Despite killing Bin Laden, Obama is still anti-American

Flopping Aces ^ | 05-11-11 | Vince

[Starman417]

The day before Bin Laden was killed I did a small presentation at an Americans for Prosperity event in Jasper, GA. The highlight of the event was the keynote speech by Dinesh D’Souza. The thrust of his argument, taken from his book “The Roots of Obama's Rage”, is essentially that while most traditional Democrats seek to effect redistribution within America, Obama, pursuing the anti-colonialist agenda of his father, seeks to have the United States diminished among the countries of the world. Companion to that weakening of the United States internationally is the weakening of the country economically. One example D’Souza discussed was Obama cheering oil exploration internationally while simultaneously making it more difficult and more expensive for companies to explore & drill domestically.

The hypothesis D’Souza was proffering seemed particularly congruous when explaining Obama’s baffling movements (or lack thereof…) in the Middle East. Egypt was headed by arguably one of the most pro-American leaders (in a relative sense) in the Arab world, so Mubarak had to go. In Libya, Gaddafi had ostensibly stopped funding terrorists, paid compensation to the families of the Lockerbie bombing and gave evidence against AQ Khan. At a minimum he was not causing significant trouble for the United States, therefore he too had to go, and American firepower was sent to help… albeit under a Canadian commander. In Iran on the other hand, a country shepherded by a lunatic bent on getting a nuclear weapon who openly taunts the United States while funding terrorists across the region, participants in the Green Revolution barely received a nod from President Obama. Similarly, Syria, headed by a regime with a long history of supporting terrorism and massacring its own people, gets a new US Ambassador under President Obama. When Assad unleashes snipers to kill hundreds of protesters in the streets, hardly a whimper out of the Obama Administration.

I couldn’t help but recognize that D’Souza’s narrative seemed to fit perfectly with the quandary that Barack Obama presents. The quandary I’m referring to presents itself when one is asked the question: “Do you think Barack Obama is anti-American?” The facts might suggest that the answer yes, but the fundamental notion that American’s had willingly elected someone who is anti-American to lead the nation seems inconceivable. Nonetheless, despite the seeming incomprehensibility of the idea, and despite doing what was required in Abbottabad, that seems to be where we find ourselves.

How this happened is not as difficult as it might initially seem. As Bruce Bawer suggests, in reference to the Three Cups of Tea story, sometimes people want to be fooled. Sometimes in politics it’s not even necessary to fool people to get them to drive off a cliff. When 50% of the population pays no income taxes and Barack Obama talked about increasing taxes on "millionaires" to support more social programs for that same 50%... it doesn’t take much fooling. When environmentalists, for whom economics and real world failures are of no consequence, heard Obama laud “Green Jobs” and pillory oil companies and the coal industry, there was not a lot of fooling necessary. When idealistic young students, protected from the grown up world and relaxing on their bucolic college campuses heard Obama talk about getting their fair share and creating good jobs for everyone, once again fooling them was not even necessary. Add that to a black population that votes 90% Democrat, government unions that can exceed even that 90% and a pliant media that was derelict in it’s fundamental duty and there was not a great deal of fooling necessary for Barack Obama to win in 2008.

[sailor4321]

Saying Obama “killed” Osama is a distortion. Obama merely threw yet another ally “under the bus with extreme prejudice” ... :

[JimSEA]

O’s vow to fundamentally transform America is proof positive of his anti-American agenda. However, much to his surprise, he is discovering that “those guys” are not nearly as nice as he though they were. He is still a Marxist so his foreign policy discoveries mean little of practical importance.

[The Bronze Titan]

Commander ‘ZERO’ did NOT kill Osama. He did not initiate the effort, the process, nor the intelligence to kill Osama.

The military and CIA infrastructure, and... DESPITE his opposition to GITMO and WATER-PRESSURE METHODS, set this up on a ‘Silver Platter’ for him to ‘DECIDE’.

[The Sons of Liberty]

0bama didn’t “kill” Osama - the wussy boy couldn’t carry the SEALS gear; he merely went along, because if he didn’t he would’ve been impeached and removed.

[castlegreyskull]

Obama mearly announced Osama’s death on May 1st, just so he can he can carry out his promise to withdraw troops from Afghanistan during the summer of 2011, like he promised in December of 2009. It gives him leverage, he could have announced it months earlier, months later, or not at all. When the hype from the Osama announcement dies down, there will be a media announcement regarding troop levels. Probably around mid June.