I Am To Believe Obama Gave the Order?

Obama Gave the Order?

May 5, 2011


So I'm to believe Mr. Obama was in charge of the military operation to kill Bin Laden?

*cough* *cough* *choke* --- *clears throat*

Ahem...I find that very hard to swallow.

Forgive me if I don’t become all gushy and wax eloquent about what a "hero" President Obama is for “giving the order” to go in and capture/kill Bin Laden.

In the first place, the heroes are our U.S. Military and the CIA. They should get the pats on the back. They are our courageous heroes.


Asking me to accept that Mr. Obama was in charge and the one who actually “gave the order” would require me to accept things, well on faith.

I reserve that type of thing to matters of the Bible.

When I put the factual evidence together, it would appear things do not point in the direction of the President.


Before delving into why I doubt, I need to address some issues.

I will say this though, if the operation had gone south, Mr. Obama would have taken all the heat. At least he didn’t stand in the way of the order, well, not ultimately. For that I am sincerely grateful.

Also, while I don’t agree with his decision, I believe that he actually made some kind of decision with regard to the photos being released and that took some guts. I will give him that as well.

In addition, I think it was very gracious of him, the night he announced to the world that Bin Laden was killed, that he called Mr. Bush and on that night, not only acted Presidential, but sounded humble as well as Presidential. I am very pleased and grateful that Mr. Obama in this case took the high road because the world was definitely watching.

I would be remiss if I didn’t include the decision to bury Bin Laden at sea. If we had a grave or a marker for this evil, despicable animal, we could have been sure it would have turned into a circus trying to protect it.

However, asking me to believe Mr. Obama “gave the order” for the mission is asking too much of me.

This same Commander-in-Chief who in the first year of his presidency met with top military officials only two times.

Mr. Bush met with them two, three or more times a week.

http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Top-Ten-Reasons-Mr-Obama-Should-Be-Impeached

This same POTUS who by eyewitness accounts quoted General McCrystal, as reported in The Rolling Stone (no bastion of conservative thought), was clueless about the war on terror, his military leaders and intimidated by the military in the room he met with.

Well, if I might be so bold as to suggest, if he’d met with them more often maybe he’d garner some intelligence as to how boost his testosterone to a level somewhat on a par with these warriors.

Just sayin’.

It is important to note that of all the things that came out of this disastrous Rolling Stone article, no one denied the quotes attributed to General McCrystal.

http://hubpages.com/hub/General-McChrystal-The-Community-Organizer-and-the-Rest-of-the-Story

This same President who played more golf in his first nine months as President than George W. Bush played in two years. The man who promised his “top” priority, if elected President, would be the war on terror…it would appear that his priority almost four years into his presidency is taking opulent vacations and lowering his golf handicap…

This same man who has never visited Ground Zero until today.

This same President who has the distinct “honor” of having the first terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 (something that after 9/11 never happened on George W. Bush’s watch) but couldn’t say the word “terrorist” and appointed an Attorney General who couldn’t use that word or any derivative of it either.

This same President of the United States who agreed to, nae, applauded, the building of a mosque on Ground Zero and called the majority of American’s who dissented, racists.

This same Commander in abstentia, this same POTUS who rarely ever visited a soldier in a hospital that's merely a stone's throw from where he lives and golfs. This same man who rarely has taken the time to visit a military base in or out of the U.S., the same man, clueless in all matters military, is the same President who “gave the order” to kill Usama Bin Laden?

Please forgive me if I am unable to embrace this concept. I guess I lean towards the rumors that clearly indicate it was Leon Panetta, General Petraus and Hillary Clinton who actually ran the operation and of course our CIA and military who carried it out.

I waited some days before commenting, trying to wait for all of the information to come in. I have watched, read and evaluated what apparently took place leading up to the military operation, including the CIA involvement. I just can not bring myself to believing Mr. Obama took charge of anything with regard to this covert CIA/military action.

Is it just me who finds it stomach churning that Mr. Obama is turning this whole thing into a campaign slogan?

He was on a roll the evening of My 1, 2011. Too bad the trajectory has been painfully downhill since then.

Source

More by this Author


Comments 32 comments

rkhyclak profile image

rkhyclak 5 years ago from Ohio

I don't believe he did for a minute. Panetta even stated as much in an article I read this morning-I'm trying to find it again. I figure he sat back and waffled and procrastinated until the last possible minute and pulled a "well whatever you wanna do. I give up, tee time is in an hour..." There are a lot of things Obama is and a good decision-maker isn't one of them.


breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop 5 years ago

I agree. He isn't capable of making military decisions. Even the thought of it is ludicrous.I also took exception to his speech which was filled with way too many " I did this" and " I ordered that" for my tastes".UP AND AWESOME!


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Something is seriously amiss here...why would Obama order the SEALS in to prove they killed Osama, only to then refuse to prove it by showing his dead body?

Why would he use the excuse of not wanting to incite the Middle East while simultaneously releasing 2,000 Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse photos that are virtually certain to incite?


Harvey Stelman 5 years ago

cjv, I never thought B.O. gave the word. In fact they said on FOX that it was given by Paneta. In the pic of the war room (as everyone was watching)Obama is seen looking very small, bent over and looking like he was alone. He does not look like a Commander-In Chief getting ready to give an order.

He was toward the rear of the room, that says a lot to me. Is it usually a military man that gives the word on these kinds of operations, or does the CIA do it? It is a military operation.

I would have had his head cut off on video, available for sale. Then his head would e dropped into a shark tank. The body would have been left in a desert, with honey on it. Of course red ants would be present. H


feenix profile image

feenix 5 years ago

CJV123, like you, I believe that all of the credit should go to the C.I.A. and U.S. Armed Forces. And so far as Obama being in charge of the "bin Laden operation", I can't see how he had the time to do such a thing. Based on my observations, he was too busy doing such stuff as "creating jobs" and looking for ways to "tax the rich" to have the time to oversee any of America's intelligence and military operations.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 5 years ago from South Jersey

Are you sure that "fore" isn't code for "take the shot"? Besides, Obama is the President of "hope" and. "Change"...he hoped things would change and that he could take credit..


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX

As it turns out Carol, it looks like Panetta had this operation on the go ahead for quite some time. Valerie Jarret is now beside herself with her righteous liberal indignation. If you look at the pic of them all in the room staring at the screen, Obama's closest confidant wasn't to be seen.

Panetta had already issued the order and it wan't going to be stopped.

Good Hub.

The Frog


angel115707 profile image

angel115707 5 years ago from Galveston, TX

I think its funny how every one believe swhat they here to begin with...notice how even Fox just accepts it as true, with no proof...they got rid of that body so fast that an examination is just a "word of mouth" truth... ummm honestly conservative folks...you need to break free from Fox as your guiding light... they sold out before Obama took office... listen to them they always act like they dislike the guy, but constantly gratify him.... not ONE independent investigation to see if this is legit...You realize that our government always covers things up and gives half-truths to the public? Can anyone even prove Osama has been alive in the last 10 years? his videos went to audio some time ago... Have any of you thought about the fact that this operation could have gone down a year ago and it was placed on hold from release until panic...as in days after the new fake birth certificate ends up with a hospital that didn't exist yet and a country with the wrong name? to completely distract us and the media is doing exactly what they are told to keep us distracted..... please look into this you have the choice to expose the truth or...stand in line and follow the piper...

this video helps explain the lies:

http://youtu.be/Did2wE7xqmw


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Hi CJ,

I have to believe, just based on protcol, that Obama gave the order. Whether he gave it in advance, or just before the opportunity arose, I don't know. But this thing is just too big to be done without presidential approval. I'm not saying he hit OBL in the head with a monogrammed Titleist from the third tee, but I think his approval was mandatory.

Stu


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 5 years ago from Michigan Author

Stu - I believe what you're saying to probably be true - but I think it was as you suggested - it wasn't a "hands on" order as it would have been with Bush for example. I also firmly believe in the rumored story that Obama waffled several times due to pressure from Jarret. Just look at what happened in Libya. He literally was taken kicking and screaming into agreeing to go with the U.N. - here we were ASKED to intervene, the U.N. approved and he couldn't make a decisive decision for how long? He's suddenly going to get decisive never mind with a covert operation without the host country approval? I just find that very, very hard to believe. However - I think at some level, at some point, you're right he had to have given some type of approval. That's my take.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

The real question is whether or not Obama is a weak and indecisive leader, and my gut feeling is yes, he is not presidential material at all. He's an empty suit with a great voice who can deliver a great speech.


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 5 years ago from Michigan Author

Exactly Will - and the only thing we can go by is what Frog and so many others say, his ACTIONS and not his words. His words are obviously meaningless as he lies so often I know he can't possibly keep track of all of his lies. Given the very real chance he believes most of what he makes up about himself. So going by his actions before and during his Presidency, he is utterly indecisive always trying to weight what is right for himself. I doubt he has ever allowed the thought, "What would be best for the country?" to ever cross his consciousness.

IF I could be assured that even though he made wrong decisions, I knew he made them for altruistic reasons, I wouldn't be dogging his Presidency so much.

While definitely not a perfect (or even close to it) Presidency, I always believed that George W. Bush made decisions based on 1) God's direction and 2) What he believed was the best for the country. I believe where one of his greatest weaknesses lie was in that he was loyal to a fault. Rumsfeld comes to mind. That man should have been fired long, long before he left his station.

Thanks Will for stopping by.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Will, I totally agree again. The only thing I might add is that I believe he is evil; I think he wants to hurt America (run up alot more debt, ruin stratgic alliances, destroy our economy, etc.). What really scares me is how much time, effort, and money will be required to reverse all the damage he's already caused. Stu


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 5 years ago from Michigan Author

I too am convinced (sadly) that the man is very evil Stu.


proudlib profile image

proudlib 5 years ago

cjv:

It seems you have a rather wide-ranging idea of what constitutes "factual evidence."

"When I put the factual evidence together, it would appear things do not point in the direction of the President."

I fail to see any "factual evidence" in your subsequent remarks. How often he met with military officials means nothing since there is a chain of command, including the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense, with whom the POTUS is in constant contact. As for "taking opulent vacations and lowering his golf handicap," even if your unsubstantiated comments are true, I really don't think you want to compare Bush and Obama's relative time spent on leisure activities. George W. was no slouch at taking it easy.

"This same President of the United States who agreed to, nae, applauded, the building of a mosque on Ground Zero and called the majority of American’s who dissented, racists." Not true.

This is what the president said: "As a citizen and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.” "My intention was to simply let people know what I thought. Which was that in this country, we treat everybody equally in accordance with the law. Regardless of race. Regardless of religion. I was not commenting on and will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there."

As for visiting the military and Ground Zero, when he does, the right scream that he is using them for political purposes.

Is this your "factual evidence?" Pretty weak.

You say:

"I waited some days before commenting, trying to wait for all of the information to come in. I have watched, read and evaluated what apparently took place leading up to the military operation, including the CIA involvement. I just can not bring myself to believing Mr. Obama took charge of anything with regard to this covert CIA/military action." Are we to believe that you have all the information that was considered before this decision was made?

This is much more believable:

"I guess I lean towards the rumors that clearly indicate it was Leon Panetta, General Petreaus and Hillary Clinton who actually ran the operation and of course our CIA and military who carried it out." You put faith in "rumors" that "clearly indicate," not facts, as do your cohorts, who made the following fact-based comments:

"The only thing I might add is that I believe he is evil; I think he wants to hurt America."

"Have any of you thought about the fact that this operation could have gone down a year ago and it was placed on hold from release until panic...as in days after the new fake birth certificate ends up with a hospital that didn't exist yet and a country with the wrong name?"

"...whether or not Obama is a weak and indecisive leader, and my gut feeling is yes"

"well whatever you wanna do. I give up, tee time is in an hour..."

"Why would he use the excuse of not wanting to incite the Middle East while simultaneously releasing 2,000 Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse photos that are virtually certain to incite?"

"I also firmly believe in the rumored story that Obama waffled."

"I doubt he has ever allowed the thought, "What would be best for the country?" to ever cross his consciousness."

And finally: "I too am convinced (sadly) that the man is very evil Stu."

Facts, anyone?


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 5 years ago from Michigan Author

ProudLib - I'm afraid you're wrong. I used the facts to substantiate a good case (circumstansial) that Mr. Obama might not have given the actual order.

Fact - Obama met only twice with military officials. You can call a CIVILIAN appointee anything you want, but Mr. Obama - as has been reported by numerous newspapers and news sources, in the time frame I stated, met only TWICE with his top military officials in charge of the war on terror. Those are facts.

Mr. Bush met with his top military officials two, three or more times a week all during his Presidency after 9/11. Those are FACTS. He was hands on - involved. Leisure time aside - YOU show me the FACTS where this information I just repeated above are INCORRECT.

Reread what I wrote, I linked to my Hubs because those Hubs are a consolidation of my sources for whatever it is I'm claiming.

I repeat and stand by everything written above with the sources I cited - given Mr. Obama's past actions - not his words, but ACTIONS - with regard to his disregard for the military and the quotes given in a liberal magazine by -- at the time - the top military official in Afghanistan - Mr. Obama is clueless when it comes to being informed about military planning and operations. These quotes about Mr. Obama by McChrystal have not been disputed.

Due to those FACTS - I find it ridiculous to believe that Mr. Obama suddenly "grew two" and was able to step up to the plate and hit a home run.

But I thank you for your thoughts.


proudlib profile image

proudlib 5 years ago

I repeat: You need a lesson in what is "factual evidence."

Even if what you say is factual, it does not mean they are evidence of the truth of your premise. It is a "fact" that McChrystal said something about Obama. What he said is is his opinion at the moment and it is not a "fact." It is not a fact that Obama "applauded" the mosque and even if he did, this is not evidence that he did not make a decision about the raid. The number of his meetings with military officials is also not evidence of anything. And the Joint Chiefs are not civilians. Vacations and golf have nothing to do with whether he made the decision. The evidence that matters is that he is president and that it is his job to make decisions and that the decision was made and that the mission was carried out and that all of those involved say that he made the decision. Were you anywhere near the center of power lately? Do you have some supernatural ability to observe what the rest of us cannot? ""Do you have any credentials other than those in you imagination to make these statements?

No. You rely on rumors, gut feelings and beliefs that the man is evil.

Your arguments are inane and without merit.


CornerStone51 profile image

CornerStone51 5 years ago from Mifflintown, PA

I read an article today that said Obama was waffling as usual and Pinetta actually made the decision...that doesn't surprise me in the least. Obama has always waffled on big decisions like this and waited too long before...this is such a biggie...why would he change his tactics? After all...this is the man that never voted in the Senate...he was too afraid that his policies would come back to bite him in the butt!!! If this had gone wrong he would have had a BIG bite out of his butt!!!


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 5 years ago from Michigan Author

Proudlib - You are all over the map here and you did not repeat yourself. You keep saying the same thing - "I'm not using the facts" - but then you back it up with different NON facts to prove your point or don't back your accusation at all. I'm going to get the last word here because I'm not going to keep repeating myself:

FACT - Obama RARELY MET WITH HIS JOINT CHIEF OF STAFF: The ones you claim he met with. You're wrong. He met only once with them and ONCE with McCrystal in almost all of 2009.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story...

NOTE THE DATE:

Sept. 2009

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/...

NOW - taking ALL the links included in the Hub above along with the links WITHIN these Hubs - to include the debacle with McCrystal telling the world that Obama was intimidated by HIS OWN MILITARY. The fact is McCrystal said that Obama not only didn't know what McCrystal was doing over in Afghanistan, but was clueless about the General himself (the very man OBAMA himself appointed) and was never contradicted by ANYONE proves Obama is a clueless Commander-in-Chief.

Given the FACT that Obama never spent a SECOND serving in the military. He never held a job for that matter -- has little to nothing to do with the military but has plenty of time to use tax dollars to traipse all over the U.S. and the world on his Apology Tour and campaigning for everything from healthcare to himself -- he's clueless about military matters.

Given the FACT that there are stories from many different sources ALL saying the same thing - Obama waffled, Jarrett kept stalling, Panetta finally took the reins - your guy is incapable of making any decision NO LESS a decision that would prove he has SOME testosterone with regard to anything to do with the military.

Obama isn't very smart, in fact, many could say he's pretty darn stupid. To think for one second he was even INFORMED enough to make a decision to get Bin Laden doesn't follow the recent historical facts of this weak, indecisive, unintelligent President.

I'm not going to repeat any of this again. This discussion is finished. I don't mind having a back and forth. I don't even mind clarifying something that may not be clear. But to repeat the same thing over and over and over only to have you say, "No it isn't" without one shred of proof yourself is time when I say - we're done here.


proudlib profile image

proudlib 5 years ago

The date was January 26, 2009, 5 days after he was inaugurated.


proudlib profile image

proudlib 5 years ago

Refer to your own links. The first one said that Obama was meeting with the Joint Chiefs for the first time on Jan. 26, 2009, five days after his inauguration and after he had already had several meetings with his national security team. The second one said that McChrystal had spoken with Obama once in 70 days, which I agree is troubling, but certainly not "once in almost all of 2009." And, again, none of these "FACTS" are evidence that Obama did not make a decision last week.


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 5 years ago from Michigan Author

Yes P.L. - TWO TIMES - count. And his national security team were not BOOTS ON THE GROUND. They know NOTHING. They are political appointees, wonks. Obama didn't meet with his MILITARY OFFICERS AND NCO'S the people IN THE KNOW - the hands on people. That has been my point all along. His elitist - distanced leadership especially with regard to the military is evidence he was incapable of making the big decision to go get Bin Laden.


proudlib profile image

proudlib 5 years ago

Again, the Joint Chiefs are military officers. Still no logical connection between your FACTS and his decision-making. Elitist is just another overused emotional buzzword with no real meaning anymore. What I really object to is your certainty that you know without doubt exactly what is going on in the mind of our president. I do not mind a difference of opinion, but when people try to pass off opinion as fact I find it very offensive and arrogant.


proudlib profile image

proudlib 5 years ago

The Joint Chiefs are military.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

proudlib,

How can you believe ANYTHING this POS president says without proof? He serially violates the law, breaches affirmative duty, and has birth certificates from two countries floating around. Absent being under sodium pentathol, I wouldn't believe anything he says.

Who cares how much Bush vacationed? The issue is whether Obama is doing his job or not. Whether someone else did their job is irrelevant.

You fail to see the glaring lack of sincerity in Obama's stance on the GZ mosque. Were the site not so controversial, his answer would have been fine. But can you imagine building the Freedom Tower, and being able to see a shrine to the WTC bombing staring you in the face? The GZ mosque is not a "place a worship;" it is a war trophy.

How come Oblabber never visited GZ earlier? He's just there now chest thumping to goose up his lousy poll ratings. He couldn't care less about the victims.

If you can't see that a Constitution breaking, transnational socialist who hires Islamics with ties to radical groups to sensitive admin posts, debauches our currency at a rate unheard of in US history, has alienated us from all our military allies except England, publicly states that he won't enforce laws he doesn't "like," lets his AG give skates to criminals he does "like," and refuses to allow us to become less dependent on foreign energy sources isn't evil, you're just burying your liberal head in the sand.

Stu


Stu From VT 5 years ago

proudlib,

Obama IS evil. What other US president has run serial multi-trillion dollar deficits, ruined relationships with almost every ally we have, serially violated the Constitution, serially shirks affirmative duty, placed Muslims with ties to radical Islamic groups in very sensitie administrative posts, completely defunded the fight against Shiite terror, wants to replace US law with international codex (e.g., food inspection standards, gun standards, etc.), tells immigration courts to drop valid deportation cases, lets his AG drop cases of voter intimidation because he "likes" the criminals, etc.? This man hates the US and our Constitution, and wants to turn our nation into a transnational socialist state. He's a traitor of the worst order.

Stu


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 5 years ago from Michigan Author

So true Stu!


OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 5 years ago

crj

I just republished a hub on why can't we find OBL because I believe the issues never got answered. The OBL raid has generate more questions than it answered.

I am surprised that no one from the right brought up issues of the Geneva Convention in the OBL alleged kill of OBL.

With the Gitmo controversy there would be no way that Obama would release news of capturing OBL alive. Whether OBL is really dead or not, he is dead because he can't be alive to be managed politically. That is there would be too many questions about where would ha be held, what kind of treatment would he get, would he be tried in a military court or a civilian court, or even a world court. The questions go on, so that is why I believe that dead or alive the outcome of the raid would report that he is dead.

So from a political view point, OBL couldn't live through the raid. That doesn't mean that he is really dead, but publically he has to be dead. Whether he is really dead is beyond our knowledge at this point.

Al Qaida has said that they believe he is dead, but again that could also be political on their part. They could make that statement even if they didn't believe that he was really dead. They could use it to incite their followers to violence and generate acts of revenge.

I read today that Obama's grandmother in Kenya has been made a target by Al Qaida. Fact or fiction it is the story.

The question in my mind is whether OBL was more valuable to us Alive rather than dead?

As I have mentioned before in other hubs, I think that Obama needs to have each and every member of Congress shown all the raw evidence from the OBL raid, and let them make their own conclusions about what happened to OBL.

I would recommend that each member view the evidence by themselves and be sworn to secrecy until all the members have seen it. Then it could still remain secret to the public but our representative would have a view of the truth, or at least the raw facts.

Maybe their are some issues that need to be classified and kept from the public, but not the members of Congress.

my opinion, Thanks


Mark Sparks profile image

Mark Sparks 5 years ago from Charlottesville, Virginia

I ordinarily don't comment dissentigly, but I find this thread to be very troubling. First of all, the idea that the President of the United States is evil.

We democratically elected him; he won 69 million votes. To this day, he maintains approval ratings in the forties. What does it say about America, the country we all know and love, if we could support and elect a man who is "evil"?

Politics is a sensitive topic. It stirs passionate feelings. Sometimes, when some people disagree heartily, there's vitriol and distortion. Words like "incompetent" or failure" get thrown around for example.

If you want to label the President as something like that, well, it would certainly be possible. But if you think he's evil, I beg you to reassess, giving him all the benefit of the doubt you can muster.

Adolf Hitler was evil. The President of the United States, who has a loving family and many good friends, is not evil.


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 5 years ago from Michigan Author

Mark Sparks, I thank you for your remarks. We will continue, however, to disagree. Evil is subjective unless using something that defines the term. For me, Biblical edicts/laws etc. defines evil. In almost every Biblical sense, Mr. Obama is evil, even if we just look to his baby slaughtering record. He is the only lawmaker to vote against a bill that came up in any state and did in Illinois, to assist and give life-saving measures to a LIVE BABY born -- I repeat - whole and ALIVE due to a botched abortion. Even Hillary voted FOR something that would ensure these babies would get the care they deserve. The fact that he and he alone is the only person to have voted to BLOCK this type of measure makes him actually very, very evil. Where is the "degree" of difference in the evil? Hitler ordered people shoved into ovens, or gassed in groups, Obama essentially "ordered" medical personnel to allow the slow, agonizing death of tiny, helpless babies. What's the difference?

Killing little children, born alive is evil Mark Sparks, and if you don't see it that way then I'm very, very sorry for you.

Then, the very first thing Obama did as President was expand taxpayer abortions to Mexicans and other overseas taxpayer supported abortions. Evil, evil, evil.

Now - I'm only going into his killing-live-babies and abortion record - I could go on - but that's a Hub, not a comment.

Mr. Obama fooled us as a nation. Look what happened in Germany. They practically ended up worshiping Adolf. What does that say about Germany as a nation? An entire nation of people allowed evil to fool them and allowed evil to take charge of their country and in the case of Adolf, almost the world (due to the support of the German people because he couldn't have done it without their support and then later their fear)?

So I see little difference in the American people blindly electing a man they should have known better than to bring to the office of the Presidency. As I've said repeatedly, Obama is the first American Idol President, and it is to the shame of the American people that we (collectively because I didn't vote for him) should remember as the greatest shame of our nation. We must remember this so as never to repeat this terrible irrevocable mistake again.

We elected a pretty packaged radical, narcissistic evil petty man as our President. He is the first President to play so much golf, his wife has the biggest staff that costs the taxpayers millions a year, of any first lady by double digits, Obama uses Airforce 1 multiple more times per year than any three Presidents put together.

He's a selfish, evil, terrible man. He's pretty though. He looks great in a ten thousand dollar suit that the taxpayers will pay for - I'll grant you that. But Lucifer was called the angel of light too...

And frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself for defending him.


Mark Sparks profile image

Mark Sparks 5 years ago from Charlottesville, Virginia

I think the vote you're referring to was mentioned in the 2008 presidential debates by McCain. It was about partial birth abortion. The way I remember, Obama opposed it because it would have outlawed the late abortion even if the mother's life depended on it.

Obama talked to the Senate Majority leader, tired to get an amendment that would allow the procedure if the mother's life depended on it. When the amendment wasn't added, he decided to vote no.

Why would anyone, even a cold-blooded narcissist, deliberately set out to kill hour-old babies? Even a complete sociopath would realize that such a position would seriously complicate his political fortunes. There's just no motive, even setting aside human scruples.

Glancing at your profile, you seem to be a good person- a proud mom, a loving military mother. The two of you have at least one thing in common: you're both proud parents who love their children. Both sinners, as is every human alive, but that reminds me of something the President said at the late Senator Byrd's funeral.

The President was remembering how the former KKK member came to him, and told him there were things he regretted in life. The President remembered:

"Robert, there are things we all regret having done in the past. That's why we seek out, and take comfort in, God's grace."


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 5 years ago from Michigan Author

Do your research Sparks. That arguement you are using to defend Obama's order to allow the slow death of a helpless baby is specious. Now look this up - THERE IS NEVER EVER EVER EITHER IN MEDICAL HISTORY OR OTHERWISE A MEDICAL NEED/USE/EMERGENCY NEED TO EVER PERFORM A LATE TERM ABORTION TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER. AND OBAMA KNOWS IT. He just used that as his lame, lying excuse. And B. The bill had nothing to do with stopping late term abortions - Obama was just concerned that it COULD lead down a "slippery slope" to EVENTUALLY stopping all late-term abortions - WHICH HAVE NO MEDICAL REASON TO BE PERFORMED IN THE FIRST PLACE. Know your facts before you defend the indefensible.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working