Obama The Acquiescent Meets Osama bin Laden

By
May 6, 2011

I've read several attempts, or struggles, actually, at trying to understand what may, or may not have happened in and around the Situation Room the night some combination of Intelligence and Military personnel took down Osama bin Laden for the Obama administration. The latest one here via the American Thinker.

Left to his own counsel, would Obama have loaded the weapon let alone pulled the trigger? Was this an authentic act of extinguishing evil or mere political expropriation? The answers to such questions are perhaps less important than that such questions can be asked. And not a single answer, so far, makes any sense.

As for some of the conspiracy theories – Hillary, or Panetta, or whomever made the call, I dismissed them early on and continue to. No matter how much I may disagree with them politically, I refuse to believe any of them would risk initiating what could be seen as an act of war with a nuclear power, however modest, un-Constitutionally.

The first night I Tweeted, Obama may be the only person who could ruin the success for America of taking down Osama bin Laden, as far as the ensuing narrative and press coverage. But, true to form, he has done mostly that. But just as with any decision to kill bin Laden, it isn't because of what others did, or may have done. It was because of his ideology and intellectualism, one that also compelled him to so often vote present in the past, performing precisely as one might expect under the circumstances.

Obama found himself with no other choice. However, I don't believe for a minute he wanted to have bin Laden killed. Everything he represents suggests he would never do that. This is a man who wanted to close Guantanamo, try terrorists as criminals in New York City, a man whose Progressive moral equivalence causes him to see the taking of a life in such  manner as an illegal act. But in the end, circumstances left him no other choice – politically.

When Panetta came out and said a death picture was coming, I believe he thought Obama agreed and supported that decision. Unfortunately, anyone who talks to Obama long enough about most anything will likely come away believing Obama somehow agrees with them. In reality, I suspect Obama gives that impression, with or without meaning to, all the while shifting and sorting his cards close to his vest. If Bush was the decider, Obama is the undecider – until his hand is forced, that is.

That's precisely how I gather the operation to take down bin Laden played out. No one set it up without his agreement, though it was likely more with his acquiescence, than agreement, that permitted them to act lawfully while doing it.

Of course, in the end, he was forced by circumstances to make a choice. Given his belief system, combined with his ambition and political realities, what else could he do? Various states and even New York City refused to have even lesser terrorists in their midst back when he tried to make them do that by closing Guantanamo.

If they took bin Laden alive, what was Obama supposed to do with him? Put him in Guantanamo, thereby forcing an even brighter spotlight on one of Obama's earliest and most significant failures – to close it? No, he couldn't do that – not politically, anyway. And no other country would ever consider taking him.

And there you have it. Various agencies, agents and entities did their jobs just as they were supposed to do, creating a set of circumstances in which Obama had no other choice politically. They couldn't simply let him go! So, he did what he always does under those circumstances, the same thing he had done to create them – he acquiesced.

In the end, other than whomever actually pulled the trigger, a bodyguard following instructions, or a brave member of SEAL Team Six that, one or the other of them acting as trained and instucted under their own circumstances, no one actually decided to kill Osama bin Laden – it was circumstances.

In some ways, no one killed Osama bin Laden. But then, who, or what, other than no one, or some unknown figure, has Obama appeared to be to most Americans since they closed the campaign down in 2008? He's precisely what an adivser recently said he is – someone who leads from behind, if it can be said he leads at all.

Ironically enough, one might just as easily conclude that it was former President Bush who killed Osama bin Laden in the end. He was, after all, the individual who created the circumstances, despite Obama's failed steps to prevent or subvert them, that painted Obama into the corner in which he found himself the night he acquiesced and bin Laden took a bullet in the head for reasons and circumstances created around Obama, as opposed to by his hand.

Hell, maybe the best answer is, America killed Osama bin Laden, regardless of who the serving President happened to be at the time.

Finally, it's also likely that because Obama doesn't quite feel that his hands are entirely clean in the killing that we're now seeing such a clusterf*ck of a media whirl in the after math. It's often been noted that presidencies age most men quickly. I'd wager Obama is learning the truth of that phenomenon, more than anything, from the circumstances he finds himself in now.

Please consider supporting RiehlWorldView with a small donation
, by shopping at Amazon via our Associate link in the sidebar or by re-distributing our content across the Web with the options below. Thank you.


Comments:
  1. Ragspierre says:

    “America killed Osama bin Laden”.
    True.

  2. Ragspierre says:

    Here’s another thing that stinks…
    the story about the March bombing plan.
    Naw. Not EVEN credible. TWO B2s and “dozens of JDAMs”…???
    Please, Nigerian…!!! NOBODY remotely aware of the overkill involved would SUGGEST any such stupid thing.

  3. barfo says:

    Victory has 100 fathers and defeat is an orphan.

  4. Aye says:

    and barfo is a dumb azz.

  5. Ragspierre says:

    Victory has 100,000 fathers in this case.
    Actually, that may be short by a factor of ten.

  6. David R. Graham says:

    Dan, for what it’s worth, your exegesis on this does not convince me. Too complex, too psychological and elides relevant actors. I’m sure you’ve seen the account by the “Marine.” That one, to me, sounds closest to the truth. To me, the op has “Clinton” written all over it, to include Daley. I think the “Marine’s” characterization as a “temporary Coup” is accurate. I think it is more than temporary — thus all the backing and filling. I think the nation’s national security infrastructure has assessed the liar in chief and his control, Jarrett, as constitutionally incompetent, unable to fulfill the Oath of Office. That assessment, of course, is accurate. My 2c.

  7. Ragspierre says:

    It is no more complex than this…
    Obama made a virtue of necessity.
    See the period…???

  8. harry says:

    So imagine you get a chance to get Bin Laden. You know where he is. You’ve been scoping out his hideout for months. You’ve been eavesdropping on his conversation. Hell you even hacked his PS3 for fun and took out the whole network because you know he’s been using it to communicate with Al Qaeda. Why just kill him immediately? And what’s all this with a burial at sea? Just put a few stupid words in the mouth of Obama and everybody believes it – stupid people because they’re gullible and smart people because they think they’re smarter.
    C’mon. You don’t get your mitts on Bin Laden just to kill him, and you don’t have 40 SEALs who are too slow to tackle the dude. There’s is no picture because he’s not dead yet. They’re twisting him on a spit and slow roasting him until he’s so tender the secrets just drip of the bones. They’ve got him simmering in pentathol.
    By the way, does anybody think the exfil was done all in one swoop? There are still dudes back in the area slurping up traffic.
    When I first heard the story break, I could have sworn it was a week delayed. But there was live tweeting going on by locals who heard the helo crash but didn’t know what it was. They thought it was a drone attack. Anyway I was sure that there were networks to roll up in advance of the announcement. But it looks Obama had to speak fairly quickly about the ‘kill’ before the real-time world caught up with him. Still, our men in camo and blackface know how to get out of Dodge under the cover of darkness leaving no trail, so nobody knows exactly how they humped OBL out of the middle of Pakistan to ‘the sea’. That’s a dark trail – so dark that in fact OBL could be anywhere.
    He’s certainly not free or missing, that’s for sure. He’s never going to see the light of day. But is he dead at this very moment? You will never know.

  9. Restaurants says:

    Go to hell osama………

  10. Elmo says:

    David R. Graham | Friday, May 06, 2011 at 06:03 PM
    Like the vibe. Uniforms using whatever implement’s at hand. In order to expose the filthy Islamist traitor within. Without actually just walkin right up to the turd … and slappin’ it (silly/back to the last millennium). As much as they would like to. Staying within the outlines … using/piecing together the broken crayons. In order to paint the picture we now all see. Call it either heroic … or (out of necessity) desperate.
    None the less, I won’t completely discount my own view (as much as I like the others on offer). What better cover for Buraq the Magic Islamic Sparkle Pony? Than to be the one Islam now hates. I’m just not convinced Obama is a dolt [sure, yes, you can pick a hundred diff categories that he is/holds true (but not this)]. And the totality, of the very large number of hagiographic events, of the last two weeks … some sort of continuous 24/7 lucky media accident?
    Please. Obama lives in a world I think many simply are not able to imagine (having no clue, no inkling of any kind). Evil and monsters do in fact exist. And there be no greater … than Buraq Hussein. Really. He is no leader of any f*cking kind. Nor even a man. Nor of course … President, of these United States. HE IS AN ISLAMIST TRAITOR.
    I believe ALL of his thoughts and actions are derived from out this. There is nothing else. Yes, (believing/calling him a) moron, imbecile, freak, clown … do make the hideous nature of events now unfolding … perhaps/possibly less so.
    Giving a strange comfort. He is what he is. Scary, frightening, unbelievable that be. I would simply caution [as I said two weeks ago (... trust no one, question EVERYTHING)]. Taking perhaps just a moment … one. And asking … who’s zooming who? And who is getting zoomed?

  11. The White House says the president, along with Vice President Joe Biden, met privately with the troops at Fort Campbel

  12. Ragspierre says:

    Yeah, as Rush said yesterday…
    he wanted to give them the opportunity to thank him.

  13. CaptainAmerica says:

    “In some ways, no one killed Osama.” Gibberish. Some seal put a bullet in hi.
    And if Obama hadn’t gone to thank them, Rush would be telling us how Obama snubbed the troops.
    Obama made the decision that put the operation in motion. And some seal put a bullet in OBL.
    Had it failed, all you’d be talking about is how Obama screwed up.
    Instead, it was a great success for Obama, the troops involved, everyone that’s hunted OBL, and all of America. Pretty much everyone that doesn’t suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome.

  14. Ragspierre says:

    “…how Obama snubbed the troops.”
    Like when his administration fostered the prosecution of SEALs who punched a terrorist???
    “Rush would be telling us how Obama snubbed the troops.”
    That is a lie.
    “Had it failed, all you’d be talking about is how Obama screwed up.”
    Depends on the circumstances. If he screwed it up like Carter, yeah.
    “Instead, it was a great success for….all of America.”
    Which is what Dan said. But I had to fix it for ya. Moron.

  15. Ragspierre says:

    “Tonight, I can report . . . And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta . . . I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden . . . I met repeatedly with my national security team . . . I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action. . . . Today, at my direction . . . I’ve made clear . . . Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear . . . Tonight, I called President Zardari . . . and my team has also spoken. . .These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief . . . Finally, let me say to the families . . . I know that it has, at times, frayed. . . .”
    Most of these first-person pronouns could have been replaced by either the first-person plural (our, we) or proper nouns (the United States, America). But they reflect a now well-known Obama trait of personalizing the presidency.
    The problem of first-personalizing national security is twofold. One, it is not consistent. Good news is reported by Obama in terms of “I”; bad news is delivered as “reset,” “the previous administration,” “in the past”: All good things abroad are due to Obama himself; all bad things are still the blowback from George W. Bush.
    Two, there is the small matter of hypocrisy. The protocols for taking out Osama bin Laden were all established by President Bush and all opposed by Senator and then candidate Obama. Yet President Obama never seeks to explain that disconnect; indeed, he emphasizes it by the overuse of the first person. When the president reminds us this week of what “over the years I’ve repeatedly made clear,” does he include his opposition to what he now has institutionalized?
    Guantanamo proves to have been important for gathering intelligence; Barack Obama derided it as “a tremendous recruiting tool for al-Qaeda.”
    Some key intelligence was found by interrogating prisoners abroad; Barack Obama wished to end that practice: “This means ending the practices of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands without charge or trial, of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of law.” “That will be my position as president. That includes renditions.” Renditions have not ended under Obama, but expanded.
    In some cases we are trying suspects through military tribunals; here again, Barack Obama used to deplore the practice he now has adopted: “a flawed military-commission system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9/11 attacks and that has been embroiled in legal challenges.”
    Senator Obama complained about airborne attacks on the Afghanistan-Pakistan borderlands. President Obama increased Predator assassination attacks fivefold. He has killed four times as many terrorist suspects by Predators in 27 months than did President Bush in eight years.
    In January 2007 — three weeks after President Bush announced the surge — Senator Obama introduced the “Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007.” If it had passed, that law would have removed all troops from Iraq by March 2008. Obama derided the surge in unequivocal terms both before and after its implementation: “I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.” “Here’s what we know. The surge has not worked.”
    Candidate Obama criticized warrantless wiretaps, in accusing the Bush administration in the harshest terms: “This administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not.” A disinterested examination of present policy regarding both wiretaps and intercepts would show no change from the Bush administration, or indeed considerable expansion of the use of these tools.
    If one wonders why former President Bush did not attend ceremonies with President Obama this week in New York, it might be because of past rhetoric like this about policies Obama once derided and then codified: “I taught constitutional law for ten years at the University of Chicago, so . . . um . . . your next president will actually believe in the Constitution, which you can’t say about your current president.” George Bush did not believe in the U.S. Constitution?
    In sum, Senator Obama opposed tribunals, renditions, Guantanamo, preventive detention, Predator-drone attacks, the Iraq War, wiretaps, and intercepts — before President Obama either continued or expanded nearly all of them, in addition to embracing targeted assassinations, new body scanning and patdowns at airports, and a third preemptive war against an oil-exporting Arab Muslim nation — this one including NATO efforts to kill the Qaddafi family. The only thing more surreal than Barack Obama’s radical transformation is the sudden approval of it by the once hysterical Left. In Animal Farm and 1984 fashion, the world we knew in 2006 has simply been airbrushed away.–Victor Davis Hanson
    Perspective is good. Reality is essential.

  16. Ragspierre says:

    President Obama has officially kicked off his 2012 re-election campaign, and don’t Republicans know it. The president is expected any day now to sign an executive order that routs 70 years of efforts to get politics out of official federal business.
    Under the order, all companies (and their officers) would be required to list their political donations as a condition to bidding for government contracts. Companies can bid and lose out for the sin of donating to Republicans. Or they can protect their livelihoods by halting donations to the GOP altogether—which is the White House’s real aim. Think of it as “not-pay to play.”
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703992704576305414137806694.html
    Yeah. Obama really loves him some Constitution.

  17. CaptainAmerica says:

    Imagine, corporations having to tell the public what politicians they’re trying to buy. Shocking.
    Shorter Ragspierre – I HATE Obama and will never, ever give him credit for anything.

  18. Ragspierre says:

    You didn’t read the article, did you stupid, lying puke?
    Of course not, Cap-i-tANUS.
    You support thug politics.
    Are all contractors corporations? Of course not. Why would it matter?
    The Supremes have said this is unconstitutional. Obarambo is going ahead. He NEEDS the money, honey, and he wants contributions to his opponent crippled.
    “Shorter Ragspierre – I HATE Obama and will never, ever give him credit for anything.”
    That…of course…is a lie, and you a liar.
    I credit Obama for doing what he was compelled by circumstances to do in taking out bin Laden, and not screwing it up. Full marks.
    I credit him for doing what he was compelled to by adopting each of the various sound policies of BushitlerMcChimpy promulgated after 9/11, with the exception of…
    well, pretending he wasn’t, crippling DOJ investigations of Muslim front groups, setting a culture in the military that has our war-fighters confused, etc.
    Oh, and I give him credit for destroying the American economy with his Collectivism, which most often is pure fascist economic policy (look it up, moron).

  19. CaptainAmerica says:

    “Shorter Ragspierre – I HATE Obama and will never, ever give him credit for anything.”
    Monsieur Ragspierre writes: That…of course…is a lie, and you a liar.
    For your litany of lies, that is the biggest whopper you’ve ever told. You can’t stand the guy. You take ever possible shot at him, no matter how cheap.
    Bush and the Republicans destroyed the economy. It was in collapse when he took office. Now he’s trying to fix it.

  20. Ragspierre says:

    Oh, and I give him MOST credit for showing you pukes who ran around with your hair on fire for…well, until now…about how EVILLLLLL Americans are to be the total, craven, crap-eating hypocrites you have proven to be.
    THAT was his greatest fete to date…!!!
    And SO funny…!!!!!

  21. Ragspierre says:

    “Bush and the Republicans destroyed the economy. It was in collapse when he took office. Now he’s trying to fix it.”
    See how true VDH’s words were?!?!?
    Who ran Congress during the last two years of the Bush term?
    Who BLOCKED…I dunno….FOURTEEN Bush efforts to rein in the CRAP MORTGAGE empire that Bwany Fwank and Chris “Sandwich” Dodd created and MAINTAINED…?!?!?
    Ah, but never mind, Collectivist liar.
    This is all too hard for you.

  22. CaptainAmerica says:

    The causes of the collapse built up over years. Some was Clinton’s fault, some Bush’s, some Republican, some Democrat. But the core problem was the belief that regulation was bad, corporations didn’t need to be policed and the market would solve all problems. They don’t.
    Even Alan Greenspan, the mumbling Guru of Deregulation, admitted he’d been wrong.

  23. Ragspierre says:

    Well, I give you credit for your walk-back from the stupid statement above.
    Put up all that deregulation you are lying about, Cap-i-tANUS.
    After you do that, we’ll walk through the MILES of regulation in the Federal Code.
    Then you can show how anything ACTUALLY deregulated had an effect on the collapse of the mortgage lending industry APPROACHING the forced abandonment of sound lending…FORCED by BIG GOVERNMENT.
    We will wait…

  24. Ragspierre says:

    Deregulators run amok undoubtedly make a flamboyant culprit. But do they exist? Should we really be taking seriously the claim that the past eight years have been characterized by letting “the market run wild”?
    Granted, there has been significant recent legislation easing financial restrictions. Most often mentioned is the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which, as The New York Times described it on Monday, “removed barriers between commercial and investment banks that had been instituted to reduce the risk of economic catastrophes.” Some argue that the law, which allowed traditional banks and investment firms to be affiliated under one holding company, helped bring on the credit meltdown. Even if true, how was that George W. Bush’s fault? The law was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1999, after being passed by lopsided majorities in both houses of Congress.
    President Bill Clinton after signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. The law partially deregulated the securities industry. (Photo: Justin Lane/The New York Times)
    Gramm-Leach-Bliley’s lead sponsors were Republicans, but the 34 Democratic senators who voted for the bill surely weren’t scheming to “let the market run wild.” Ditto the 151 Democrats — among them future Speaker Nancy Pelosi — who voted for the measure in the House. Then-Treasury Secretary (and current Obama adviser) Larry Summers didn’t denounce the bill as “laissez-faire jungle capitalism” — he praised it for “promoting financial innovation, lower capital costs, and greater international competitiveness.” Clinton himself defends the law to this day.
    Now, this is not to say that Bush hasn’t also been responsible for legislation having a decided impact on the country’s regulatory climate. On July 31, 2002, declaring that free markets must not be “a financial free-for-all guided only by greed,” he signed the Sarbanes-Oxley law, a sweeping overhaul of corporate fraud, securities, and accounting laws. Among its many tough provisions, the law created a new regulatory agency to oversee public accounting firms and auditors, and imposed an array of new requirements for financial reporting and corporate audits. Whatever else might be said about Sarbanes-Oxley, it was no invitation to an uninhibited capitalist bacchanal.
    Like the alligators lurking in New York City sewers, Bush’s massive regulatory rollback is mostly urban legend. Far from throwing out the rulebook, the administration has expanded it: Since Bush became president, the Federal Register — the government’s annual compendium of proposed and finalized regulations — has run to more than 74,000 pages every year but one. During the Clinton years, by contrast, the Federal Register reached that length just once.
    Similarly, the administration has broken every previous record for regulatory agency spending. According to researchers at Washington University and George Mason University, appropriations for federal regulatory functions have soared during the Bush years. Adjusting for inflation, the regulatory budget has grown from $25 billion in fiscal year 2000 to an estimated $43 billion in FY 2009 — a 70 percent increase. “In constant dollars,” writes James Freeman in the Wall Street Journal, “the Bush regulatory budget increases vastly exceed those of predecessors Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, and, yes, Lyndon Johnson.” Staffing has skyrocketed, too. Regulatory agencies employed 175,000 people in 2000. They employ nearly 264,000 today. (Some of that reflects the Transportation Security Administration’s takeover of airport security screening in 2003.)
    Amid the stress and storm of the financial crisis, “deregulation” makes a convenient villain. But the facts tell a different story: The nation’s regulatory burden has grown heavier, not lighter, since Bush entered the White House. Too little government wasn’t what made the economy sick. Too much government isn’t going to make it better.
    Funny.

  25. CaptainAmerica says:

    Derivatives were never regulated
    Like everything, it depends where and how the money was spent.
    Greenspan:
    “You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, chairman of the committee. “Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?”
    Mr. Greenspan conceded: “Yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.”
    On a day that brought more bad news about rising home foreclosures and slumping employment, Mr. Greenspan refused to accept blame for the crisis but acknowledged that his belief in deregulation had been shaken.
    He noted that the immense and largely unregulated business of spreading financial risk widely, through the use of exotic financial instruments called derivatives, had gotten out of control and had added to the havoc of today’s crisis. As far back as 1994, Mr. Greenspan staunchly and successfully opposed tougher regulation on derivatives.
    But on Thursday, he agreed that the multitrillion-dollar market for credit default swaps, instruments originally created to insure bond investors against the risk of default, needed to be restrained.
    “This modern risk-management paradigm held sway for decades,” he said. “The whole intellectual edifice, however, collapsed in the summer of last year.”

  26. Ragspierre says:

    Ah, so NOW we are NOT talking DE-regulation…!?!?!?
    But NON-regulation…!!!!
    How ’bout this, binky…
    Derivatives…which are NOT “exotic financial instruments” unless you are a BLAZING ignoramous…were never regulated.
    Here is why; derivatives are, by the very nature, SUPPOSED to be LESS risky than the individual loans (or whatever) that go into composing them (the things from which they derive, see?). In other words, they are ways to pool risks…most of which are rather low…to wind up with an instrument that is LESS risky.
    BUT, when you had derivatives COMPOSED almost ENTIRELY OF CRAP, VERY HIGH RISK, FORCED mortgages…
    guess what you wind up with???? VERY RISKY, CRAP deriviatives…!!! ShaAAAA-zam.
    This leaves us with the fundamental question: are DERIVATIVES actually risky, OR
    are CRAP FORCED mortgages really, terribly, awfully BAD governmental policy…
    FOISTED on us by BIG FLUCKING GOVERNMENT….???

  27. David R. Graham says:

    @Elmo – Thanks for using Burak, the name of the individual in question, and referencing the horse and rider the name references. I’ve long said this Burak is a stalking horse for the Moslem Brotherhood. Has been for decades. A skilled liar surrounded by skilled liars. Everything he/they do/say is a lie. Everything, without exception. And yes, a terrorist, but a Mohammedan Brotherhood one, not an AQ one. His/Jarrett’s desire not to take out UBL is based on their desire not to show their preference for MB over AQ. MB aligns with Iran, at least temporarily, even though MB is Sunni. Burak is a Shiite-based secularist MB mole. MB has been financing him, clearing the way for him for decades. Burak/Jarrett don’t want to show which side they’re on in the MB/AQ/Secular/Salafist ME power struggles. But of course, leader cadres there are in no doubt about it. Bowing to Saud didn’t fool the Sauds or anyone else in the ME. Sauds are furious with him/Jarrett for backing MB across North Africa. Gadaffi also. Sauds quietly and Egypt and Jordan openly were friends of Israel. Now everyone has to re-triangulate because Burak backed his backers, the MB. He/Jarrett did not want UBL killed because that would tip their hand. US national security infrastructure went around that and did it. And that includes Daley, the WH CofS. It must be fireworks city in the West Wing. Government is in caretaker status, Burak being allowed to parade his ego but he/she are not running things. Burak alone and as “POTUS” is a kept man. The windings are tightening.

  28. Ragspierre says:

    Refudiation time, trolls…
    http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/
    Let’s see what you do with THAT…!!!!

  29. Elmo says:

    As far back as July ’09, David, I was referring to Chucklehead, as a member/associate of the Muslim Brotherhood. And (of course) a number of times thereafter. But of all the terms of affection [I've used (possibly even one whole entire blog post, devoted to same)], Buraq Hussein (the magic Islamist sparkle pony) pretty much sez/does it for me.
    The madness, the insanity … of it all. The willful media complicity. That morning after (didn’t see the evening) coverage/replay/announcement (of/about UBL) … in that second moment (after first a scream of pure horror heard in Haides) felt quite strongly, would be Buraq’s undoing.
    The greatest miracle will be he survives in office, until the election. Without first being removed (I GUARANTEE he will not be reelected). But then … he has help. Lots and lots and lots of it. Just like Hitler … had the Reich Ministry. And his most willing executioners.

  30. CaptainAmerica says:

    Ask Warren Buffett, I think he knows more about investing than you. He caledl them Weapons of Financial Mass Destruction. When you’re leveraging 300 to 1, you’re asking for trouble.
    It was GoldMan Sachs and the other giant brokerages that created the derivatives, sold them as great investments at the same time they were shorting them.
    And Moody’s rated them AAA.
    And none of those people have gone to jail.
    ****
    Gee, sounds like Warren was right.
    The rapidly growing trade in derivatives poses a “mega-catastrophic risk” for the economy and most shares are still “too expensive”, legendary investor Warren Buffett has warned.
    The world’s second-richest man made the comments in his famous and plain-spoken “annual letter to shareholders”, excerpts of which have been published by Fortune magazine.

  31. Ragspierre says:

    Ummm…
    Idiot Cap-i-tANUS antiAmerica…
    What in the world are you blovating about here????
    I can’t tell when you are gassing or Buffet is.
    Goldman Sachs is Obama’s BFF, moron.
    Buffet was NOT the loan (pun, see?) Ranger in warning against these derivatives….derived FROM GOVERNMENT MANDATED CRAP.
    But, as USUAL, you can’t be expected to FLUCKING READ what you post…
    “Yes, I’ve found a flaw [i.e., in derivatives]. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is.” [Because it was an ANOMALY, see?]
    “He noted that the immense and largely unregulated business of spreading financial risk widely…” (i.e., EXACTLY what I said it was historically…a TRIED AND TRUE MEANS OF REDUCING RISK).
    As in “…market for credit default swaps, instruments originally created to insure bond investors against the risk of default…”
    Geez, CAN you read??? Think?????????????????????????????

  32. Ragspierre says:

    “And none of those people have gone to jail.”
    And they never will.
    These pukes are BIG ASS Obama and Deemocrat contributors.
    Regulation does not work to prevent people from doing bad things.
    It DOES provide stupid people with the delusion they are being “protected”, so they fail to attend to their own knitting as they should.
    Oh, and it imposes costs throughout the markets, and provides traps for the unwary, like the arch-criminal Martha Stewart (a big Lefty, BTW).

  33. Ragspierre says:

    Aaaaannnnnnnnnnddd…
    This SO beautifully closes the HYPER-HYPOCRISY loop of the Collective…
    To justify the use of force, the Obama administration relied on the Authorization to Use Military Force Act of Sept. 18, 2001, which allows the president to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against persons who authorized, planned or committed the 9/11 attacks, as well as international law derived from treaties and customary laws of war.
    SAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA—WEEET…

  34. Ragspierre says:

    Who were the purchasers? They were by no means unregulated. U.S. investment banks, regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, bought piles of toxic waste. U.S. commercial banks, regulated by several agencies, including the Fed, also devoured large quantities. European banks, which faced a different and supposedly more up-to-date supervisory scheme, turn out to have been just as rash. By contrast, lightly regulated hedge funds resisted buying toxic waste for the most part — though they are now vulnerable to the broader credit crunch because they operate with borrowed money.
    If that doesn’t convince you that deregulation is the wrong scapegoat, consider this: The appetite for toxic mortgages was fueled by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the super-regulated housing finance companies. Calomiris calculates that Fannie and Freddie bought more than a third of the $3 trillion in junk mortgages created during the bubble and that they did so because heavy government oversight obliged them to push money toward marginal home purchasers. There’s a vigorous argument about whether Calomiris’s number is too high. But everyone concedes that Fannie and Freddie poured fuel on the fire to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/05/AR2008100501253.html
    That author, BTW, is no conservative (see his bio).

  35. Totally Domestic says:

    This time it was Obama who got Osoma offered up on a silver platter.
    Knowing the beating Clinton got for passing it up….Obama knew he had
    to ok the operation. He knew he would be outed if he did not & he would
    never be elected. The one thing that he was adamant about was the
    Muslim burial farce, where they said Allah Akbar 4 times over his
    washed and wrapped body. Just think about that…on an American
    Naval Carrier being forced to use the terrorist war cry.
    Another thing Obama was adamant about was taking credit for the
    hard work that CIA & our military had done & making political hay
    out of it. Just wait for the campaign ads.

  36. Ragspierre says:

    The Collective is good at group-think, unified message BS.
    “Gutsy” is a great example.
    http://www.qando.net/?p=10788
    “Altogether now, “gutsy”, Obama was gutsy to say OK to the bin Laden raid. Gutsy. Say it again …”
    When you isolate them, they just look stupid.

  37. Elmo says:

    Ragspierre | Monday, May 09, 2011 at 06:56 AM
    Buraq Hussein: “the longest forty minutes of my life.”
    As Ace (veddy loose quotation) said … tending to his manicure, alternating (with) stuffing his pie hole (with bon bons) … while watching TV.