So you think getting Osama Bin Laden was the only thing on President Obama’s plate this past week? Well you’re wrong. An historic week it was, but what else did the President have to deal with, while getting the most wanted man in the world?
This video explains.
Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind of September 11 and the man who financed the killing of almost 3000 men, women and children on America soil – was hunted by the Bush Administration. But after the first few months of trying to find Bin Laden, George Bush got tired. To hear him say it;
We hadn’t [sic] heard from him in a long time, and the idea of focusing on a person is um, really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person, and ah, he’s just… he’s, he’s, he’s a person that’s been marginalized.
So I don’t know where he is, nor, you know. I just don’t spend much time on it. I’ll be honest with ya.
We hadn’t heard much from him. And ah, I wouldn’t necessary say he’s at the center of any command structure. And again, I don’t know where he is. I ah, I, I, I repeat what I said, I truly am not concerned about him.
And now that Bush is out of office and another president was sworn in, Osama Bin Laden is dead, mainly because we this other president was concerned enough to make Bin Laden’s capture a top priority. That president, according to top figures in the Republican party, is not President Obama, but former President, Mr. George Bush.
Sarah Palin for example, would not even mention President Obama by name, but she made sure to thank Mr. Bush. This report from yahoo news;
A day after Osama bin Laden’s death, Sarah Palin offered measured praise to President Obama for his role in approving the operation to kill the 9/11 mastermind, though she didn’t once mention the Commander-in-Chief by name.
Speaking at a tribute to military veterans in Colorado, the former Alaska governor credited Obama’s “decisive leadership” in the mission–referring to him as “the president.”
But she notably praised former President George W. Bush by name, insisting he had laid the groundwork for the successful operation. “We thank President Bush for having made the right calls to set up this victory,” she said.
The capture and killing of the most wanted man in the world, and Republicans are trying to take credit. If you listen to them, George Bush himself kicked down the door to Bin Laden’s room and pulled the trigger.
Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sat down for an exclusive interview with Lawrence O’ Donnell last night, and continued her defense of the Bush administration and their decisions to invade Iraq. She also credits Mr. Bush for the capture and killing of Osama Bin Laden, saying that a lot of the things Bush did, directly lead to Bin Laden’s demise.
When Lawrence pointed out that the decision to go into Iraq was wrong and based on a flawed report, Miss Rice got irritated and threatened to walk out on the interview.
Five months after September 11th 2001, the Bush administration shifted focus from Afghanistan and zeroed in on Iraq. One would think that after this interview, the reasons would be more clear. One would be wrong to think that.
We are not surprised. Democrats in the state of Wisconsin saw a need for this, and they are beginning the process of challenging the recall petitions Republicans have started against three Democratic senators, and today in Madison, formal papers were filed.
“The overwhelming evidence clearly shows a pervasive pattern of election fraud committed by the shady out-of-state organization hired by Republicans to collect recall petitions,” said Senate Democratic Leader Mark Miller. “Thousands of Wisconsin citizens fell victim to lies and misinformation spread by the circulators, and the papers submitted by this operation contain a river of omissions and wrong information.”
Miller continued: “We believe that when the facts are reviewed, the GAB will throw out thousands of flawed signatures because they were fraudulent or defective. The vast depth of this misconduct calls into question the legitimacy of every signature collected by these circulators, and shows that the GOP effort failed to gather the valid signatures needed for recall elections.”
According to the paperwork filed by Wisconsin Democrats, some of the reasons given for this challenge are;
Again, no surprise here. We’re talking about the GOP. Fraud is what they do.
The circus rolls into town tonight. On Fox News, the first presidential Republican debate begins, with five misfits. Will any of these performers get the eventual Republican nomination? We’ll have to wait and see.
Let’s meet the fab 5!
Tonight’s event could well be the first time in history that a nationally televised presidential debate lowers the stature of every participant. A total of five candidates are set to take the stage at 9 p.m., when Fox News — which customarily attracts several million viewers in that time slot — goes live. Only one of them, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, has a realistic chance of winning the GOP nomination — or even coming close. The other four are strident ideologues with niche appeal, nonexistent victory prospects — and absolutely nothing to lose.
* Herman Cain, the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza. Cain has run for office before, finishing a distant second (with 27 percent of the vote) to Johnny Isakson in Georgia’s 2004 U.S. Senate primary. This means that, from an electoral standpoint, Cain has a weaker claim to being taken seriously as a candidate than even Alan Keyes; at least Keyes had won the GOP nomination in the two failed Senate bids that preceded his 1996 and 2000 White House forays. To the extent Cain has distinguished himself on the ’12 trail, it’s probably through his pledge to engage in hiring discrimination by barring Muslims from working in his administration.
* Rick Santorum: Santorum was drummed out of the Senate by Pennsylvania voters in 2006, losing his bid for a third term by 17 points to Democrat Bob Casey. Other modern era presidential candidates who lost Senate races before setting out to run for the White House include: Democrats Carol Moseley Braun (2004) and George McGovern (1984), and Republican Keyes. (You could also, I suppose, include Mike Gravel, who lost a Senate reelection campaign in 1980 and sought the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.) Between them, they won a total of zero primaries and caucuses. Santorum won’t do any better, but he is passionately opposed to abortion, gay rights and President Obama — and he’ll have plenty of time to prove it tonight.
* Gary Johnson: The former New Mexico governor is probably, as Salon noted last year, the most interesting Republican you’ve never heard of — an authentic libertarian who wants to dismantle government but who also supports legal abortion and pot. Obviously, he’ll barely make a dent once the primaries roll around (especially with Ron Paul in the race), but he’ll get an unusual amount of airtime tonight for his unorthodox platform — which will presumably prompt Cain and Santorum to use him as a foil to assert their conservative bona fides, potentially forcing Pawlenty to weigh in on subjects he’d rather sidestep.
* Ron Paul: His presence figures to foster this same dynamic, just as it did in 2007 and 2008 — when no GOP debate was complete without one candidate using Paul as a punching bag in order to look courageous and principled in the eyes of the party base.
And that’s it. No other candidates (or potential candidates) will participate. Mitt Romney is wisely staying away, as is Mike Huckabee. Even Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann are keeping their distance. No-shows were not supposed to be an issue when Fox and the South Carolina GOP originally scheduled the debate a few months ago. Back then, it was assumed — based on recent history — that the GOP field would be fully formed and the campaign in full swing. But that hasn’t happened.
She just could be Beyonce’s competition. Watch as the First Lady of The United States, Michelle Obama, get’s down to some Beyonce.
Video.
Leave it up to Keith Olbermann to decipher the White House’s reasoning behind the release of the long form birth certificate. If true, it is a brilliant move on behalf of the President.
I know a lot of you will be thinking, why would you let the Republicans know the reasoning behind the President’s decision? I asked myself the very same question while Keith laid it all out on the table. But then I remembered – these are Republicans, you know, they wouldn’t know the truth if it… well, they wouldn’t know the truth!
Judge Napolitano of Fox News should be fired, but don’t hold your breath for that to happen, Fox openly demands that their employees make the kind of remarks Napolitano made yesterday. The Fox News ding-bat accused the President of “illigally killing” Osama Bin Laden. All this, because the President is not a Republican, and possibly because he’s black.
The Fox News Napolitano went on the propaganda machine better known as Fox Network, and basically called the president a murderer, saying, “this business of the president deciding to kill people is very dangerous and very unlawful.” He continued;
“Where will it stop. Who will President Obama kill next? Can the president now send the seals to kill colonel Qhadaffi? President Assad? Prime minister Putin? Fidel Castro? Hugo Chavez or Kim Jon Il? Can he kill whomever is an obstacle to his purposes?
Can he kill Bradley Manning or Juliane Assange? Or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? Could he kill Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or me? Can the president kill anyone who was once a friend but became our enemy?
Although the Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or “me” question may be a valid one in some circles, Napolitano’s rant, is of course, based purely on capturing some political ground for Republicans lost after Obama gains over the last week. And of course theres the racial element thats always present.
According to his own diatribe, Osama Bin Laden was the most wanted man in the world. He wasn’t wanted because of his pleasant ways and wonderful mannerism at the dinner table, he was wanted because he personally went on a mission to kill as many American citizens as he possibly could. And because of his hate and contempt for Americans, Osama Bin Laden was sought after by multiple administrations including that of Bill Clinton, who the Republicans, including Fox News, blamed for the attacks on September 11th. According to the Republican’s theory, if Bill Clinton had killed Bin Laden when “he had the chance to,” then September 11th, 2001 would not have happen.
George Bush tried to find and kill Bin Laden – a search that lasted about an hour. He sent in troops to drop bombs in known caves in Pakistan and Afghanistan, with the hope of killing Bin Laden. Drone attacks were often used but most of the time resulted in other terrorists being killed. “We want him dead or alive” was the famous Bush line. Judge Napolitano didn’t see the need to question these drone attacks or the other bodies they provided, but he now has issues with President Obama accomplishing what previous administrations couldn’t.
The Fox News employee suggests the only time a President is “legally” allowed to kill someone is, “in self defense, in war on a battlefield or after a verdict by a jury for the death penalty. ” Well it seems to me that two of the three reasons given, were present in the case of Osama Bin Laden.
And keeping with the mindset of Fox News, Mr. Napolitano lied to his sheeple, telling them that there are no pictures, just Obama’s word. Of course we know this to be a lie. There are pictures and a video of the mission. But even if there were none, how does Napolitano explain the survivors who were present in the mansion with Bin Laden? According to all the news reports and Pakistan officials, Bin Laden’s wife was shot in her leg, there were other dead bodies from the mission and there were children on the compound. If you are to believe Napolitano’s “all we have is Obama’s word,” then you will have to believe that Bin Laden’s wife volunteered to be shot in the leg, and the dead bodies are not really dead. You will have to believe that all the children found at the compound were paid off, probably with candy, to perpetrate afraud.
The whole point here is that Fox News and their sicko employees can’t accept the fact that a Democratic President – wait a minute, Bill Clinton was a Democratic President and they wanted him to kill Bin Laden – strike that… They can’t accept the fact that a black Democratic President accomplished what other administrations tried, and failed to do.
No, the official death pictures of Osama Bin Laden are not out yet, but as soon as they come out, we’ll post them here at EzKool. 🙂 In the meantime, enjoy the photos montage leading up to the daring mission that captured and kill Osama Bin Laden.
[cincopa AwBAGmavO5kM]
The video below explains
Yes, we can certainly understand a slip of the tongue, mistaking “Obama” for “Osama,” but not coming from a reporter or someone who is supposed to know the difference, whose job is to know the difference. And not when this reporter put the title of “president” in front of the name.
But then again, we are talking about Fox News.
Right after President Obama delivered the news on Sunday that Osama Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan, the Fox News anchor said that “President Obama is in fact dead.”
Where do they find these people?
In a telephone interview yesterday, Donald Trump broke the news that he will seek the presidency… in his mind that is.
In my mind, I have already decided,” Trump, 64, said in a telephone interview yesterday. “I am going to announce. But I can’t do anything until the show ends.
Trump said he will focus on “making our country rich and respected,” by creating jobs, boosting the economy and stopping China and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries from taking advantage of the U.S.
Many people have already concluded that The Donald is not running. They call his stunt over these past few weeks, a sad and pathetic attempt to garnish more publicity for his show, Celebrity Apprentice and his many financial endeavors. They point to the fact that The Donald has pulled this stunt before as evidence that he is simply not serious.
But what if he is? What if Trump is intent on proving his detractors wrong and is hellbent on living up to the pompous, egotistical excuse for a man we’ve seen on exhibit in recent weeks and actually try his hand at running for the most powerful position in the world? A position that he has absolutely no competency in ever performing?
The decision to run will be a liberal’s dream. We’re, quite frankly, not sure who will be more entertaining – Palin, Trump or Bachmann?
