Posted on 05/05/2011 6:30:28 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
As lefties gloat over the political implications of Osama bin Laden’s demise, and the media ramp up an “Obama bounce” meme, conservatives should politely but persistently shift the conversation from politics to policy. In my latest column for Townhall, I draw on a number of fascinating news accounts elucidating how the our military and intelligence community finally nailed bin Laden. US officials describe a “mosaic” of intelligence that ultimately led a team of Navy SEALs to a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan — suggesting that it took many years and myriad sources to pinpoint bin Laden’s precise location. As we now know, the central strand of intel involved one of bin Laden’s trusted couriers, Abu Ahmed Al-Kuwaiti; finding him was the key to locating his boss. The early evidence is in, and President Bush and his team should feel gratified and vindicated:
Osama bin Laden was found because the United States military exploited actionable intelligence extracted by subjecting terrorists to enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) in secret CIA prisons, by questioning enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, and by capturing a top al Qaeda source in Iraq.
As long as some liberals remain intent on keeping political score, it must be pointed out that all three sources of these indispensible data points were direct or indirect results of Bush policies – EITs, Gitmo, and the Iraq war – that much of the American Left, including Barack Obama, fought tooth and nail.
Much of the evidence I cite to back up my thesis comes from two sources: A short AP story published shortly after the raid (and linked here by Allahpundit), and an incredibly detailed piece in London’s Daily Telegraph. A few key bits from the resulting information goldmine:
On the Guantanamo connection -
Secret American military files from Guantanamo Bay, leaked to Wikileaks and seen by The Daily Telegraph, suggest that al-Kuwaiti may have been with bin Laden ever since he disappeared from the Tora Bora mountains in Afghanistan in 2001.
The file for the Guantanamo detainee, Muhammad Mani al-Qahtani, who was to have been the “20th hijacker” on 9/11, contains a reference to the key US intelligence thread that led directly to bin Laden.
According to the file, al-Kuwaiti provided al-Qahtani with computer training for the mission to attack the US in the summer of 2001. Al-Qahtani was told by the lead 9/11 hijacker, Muhammad Atta, “to make reservations and buy airline tickets to Orlando for five individuals” including himself.
“Detainee [al-Qahtani] received computer training from al-Qaeda member Abu Ahmad al-Kuwaiti in preparation for his mission to the US,” according to the file, dated 30 October 2008.
On KSM, secret CIA “black site” prisons, and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques -
Current and former U.S. officials say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, provided the nom de guerre of one of bin Laden’s most trusted aides. The CIA got similar information from Mohammed’s successor, Abu Faraj al-Libi. Both were subjected to harsh interrogation tactics inside CIA prisons in Poland and Romania.
…
The CIA gained crucial information confirming the role of al-Kuwaiti from two inmates at Guantanamo Bay – Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi.
Al-Libi’s file, dated 10 September 2008, also refers to his contact with bin Laden’s personal courier, although he gives another name.
And on the Al Qaeda operative captured in Iraq:
The file suggests that the courier’s identity was provided to the US by another key source, the al-Qaida facilitator Hassan Ghul, who was captured in Iraq in 2004 and interrogated by the CIA. Ghul was never sent to Guantanamo but was believed to have been taken to a prison in Pakistan.
He told the Americans that al-Kuwaiti travelled with bin Laden…
The picture that emerges from al-Qahtani’s Guantanamo file supports statements given in the last 24 hours by US officials, who named Ghul as the “linchpin” in the intelligence operation to find bin Laden.
In short, Al-Kuwaiti’s existence was flagged by at least one Guantanamo Bay detainee, his role and pseudonym were confirmed by KSM and al-Libi, and his true identity was spilled by an Al Qaeda terrorist operating in Iraq. It’s no exaggeration to assert that all three of these intelligence “strands” may never — or perhaps would never — have materialized absent the controversial Bush administration policies listed above. These facts are not historical footnotes. They eviscerate a number of core left-wing articles of faith, including the flawed notions that President Bush “took his eye off the [Al Qaeda/bin Laden] ball,” that Iraq was unrelated to the larger war on terror, and that EITs are not effective — not to mention the ongoing obsession with shuttering Gitmo. As I conclude in the Townhall piece, Presidents Bush and Obama deserve significant credit for this massive accomplishment, and it would be intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise:
Barack Obama ran for president, in large measure, as the anti-Bush. He was a prominent opponent of the war in Iraq. He promised to shutter the Guantanamo Bay prison. He pledged to ban certain EITs. Today, as president, he is rightfully receiving praise from virtually all quarters for his decisive order to take out the most wanted man in the world. Obama, his supporters, and indeed all Americans have every reason to celebrate that accomplishment. But they must also recognize and appreciate that actions and policies implemented by President Bush, often in the face of searing partisan criticism, played an inextricable role in identifying the dots that were finally connected and acted upon last weekend.
In response to bin Laden’s death, Americans of all partisan stripes should follow the example set forth by the current president and his predecessor: Credit the brave special ops forces who conducted the daring operation, offer political credit where it’s due, and celebrate this American achievement, which is a gift to all of civilization.
UPDATE – Larry Elder makes another good point in this vein:
Osama bin Laden was a) killed by a unit overseen by what New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh denounced as Vice President Dick Cheney’s “executive assassination ring,” which was b) sent into action based on intel derived from the now-outlawed “enhanced interrogation techniques,” which were c) used on detainees captured during the George W. Bush administration, who were d) being held in now-outlawed “secret prisons” or in the intended-to-be-closed Gitmo.
That’s another feather in Bush’s cap. All of the detainees/informants involved in this story were captured on his watch.
Guy Benson is the Political Editor of Townhall.com — HotAir’s sister site — and hosts the Guy Benson Show. Follow him on twitter: @guypbenson
Oops.......left out a few words there. There is a nation to save from Marxism and we need to be about the business of building up conservatism.
(For me that's the purpose of the forum. For BDSers, it's clearly not).
I think a lot of old posters are liberal trolls and they keep bringing more in.
One thing's for sure. On any given day you can't tell a leftist troll from a 'pure conservative.'
You know how it is about the far right meeting the radical left on the other side of the circle?
Can't tell the difference, and neither want what's best for conservatism, nor the country. They just want to disrupt and discourage those of us who are actually doing the work.
Good post!
I'm glad to see that Buford doesn't always behave badly as he did here, picking a random fight by calling someone a name who hadn't said a peep to him.
That's encouraging. Maybe he was just having a bad day and couldn't stop himself once the names started flowing. :)
LOL, I see you have encountered this before. Be wary of red headed Bush-bots.
Red head? I thought it was blue.
Just making a general observation, not specific.
How are you doing? I heard a certain Bush-bot was sticking pins in Rabs doll last night, another posted a (Bush-bot) curse in a comment here. Did it work? You OK?
LOL
same-same ;-)
This kitty has more than nine lives.
A little history for the Real Conservatives
not that it will help ....(you wont recognize who you were in the 1980s)
The carping continued after Reagan left office but gradually dissipated ....Reagan’s reaction to the Real Conservatives? He just laughed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Conservatives Disappointed with Shift by Reagan NYTimes June 26, 1983:
“…Ideological conservatives, who provided the core of Ronald Reagan’s support in 1980, have been deeply disappointed with his performance as President, especially what they regard as his growing moderation in advance of the 1984 campaign. The conservatives said in interviews this week that they agreed with most of Mr. Reagan’s goals but felt he had been too timid in fighting for them. As an example, they noted that he was no longer pressing Congress to abolish the Department of Education. Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus, said Mr. Reagan, in adopting a ”nonconfrontational political strategy to mollify the Washington establishment,” seemed to have forgotten the people who ‘’sustained him in the political wilderness for all those years.”
”President Reagan has not proposed, much less achieved, a balanced budget; has not fundamentally changed the nation’s arms control policies, and has not stopped the buildup of Soviet power in the Western Hemisphere,” Mr. Phillips said. ”The failures are a result of his overarching strategy: articulating policy aspirations that inspire conservative hopes, but then pressing to implement those objectives only to the degree they can be accomplished by consensus. And consensus is impossible to achieve if fundamental change is the goal.’‘ Betrayal of Principles Seen
Joel M. Skousen, executive editor of Conservative Digest, a monthly magazine published by Richard A. Viguerie, the conservative fund-raiser, said that ”Mr. Reagan is now seen as untrustworthy by many conservatives who believe he has betrayed his own principles in an effort to appease his critics” on such domestic issues as education, welfare, the budget and taxes. Ideological conservatives have been expressing similar views for at least a year, but their concerns take on special urgency as the 1984 election approaches. Many conservatives said the President seemed to take their support for granted, on the assumption that they had no place to go and would have to back him if he ran for re-election. The conservatives conceded they were unlikely to support another candidate, but said the more significant question was how hard they would work for Mr. Reagan if he ran. ”If the present trend continues, as we expect, ideological conservatives would withhold their support from the President,” Mr. Skousen said. ”We would not actively campaign for him.”
John D. Lofton Jr., a conservative columnist for The Washington Times who calls himself an ”unreconstructed Reaganite,” said: ”The President lacks the courage of his convictions, which are sound. Conservative activists are the core constituency of the Republican Party. If they sit on their hands in a close contest, Republican candidates for the Presidency, for Congress and for local office would all be in trouble.” Reagan Aide Acknowledges Debt Morton C. Blackwell, a special assistant to the President who serves as his liaison agent with conservative organizations and religious groups, said he often heard such complaints. Insisting that Mr. Reagan did not take them for granted, Mr. Blackwell said, ”Without the support of these conservative groups, we would never have won the nomination or the general election in 1980.” M. Stanton Evans, a syndicated columnist who is former chairman of the American Conservative Union, said the President had been ”illserved by some members of his staff who do not seem to share his commitment to the conservative program on which he ran.” Mr. Evans contended that Mr. Reagan was surrounded by pragmatic advisers who were too willing to compromise. Foremost among these advisers, he said, are James A. Baker 3d, the White House chief of staff, and his deputy, Richard G. Darman, and Kenneth M. Duberstein, assistant to the President for legislative affairs. ”It is very difficult to administer a conservative revolution with people like that as your agents,” Mr. Evans said, ”because they are not conservative revolutionaries but pragmatists.” …
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NYTimes Jan 22, 1982 Paul Weyrich deserts Reagan:
“…Forty-five conservative activists and organization leaders warned President Reagan today that he was allowing ”the abandonment, reversal or blunting” of the policies that got him elected, such as opposition to abortion, lower taxes and a tough line with the Soviet Union. After meeting for most of the day at a Washington hotel, spokesmen for the group repeatedly denounced Administration aides, whom they would not identify, contending that they were subverting Mr. Reagan’s conservative instincts. Howard Phillips, national director of the Conservative Caucus, said these individuals were responsible for what they felt was the Reagan Administration’s mistake of trying to ”woo his adversaries rather than mobilize his supporters.” Paul M. Weyrich, director of the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, said the ”Administration has been getting the image of not caring about some of the Middle-American voters who elected them.” He contended that ignoring issues like abortion or relations with Taiwan carried a serious political risk, too. ”From a political standpoint, if all the issues in the 1982 election are economic issues, we may well suffer losses that we would not have to suffer,” he said. Cannot Support Reagan Foes The spokesmen conceded that they faced a difficult time because they could not plausibly threaten to support Mr. Reagan’s foes. Mr. Phillips said support of Mr. Reagan and the hope of influencing him was ”our best option, indeed our only option for the time being.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
William Safire, NYTimes, January 21, 1982
“…President Reagan, the former hard-liner, having turned his State Department over to a crew of waffling accommodationists, probably feels he occupies the middle ground in foreign affairs – and that his old supporters have ”nowhere else to go.” He is profoundly mistaken. The revolt of the hawks is under way, the ranks are swelling with the most surprising volunteers, the search for new leadership has begun, and if Ronald Reagan fails to awake to the hard-liners’ anger at his betrayal, he will discover that he has lost this bedrock constituency….”
OK, so you hate conservatives. That makes sense, explains why you are trashing Reagan to prop up Bush.
Reagan left office loved and respected and won his VP a third term. He won the cold war giving us a peace dividend that lasted a decade. What did your RINO hero leave us ? Mess after mess, Pelosi and Obama.
Safe light bulbs are banned nationwide after 2012 and 2013. You know who did that? Not Obama. The Bush/Pelosi energy bill 2007. Break a few of the new GWB toxic light bulbs in your car and then spend the night with them and then tell me what a hero Bush was.
Of course, I wouldn't, but that's because I didn't exist until 1985, years after the articles you cited.
ALL articles from the NY Times......LOL!!
You have Zero understanding ...
I certainly do not hate conservatives nor do I hate you holier than thou “Real Conservatives “. ...but I do really really dislike willfully blind and ignorant people who refuse to recognize that NO President , NO politician , and NO people are capable of fulfilling some utopian fantasy that you have of what should or should not have happened.
Real Life is a little more complicated than that ....
If Reagan was around today he would have the utmost respect for GW Bush and he would show that respect. Both Bush and Reagan are worthy of respect
You should also be reminded that neither Bush nor Reagan had to be President....they could easily have remained the successful men they already were. They made a choice and once elected they got to make hard choice after hard choice every day they were in office.....choices that almost no one wants to make . I will always be grateful to them for doing it .
Based on how you present yourself I doubt you will ever make a similar hard choice ......I think you will instead remain smug and cock sure that you are better than GW Bush ..... just as Im pretty sure if you were around in the 1980s you would be just like one of these critics of Ronald Reagan ....because like a spoiled child you “know” better than him what he should have done. My last words to you and all your like minded friends is “Grow Up....if you are able to”
Miami Herald, on Jan 21, 1984
.
“…Conservatives may not back President Reagan for reelection in 1984 unless he reverses what they consider “almost a stampede to the left” in the White House, New Right leaders said Tuesday. “Quick and comprehensive changes” in Reagan’s staff and policies are needed to win back longtime supporters in the conservative wing of the Republican Party, they indicated. Howard Phillips, who heads the Conservative Caucus, and Richard Viguerie…’
But you were right there in spirit ....Im sure you would have made a wonderful critic of Reagan ....
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.