Indeed, the members of Occupy Bagram have even prepared a message for the members of the domestic cells of OWS:

Of course, the Leftist slackers that make up the OWS rabble aren’t the sort to listen to any message from America’s military, except for those messages sent by traitors such as Bradley Manning and Scott Olsen and the broken, lost souls who joined the anti-military groups, MoveOn.org and/or Code Pink.

It’s been made clear by their jabbering rants that OWS doesn’t consider “Occupiers” as a positive title when they apply it to the patriotic American men and women serving America and freedom in benighted hellholes like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Any message about quitting bitching and whining and going out and earning a living is also unlikely to sit well with the OWS rabble. Firstly, if they were capable of doing that they wouldn’t be crying for handouts. Secondly, doing so would be to “go outside the expertise of their people.”

~*~

H/T to the redoubtable Michelle Malkin and to her source, Blackfive.

While I have some lingering doubts as to the truth of this, they don’t really matter very much since most of the world is taking this good news on faith. Hence I will accept these claims at face value until the unlikely event that they’re proven false.

That being the case, proper accolades are much in order, irregardless of my overall feelings about the Obama Regime, their near total lack of concern over those feelings, and the improbability that any of them would ever read this post:

Well done, Sir! Fucking well done! Huzzah!

To loosely paraphrase the First Lady, for the first time I’m proud of something you’ve done as President of my country.

– jonolan

President Obama acting as the POTUS and C-in-C gave the order for DEVGRU and the CIA to undertake a “kill mission” – codenamed Operation Geronimo – to exterminate Osama bin Laden in t’s compound in the affluent suburb of Abottabad, Pakistan – a mere 35 miles from the capital, Islamabad. Obama ordered the commencement of Operation Geronimo without notifying the Pakistani government due to realistic fears that they would help Osama bin Laden escape.

To paint this in a negative manner, as America’s enemies, both foreign and domestic, will certainly do, President Obama unilaterally violated the territory of a sovereign nation and violated several articles of international in order to assassinate a private citizen in a private residence, killing multiple others in the process of this act.

More accurately stated, President Obama put the needs and desires of the American people before the sovereignty of a “state” that created and continues to support the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and did not allow the puling sensibilities of foreign interests, most of whom are no friends of America, to get in the way of doing his duty.

It was a job well done, both in specific execution and in the tone of the message it sends the world.

Yet, due to a variety of reasons, a have some serious doubts as to the veracity of this claim.

Does it really matter though?

Whether it’s true and we’ve just exterminated Osama bin Laden or it’s false and Obama is perpetrating another lie, it’s highly unlikely that Osama bin Laden is still alive at this time.

Either way, most Americans and many people in the rest of the world believe that a US Special Forces “kill team” exterminated him on Sunday. This will have certain effects, some good and some less so depending upon your ideology:

1. Americans are happy with this thought. Our forces killing Osama bin Laden give them orders of magnitude more closure and joy than his dying of kidney failure or having been assassinated in an Al-Qaeda power struggle would. Sometimes “at least he’s dead” just isn’t enough.
2. A lot of people across the world are going to have a better chance of understanding that, if they harm Americans, we will get to them and kill them no matter how long it takes. We won’t stop until they’re dead. That’s nothing other than a good thing in this day and age.
3. True or false, claiming the kill for Osama bin Laden at this time gives the US a “Victory Condition” that Obama can exploit to pull all or most of our forces out of Afghanistan.
4. Whether the facts as presented by Obama’s people are fully accurate, they’re partially false and he cynically manipulated the date of Osama bin Laden’s extermination for political gain, or this whole thing is a well constructed lie, the fact remains that Obama’s going to get a huge surge in popularity over this.

This is one of those cases where perception is more important than reality. Does it really matter if we just exterminated Osama bin Laden as long as a large enough majority of people believe that we did and it’s not in anyone with the power to act’s vested interests to prove it false?

Yet we have no body and no proof that this is actually the truth. It’s actually just something that we’ve been told and that we want to believe.

Some people, myself included, have their doubts about the veracity of Obama’s claim.

It doesn’t count until you bring me the body.

– jmochagrrl aka Mrs. jonolan #2

The above quote was said before her or I knew that Osama bin Laden’s body was not still in US custody for verification of the kill, and jmochagrrl shows far more trust in- and support for Obama than I do.

Too Conveniently Timed

As much as I really want to believe that Osama bin Laden has been exterminated, the number of significant coincidences in the timing of this along with the lack of tangible proof set off my “bullshit alarm.”

1. Obama just recently formally launched his 2012 reelection campaign and he kills (by proxy) Osama bin Laden.
2. Obama needs to end the Afghan Conflict in order to regain some support in his base and he kills (by proxy) Osama bin Laden.
3. It’s eight years to the day after President Bush made his oft-mocked “Mission Accomplished” speech and Obama kills (by proxy) Osama bin Laden.
4. Obama just released what is purported to be a PDF of his long form birth certificate, once again igniting the flames of race-baiting against his detractors and he kills (by proxy) Osama bin Laden but has no incontrovertible proof of this fact.

Miracles do happen and sometimes politicians get handed gifts out of blue at the whim of the Gods, but this strains credulity more than a little bit.

Good planning can take the place of miracles more often than not and it’s not impossible that the pertinent details of this reported event are both accurate and a result of that planning. It’s a big stretch though in this instance to put that all together.

Reports of Osama’s Death

It’s seems hard to believe that Osama bin Laden, suffering from renal failure and needing dialysis, could survive on the run as he supposedly has if the US just managed to kill him. Add to that Benazir Bhutto’s claim in the weeks just prior to her assassination – hmmmmm… – that Osama had been murdered in an Al-Qaeda power struggle some time ago and things get even more doubtful

In point of fact, the Left repeatedly brought up the improbability of Osama bin Laden still being alive during the latter half of President Bush’s tenure in office. Those claims, much like the “anti-war” movement didn’t stop until Obama was installed into office.

~*~

Don’t get me wrong; I want to believe that we’ve exterminated this filthy vermin. I just have my doubts, doubts that partially stem from my – and most Americans – wanting to believe this is true and the sure knowledge that politicians and their staff know this.

With no apparent rhyme or reason to Obama’s statements, occasional half-measures, and string of inactions in response to any of the situations in the Mid-East, Africa, Asia, and Latin America people keep searching for some deeper game that he’s playing and ascribing various and sundry motivations to him.

There’s a far simpler and, I believe, much more likely rationale for Obama’s foreign policy inconsistencies:

Infographic: Obama’s Foreign Policy Goals

There are two rules one should always remember: “The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one” and “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

I firmly believe that Obama already displayed the extent of his foreign policy. He apologied to all and sundry for America’s status as a superpower, vilified the actions of his predecessors, and thought that our enemies would now begin to like, if not America, at least him.

Beyond that, I don’t think that Obama has any foreign policy goals.

As the international situation grows ever more fluid and we in America move towards the 2012 Elections this is something to keep firmly in one’s mind.

Strange Indeed! Most Believed Osama Preferred Goats

A leading Al-Qaeda cleric, Imam Abdul Al Akroot ibn Al Daa’reh Khanzeer responded to queries about Osama Bin Laden’s seemingly prohibited relationship with the North Korean dictator.

What Osama has done is permissible.  It is not the sin of homosexuality because Kim Jong Il is not a man; he is a monkey.  As Abdullah ibn Abbas narrated in the Kitab Al-Hudud, “There is no prescribed punishment for one who has sexual intercourse with an animal.”

Allah is merciful. Women of Islam are few and goats and such are many, and it is often hard for a man to tell them apart in the night. Allah knows this and thus it is halal.

Sadly, when questioned on the fact that the ayat immediately preceding the one that he cited (Book 38, Number 4450) called for the death of any man caught fornicating with an animal – and the death of the animal! – Imam Abdul Al Akroot went into a violent rage and became too incoherent to continue the interview.

The Civilized World just fervently and desperately hopes and prays that Osama Bin Laden and Kim Jong Il will not follow in the trend of celebrities couples and release a sex tape.

General Petraeus’ concerns seem to be over the probable additional risks to our troops stationed in the Muslim World the burning of the Qur’ans by the Gainesville, FL church would cause.

It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort. It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community.

Firstly, let me say the General Petraeus is quite accurate in his claims that Muslims will respond violently to the burning of Qur’an and that such a violent response would explicitly increase the dangers faced by our soldiery stationed within the Muslim World, especially those serving and fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Stimulus: Burning A Qur’an

Response: Muslims Riot And Go On Violent Rampage

It’s simply a proven fact that a great number of Muslims respond to being  offended by either targeted or mass acts of violence.  Their responses to insulting cartoons of their Prophet proved that point to the world. Therefor it’s hard to blame Gen. Petraeus for being against such a public burning of Qur’an. It will, without a doubt, make his job and the jobs of the troops he commands that much harder and that much more dangerous. Simple.

But this whole situation is more complex than that and, along with risks, it also calls to my mind SCOTUS Justice William O. Douglas’ opinion upon the case of Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949).

Accordingly a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.

Terminiello v. City of Chicago is quite applicable to this situation. Father Arthur Terminiello, a suspended Catholic priest, racist, and anti-Semite, sparked a violence in Chicago when his vitriolic speech at a rally resulted in a riot by 1000+ people outside the auditorium.

I’m also reminded of the oath that then-Cadet Petraeus swore in 1974 when he as a graduate of West Point accepted a commission in United States Army.

I, David Howell Petraeus, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of 2nd Lieutenant do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.

I can and do certainly sympathize with Gen. Petraeus’ feelings and I appreciate the horrible situation that he is currently in and how Jones’ planned burning of 200 Qur’ans would just make it worse. I’m not, however, completely sanguine about a 4-Star General publicly speaking in an official capacity – therefor under at least the appearance of the Color of Authority – against a small group of American civilians exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights of speech, expression, association, and religion.

How is that supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States as he once swore an oath to his God to do without reservation?

Frankly, I see little or no use for Dove World Church’s book burning whatsoever but I’m more worried about Gen. Petraeus’ and the Obama Regime’s responses to it than those of the Muslims. That’s because I’m worried about our government and military saying that we should censor ourselves because we might offend someone, Muslims in this case, and I’m even more worried about them wishing to censor Americans because they fear the likely violent response of those offended Muslims.

Obama Hopes He Won’t Be “Goldstoned”

Of course that means he now has to personally face the Muslim terrorists’ most dangerous weapons, filth like Richard Goldstone and other vermin like him who are the true weapons of jihad wielded by the Islamists and their neo-Janissaries, the UN.

Personally, I’m not too worried about President Obama being “Goldstoned” by the Muslim-loving terrorist sympathizers. He and the White House press corps – MSNBC, ABC, NY Times, CNN, etc… – can easily handle such paper terrorism. It would be obvious, after all, that any such complaints would actually be just examples of racism and the UN’s deep-seated problem with a Black man being POTUS.

Now, truth be told, Obama’s outburst had more to do with scoring political points by attacking President Bush then with any firmly held convictions Obama might have possessed, but his point about “dumb wars” had a certain validity.

War is a dirty, bloody, horrific enterprise that should be undertaken, when possible, only after careful planning and with a clear goal and a exit strategy kept firmly in mind.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.

– Sen. Barack H. Obama (D-IL)
October 2, 2002

It’s easy to argue that going into Iraq the second time was unneeded at that time, but harder to describe it as “dumb.” The operation was well-planned and we had clear objectives – though our exit strategy and the preconditions for such involved a time-frame that is largely unpalatable to the modern, “half-hour sitcom” format populace. It is also largely immaterial at this time; we’re pulling out of Iraq close to on schedule and the Administration that launched the war are no longer in power.

What About Afghanistan?

There’s a “dumb” war, if ever I saw one, and one that is growing more and more reminiscent of our protracted and ultimately failed engagement in Vietnam. What started out as a reasonably clear-cut punitive expedition by the US and NATO has become a quagmire.

General Stanley A. McChrystal, Commander of US & Allied Forces in Afghanistan, has pleaded for 40,000 more troops in order to prosecute the war there. President Obama and his administration seem very reluctant to provide those troops. The resulting schism between the US Military and the White House has become fodder for the media and various pundits.

For myself, I find this argument between the troops on the ground and the politicians in Washington D.C. to be ridiculous and a lethally stupid case of “putting the cart before the horse.” How can any decisions be made about the disposition of personnel and materiel before we have decided what the objective is?

What War Are We Fighting?

It’s rally a simple question and one that should have a relatively simple, if not necessarily easy, answer. I haven’t heard anyone – President Obama or Congress – provide that answer though.

• What are our strategic goals?
• What is the scope of our military’s mission?
• What constitutes the victory conditions?
• What is our exit strategy?

President Obama, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armies of the United States of America, is required to answer those questions; that is his job. So far he hasn’t done so and every day our soldiers, allied Afghan militiamen, and even those who we’re currently fighting against are dying for no defined purpose whatsoever.

On one lone point I agree with what Obama said before he was elected President; I’m opposed to dumb war as well.