Thomas Ricks quips,

But — it happened in your backyard, dude.

Or maybe even the frontyard?

To be fair, Pakistan has been instrumental in some of the successes we have enjoyed in the GWoT, such as the capture of AZ and KSM.

Every time I listen to Barack Obama describe how he repelled down a rope from a stealth helicopter on a dark Pakistani night and took down Osama Bin Laden I am reminded of the movie “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.”

Seldom has a story been more dishonestly spun than the one surrounding the death of Osama Bin Laden.

Barack Obama is celebrating the deathday of Obama Bin Laden with a party from himself. I caught a post over at Weekly Standard in which Dan Halper notes that the smirking Obama once again suggests that Mitt Romney would not have made the decision to kill Bin Laden. Obama is quoted as saying:

“I’d just recommend that everybody take a look at people’s previous statements in terms of whether they thought it was appropriate to go into Pakistan and to take out bin Laden,” Obama said, obviously taking a shot at Romney. “I assume that people meant what they said when they said it. And that’s been at least my practice. 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 have said one thing and now suggest they would do something else, then I’d go ahead and let them explain it.”

But here’s the part that caught my eye:

“I’d just recommend that everybody take a look at people’s previous statements in terms of whether they thought it was appropriate to go into Pakistan and to take out bin Laden,”

As if going into Pakistan was his decision. Or his plan.

It wasn’t.

Going into Pakistan was George Bush’s decision, based on the advice of a CIA analyst named “John.”

While he was shepherding the hunt for bin Laden, John also was pushing to expand the Predator program, the agency’s use of unmanned airplanes to launch missiles at terrorists. The CIA largely confined those strikes to targets along Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. But in late 2007 and early 2008, John said the CIA needed to carry out those attacks deeper inside Pakistan.

It was a risky move. Pakistan was an important but shaky ally. John’s analysts saw an increase in the number of Westerners training in Pakistani terrorist camps. John worried that those men would soon start showing up on U.S. soil.

“We’ve got to act,” John said, a former senior intelligence official recalls. “There’s no explaining inaction.”

John took the analysis to then CIA Director Michael Hayden, who agreed and took the recommendation to President George W. Bush. In the last months of the Bush administration, the CIA began striking deeper inside Pakistan.

Barack Obama adopted John’s and Bush’s plan. Then he co-opted it.

“John” persisted in the hunt for Bin Laden for a very long time. Then in 2007 a co-worker of John’s targeted “Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti.”

All the while, John’s team was working the list of bin Laden leads. In 2007, a female colleague whom the AP has also agreed not to identify decided to zero in on a man known as Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, a nom de guerre. Other terrorists had identified al-Kuwaiti as an important courier for al-Qaida’s upper echelon, and she believed that finding him might help lead to bin Laden.

“They had their teeth clenched on this and they weren’t going to let go,” McLaughlin said of John and his team. “This was an obsession.”

It took three years, but in August 2010, al-Kuwaiti turned up on a National Security Agency wiretap. The female analyst, who had studied journalism at a Big Ten university, tapped out a memo for John, “Closing in on Bin Laden Courier,” saying her team believed al-Kuwaiti was somewhere on the outskirts of Islamabad.

The intel used to find and kill Bin Laden came from a career CIA analyst- not from Barack Obama.

John and his team had guessed correctly, taking an intellectual risk based on incomplete information. It was a gamble that ended a decade of disappointment. Later, Champagne was uncorked back at the CIA, where those in the Counterterrorism Center who had targeted bin Laden for so long celebrated. John’s team reveled in the moment.

And it has been revealed that the decision to undertake the raid was not Obama’s decision either. That belonged to Admiral William McRaven.

It’s been almost a year since President Obama’s leadership and foreign policy bona fides were allegedly established by the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. A campaign film narrated by Oscar-winning actor Tom Hanks tells of the president’s alleged solitary, agonizing decision.

With apologies to Vice President Biden, maybe President Obama doesn’t carry quite as big a stick as Joe would lead us to believe.

As reported by Big Peace, Time magazine has obtained a memo written by Leon Panetta, then-director of the Central Intelligence Agency and now-Secretary of Defense, that says “operational decision-making and control” was really in the hands of William McRaven, a three-star admiral and former Navy SEAL.

“The timing, operational decision-making and control are in Adm. McRaven’s hands,” the memo says. “The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the president. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the president for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and, if he is not there, to get out.”

In other words, it was McRaven’s call to pull the trigger or not on the raid.

Now back to that Obama assertion:

President Obama’s campaign has highlighted a 2007 quote from Mitt Romney, who suggested that the fight against terrorism was bigger than bin Laden, and that it wasn’t important to “move heaven and earth” to catch him.

Curiously, back in 2009 Obama held pretty much the same position:

Obama: Killing bin Laden may not be essential

In a late Wednesday interview with CBS News, Obama signaled a more measured approach to catching the ever-elusive bin Laden, refusing to deliver any “dead or alive” ultimatums.

“I think that we have to so weaken his infrastructure that, whether he is technically alive or not, he is so pinned down that he cannot function,” Obama said.

“My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him. But if we have so tightened the noose that he’s in a cave somewhere and can’t even communicate with his operatives, then we will meet our goal of protecting America.”

It’s no stretch to assert that it was Barack Obama who in 2009 co-opted Romney’s 2007 position on the capture of Barack Obama. It is completely disingenuous for Obama to suggest otherwise because he was the beneficiary of the decisions made by George Bush and “John’s” detective work. You’d never know that by listening to Obama. Contrast the braggadocio of Obama

“I directed Leon Pannetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority”

“I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden”

“I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden”

“I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action and authorized an operation to get Usama bin Laden and bring him to justice”

“Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad Pakistan”

“I have made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam; bin Laden was not a Muslim leader”

to the quiet and classy reserve of George Bush describing the capture of Saddam Hussein:

The success of yesterday’s mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq. The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator’s footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate ‘em.

Barack Obama did not decide to take the war into Pakistan. Obama did not decide to send drones deeper into Pakistan. Obama did not find Bin Laden. Obama did not pull the trigger on the raid. What you could bet your life on is that had the mission failed McRaven would have been thrown under the bus and Obama would have said “You know, this was not our plan, per se.” What Obama did do was take credit for it all.

His behavior is so offensive that he has blasted by John McCain and the SEALS. Even Arianna Huffington has called Obama’s ad “despicable.”

This morning on Fox News the CIA interrogator who over saw the CIA EIT program (and who personally briefed Nancy Pelosi) said that the interrogating Abu Zubaydah gave them a rather important piece of information- that Osama Bin Laden was communicating with the outside world through one person- the courier.

Barack Obama has called waterboarding torture and sought to prosecute those who carried out the EIT’s all the while being the beneficiary today of the information gained from those techniques.

Barack Obama is full of sh*t. He is a miserable low life.

But we can’t leave without revisiting the only truth Ted Kennedy ever uttered:

Click here to view the embedded video.

While we’re waiting for Iowa to make up their minds as to a possible Obama opponent, it may behoove us to examine just what repercussions of Obama’s Pakistan foreign policy lie in store for the US and our national security. Yes yes… I’m well aware that foreign policy is triaged way down in the electorate’s mind in import. At least when it comes to specific day-to-day events. But there is no doubt that our national security does still remain an important campaign issue… even if not at the top of the voters’ radar. So this is a worthy debate, even if not as “sexy” a topic these days.

The summary? Zardari is on his way out – early – and there’s a three way frontal assault for new leadership of the nuke-armed nation. Pakistan has grown extremely anti-American with the average of a drone strike over Pakistani soil every four days – 291 total, and 236 of them under this POTUS alone, the invasion of sovereign territory – sans permission – to get UBL (as promised by candidate Obama), and the pièce de résistance, the NATO “oops” attack that killed 24 Pakistan soldiers. And as CJ, FA’s boots-on-the-ground in Afghanistan reports, they’ve already begun exacting their revenge by slashing US supply lines to our troops in Afghanistan.

So exactly who is Pakistan’s future potential leadership, and are they a potential enemy, or ally of the US? Sorry to report that the outlook isn’t good, with two out of the three declaring, in advance, that the US is no friend to that nation and promising no cooperation as part of their elective appeal. Considering the above referenced events, Obama’s ill-thought foreign policies have left the US extremely unpopular with Pakistanis who will not welcome any input… just as “new and improved” Egypt now states. In fact, it may be quite likely that any functional relationship with Pakistan will be coming to an end.

I’ll start this crash course in a current events perspective with an little noticed press release over the holidays that former Pakistan army chief, General Ziauddin Butt, has charged the Musharraf regime with deliberately harboring Usama Bin Laden, away from the US’s intelligence eyes, in the past holiday week.

Musharraf and Rick Perry, July 2011

Needless to say, Pakistan has all the makings of a Middle East, Islamic psuedo-ally in intel, and offers absolutely no appeal as an enemy. Post Sept 11th, they became that ally under Musharraf…until they were provoked and abused beyond the pale under this POTUS, that is.

Judging by the Commander in Chief’s three years of policy choices, I’d say that Obama does not share my view of Pakistan as a more valuable ally than enemy. While I welcomed the death of UBL, I am on record (and taking much heat for…) my opinion that “…there would be a seriously hefty price for this nation to pay for Bin Laden’s head, if one weighs the cascading repercussions.”

Today, those repercussions are painfully obvious – at least to those paying attention.

Using my approach of Pakistan as more valuable as a friend than enemy, I happened to find this Musharraf accusation of particular interest for many reasons. First, because General Ziauddin – oft referred to as the “genius general” in Pakistan circles – has not been in power in the Pakistani Army since 1999…prior to when UBL would have been in Abbottabad.

So where is his inside scuttlebutt – post power and position – supposedly coming from?

And more importantly, why… now, today…is he deciding to confess this to the free world? If this hiding of UBL by Musharraf’s regime was so important to Ziauddin, what the heck took him so long to come forward?

Nawaz Sharif

And when it comes to Nawaz Sharif and Musharraf, there is even less love lost between those two. I’ll skip that rich-in-detail history for now, but suffice it to say Sharif’s revenge for Musharraf springs eternal.

I will also add any sane American, who stays abreast of Pakistani politics and their repetitive players, knows very well that Nawaz Sharif was, is and remains, a clear and present danger to the US.

Sharif represents some of Pakistan’s most populous areas. Along with that is his alliance and representation of Pakistan’s most radical elements. When Bhutto’s co-architect of the Afghanistan Mullah Omar Talliban – Fazlur Rehman – needed to convey a “truce” offer for the Afghan Taliban, who did he take it to? Nawaz Sharif.

Who is it that cannot bear to criticize the Taliban in the Pakistani press? Nawaz Sharif.

Who supports and has overtly fought for Islam as the rule of the land for Pakistan, and has a “soft corner” for his terrorist/radical base? Nawaz Sharif.

And when Obama’s admin wanted a carrier pigeon/negotiator with the Afghanistan terrorists, who did they woo? Nawaz Sharif.

Fact is, if anyone would know where Osama Bin Laden was hiding out, it would be more likely to be Sharif and his crowd, as Sharif met with Bin Laden three times, requesting financial assistance to hold power in the late 90s.

In September 1999, government officials said, the director general of I.S.I., Lt. Gen. Ziauddin and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was summoned to Washington. American officials told them Pakistan should force the Taliban to moderate their positions and turn over Osama bin Laden. Nawaz Sharif sent General Ziauddin to Kandahar to deliver the American message to Mullah Omar, who refused and next month, on Oct. 12, 1999, Nawaz Sharif was overthrown in a military coup.

Adnkronos International (AKI) reported that former Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif did meet al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden at least three times in order to get financial help, according to Khalid Khawaja, the former official with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). In an exclusive interview with AKI, Khawaja, once a close friend of Osama bin Laden, rejected the statements by a spokesperson for Sharif’s political party, denying that Sharif had sought political cooperation from bin Laden in the past.

“Nawaz Sharif met Osama Bin Laden on at least three occasions and was desperately seeking his financial assistance,” Khawaja told AKI in response to recent news reports regarding a possible meeting between the two.

In an interview with a national Urdu daily, Qazi Hussain Ahmad, Amir of the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), and of the six party religious alliance MMA, said that Nawaz Sharif had repeatedly met Osama bin Laden who offered him money to buy the loyalties of parliamentarians in the late 1980s in order to topple the government of then prime minister Benazir Bhutto. Qazi also said that bin Laden was a big supporter of Nawaz Sharif’s bid to be prime minister in 1990.

Khalid Khawaja’s name resurfaced when US reporter Daniel Pearl was abducted and subsequently killed. Pearl had come to Pakistan and met Khalid Khawaja in order to investigate the jihadi network of revered sufi, Syed Mubarak Ali Gailani.

“Now after Benazir Bhutto formed her government and the opposition parties moved for a vote of no-confidence, Osama Bin Laden comes in a picture,” Khawaja recalled.

“I still remember that Osama bin Laden provided me with funds, which I handed over to Nawaz Sharif, then the chief minister of Punjab [and later premier], to dislodge Benazir Bhutto. Nawaz Sharif insisted that I arrange a direct meeting with the “Sheikh”, which I did in Saudi Arabia. Nawaz met thrice with Osama in Saudi Arabia.

Tho Sharif, himself, doesn’t currently hold an office in Pakistan’s government today, he is President of the anti-US/pro Islamic fundamentalist party that, along with himself, have been rapidly gaining in popularity since the Zardari election – the Pakistan Muslim League-N. Nor has he shed the desire to again ascend to power, as one could easily derive from his Dec 21st, 2011 demand that Pakistan hold elections early. Considering he’s been pressuring the public for a revolution for months, this can’t come as a surprise.

Is it just mere coincidence that Sharif’s rising popularity, and his demand for early elections, pre’dates General Ziauddin’s accusation against Musharraf by only 2-3 days?

Whether because of health, scandals, or public displeasure with the current elected ones, Pakistan is on the precipice of selecting a new leader. Bhutto’s ex-hubby… President Asif Zardari, who catapulted to victory literally on the grave of his media-sainted wife post assassination… is out of favor, and on his way out prior to the ending of his term. Mourn not… never in the history of that nation has a democratically elected civilian government served out its full term and then been replaced by another one, as we do here in the US. Does that give you a clue as to how susceptible to influences – both internally and internationally – they are?

So why the resurgence of the “dump on Musharraf” mentality by fundamentalist Sharif – via Ziauddin – at a time when few Americans would take notice? That, I believe, is the question that takes precedence over the accusation itself.

And the answer is – Sharif fully intends to use historically stupid western media to influence Pakistan’s future, and imminent, new leader…himself. And it just so happens that two of the three potential leaders includes this unappetizing prospect of a Pakistan, headed up by Sharif. The second of the three is the return of Musharraf, enjoying a resurgence in his own popularity.

Piling on with the coincidence if this timely accusation is Musharraf’s announcement he was returning to Pakistan in January, made just two days before Sharif’s demand for early elections.

Of these two, Musharraf offered the only leader who, in the past, cooperated with the US in HUMINT, and tactitly approved Bush drone strikes. Considering the sheer volume of a US war, waged against Pakistan, by unmanned drones by Obama, I can’t see even Musharraf exercising the cooperation he extended to the Bush administration in the future.

Also worrisome for Sharif is the fact that he’s starting to lose ground in his own backyard, as the former splinter PML-Q, who left Sharif’s PML-N to back Musharraf, are starting to bond with Musharraf’s 2010 political party, the All Pakistan Muslim League (APML). Together, they are forging a relationship with another upcoming party, the PTI (Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf) to oppose not only Sharif’s, party, but Zardari’s PPP as well. While Zardari and his party may be history as a majority, this alliance is likely to give Sharif’s support serious trouble in Punjah, and most especially in Lahore.

Imran Khan - moderate?

In the much misreported ta doo that surrounded Musharraf’s declaration emergency rule, Khan was under house arrest, and called for Musharraf’s prosecution with the death penalty. Khan escaped, went into a short period of hiding, then showed up in Punjab for a protest rally, and was captured by students and turned over to the police. He was incarcerated for a few days before he was released, along with 3000 others, who had been detained but not yet charged as part of the emergency rule declaration. A few days following Khan’s release, with the others, Musharraf resigned as army chief.

Despite the rocky past of support and adversity, an October report that Khan and Musharraf have been forging this political alliance for the upcoming, and likely early elections. Since Khan has recently surpassed Nawaz Sharif as being the most popular politician in Pakistan (for the moment…), and Khan considers Sharif another politician not to be trusted, any alliance between the two creates yet another obstacle for Sharif.

This potential alliance also has credibility after a splinter group, the PML-Quaid (who had split from the PML-Q) have lent their support to Khan’s PTI this past October as well.

But what is Khan’s, and the PTI’s, ideology, and their views towards the US? For Christian, Sikhs, and Hndu Pakistanis, the PTI’s religious tolerance is appealing. Social, government and educational reform is also high on the party’s priorities. The rising numbers are evident in the huge rallies of 100s of thousands in the streets of Karachi recently, protesting the current Pakistan government.

For the US? Not so much to celebrate. Khan and the PTI promise to end all cooperation with the US in fighting extremists, put a halt to all drone bombings, and refuse all US foreign aid. In short, the intent is to cut all US ties, which, as Khan believes, contributes to the instability between Pakistanis themselves. He’s also promised to end all Pakistan military activity in the terrorist invested tribal regions… not so good for the US either.

Sir David Frost’s interview this month with Khan, who he calls the likely next PM of Pakistan, casts Khan as Pakistan’s knight in shining armor who can end the Pakistan and Afghanistan wars in just 30 days.

If you listen carefully, Imran Khan will tell American and, in particular, his British audience in this Al Jazeera special, exactly how to end the war in Afghanistan. On the “Pakistan side of the border,” in what is called “the tribal areas” Khan says the war can be ended, not in 2 years, not 11 years but 30 days.

To end the war, you end the Jihad. To end “Jihad,” you have to understand what a Jihad is. Go back and listen again, he will put it in plain language. It is amusing, watching the “paid press” try to picture Khan as anti-American and extremist. What is extreme is honesty, something rare.

Good luck with that “ending of jihad”, and finding peace and harmony amongst all men, bit. But perhaps it’s the season to believe in fairy tales and unicorns.

On the other hand, his extreme distaste for aiding the US in quelling terrorist has also earned him the nickname of Taliban Khan.. somewhat ironic since you’d think that Nawaz Sharif would have that position sewn up for himself.

As far as Pakistan turning into a country ruled by Shariah law, both Khan and the PTI support a Pakistan that is “truly Islamic” In February 2009, he held talks with the SWAT militants, and urged “… the government to allow for sharia law not just in the tribal areas and the northwest, but throughout the country.”

While it’s undeniable that Khan supports Islam as rule of the land, his western education background makes him superficially attractive to many in the western world – perhaps envisioning that he can be considered a “moderate”, walking that fine line between turning Pakistan into a stone agent mentality for women and other religions, yet still keeping the peace between radical religious fanatics. Or else the case can be made we haven’t got a clue what he’d do. But there are sites that dedicate themselves to exposing him as a radical himself.

This grey area Shariah supporter becomes even more ironic when Khan’s own 1995 marriage to English socialite, Jemima Goldsmith Khan – a Jewess who converted to Islam – produced two sons (who also converted), but ended up in divorce nine years later because Ms. Khan just could not adapt to a life in Pakistan as a female Muslim with western upbringing. She still holds dual citizenship, and goes by the name of Khan because of her two Islamic sons, approximate ages 12 and 15.

In another bizarre twist, Ms. Khan – who dated actor Hugh Grant (now there’s a switch in companions…) is now a journalist, who was just recently appointed associate editor of the New Statesman… a publication in the Guardian’s publishing family.

In the past, Khan had been woo’ed by both Musharraf and Sharif for high level political positions. But it seems that his vacillating relationship with both has resulted in an even more lucrative position as being the possible PM head of power himself.

Those are the players. Hard to say if any are an inviting new leadership since the Obama foreign policy has destroyed any good will between the US and Pakistan for the foreseeable future. The only use for the US and the western press now will be for each candidate to manipulate the message.

The expedient use of the gullible, emotional and history challenged puppet western media to influence Pakistan’s leadership isn’t new. The most obvious example of this would be the past demonstration of the world-wide canonization of Benezir Bhutto – creator of Mullah Omar’s Taliban – while not-so-subtly attempting to topple Perez Musharraf. The western press – being historically ignorant – proves that manipulation of the western press is not only easy, but highly effective when it comes to influencing the world view of Pakistani leaders, and thereby effecting election outcomes.

At that same time, a previously banished, sentenced and discredited Islamic law supporter with terrorist ties – Nawaz Sharif – also gained a second foothold in the Pakistan government with the Bhutto/Zardari PPP victory and is currently being painted as the candidate most willing to negotiate with the US.

Why do I find that defective product tough to purchase….

Pakistan was never a fan of being viewed a puppet state of the US. But they did like our cash, and they did share a distaste for the jihad elements in their midst. The majority of the population has shunned Shariah as the nation’s law, but is that changing along with Sharif and Khan’s rise to power?

We’ll simply have to wait and see. The Obama foreign policy has placed us in the untenable situation that we not only wield no influence, but has fueled anti–US public opinion to new and unacceptable heights.

Yesterday, Curt linked to a Most Wanted article, wondering if Obama was preparing to surrender Afghanistan. I’d say the question and area is much larger than just Afghanistan. Not only did his policies lead to the Muslim Brotherhood as a liaison, and woo Nawaz Sharif as a Taliban negotiator in Pakistan, all options in Pakistan lead to a failed diplomatic relationship between the US and a nuclear armed nation for the foreseeable future.

And none of that bodes well for the US and any HUMINT for the global Islamic jihad elements, bent on destroying us. The US stands in the orchard, ready to reap the fruits of Obama’s foreign policy. And it appears that the fruit is already inedible.

In reality only Joe Biden thinks that Joe Biden is something other than a village idiot. Biden has a long history of making ridiculous and stupid statements.

Click here to view the embedded video.

And here he demonstrates his math prowess:

Click here to view the embedded video.

And here is his health advice:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Now Joe Biden says that the Taliban is not our enemy:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Jay Carney then tried to defend Biden.

Click here to view the embedded video.

We’re fighting the Taliban, but they’re not our enemy??

Glad we got that straightened out.

Oddly, it wasn’t always this way:

Obama: Step up effort against Taliban, al-Qaida

Obama: Taliban and al Qaeda must be stopped

SAN DIEGO —

Senator Barack Obama is proposing that the United States deploy about 10,000 more troops to battle resurgent forces in Afghanistan, a plan intended to shift the American military focus from the Iraq war to the marked rise in violence from the Taliban.

Making peace treaties with the Taliban was once a bad thing- according to Obama.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I have said repeatedly that democrats depend heavily on their supporters having zero long term memory and once again it proves to be true. One thing that is hard to forget, though, is that Joe Biden is not just stupid, he is dangerously stupid.

U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Alpi ReyesCruz, who is from the Dominican Republic, waits for his ride on Combat Outpost Herrera Dec. 2. Reyes, an infantry soldier by trade, was finishing up a seven-month deployment as the Army Research, Development and Engineering Command's science and technology advisor for Regional Command East. The assignment took him all over the region, usually by himself, to document improvements soldiers wanted in their equipment. Once documented, he would relay the information back to the States where prototypes would be made and sent into theater for real-world trials before being mass produced and officially issued.

I went to the PX yesterday looking for some boot laces for one of our Wounded Warriors. His uniforms and boots had to be cut off. So, he has boots, but no laces.

Half the shelves were empty with little signs that begged for patience as “we are experiencing logistical supply shortages due to the blockade in Pakistan.”

Kabul is pissed because the ‘Merican drawdown will result in something like a $14BN loss to their economy. Their economy has seen roughly 11% annual growth over the last 5 years.

In other news, Pakistan has blocked ISAF trucks from crossing Torkham gate from Pakistan into Afghanistan. These trucks provide the majority of our equipment and life support. The Pakis are demanding something like $1750 per truck to be allowed transit, and there are currently over 1000 trucks stuck there (and as they are sitting there, they get pilfered, and attacked by Taliban). These are contracted vehicles, so the drivers are just as likely as not to say “screw it” and leave, with or without their payloads; and even if they stay, we pay them extra for their trouble.

Pakistan is literally holding needed supplies and trying to keep our forces hostage. These are, if you’ll recall, the same “partners” in the war on terror who didn’t know (*ahem*) bin Laden was living right outside their version of the war college. We kill bands of insurgents every day, and if they are anywhere near the border, Pakmil suddenly claims they were Pakistani forces. Even though we clear any kinetic strikes close to the border (within 4km on our side) through the Pakistan military liaison.

Can we please tell India that they are welcome to go jack Pakistan up? I get that Pakistan is a nuclear power, so we can’t exactly bully them, but last I checked, we a) have ICBMs, and they don’t; b) are the only country to ever use nukes in warfare; and c) already have an Army sitting on their border. Any commander in chief with balls would just order one or two of his brigades to seize OUR, taxpayer-provided equipment, and transport it into Afghanistan, with ROE that clearly states to remove any obstacles to that movement. Then, we would cut all funding and diplomatic ties with them, seize any Pakistani owned assets in the US, embargo all of their goods, and sink any ships they have, military or commercial. Just for giggles, we’d then drop bigass bombs all along their border in the “training camps” their military has (which look an awful like insurgent training camps, given that they are full of insurgents training, and not Pakistani military.)

What a shock. This President will send troops into Uganda, drop bombs into Libya, back fanatical Muslims in Egypt, but when it comes to Iran….and our top secret technology, he’s a bit timid:

With early knowledge that the aircraft had likely remained intact, the senior U.S. official also told Fox News that President Obama was presented with three separate options for retrieving or destroying the drone. The president ultimately decided not to proceed with any of the plans because it could have been seen as an act of war.

…One official told Fox News on Thursday that the incident is a huge loss and makes the top-secret helicopter tail lost during the Usama bin Laden raid in Pakistan “look like a pittance.” The official said there are real fears the Iranians will share this technology with the Russians and the Chinese, in addition to using it themselves.

What a pansy.

And then he brags about bin-Laden but allows the Muslim Brotherhood to come ever so closer to their dreamed about sixth Caliphate.

The destruction he has done to this country, and it’s future security is breathtaking to behold.

To tag team my post on Friday about Obama’s cowardly and politically expedient Afghanistan withdrawal from Afghanistan, I now bring you another perspective from the Middle East. Most specifically, an “‘anti-terrorism conference in Tehran” [ain't that an oxymoron in itself??] where Afghanistan’s Karzai and Pakistan’s Asif Ali “Mr. Bhutto, spouse of Taliban creator” Zardari of Pakistan, discuss how to deal with the US turning tail and bugging out under Obama. From Robert Fisk, appearing in tomorrow’s UK Independent edition:

When I slipped through the mass of Iranian journalists surrounding the Iranian foreign minister, I found Ali Akbar Salehi a very cautious man indeed, apparently more anxious how his English would be translated into Farsi than how he would be reported in The Independent.

“In the trilateral talks between Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, we discussed many things and issues that may come up after the Nato military force goes out of Afghanistan,” he said. “I think there was a good convergence of views among the leaders of the three countries … In a nutshell, I’m very optimistic about the future of the region – unlike what some others would like to preach. The nations of these three are going home determined to take in hand their governance and exercise their independence to do the best in economic, political and cultural cooperation.”

~~~

This is a long diplomatic way of saying “Phew! – the Americans are going at last and we’re all on our own.” Even Iran’s Supreme Leader, whose wisdom is greeted with Vatican-like adherence here, seems to have concluded that the US plans to abandon its eastern neighbour. Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei thought the Americans would be gone “within three years”. But the vast US airbase in Kandahar, like those at Bagram and elsewhere, look like much longer-term projects; so do the giant US military “lily-pads” (the expression of that extraordinary military strategist D Rumsfeld, Esq) in Iraq.

Afghans, themselves, fear the Obama premature retreat, wary that the lack of security allows the Taliban to regroup.

Many Afghans concerned about feeling abandoned by the U.S. are asking with some urgency, “Will we be ready?”

~~~

The core Taliban group’s idea is to topple the system, to reverse the process,” Abdullah Abdullah, a former Afghan foreign minister and President Hamid Karzai’s main opponent in the last presidential election, told reporters in Kabul on Thursday. “They will continue that struggle; that’s very obvious.”

Haroon Mir, an Afghan political and security analyst, said many concerns involve what the Taliban may achieve by 2014, rather than in the next several months.

“We know the Taliban won’t amass a bunch of fighters because 10,000 U.S. troops have left this year, but in 2014, that might be the case,” Mir said. “People are afraid that the Taliban will return, and the Afghan security forces won’t be able to defend the country.”

Even last summer, alleged AQ Khan pal, General Mirza Aslam Beg, was penning harbinger op-eds, hailing the inevitability of Pakistan and Afghanistan’s renewed alliance with Iran.

The Afghan freedom movement now has reached a point where the occupation forces are suffering from failure of nerves, inducting more troops only to reinforce their defeat. The irony is that the occupation forces, which stand defeated, are trying to lay down the conditions for peace, which is the privilege of the Taliban, who have emerged as winners. It would, therefore be proper to focus on Afghanistan, the people, their culture, their national ethos, their sense of honour and value system, which lend resilience to the cause of freedom. The occupation forces must accept the reality that they have failed to read the complex tribal and societal relationship of the Afghans. They must not repeat the mistakes of 1990 and 2001, of denying the fruits of victory to the Afghans, i.e., to share power and form a government. There will be no peace, if any other course is adopted. Taliban are now strong enough to snatch away their freedom, which they have won with such a great sacrifice.

The people know the predicament of the occupation forces and the tenuousness of the routes of supply to Afghanistan. The attack on the NATO supply convey near Islamabad and the turmoil in Kyrgyzstan to disrupt the daily supply of over forty five thousand liters of oil daily from the Manas air base, is meant to check-mate the occupation forces. Who is responsible for these acts? Certainly, not the Taliban from Afghanistan or the American haters of Pakistan! Not difficult to make a fair guess!!

The Americans and the allies have to take a bold decision in Afghanistan, same as years earlier, wisdom demanded that timely intervention in Bosnia was necessary to check the spread of jehadism in Europe. In Afghanistan, the Americans themselves have become part of the problem, yet it is not too late to intercede now.

~~~

The momentous decision, Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan, now have to jointly take, is a comprehensive strategy to revitalize the war ravaged Afghanistan. The occupation forces have no option but to exit, creating a power vacuum, which they will try to fill with the proxy power, like India. This must be prevented at all cost, as our joint responsibility, ensuring that:

■Afghanistan returns to their people, to let them govern the country as it suits them.
■Help the Afghans, establish peace, as the prelude to regional stability.
■Demand from the Americans, their allies and the Russians, to pay for the war damages to the Afghans.
■Join the world community to rebuild Afghanistan’s basic infrastructures for speedier economic recovery.

Congrats to, Obama. Quite a foreign policy accomplishment. Alienating ally Israel, starting a new “non war” in Libya, interfering in civil wars in only US cooperative-with-intel nations, and siding against Honduras and their Constitutional ouster of a rogue despot President. Quite the portfolio thus far. Who woulda thunk one novice, inexperienced guy with too much power to handle could chalk up such a list of failures in such a short time?

Now, as icing on the cake, this POTUS has not only left our remaining troops more vunerable by prematurely seizing their “back up” for his politically expedient withdrawal/bugging out during what will be a tough re’election campaign, *and* abandoning the mission prior to any modicum of success… he’s now driven them into the open arms of an overt enemy – Iran – simultaneously….

All for election campaign “bragging rights”?

One has to wonder… US failure and retreat is a positive talking point? Indeed it is, to the historically challenged brain dead. With the dubious record of this POTUS – including the economy is tanking with no end in sight, and a war weary, uninvolved citizenry – any short term “fix” can look inviting…

… that is until they see the expansion of Iranian influence in the region.

Bin Laden’s role of a master mind of evil trying to bring down the US while living in a series of hi-tech caves was a masterful bit of propaganda that we fell for and now that same manipulation of our imaginations continues with Obama’s pretensions that Osama was still a vital factor in the world of terror, but why?

Obama needs a political boost for his reelection, no one but simple minded ideologues will argue that point, but to build up the image of a pathetic little man who was obviously vainglorious in his searches for himself on his antiquated electronics, does a disservice to the people of the world. His bravado of the past was so much BS, for when he was face to face with the warriors of the great satan he hated so much, he chose to surrender meekly or cowardly, choosing to rely on the good nature and sense of fairness of the evil Americans he despised and in direct opposition to the directives he demanded from the blithering idiots who blindly followed him. Surprise, Surprise, he didn’t get the royal treatment afforded so many examples of his class of cowardly scum from the bowels of the earth.

Shot down like the mad dog he was, to die with half a brain on the filthy, disgusting floor of the so-called mansion, he lived in with his vile wives and evil brood, none of whom had the temerity, decency, or hygiene to sweep the floor that became the death bed of Osama. He chose to live like the animal he considered “unclean”, the pig. However, the pig doesn’t have the ability to clean the floor. Osama and his harem with their brood of future haters and terrorists had the ability to clean the floors, but chose instead to live like swine of their own free will. They lived in their own filth without making the slightest effort to improve their lives when they literally had nothing else to do.

Calling this hovel a mansion only fuels the myth and image of Osama the Terrorist leader, it was a toxic hovel that few Americans would have considered sleeping in under any circumstances; yet, we add color and fantasy to the vile and ugly truth, for the pathetic benefit of Obama’s status as a hero for killing this comic book myth of a man Osama.

He was a broken man who had long outlived his usefulness, except to keep contaminating the world with his subhuman seed to hopefully produce more pieces of toxic human waste to plague the earth.

Yet, because Obama must polish his image of the giant killer, to insure his reelection, the Myth of Obama is fed by promoting the myth of Osama.

In the interest of winning the War on Man Caused Disasters, the image of the squalid and pathetic life of the headman of the Man Caused Disaster movement should be exposed to those who sacrifice themselves for the greater glory of the top pig, so they can get an accurate glimpse of the true nature of the ultimate leadership to whom they entrust their lives. They then may have doubts as to the legitimacy of this supposed martyrdom and the kindergarden virgins awaiting them; especially, after imagining the image of Osama relying on women to protect him as he so meekly and cowardly surrenders.

How many of us openly believed that the fearless and relentless Osama died in a hail of gunfire with resolute and deadly SEALS: only to learn that Osama did nothing, but submit like a lamb to slaughter to have half his brain blown away in classic biblical retribution. This is the cowardly vision of Osama that needs to be forged into the doughy brain pans of impressionable Muslim men and women who dream of 72 virgins or goats or virile young studs for the women.

Obama needs to stop contributing to the lies and legend surrounding the Myth of Osama and portray him accurately to the world and admit that we didn’t kill a dangerous terror leader, we just handed out some good ol’ whup ass to an old enemy that deserved to have his brain blown away. Continuing the myth only heightens the fear of weak Americans; thereby, unwittingly accomplishing the goals of Osama more effectively than he could himself.

The Revolution Eats Its Own Children

The revolution eats its own children partially because so many of them were nothing more than Useful Idiots and they no longer serve a purpose. Eric Holder will be one of the first to be discarded.

The guy who wants to prosecute a SEAL for slapping a terrorist and put Chaney and Bush in prison for the water boarding that provided the intel for the killing of Bin Laden, says the raid was perfectly legal. President Obama can invade another country and kill a foreign national, steal the body, and abduct family members. This has now been uncovered in the Constitution and confirmed by our Attorney General Eric Holder.

The president is granted special privileges with Seal Team 6 and according to Holder, he but not Bush, can do no wrong. Oh, for the record, Seal Team 6, was called Chaney’s Execution Squad during the Bush Administration.

Attorney General Eric Holder defended as lawful on Tuesday the U.S. operation to go into Pakistan that resulted in the death of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and the taking of his body.

The acts taken were “lawful, legitimate and appropriate in every way. The people who were responsible for that action, both in the decision making and the effecting of that decision, handled themselves I think quite well,” Holder told the House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee.

Now don’t get me wrong, I like the SEAL gang and all our troops in uniform, but I don’t like hypocritical political behavior. The only way Obama has a chance of being elected is by following Bush policies and the only way he managed to get elected was to sanctimoniously criticize Bush’s policies. There is a serious disconnect here. These Democrats are either stupid or extremely biased and hypocritical in their opinions on war, torture, and prisoners. All through history, war has been considered a serious business that required tough hard men to fight hard enough to win. The Democrats seem okay with that, if there is a Democrat in the White house.

Now why is an AG determining our legal status in another country’s sovereignty and declaring assassination as legal all of a sudden, but don’t you dare water board them or you will go to prison. Who needs the Sunday Funnies, we have the Holder Justice Department.

Thank god we have the detailed timeline down now:

1. 1/21/09 OB gathers his inner circle and tells them that there is this real bad guy that Bush totally forgot about and didn’t care that he secretly murdered 3,000 people early in Bush’s administration and OB wanted him found ASAP.

2. 2/14.09 OB kicks out Bush incompetent an replaces him with super sleuth Leon Panetta because of his vast experience in espionage and fabulous motivational skills.

3. 2/15/09 OB tells Panetta that I’m 95% confident OBL is in Pakistan, probably somewhere just North of Islamabad in a house with high walls and maybe three stories and two security gates.

4. 2/21/09 OB tells Panetta that he intercepted a call from a guy who is really close to OBL and to drop everything else and totally focus only on him.

And then Obama went golfing.

A little tongue in cheek, but not by much if you have been listening to our MSM.

For a better, and much more detailed timeline of events that lead to the killing of Osama bin-Laden check out this post by Ace: (and whittled down for brevity by Doug Ross)

1. 2003: Enhanced Interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad Results in the Nom De Guerre of bin Ladin’s Courier…

2. 2004: Enhanced Interrogation of al-Qahtani Confirms the Nom De Geure of bin Ladin’s Courier…

3. 2006 (?): Enhanced Interrogation of an Al Qaeda Captured in Iraq, Ghul, Produces the Real Name of the Courier…

4. 2006-2009: NSA Begins Furiously Intercepting Any And All Communications Made By Anyone “al-Kuwaiti” Has Ever Known…

5. Late 2010 (?): al-Kuwaiti Places a Very Ill-Advised Phone Call… “[conversing] with someone who was being monitored by U.S. intelligence… the courier [then] unknowingly led authorities to a [bizarre] compound in the northeast Pakistani town of Abbottabad…”

6. 2011: Surveying Abbottabad, We Grow Confident We’ve Found Bin Ladin’s Hideout…

7. April 29-May 1 2011: Obama’s Team Tells Him They Have High Confidence Bin Ladin (or at Least His Most Trusted Courier) is In the Compound, and Obama Agrees, and Orders the Raid; On May 1 It’s Executed By SEAL Team 6…

8. May 2011: Begin a Disinformation Campaign To Convince the Public That 2003-2008 Never Happened…

A dead Osama, whether with guns on him, around him, or no-where near him, is a GREAT thing but the hypocrisy from the left is mind-boggling.

Obama deserves credit, as does Bush. Deal with it, admit it, and move on.

Geez.

Exit questions (to any lefty’s) if it turns out that the killing of Osama was accomplished with information extracted by waterboarding, as Leon Panetta admitted tonight:

Are you still ok with the assault and killing of Osama?

And a exit question to one and all, would this killing be called a war crime by the left if Bush was in office?

UPDATE

Rumsfeld nails it: