I can’t wait for the movie

| August 20, 2012 | 32 Comments

Sparky sent us this video. It proves that the OPSEC folks are on the right track.

Introducing President Obama at a campaign event in New Hampshire, Democrat Senator Jeanne Shaheen said that the president “led the mission that brought Osama bin Laden to justice”:

And the bobbleheads in the audience just clapped and cheered on cue.

It looks and sounds to me like the Democrats are swiftboating the SEALs who accomplished what few in this country could have done.

Category: 2012 election, Barack Obama/Joe Biden

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (32)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. J.M. says:

    By democrat ‘leadership’ standards, Bush SR and JR should have a chest full of medals for Desert Storm and OIF.

  2. NHSparky says:

    It gets better–even our Obama knob-gobbling newspaper of the area (Foster’s Daily Democrat) could only push the attendance to about 3500-4000.

    Rochester (where stop was held) has a population of over 30K. Dover is 25K. Portsmouth is 25K. The surrounding towns of Barrington, Lee, Farmington, and Maine border towns add another 40-50K. And 3800 is all they could drag in.

    http://fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120820/GJNEWS_01/708209963

    Yeah, there’s a few people who still support him, but it’s fading fast. And unemployment rose in 44 states last month.

    November can’t get here fast enough.

  3. I heard the Big “O” postponed the “mission” a few times for political reasons.

  4. Al T. says:

    He didn’t lead (build) that.

  5. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    In the movie Obama’s part will be played by Quinton Jackson (A-Team) taking out Bin Laden on his own…

  6. valerie says:

    This is like Gotham City giving Commissioner Gordon a medal for calling The Batman.

  7. Larry Rasczak says:

    Whenever someone says to me that Obama “lead the mission” or “killed Osama” I always ask them “Was he on the lead chopper that went into the compound, or with the second one?”

  8. Flagwaver says:

    @6, please warn me. I just missed the monitor and sprayed the cat with a mouthful of coffee!!!

  9. Anonymous says:

    @5.

    I have to go with Carl Weathers.

    “Whats wrong, Dillion? The CIA got you pushing to many pencils?”

  10. Green Thumb says:

    @9 was me.

    My apoloigies.

  11. proof says:

    He “led” the mission? Ms. Shaheen, you keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.

  12. Yat Yas 1833 says:

    If comrade obama “led” the raid that got bin Laden then I’m Commandant of the Marine Corps, with all due respect to Gen. Amos.

  13. Common Sense says:

    If it helps, the movie people have stated that there is no POTUS character in the movie, just the guys who actually DID do the work.

  14. insipid says:

    Really? This is the best you’ve got? Someone- not the President- uses the word led instead of ordered and this is your great evidence of Obama discrediting the troops? I’d call it pathetic, but that’ insulting to the pathetic.

    @2- NHsparky- Mittens would cream his pants if he EVER attracted 3,500 people to any event. The best he can usually get is a few hundred.

    You do realize that, despite the declerations of “horse race” by the corporate media that President Obama is the clear favorite to win? That he is polling far ahead of where Bush was against Kerry at this time in 2004?

    No matter which polling place you look at, Kerry is behind and likely to lose barring some economic catastrophe in the next 2.5 months.

    Nate Silver has President Obama at a 70% chance of beating Mitt. In fact, no matter which pollster you look at Huffington Post, Electoral Vote, or Real Clear Politics – they all say the same thing President Obama is ahead.

    Can something happen to change this? Sure, but given Romney’s previous performance it is far more likely that Romney will fuck up than Obama.

    I can’t wait till November.

  15. insipid says:

    This whole line of attack belongs in some chutzpah hall of fame. For almost a decade you guys won elections by painting Democrats as weak on national security and now you have your collective panties in a twist because President Obama dares to point out the FACT that he is strong on national security?

    Most of you would be condemning President Obama in every vile way imaginable if the mission had failed. He’d be Carter II, incompetant, the Failure in Chief. The success is “no big deal” or a call “Anybody would of made”. To quote Dick Cheney, “Go fuck yourselves”.

    The fact is that the Bush administration would not of made this call. We know this because Rumsfield called off a similar mission. We know Romney also would not of made this call. We know this because he stated in an interview that he would not expend a lot of resources to find Bin Laden. He also said that he would not attack unilaterally. That we are BFFs with Pakistan. Sure MAYBE you can state that if he were given all the information in a bow he’d of made the call, but that presuposes that he would of re-opened the task force, like PBO did, or made killing Osama a priority, like PBO did. The evidence is that he would of put the same effort that Bush put into it once he made up his mind that Sadam Hussein was the more important target- zero.

    Plus there’s no way Romney would of made the call anyway. You all know that Romney is the worlds biggest pussy. That’s why all your energy is devoted to attacking President Obama. You just can’t bring yourself to really get behind Mitt and you’re hoping that Mitt can win by not being President Obama. There’s no way a President Mitt Romney could EVER make a call that would threaten him with being a one-termer. No way, no how, not this guy:

  16. GoRed says:

    insipid,

    What are you gonna do when your warrior philosopher king loses this fall?

  17. Ex-PH2 says:

    Remember that post a few weeks ago about someone having to go and get Obama off the golf course to deal with the raid on bin Laden’s compound? And who was talking him out of ordering the raid? (Initials VJ) And who actually gave the order in the situation room? (Initials HC)

    This comes from a Newsweek article by Niall Ferguson:

    “On paper it looked like an economics dream team: Larry Summers, Christina Romer, and Austan Goolsbee, not to mention Peter Orszag, Tim Geithner, and Paul Volcker. The inside story, however, is that the president was wholly unable to manage the mighty brains—and egos—he had assembled to advise him.
    According to Ron Suskind’s book Confidence Men, Summers told Orszag over dinner in May 2009: “You know, Peter, we’re really home alone … I mean it. We’re home alone. There’s no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes [of indecisiveness on key economic issues].” On issue after issue, according to Suskind, Summers overruled the president. “You can’t just march in and make that argument and then have him make a decision,” Summers told Orszag, “because he doesn’t know what he’s deciding.” (I have heard similar things said off the record by key participants in the president’s interminable “seminar” on Afghanistan policy.)”

    Ferguson originally praised the voters’ choice in the 2008 elections, to wit: “You would not be human if you failed to acknowledge this as a cause for great rejoicing….Yet the question is not who was the better candidate four years ago. It is whether the winner has delivered on his promises. And he has not.”

    We’re home alone…no adult in charge….just speaks volumes about POTUS.

  18. insipid says:

    LOL Ex-PH2- Ferguson was an advisor for John McCain. He wrote some nice words after McCain lost- so did John McCain in fact- but there’s no doubting that Ferguson is a partisan. And the White House has done everything but call Suskind a damn liar.

  19. insipid says:

    @16- What are you going to Do when your flip flopping daddies boy gets his ass whipped in the fall?

  20. J.M. says:

    @17: That’s what happens when we (as a country) elect a President with no actual practical leadership experience. And as long as his politcal career is owned and tied to the most politically corrupt city in the US, all we’re ever going to see are handlers running around the White House making decisions that are in their best interests only.

    Call me crazy, but I think our economy might actually benefit from a President that has actual experience running a business as opposed to a President that perceives our budget the way a 10 year old thinks the ATM is a endless magic money machine.

  21. insipid says:

    @20- That would be George Bush- our first MBA President that believed in the “magic money machine” (I actually do like the term, by the way). He’s the one that pushed for and got tax cuts in time of war, an unpaid for prescription drug bill and two unpaid for wars. And it was Bush that pushed through Tarp with as few preconditions as possible.

  22. Redacted1775 says:

    Hey Sip, pay attention. Kerry isn’t running, genius.

  23. PowerPoint Ranger says:

    “@NHsparky- Mittens would cream his pants if he EVER attracted 3,500 people to any event. The best he can usually get is a few hundred”

    Sippy, You don’t get out or read much, do ya? Let’s look at a tale of two rallies. 15,000+ for Romney after the Ryan VP announcement, with comparable numbers ever since.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/new-obama-panic-romney-crowd-sizes/article/2504781

    If Teleprompter Jesus is so popular, why can’t he fill a $51 fundraiser with 1,500 people in Chicago?

    http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/obama-holds-hometown-fundraiser-to-half-empty-room/question-2874085/

  24. Smorgasbord says:

    This must be another one of the leakes that will help the president get reelected. If he lead the team, does that mean he was the first one through the door?

  25. J.M. says:

    @21: If you’re trying to make the argument that Bush was a bad President by the amount of national debt during his presidency (458553 Million, according to http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals), then Obama must be 3 times worse as President (1,326,948 Million national debt).

    If this was a business that you worked for and had a large stake in, who would you want to run it? A man that spent over 20 years working in business (16+ years running a company) before going into politics, or a man that spent 12 years as a community organizer and 14+ years as a politician with no substantial activity to his credit until the White house?

  26. Ex-PH2 says:

    INSIPID, YOU INCREDIBLE MORON —

    I can’t put much credence in someone who can’t make his own decisions, puts this country further and further into debt, and who lets a PR hack Valerie Jarrett make his decisions for him, INCLUDING NOT MAKING the decision THREE TIMES to give the order to the SEALs to raid bin Laden’s compound.

    THAT decision was made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, SECDEF Panetta, and GEN Petraeus, NOT BY OBAMA.
    And if you think that allowing a public relations hack to sit in on and make decisions on classified operations is okay, when it is GROSSLY INAPPROPRIATE and a violation of national security, then you are even STUPIDER than I thought you were the first time I read the drivel that you post.

    And since you can’t read, Ferguson LIKED the idea of electing a black president four years ago. He stated clearly that he thought it was a good idea. He has since changed his mind. Changing one’s mind does NOT connote a partisan bias.

    And to support JM’s post, when Obama was hired by the University of Chicago as a senior law lecturer, he turned the class over to the students. This was in a Newsweek article in 2008, during that presidential campaign. Furthermore, Obama spent 11 years in the Illinois state legislature, voting “present” on 3% of the legislation. “Present” as opposed to “abstain”. Voting ‘present’ means you can’t make up your mind how to vote. One-half of a percent is bad enough, but three per cent is clear evidence of lack of commitment.

    And last but certainly not least, the Obama campaign in July spent $10 million more than it took in. Not a good record in anyone’s account books. It’s quite clear that budgets don’t matter any more, that spending beyond your means is OKAY.

    But then you have such a partisan bias that real-world info doesn’t matter to you, so try this on for size:
    The raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound and the destruction of a stealth helicopter were classified information. Informing the press of anything other than a successful raid is a violation of national security. The details of a classified operation are NEVER to be distributed to public media until they are properly declassified. Likewise, the crash of a stealth drone in Iran, which is classified technology, was also leaked to the press, again a violation of national security. Ignoring security regulations puts at extreme risk the people who perform these operations and the security of this country. The Pakistanis who grabbed that stealth helicopter sold it to the Chinese government.

    But that doesn’t matter to you as long as you can make some asnine, smartass remarks, because you don’t give a shit about this country or anyone but yourself.

    I sincerely hope that you find out some day what it’s like to be on the receiving end of a domestic terrorist attack.

  27. NHSparky says:

    @2- NHsparky- Mittens would cream his pants if he EVER attracted 3,500 people to any event. The best he can usually get is a few hundred.

    He drew over 4000 at St. Anselm’s College in Manchester yesterday (a WORK day.) Obumbles can’t draw that on a weekend.

    Draw your own conclusions. Here’s a fucking crayon if you need some help. There have been rallies thus far drawing over 10K. As I’ve said, when this area, which is fairly liberal, can only get 3800 (and that’s a VERY generous count, according to what I saw/heard) on a Saturday afternoon, Obama has some MAJOR issues.

  28. Hondo says:

    Did anyone else find it ironic for insipid to castigate Bush(43) with a “magic money machine” reference?

    Here’s the approximate deficit figures for the Bush(43) and Obama administrations. For each, the Fiscal Year deficit for the FY they took office is allocated 1/3 to predecessor, 2/3 to incoming POTUS. The Obama deficit estimate below accepts the current best estimate of a $1,326.95 billion deficit for FY2012, but stops there. It does not include 1/3 of the FY2013 estimated deficit.

    Bush(43) deficits: $2,519.27 billion in 8 full years (Jan 2001 – Jan 2009)
    Obama deficits: $4,861.82 billion in 3 years 8 months (Jan 2009 – Sep 2012)

    At this rate, by Jan 2013 it’s entirely possible the Obama administration will have doubled the Bush(43) total deficit – in precisely half the time.

  29. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    @28 That’s why the Dems have a hard time, twice the debt in half the time instead of half the debt in twice the time. But if Bush didn’t suck as a president Obama would look better now, you know it’s Bush’s fault. All the positive outcomes belong to Obama, all the negative outcomes are the result of inherited problems too large to work with in 3 short years.

    It’s the same horsesh1t they use when declaring the mystical, magical Clinton surplus….the treasury stats don’t support the surplus hypothesis, since the debt rose every single year Clinton was president. My brother in law thinks I am a giant pr1ck for pulling up the treasury’s own website to prove it to him that Clinton never generated a surplus, just a lot of rhetoric pretending to be a surplus.

    Like I always say, it’s just math…there are no feelings involved just actual numbers and the numbers are what they are whether you like them or not.

  30. Ex-PH2 says:

    Here’s something to add to your fire, Hondo.

    These are some statistics under the current administration’s aegis:

    2++ million homes are now in foreclosure.

    3.8 million mortgages are now delinquent, almost half of those are three months past due. That is NOW, 2012, NOT 2008.

    Home values have dropped by 30% since October 2008, a loss of 7 trillions dollars in wealth for American families.

    There is a proposal to use eminent domain to seize mortgages and refinance them, coming from one of Obama’s bigger political contributors Steve Gluckstern. This was in the newspaper this morning. However, that plan will only apply to people living in California, so people in the rest of the country need not hope for any change.

    The people who elected Obama were promised hope and change. Hope is mostly hot air and doesn’t pay the bills or put food on the table or shoes on your kids’ feet. Food pantries have seen a 200% increase in requests for support, now from people who used to donate to them.

    And change? Bureau of Labor statistics show a negative change, with a high of 10.0% in April 2009, and now a low of 8.3%, and not enough jobs added to offset the losses, in addition to the 3.6 million Americans who have lost umemployment benefits and are now on Social Security disability. Again, not my statistics — they come from the gubbmint.

    This is 3 years and 8 months later, and we’re on a downward spiral that has gotten worse and worse, when there has been every opportunity to reverse it.

  31. GoRed says:

    Obvious insipid troll is obvious.

  32. Yat Yas 1833 says:

    Ya know Insipid, I’ve tried sooo hard to give you every break/chance while following your posts. I’m done! In your twisted little mind, facts, truth and logic have no place in your arguments. Put your aluminum hat back on and get back to mom’s basement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *