Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

MAY 4,  2011

WHAT'S IN A NAME? – AT 8:11 P.M. ET:   A number of spokesmen for native American groups have vigorously denounced the use of the code name "Geronimo" for Osama bin Laden:

(Reuters) - The reported use of "Geronimo" as a codeword in the operation that led to Osama bin Laden's killing has angered some native Americans and threatens to become an embarrassment for the Obama administration.

Geronimo was an Apache warrior leader who fought for tribal lands against U.S. and Mexican forces in the 19th century and who, like bin Laden, evaded capture for many years. He was held as a U.S. prisoner of war from the time he was captured in 1886 until his death in 1909.

COMMENT:  As readers know, we're not very high on political correctness here, but in this case the complainers are correct.  Geronimo has, for years, been seen not as an enemy but as a native American warrior, and was honored by act of Congress a few years ago.  You'd think someone would have shown some common sense in avoiding the use of the name to identify an international terrorist.  "Geronimo" has been used in American military parlance before, as the war cry shouted by paratroopers as they jumped from their aircraft during World War II. 

What's amazing is that among all these Obamans, who are always chanting about the glories of multiculturalism, there was not one who spoke up and realized the potential for embarrassment.

I mean, they could have codenamed him "Jane Fonda."

May 4, 2011       Permalink

NO PHOTOS – AT 7:54 P.M. ET:  President Obama has decided against releasing any death photos of Osama bin Laden.  His stated logic is that we know bin Laden is dead, and the photos could incite violence.

There is no right or wrong here.  Arguments could be made each way.  On the one hand, a poll shows most Americans want the photos released, and they could provide some evidence that death actually occurred.  On the other, anyone who believes that this whole thing is a hoax would simply say that the pictures were doctored. 

I was watching Fouad Ajami on CNN earlier, who weighed in by agreeing with Obama, saying that we should do what suits us, and not worry so much about the rest of the world – you know, "world opinion."  I have great regard for Ajami, who has a history of getting things right, and I'd lean in his direction.

As for "proof," the only absolute proof we had was sent, prematurely, to the bottom of the sea, out of "respect" for Muslim traditions.  It turns out that virtually every Muslim "scholar" who's spoken on the subject rejects what we did.  Big surprise there.  We should have kept the body long enough for international inspection and full chemical tests.

What can be done for "proof" now, without someone yelling that it's fake?  I have this idea:  Let President Obama challenge Osama bin Laden, if he is still alive, to make a TV tape, hold up a newspaper from the day he makes the tape, make comments showing he's aware of events after his announced death, and let the tape be made in closeup, so the world's governments, using face recognition technology, can confirm that it is truly bin Laden.  And let his voice then be "voice printed" and compared with known bin Laden tapes.  That should do it, except for the most insane or corrupt of people and governments. 

Of course, that won't happen because bin Laden is dead.  The fact that the White House has royally botched the aftermath of the raid does not change the basic fact.  If bin Laden were not dead, I guarantee that some news organization, or organizations, would have already been contacted covertly by military people outraged over the misuse of their unit's name and prestige.  A conspiracy to fake something like this inevitably would involve hundreds or thousands of people, all of whom would be willing to remain silent.  It's nonsense.

May 4, 2011       Permalink

THE 48-HOUR RULE STANDS! – AT 9:47 A.M. ET:  Yesterday I mentioned my 48-hour rule, which holds that it takes 48 hours for the left, especially the international left, to reorganize after a major event and start spouting its usual stuff.  I'm proud to report that the rule stands.  The left was already moving yesterday.  From Reuters:

The killing of Osama bin Laden when he was unarmed has raised concerns the United States may have gone too far in acting as policeman, judge and executioner of the world's most wanted man...

...Former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt told German TV the operation could have incalculable consequences in the Arab world at a time of unrest there.

"It was quite clearly a violation of international law."

Perhaps Herr Schmidt might examine his own country's vigorous trade with Iran, despite international sanctions.  In fact, he might examine his country's history.

It was a view echoed by high-profile Australian human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson.

"It's not justice. It's a perversion of the term. Justice means taking someone to court, finding them guilty upon evidence and sentencing them," Robertson told Australian Broadcasting Corp television from London.

"This man has been subject to summary execution, and what is now appearing after a good deal of disinformation from the White House is it may well have been a cold-blooded assassination."

Robertson said bin Laden should have stood trial, just as World War Two Nazis were tried at Nuremburg or former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic was put on trial at the war crimes tribunal in The Hague after his arrest in 2001.

Seems to me the Nazis tried at Nuremburg were captured after the war was over.  Did you hear anyone on bin Laden's side declare a cease-fire?  This is dry rot.

Gert-Jan Knoops, a Dutch-based international law specialist, said bin Laden should have been arrested and extradited to the United States. "The Americans say they are at war with terrorism and can take out their opponents on the battlefield," Knoops said. "But in a strictly formal sense, this argument does not stand up."

A senior Muslim cleric in New Delhi, Syed Ahmed Bukhari, said US troops could have easily captured bin Laden.

"America is promoting jungle rule everywhere, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan or Libya. People have remained silent for long but now it has crossed all limits."

And of course, right here in the United States, our own beloved leftists are back to their never-changing agenda.  If the world exists for another 500 years, they'll be saying the same thing.  Why here's leftist suprema Katrina Vanden Heuvel, who runs the fringe left Nation magazine, giving us her wisdom in The Washington Post:

Now, with bin Laden buried at sea, it is time to end the “global war on terror” we have lived with for a decade. It is time to stop defining the post-Sept. 11 struggle against stateless terrorists as “war.” Framing the fight against terror as a war was a conscious decision made by President Bush, Karl Rove and others in those first days after Sept. 11 — a decision that destroyed the unity President Obama reminded us of in his address. 

I don't recall the destruction of that unity based on the "war" theme.  Do you?

Today it is time not only to end the use of the term “war on terror,” but to end the war itself.

It is time to bring our troops home.

Which, of course, is exactly what old Katrina was saying before bin Laden had his misfortune.

May 4, 2011       Permalink

IS OBAMA UP? – AT 9:14 A.M. ET:  The New York Times, in ecstasy, reports that President Obama is suddenly riding high in the polls:

Support for President Obama has risen sharply following the killing of Osama bin Laden by American military forces in Pakistan, with a majority now approving of his overall job performance, as well as his handling of foreign policy, the war in Afghanistan and the threat of terrorism, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The glow of national pride seemed to rise above partisan politics, as support for the president rose significantly among both Republicans and independents. In all, 57 percent said they now approved of the president’s job performance, up from 46 percent last month.

Not so fast, Manhattan West Siders.  It turns out that the poll was conducted among only 532 adults, not even registered voters.

By contrast, Scott Rasmussen is reporting very little bounce for the president.  He polls among likely voters, where approval for the president, even after the bin Laden bounce, is, in Rasmussen's poll, at 48%.

The numbers will probably be all over the place for a time, but will settle down.  As we've noted here in previous posts, military victories do not necessarily translate into political triumphs, unless they occur very close to an election.  Our election is a year and a half away.

May 4, 2011       Permalink

AND NOW FOR SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT – AT 8:49 A.M. ET:  If you want to know why the "Arab street" thinks the way it does, get this report from one of the most important Arab outlets, Al Arabiya, which I think translates roughly as "It's America's fault":

Senior Pakistani security officials said Osama bin Laden’s daughter had confirmed her father was captured alive and shot dead by the US Special Forces during the first few minutes of the operation carried out at the huge compound in Bilal Town, Abbottabad.

Besides recovering four bullet-riddled bodies from the compound, Pakistani security agencies also arrested two women and six children, aged between 2 and 12 years, after American forces flew toward Afghanistan. Some reports suggest 16 people, including women and children, were arrested from the house, most of them Arab nationals.

And...

The official said a 12-year-old daughter of bin Laden was among the six children rescued from the three-storey compound.

The daughter has reportedly told her Pakistani investigators that the US forces captured her father alive but shot him dead in front of family members.

According to sources, Bin Laden was staying on the ground floor of the house and was dragged on the floor to the helicopter after being shot dead by US commandos.

There were conflicting reports about the second person the US forces took along with them. Some Pakistani officials say it was one of Bin Laden’s sons injured by the US commandos and thrown onto a separate military chopper; others say he was killed in the operation and it was only his dead body that they took along.

COMMENT:  Watch how quickly this "narrative" spreads.  We are very naive about foreign propaganda, especially in the Muslim world. 

It is highly unlikely that the Seals captured bin Laden alive and then executed him in front of witnesses.  But one can expect members of bin Laden's family to advance their own story. 

Apparently there is video of the raid.  We may have to release it.  Among other claims being made is this one:

“Not a single bullet was fired from the compound at the US forces and their choppers. Their chopper developed some technical fault and crashed and the wreckage was left on the spot,” a well-informed official explained.

We were told there was a firefight.  And this:

Security officials said they did not recover any arms and explosives during their detailed search of the compound on Monday and Tuesday. Also, they said, it was a simple house comprising 13 rooms, six on the ground floor and the remaining on the first and second floors.

No arms around the world's most wanted man?  Come on. 

We have some information work of our own to do.

May 4, 2011       Permalink

THE MESS – AT 8:38 A.M. ET:  While the Obama administration takes deep bows over the killing of Osama bin Laden, it's become clear that it's the American military that deserves virtually all the credit, with the administration messing up the aftermath big time. 

Newspapers around the world are ridiculing the contradictory statements that have come from Washington since the operation.  Even generally pro-American papers like London's Telegraph have raised eyebrows.

And now there is apparently a fierce controversy over whether to release photos of the dead terrorist to satisfy at least some of those who are doubting the story:

President Obama is increasingly doubtful that there's a compelling reason to release a photograph of Osama bin Laden's corpse, ABC News has learned.

There don't seem to be many skeptics of bin Laden's death in the Muslim world, with bin Laden's wife having survived the attack to identify bin Laden's death both to the Navy SEALs and Pakistani authorities.

Meanwhile, sources say, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are advising the president about concerns at the Pentagon and State Department that releasing a photograph could prompt a backlash against the US for killing bin Laden where one does not seem to currently exist.

The internal debate at the White House is then informed by this question: why are we releasing this photograph if no one seems to really doubt his death and releasing it could cause more harm than good?

US official: "The only skeptics are extremists and they wouldn't be convinced by a photograph anyway. So the president has to weigh the potential negatives and they're huge, there's a tremendous risk of the photo becoming a rallying cry for attacks against US soldiers, government personnel, and Americans in general."

COMMENT:  There's some wisdom to that argument.  But surely the aftermath could have been better planned by officials paid to handle diplomatic and information issues.  When you can't get your story straight, journalists will pounce and skeptical people, especially in the Mideast, will wonder. 

The reasoning in Washington seems to change by the hour, and we'll try to keep up with it.

May 4, 2011     Permalink

MAY 3,  2011

ABOUT TIME – AT 11:55 P.M. ET:  President Obama has reportedly invited former President George W. Bush to join him at Ground Zero in New York on Thursday.  However, Mr. Bush has declined the invitation.

It's also reported that Nancy Pelosi has telephoned former President Bush to thank him for his role in the ultimate elimination of Osama bin Laden.

Clearly, Democrats have been stung by the criticism, correct, that they lacked class in the way Mr. Bush's role was downplayed in Mr. Obama's initial announcement of the successful bin Laden raid.

As for Bush declining Obama's invitation, no reason was given.  There could be any number of reasons, including the possible feeling that he was being used.  Or, perhaps, he felt the focus should be on the current president.

It is gratifying to know, though, that at least some people are starting to recognize George Bush's contribution.

May 3, 2011       Permalink

BOTCHING IT – AT 9:03 P.M. ET:  It was to be expected that conspiracy theorists and America haters would come out of the woodwork after bin Laden's death, but did we have to help them so much?

It's now been acknowledged that some of the key statements made by administration members describing the killing of bin Laden were wrong.  He did not have a gun, the woman he used as a shield was not his wife, and she was not killed.  The man who misled us was John Brennan, Mr. Obama's chief counterterrorism adviser.  In that position, Brennan should be most sensitive to the impact of inaccurate statements that later have to be withdrawn.  They lead to an explosion of conspiracy theories and accusations.  Brennan has made inaccurate statements before in his job, and should now be eased out of the administration.  He just doesn't cut it.

The administration has botched the aftermath of the brilliantly conducted raid that got bin Laden.  Contradictory statements, and a curious lack of understanding that absolute proof had to be provided have now set off a wave of skepticism.  True, no matter what we did there would be doubt in some quarters, especially in the Mideast, where conspiracy theories are often a substitute for thought.  But again, we made matters worse.

It was not necessary for bin Laden to be dumped into the ocean within 24 hours of death.  There is a limit to how much "sensitivity" we had to show.  It would have been better to keep the body for a few days to provide absolute proof of death.  Identification by family members might have been done.  The body could have been examined by a neutral authority from say, the World Health Organization or the Red Cross.   This part of the planning was not good. 

Now there is controversy over whether the death photos of bin Laden should be released.  I have no answer.  On the one hand, they could provide proof to some.  On the other hand, release of the pictures will immediate provoke cries of "Photoshopped." 

I suspect that some photos will have to be released, and that other evidence will have to be provided.  Apparently, there are very sophisticated DNA tests that can be conducted, with samples we already have, that should settle the matter, but of course people can claim they were faked.

We will never satisfy everyone, but we did very little to satisfy even mild skeptics.  I have no doubt whatever that bin Laden was killed in that raid.  What conspiracy theorists never tell you is that the kind of conspiracies they dream up would normally require a cast of hundreds or thousands, none of whom ever leak a word.  But we simply could have done better in this case.  I hope some hard evidence remains that the president can present to the world.

May 3, 2011       Permalink

MORE OF THE USUAL SUSPECTS – AT 7:31 P.M. ET:  Warlike words in the city of peace from a representative of the "religion of peace."  Another reminder from the real world – not the world of political correctness – of what we're up against: 

An imam from the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem vowed to take revenge over "the western dogs" for killing
Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan on Sunday.

In a Youtube video uploaded by the imam he said: "The western dogs are rejoicing after killing one of our Islamic lions. From Al-Aqsa Mosque, where the future caliphate will originate with the help of God, we say to them – the dogs will not rejoice too much for killing the lions. The dogs will remain dogs and the lion, even if he is dead, will remain a lion."

Great wisdom, deeply thought out.  We must understand other cultures, mustn't we?

The imam then verbally attacked US President Barack Obama saying: "You personally instructed to kill Muslims. You should know that soon you'll hang together with Bush Junior."

"We are a nation of billions, a good nation. We'll teach you about politics and military ways very soon, with god's help," he vowed.

Some two dozen Palestinians gathered in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday to pay tribute to slain al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

About 25 people holding pictures and posters of bin Laden rallied outside a Gaza City university. The crowd included al-Qaeda sympathizers as well as students who said they opposed bin Laden's ideology, but were angry at the US for killing him and consider him a martyr.

Hamas police did not interfere in the demonstration.

COMMENT:  Now maybe President Obama will learn what it's like to deal with this kind of irrationality, as President Bush learned.  We assume it will have an impact.

May 3, 2011       Permalink

THE POLITICS OF IT – AT 9:44 A.M. ET:  Already, and understandably, we are seeing some members of the punditry examine the political implications of the bin Laden action for President Obama.  The reactions range all the way from the moronic - one of the "ladies" of "The View" suggested that we just cancel the 2012 election because Obama has it – to dubious assertions that this will have no effect at all.

It will have some effect, if only the line, "He got bin Laden."  The line will have some impact in strengthening Obama's sometimes dubious national-security credentials.  Beyond that, it is difficult to know how many votes, if any, this episode will change.

Some have cited history.  It is true that George H.W. Bush had enormous approval ratings after the first Gulf War, and went on to lose the 1992 presidential election.  But Bush 41 had an anemic personality and the first Gulf War, fought to "liberate" Kuwait, didn't draw the passions that bin Laden did.

A more appropriate comparison is probably the 1942 midterm elections, occurring only 11 months after Pearl Harbor.  The country was involved in the war effort, fighting desperately both the Japanese in the Pacific and, by the time of the election, the Nazis in North Africa.  Under President Roosevelt's leadership, we had already pulled off the Doolittle raid on Tokyo and a spectacular naval victory at Midway. 

And yet, Roosevelt took a beating in the 1942 midterm elections.  The Democrats lost 45 House seats and retained only a slender majority, even losing the popular vote.  The new House, sworn in at the start of 1943, had 222 Democrats and 209 Republicans.

As usual, only a third of the Senate was up, but, there too, the president suffered losses.  The Democrats lost eight seats, but still retained a sizable advantage in the new Congress, with 58 Senate seats to the GOP's 37, with one Progressive.  (That adds up to 96.  Please note that Alaska and Hawaii had not yet become states.)

Roosevelt's majorities eroded because of grumbling over the war and loss of support in some ethnic communities.  America was never quite as united as some sugar-coated histories tell us.  It never is, any more than Britain was completely united.  Britain threw Churchill out in 1945, before the war even ended.  Roosevelt was losing popularity in part because he'd served so long.  He did get reelected in 1944, but not by an overwhelming margin, considering America's dramatic path to wartime victory.

No way to predict, then, how Obama will do next year.  We do know that military success doesn't always translate into political victory, especially if that success occurs long before the election.

May 3, 2011      Permalink

FROM WEIRD TO WEIRDER – AT 9:13 A.M. ET:  If you want to see printed proof of how far gone the Iranian regime is, just consider its take on the killing of Osama bin Laden, as reflected in the party-line press:

TEHRAN (FNA)- The US has killed the Al-Qaeda leader, Osama Bin Laden, in a bid to prevent any possible leakage of intelligence and information about the US-Al-Qaeda joint terrorist operations, a senior Iranian legislator underscored on Monday.

"The West was fully satisfied with bin Laden's performance during the past years and today… it was obliged to kill him to prevent possible leakage of the priceless intelligence that he had," member of the parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Javad Jahangirzadeh told FNA on Monday.

So bin Laden was a secret ally of the United States.  As Johnny Carson used to say, "I did not know that."

He mentioned that the West seeks to rebuild its damaged face in the international community, and reiterated that Bin Laden's survival could endanger the interests of the western countries and disclose their past and future clandestine operations.

Jahangirzadeh warned the world countries that the West has hatched a new plot to find new pretexts for invading and occupying the Muslim countries.

COMMENT:  This is the kind of stuff that's fed to the Iranian people.  And stuff like it is fed to many residents of the "Arab street" throughout the Mideast.  This twisting of minds creates profound problems for us, but receives virtually no attention from the American media, which seems to have little interest in how public opinion is actually formed, especially in dictatorships.

May 3, 2011        Permalink 

LET'S GET IT RIGHT, FELLAS – AT 8:50 A.M. ET:  We still, as a nation, bask in the glow of bin Laden's termination, but already the conspiracy theorists and borderline mental cases are at work, casting doubt, demanding super-proof and raising the kinds of questions previously reserved for George W. Bush. 

Unfortunately, some information botches aren't helping matters.  From The Politico:

The White House backed away Monday evening from key details in its narrative about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, including claims by senior U.S. officials that the Al Qaeda leader had a weapon and may have fired it during a gun battle with U.S. forces.

Officials also retreated from claims that one of bin Laden’s wives was killed in the raid and that bin Laden was using her as a human shield before she was shot by U.S. forces.

At a televised White House briefing Monday afternoon, Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan said bin Laden joined in the fight that several residents of the Abbottabad, Pakistan, compound put up against the Navy SEALs during the 40-minute operation.

“He [bin Laden] was engaged in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house he was in. And whether or not he got off any rounds, I quite frankly don’t know,” Brennan said.

At a Pentagon briefing earlier in the day, a senior defense official said bin Laden used a woman as a human shield so he could fire shots. “He was firing behind her,” the official said.

In another background briefing early Monday morning, a senior administration official also said bin Laden put up a fight. “He did resist the assault force. And he was killed in a firefight,” the official said.

However, during a background, off-camera briefing for television reporters later Monday, a senior White House official said bin Laden was not armed when he was killed, apparently by the U.S. raid team.

Another White House official familiar with the TV briefing confirmed the change to POLITICO, adding, “I’m not aware of him having a weapon.”

“The bottom line is the team that entered that room was met with resistance and took appropriate action,” said a third American official.

COMMENT:  If they don't get their stories straight, conspiracy theories will grow.  All we need is stories in the Muslim world claiming that bin Laden was "murdered" in cold blood, despite putting up no resistance. 

And the hard left waits in the wings, ready to pounce with its own "narrative."  Consummate wackjob Cindy Sheehan is already out with a claim that bin Laden isn't dead.

The White House has got to produce a clean story, and I'm afraid pictures of the dead bin Laden may have to be released. 

Bin laden's physical size was unique in the Arab world – he was a very tall man in a society of shorter men, and tha fact alone is compelling.  But let's get all the evidence out to silence the unbelievers, who see profits and books ahead.

May 3, 2011       Permalink

VICTORY UP NORTH – AT 8:28 A.M. ET:  Americans, to put it mildly, do not follow Canadian politics very closely.  But Canada is one of our closest allies, shares our longest border, and is our largest trading partner.  It also has, today, a remarkably pro-American prime minister in Steve Harper.

Canada just held a national election and Harper's conservatives won a clean majority in Parliament, meaning he can govern without forming a coalition.  This is rare in a country that tends to tilt left, but Harper has done it, and it's good news for the Yanks:

TORONTO (AP) - Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper won his coveted majority government in elections Monday that also marked a shattering defeat for the opposition Liberals, preliminary results showed.
Harper, who took office in 2006, has won two elections but until now had never held a majority of Parliament's 308 seats, forcing him to rely on the opposition to pass legislation.

While Harper's hold on the 308-member Parliament has been tenuous during his five-year tenure, he has managed to nudge an instinctively center-left country to the right. He has gradually lowered sales and corporate taxes, avoided climate change legislation, promoted Arctic sovereignty, upped military spending and extended Canada's military mission in Afghanistan.

Elections Canada reported preliminary results on its website, giving the Conservatives 164 seats, which will give Harper four years of uninterrupted government.

"It's stunning. We're elated," Conservative lawmaker Jason Kenney said in an interview with CBC. "We'll be a government for all Canadians."

The leftist New Democratic Party was projected to become the main opposition party for the first time in Canadian history with 106 seats, in a stunning setback for the Liberals who have always been either in power or leading the opposition.

Former colleagues of Harper say his long-term goals are to shatter the image of the Liberals—the party of former Prime Ministers Jean Chretien, Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau—as the natural party of government in Canada, and to redefine what it means to be Canadian.

Harper, who comes from the conservative western province of Alberta, took a major step toward that goal on Monday night as the Liberals dropped to 35 seats from 77, according to the preliminary results.

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff congratulated Harper and New Democrat leader Jack Layton and accepted responsibility for the "historic defeat."

"I will play any part that the party wishes me to play as we go forward to rebuild," said Ignatieff, who even lost his own seat in a Toronto suburb.

Stephen Clarkson, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto, said Harper will now be considered a transformative figure in Canadian history.

"It's a sea change," Clarkson said.

Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful.  It's the western Canadian provinces that provide the conservative base in Canada, but we've even seen conservative strides in Toronto, a liberal city, just as we saw conservative strides under Rudy Giuliani in New York.  Issues like high crime drive even traditionally liberal voters to the right.

The news is not all good.  The New Democrats, who made great strides, are a typical European leftist party with an aloof attitude toward the United States.  Fortunately, they're in a minority and not a current threat.  It will be up to Steve Harper to make short work of them and expose them for what they are, a throwback to the 1960s.

May 3, 2011     Permalink