, it is a moment to rejoice. The serially stupid David Sirota, writing in Salon, compared this to those who cheered on the September 11 terrorists (unsurprisingly, Glenn Greenwald similarly spent a whole lot of overwritten paragraphs expressing a similar sentiment). In addition to just blatantly whoring for traffic, Sirota’s moral equivalence smells to high heaven. Those people were cheering on the killing of innocent people. Sunday night, Americans were celebrating a mass murderer’s moment with justice. The two are not remotely equivalent. Not even close.

This has been another edition of “that was stupid, quit it” with Oliver Willis.

Topic: , ,

 

PHOTO: Obama Team Watches Operation To Kill Bin Laden

5:20 pm EST May 2nd, 2011 | News | 40 Comments

Winning.


President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, along with members of the national security team, receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House, May 1, 2011.


President Barack Obama makes a point during one in a series of meetings in the Situation Room of the White House discussing the mission against Osama bin Laden, May 1, 2011. National Security Advisor Tom Donilon is pictured at right.


President Barack Obama listens during one in a series of meetings discussing the mission against Osama bin Laden, in the Situation Room of the White House, May 1, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Topic:

 

Bin Laden Death Vindicates National Security Democrats

9:34 am EST May 2nd, 2011 | Democrats, National Security | 160 Comments

“Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt

“So that there can be no possible misunderstanding, both Germany and Japan can be certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that America will continue the fight for freedom until no vestige of resistance remains!” – Harry Truman

“When I ordered our armed forces into combat, we had three clear goals: to enable the Kosovar people, the victims of some of the most vicious atrocities in Europe since the Second World War, to return to their homes with safety and self-government; to require Serbian forces responsible for those atrocities to leave Kosovo; and to deploy an international security force, with NATO at its core, to protect all the people of that troubled land, Serbs and Albanians alike.

Those goals will be achieved. Unnecessary conflict has been brought to a just and honorable conclusion.” – Bill Clinton

“Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.” – Barack Obama

When the 2000 election was underway, national security wasn’t much of an issue. National security didn’t come up as a major issue until the 9/11 attacks, after which we were told – by the right and the media – that we should count our lucky stars that it was Bush, not Gore, who would be facing these challenges.

Bush proceeded to miserably fail at this most important of presidential tasks. His leadership allowed Bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora, and the wrongheaded invasion of Iraq was botched from its beginning. Thousands of people died as a result. And still, we were told, Democrats are soft on terrorism. Remember when Karl Rove said Democrats “offer therapy and understanding for our attackers”? That wasn’t a coincidence.

Nor was the 9/11 focused convention by the GOP in 2004. The message was hammered home time and time again: Democrats can’t be trusted to fight terrorism.

But they were wrong. Democrats have a very strong tradition of being the party that gets things done on national security. Including FDR and Truman in World War 2, or Clinton in Kosovo.

When Obama was elected, we were told time and again that he was too weak, that he would be the worst of liberal pacifism, that he was too “other”, too liberal to really take the fight to those who threaten us.

Those of us who prioritize national security on the progressive side knew those arguments were bunk. We knew Democrats have what it takes to be commander-in-chief. We know Democrats can take the 3AM call without a second thought.

We were right. Bin Laden is dead. He is dead as a result of the hard work of our men in the field who took the butcher down. He is dead because the commander-in-chief, Barack Hussein Obama – a member and the current leader of the Democratic party – made the final order.

Topic: ,

 

Time To Do The Damn Thing In Afghanistan

2:39 am EST March 27th, 2009 | Terrorism | 38 Comments

I have waited so long for this. So long. One of the things I’ll never forgive 9/11 flagBush for is that he let Bin Laden get away. The man and the network responsible for the worst terror attack in our history still breathes, and its an insult to the dead and their loved ones every day that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are still around.

President Barack Obama on Friday is to unveil a new offensive against terror havens in Afghanistan and Pakistan, aiming to deal a death blow to Al-Qaeda more than seven years after the September 11 attacks.

To win a war aides said was “adrift” the new president will dispatch 4,000 extra troops to train the Afghan army, on top of 17,000 deployments already authorized, in a bold move in defiance of critics who fear a quagmire.

Obama also will send hundreds more civilian officials into Afghanistan and stump up billions of dollars of extra aid to help anti-terror ally Pakistan secure its democracy, senior administration officials said.

“It is a clear, concise, attainable goal, and that goal is to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al-Qaeda in its safe havens in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” one of the officials said on condition of anonymity.

Topic: , , , ,

 

« Older Entries