Editor’s Note – So what will our illustrious leader, President Obama, tell us tonight regarding ISIS, Iraq, Syria, and terror threats the day before the second anniversary of Benghazi and the 13th anniversary of 9/11/01?
Are we in for a ‘fireside chat’, or a ‘come to Jesus moment’, maybe this is when Obama becomes an adult, not just a bad actor trying to look Presidential? Only the teleprompter knows! The irony of this moment is palpable – especially when we see the image below of his speech from 2010 declaring the end of our Iraqi combat mission – he looked like an adult then, didn’t he?
Does anyone think he will manage this mess in the Middle East well? Doubtful, the reason things are so bad across the globe now are directly attributable to his inability to manage to begin with. Of course, no matter what actions he chooses to take, we are all supposed to back him as he does. We are supposed to unite behind our “Commander-in-Chief” aren’t we?
The old axiom of leaving politics at our shoreline was crossed off the list by Obama himself beginning with his 2009 Cairo speech and his apology tour, so forgive us if we have no faith in his ability to manage any foreign policy, let alone a war, especially in regard to anything Islamic.
If you have family in the military now, like many of us, be very worried – we do not have to explain why, now do we? Using Obama and the word management in the same sentence is clearly an oxymoron, now isn’t it?
We could go on and on but Andy McCarthy has summed it up so well. Please read below:
A Mismanage-able Problem
Obama’s belief that he can “manage” the Islamic State may collide with reality.
President Obama says he intends to shrink the al-Qaeda-spawned Islamic State into a “manageable problem.” Perhaps we’ll learn more about how when he speaks to the nation on Wednesday evening. Still, the question presses: Is he the manager for the job?
In answering that question, past performance is more a guarantee of future results than is any statement of newfound purpose from a president whose innate dishonesty has turned his signature phrase “Let me be clear” into notorious self-parody.
In late September 2012, Mr. Obama’s administration quietly approved the transfer of 55 jihadist prisoners out of the Guantanamo Bay detention center. As Tom Joscelyn explained at the time, most of the detainees had previously been categorized as “high risk” because they were deemed “likely to pose a threat to the US, its interests, and allies” if released. Almost all of the rest had been assessed “medium risk” — still posing a threat, albeit one less certain than the “high risk” jihadists.
But Obama officials overruled those judgments. Rife with members of the Lawyer Left vanguard who had stampeded to volunteer their services to al-Qaeda detainees during the Bush years, who had smeared Gitmo as a gulag, and who had fought bitterly against the Bush/Cheney paradigm that regarded al-Qaeda’s jihad as a war rather than a crime wave, the administration determined that the anti-American terrorists were fit to be sprung from American custody.
Wait a second . . . two years ago in September . . . what was going on then? Why yes, the Benghazi massacre — whose second anniversary we mark this Thursday.
The Obama administration would like us to forget that bit of old news since “dude, this was like two years ago.” You may nonetheless recall it as an act of war in which al-Qaeda-affiliated jihadistsattacked a sovereign American government compound. The terrorists murdered our ambassador to Libya, killed three other Americans, and wounded many more in an eight-hour siege during which President Obama declined to take any meaningful responsive action. Indeed, agents of the U.S. security team in Benghazi say they were prevented from trying to save Ambassador Stevens.
Among those carrying out the attack were operatives of Ansar al-Sharia. That’s the al-Qaeda affiliate with cells in Eastern Libya’s jihadist hotbeds, Benghazi and Derna. Ansar is led by Sufian BenQumu, a former Gitmo detainee who, inexorably, went right back to the jihad.
News of Obama’s approval of the mass transfer of Gitmo detainees came less than two weeks after the Benghazi massacre. Let that sink in: The Obama administration knew that a former Gitmodetainee was complicit in the most humiliating defeat suffered by the United States since the 9/11 attacks that took the nation to war; yet, the president approved the transfer of dozens more Gitmoterrorists. Just as, only a few months ago, he approved the transfer of five top Taliban commanders even as the Taliban was (and is) continuing to conduct terrorist operations against American troops in Afghanistan.
Shocking, yes, but how surprising from Barack Obama? Mind you, this is the president who, though AWOL (and still unaccountable) while terrorists were killing and wounding American personnel in Benghazi, had the temerity not just to fly off to a Vegas fundraiser the very next day but to pick that setting, and that moment, to declare victory: “A day after 9/11, we are reminded that a new tower rises above the New York skyline, but al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat and bin Laden is dead.”
Yes, bin Laden is dead. But the terrorist hordes chanted, “Obama, we’re all Osama!” as they torched our embassies and raised the black flag of jihad — the flag the Islamic State vows to fly over the White House. And just two days after Obama’s “Mission Accomplished” fundraiser, Ansar al-Sharia’s Tunis cell attacked the American embassy there. That al-Qaeda franchise is led by Seifallah benHassine, long-time jihadist confidant of bin Laden and his successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Some path to defeat.
Of course, the Benghazi massacre would never have happened had Obama not switched sides in Libya, dumping the Qaddafi regime — theretofore an American counterterrorism ally — and partnering with Eastern Libyan jihadists. The president’s strategy ensured that enemies of the United States would acquire much of Qaddafi’s arsenal, empowering jihadist cells throughout North Africa and the Middle East, growing al-Qaeda and what would become the Islamic State. And as we have seen in just the last few weeks, Obama’s “lead the jihad from behind” strategy has resulted in the near complete disintegration of Libya, with Ansar al-Sharia and its allies now controlling much of Tripoli.
Nor is that all. Hours before the Benghazi attack began on September 11, 2012, there had been rioting at the American embassy in Cairo. It was stoked by al-Qaeda leaders — including Zawahiri’sbrother, Mohammed. The latter had called for attacks against the United States to avenge the recent killing of the network’s leader in Libya. The al-Qaeda leaders had also been threatening to besiege the embassy to extort the release of the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, imprisoned in the U.S. on terrorism charges. These jihadists had been enabled in their incitements against America by the Muslim Brotherhood–controlled government — a government the Obama administration had pressured Egypt’s military leaders to make way for.
When the Left says it intends to make the challenge of international terrorism “manageable,” that is usually code for saying it wants to return counterterrorism to the law-enforcement paradigm, in which terrorism is a crime addressed by indictments. Crime — petty theft, graft, racketeering, and the like — is a constant that society manages. National-security threats, on the other hand, cannot be indicted into submission. And they are not “managed” by imagining that if we ignore them they will go away.
President Obama probably does believe the Islamic State could become a manageable problem. Unfortunately, he also believes that when his ideology collides with reality, it is reality that must give. Reality does not see it that way.
Editor’s Note – With all the furor over the “Dishonorable Disclosures” video created by OPSECteam.org, a new book is due for release on September 11, 2012 that purports to tell the inside story of the Osama bin Laden raid. We do not know the tenor of the book but leaks of classified material have really caused a lot of harm to date, and Americans of all stripes are ‘piping hot’ mad, especially over the politicization of the events.
Now this book is raising a lot of eye brows because contents were not vetted by the Pentagon, which is a required procedure. Penguine Group, the publisher has/had an obligation to submit the transcripts to the Department of Defense for approval.
What else can, or perhaps should be said is, the author, writing under a pseudonym until some in the media revealed his identity, which SUA will not, has likely taken a hit for the team. A possible effort to reveal some real truths of the Osama bin Laden event, perhaps as a countermeasure to the “Zero Dark 30” movie being released this Fall that gives glory to the White House.
The former Navy SEAL who penned a firsthand account of the mission to kill Osama bin Laden did so without the permission of the U.S. government, officials said, and is now at the center of an ongoing controversy within the secretive special operations community over unauthorized disclosures.
The author of the book, who writes under the pseudonym Mark Owen, was a SEAL Team Six team leader during the mission that took out the al Qaeda leader and was “one of the first men through the door on the third floor of the terrorist leader’s hideout,” according to a statement from the book’s publisher, Dutton.
The Pentagon is awaiting a copy of the book to determine if it does contain material not suitable for publication. It appears they will likely find a lot to be concerned over, but we cannot know that at this time.
Leaks have already been many, and the determination of who leaked them is unknown, but the White House has been implicated. In response to these leaks and the political picture it painted, many retired CIA Agents, Navy Seals, and military command staff produced the video mentioned above. Naturally, there is a lot of consternation and many negative responses by supporters of the President, and by the President himself.
Recently, the man who made the real “gutsy call“, Admiral William McRaven, was refferred to as a General by President Obama about his ‘reverence’ for the Special Operations troops after being questioned about the OPSEC video:
… Obama’s slip in an interview with KSDK in St Louis, Missouri when he was asked about the new 22-minute film ‘Dishonorable Disclosures’ by a group of former Special Forces troops and intelligence operatives.
‘I won’t take this film too seriously,’ he responded. ‘I gather that one of the producers is a birther who still doesn’t think I was born in this country.
‘I’d advise that you talk to General McRaven, who’s in charge of our Special Ops. I think he has a point of view in terms of how deeply I care about what these folks do each and every day to protect our freedom.’
The difficulty with this is that William McRaven is and admiral not a general. As a SEAL, he is member of the US Navy, not US Army or US Marines.
For servicemen, ranks are important – they have worked hard and, in many cases, risked their lives, to earn them. And it’s one thing to omit a rank and another to botch the rank of the highest-ranking Special Forces operator in the country. (Read the rest here.)
Despite that error, Admiral McRaven is showing leadership, much as he so well managed the bin Laden raid, by telling his troops to “pipe down” and threatening legal action.
SUA is not sure of the scope, but the Pentagon is threatening legal action if secrets were revealed in the new book, but this may also be a veiled threat to others:
McRaven tells troops to pipe down
Special operations chief Adm. Bill McRaven warned his troops, current and former, that he would take legal action against anyone found to have exposed sensitive information that could cause fellow forces harm.
By KIMBERLY DOZIER – AP Intelligence Writer – in the Seattle Times
Special operations chief Adm. Bill McRaven warned his troops, current and former, that he would take legal action against anyone found to have exposed sensitive information that could cause fellow forces harm.
“We will pursue every option available to hold members accountable, including criminal prosecution where appropriate,” the four-star commander wrote, in an open, unclassified letter emailed to the active-duty special operations community Thursday, and obtained by The Associated Press.
The warning came a day after a retired Navy commando revealed he is publishing a first-hand account of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Pentagon officials say they have not been given a chance to review the book, but Pentagon spokesman George Little said Friday officials expect to receive a copy “very shortly.”
Little said the Pentagon will decide whether to take any action against the author once officials review the book’s contents to determine whether it includes classified information. He said the Department of Justice would have the lead role if any legal action were to be taken.
It also follows a media campaign by special operations veterans, decrying alleged leaks by President Barack Obama’s administration of secret operations, and criticizing Obama’s highlighting the raid as part of his reelection campaign.
McRaven also took former special operators to task for “using their `celebrity’ status to advance their personal or professional agendas.”
He acknowledged that former service members are “well within their rights to advocate for certain causes or write books about their adventures,” but he cautioned them against claiming to speak for all special operations troops and against endangering troops by what they write.
News broke Wednesday that one of the SEALs McRaven commanded on the bin Laden raid would be releasing his book, “No Easy Day,” on Sept. 11, with the author listed under the pseudonym of Mark Owen.
The author was identified Thursday by Fox News as Matt Bissonnette, who left the Navy last summer.
One current and one former U.S. military official confirmed the name, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss military personnel matters.
Penguin Group (USA)’s Dutton imprint, the publisher, asked news organizations Thursday to withhold his identity.
“Sharing the true story of his personal experience in `No Easy Day’ is a courageous act in the face of obvious risks to his personal security,” Dutton spokeswoman Christine Ball said in a statement. “That personal security is the sole reason the book is being published under a pseudonym.”
Bissonnette also changed the names of the other SEALs in the account, the publisher says.
Al-Qaida sympathizers posted photos of Bissonnette on jihadist web forums and called for his killing in retaliation for bin Laden’s death.
“First picture of one of the dogs who killed the martyr Sheik Osama bin Laden,” reads one posting, with a photo that has circulated in Western media said to be Bissonette, crouching with an automatic weapon. “We ask almighty God to destroy him sooner or later,” it reads.
The posting Friday was by a militant sympathizer who goes by the username “The Sniper of the Arabian Peninsula,” who often posts on such websites but whose identity is not known.
Efforts to locate Bissonnette for comment were unsuccessful.
McRaven’s plea for discretion comes as a number of special operators publish memoirs or appear in the media.
Best seller “American Sniper,” was published this year by former SEAL Chris Kyle, detailing his 150-plus kills of insurgents from 1999 to 2009.
Many of the special operations advocacy groups that are critical of Obama also openly identify members. One of the groups is run by retired Navy SEAL Ryan Zinke, who touts his time years ago at SEAL Team 6, the top secret unit that carried out the bin Laden raid.
Even Special Operations Command made an exception to its normal reticence with the media when it signed off on this year’s movie “Act of Valor,” which followed active duty SEALs carrying out training exercises that were turned into what looked like real action scenes for the film.
McRaven wrote that there was a difference between “Act of Valor”, which was approved by the command as a recruiting tool, and some of the other recent publications.
“There is, in my opinion, a distinct line between recounting a story for…education or entertainment and telling a story that exposes sensitive activities just to garner greater readership and personal profit,” he wrote.
The author of “No Easy Day” is slated to appear on the CBS News program “60 Minutes” on Sept. 9th.
Expecting a major best-seller, Dutton has already increased the initial print run of 300,000 copies to 400,000 copies. “No Easy Day” was No. 1 on Amazon.com as of late Friday morning, displacing the million-selling erotic trilogy “Fifty Shades of Gray.”
The publisher says the author will be donating the majority of the proceeds from the book to charities.
Associated Press National Security Writer Robert Burns contributed to this report. AP writer Hillel Italie contributed to this report from New York, and AP writer Lee Keath contributed to this report from Cairo.
Editor’s Note – Once again, a campaign maneuver is blowing up in the face of the Obama 2012 Campaign. The “war on women”, the “war on student loans”, and now the “Gutsy-Call” Ad, to name but a few. Politicizing everything…a must when you have a negative record that eclipses all former Presidents.
When your sole, positive accomplishment in office is achieving what America had been working on, since long before you made the “gutsy call”, we can understand it becoming a campaign slogan.
Do we condone it? Hell NO! And neither do the people who actually performed the act so well, and dutifully.
Why do we not hear more about the man who made the real “Gutsy Call”, Adm. McRaven? Pay special attention in the article below about the amount of time elapsed from when intelligence was found on his location, and the actual event. (High-lighted below)
It is a small person with a giant ego, a narcissist, that does such things. Then to watch Hollywood elites paraded into the situation room, along with television media on the first anniversary of the most famous assassination is unconscionable.
Then there was yesterday’s speech with the Japan’s Prime Minister where Obama answered questions about the campaign usage of the anniversary of bin Laden’s death.
Completely off topic, and in our opinion, a poor way to treat the visit of a fellow national leader, Obama said:
“I hardly think that you’ve seen any excessive celebration taking place here,” Obama said at a joint White House press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, pushing back at the idea he’s overplayed the marking of the event. “I think that the American people, rightly, remember what we as a country accomplished in bringing to justice somebody who killed over 3,000 citizens.”
Obama continued with a Romney jab: “I assume that people meant what they said when they said it. That’s been at least my practice,” he said. “I said that I would go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him and I did. if there are others who said one thing and now suggest they would do something else, I’d go ahead and let them explain.” (Read the rest here.)
The presidential campaigns are abuzz over a new campaign strategy by President Obama, who is playing up his decisiveness in the military operation that killed Osama bin Laden — and suggesting that his Republican opponent Mitt Romney wouldn’t have done the same. That’s the theme rolled out recently by campaign pit bull (and Vice President) Joe Biden, and it’s the topic of a new Obama ad that blogpreneur Arianna Huffington thinks is “despicable.” (Read the rest here.)
SEALs slam Obama for using them as ‘ammunition’ in bid to take credit for bin Laden killing during election campaign
Serving and former US Navy SEALs have slammed President Barack Obama for taking the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and accused him of using Special Forces operators as ‘ammunition’ for his re-election campaign.
The SEALs spoke out to MailOnline after the Obama campaign released an ad entitled ‘One Chance’.
In it President Bill Clinton is featured saying that Mr Obama took ‘the harder and the more honourable path’ in ordering that bin Laden be killed. The words ‘Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?’ are then displayed.
Besides the ad, the White House is marking the first anniversary of the SEAL Team Six raid that killed bin Laden inside his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan with a series of briefings and an NBC interview in the Situation Room designed to highlight the ‘gutsy call’ made by the President.
Mr Obama used a news conference today to trumpet his personal role and imply that his Republican opponent Mr Romney, who in 2008 expressed reservations about the wisdom of sending troops into Pakistan, would have let bin Laden live.
‘I said that I’d go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him, and I did,’ Mr Obama said. ‘If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they’d do something else, then I’d go ahead and let them explain it.’
Ryan Zinke, a former Commander in the US Navy who spent 23 years as a SEAL and led a SEAL Team 6 assault unit, said: ‘The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call.
‘I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice – it was a broader team effort.’
Mr Zinke, who is now a Republican state senator in Montana, added that MR Obama was exploiting bin Laden’s death for his re-election bid. ‘The President and his administration are positioning him as a war president using the SEALs as ammunition. It was predictable.’
Mr Obama has faced criticism even from allies about his decision to make a campaign ad about the bin Laden raid. Arianna Huffington, an outspoken liberal who runs the left-leaning Huffington Post website, roundly condemned it.
She told CBS: ‘We should celebrate the fact that they did such a great job. It’s one thing to have an NBC special from the Situation Room… all that to me is perfectly legitimate, but to turn it into a campaign ad is one of the most despicable things you can do.’
Campaigning in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Mr Romney responded to a shouted question by a reporter by saying: ‘Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.’
A serving SEAL Team member said: ‘Obama wasn’t in the field, at risk, carrying a gun. As president, at every turn he should be thanking the guys who put their lives on the line to do this. He does so in his official speeches because he speechwriters are smart.
‘But the more he tries to take the credit for it, the more the ground operators are saying, “Come on, man!” It really didn’t matter who was president. At the end of the day, they were going to go.’
Chris Kyle, a former SEAL sniper with 160 confirmed and another 95 unconfirmed kills to his credit, said: ‘The operation itself was great and the nation felt immense pride. It was great that we did it.
‘But bin Laden was just a figurehead. The war on terror continues. Taking him out didn’t really change anything as far as the war on terror is concerned and using it as a political attack is a cheap shot.
‘In years to come there is going to be information that will come out that Obama was not the man who made the call. He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn’t allowed to speak out against the commander- in-chief so his secret is safe.’
Senior military figures have said that Admiral William McRaven, a former SEAL who was then head of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) made the decision to take bin Laden out. Tactical decisions were delegated even further down the chain of command.
Mr Kyle added: ‘He’s trying to say that Romney wouldn’t have made the same call? Anyone who is patriotic to this country would have made that exact call, Democrat or Republican. Obama is taking more credit than he is due but it’s going to get him some pretty good mileage.’
A former intelligence official who was serving in the US government when bin Laden was killed said that the Obama administration knew about the al-Qaeda leader’s whereabouts in October 2010 but delayed taking action and risked letting him escape.
‘In the end, Obama was forced to make a decision and do it. He knew that if he didn’t do it the political risks in not taking action were huge. Mitt Romney would have made the call but he would have made it earlier – as would George W. Bush.’
Brandon Webb, a former SEAL who spent 13 years on active duty and served in Iraq and Afghanistan, said: ‘Bush should get partial credit for putting the system in place.
‘Obama inherited a very robust package with regards to special ops and the intelligence community. But Obama deserves credit because he got bin Laden – you can’t take that away from him.
‘My friends that work in Special Operations Command (SOCOM) that have been on video teleconferences with Obama on these kill or capture situations say that Obama has no issue whatsoever with making decisions and typically it’s kill. He’s hitting the kill button every time. I have a lot of respect for him for that.’
But he said that many SEALs were dismayed about the amount of publicity the Obama administration had generated about SEAL Team Six, the very existence of which is highly classified.
‘The majority of the SEALs I know are really proud of the operation but it does become “OK, enough is enough – we’re ready to get back to work and step out of the limelight.” They don’t want to be continuously paraded around a global audience like a show dog.
‘Obama has a very good relationship with the Special Operations community at large, especially the SEALs, and it’s nice to see. We had the same relationship with George W. Bush when he was president.’
It was ‘stretching a little much’ for Mr Obama to suggest only he would have made the decision. ‘I personally I don’t think Romney would have any problem making tough decisions. He got a very accomplished record of making decision as a business professional.
‘He may not have charisma but he clearly has leadership skills. I don’t think he’d have any problem taking that decision.’
Clint Bruce, who gave up the chance of an NFL career to serve as a SEAL officer before retiring as a lieutenant after nine years, said: ‘We were extremely surprised and discouraged by the publicity because it compromises the ability of those guys to operate.
‘It’s a waste of time to speculate about who would and wouldn’t have made that decision. It was a symphony of opportunity and intelligence that allowed this administration to give the green light. We want to acknowledge that they made that decision.
‘Politicians should let the public know where they stand on national security but not in the play-by-play, detailed way that has been done recently. The intricacies of national security should not become part of stump speeches.’
Watch the Campaign Advertisement here:
Please support our non-profit work at SUA
JOIN/SUBSCRIBE: Please join our team and receive periodic newsletters and announcements securely. (Your information will never be sold or transferred – Opt-out anytime.)
VOLUNTEER: If you are unable to donate your money, your time is just as valuable.
DONATIONS: Please consider a recurring monthly or a one-time donation.