Next Time, Use FedEx

· Thursday, May 5, 2011

The CIA stepped up the search for Osama bin Laden last week after becoming as sick of royal wedding coverage as the rest of us.

American intelligence operations located Osama by following his trusted couriers, whose names were given up by al-Qaida members during harsh interrogations at CIA black sites under President Bush.

Yes, the same interrogations endlessly denounced by the entire Democratic Party (save Joe Lieberman), the mainstream media, and an especially indignant Jane Mayer in The New Yorker.

The most-wanted terrorist in the world was living in a moldy, million-dollar mansion in a gated community just outside of Islamabad. It took the CIA five years to figure out the four-digit code to get in.

One important missed clue was that Osama was living at 72 Virgins Way. He might still be alive today if only he hadn't borrowed his neighbor's shoulder-mounted rocket launcher and never returned it.

Our mighty Navy SEALs not only put a bullet through Osama's head, but carried off his computers, disks and hard drives. So far, all they've revealed is that Osama had multiple Netflix rentals of "Rendition," "In the Valley of Elah," "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Love Actually."

Can you imagine what's on Osama's hard drives? I mean besides the goat pornography. Pants are wetting throughout Pakistan's military establishment.

The New York Times reports that the raid that killed Osama is being bitterly denounced on Pakistani TV as a breach of that country's sovereignty. Osama, our dear allies say, was not a terrorist, nor has al-Qaida ever been unfriendly to Pakistan -- unlike the United States, which they call "an enemy of Pakistan and Muslims."

(Also, bin Laden's entire video crew is in line at the Islamabad unemployment office today. Thanks, Barack.)

The one Islamic country that openly cheered our taking out bin Laden is Iraq. According to reports from inside the country, TV stations are treating the raid as a great victory for Iraq -- the final battle in a war that was mostly fought by Iraqis on Iraqi soil. They view bin Laden's killing as their own personal triumph in the war against Islamic terrorism.

Similarly, when there was an explosion of violence throughout the Muslim world in response to some Danish cartoons in 2006, guess which Islamic nation was nothing but placid contentment? Again: our plucky Iraq. (Having U.S. Marines in your midst apparently has some sort of calming influence.)

It's great that we got bin Laden, but if the last Democratic administration had been doing its job, there would have been no Osama bin Laden and no 9/11 attack to begin with.

Democratic presidents are always too busy feverishly redistributing wealth at home to devote serious attention to our national interests abroad.

Obama gets to reap the rewards of Bush-era terrorism policies -- policies that he, his fellow Democrats and Jane Mayer hysterically denounced at the time -- while Reagan and Bush had to deal with the consequences of Carter's Iranian policy and Clinton's bin Laden policy.

According to Michael Scheuer, who ran the bin Laden unit at the CIA for many years, President Clinton was given eight to 10 chances to kill or capture bin Laden but refused to act, despite bin Laden's having publicly declared war on the United States and launched various terrorist attacks against us, murdering hundreds of Americans.

(If only one of those opportunities had presented itself on the day of Clinton's scheduled impeachment, instead of Clinton's bombing Iraq, he might have postponed his problems at home by finally taking out bin Laden.)

Clinton's CIA director, James Woolsey, never once met with Clinton in a one-on-one meeting. This is in contrast to Monica Lewinsky, who got about a dozen face-to-face -- or face-to-something -- meetings with the president.

That's why Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security adviser, was caught stealing documents from the National Archives during the 9/11 commission hearings. That's also why Clinton blew a gasket and forced ABC to cancel the DVD release of the docudrama "The Path to 9/11" -- based on the commission's report.

Bush had to deal with the ticking time bomb of Osama bin Laden left by Bill Clinton.

All presidents have had to deal with the ticking time bomb set by Carter's passive acceptance of the Iranian revolution in 1979, giving Islamic lunacy its first nation-sponsor.

What ticking time bombs are being set around the globe by our current Democratic president?

Following the Democratic playbook, Obama's overall approach to national security is to pointlessly fling our influence and military around the globe -- in Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan -- with no evident national security purpose.

Thanks to our feckless president, most of the Middle East is rapidly degenerating into a terrorist fever-swamp.

The Muslim Brotherhood is emerging as a power broker in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and Libya. Meanwhile, the "democracy" movement in Syria seems likely to end with President Bashar al-Assad gaining a tighter grip on power, after he's killed enough of his own people to remind them why he's their president.

All of these countries are becoming worse than they were before. (On the plus side, Obama is set to announce the SEALs have just found Joe Biden.)

But George Bush's legacy -- Iraq – will be standing there, all on its own, the one point of light in a sea of Islamic darkness. And the media will coo about how reassuring it is that we now have a "thoughtful" president in the White House, instead of a cowboy.

COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

Hard Thought

Iraq is the country built by a coalition of the willing and Bush. It was the first step in reversing the Carter catastrophe.

Obama is now busily losing the rest of the Middle East and will set back progress for hundreds of years, but he is thoughtful and not a cowboy.

Obama leads from behind, dithers for 16 hours over whether or not to get bin Laden after we knew where he was and receives accolades from prissy Chrissy Matthews. Talk about kool aid consumption.....

Posted May 5, 2011 at 2:02:31 AM


Robert Risko

Although NOT a strict isolationist, I think our foreign policy posture could afford to be more "isolationist" or, if you prefer, “defensive”.

Foreign engagement might be a requirement in the sense that an enemy can travel around the world in less than a day. But what great strides could be taken if we leveraged our "defensive" war department toward homeland security? What enemies might be dispelled were we to profile those that pose an actual threat who advocate beliefs that militate against the Foundation of this nation? What advantages might be achieved and sustained were a “McCarthy-like” attitude taken against those ideals (collectivism, socialism, communism) that the “Founders” warned of? What dignity and respect might be regained were we to reclaim the fundamentals of “A shining city on a hill?” What international goodwill might be achieved by engaging where asked and welcomed with clear objectives that advocate our *fundamental* national interest?

Perhaps the final strategy would be more complex than simple "isolationism", but the current overextension without objectives is unacceptable.

Posted May 5, 2011 at 8:52:07 AM


MichaelSSEC

We can always count on Liberal Democrats to boldly stand up and take credit for the successes of policies they bitterly opposed. They do this because they have nothing but contempt for the intelligence of Americans. Why shouldn't they? After all, Liberal supporters (not to be confused with athletic supporters) are contemptible in every way -- intellectually dishonest, morally bankrupt, feckless and dishonorable. When those are your friends, the people you work with every day, you tend to look at your enemies with a jaundiced eye.

And while they're rushing to defend terrorists and give them more civil rights than Americans enjoy, the same Liberals are making it plainer every day that they consider ordinary Americans their enemies. How else could they lie during every news cycle, and claim that massive protests all over the country were filled with Nazis and racists? Liberals never did realize that the people they were lying ABOUT were the same people they were lying TO.

Posted May 5, 2011 at 10:13:54 AM


Aunt Bee

I thought David Barton was good at twisting history, but he's a rank amateur compared to Ann Coulter.

Posted May 5, 2011 at 11:16:28 AM


Gardner Behrends

Ann is just too funny for some to appreciate. History? What actually went on yesterday or in the past won't really be totally untwisted until the Michael Moore documentary airs on PBS. Meanwhile, liberals will keep wiping away the tears without looking in the mirror, and the rest of us will enjoy a good laugh thanks to Ms Coulter.

Posted May 5, 2011 at 12:43:15 PM


C. Wyatt Hertz

Tho Hard Thought; Reversing Carter's cayastrophe isn't going to happen as long as the sheep (and kool aid drinkers) in this nation keep voting liberal. The rest of your comment is spot-on.

Posted May 5, 2011 at 1:08:04 PM


Emcee

Aunt Bee, twisting history? What a joke! Absolutely no one, no not anyone, can twist history better than a liberal democrat. I hope you get stung!

Gardner Behrends, okay, you liberals want to laugh at Ann Coulter. Fine. Just remember that the rest of us will be laughing at you at the same time for being so foolish!

Posted May 5, 2011 at 2:38:49 PM


Looking 4 Liberty

There is no need to respond to Leftist baiting. The loony Leftists have ignored truth for at least 100 years, so no matter what is said to them, it only feeds their sense of self-importance. It is time for all good Americans to deny them a place in our discussions.

Don't listen to them.

Don't respond to them.

And for Pete's sake, don't vote for them.

Posted May 5, 2011 at 2:58:07 PM


karl anglin

For about six years Pakistan

knew bin Laden was hiding in

their country and did inform

the US. Pakistan is as much an

enemy as al-Qaida.

Posted May 5, 2011 at 3:49:01 PM


MichaelSSEC

What we need to remember is that radical Leftist websites like Think-Progress and MoveOn.org pay people cash money to surf the web and post Left-wing comments to Conservative columns and blogs. It doesn't even matter whether the comments are factual or inane. Quantity is all they care about because their goal is to make it appear as though most people agree with the radical Leftist worldview.

We had a troll frequenting this site for several weeks who called himself Odin, who was almost certainly one of those paid Leftist commenters. Seems logical there would be others.

What's interesting is that people always slam Ann Coulter wish personal insults, but almost never on the facts. Look at Aunt Bee's post. Accuses Ms. Coulter of "twisting history." But where are the facts? Did Aunt Bee post proof that some of Ms. Coulter's facts were wrong? Did she post counter-examples refuting claims made in Ms. Coulter's column? Did she at least state her opinion in a reasoned, logical fashion?

Contrast that to the comment by Robert Risko. I disagree rather strongly with his comment, but he laid out his reasoning, cited evidence to support his view, and stuck to the issues. That's a legitimate, sincere contribution, unlike the comment that basically offers, "you twist history and you suck." What a waste of time and space that was.

Posted May 5, 2011 at 4:46:13 PM


Jon Wardlow

Ever notice that all those Left Wing bloggers tend to use Aunt Bee or Tr(oll) Patriot or some such as their screen names? As if they desperately need anonimity. If you're so proud of your thoughts, man up and put your name to them! It isn't like I'm going to pick you out at my local shop or business and call you out "Hey, you're the Jim Harris that posts on Patriot Post, you tool!"

It could be that name rotation is another way to troll as well. Like one poster has three or four different pseudonyms...

I'd be interested in the psychological reason for disassociating name and posts among (any such) group.

Jon

Posted May 5, 2011 at 5:08:48 PM


Mikey D

Don't just ignore the libs and their brain dead blather and lack of truth. Note the people they put down, check out any DVDs or books by David Barton, Ann Coulter, etc., buy the DVD/book etc. and make it required watching or reading by any teenager you know. They need a real Education - not just what they get in the public schools. Aunt Bee is probably a school "teacher" or moron, but I repeat myself! Pity the students if that is the case!

Posted May 5, 2011 at 5:11:42 PM


Howard Reed

Hello America,

Don't you just love the truth . . . Coulter style. Unlike the average liberal columnist, blogger, talking head, etc., Ms. Coulter has a mind, knows how to use it and is not ashamed of her love of country.

On the other side is the Bama and his national Obamaniacs that take great pride in being what King Solomon called fools, foolish also known as unwise in the Book of Proverbs. Even that old Russian Bolshevik thug Vladmire Lenin got into the picture by calling these light in the loafer types 'useful idiots' due to their empty heads given over to frazzled emotional sound and fury saying not much about nothing.

Being the quintessential ME kind of guy that never misses an opportunity, the Bama swallowed his narcisstic pride to use Bush era waterboarding information to do what he does best . . . grab the limelight in his ME kind of way from the safety of the White House situation room while the bona fide heroes got dirty doing the legendary stuff of America's real heroes.

Aunt Bee . . . puhleese. Get out of your parents basement, put some pants on and go out and get a real life. The more I read leftist blogs the more I see the Glenn Beck lib blogger stereotype . . . shiftless lad, adult of course, that sits in front of his computer in his underwear in his parents basement waxing witlessly about much ado about nothing. Aren't you glad you aren't an Obama supporter.

The Turban Torpedo

Posted May 5, 2011 at 9:39:31 PM


Molon Lobe

Its sad that the dhimmierats have always been a disaster in foreign policy. While the GOP usually manages to get it right after many errors, the Dhimmies never get it right.

Their list of foreign policy disasters is long and impressive. Obama is set to beat them all. What a moron he is.

Ann keep it up. Soros is paying through the nose to keep the leftwingnuts employed.

Posted May 6, 2011 at 2:56:20 AM


derwd

Ann Coulter, the yapping chihuahua of the far right, barks hoarsely about nothing.

Posted May 6, 2011 at 7:49:39 AM


Reese

It must really be awful for Anne to see that all the people she opposes, and their policies and performance, seem to get much better results than those she supports. Hence this article and her willingness to manifest her detachment from reality. Pathetic, and not very funny, either.

Posted May 6, 2011 at 7:50:56 AM


fred

high ranking officials have already debunked the idea that any useful information came from torture.

Bush said chasing Bin Laden wasn't important and he didn't care where he was.

Funny how the economy which crashed under Bush's policies is the fault of Obama and killing of Bin Ladin under Obama's administration is Bush's credit.

Posted May 6, 2011 at 7:51:12 AM


G Wittig

So, in 2001 George W. Bush ignored multiple warnings about an impending attack by Bin Laden, even refusing to meet with anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke for more than 6 months. After 9/11 he makes a brief gesture toward Afghanistan, but refuses to commit sufficient resources to apprehend Bin Laden so he can instead invade Iraq, a nation actively hostile to Islamic terrorism that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. He then disbanded the Bin Laden unit of the CIA and said "I just don't spend much time thinking about him".

By stark contrast, President Obama devoted all necessary resources to the hunt for Bin Laden, tracked him to Pakistan, and killed him. Now we know that Bin Laden was still orchestrating anti-American attacks from the safety of his gated compound, until Navy SEALs ordered into action by Obama permanently ended his crimes against humanity.

And Coulter still asserts that Obama is "feckless" while George W. Bush was just fabulous.

What color is the sky in your world, Ann?

Posted May 6, 2011 at 8:29:53 AM


Matt

Ann Coulter: Not funny, not a good writer, not a good thinker, meanspirited, divisive, and boring. And those are her good points.

Posted May 6, 2011 at 8:57:37 AM


Armand James

So why is it again that Bush didn't go in after bin Laden, with all that superior macho and firepower and intelligence?

Posted May 6, 2011 at 9:06:40 AM


Dave

Lies, lies and more lies. Kind of sad, actually.

Posted May 6, 2011 at 9:29:17 AM


sparrow

After reading this, I am left wondering why Coulter would bother to copyright this drivel?

Posted May 6, 2011 at 10:06:37 AM


Elon Skyhawk

Ann Coulter is just another inciter of hate and violence who puts words in other peoples mouths like she puts artificial facts inside her head. As do most of you right wingers, which is why you don't dare allow the public to post freely here on your site without being "pre-screened." The main misdirection about capturing Osama bin Laden, is that G.W. Bush dismantled the CIA unit tasked to find bin Laden! That's a fact. Also torture doesn't work. That's a fact. Bush was a patsy of OBL and was PLAYED like the chump he is, into spending us into disaster and attacking the wrong country. Remember OBL and Bush were IN BUSINESS TOGETHER! President Obama, upon taking office, immediately re-tasked the CIA to hunt and kill OBL and use all the detective, spy, & police work that Bush dissed on. That's how Obama got America's most wanted man. Bush could have got him too, but he was never the brightest crayon in the package.

Posted May 6, 2011 at 10:11:19 AM


Texas Doc

Yeah, but you stil cannot get around the fact that one President will be remembered as the guy who got Bin Laden (Obama), and the other guy let him get away (Bush, et al.). No matter how hard you try to rewrite this Obama gets the touchdown.

Posted May 6, 2011 at 10:15:20 AM


Jim Hannon

This is not funny, honest or insightful. Why would anyone take this woman seriously?

Posted May 6, 2011 at 10:20:46 AM


Just The Facts

Once again Ms. Coulter gives her typical right-wing rant with lines only she is laughing at. She is neither sharp nor witty, as expected. Now for the facts: Several former interrogaters have AGAIN stated inexplicably that torture DID NOT and DOES NOT gain any info in the pursuit of terrorists, and furthermore it a direct violation of our constitution. Please folks, the so called "patriots" need to be verbally bashed (as Trump was at the recent Correspondents Dinner)for their slanted, unintelligent drivel. Please.

Posted May 6, 2011 at 10:32:11 AM


burro

Nice little echo chamber you have here A.C.

Just took 10 years and a Democratic president to finally justify saying, "Mission Accomplished". Something actually got done, and there was no flight suit or posturing like the Hero Little Boots put on after doing nothing but capitulating to his gut and the voices of the neo cons.

Have a nice day. I'll leave before the weirdness of this place starts to rub off.

And nobody paid me to write that. Not George Soros, or Move On or Captain Crunch or Bullwinkle or Casper the Friendly Ghost.

And Aunt Bee is right!!!! Tee-hee.

Posted May 6, 2011 at 10:36:06 AM


DDG

What a sad, silly diatribe!

Posted May 6, 2011 at 11:12:48 AM


Jon Wardlow

All the negative comments neatly in a row well after this article drifted well down the line. More evidence of lefties paid to post on conservative sites or just bored idiots flocking together trying to assault the person with the message rather than the message?

I don't always agree with everything Ann (or anyone else says) but it doesn't mean she isn't brilliant, insightful, well-opinioned, etc.

I haven't seen any liberal sway me with the merit of their arguement yet... all their posts are the equivalent of "Ann sucks!" I'm guessing she doesn't need me defending her... but I doubt you're hurting anyone's feelings.

Careful, libs, your ignorance is showing!

Posted May 6, 2011 at 12:07:01 PM


kindness

I'm not shocked that so many appear to take Ann's schtick as if it were serious.

You do understand this is what Ann does for a living, don't you? She says bombastic things about people. She knows what she says isn't true, that isn't why she get's paid. She get's paid to rile the base, to stir the pot. She's very successful at it. I'm glad for her success and wealth in doing her job.

But the rest of you to act like her schtick is real....Well, obviously there are a lot of Americans who need to seek help.

Posted May 6, 2011 at 12:18:48 PM


Jan Globak

Coulter, and all the other white men on the right, should just go home and be quiet now. You have proven, over the past 25 years, that you are inneffective, inadequate to the challenges we face, corrupted by money, and enemies of the vast majority of the US who are not millionaires.

Bush let Osama get away, stopped looking for him (since he needed him on the loose to justify his wars), then wrecked the economy with a tax cut on the very richest.

Conservatives can't do anything - not a single thing - right. So, be quiet, Mr. Coulter.

Posted May 6, 2011 at 12:33:50 PM


G Wittig

Jon Wardlow-

Assaulting the person rather than the merits of the argument is referred to as an ad-hominem attack. Ironically, that's precisely what you've done by calling liberals "bored idiots". Anything in my post that you can disagree with on a factual (rather than ad-hominem) basis? No, I didn't think so.

And in case you didn't get the check from the Koch brothers, it's you Right wing guys who employ paid flacks to post on forums (fora if you took Latin in high school); us Lefties do it just for the love of truth and justice.

Posted May 6, 2011 at 12:38:10 PM


Lightning Jack

The word from a D.C. Insider is that it was Leon Panetta, with Ms. Clinton, Mr. Gates and Gen. Petrarus backing, who initiated the 48 hour engagement order against bin Laden without Obama's, or Valerrie Jarrett's knowledge... or approval.

This was done out of shear frustration over Obama's and Jarrett's innability, or hesitation to act when military and intelligence officials made progress forming a position on the bin Laden operation.

As a matter of fact, the actual engagement order did not come from Obama, because Valerrie Jarrett refused to give White House authorization for the operation. It came from the Director of the CIA.

The President of the United States did not initiate, nor was he informed about the order until it was in operation.

If it had been up to Obama to make the decision, or commit to this operation, he and Jarrett would have continued to stall and make benal excuses as to why the engagement order should not proceed. So thankfully, Mr. Daley kept Obama and Jarrett insulated from the order until it was too late, or the embarrassment too great to Obama stop it.

Posted May 6, 2011 at 1:13:04 PM


wesmorgan1

Newsmax reports that, according to Donald Rumsfeld, the information did not come from "harsh treatment" or waterboarding. He specifically stated that the information about the courier came through "normal interrogation approaches."

I think Rumsfeld is a reliable source on this question. Others have pointed out that the timeline doesn't fit.

Posted May 6, 2011 at 1:27:59 PM


Carol

Actually, the name of the courier obtained via torture was incorrect. The CIA ended up wasting a lot time trying to track down a man who DID NOT EXIST.

Posted May 6, 2011 at 2:53:15 PM


MichaelSSEC

Reese: "It must really be awful for Anne to see that all the people she opposes, and their policies and performance, seem to get much better results than those she supports."

Maybe you could help me out with a project I've been working on for 25 years. That long ago, I started asking Liberals I met if they could name a SINGLE Leftist policy that has ever worked as advertised.

Nobody ever has.

Maybe you could be the first. Take your time. We'll wait.

Posted May 6, 2011 at 5:51:00 PM


Jon Wardlow

@ G Wittig

Yes, I knew the difinition of "ad-hominem"

I just find it ironic that when someone like Bill Maher speaks tongue-in-cheek - he is a GENIUS! but when Ann does it, all you see is attacks on how stupid she is.

The irony of my own catogirizing an 'attack mob' into a general category appears otherwise lost. So I'll just beg your forgiveness if I'm not allowed to call names back. It is the entire parent / child model. Right = have to repsect and love my opponent at all costs. Left = venom and hate is ok and natural if our side does it

Posted May 6, 2011 at 6:15:20 PM


pete

>"Having U.S. Marines in your midst apparently has some sort of calming influence."<

Ann, you have no idea.

They were old (much older), overweight, out of shape, some sickly, all had one health issue or another. I hadn't seen them since I left Nam in 1968. When we gathered again for the first time three years ago I slept all the way thru the night without taking my meds. Those who have been there understand that last comment. Just knowing those who've you shared war with are covering your six again has a very calming effect.

Posted May 6, 2011 at 6:24:09 PM


Robert Burger

Clinton had Monica Lewinsky,but Obama has the mainstream media. Guess who got the better BJ?

Posted May 6, 2011 at 7:37:52 PM


Tom

To all you left-wingnuts out there that wrote in to express your ignorance, try getting educated from someone othr than your far left news media, your far left college profs, or any other source of propaganda you have monitored. Look at history and you'll see the path you are going down. You falsely educated nuts are always the first to go when it comes to a purge.

Posted May 9, 2011 at 2:08:10 PM


Jody

Wow. I haven't seen that many Lefties congregate in one place to spout their ignorance in weeks. Ms. Coulter being funny (and right) must really aggravate you kids.

Good job, Ann!!

Posted May 11, 2011 at 6:27:45 PM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund