Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Obama Trying to Kill President Bush?
FrontPage Magazine ^ | February 2, 2015 | Daniel Greenfield

Posted on 02/02/2015 5:41:56 AM PST by SJackson

Is Obama Trying to Kill President Bush?

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On February 2, 2015 @ 12:55 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 7 Comments

From Left: Adel Al-Hakeemy and Muhammed Ali Husayn.

Ask the White House and it’ll tell you that Al Qaeda is on the run. But it conveniently neglects specifying which direction it’s running in.

While Obama and his small army of spokesmen mumble something about degrading and destroying ISIS, his policies pad out the ranks of Al Qaeda and ISIS with experienced recruits released from Gitmo.

It’s still unclear whether there is any Gitmo terrorist that Obama will not free.

Outgoing Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has said that the White House pressured him to free more Gitmo terrorists faster. White House reports suggested that Obama fired Hagel because he had been moving too slowly on freeing terrorists, making him guilty of thwarting Obama’s plot to close Gitmo.

That would make Hagel the first Secretary of Defense to be fired for failing to undermine national security.

But considering the rate at which terrorists are being released, the only way to empty Jihad Alcatraz any faster would be by moving the whole base to Pakistan overnight.

Obama already freed key Al Qaeda figures, including members of precursor ISIS groups. He freed Abdul Bin Mohammed Abis Ourgy, a bombmaker whom authorities suspected may have known about 9/11. He freed Mohammed Zahir, the Secretary General of the Taliban’s Intelligence Directorate, who was caught with nuclear materials to be used to build a bomb. He was also involved in smuggling drugs to the US.

Each new release explores the outer limits of the type of terror that Obama will reward with amnesty. Now that we know that Obama will release nuclear terrorists, is there any place where he will draw the line? Would he release presidential assassins? As long as their target was President George W. Bush.

Two of the Gitmo terrorists released by Obama had threatened to assassinate Bush.

Muhammed Ali Husayn had “addressed letters to the US President and Congress threatening punishment from Allah, stating that it is ‘time to be destroyed, suffer and lose.’ Detainee has also threatened that the US President would ‘taste the death,’ telling him to await ‘the humiliation by the swords of Islam.’

Obama assumes that Muhammed’s swords of Islam won’t be headed his way. He is the progressive who is closing Gitmo. Muhammed wouldn’t possibly dream of swinging a sword of Islam in his direction.

Muhammed was sent off to Kazakhstan despite an executive assessment stating that without rehabilitation he would go back to his old pals in Al Qaeda. Or maybe this former Koran teacher will go back to the University of Pakistan to finish that unfinished degree in Islamic Studies. Then he’ll have the proper background for making infidels “taste the death” in the appropriately peaceful Islamic way.

Considering that Kazakhstan has its own terrorist groups, he can rejoin the Jihad without too much travel time.

But releasing Muhammed was an easy call compared to freeing Adel Al-Hakeemy.

Adel was a senior member of the Global Jihadist Support Network which is exactly what it sounds like. He was a military advisor to Osama bin Laden and had ties to multiple terrorist groups in North Africa. He can counterfeit money, forge passports, command troops and fought us in Afghanistan.

His Gitmo file rates him as posing a high risk to Americans and having a high intelligence value.

He is, in short, exactly the sort of terrorist you don’t want to set free, even assuming that you have for some reason decided to release terrorists.

Adel has joined Muhammed in sunny Kazakhstan. His plans for the future doubtlessly include walks on Kazakhstan’s many moonlit beaches, a graduate degree in the fine arts and a career in standup comedy.

Or we could just pay attention to what he told interrogators in Guantanamo Bay.

“Detainee stated if the detainees at JTF-GTMO are released, they are going to exact revenge against the US. Detainee also stated that he would kill President Bush if given the chance.”

Obama freed a veteran terrorist who had vowed to attack America and kill Bush. Not only has he chosen to disregard American national security and the lives of Americans, but he also chose to disregard the safety of his White House predecessor.

While Obama’s supporters did tend to fantasize about the assassination of President Bush, they didn’t actually do anything about it. By freeing two terrorists, one of them a trained killer, who had threatened to kill Bush, Obama has actually put the life of a former president in danger.

That’s extreme behavior even by Democratic standards.

President Clinton had bombed Saddam Hussein over a plot to assassinate George H.W. Bush.

“The Iraqi attack against President Bush was an attack against our country and against all Americans,” President Clinton told the nation. “We could not, and have not, let such action against our nation go unanswered.”

Obama clearly has a different opinion. He has reversed Clinton by going so far as to free Al Qaeda terrorists who expressed designs on the life of a president making it clear that he has utter contempt not only for the lives of Americans, but also for the life of a former Republican president. There is no terrorist, whether he plots to detonate a nuclear bomb or to kill a president, whom he will not free.

Maybe if Adel Al-Hakeemy had threatened to kill Obama, he would still be sitting in Gitmo.

It was not all that long ago that Obama’s fellow anti-war protesters were marching around with signs calling for the death of President Bush. In contrast to the firestorms that resulted when a rodeo clown mocked Obama or when an outhouse labeled as Obama’s presidential library was featured on a parade float (resulting in a Justice Department intervention), these death threats went unpunished.

Even Secretary of State John Kerry had winkingly gotten in on the act, joking, “I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.”

New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi had praised Senator Schumer at a public event by saying that, “We really feel bad for poor Chuck, United States senator, the man who, uh, uh, how do I phrase this diplomatically – will put a bullet between the president’s eyes if he could get away with it.”

Unlike Sarah Palin’s target map, the media was quick to dismiss these as just jokes. But jokes can be revealing. They can tell us what someone is really thinking. And back then a lot of top Democrats thought that killing Bush was a good thing.

Now Obama is freeing Islamic terrorists who agree. Is that a coincidence?

None of the anti-war protesters waving signs calling for Bush’s head ever had the guts to follow through on it. Maybe someone in the White House is hoping that Muhammed and Adel will.



TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: greenfield; obamabush; obamaislam; obamaterrorists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-26 last
To: SJackson
Maybe someone all in the White House Democratic Party is are hoping that Muhammed and Adel will.

There, fixed it.

21 posted on 02/02/2015 7:18:06 AM PST by Robert DeLong (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Stuff like this is just another specious offering which really offer nothing but endless meaninless conversation centered on political; correctness, blundering, or malfeasence, but no direction or discussion on how to combat the problem.

It’s interesting the way socialists approach theological concepts but when it comes to Islam they are not the only ones who refuse to approach the issue. That even includes leading Christian clergy including Pope Francis.

Followers of Mohammed not only claim, but truly believe that God has authorized them to kill those who refuse to submit to their version of God’s will. That is a basic tenet of that religion. A claim which goes unchallanged. While it’s understandable for atheists which most socialists are, not to challange that claim on a theological basis. It’s bewildering why Christian clergy refuse to admit it even exists and is a basic part of Islam creed and worse yet are unable to condem it.

The Koran which was not given to Mohammed by God but by some angel .Demands enforcement of sharia law which draws heavily from the Torah.It is a pseudo religious concoction using monotheistic selected texts, taken and misconstrued from the old (bible) and new testaments. Both of which cite the Almighty has granted free will to accept or obey his laws and is the final judge not man. Sodom and Gormora , “Let he who is without sin cast the stone”, are outstanding examples from both books. One deals with sin and God’s decision toward a group, the other to an individual, neither is left to man.

Yet followers of Mohammed under the severest of penalties are forbidden to read either which would refute that assertion in a creed which institutionalizes disgusting arab tribal views, observances,and customs. Claiming adhearants are authorized by our Creator to demand submission to it or suffer an ignominious death administered by followers of Islam simply because they answer the call to prayer 5 times a day.

http://www.theusmat.com/islamandfreewill.htm


22 posted on 02/02/2015 9:10:28 AM PST by mosesdapoet (Some of my best rebuttals are in FR's along with meaningless venting no one reads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
but W has Secret Service Protection

I guess you might think that our enemies will never have sophisticated drones. SS has no defense for a hell fire like attack as far as I know.

23 posted on 02/02/2015 10:31:53 AM PST by itsahoot (55 years a republican-Now Independent. Will write in Sarah Palin, no matter who runs. $.98-$.89<$.10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

And where are the “leaders” we elected into majorities in both houses? Are they compromised losers? Are they feckless go-alongs? Have they no integrity to follow their oaths of office? Traitors must be held to law.


24 posted on 02/02/2015 11:37:34 AM PST by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Are any substantive legal hurdles to impeachment for high treason remaining, or is it just a matter of the lack of political will?


25 posted on 02/02/2015 3:07:20 PM PST by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

No, I’m aware of what a Hellfire or Hellfire II missile can do. I’m also aware of what it takes to carry and target one also.

To be sure, there are drones out there that could do the job, I guess. I just think there would be a more conventional approach as in IEDs, sniping, swarm attack, etc. There have been many movies and books about the SS and what it does in its job. I’m sure they are not oblivious to the realm of possibilities, either.

I guess that nothing is out of the question; my main point was that I felt the resolve and determination might be different based on who it protects, that’s all.


26 posted on 02/03/2015 3:06:21 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-26 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson