It seems we have not learned our lesson yet on how badly out of control the federal government is. You’d think we would have learned from ObamaCare and the Frank-Dodd-Morgtage debacle how shoddy (but always ‘well meaning’) legislation can wreak havoc when it finally becomes law, policy, processes and procedures.

The Frank-Dodd-Morgtage disaster is a classic example of DC screwing up in reverse because they did not think things through – or simply ignored the downside risks because they were on a mission for God. The liberals wanted to extend the honor and joy of home ownership to many more people. They did this by removing the responsibility of home ownership and putting that on the back of taxpayers (basically all the truly responsible home owners). The liberal do-gooders did not realize it would only take a small fraction of the over all housing market invested in subprime loans to topple the entire housing market – and wipe out the life savings of tens of millions of people.

The ratio of lower-quality subprime mortgages originated rose from the historical 8% or lower range to approximately 20% from 2004-2006, with much higher ratios in some parts of the U.S.[1] A high percentage of these subprime mortgages, over 90% in 2006 for example, were adjustable-rate mortgages.[2] These two changes were part of a broader trend of lowered lending standards and higher-risk mortgage products.[2][3] Further, U.S. households had become increasingly indebted, with the ratio of debt to disposable personal income rising from 77% in 1990 to 127% at the end of 2007, much of this increase mortgage-related.[4]

Instead of more home owners, we now have fewer and the homes have lost much of their value.

ObamaCare is even worse. The Democrats openly admitted we would not know the damage imbedded in the liberal fantasy until the law was passed and mindless bureaucrats started implementing it. So far the news is pretty bad. Most small businesses are dropping their health insurance benefits; therefore, most people cannot keep their current policies as promised. Large or politically connected companies are getting waivers so they don’t have to participate. Medicare/Medicaid are getting gutted to pay for the billion dollar bureaucracy (which will not address a single patient’s medical needs). ObamaCare is the epitome of stupid big-government-solutions thinking. It will waste billions on top of the already high costs of medical care, sucking up the money needed to help patients. Talk about an epic backfire.

Now we have another bill rushed through Congress, probably unread and riddled flaws. Or in this case, is there something much worse than unintended consequences at play:

The bill which would codify into law the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens is about to be passed and sent to Obama’s desk to be signed into law, even as some news outlets still erroneously report that the legislation does not apply to U.S. citizens.

…

“It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next,” remarked [GOP Senator Lindsay] Graham. “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”

…

Senator McCain also told Rand Paul during a hearing on the bill that American citizens could be declared an enemy combatant, sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely, “no matter who they are.”

This is a very, very dangerous bill if senators’ statements are true. I do not run off half-cocked on conspiracy theories as should be well known. I did not fall for the Bush-FISA nonsense from the left, nor the Birther BS regarding Obama from the right. I looked objectively at Able Danger, Global Warming and a host of other issues and pull out the facts from the fiction and decide for myself.

So when I say this is a very, very dangerous bill I do so with great hesitation and concern.

The reason we hold those terrorists behind 9-11 and other subsequent attacks (or attempts)  is because we are at war with them. They declared the war decades ago – it just took 9-11 before we took those declaration seriously. These are enemy combatants, since wars are fought outside the normal rules and laws of society. Only the ignorant confuse courts with war zones.

We do not apply the rules of war against ourselves – for obvious reasons. We retain our constitutional rights so that our elected government cannot take away our freedoms – especially by force. Government cannot round people up and lock them away without due process. We are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. At least that was the foundation of America until government started running amok under Carter, Clinton and Obama.

Sadly some are so dense they have lost sight of the obvious. It has becomes a well know affliction inside DC to combine ignorance, impatience and arrogance to create such idiot schemes as ObamaCare. All driven by the naive do-gooders’ self inflated sense that millions of professionals in the field and the combined intelligence of tens of millions of average Americans consumers are no match for the intellect of the political elite (in other words, the free market has no hope of competing with the dim bulbs in DC). The egos now on display are stunning, and only matched by how naive their simple solutions have become.

If this bill passes, then secret information can be used to claim anyone is a terrorist enabler and hauled off indefinitely. We have not needed this crap since 9-11, and nothing tells me we need it now. Our peace has always been through our ass-whooping strength and promise to use it if attacked. A lesson the world seems hell bent to re-learn every 30 years or so. We should never return to the internment camps of WW II to allay unfounded and irrational fear.

So why now? What is so pressing (besides some naive need to make free Americans equal to blood thirsty Islamo Fascists) that we need this craziness?

Could the real reason behind the madness be something else?

[Democrat Senator Carl Levin] “The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

As I said, secret information could be claimed to designate someone an enemy combatant. Information that cannot be made public – therefore may not even exist. Look at what this administration did with the Ft Hood assassin who yelled “Allah Ahkbar” as he mowed down 30 innocent Americans:

Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence …

If the administration can call a massacre by a jihadist nothing more than workforce violence, what stops them from declaring work force violence terrorism? Nothing!

This bill needs to be stopped and stopped now. The GOP is being duped again. Or worse, they are so brain washed into the Political Industrial Complex own superiority complex they have decided the masses are the real threat. Either way, this is tantamount to our government declaring war on We The People. That is the only reason to go down this insane path.

It looks like the Political Industrial Complex may be ready to do what it takes to stay in control. Maybe what we are seeing are steps towards something much worse. We have seen the only political outsider (Herman Cain) in the 2012 presidential race nullified by unfounded rumors and the media arm of the Political Industrial Complex. We have seen the two parties join in neutralizing the 2010 congressional elections by way of the Super Committee and an intransigent Senate that refuses to take bold action. We have seen legislation to limit free speech on the blogosphere. We have seen time and time again DC ignore the will of We The People and idiotically expect to get re-elected.

And America is taking notice – hopefully not too late:

.. they failed to understand what really scares Americans, who in vast numbers now think that Big Government, not Big Business, is the biggest threat.

Yes, the latest Gallup poll found that 64 percent of those surveyed said big government was the greatest threat to the country, compared to 26 percent who said big business was their gravest concern and 8 percent who feared big labor.

Long term trend in Gallup Poll here.

What are we to think now that we can be rounded based up on secret information and packed off to GITMO like an al Qaeda mass murderer? President Bush was quite balanced and measured when he adjusted FISA laws to allow the FBI to INVESTIGATE suspected terrorist activities here in the US and by US Citizens. The results was always a trial in line with our Constitutional rights. Even in our darkest days after 9-11 he did not see a need for this. Why now? Why this President?

Who are these people who have decided they have the right to rip these rights away from us like this? What is the pending emergency – except possibly the next wave of anti-government votes coming in 2012. For once, I fear this nation is on the brink of going extinct. Living on in name only. And this bill would be the big step towards that end.

Did an American president just assassinate a US Citizen without any due process, without any court case or verdict of guilty?

While the death of a blood thirsty Islamo Fascist is on par with the death of a blood thirsty Nazi who slaughtered innocent Jews in a concentration camp, the fact is Nazi mass murderers still received due process – even during the war.

Not so for American citizen, turned rabid Islamist cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki:

The US-born radical Islamist cleric and suspected al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki has been killed in Yemen, the country’s defence ministry reported.

Unnamed US administration officials confirmed the reports.

Awlaki, of Yemeni descent, has been on the run in Yemen since December 2007.

The US had named him a “specially designated global terrorist” for his alleged role in a number of attacks and US President Barack Obama is said to have personally ordered his killing.

al–Awlaki was a key player in the Ft. Hood Massacre, 9-11 and other failed attacks in the US. But what we never got with this thug was a trial and a guilty verdict.  And that is where this administration went way beyond the rule of law – especially when compared to the reserve shown by President Bush, the other post 9-11 president.

President Bush learned that stupid bureaucrat rules (not laws, just rules) had drifted so far towards clear cut easy (which means bureaucrats don’t have to make hard calls, they have simpleton check-off lists to cover their arses) that legitimate threats identified and tracked from outside this country could not be followed when terrorists entered into this country. When Bush discovered this to be true, he did something about it.

It was not the fantasized snooping paranoid liberals moaned about for years while Congresses and Courts passed and authorized Bush’s changes. What Bush said was if anyone was detected communicating with KNOWN terrorists, then law enforcement could be alerted and assess the risk of that person. It was under court review and monitoring, and only 2-3 people in Justice had the authority to allow it to happen. They also had to show just cause in the FISA court as well.

Obama and Holder decided this was too much, and put back a lot of those barriers when they came to office – which is why we ended with The Ft Hood massacre and nearly successful Christmas Day Bomber.

But now contrast the left’s over reaction to making sure people in contact with known and monitored terrorists are assessed for their risk to America and Americans, and this assassination of a US Citizen who – as far as we know – was never tried in a court of law. The same court of law this administration wants to bring GITMO detainees to for their day in court. Apparently al-Awlaki’s constitutional rights were unceremoniously removed by this president.

I will never shed a tear for al-Awlaki, but I will note that this may be (and hopefully is) the first time a US President has suspended the constitution and assassinated a US Citizen who was still presumed innocent. And that disturbs me. Even under Bush’s surveillance changes, he himself could never order the suspension of rights. And all the way through the burden of proof was on the administration, and the end result of surveillance was court, not a pine box.

We are on a deadly and steep slippery slope.

Update: The rare instance where AJStrata and uber-liberal Glenn Greewald agree.

So … self proclaimed terrorist/enemy combatants from foreign countries deserve a trial but a US citizen does not, he just gets executed?

With such dizzying intellectual incoherence like this is it any wonder liberals screwed up so badly on the economy?

But we should also remember all those who heeded the call of 9-11. Our son is now a Corporal in the United States Marine Corp. He was going to turn 12 years old on 9/13/01, now he trains to go  into harms way and protect this nation by protecting the freedoms of others on the other side of the world.

. He and his school mates have enlisted in the US Armed Forces in amazing numbers. Number more like those of his grandfather’s generation who fought in World War II. Much more than my generation of the 60′s and 70′s and our naive and  inane war protests. These wonderful children of 9-11 who have stepped forward to take their turn as America’s guardians also are due honor and respect from all of us who live peacefully in the embrace of this nation’s freedoms.

On this day, we remember that it is our nation’s greatness that sets us apart, and sadly makes us enemies of those dark forces which to this day would shackle and enslave humanity for twisted and narrow purpose. It seems strange to think that the world is still rocked by narrow minds who cannot tolerate differences of views, but 9-11 was just such evil lashing out at the Golden City on the hill. Only in America has the coexistence of diversity truly been achieved. So on 9-11 we remember the price we pay to have these freedoms, and why we must ensure they are universal to all humanity – else we find ourselves once again the target of a growing cancer of envious evil.

[note: all the pictures have links worth a follow]

Since it seems the puppets in the new media are going to refuse to explore the paralysis of the Obama administration when it came time to bringing justice to Osama Bin Laden, this will probably be my last post on this matter. As sad as this entire episode makes me, it seems the rot in DC is so extensive that it really is Nineteen Eighty-Four now. This lowly blogger has no hope of fixing leaders and media puppets more than willing to turn a blind eye to a dangerous truth. The nation is being run by incompetent amateurs who are barely surviving on the art of propaganda and misinformation.

Let me demonstrate. On May 3rd, the day after a wooden and emotionless announcement by the President that Bin Laden was dead, ABC News reported this aspect of the story:

Sources tell ABC News that in March President Obama authorized a plan for the U.S. to bomb Osama bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound with two B2 stealth bombers dropping a few dozen 2,000-pound JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) on the compound.

But when the president heard the compound would be reduced to rubble he changed his mind.

ABC News is clearly reporting that there was at least one prior order to take out Bin Laden, an order later rescinded as the White House wrestled with its paralysis. What struck me in this marginal factoid was its pure fiction. As I noted at the time, 24+ 2,000 lb JDAMS would obliterate the town. One 2k bomb would more than do for the small compound where Bin Laden was hiding out.

The exaggeration was so thick I could not help but wonder why this fiction was being added to the narrative. It seems to be a preemptive cover up for something that happened on the lead up to the attack on Bin Laden.

Then later on the same day, a rumor from an unverified source made the extraordinary claim that the attack on Bin Laden was actually ordered by departing CIA head Leon Panetta. In that narrative the March bombing order and later pullback was explained quite differently:

I was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. The primary opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama. Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position. This situation continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton.

…

Nothing changed with the president’s opinion – he continued to avoid having one. Every time military and intelligence officials appeared to make progress in forming a position, Jarrett would intervene and the stalling would begin again.

…

Panetta was receiving significant reports from both his direct CIA sources, as well as Petraeus-originating Intel. Petraeus was threatening to act on his own via a bombing attack. Panetta reported back to the president that a bombing of the compound would result in successful killing of Osama Bin Laden, and little risk to American lives. Initially, as he had done before, the president indicated a willingness to act. But once again, Jarrett intervened, convincing the president that innocent Pakistani lives could be lost in such a bombing attack, and Obama would be left attempting to explain Panetta’s failed policy. Again Obama hesitated – this time openly delaying further meetings to discuss the issue with Panetta.

This different recollection of events in March is not actually in conflict with the ABC News reporting. It provides disturbing details on how the bombing order came to be pushed, and how it was later rescinded. One would think this to be unsubstantiated rumor, until we get to the President’s own words on 60 minutes:

So by the time they came to me they had worked up an image of the compound, where it was and the factors that led them to conclude that this was the best evidence that we had regarding bin Laden’s whereabouts since Tora Bora. But we didn’t have a photograph of bin Laden in that building. There was no direct evidence of his presence.

Here we have the first hesitation. Was the person at the compound Bin Laden? The President was not convinced. But this looks to have happened in the fall or winter of 2010, not in March of 2009:

And so the CIA continued to build the case meticulously over the course of several months. What I told them when they first came to me, with this evidence was, “Even as you guys are building a stronger intelligence case, let’s also start building an action plan to figure out if in fact we make a decision that this is him or we’ve got a good chance that we’ve got him, how are we gonna deal with him?”

Obama is providing the umpteenth version here, but he clearly notes the call for action from the hawks in the administration began months ago – not just in March. He also begins his awkward and clumsy effort to appear pro-active. If he had been discussing options for months, he would not have ordered and then rescinded the order to bomb the compound. Again, the narrative seems to be a CYA effort, not a recollection of actual events.

In fact, in the very next sentence the President changes the narrative again:

Well, they first came to me in August of last year with evidence of the compound. And they said that they had more work to do on it, but at that point they had enough that they felt that it was appropriate for us to start doing some planning.

And so from that point on we started looking at what our options might be. The vigorous planning did not begin until early this year. And obviously over the last two months it’s been very intensive …

Again, why order a bombing in March and then change it to a surgical strike IF you have been debating options for many months? The word ‘incoherent’ comes to mind. The President’s narrative gets really pathetic in this next section, where the interview itself appears to provide him a way to dodge the question of paralysis:

KROFT: How actively where you involved in that process?

OBAMA: About as active as any project that I’ve been involved with since I’ve been president. Obviously we have extraordinary guys. Our Special Forces are the best of the best. And so I was not involved in, you know, designing the initial plan. But each iteration of that plan they’d bring back to me. Make a full presentation. We would ask questions.

We had multiple meetings in the Situation Room in which we would map out and we would actually have a model of the compound and discuss how this operation might proceed and what various options there were, because there was more than one way in which we might go about this.

Models and questions – oh my! Again we get a hint of the paralysis, because we know from other reporting the intelligence never ever got any better. Obama himself confirms this:

At the end of the day, this was still a 55/45 situation. I mean we could not say definitively that bin Laden was there. Had he not been there, then there would have been some significant consequences.

Finally, Oabam admits the dissension in the White House ranks, and also confirms the one aspect of the rumored revolt wherein the cadre of Bin Laden hunters kept the action from the rest of the resistant administration.

KROFT: It’s been reported that there was some resistance from advisors and planners who disagreed with the commando raid approach. Was it difficult for you to overcome that?

…

OBAMA: And so the fact that there were some who voiced doubts about this approach was invaluable, because it meant the plan was sharper, it meant that we had thought through all of our options, it meant that when I finally did make the decision I was making it based on the very best information.

It wasn’t as if any of the folks who were voicing doubts were voicing something that I wasn’t already running through in my own head.

…

And so very few people in the White House knew. The vast majority of my most senior aides did not know that we were doing this.

Maybe I am being cynical, but the more I read this transcript the more I see Steve Kroft leading the witness in a well rehearsed testimony. And Obama’s answers are at times pathetic.

As a reminder, this is not the only version of the March bombing raid narrative. Yesterday Bob Woodward, media puppet, came out with another version of events:

Obama and his advisers debated the options, officials said. One option was to fire a missile from a Predator or Reaper aerial drone. Such a strike would be low-risk, but if the result was a direct hit, the pacer might be vaporized and officials would never be certain they had killed bin Laden.

This time it was a Predator strike with smaller munitions. But as one of our readers noted, Predators were probably not allowed in this area of Pakistan, so this revision smells funky too.

So is this enough to be concerned about the veracity of reporting and recollection surrounding these events? Probably not, until you add in the consistent obsession the President has with Leon Panetta. In his speech the night of May 2nd and in his 60 minutes interview, the President goes out of his way to claim the obvious – that he ordered Panetta to make Bin Laden a priority of his administration. Is it coincidence that it is Panetta who also plays a key role in the narrative where hawks initiates the action on Bin Laden despite a paralyzed President?

This is a very strange and irrelevant detail that bears further examination. What President would not want to capture Bin Laden if the opportunity presented itself? And we know the lead on Bin Laden’s courier was actually unearthed in 2007, under President Bush and General Hayden. Why the continued emphasis by Obama on ordering Panetta to follow through with an obvious, high priority target? One might even conclude that it was Panetta who needed the extra push to follow the Bush-era lead!

I think the shifting story line and the President’s obsession with Panetta portrayed as being under orders to do the obvious gives the strong appearance of trying to cover up the actual events. The original stony face announcement, the ridiculous anecdotes and comments in the 60 Minutes interview, all these details begin to build a picture of a White House that almost did not act against Bin Laden.

If the media is unwilling to expose this mess and instead continues to run interference for this White House, then we have no hope of learning the truth. Unless some high level Democrats decide their country is more important than their party. Something that I doubt will happen.

It seems again the President and his cohorts who were inflicting the paralysis to act are trying to compensate and rewrite history. Them may even be trying to convince themselves they are or were in control of events. It is like the left crowing that Obama acted at all – a minimal expectation for any President with a good lead on enemy number one.

What should concern everyone is if the rumors are true, and this nation is being led by incompetent and hesitant amateurs. And that even the most obvious actions require near treason on the part of dedicated leaders. And that mistakes or near mistakes, can be so willingly covered up with pure fictional propaganda. Because that is what we had here in the case of the March bombing narrative – pure fiction. Unnecessary, CYA fiction. And no one is worried that this puts on a slippery and dangerous slope when it comes to honor, honesty and transparency.

Update: Reader WWS notes the latest propaganda effort regarding the March hesitation by the President to go after Bin Laden is also riddled with factual errors:

The reason this was such a good hiding place for bin Laden was that predators were specifically forbidden from getting anywhere near it, under official threat of being shot down by the Pakistani AF. This was a protected military zone, not some wild borderland. No predators allowed, *ever* …

Yep – we have another false rewrite of history from this wayward administration. - end update

The entire show surrounding how Osama Bin Laden was brought to justice has really been a disturbing series of misinformation, errors and clumsy cover up. It has been so bad it has turned a national moment of victory into a real moment of crisis. Just as we take out an enemy who killed many more innocent humans than the 3,000 people mass murdered on 9/11/01, we are facing a crisis of confidence regarding our leaders and their propaganda puppets in the news media. We have been bombarded with a continuous series of untruths and corrections on the most basic of matters. And it is rattling the majority of people who exist in the political center.

As I noted when the news broke, there was a very fishy element to the original narrative that was physically ridiculous:

Sources tell ABC News that in March President Obama authorized a plan for the U.S. to bomb Osama bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound with two B2 stealth bombers dropping a few dozen 2,000-pound JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) on the compound.

But when the president heard the compound would be reduced to rubble he changed his mind.

The point is Obama hesitated on killing Bin Laden in March, the details attempt to explain why.

As I showed later in that first post, two B-2′s with 24+ 2,000 lb JDAMS is a ridiculous amount of ordnance for Bin Laden’s small compound (each JDAM creates a 50 ft crater, 30 ft deep). Two of these would be over kill, 24 is idiotic. This part of the story was so ridiculous it was obvious that someone with no military or physics background just made the entire thing up out of thin air. It was clear this came from a liberal propagandist who was trying to cover ‘something’ up. Apparently that ‘something’ was President Obama’s terminal case of paralysis in terms of authorizing action against Bin Laden.

Not to fear, another narrative was produced and passed to liberal propaganda puppet Bob Woodward, who pliantly wrote it up in a Washington Post piece:

Obama and his advisers debated the options, officials said. One option was to fire a missile from a Predator or Reaper aerial drone. Such a strike would be low-risk, but if the result was a direct hit, the pacer might be vaporized and officials would never be certain they had killed bin Laden.

Oh my, see how the story has changed! I mentioned in my previous post a Predator drone would be sufficient fire power. Seems someone took notice and fixed the narrative. How Orwellian can you get? And no, even a predator will not ‘vaporize’ a human being in a concrete structure such as the house Bin Laden haunted. Plenty of DNA would be available, once you could sift through the wreckage.

If you could sift through the wreckage. That has been a major problem with other aerial strikes – how to ID the targets. If you wanted to make a solid narrative, that would be the question – not vaporizing. Seems those people putting out this junk have watched way too much TV.

Woodward’s piece had other elements which made it more Orwellian than usual. For example:

When U.S. intelligence officials learned of this exchange, they knew they had reached a key moment in their decade-long search for al-Qaeda’s founder. The call led them to the unusual, high-walled compound in Abbottabad, a city 35 miles north of Pakistan’s capital.

“This is where you start the movie about the hunt for bin Laden,” said one U.S. official briefed on the intelligence-gathering leading up to the raid on the compound early Monday.

No, the ‘movie’ starts with interrogation and learning about the courier with the moniker ‘al-Kuwaiti’. As we painfully now, the left don’t want to start this story at its beginning, with the Bush administration and enhanced interrogation. Another obvious ‘tell’ this is propaganda, not reporting.

Woodward’s ‘movie’ also skips over the months of delay waiting for the mythical perfect intel. A delay which could have easily pushed some in the administration to flex their legal muscle and force a frozen President to act. Here is what we get in Woodward’s version of history with regards to all the rightfully tough discussions about what threshold was sufficient to claim this was Bin Laden’s lair:

Panetta said that point had been reached, arguing that those tracking the compound were seeing the pacer nearly every day but could not conclude with certainty that it was bin Laden, officials said. Panetta noted that there was no signals intelligence available and contended that it was too risky to send in a human spy or move any closer with electronic devices.

There was incredible dissension inside the White House about whether we had enough evidence to act. Forget about the method of acting, there were people pushing back on acting at all! Where is that story in Woodward White Wash? Here it is:

Officials said Obama’s national security advisers were not unanimous in recommending he go ahead with the McRaven option. The president approved the raid at 8:20 a.m. Friday.

Yep. One of the toughest decisions a President will ever make, and Woodward just gives it a drive-by mention. It is worthy to know the arguments on both sides, the factors weighed, the unknown risks assumed. Mainly because we face these decision all the time when we decide to hit target in Pakistan or Yemen. We are working WAY outside the legal bounds established over humankind’s history. We are sending out hit squads on individuals. It is important to understand what triggers such questionable and troubling acts.

In the case of self-professed mass murderers like Bin Laden, Hitler, and Yamamoto I am not as concerned. In the case of American-born cleric Al-Awlaki, I think we have crossed a line when we can order the assassination of a US citizen without a trial and verdict of guilty. When did we give the power to assassinate Americans to the President of the United States? I don’t recall that being on the campaign issue list.

And what about Obama’s illegal war in Libya?

Everything surrounding these acts has been shown to be mostly fiction. The White House has had to stop talking about Bin Laden for fear it is running out of semi-plausible BS. Even more laughable is the left wing effort to paint Obama’s actions as heroic! How heroic is it to take out someone so universally hated as Bin Laden? Face it, the left is just ecstatic Obama did not channel his inner liberal and do nothing. Powerline captured this ‘hey, we did not screw up” euphoria brilliantly:

All of this praise is due to the fact that Obama approved, rather than nixing, the killing of bin Laden. A good decision, to be sure. But is there a single person, anywhere, who doubts that George W. Bush would have made the same call? Or John McCain, if he had won in 2008? Of course not. The Democrats’ jubilation results from the fact that their guy didn’t wilt under pressure, but rather lived up to the standard that George W. Bush and John McCain easily met. For this, he is called “courageous” and “gutsy.”

Yep, it really is a case where Obama finally stood tall. Or did he? As we know, there is a lot of rumbling behind the scenes on how critical mass for the act on Bin Laden was finally obtained. We do know the intel was solid as it was going to be for many months. The real story is what happened to overcome the paralysis and resistance inside the White House.

But instead of exploring this news-worthy subject, we get barraged by more and more glowing rewrites. Have we hit a point where politicians lie with such ease and regularity those ‘journalists’ living high on the hog with the political elite have just decided to be well-paid patsies and apologists? Where are the true journalists who want to discover and communicate the harsh truth, no matter which side takes a hit?

My fear is they have gone extinct, replaced by social cling-ons whose focus is being with the ‘in crowd’ instead of being a force for good. DC power, paychecks and social events have corrupted tens of thousands over the years, so this is no surprise. Apparently, we have finally reached Nineteen Eight-Four

First we had John Brennan spinning a tale about bin Laden blazing away at the SEALs while using his wife–now deceased–as a human shield. Every detail of that story turned out to be false. Then the administration claimed that it looked as though Osama was reaching for a gun, so the SEALs had to shoot him. Next, the theory was that Osama was clothed, not naked, so he could have had a bomb under his clothes and had to be shot. Another iteration emerged this afternoon, as an administration official told AFP that guns were found in the room where Obama was shot, so he was a threat to the SEALs

… in the immediate context of the raid on bin Laden’s compound, the SEALs were not defending themselves. They were on the attack, as they needed to be to carry out their orders.

I predicted the left would lose it over the jubilation that would arise from Bin Laden’s demise, and I have not been disappointed. Micheal Moore – buffoon extraordinaire – claimed it was an execution. As the saying goes: ‘well spotted!’ Then there was some idiot who felt it was wrong to kill an unarmed Bin Laden, a man who inflicted mass murder on 3,000 unarmed men, women and children on 9-11 alone (not to mention all the others killed in Africa, Spain, Bali, India and London).

This was a military action, and only a deluded liberal would confuse a military action with a law enforcement action. They are not, and never were, meant to be connected in law or history. There is no self-defense defense required. Just as there is not one required for bombing raids. (“Honest, I was just flying my little ‘ol B-52 bomber at 20,000 feet and I spotted this guy on the ground reaching for his pistol. I had no choice but to drop my load on him”.)

What Hinderaker has exposed is another case where this inexperienced White House can’t even take a smashing victory and work it to their advantage. Over half way into his tragic first term, Obama and his team of misfits can’t even do a victory lap without falling over their own feet.

If they can’t even handle this simple exercise of celebration, one does not have to wonder why their efforts on the real challenges facing this country continue to fall short and fail.

On Monday, the first full news day after the announcement we had brought Osama Bin Laden to justice, I noted an enormous inconsistency in one aspect of the story leading up to the raid on Bin Laden’s compound:

Nothing wrong with a bit of caution here, don’t want to destroy an innocent family hiding out in a fortress. But from August to February? Seems – as usual – team Obama wanted proof-perfect before acting. Anyway, I am not going to nit pick caution. My guess is the intel kept mounting and overcame a lot of internal hesitation inside this hesitant White House.

Now to shift links since this next act in the story is not in the time line from the main article:

Sources tell ABC News that in March President Obama authorized a plan for the U.S. to bomb Osama bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound with two B2 stealth bombers dropping a few dozen 2,000-pound JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) on the compound.

But when the president heard the compound would be reduced to rubble he changed his mind.

… First off, the [2] B-2s with 24+ 2,000 lb JDAMS is overkill. You could attack a small city with that kind of ordnance. And I don’t know if a ‘few dozen’ is two [24] or more dozen. This is the proverbial M1 tank used against the gnat.

What struck me about this was the amazing amount ignorance one found in this little footnote to history. I go on in that previous post to prove my suspicions, given the destructive power of a 2,000 lb bomb and the tiny size of the compound. It was as if some naive propaganda agent had cobbled together this bit of revised history to cover up something. It does not take two B-2′s with 24+ 2k JDAMS to take out a house. I remained completely flummoxed and suspicious about this deliberately leaked detail. It did not fit the rest of the narrative, and appeared irrelevant. Why was this fabricated detail added to the history by someone clearly unfamiliar with weapon platforms and ordnance yields?

Now add in some more of the narrative – like the fact we had concluded in August 2010 the compound housed Bin Laden, yet spent 6 months trying to make 100% sure he was there. Why the hesitation? Why authorize a ridiculous and reckless bombing run in March, then order it stopped, and then agonize for days over a precision strike force in April? My experience with the intelligence and military thinking precludes this kind of see-saw thinking AFTER a decision has been made.

Now check out this claim from Leon Panetta, head of the CIA and apparently one of the key forces behind the raid:

But Panetta concluded that the evidence was strong enough to risk the raid, despite the fact that his aides were only 60%-80% confident that bin Laden was there, and decided to make his case to the President. At the key Thursday meeting in which President Obama heard the arguments from his top aides on whether or not to go into Pakistan to kill or capture bin Laden, Panetta admitted that the evidence of bin Laden’s presence at the compound was circumstantial. But “when you put it all together,” Panetta says he told the room, “we have the best evidence since [the 2001 battle of] Tora Bora [where bin Laden was last seen], and that then makes it clear that we have an obligation to act.”

…

“If I thought delaying this could in fact produce better intelligence, that would be one thing,” Panetta says he argued, “but because of the nature of the security at the compound, we’re probably at a point where we’ve got the best intelligence we can get.”

First off, we know there were 5 high level meetings during this time period on this topic. Thursday was not THE FIRST time Panetta was in talking confidence levels. Clearly he had to talk confidence levels for the March indecision, and probably did for months leading up to this point. Once again, a suspect narrative appears.

No intelligence is going to be perfect and there were naysayers with I guess valid concerns (did not want a Carter-style blown rescue mission or a Clinton-style Black Hawk Down). But which side was the President on? Was he holding out for perfection? Was he unwilling to take out Bin Laden and held his ground for almost 6 months against the recommendations of his intelligence team?

Then there is this nugget of reporting:

The mission looked set to be given the all clear last Thursday when analysts confirmed beyond doubt that Bin Laden was in busy town of Abbottabad in northern Pakistan.

But the president stunned officials when he told a national security meeting that he wanted more time to think – and disappeared out of the room.

‘I’m not going to tell you what my decision is now – I’m going to go back and think about it some more,’ said Obama, according to the New York Times. He then added ‘I’m going to make a decision soon.’

The head of the CIA and other senior intelligence officers who were keen to proceed were left tense as they waited for the president’s decision.

But the next morning after 16 hours, Obama summoned four top aides to the White House Diplomatic Room. Before they could speak, the president put his fist on the table and declared ‘It’s a go’.

Sounds a bit strained. Again I note a bit of the theater here with the fist pounding element in the narrative, and the President making a declaration before anyone could talk. Again, I cannot help but feel this story is a rewrite, a bit of propaganda surrounding events that played out differently. Here the evidence was overwhelming on Thursday – yet the President hesitated (this would be the 2nd time in two months, if we believe the March indecision narrative).

Finally, I could not help but note President Obama was not very jovial or upbeat over this news. His Sunday night press conference oozed tension and stress. There was no sign of celebration, no smile. Even the photo of President Obama straight off the golf course watching the raid in real time seems to indicate someone anxious and unhappy, not resolute and confident (click to enlarge).

Heck, the President is not even sitting at the head of the table, supposedly in charge. He is on the sideline! So why am I bringing all this up during a time of national celebration? Am I hunting for a dark cloud amongst all this silver lining? I was worried about that, which is why I toned down my suspicions since Monday.

But then I read this from a claimed White House Insider:

Note: This communication came from our long time D.C. Insider and details previous and ongoing conflicts surrounding the decision to assassinate terrorist Osama Bin Laden.

…

Significant push to take him out months ago. Senior WH staff resisted. This was cause of much strain between HC [Hillary Clinton] and Obama/Jarrett. HC and LP [Leon Panetta] were in constant communication over matter – both attempted to convince administration to act. Administration feared failure and resulting negative impact on president. Intel disgusted over politics over national security. Staff resigned/left. Check timeline to corroborate.

Now THIS seems to fit the established MO of this White House. A White House that banned the term “War On Terror”. A White House that resisted calling the Ft Hood Massacre and Christmas Day Bomber attempt terrorist acts. A White House that pulled back on our monitoring of suspected attacks. A White House that preferred Miranda Rights over interrogation. The fist pounding only comes from this President when he wants to save Obamacare or defend high gas prices.

And there is more:

IMPORTANT SPECIFIC: When 48 hour go order issued, CoC was told, not requested. Administration scrambled to abort. That order was overruled.

…Independent military contacts have confirmed. Stories corroborate one another. This is legit.

Emphasis in original. So, is this why a story was concocted about a March raid with two B-2′s and 24+ 2k JDAMS? As I said, the number of JDAMS shows complete ignorance and you would not use a B-2 when am F117 stealth fighter could do the trick. Was this cover for the effort to abort the raid that succeeded? This story can be confirmed to some level – through the resignations of key people.

This, sadly, makes sense. Can you see Hillary Clinton reliving the hesitation of her husband’s opportunities to take out Bin Laden? If President Clinton had gotten over his fears, we might not have had a 9-11. That had to be what drove Clinton and Panetta and others to take action before they lost Bin Laden again.

If this is true, President Obama is in serious political trouble. And I hate to say it, this has all the signs of two factions warring in the government (see this all the time, up close and personal). One side is covering their trail while the other is celebrating.

If this does break open, it will be amazing to witness.

Update: More details from the Washington Insider are out today:

I was told – in these exact terms, “we overruled him.” (Obama) I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president’s “persistent hesitation to act.”

Addendum: My completely independent suspicions confirmed by the WH Insider:

Every time military and intelligence officials appeared to make progress in forming a position, Jarrett would intervene and the stalling would begin again. Hillary started the ball really rolling as far as pressuring Obama began, but it was Panetta and Petraeus who ultimately pushed Obama to finally act – sort of. Panetta was receiving significant reports from both his direct CIA sources, as well as Petraeus-originating Intel. Petraeus was threatening to act on his own via a bombing attack. Panetta reported back to the president that a bombing of the compound would result in successful killing of Osama Bin Laden, and little risk to American lives. Initially, as he had done before, the President indicated a willingness to act. But once again, Jarrett intervened, convincing the president that innocent Pakistani lives could be lost in such a bombing attack, and Obama would be left attempting to explain Panetta’s failed policy. Again Obama hesitated – this time openly delaying further meetings to discuss the issue with Panetta.

Looks like the fantasy narrative came from the Jarret side of the WH. As I suspected, that fantastically exaggerated story about a March bombing was meant to hide the truth. The truth of a paralyzed and impotent White House that could not bring itself to take out the world’s most notorious terrorist and mass murderer of Americans sitting still, like a fish at the bottom of a dry barrel. Pathetic.

Addendum: Yep, right again (not hard when you spent a quarter of a century working for the federal bureaucracy and can identify its tells):

This insulation ended at some point with an abort order that I believe originated from Valerie Jarrett’s office, and was then followed up by President Obama.

Jarrett and Obama DID try and stop the raid on Osama Bin Laden. If proven, the President’s career is over.

Addendum: Well, this explains the photo and why the President is not sitting at the head of the table:

The operation was at this time effectively unknown to President Barack Obama or Valerie Jarrett and it remained that way until AFTER it had already been initiated. President Obama was literally pulled from a golf outing and escorted back to the White House to be informed of the mission.

How embarrassing. Whoever snapped that shot and let it out just confirmed all of this.

The city is most notable for housing the Pakistan Military Academy, the Pakistani Army’s premier training college, equivalent to West Point. Looking at maps and satellite photos on the Web last night, I saw the wide expanse of the Academy not far from where the million-dollar, heavily secured mansion where bin Laden lived was constructed in 2005. The maps I looked at had sections of land nearby marked off as “restricted areas,” indicating that they were under military control. It stretches credulity to think that a mansion of that scale could have been built and occupied by bin Laden for six years without its coming to the attention of anyone in the Pakistani Army.

The initial circumstantial evidence suggests that the opposite is more likely—that bin Laden was effectively being housed under Pakistani state control. Pakistan will deny this, it seems safe to predict, and perhaps no convincing evidence will ever surface to prove the case. If I were a prosecutor at the United States Department of Justice, however, I would be tempted to call a grand jury. Who owned the land on which the house was constructed? How was the land acquired, and from whom? Who designed the house, which seems to have been purpose-built to secure bin Laden? Who was the general contractor? Who installed the security systems? Who worked there? Are there witnesses who will now testify as to who visited the house, how often, and for what purpose? These questions are not relevant only to the full realization of justice for the victims of September 11th. They are also relevant to the victims of terrorist attacks conducted or inspired by bin Laden while he lived in the house, and these include many Pakistanis, as well as Afghans, Indians, Jordanians, and Britons.

Could not agree more. I am still wondering at the hint of hesitation in the President’s announcement last night, and the bizarre leak regarding the March bombing raid, which was authorized and then canceled in favor of the surgical strike. Something just ain’t hinky here.

The second report comes from the UK Telegraph:

American diplomats were told that one of the key reasons why they had failed to find bin Laden was that Pakistan’s security services tipped him off whenever US troops approached.

Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISID) also allegedly smuggled al-Qaeda terrorists through airport security to help them avoid capture and sent a unit into Afghanistan to fight alongside the Taliban.

…

In December 2009, the government of Tajikistan warned the United States that efforts to catch bin Laden were being thwarted by corrupt Pakistani spies.

According to a US diplomatic dispatch, General Abdullo Sadulloevich Nazarov, a senior Tajik counterterrorism official, told the Americans that “many” inside Pakistan knew where bin Laden was.

It does seem strange such a dangerous person could hold court so close to the Pak Military elite. Was it the fact we finally barred Pakistan from the operational details that we finally nailed our man? As the first article notes, how many people died needlessly while Osama was hidden?

Update from LJStrata – link went away so here’s another one!

Semper Fi and God Bless America

Finally, the story behind the hunt for Bin Laden begins to come clear – with some surprising twists and turns. It begins in GITMO, many years ago and probably involves extreme interrogation (e.g., water boarding, discomfort, etc):

Some time after Sept. 11, detainees held by the U.S. told interrogators about a man believed to work as a courier for bin Laden, senior administration officials said. The man was described by detainees as a protégé of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and “one of the few Al Qaeda couriers trusted by bin laden.”

Initially, intelligence officials only had the man’s nickname, but they discovered his real name four years ago.

Emphasis mine. Note the time period for the initial leads – under President Bush and is aggressive pursuit of justice. One must also recall that the Obama administration does not perform extreme interrogation, and in fact has a bad habit of giving terrorists their Miranda Rights within hours of capture. This happened with all the supposed ‘lone wolfs’ coordinate by Anwar al Aulaqi, an American traitor supposedly hold up in Yemen.

I was wondering why the President seemed so defensive last night in his victory speech. He went out of his way to note how HE retained Bin Laden as a top priority, and how HE followed leads from last year.

But HE also tried to shut down GITMO, the source of the initial thread that led to Bin Laden yesterday. HE also ended aggressive interrogations. One has to wonder how close team Obama came to almost missing Bin Laden in a fit of political correctness which took hold in 2008? Remember, the lead on the courier’s actual identity only came to light in 2007! Was he fighting against the intel community on this one?

More on the hunt for Osama Bin Laden:

Two years ago, intelligence officials began to identify areas of Pakistan where the courier and his brother operated, and the great security precautions the two men took aroused U.S. suspicions.

Last August, intelligence officials tracked the men to their residence in Abbottabad, Pakistan, a relatively wealthy town 35 miles north of Islamabad where many retired military officers live.

“When we saw the compound where the brothers lived, we were shocked by what we saw,” a senior administration official said.

Knowing the hesitancy inside the Obama White House, one has to wonder about the gut check that must of hit when they realized they were targeting a rich area of Pakistan. By 2009 they had taken the lead that began in 2007 and identified the individuals, by 2010 they had the address – a compound 35 miles outside the capitol of Pakistan. About the same distance as Leesburg, VA or Baltimore, MD from Washington DC. The pressure must have been huge. Keep this in mind as the Obama administration waffles on the initial attack opportunity in March:

The compound was eight times larger than any other home in the area. It was surrounded by walls measuring 12 feet to 18 feet that were topped with barbed wire. There were additional inner walls that sectioned off parts of the compound and entry was restricted by two security gates. And the residents burned their trash instead of leaving it outside for pickup. There was a three-story house on the site, with a 7-foot privacy wall on the top floor.

While the two brothers, the couriers, had no known source of income, the compound was built in 2005 and valued at $1 million. That led intelligence officials to conclude that it must have been built to hold a high-value member of Al Qaeda.

Well duh. Sort of sticks out anywhere. Apparently Bin Laden was living in a gilded cage, not a damp cave.

After exploring every angle for months, they concluded that all signs pointed to this being bin Laden’s residence.

President Obama was made aware of the compound when it was discovered last year. By mid-February, the intelligence was solid …

Nothing wrong with a bit of caution here, don’t want to destroy an innocent family hiding out in a fortress. But from August to February? Seems – as usual – team Obama wanted proof-perfect before acting. Anyway, I am not going to nit pick caution. My guess is the intel kept mounting and over came a lot of internal hesitation inside this hesitant White House.

Now to shift links since this next act in the story is not in the time line from the main article:

Sources tell ABC News that in March President Obama authorized a plan for the U.S. to bomb Osama bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound with two B2 stealth bombers dropping a few dozen 2,000-pound JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) on the compound.

But when the president heard the compound would be reduced to rubble he changed his mind.

That would mean there would be no evidence bin Laden was dead to present to the world – no DNA evidence, as the administration anticipates it will have.

Plus all 22 people in the compound including women and children, plus likely many neighbors would be killed.

The President hesitated. Again, not to actually deem this wrong, but this hesitation was risky. This is how Bin Laden escaped numerous times under Clinton and Bush. One also has to remember, these people who raise their families next to this kind of mass murderer know the risks. I would not deem these families innocent bystanders.

Team Obama is lucky, but I still smell some historic revisionism and CYA here. This appears to be a classic government rewrite. First off, the B-2s with 24+ 2,000 lb JDAMS is overkill. You could attack a small city with that kind of ordnance. And I don;t know if a ‘few dozen’ is two or more. This is the proverbial M1 tank used against the gnat. This ridiculous application of ordnance against a single structure, which would be obliterated with a fraction of the number of JDAMS, indicates to me this story may be a plant from a political operative who has no clue about ordnance.

A single Mark 84 JDAM (2,000 lb) bomb can create a crater 50 ft wide, 36 ft deep and penetrate 11 ft of concrete. 24 of these in a circular pattern (possible using the JDAM retrofit guidance package) could therefore create a circular ring of destruction by spreading the missiles out 4-5 deep in all four directions from the center target. Assuming 200 ft spreads from center to center, that is circle of destruction that would span 800-1000 feet easily. Like I said – overkill.

So why create this false choice in the story – massive overkill or precision strike?

We had a tough choice. Use massive bombs (but not 24 of them) and risk collateral damage and no evidence of death, or send in a crack unit and risk American lives while operating on allied territory. Not an easy decision and not one I am willing to choose with any confidence from my desk chair. But the decision was made and the story continues (from the original article):

Intelligence officials worked with the U.S. military to plan the operation and a small team accepted the risk and began to train for it.

On April 29, this past Friday, Obama gave the final go ahead.

The U.S. team conducted a helicopter raid of the compound Sunday afternoon. It was described as a “surgical raid” that took less than 40 minutes, during which time the team did not encounter any local authorities.

All’s well that ends well. But I have to admit I have some suspicion as to the parameters leaked around the March indecision point. Something is just not right there.

Update: In all fairness, some reporting is calling the compound ‘huge’, but I still am not convinced it is big enough to absorb ‘a few dozen’ 2,000 lb JDAMS. This reporting notes the nearby children’s hospital and police station – which would have been a much better excuse for going with a strike team than a bombing. Still not buying the story around the March indecision.

Update: Reader WWS provides a google map view of the compound, which confirms my suspicion. This target by no means required a ‘few dozen’ 2,000 JDAMS. Someone fed the media a truly ‘false’ choice.

Update: OK, all my suspicions are now confirmed. A UK Guardian report notes the compound’s small size:

They realised immediately this was no normal residence. The walls of the 3,000 sq ft compound were 12-18ft high, topped with barbed wire.

OK folks, back to simple math. A 50 ft wide crater covers an area of 3.14*(25*25) = 1900 square feet. Therefore 24 2,000 lb JDAMS can cover an area of 47,100 square feet or larger. Complete exaggeration from the sources who claimed they were considering that much ordnance in March. Something is not right with this narrative.

Update: As usual, keep an eye on Hot Air for the latest details – let’s see how this all pans out.

In other areas, to balance out the overall speech, the President was right on. He noted how we have NEVER been at war with Islam, just at war with radical Islam. He noted Bin Laden is not a Muslim Leader, but a mass murderer (great line). He recognized the counter terrorism agencies and the special forces that went in and apparently tried to take Bin Laden alive. It was these areas of the speech which gave President Obama the “B” rating. In fact, if he had toned down the sappy-talk I was about to give him an “A”.

In any event – a night of celebration. Watch the liberals be surprised at the intensity of this celebration, and be shocked and awed by the hatred this nation held for this animal. - end update

Osama Bin Laden is dead, and justice is served for the 3,000 victims of his attacks on 9-11, pllus the tens of thousands his bloody butchers killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and all over the world:

Osama bin Laden, hunted as the mastermind behind the worst-ever terrorist attack on U.S. soil, has been killed, sources told ABC News.

Apparently the US has the body, but there is also a news black out so President Obama can bask in some glory. So be it. Bin Laden joins Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein in the penthouse suite of hell.

Update: My guess is the WH will wait until tomorrow to bask in the limelight. One report claims Bin Laden was killed in Afghanistan or Pakistan:

Details of the death were sparse. He was killed in a military operation in Afghanistan, according to sources, though it was unclear which countries were involved. CNN reported that the al-Qaida leader was killed in a mansion outside Islamabad, the Pakistani capital.

Seems he was the victim of a Predator strike.

Update: Hot Air will have all the breaking news tonight. It is going to be a wonderful new day on Earth tomorrow.

Bin Jawad has a mostly apolitical Bedouin population. “It’s a quiet town,” says Salah, an engineer who lives in the town, which is barely a mile long from east to west. “Most of the people work in the oil companies nearby.”

But for the second time in less than a month, it’s also the town where the ambitions of Libya’s rebels run smack against the merciless reality of war. At the beginning of the week, the rebels — emboldened by allied air strikes and a war that seemed to be shifting suddenly in their favor — had pushed west into Bin Jawad.

…

By Tuesday afternoon, it was the rebels’ turn to flee again — in a tangled, panicked traffic jam of gun trucks and civilian cars — as Gaddafi’s forces pounded them once again with a barrage of missile fire and sniper shots. It was a familiar scene, and Bin Jawad may yet become a most familiar front line.

The Emperor’s rag tag group of supposed freedom fighters is no match for Qaddafi’s forces. It seems President Obama is playing out some childish fantasy in his head, where kids in pick up trucks using make shift weapons take on the all powerful military.

Sadly, in reality that means massive death and destruction on both sides and no Disney ending. Unlike our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we were willing to put our blood on the line for our causes, Emperor Obama and his war cabinet are trying to win this one on the cheap. They don’t want to get too close, close enough to make the final difference. It is a well known fact outside the liberal haze of delusion that no war can be won with stand-off weapons alone. In Iraq and Afghanistan we fought side-by-side with our allies. We did not send them into meat grinders and then hold conferences in Europe to plot the next debacle.

We have created a worse mess in Libya than was there before. We now have an Eastern Libya that will be a magnet for Islamist and Jihadists who will be trained and armed by the Great Satan itself. A moronic result any sane person knew would likely transpire.

So are we cutting our losses since we fulfilled the UN and Emperor’s mandate to stop the massacre of Benghazi? Hell no, these lunatics are contemplating boots on the ground!

Should rebels in Libya be successful in driving Col. Moammar Gadhafi from power, they may need a foreign presence on the ground to keep the country stable, according to U.S. Navy Adm. James Stavridis.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday, Stavridis, the top NATO military commander, told lawmakers that NATO could wind up deploying ground troops, given its history in past conflicts such as Bosnia and Kosovo.

So far, the chance of this happening is slim without ground forces to unseat Qaddafi. But we are on the slippery slope. This unconstitutional war, founded on an illegal UN mandate that violates its own charter, is quickly spinning out of control. It is well past time to stop the madness before even more damage is done.

Update: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air notes the Rebel retreat, and I have created a topic covering all my posts on this unfolding disaster

Emperor Obama’s speech tonight illustrated exactly why we have checks and balances to contain the egos of our Presidents and force them to only act with the support of the nation. Obama’s speech was incoherent and intellectually insulting. In the crude fig-leaf language of protecting Libyan citizens, we are bombing the crap out of those Libyan tribes and citizens aligned with Qadaffi. It is such a brutal and ugly farce it rips at the concepts of honor and truth.

We are not protecting a besieged city from massacre right now (that was accomplished days ago). We are about to unleash our military might on Qadaffi strongholds, risking enemy civilians lives to help OUR side win this civil war.

We are not working in a unified international alliance, but being told by our one-time allies the Arab League to end the killing of Qadaffi’s forces now and prepare for a political resolution that will leave the evil Qadaffi in power. We cannot remove Qadaffi without inflicting massive casualties on civilians now.

Obama talked about how America cannot sit by why people suffer. What about the North Korean people? What about the Iranian freedom fighters mowed down during peaceful protests. What number of human deaths and atrocities make it a Responsibility 2 Protect?

The Emperor tried to explain why HE believed we needed to attack a sovereign nation and beginning killing people. He never made the case, and in fact could not make the case. There is no VITAL American interest in Libya. In terms of stopping a massacre, we are done. Pull all our forces out (including those attached to NATO) and let’s have a congressional vote on continuing Obama’s madness in the name of American people.

Obama has over reached and violated our Constitution. He needs to be reigned in. And as for all those neocons standing by him – you too just lost the support of Main Stream America.

Addendum: Most embarrassing moment – Emperor Obama’s attempt to butch up and claim there should be no doubt he would wield US military power. Not only was it an embarrassing effort to cover up his own insecurity, there is little doubt he is reckless enough to use it – and little doubt he will misuse our power on a fool’s obsession. He convinced us he is ‘winging’ it and just trying to look impressive, without trying.

Clearly, Obama’s idea of ‘military action’ only means boots on the ground. Bombardment from the air and off shore using cruise missiles somehow is not ‘war’.

Update: The AP is not so easily snowed by Obama’s linguistic flourish and misinformation:

In transferring command and control to NATO, the U.S. is turning the reins over to an organization dominated by the U.S., both militarily and politically. In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show.

And the rapid advance of rebels in recent days strongly suggests they are not merely benefiting from military aid in a defensive crouch, but rather using the multinational force in some fashion – coordinated or not – to advance an offensive.

Here is a look at some of Obama’s assertions in his address to the nation Monday, and how they compare with the facts:

The Liar-in-Chief?

First off, many of those living off the public dole are upset that the public does not have any dole left to hand out:

Over 200 people were arrested as extremists brought violent chaos to central London yesterday after hijacking the much-heralded trade union protest against public spending cuts.

As Powerline notes, the reasoning behind the destruction and violence is moronic, since the life you lead is the life you yourself worked so hard (IRONY ALERT) to achieve:

Their rationale was as dumb as you would expect:

Sally Mason, one of the protesters who occupied the store, said: ‘Fortnum & Mason is a symbol of wealth and greed. It is where the Royal Family and the super-rich do their weekly shop and a picnic hamper costs £25,000.

‘This sits in stark contrast to everyone else who is struggling to make ends meet, fill in their tax returns and benefit forms and facing huge student debts, unemployment and the closure or dismantling of local services such as the NHS, libraries and leisure centres.’

Filling in handout forms is such hard work. As Powerline notes, there are sad echoes of Wisconsin here. Or is Wisconsin just one canary in the pending coal mine disaster?

Failures always blame others for their failures. When you vote to support budget-busting spendthrifts who cannot even run lemonade stand, and then they blow all the collective money on foolish and wasteful policies, you only have yourself to blame for the results. Don’t go blaming all of us who avoided the Kool-Aid, kept our heads clear and built self-sustaining lives. Especially after decades of warnings that liberal policies would lead to just these results!

And then there is the liberal ignorance on international policy and terrorism. It seems the reason Emperor Obama never presented his mad Libyan war plans to Congress is because he was aware of some of its more damning features:

It has come to light in just the last few days that commanders of the “rebels” (you know, those secular freedom fighters who are supposedly better for us than Qaddafi) include one Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi. And, I’ll be darned, it turns out that Hasadi is a jihadist who fought the United States in Afghanistan, and was detained for years until our forces turned him over to Libya. That was during the Bush years, when, through democracy-project alchemy, Qaddafi was transformed into a valuable U.S. ally against terrorism. Our new friend Qaddafi promptly . . . released him in 2008, in a deal designed to appease his Islamist opposition — a common practice in the Middle East, where, because Islam dominates life, even dictators must alternately court and repress jihadists in order to hang on.

More here. Another reason why Catch and Release is a bad idea. Catch, Sentence and Lock Away for Life is a much better solution. Trust me on this point however, Obama was warned that the rebels were being led by Jihadists we had once detained in GITMO. He was well aware he was playing with deadly fire (but others would pay the price if he was wrong). This goes back to his naive and stupid belief Jihadists are good at heart, and not the latest evil to scour the world. He knew, and I hope Congressional hearings expose the fact he was fore warned.

Finally, we have a liberal UK news outlet waking up to the real source of famine in the world – liberal energy policies:

Thanks to dysfunctional regulation of genetic engineering and misguided biofuels policy, the world’s poorest are going hungry.

Food prices worldwide were up by a whopping 25% in 2010, according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, and February marked the eighth consecutive month of rising global food prices. Within the past two months, food riots helped to trigger the ousting of ruling regimes in Tunisia and Egypt. (It is noteworthy that food prices increased 17% last year in Egypt, and the price of wheat, a critical staple there, soared by more than 50%.) For poor countries that are net importers of food, even small increases in food prices can be catastrophic, and recent bumps have been anything but small.

Imagine that. The chaos roiling the Middle East is due to spectacular failures of liberal policies. Not really surprising giving how well all their other policies pan out. A fact we will sadly remember for decades to come as we pay off their mountains of debt, which produced mountains of nothingness in return. If nothing else, we have finally learned that good intentions backed by lots of money can still produce disasters if the intentions are not themselves backed up with experience, skill and real leadership. A fool with cash is still a fool.

Anyway, there is more to the tale of how liberals starved a planet:

And fourth, against this backdrop of lessened supply and heightened demand, private investment in R&D on innovative practices and technologies has been discouraged by arbitrary and unscientific national and international regulatory barriers – against, in particular, new varieties of plants produced with modern genetic engineering (aka recombinant DNA technology or genetic modification, or GM). Genetic engineering offers plant breeders the tools to make crops do spectacular new things. In more than two dozen countries, farmers are using genetically engineered crop varieties to produce higher yields, with lower inputs and reduced impact on the environment.

It is amazing how the proponents of evolution fight the use of evolution to create better food sources. I saw the lamest commercial the other day, where it claimed it sold seeds for vegetable plants that were not genetically manipulated. Which of course is a bald faced lie. Every domesticated food source (plant and animal) has been genetically manipulated. The difference between when the American Indians genetically manipulated maze into corn, and the modern efforts to create disease resistant corn, is the time cycle to achieve the resultant genetic changes. All ‘domesticated’ organisms are here because of human manipulation of their genome. We used the evolutionary principle that traits will thrive if selected for in each generation.

I mean, how thick do you have to be to not realize this? Anyway, combine the irrational fear of evolution on crops with the insane coupling of food and energy sources through ethanol, and you have the famine and riots envisioned by the Global Warming Alarmists.

The United States is approaching the diversion of 40% of the corn harvest for fuel and the EU has a goal of 10% biofuel use by 2020.

Which brings me to a possible epiphane:

It now looks like Global Warming is just a clever but incompetently woven cover story for all these other liberal policies backfiring! The best way to blame the pending chaos of liberal policies on those who they oppose and hate is to concoct some lame story about how it is all the fault of industry! Too bad that idea fell to shoddy science and math.