Exclusive Video: Anwar al-Awlaki’s Long-Lost U.S. Speech from September 1, 2001

Reblogged from The Counter Jihad Report

 

111002 Al-Awlaki death deals major blow to al-...

On September 1, 2001, just days before the 9/11 attacks, Awlaki gave an infamous lecture on “tolerance” at the 2001 ISNA convention, just as some of his disciples were preparing to launch the largest terrorist attack in American history.

 

One of his co-panelists in 2001, Hamza Yusuf, is one of this year’s keynote speakers. At the 1995 ISNA convention, Yusuf told the crowd that  Judaism “is a most racist religion.”

 

Video of Awlaki’s lecture has never before been viewed by the public. PJ Media has obtained a video — watch it above in its entirety.

 

At the time of the speech, Awlaki was a media darling. The New York Times hailed him as part of “a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and West.” NPR contrasted Awlaki with Osama bin Laden, describing Awlaki as one of the “moderates who want to solve the problems without violence” and someone who could “build bridges between Islam and the West.” Awlaki was even featured in a November 2001 Washington Post Ramadan online chat.

The recognition of Awlaki wasn’t exclusive to the media. He was also leading prayers for congressional Muslim staffers on Capitol Hill. Post-9/11, he was lecturing on Islam inside the executive dining room of the Pentagon, still scarred from the al-Qaeda hijackers that had crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into it.

He was, according to the Wall Street Journal, even one of the instructors that taught prospective Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military.

Read the rest at The Counter Jihad Report

‘Gutsy Call’ Not So Gutsy After All – Obama and Jarrett Canceled Operation to Kill Bin Laden Three Times

As you read this article, keep in mind that Valerie Jarrett’s Iranian roots and her ties with the Muslim Brotherhood most certainly influence her decisions.  And make no mistake – they are HER decisions.  From The Ulsterman Report: Valerie Jarrett and The Muslim Brotherhood:

For most Americans Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser to President Barack Obama,  remains largely an unknown.  To DC Insiders, she has positioned herself as the  true power in the Oval Office – a woman who, like the President, has direct  links to the Muslim world, both past – and present.  

 According to an American Spectator report in August of 2008, the Obama campaign  had initiated an aggressive program to hide Jarrett’s Iranian background.   This program received significant help from certain media figures who were only  too happy to comply with the Obama camp’s request that Jarrett’s Middle East  ties were not made a public matter – even as Iranian.com declared Jarrett its “Iranian of the Day” that same month of August.  Also during that same time  period, Barack Obama admitted to the New York Times that,  “I trust her  (Jarrett) to speak for me, particularly when we’re dealing with delicate  issues” and that he ran every important decision by her first.

A 2010 New York Times article cited the following regarding the Obama  administration’s ever increasing involvement with Muslim groups – led of course by Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett: Muslim and Arab-American  advocates have participated in policy discussions and received briefings from  top White House aides and other officials on health care legislation, foreign policy, the economy, immigration and  national security. They have met privately with a senior White House adviser, Valerie Jarrett.

‘Gutsy Call’ Not So Gutsy After All, New Book Reveals

By Rachel Hirshfeld via Israel National News

According to a new book, President Obama canceled operation to kill Osama bin Laden on three separate occasions, due to instructions of aide.

At the urging of senior advisor Valerie Jarrett, President Barack Obama canceled the operation to kill Osama bin Laden on three separate occasions before finally approving the May 2, 2011 Navy SEAL mission, according to a new book scheduled for release August 21, The Daily Caller (DC) reported.

In “Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors who Decide for Him,” Richard Miniter writes that Obama canceled the mission in January 2011, again in February, and a third time in March.

Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor and assistant to the president for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, reportedly persuaded Obama to hold off each time, the book reveals, according to The DC.

Miniter, a two-time New York Times best-selling author, cites an unnamed source with Joint Special Operations Command who had direct knowledge of the operation and its planning.

Obama administration officials said after the raid that the president had delayed giving the order to kill the arch-terrorist the day before the operation was carried out, in what turned out to be his fourth moment of indecision.

At the time, the White House blamed the delay on unfavorable weather conditions near bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. However, when Miniter obtained that day’s weather reports from the U.S. Air Force Combat Meteorological Center, he said, they showed ideal conditions for the SEALs to carry out their orders.

“President Obama’s greatest success was actually his greatest failure,” Miniter told The DC. “Leading From Behind,” he said, traces six key decisions of the Obama administration, and shows how the president made them, or, in many cases, failed to make them.

The president has made the assassination of Osama bin Laden a focal point in his re-election campaign, calling it one of the “gutsiest calls of any president in recent history.”

Read more at Israel Nation News

Obama’s lost cause (WAPO – et tu???)

By Michael Gerson via The Washington Post

 

“We’re not going back. . . . We’re going forward,” President Obama said during his formal campaign kickoff in Ohio. This rallying cry was pedestrian, and appropriately so. Obama is no longer a leader on horseback. His campaign — on the evidence of its first day — will be a long, unimaginative, partisan march to the sea.

 

Gone are the vast ambitions of national progress and healing. In Ohio on Saturday, Obama made a methodical appeal to various voting blocks — college-educated women, gays, Hispanics. He waded into the culture war on abortion, something he rarely did four years ago. And he accused the GOP of trickle-down hostility to the middle class.

To every interest group, a sop. On every wedge issue, a swat. To every class enemy, a turn in the tumbrel. Obama has gone “forward” all the way to the strategy of Walter Mondale.The president may persuade voters with this message, but he apparently has given up trying to inspire them. And this is not a small thing, since the Obama brand once consisted mainly of inspiration.

The brand of the Obama reelection campaign, so far, is ruthlessness. It has accused Mitt Romney of being soft on Osama bin Laden. It has singled out some Romney donors by name for public attack. Romney, we are informed, enjoys shipping jobs abroad, which is “just what you’d expect from a guy who had a Swiss bank account.” Obama has accused Republican congressional opponents of social Darwinism and indifference to autistic children.

U.S. politics has a long history of ruthlessness, which is not always a Nixon-like negative. Franklin Roosevelt matched the ruthlessness of dictators in his defense of democracy. Lyndon Johnson ruthlessly broke filibusters in pursuit of civil rights legislation. Robert Kennedy reportedly joked about his reputation: “I am not ruthless. And if I find the man who is calling me ruthless, I shall destroy him.”

There is a political case for Obama’s early, hardball tactics. It has Democrats excited. Liberals — who have occasionally complained that Obama is not confrontational enough — are no longer complaining.

But there are downsides as well. Obama is already one of the most consistently polarizing presidents of the last 60 years. His current campaign strategy, win or lose, will deepen our national divisions. It was unreasonable to believe that Obama could reverse the long-term political trend toward polarization. But it is still sad when a leader ceases to fight the current.

Obama’s political identity is particularly vulnerable to inconsistency on this issue. More than any recent presidential candidate, his initial appeal was based on changing the political atmosphere. He would end the “partisan food fight.” There are no red or blue states, he said, just the United States.

Obama’s agenda, strategy and rhetoric are now solidly blue — perhaps for sound political reasons. But Obama’s talent for inspiration was the single most interesting thing about him as a politician. Without that aspiration, what is left of his appeal? This is the reason his Ohio speech seemed so boring, particularly in comparison to his speeches four years ago. There was little that couldn’t be said by any liberal politician, at any time. Obama has lost more than a campaign talking point; he has lost one of the main reasons for his rise.

What principle or purpose unites Obama’s initial campaign with his current reelection effort? There is little obvious continuity — apart from one, unchanging commitment. The cause that has outlasted hope and change is Obama himself.

There have always been two parts of Obama’s political persona, both of which were essential to his rapid advancement. There is the Hyde Park Obama, lecturing on constitutional law, quoting Reinhold Niebuhr and transcending old political divisions. There is also the South Side Obama, who rose in Chicago politics by doing what it takes.

This is not unusual. All politicians believe that their tenacity and competitiveness are servants to their idealism. But as the Hyde Park Obama fades, the South Side Obama becomes less appealing.

All of the atmospheric elements of politics — unity, bipartisanship and common purpose — are significantly worse than four years ago. This is not all Obama’s fault. But he is choosing — in a campaign so nasty, so early — to make it worse. At some point, ruthlessness just leaves ruins.

michaelgerson@washpost.com

For more information click here.

Our Narcissistic Leader is at it Again – Obama Officials Drafted Memo to Blame Military If OBL Mission Failed

Posted by Jim Hoft via Gateway Pundit

Leadership: Obama Administration Drafted Memo to Blame Military if OBL Mission Failed

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey told Sean Hannity tonight that the Obama Administration drafted a memo to protect the president from blame if the mission to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden would have failed. That way Obama could blame the general instead of taking the blame himself. Mukasey wrote about it this week in The Wall Street Journal.

“That was a highly lawyered memo (designed to protect the president politically)… I think there’s going to be more that’s going to be tumbling out about that escapade but so far that memo is enough.

And, of course, this surprises no one who is familiar with Obama’s leadership style.

Mukasey also contrasted Obama’s leadership style tonight to Lincoln and Eisenhower as he did in his WSJ Opinion piece earlier in the week.

Lincoln took responsibility in August 1862 for failures that had been attributed to General George McClellan—eventually sacked for incompetence—and Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Lincoln told a crowd that McClellan was not at fault for seeking more than Stanton could give, and “I stand here, as justice requires me to do, to take upon myself what has been charged upon the Secretary of War.”

Dwight Eisenhower is famous for having penned a statement to be issued in anticipation of the failure of the Normandy invasion that reads in relevant part: “My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”

A week later, when the success of the invasion was apparent, Eisenhower saluted the Allied Expeditionary Forces: “One week ago this morning there was established through your coordinated efforts our first foothold in northwestern Europe. High as was my preinvasion confidence in your courage, skill and effectiveness . . . your accomplishments . . . have exceeded my brightest hopes.

Eisenhower did mention himself at the end: “I truly congratulate you upon a brilliantly successful beginning. . . . Liberty loving people everywhere would today like to join me in saying to you, ‘I am proud of you.’”

Wanted: A Competent Commander-In-Chief

By Frank Gaffney, Jr. via Center for Security Policy

So, it turns out, Team Obama suddenly wants the 2012 presidential campaign to be about foreign policy, rather than the economy.  Such a pivot might not be surprising given that, by President Obama’s own test, he has not cut unemployment to the point where he deserves to be reelected.

The Democrats have – if anything – a weaker case for reelecting this president on national security grounds.  The campaign ad they unveiled on Friday, timed to take credit for the liquidation of Osama bin Laden on the first anniversary of that achievement, is a case in point.

The video used former President Bill Clinton to extol his successor’s role in the mission – and selectively quoted Republican nominee Mitt Romney to suggest he would not have done the same.

It is an act of desperation and contempt for the American people that, of all people, Mr. Clinton would be used in such a role.  Let’s recall, during his presidency, he repeatedly declined to take out bin Laden.  (So sensitive is the former president about this sorry record that his operatives insisted in 2006 that ABC excise from “Path to 9/11″ – an outstanding made-for-TV film by Cyrus Nowrasteh – a dramatized version of one such episode.  Check it out at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asw8fhpz0wA.)

More telling still is an issue inadvertently showcased by this controversy.  While the Clinton-Obama-Biden spot tries to make Gov. Romney sound as though he wouldn’t have had the courage, or at least the vision, the President exhibited in a risky bid to take out bin Laden, what the presumptive Republican nominee actually said in 2007 in context illustrates a far better grasp than President Obama has of the enemy we confront:

“I wouldn’t want to over-concentrate on Bin Laden. He’s one of many, many people who are involved in this global Jihadist effort. He’s by no means the only leader. It’s a very diverse group – Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and of course different names throughout the world. It’s not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person. It is worth fashioning and executing an effective strategy to defeat global, violent Jihad and I have a plan for doing that.”

Mr. Obama, by contrast, would have us believe that the problem is not only just al Qaeda but that that threat is pretty much a thing of the past, thanks to bin Laden’s elimination and the decimation primarily by drone strikes of others among its leadership and rank and file. An unnamed senior State Department official told the NationalJournal last week, “The War on Terror is over” as Muslims embrace “legitimate Islamism.”

Unfortunately, as Seth Jones observed in the Wall Street Journal on April 30, 2012, “Al Qaeda is far from dead.  Acting as if it were will not make it so.”

Even if al Qaeda actually had been defeated, however, we are – as Mitt Romney said five years ago – confronting a host of other jihadist enemies who seek the same goals as bin Laden’s al Qaeda and its franchises: the triumph of the totalitarian, supremacist Islamic doctrine of shariah and a global government, known as a caliphate, to govern according to it.

Unfortunately, as demonstrated conclusively in a free, web-based video course entitled “Muslim Brotherhood in America: the Enemy Within” released last week by the Center for Security Policy (www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com), far from understanding the danger posed by the rest of the jihadist enterprise, the Obama administration is actually making it stronger.

The evidence presented in this course suggests that could be due, at least in part, to the six Muslim Brotherhood-associated individuals the Center has identified who are either on the government’s payroll, advising it and/or being used for outreach to the American Muslim community.  (See Part 8 for the details on the Obama Six.)

Whatever the motivation, consider how Team Obama has managed the three other groups Gov. Romney mentioned.  The administration made no effort to impede the take-over of Lebanon by the Iranian foreign legion, the designated terrorist organization known as Hezbollah.  It has actively helped bring to power, recognized and effectively turned over $1.5 billion to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  Worse yet, it has, as noted above, embraced its operatives and front groups here.  And President Obama personally directed last week that $170 million in U.S. foreign aid be given to a Palestinian Authority “unity government” which includes another designated terrorist organization, Hamas – incredibly on the grounds tthat “U.S. national security interests” required it.

Unfortunately for the Obama administration, fundamentally misconstruing the nature of the enemy is just part of this president’s ominous legacy with respect to his Commander-in-Chief portfolio.   The wrecking operation he is engaged in with respect to our military’s capability to project power, its unilateral cuts to the U.S. nuclear deterrent and weakening our missile defenses may not be fully evident between now and the election.  But the impact will be felt for generations to come.  That will be true in spades of the war on the culture of the armed forces being waged inpursuit the radical left’s efforts to make-over American social norms and mores, starting with its most esteemed institution: the United States military.

Getting bin Laden isn’t the issue.  The issue is whether President Obama is getting right the rest of his job as Commander-in-Chief.  And, regrettably, he is not.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.

For more information click here.

Navy SEALs Are Hammering Obama For Taking Credit For Their Work

By Brett LoGiurato via Business Insider

It’s been a year to the day since President Obama announced the heroic mission  of the Navy SEAL Team Six that killed Osama bin Laden. But Navy SEALs aren’t  taking too kindly to Obama reminding everyone about it in the past few  days.

Surprise, surprise: Today is all about politics.

Current serving and ex-Navy SEALs spoke with The Daily Mail for a story published last night,  and boy did they have a lot to say. A sampling: Some said the mission was a  no-brainer for any president. Some accused Obama of taking credit for their  work. Some said it was an attempt to use them as “ammunition” for his  re-election campaign.

Here’s Ryan Zinke, a former 23-year SEAL that is now a Republican state  Senator from Montana:

“The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him  for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right  call. I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in  saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice — it was a broader  team effort.”

For someone not currently engulfed in politics on the other side, let’s go  to Clint Bruce, who “gave up the chance of an NFL  career to serve as a SEAL officer,” according to the Mail:

“We were extremely surprised and discouraged  by the publicity because it compromises the ability of those guys to  operate. It’s a waste of time to speculate about who would and wouldn’t  have made that decision. It was a symphony of opportunity and intelligence that  allowed this administration to give the green light. We want to acknowledge that  they made that decision.

“Politicians should let the public know where  they stand on national security but not in the play-by-play, detailed way that  has been done recently. The intricacies of national security should not become  part of stump speeches.”

The debate continues to rage over Obama’s campaign ad, in which Bill Clinton  voices over the narrative that Obama made the tough decision that led to the  death of the mastermind behind the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.

Here is the mistake Obama made, though, which makes it so  controversial and ripe for attack: The speculation over whether Mitt Romney  would have made the same call.

It’s a delicate balance: On one hand, Romney is on record saying that it was  not “worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just  trying to catch one person.” On the other, how much credit does a  politician — even a President — get for the operation?

Romney, for his part, said yesterday that “any thinking American” would have ordered the killing.  Today, he issued a statement:

“Today marks the one year anniversary of the  mission that brought Osama bin Laden to justice. That mission was the  culmination of nearly a decade of hard work and sacrifice by our men and women  in the military and intelligence communities. I commend all those who planned  and conducted the bin Laden raid, and I applaud President Obama for giving the  go ahead for the mission.

Expect this political back-and-forth to continue as part of the foreign  policy debate up through the final days leading up to the election.

For more information click here.

Obama lets more of our secrets slide away!

By Judson Phillips via Tea Party Nation

Well, there is more good news on the Iranian front.  They have reverse engineered the stealth drone that Obama let fall into their hands back in December.

From the Blaze:

Iran claimed Sunday that it had reverse-engineered an American spy drone captured by its armed forces last year and has begun building a copy.

Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, chief of the aerospace division of the powerful Revolutionary Guards, related what he said were details of the aircraft‘s operational history to prove his claim that Tehran’s military experts had extracted data from the U.S. RQ-170 Sentinel captured in December in eastern Iran, state television reported.

Among the drone’s past missions, he said, was surveillance of the compound in northwest Pakistan in which Osama Bin Laden lived and was killed.

Tehran has flaunted the capture of the Sentinel, a top-secret surveillance drone with stealth technology, as a victory for Iran and a defeat for the United States in a complicated intelligence and technological battle. A report from the country’s official Fars News Agency mocked President Barack Obama, saying he had begged the country “to give him back his toy plane.”

U.S. officials have acknowledged losing the drone. They have said Iran will find it hard to exploit any data and technology aboard it because of measures taken to limit the intelligence value of drones operating over hostile territory.

Hajizadeh told state television that the captured surveillance drone is a “national asset” for Iran and that he could not reveal full technical details. But he did provide some samples of the data that he claimed Iranian experts had recovered.

Back in December, Obama had a chance to avoid this disaster.  He had the chance to order a missile strike or an air strike to destroy the stealth drone before the Iranians captured it but refused to do so.

Obama seems to have this weird idea that if America has secrets, we should make sure that our enemies know what they are.  The Obama Regime publicized our techniques for interrogation so that our enemies would know how to prepare for them.  They released information about Israel using bases in Azerbaijan for a possible strike against Iran and Obama has talked about giving the Russians access to classified information about our missile interceptors.

Odds are, within hours of the drone being recovered by the Iranians, the Russians and Chinese were getting a look at some of our most sophisticated technology.

Good job Obama.

As Iran, the Russians and the Chinese now use the information we allowed to fall into their hands, perhaps real Americans can use the information we are learning about the Obama Regime to throw him out of office in November.

For more information click here.