PDA

View Full Version : " Obama Hesitated - DCI Panetta Issued Order to Kill Osama Bin Laden "



megimoo
05-05-2011, 11:56 PM
" A weak,Vacillating President, an overly Protective Chicage Political advisor,a Nation adrift in a Political Charged morass ."

"It sounds as if our Iranian born Valerie Jarrett controls this Obama White House ."

"What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him –and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound."

Note:This update comes some 24 hours after our longtime Washington D.C. Insider first outlined shocking details of an Obama administration having been "overruled" by senior military and intelligence officials leading up to the successful attack against terrorist Osama Bin Laden. What follows is further clarification of Insider's insights surrounding that event.

_______

Q: You stated that President Obama was "overruled" by military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound. Was that accurate?

A: I was told – in these exact terms, "we overruled him." (Obama) I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president's "persistent hesitation to act." There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so. President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president.

I was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. The primary opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama. Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position.

This situation continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton. She was livid over the president's failure to act, and her office began a campaign of anonymous leaks to the media indicating such.

As for Jarrett, her concern rested on two primary fronts. One, that the military action could fail and harm the president's already weakened standing with both the American public and the world. Second, that the attack would be viewed as an act of aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in the Middle East.

Q: What changed the president's position and enabled the attack against Osama Bin Laden to proceed?

A: Nothing changed with the president's opinion – he continued to avoid having one. Every time military and intelligence officials appeared to make progress in forming a position, Jarrett would intervene and the stalling would begin again. Hillary started the ball really rolling as far as pressuring Obama began, but it was Panetta and Petraeus who ultimately pushed Obama to finally act – sort of. Panetta was receiving significant reports from both his direct CIA sources, as well as Petraeus-originating Intel.

Petraeus was threatening to act on his own via a bombing attack. Panetta reported back to the president that a bombing of the compound would result in successful killing of Osama Bin Laden, and little risk to American lives. Initially, as he had done before, the president indicated a willingness to act. But once again, Jarrett intervened, convincing the president that innocent Pakistani lives could be lost in such a bombing attack, and Obama would be left attempting to explain Panetta's failed policy.

Again Obama hesitated – this time openly delaying further meetings to discuss the issue with Panetta. A brief meeting was held at this time with other officials, including Secretary Gates and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but Gates, like Panetta, was unable to push the president to act. It was at this time that Gates indicated to certain Pentagon officials that he may resign earlier than originally indicated – he was that frustrated. Both Panetta and Clinton convinced him to stay on and see the operation through.

http://baltimorejewishlife.com/news/news-detail.php?SECTION_ID=2&ARTICLE_ID=5911

malloc
05-06-2011, 12:18 AM
I read that, or an extremely similar article yesterday or the day before.

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=39753&highlight=Hesitated+laden

I hope more people pick this up and someone does some investigating to find out how accurate the insider's account its.

txradioguy
05-06-2011, 02:06 AM
If this is true...it's frightening.

Arroyo_Doble
05-06-2011, 09:27 AM
If this is true...it's frightening.

No kidding.


Petraeus was threatening to act on his own via a bombing attack.


When I read that, it made me think of this:


General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No, I don't think I do, sir, no.
General Jack D. Ripper: He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

obx
05-06-2011, 10:47 AM
"Wussie in Chief"

txradioguy
05-06-2011, 12:33 PM
No kidding.


Petraeus was threatening to act on his own via a bombing attack.


When I read that, it made me think of this:


General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No, I don't think I do, sir, no.
General Jack D. Ripper: He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

You know...jsut when I think you can't be any more of a contrarian horses ass. You find a new level of stupidity to sink to.

Way to go fanboy. :rolleyes:

Odysseus
05-06-2011, 01:12 PM
No kidding.


Petraeus was threatening to act on his own via a bombing attack.

When I read that, it made me think of this:


General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No, I don't think I do, sir, no.
General Jack D. Ripper: He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

GEN Petraeus doesn't have to get permission to bomb targets in his AO. It's within his duty description. Obama had already established that Pakistani areas that harbored Taliban or al Qaeda were covered in the Rules of Engagement. So, Petraeus was saying that if the president didn't give the order for the raid, that he would execute a strike under the established ROE. He wasn't out of control, he was doing his job. Would that the CIC was as serious about doing his.

AmPat
05-07-2011, 07:54 AM
Liberals like Oreo have no problem with an incompetent, unqualified president like their god O Blah Blah. They have a bigger problem with non existent boogie men like "out of control" generals and on a larger scale, common sense.

megimoo
05-07-2011, 12:18 PM
Liberals like Oreo have no problem with an incompetent, unqualified president like their god O Blah Blah. They have a bigger problem with non existent boogie men like "out of control" generals and on a larger scale, common sense.

Oreo's role is to splatter the truth and make light of any detail thet exposes his partys foibles.A propagandist clown to riducle and make confusion rampant with his foolishness,Ignore him and go on .We have a few here that use the same or simular tactics .

Odysseus
05-08-2011, 02:18 PM
Liberals like Oreo have no problem with an incompetent, unqualified president like their god O Blah Blah. They have a bigger problem with non existent boogie men like "out of control" generals and on a larger scale, common sense.
This reminds me of the "General Betray-us" ad that Moveon.org did when he testified before congress. Slandering brave men in order to protect a corrupt and bankrupt agenda is part and parcel for the left.

Oreo's role is to splatter the truth and make light of any detail thet exposes his partys foibles.A propagandist clown to riducle and make confusion rampant with his foolishness,Ignore him and go on .We have a few here that use the same or simular tactics .
Unfortunately, propagandists win when their lies go unrefuted and become the conventional wisdom. The greatest example of this was the JFK assassination. Decades of BS has managed to obscure the fact that he was murdered by a communist who was acting on behalf of his beliefs. That narrative offended the left, so they've done everything that they can to convince the world that there was a conspiracy involving everyone in Dallas except Oswald. Same with the 9/11 truthers and the various other conspiracy theories that replace rational thought in our age.

AmPat
05-09-2011, 09:20 AM
Oreo is merely pushing his diseased leftist narrative whenever possible. Truth, facts, and logic all take second place to their agenda.