It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White House Insider: Obama Hesitated – Panetta Issued Order to Kill Osama Bin Laden

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   


Can this be the real story?

If this is really the "true story" of how the OBL event happened, it's a very sad indictment of how things work internally in the obama administration.

Read the entire account. Ask yourself if it doesn't read far more like fact than fiction - no matter how badly we all might wish this isn't the way things work in the White House - for any president.

source


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




posted on May, 5 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
And if this account is even close to being the truth, then Valerie Jarrett needs to go, and now. She appears to be paralyzing president obama's ability to act, and we need him to be able to act.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


Different source.

Different title.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


This is very interesting... when I first saw this photo I wondered why Obama looks so angry. Maybe this story is true and the reason he looks so pissed off.




edit on 5-5-2011 by OptimusSubprime because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I'll care when this insider releases his/her name and other necessary information so that I can verify that this is a credible source.

In case I missed that info, could anyone tell me who this insider is?

Anything can be read as truth if you want it to be.
edit on 5-5-2011 by Marulo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by centurion1211
 


This is very interesting... when I first saw this photo I wondered why Obama looks so angry. Maybe this story is true and the reason he looks so pissed off.




Right. Looks more like he's thinking, "What have they got me into?" rather than showing concern for the U.S. personnel or the mission.

And I don't buy Hillary's "allergy" excuse for that photo. I'm guessing her thoughts are more like, "There's really that much blood in a person?".



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marulo

In case I missed that info, could anyone tell me who this insider is?



If all this is true and we knew who was playing "deep throat" in the obama White House, they'd be immediately gone (or dead) and we'd lose this possibly excellent source as to the inner workings (or not workings) of the White House.

Surely, you can understand that?

Trouble is when you read the article, the actions of people like Hillary, etc. sound just like the things we've all seen them say and do in the past. Unfortunately, the same is true for obama.

I'm just saying that IF this is fabricated, whoever did it is VERY good at it ...


edit on 5/5/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by schuyler
 


Different source.

Different title.



It's exactly the same source, and the same article. The article in the OP of this thread refers to the article on the link, which is part 1 of the article in this thread.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by schuyler
 


Different source.

Different title.



Same source exactly: Ulsterman, though the one I cited was, indeed, his next to the last article rather than the last one. You can find all his articles here. You also might want to search "White House Insider" as there have been several threads about him on here since he started making appearances during the last election cycle. The general consensus seems to be that the White House Insider does not exist. Ulsterman himself seems to be more of a blogger than a reporter. The main site where he writes is triond, which allows anyone to contribute. the stories are then distributed to several other sites giving them wider distribution. The system is very much like the "[Put your city name here] Examiner" articles.

All of Ulsterman's articles, whether or not they purport to be from "The Insider" are negative Obama. I personally don't have a problem with that as I feel the same way, but after the birth certificate fiasco I'm a little leery of accepting this anonymous source, especially since he has a history of being very self-serving. If he DOES exist I suspect he's much lower on the political totem pole than he would like us to believe. Further, he's no longer a White House Insider at all, but depends on tid-bits tossed his way. He's an intermediary in the rumor mill.

In other words, whatever you read about the Insider is at least third or fourth hand. Somebody who supposedly knows tells the Insider who tells Ulsterman, who tells us. That's not exactly an original nor a verified source. I think we also need to keep in mind the possibility of vested interests. Deep Throat, for example, had a reason to keep Woodstein on the trail. He wanted to be FBI Director after Hoover and Nixon snubbed him. It may have been real, but it was also a vendetta.

Another issue I have is that I, personally, think Obama is terribly evil, so when I read something like this, it tends to vindicate my point of view. But that's the problem. It feeds into my world view much too easily, so I feel I need to mistrust it, particularly at this level of "truth."

Having said all that, the whole thing fits together remarkably well. As I've said before, either The Insider is real or Ulsterman is a marvelous story teller who, if he had written that stuff on ATS, would have flags and stars across the page.
edit on 5/5/2011 by schuyler because: spelling, as usual

edit on 5/5/2011 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Can anyone verify what the weather was like at the OBL Compound on the Saturday the mission was "scrubbed" due to bad weather? That could give us an indication if this account is even close to being accurate. According to the weather I looked up the Saturday was supposedly thunderstorms, yet no precipitation to speak of (.05inches, the same as Sundays). Winds were higher (over 20mph) that day as well. Both of those conditions were occurring during the day and early evening, not during the early AM hours when the mission would have been taking place on Saturday. Islamabad weather history. The overnight conditions were very calm with no storms. Don't think it would have been enough to scrub the mission if it was so urgent, but I don't know enough about these types of things, I.m sure gusty winds and helicopters don't mix very well.
edit on 5-5-2011 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by centurion1211
 


This is very interesting... when I first saw this photo I wondered why Obama looks so angry. Maybe this story is true and the reason he looks so pissed off.


The other interesting thing about this picture is that a one-star general is sitting in Obama's seat while Obama is sitting off to the side in a clearly subservient location. I surmise that the general may be controlling the video feed from his computer, so that may be the reason. Also, Obama just came in after 9 holes of golf so he's still in his golf clothes, but even that is kind of strange. I suppose it could be explained that he just came in late. Since protocol is everything in politics this just seems strange to me.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Obama hesitating does not surprise me at all.Look how long it took for him to do something-anything- about the BP spill.........



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
hmmm... ive read the OP article and it has a TOTALY DIFFERENT TIMELINE than reported here...



In March Barack Obama began chairing a series of five national security meetings. At the last of these, on Friday 29 April, while the world's attention was on the royal wedding taking place in London, he gave the order to mount an operation.





At that meeting, at 8.20am in the diplomatic room at the White House, Obama met his national security adviser Thomas Donilon, counter-terrorism adviser John O Brennan, and other senior national security aides to go through the detailed plan to attack the compound and sign the formal orders authorising it, the New York Times reported.





Obama spent part of Sunday on the golf course, the Associated Press reported, but cut short his round to return to the White House for a meeting where he and top national security aides reviewed final preparations for the raid.


www.guardian.co.uk...

hmmm...so whats the truth...who lied when and whos lieing now......



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by clearmind


hmmm...so whats the truth...who lied when and whos lieing now......


Well, considering the information you quoted comes from The Guardian, a respected British news source, and the OP's information comes from a blog which cites an unnamed informant second or third-hand, I would say that the Guardian's information would be more reliable.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by clearmind
 


Well, the sources here are the UK Guardian, the New York Times, and the Associated Press. It would seem reasonable that the MSM would want to go with the Obama as strong leader meme. They certainly have done that in the past. Lord knows there will be a cover story regardless. It also may be just a point of view.

The AP said Obama cut short his golf game to go to a meeting. The Insider intimated that he was pulled off his golf game after 9 holes to partuicipate in watching the raid going straight to the situation room rather than back to the West Wing first. The picture shows him in "informal" clothes though I can't tell if these are 'golf' clothes because you can't see well enough. These could be two different points of view of the same situation.

I guess one question is, "How soon after the golf game did the raid take place? The answer might help resolve at least a part of this.


Originally posted by drwizardphd

Well, considering the information you quoted comes from The Guardian, a respected British news source, and the OP's information comes from a blog which cites an unnamed informant second or third-hand, I would say that the Guardian's information would be more reliable.


To me this is an odd statement from a site like ATS. One of the most common complaints here is about the MSM distorting facts and pushing their own boy. Many people have gone so far as to suggest the CIA owns the newspapers. Certainly sites like the New Yoirk Times have been caught repeatedly distorting the facts, if not making them up entirely. Yet here you are suggesting we trust the MSM. If they are to be relied upon, why do we even need ATS?


edit on 5/5/2011 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
As forthe photo of him looking riveted, concerned - that is probably staged since the live feed was cut off as soon as they entered the compound - they apparently do all this photo staging stuff often.



Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, revealed there was a 25 minute blackout during which the live feed from cameras mounted on the helmets of the US special forces was cut off. A photograph released by the White House appeared to show the President and his aides in the situation room watching the action as it unfolded. In fact they had little knowledge of what was happening in the compound.

In an interview with PBS, Mr Panetta said: "Once those teams went into the compound I can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes where we really didn't know just exactly what was going on. And there were some very tense moments as we were waiting for information. "We had some observation of the approach there, but we did not have direct flow of information as to the actual conduct of the operation itself as they were going through the compound." By the way, has anyone noticed that Panetta is off the reservation? He advocated releasing the pics of Osama's dead body, he has constantly corrected administration versions of events, and has generally been a discordant voice in the whole affair.

Speculation; it could be because he feels his spooks have been slighted by the administration's portrayal of Obama as a hands on "warrior" and all the credit going to the White House and the SEALs. This wipes out many years of hard work by CIA analysts in tracking the courier across the entire expanse of Pakistan - a feat of intelligence that will go down in history. I wonder if they actually staged that photo?


www.americanthinker.com...



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by clearmind

hmmm...so whats the truth...who lied when and whos lieing now......


And that's the worst part of this whole sordid issue - that we have to even ask that question, and on such a regular basis.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
fun fact for the ats readers.

today after watching the mainstream media i came across an interesting tidbit which if you stop and think about it does make sense and people can try to decry it but think about it i ask.

with regard to that photo and the situation room and those who were gathered there in a so called high national security operation where people are snapping photos during the entire process from mission beginning to mission end.

well if you stop and think about it no they would be taking photos of the process because if obama supposedly didnt know which way the op was going to go he would have no plausible denailabilty.

that photo was staged after the op had concluded.

i have read an article similar to this one and it does not suprise me in the least considering obamas own history when it comes the the military and intelligence agencies.

the last piece of the puzzle was obamas own words and the invokation of the words "under god:" when he has so many times avoided ever using the phrase.

who knows how it really went down the left and obama are enough reasons to think that the military would overrule him but then agian the boots on the ground might have done it.

the only fact we all know is that we will never know how it really went down.
edit on 5-5-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


An intresting read but I dont completely buy it. For starters it would indicate the possibility of a coup. Military officers acting outside the direct authority of the president, initiating a military action against an allied country, not to mention assasinating the leader of a terrorist organization without authorization.

Assasinations if I understand it correctly must origionate with the President, JCS and select leadership in Congress since it was a title 50 operation.

A military officer authoorizing a strike on a target inside an allied nation would have very serious repercussions. It does not matter if the Officer, or even the CIA director for that matter, agree or disagree with the Presidents decision. He is the man in charge, and acting outside his authority, no matter how well intentioned, raises some very serious questions if this is indeed the manner it occured in.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join