Monday, May 2, 2011

Bin Laden Dead, And A Democratic Administration Proves it is strong on National Security

Osama Bin Laden is dead, and there is no way of interpreting this as other than great and wonderful news. Although Al Qaeda is not destroyed, and some will hold him as a martyr, Bin Laden was personally guilty of thousands of acts of murder, an enemy or the USA and all law abiding peace loving countries on this planet, and the leader of one of the most illegitimate murderous terrorist organizations in the world. His personal existence was an encouragement to his followers, and his death is a devastating blow to them (notwithstanding the spin they will surely espouse and any possible reprisals). America's actions send a strong warning to others who seek to commit similar heinous acts of terror and murder against the United States of America. This event also sends a clear message that justice will be brought to those responsible for such legal crimes and immorality, no matter where they hide, how careful their security, how rich their organization, or how complicit the country in which they were hiding. It also proves that President Obama, and his democratic administration, are stronger than Bush and his republican administration in the area of National Security.

But, let's take note that Republicans often run on a platform of being strong on "National Security." Yet President Bush had nine months to prevent 9/11, and more than seven years to bring Bin Laden to justice after 9/11. Bush, his administration, and the entire government and military (under his command and control) failed miserably, despite spending trillions of dollars and commencing two wars. In the name or protecting National Security, Bush also gave his administration extraordinary powers (which concurrently eroded the rights we treasure which are set forth in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States). Bush's embarrassing, unconstitutional actions, and violations of international law and standards include the torture of inmates at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and Abu Ghraib, and the enactment of the Homeland Security Act, all of which were done, and tolerated, in the name of National Security.

But Bush and the Republicans failed, and failed miserably, despite these two wars and extraordinary actions and measures, to bring Bin Laden to justice or advance USA National Security. The economic costs, human costs, and public relations damage of Bush's actions will be suffered for decades by Americans. Without a doubt, the National Security of the USA was catastrophically damaged by the Bush administration's actions and failures, all with the concurrence of Republican Congressional members. President Obama, his administration, and our government and military (under his command and control) in the two short years President Obama has been in office, not only captured and killed Bin Laden, but did it without Bush's extraordinary and problematic measures. President Obama showed his strength of leadership, especially in the area of National Security, his effectiveness as a President, and his commitment, ability, and desire to advance the interests of the United States of America. President Obama proved that democrats are as strong and effective in advancing the nation's National Security as anyone else could claim.

This occurrence also puts further shames and exposes those (including Donald Trump and other Republicans) who would slander the President by claiming that the President lied about his place of birth and religion (which slanderous allegations had already been conclusively put to rest), and then implying that the President was not a competent loyal American who would and could advance American interests.

Postscript: Two events of significance have occurred worth commenting on. First, many Republicans seek have credit for Bin Laden's death shared with Bush. They claim that it was during years of effort under Bush's administration that vital intelligence was obtained. This is false. First, the special division of the Seals which carried out this mission began forming after President Carter's failed to rescue the hostages in Iran. The need for a "Super Elite" squad of specialized counter-terrorism experts was recognized and created.

Under the Bush administration, all that happened was two wars and the torture and interrogation of captured people, both guilty combatants and innocent civilians. This incurred a great economic and humanitarian expense (both to our soldiers and to the Iraqi people) as well as a tremendous cost to the prestige of the United States. It was under the Obama administration that the intelligence was put together to actually find Bin Laden, and then the plan was formulated and executed to capture/kill him. Had the plan gone wrong, rest assured that these same Republican pundits and spin masters would not be giving Obama a break by claiming that it was not his fault as this effort "spanned many presidential administrations" as they now claim the credit does.

Another event is that Pakistan has announced, on May 10, 2011, that they will retaliate against America for any future incursions. Let the world be on notice that it is the inherent right to hunt down any person like Bin Laden and any organization like Al Queda which has effectively waged war on America, and that any country which harbours such people and groups, either through intentional complicity or passive incompetence, has waged its right to sovereignty and "dserves what it gets."

We are the people who have the courage to stand up to the wrong of our country and make it right!

Link Back to My Blog's Main Page

E-Mail Me


  1. You have described my observations to a "T". Obama deserves the credig and Bush and the Republicans deserve the blame. RE-ELECT OBAMA.

  2. Thank God he is dead!!!!

  3. Obama made a wise gesture to bridge the Gap between the USA and Arab world, in both supporting the Arab spring, and in referring to the Israeli borders. Yet the Arab league took it out of context, and wanted to take without giving anything. Obama made it clear that return to any borders would require peace and security for Israel. The Arab world has never agreed to that, Hamas opposes that, yet they want to seize Obama's statement out of context. Obama is not hard on Israel, just a misunderstood moderate.

  4. It is funny that for a liberal progressive you would celebrate the invasion of a foreign country by America and the assaniation of a human being.

  5. The above comment was absurd. Obama is a liberal, and he did the right thing. This was legitimate self defense. It was a justified police action.

  6. For the comment left on July 5th,

    What you speak of is absolutely crazy. No wonder you left this comment as anonymous. If you didn't, everyone would probably go out to get you. Osama Bin Laden was a heartless killer. He was the cause of 2,500 deaths when two planes crashed into the twin towers and caused the towers to fall to the ground in ashes and the cause of 300 deaths when a plane crashed into the pentagon. It was one of the most horrible events in human history and from that day forward, everyone who was alive at that time will remember where they were when they heard the news. Now, the killer of almost 3,000 people was served justice and you are against that. What do you think the U.S.A. should have done, let him have members of Al-Qaeda invade our country and massacre another few thousand people. Nice person you are.

    Hurray for Obama, a great and glorious hero for our country. Server of justice to the most evil terrorist that ever lived.

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. Response to the anonymous comment on July 5th,

    Let me first say that I am indeed a liberal progressive. Somehow, along the way, that label received false negative connotations. Just because I am for many causes, and support, respect, and discuss many causes, issues, countries, and even the actions of other countries, or political parties in other countries, does not mean for one second that I am anti-American.

    In fact, I believe that the current president of the United States has the most intelligence, best motivations, highest skill, and is the most reasonable of all presidents elected since the day I was born in 1962. Just because I don't want to see: (i) the poor of our country starve; (ii) our country's economy ruined; (iii) small children forced into prostitution; (iv) endangered species hunted to extinction; and (v) other issues, beliefs, and causes, does not make me lawless, unethical, or anti-American.

    Regarding Bin Laden, he ceased to qualify as a human being the day he began operating as a criminal and caused the murder of innocents, including the sailors on the USS Cole and most of all, the deaths and destruction on 9/11. His true nature was best seen when he was hiding like the murdering animal he was in the caves at Tora Bora.

    I know of no major country, in fact no country at all, and no credible governmental organization, including the UN, NATO, and all the regional organizations that did not consider him to be wanted murdering criminal. To use the word "terrorist" gives him too much credit as it connotates the use of violence for some legitimate, quasi-legitimate, or even mistaken cause.

    As far as saying that the US invaded a "sovereign" country, you are clearly referring the the heroic actions of Seal Team 6 in flying by helicopter from Afghanistan (from where Osama Bin Laden ran) to Pakistan (where Osama Bin Laden was hiding.) Before I say more, let me point out that Osama Bin Laden was a wanted criminal in both countries having been responsible for the murder of many Afghans and Pakistanis. As we all know, Afghanistan is known for its production of the poppy and the resulting drugs which are produced therefrom. I suggest that anyone who considers that America's actions were an “unjustified violation of Pakistan's sovereignty” is using too much of Afghanistan's products.

    At best, America rightly believed that Pakistan was unable or unwilling to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice. At worst, America rightly believed that Pakistan would protect him or able him to escape justice. In either case, America has the legal and moral right to hunt down such a person regardless of the location of the rat hole in which he cowers.

    All America did was send two helicopters, containing a couple of dozen courageous heroes, a short distance over the border from Afghanistan to Pakistan and land one inside a house compound and another right outside. No innocent people were harmed, and great care and length was taken to ensure that no innocent lives or property were hurt, and the US was 100% successful in this. Within a matter of minutes, those soldiers were out of Pakistan.

    If that constitutes an “invasion” [and clearly it does not], I could care less. Things happen all over the world about which there is more reason to care. Children get cancer everyday, and have to undergo such treatments as chemotherapy. The suffering of even a single such child concerns me far more than the issue of whether those two helicopters, and the actions of their occupants, constituted a “technical” violation of the “legal” definition of a nation's sovereignty.

    Lastly, the use of the word “assassination” could lend itself to pages and pages of explanation as to why it is improper. Let me just, in a very brief allusion to such explanations, use the words “justice,” “self-defense,” “justifiable” and “fortunate.”

    David M. Ginsberg

  9. With the death of Anwar al-Awlaki and dozens more in Pakistan and elsewhere, the US is finally nailing the coffin in Al Queda shut, as the molslem world would say, Inshallah, as God [Allah] wills it.

    Who else could be this strong in foreign policy but President Barak Obama? Long gone is the "conventional wisdom" that Democrats are soft on Foreign Policy and Republicans are strong.