« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Obama vs. Panetta In The Kill Osama Decision?

if it isn't true, it really should be

By: streiff (Diary)  |  May 3rd, 2011 at 08:28 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I don’t stand by what follows because I don’t know the author or the website. It also falls into the “too good to check” category.

But read and decide for yourself which has a greater ring of truth: the cool, analytical Obama of the developing White House hagiography (or to quote the notorious catchfart Howard Fineman, “President Barack Obama just proved himself — vividly, in almost Biblical terms — to be an effective commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the United States”)? or this story describing the indecisive, goofy wuss whom we’ve come to know over the previous painful 29 months?

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.

Enjoy the read.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • elizabeth bennet

    I’ve never heard of that site, but a friend had just sent me that link. If even an inkling of that is true, YOWSA. Very, very interesting.

  • GregInFla

    instead of Kill Obama Decision?

    • msctex

      Just to eliminate confusion.

  • powertothepeople

    to decide that Osama is killed or not or whether or not we actually do what we were supposed to do and go in and get him?

    Maybe I am confused, but her only claim to fame is her permanent lip to Obama ass attachment that gave her a position as senior advisor, of which she is quite unqualified to be, and an assistant to Obama in the Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs office.

    Have to wait for all this to be confirmed, but if even half of it is true, the multiple “I’s” Obama used in his speech were nothing more than blatant lies.

    It is a sad day when one must say that Hilary was more presidential than the current president and was the one who had the necessary balls to do what was needed. And it is even more of a sad day when Biden is considered more worthy to be in the loop than the sitting president.

    If even a portion of this story is true, Obama should be as embarrassed as any president in history has ever been and it is a huge black eye moment.

    Great Find Streiff, great find!

    • rcatheart

      It seems like these sorts of meetings should have very few people in them, and they should all be people who have an actual reason to be there. Not “oh my BFF from the good ‘ol IL days.”

      Now, who knows what the truth of this all is….but Obama should be embarrassed that it’s even remotely believable.

      If it’s true, even a little bit…I think it explains the speech. I hated the speech. Well, perhaps that’s not fair. The words themselves were…fine. (I liked this version better: http://www.danoah.com/2011/05/better-way-mr-president.html , but I digress…) But the delivery of Obama’s speech was terrible. There was no hint of actual pride, or actual um…happiness…that this had occurred. There was no sense that he’d been nervous about this for the last 3 days and now – deo gratias – we can all breathe a sigh of relief. There was no real emotion whatsoever.

      Maybe all of the I-I-I-me-me-me was a cover (by whoever wrote it) for the fact that there was basically no Obama involvement whatsoever.

      • Common_Cents

        She is hardly just a random BFF. She was born in Iran and is part of Obama’s incestual radical group in Chicago. Geez its kind of fitting that Obama’s closest advisor wasn’t born and raised in America during her youth. She hired Michelle for a job and introduced her to Barry.

        • bs61

          Who was so happy to have Van Jones join as the Green Jobs Czar! Also that her father-in-law worked with Communist Frank Marshall Davis

          http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/why-was-obamas-brain-valerie-jarrett-so-happy-to-hire-communist-van-jones-was-it-fate-is-she-obamas-handler/

    • ohiohistorian

      who is an Obama “political adviser”. The word is that it was her and a couple of others that have us involved in Libya. If the article is right, then there is no reason for her to feel sympathy for those in the bin Laden compound and yet to continue to let people in Libya get killed. Maybe she was being paid off by Osama?

      I hope this story, if true, gets maximum play. It is time that the arrogant airheads get their comeuppance.

    • clintonformccain

      Obama’s “patron” Tony Rezko was a developer of government subsidized Section 8 low income housing. With a minority front partner, Rezko would pocket millions in government grants to develop a subsidized housing project, then walk away.

      Obams’s “community organizing” was to find black non-profits (churches, etc.) to be the sham minorty development partner for Rezko. Obama’s boss at his law firm was a frequent investment partner with Rezko. It was a sweet deal.

      Valerie Jarrett was appointed head of the Chigcao housing authority, i.e. the person who handed out the grants to Tony Rezko.

    • littlehouse18

      What does Michelle think of her?

    • Flagstaff

      Perhaps she is George Soros’s man inside the White House.

      I loved the story. It is indeed too good to check.

      • uselogic

        If this reporting is true, it dovetails with the Libyan war decision. Other than the 2 required military folks & SecDef, Obama’s “Security” Counicil is filled with activists, former journalists and politcal hacks with virtually no real-world experience in SECURITY matters.

        Remember who championed the Libya involvement…. a former journalist-turned-activist, an activist and a former NY Senator/first lady. We should not be surprised that when Jarrett speaks Obama’s mouth moves.

    • pty12300

      Valerie Jarrett, has been with zero since his Chicago days. Her father-in-law had close connections to the Communist Party and was friends with Frank Marshall Davis who was a Communist and under investigation by the FBI ? Obama?s mentor in Hawaii. It was Valerie who hired Michelle Obama to work in Mayor Washington?s Office. Mayor Harold Washington had many strong connections and support from the Communist and Socialist parties in Illinois. Valerie?s mother Barbara Bowman ran the Chicago based Erikson Institute. An early Erikson Institute board member was Chicago businessman and ?liberal? activist Tom Ayers, father of Weather Underground terrorist leader and long time Obama colleague Bill Ayers. Bernardine Dohrn, wife of Bill and reputedly the real leader of Weather Underground has also served on the Erikson board in recent years.

      Valerie Jarrett was instrumental in bringing in Van Jones who is a card carrying Communist. I can see why she might not want to have it known that Obama killed Osama.

    • chuhoi

      Jarret represents the interest of the Chicago cabal(NewDemocratic Party) of Socialists who MADE Barry. She has more ‘juice’ than a Kommisar handler and Mob Captain combined. She has 10 times the sway over Barry than Cheney/Rove did with GWB. I was an Alinsky Radical until my Autogenous Transrectal Craniectomy. Peace, love, and Liberty.

  • Common_Cents

    There is a link on Drudge that obama couldn’t make a decision and stalled for 16 hours. Did he go golfing on Sunday? His spot looks like he pulled up and scrunched in late to the meeting.

    • Aaron Gardner
      • acat

        before he went to watch Navy Seals Live.

        Mew

    • usadying

      Not only does Obama have no seat at the table, it looks like his small chair was pulled in as an afterthought. He truly appears to have left the golf course early. Hillary looks concerned and presidential. See Ausonius’ comment below. If this article is true, his speech, replete with all the I’s and Me’s, is even more disgusting.

      • Tbone

        butt in her pantsuit. Just look at everyone’s faces and tell me I’m wrong.

      • littlehouse18

        in the photo. Obama looks like the kid in the corner of the room, and a little ill too, realizing what’s going on. Everyone else looks fairly calm and resolute. I’ve got to give kudos to Panetta on this, if the story is true.

        Getting Bin Laden was obviously the right thing for the country. Seems like they all easily understood this except Obama. Should have been a no-brainer.

        Our president is no more than a figurehead and a mouthpiece.

        • aesthete

          micromanagement of a military op on the part of the President does us no favors: even micromanagement on the part of a competent and experienced bureaucrat like Gates isn’t a particularly good thing. The best wartime President is the one who explains the objective of said war to the citizens compellingly, and who provides troops with the manpower and personnel needed to get the job done. The worst kind of wartime President is the type that insists on getting in photo ops or “leadership” opportunities at the expense of the mission. In my book, it’s always a good thing when the President is not hamstringing the US military. As far as I can tell, Obama by and large let the military have free rein. In that, he deserves some credit (though not the amount that he and his supporters have arrogated to him).

          • littlehouse18

            as yet unsubstantiated story, he *was* hamstringing them by refusing to make a broad decision when time was critical. He wasn’t giving them free rein, and finally the adults had to take over and drag him along. (I use the term adult advisedly when referring to Mrs. Clinton.)

            Most of these people had learned from the past mistakes of letting bin Laden slip away.

            If this is all true, I find it hard to give Obama credit for this. He had no choices after the deed was done. The speech he was given to read, with its self-praise, was a pat-on-the-head manipulation from the others.

    • littlehouse18
  • Ausonius

    The Clinton’s are never to be trusted, and are all too ready to fill vacuums.

    It is easy to imagine that one way to tarnish MAObama is with such a leak, and if it is true, then all the better! Certainly it fits BIG BRObama’s “voting present” persona in a more likely way than suddenly seeing him listening and taking proper advice from military and intelligence leaders.

    And Panetta “overruling” The One? Why not? Remember he is much more of a Clintonista than an Obamaniac!

    • acat
      • earlgrey

        it seems so believable. I mean making such a decision is completely uncharacteristic of Obama. It is just more believable that it went down as described.

        Of course, if we embrace this than we’lll be conspiracy theorists again so maybe best to leave it alone.

    • ohiohistorian

      I agree that Bill and Hillary are both inveterate political hacks. Unfortunately, the Hopey Changey One has been a big liar and a two-faced politician on the US political stage. Remember the debt ceiling that he and all the Senate Democrats voted against? And now want it to be raised because it is THEIR watch?

      Democrats will have to decide among Hillary, Joe the Biden, and Obama. Who is less stupid and less devious? My bet is on none of the three.

      • Ausonius

        Anybody who thinks all is forgiven between the Clintons and anyone who crosses them is delusional. And BIG BRObama crossed them big time! He might have thought that he was taming them by offering Hilary the State Department position.

        Sabotaging MAObama by using his own narcissism against him – and who else would be greater experts on that by now than the Clintons? – is something that might have tempted them/her to create such a leak.

    • blooch

      If you go back and read all of the “WH Insider Interviews”, you’ll find that “The Insider” is a devoted Hillary acolyte, and that Valerie Jarrett has been both a bete noir and svengali in the Insider’s pantheon for many months now. Also, Common_Cents points out above that Obama looks like he was late to the meeting. This is also a recurring “Insider” theme. Whenever the “Insider” mentions WH meetings involving Obama, the President is invariably described as late, passive and superfluous. And Valerie Jarrett is always glowering form some corner of the room.

      I hope the Ulsterman has them paranoid and freaked out in the WH.

  • wayno

    Frightening. I was afraid of this. As the saying goes, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while and I guess that’s what happened to BHO. His one positive contribution in nearly three years and it’ll die of loneliness. Wonderful.

  • lineholder

    this has a greater ring of truth than anything else I’ve seen. Obama isn’t exactly known for his decisiveness, and I’ve yet to see him display any desire to protect this nation’s military interest. At the best, he’s been detached from it.

    Gates, Panetta, Clinton, Jarrett…this narrative of events rings true regarding the character of each of these individuals as well.

    Plus, it fits in with some information coming from sources outside our country regarding timing and intel.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8488236/WikiLeaks-Osama-bin-Laden-protected-by-Pakistani-security.html

  • BettyRuth

    Who is Ulsterman? That’s the $64,000 question. Stories of this nature have been coming out from him (or her?) for months. Very interesting.

    • quakergrey

      I spent some time scouting searching the internet for references to Ulsterman and so far cannot find out anything that would cause me to place any confidence in him. Nothing to debunk him, either.

      He has a “profile” at http://www.triond.com/users/Ulsterman which tells us nothing except that he writes for a publishing site that will publish anything; apparently without oversight. The earliest date I saw there for a post was August of 2009. He is widely quoted and widely dissed. He is on Facebook as Ulster Man but I’m not sure that I want to “friend” him just to find out there’s not information there either. The Socyberty site he’s published on is “powered by Triond.” Some folks with no apparent evidence claim he is Anthony G. Martin, of South Carolina and Mr. Martin maintains that he most certainly is not Ulsterman.

      I haven’t troubled to read all his posts or to go to the effort of seeing how accurate they have proven. He may have a source. He may be clairvoyant. He may be the world’s greatest fiction writer. He may even have good reasons to remain anonymous. *shrug*

      Conclusion? If he and his secret source are legitimate, the site from which he posts does nothing to enhance their credibility.

      • blooch

        This is where I first saw the insider last year:

        http://newsflavor.com/

        WH Insider doesn’t seem to be available here anymore….hmmm…but plenty of anti-ulsterman rants now. It used to be schizo ulsterman v. anti-ulsterman, and now it seems to be only anti-ulsterman diatribes. He’s probably playing both sides of the board, a la Phil Hendrie.

        • quakergrey

          I appreciate your mentioning Newsflavor. It came up in my search but I forgot to cite it. Newsflavor is also “powered by Triond” whatever that’s supposed to mean.

          It would be nice if Ulsterman would flesh himself out a little.

  • edwyrd

    zoom the pic. carefully match the story to the expressions. it fits perfectly.

    scary!

    • edwyrd

      suppose hillary has the intention of opposing obama in the democrat primary. Would this not be the perfect ” e tu brutus” moment?

  • Dave_in_Fla

    No one can figure out if the leak exists or not, or if it is invented in Ulstermann’s imagination. However, the stories have been quite good in lining up to events. To be fair, most of the time they fit events that have already happened, and fit a narrative. However, sometime they have been predictive of future events, including how the 2010 election played out, and how the White House stabbed Pelosi in the back.

    I first took notice of this series 3 months before the election, when he was describing how disengaged Obama is (“spends all of his time watching ESPN”). I’ve been keeping his analysis in my head ever since, and I have yet to see a situation that doesn’t fit this narrative. I’ve also been in the West wing before, and the descriptions of physical locations and the ease with which conversations can be over heard in hallways is on the money.

    Now the big prediction from the “leak” is that a significant contingent of the Dem party is “playing to lose” in 2012 to get this guy out of there before he sinks the entire Dem party. If there is a serious primary challenge to Obama, then I will be giving this guy a lot more credibility.

    But for now, I keep taking it with a grain of salt. The narrative may be still be true (and sometimes feels spot on) even if the “leak” is a fake, and this is an elaborate way of explaining a theory of the inner workings of the administration.

    • Dave_in_Fla

      If you are tempted to believe this “leak” then you should also know that on March 29th he gave a dispiriting analysis of the 2012 election which said that Obama is unbeatable, with one exception. That the media campaign and money put into Obama’s reelection are impossible to overcome.

      The only exception is Donald Trump.

      His argument is that the protectionism plays well with the union rank and file.

      PS: He believes Palin would be a repeat of the O’Donnell campaign

      PPS: He also states that the Obama’s would be doing it only to maximize earning potential after he is out of office. He is shooting to pocket hundreds of millions after a 2nd term.

      • Finrod

        Said leaker is going to have all the biases that most Democrats have, which is going to greatly color their view of any Republican, especially ones that might be running for President.

      • Common_Cents

        I think Obama got a taste of celebrity and money and it has battled with his ideology. I think he wants to make a ton of money, play golf, hang out w/ billionaires and celebrities, and give speeches. The ultimate life for obama is like bill clinton.

    • dmacleo

      cannot disporove the stories but just take with grain of salt.
      I will say they SEEM to make sense.
      if this is true there are repercussions we need to watch for.

  • deanayer

    Could Obama make himself any smaller in that picture? I have to give him a tiny bit of credit though because when Bill Clinton had a chance to kill OBL with a tomahawk missile he just kept golfing till the opportunity slipped away.

    If the story is true then the take-away is that Obama is far more concerned about getting reelected than ACTUALLY running the country. Valerie would rather that OBL live to kill more of us one day than risk some kind of mistake in what really was a tiny operation with little chance that we wouldn’t have killed OBL or whoever was in the house.

    I dont blame Bush for not wanting to go to ground zero with Obama because he has developed a nasty habit of slamming people he invites to different events (Trump, Ryan etc.)

    Last thought – what really lends credence to the story is how badly the post-action PR control has been. Nobody can get their facts straight, they still worry about things like not burying OBL right, they are going to release the picture but they are still MIA, Did we mirandize OBL before we shot him? etc. etc. Hopefully by Sunday the PR side of this will have gone completely off the rails and Kroft on 60 minutes will have to throw the most blatant set of softballs to Obama anyone has ever seen in order to puff the little prince back up.

    • SoFiMil

      Wonder if when it comes, Obama will punt and say it was Holder’s call. This after Obama was intricately involved in this whole operation and he was allegedly the final decision maker on all matters.

      Also wonder if Holder will be caught so off guard by the inevitable question, as he was when questioned by Senator Graham,, that he won’t be prepared for the question, and is not prepped for it by his staff.

  • SoFiMil
  • nae32

    Pardon me, he WAS a birther*. Now he’s one of the many claiming they were just asking questions. I highly doubt this gentleman to be legitimate. If he is for real then he’s a traitor for babbling about what goes on in the situation room. Perhaps worse than that he’s betraying his country for what probably amounts to10$ since that’s likely all that site can afford to pay him. Can we please refrain from drawing ridiculous conclusions from a photograph of people staring at a screen. This whole post just seems stupid.

    *http://newsflavor.com/opinions/the-ulsterman-report-obamas-birther-dilemma/

    • SoFiMil

      Scant posting history and no conservative credentials.

      • SoFiMil
      • SoFiMil

        .

  • SoFiMil

    Scant posting history, with no conservative credentials.

  • nae32

    but at least I’m not a traitor or, perhaps more pathetic, a pretend traitor like the source of that article. How is this any different from Bradley Manning talking to Julian Assange about classified information? How is this not treason (even if he’s telling you what you want to hear)? I’m sorry I’m sorry I don’t have conservative credentials on this site, but this entire thread is terrible and if calling out treason gets you banned on this site then I really could care less.

    • Adjoran

      Manning leaked official “secrets” – items which were classified “secret” or “top secret” under the LAWS which govern such things. This is a felony and treason.

      If these leaks are true, they have not released details which would be classified under law. It’s not a “traitor” who reports the President’s decision-making process and who his closest and most influential adviser may be. Of course, only a woefully uninformed person would make such an assumption in the first place, but we must make accommodation for those subjected to public education and unionized teachers.

      • nae32

        So the president’s conversations in the situation room aren’t classified?You’re telling me a foreign government wouldn’t want this information? You’re telling me someone with access to the conversations in the situation room is allowed to just blog away to the world at his hearts content so long as he doesn’t mention a longitude and a latitude? If the source is real (WHICH HE IS NOT) then he is a traitor. I’m just stupified by this thread.

        • SoFiMil

          What Adjoran said is that President Obama, DNI Brennan, Leon Panetta, Jay Carney, and others went on the record as describing events in this operation. I think the White House should all shut up at say nothing, but there’s nothing illegal about going on the record when authorized to do so. Stupid yes, but illegal – no.

          And not to excuse any leaks at all, but they happen all the time. Why are you *suddenly* concerned about leaks?

        • littlehouse18

          then the President is lying to the American people. What is that?

    • streiff

      maybe you’d better read the Constitution for the definition.

      This is not the France of the Sun King, we’re not a “L’?tat, c’est moi” country.

  • ldmartin1959

    “…vividly, in almost Biblical terms…”

    How long is the left going to continue trying to deify this guy?

    • Adjoran

      to drop to kneeling when even thinking or talking about Obama. He was always a hack propagandist, but he used to try to put a veneer of balance on his invective before the arrival of Teh One.

  • pantera

    if this is true it would explain why prez was sinking double bogies sunday.

    msnbc(I think) did mention that the sunday news show were acting as if they knew nothing.

  • 20jan2013

    I am so glad that men and women of principle regardless of party affiliation did what was right for our country, notwithstanding Obama and his useless toady V.G.

    Better to ask for forgiveness than permission! All hail Leon Panetta!

  • 20jan2013
  • godrick

    They have a working history. Remember the rescue of Captain Richard Phillips from the Somali pirates? Obama had no qualms against sending in the SEAL’s. His actions were then, as they were on Sunday, decisive and without hesitation.

    And unless you are ready to call a four-star Marine general a liar, don’t regurgitate the discredited meme that he waivered due to so-called rules of engagement.

    This article was written by Bill Gertz (no liberal by any standard) and published in the Washington TIMES, and it gives a good account of how the president reacted in a crisis:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/22/obama-okd-2-seal-teams-for-pirates/

    Conservatives have plenty of issues with the president, from taxes, to health care, to court appointees, to foreign relations in general. But to argue that he is somehow afraid to exercise decisive, unilateral power is foolish.

    As a candidate he argued that if Bin Laden was in found in Pakistan, he would order his assassination, with or without the help or approval of the Pakistani government. But McCain and most critiques on the right called him reckless and foolish, even contrasted his statements with those of Teddy Roosevelt, arguing he wasn’t walking/talking softly enough.

    Yeah, he could have ordered a covert assassination of Bin Laden and maybe avoided embarrassing the Pakistani government in public. But to hell with that corrupt regime. the only reason we continue to maintain the level of relations we do with them is to keep the supply lines open to Afghanistan.

    Now that Bin Laden is dead, and there are what, maybe 50 Al Qaeda fighters left in the country, maybe it’s time we withdrew our troops, ’cause all we are doing there now is radicalizing more young Pashtun men to join the Taliban and propping up a corrupt, despotic heroin-fueled government.

    But of course, come July, the president’s critics will start whining that we are withdrawing from Afghanistan without have “won” the war. Well, if the objective was to rout Al Qaeda and kill Bin Laden, I’d say the war was won three days ago.

    • streiff

      1. Ever stop to consider why the president was involved in a decision that in the past had been delegated to the commander at the scene?

      2. The typical big city mayor okays more SWAT team shootings in a year than Obama has killed pirates.

      3. Obama never claimed he would order bin Laden’s “assassination.”

      4. “Radicalizing young Pashtun men”? What a moronic statement.

      5. The Taliban is funded by the heroin trade, not the Karzai government.

      • godrick

        I’ll take it point-by-point:

        1. Ever stop to consider why the president was involved in a decision that in the past had been delegated to the commander at the scene?

        Read the Gertz article. The go-ahead WAS left to the commander at the scene. But I would hope that ANY president would be “involved” when the actions an elite team of commandos risk the security of our armed forces and US civilians overseas should their mission fail. But maybe you think the likes of Eric Prince should be in charge?

        2. The typical big city mayor okays more SWAT team shootings in a year than Obama has killed pirates.

        Again, if a decision of the “typical big city mayor” put at risk our armed forces and US civilians overseas, I would hope he or she would at least give the White House a call. But since the typical hostage situation doesn’t involve state-sponsored piracy or a titular leader an international terrorist organization that committed history’s worst atrocity on US soil, your counter argument is, in your words, nonsense.

        3. Obama never claimed he would order bin Laden?s ?assassination.?

        Wrong-o, my friend. In the October 7, 2008 town-hall-style debate with John McCain, Obama said, “we will kill Bin Laden” if we find him in Pakistan. You can find the exact quote at the 2:00 minute mark on following video. But golly, you are right, he did not use the word “assassinate,” however I never said that he did.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f4xWorprhM&feature=related

        I said that he said that he would order his assassination, and that is factually and undeniably correct. Pick up your dictionary (that dusty book on the shelf that gets so little use, obviously). You will read that assassination is defined as a politically motivated, targeted killing.

        4. ?Radicalizing young Pashtun men?? What a moronic statement.

        The Taliban is made up almost entirely of young, illiterate Pashtun men, but I will concede to my cultural insensitivity. I beg the forgiveness of the Tajiks or Uzbeks whom I may have offended. Of course, they are probably serving as live target practice for their Taliban “brothers,” so I doubt they will have much time to accept my apology.

        However, If your critique is with my assessment that our presence in Afghanistan radicalizes young, illiterate men, then I have some fine waterfront time-shares in Florida that I’d like to talk to you about. Call me!

        5. The Taliban is funded by the heroin trade, not the Karzai government.

        Of course, what was I thinking! Because two (allegedly) competing groups couldn’t possibly vie for the same high-profit resource. But why don’t we ask President Karzai’s Brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai?

        http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html

        And before you get all “New York SLIMES” on me, the following website cited the article as well.

        http://www.navyseals.com/10-08-daily-update

        So I will reiterate my point, the meme that has been kicking around that Obama lacks the courage or brass cojones to act decisively is demonstrably false. The truth is backed up by solid CONSERVATIVE journalists. But if you would rather cite rumor, innuendo and some some blogger hack with supposed inside information as your resource, then you are always going to be on the defensive.

        From a genuinely conservative perspective, the president IS vulnerable on taxes, health care, court appointments, and arguably, even the US relationship with Israel. Do this country and democracy in general a favor and make it a good fight. Drop the whole “inept, man-boy” argument. The facts don’t support it, and it makes conservatives and conservatism look foolish.

        • streiff

          point by point

          1. Non responsive. Either Obama was involved in a minor incident or he wasn’t. You can’t have him involved but not involved.

          2. Wrong. Killing pirates has been going on for years by US forces and this is the first time the president took part.

          3. Kill does not equal assassinate. Read your own quote again.

          4. Non responsive.

          5. and….?

          The truth is that Obama is at best a micromanager without the skills to micromanage. Nothing you’ve said here does anything but establish your credentials as a shill.

          And please don’t talk to me about a “genuinely conservative perspective.”

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    It does not do us any good politically. IF it were a Republican president then the entire press and entertainment regime could be mobilized to make his indecisiveness a truism even if it were all poppycock.

    But we conservatives cannot do that, and if we insist on believing that it is true we only come off as bitter.

    • littlehouse18

      just having a little fun with what *might* have happened. I think we’re entitled to a little entertaining and intriguing speculation with everything we’re up against in this country these days.

      Admittedly no evidence for the story. It is sad that it sounds plausible given what we’ve seen from this President.

  • poorman2011

    Since this is a subject that is a well kept secret and the inability of washington to keep secrets , I am sure we will hear much more on this as 2012 draws nearer.The suprise package will arrive at a strategic time as they always do,but time will tell if it is fact or fiction.

  • johnt

    A weakling, a wet rag, a nothing, a front man and hired mouth. That’s it, that’s all.
    This is why there is so much delay & confusion in the WH, the factional infighting, who gets to tell O what. Then the dope has to think[?] about it. Before he follows his orders.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    I have no doubt, and adequate proof to know that Obama is feckless, indecisive, detached and often vexed when facing major decisions. Witness, the health care debate, et al in Congress in which he let House and Senate Democrat’s drive most of the process. Some say that was done for political cover. Personally, I can’t be sure. But it appears Mr. Obama set the goal(s) and was perfectly comfortable golfing while legislation was being forced on the American people and then showing up for a signing ceremony. So disinterested? Perhaps.

    But I don’t buy the entire Jarrett angle. This feels like disinformation which doesn’t completely add up. Personally, I believe it is fiction deliberately put out there by another faction within the Democrat Party. Reason? To indirectly shield Obama from any potential fallout for the decision? Add another complication to the overall discussion and thereby limit negative aspects? Who knows. Either way, IMHO something stinks.

    Overall, I have no doubt Obama dithered, was indecisive and generally unpersuaded by the gravity of this situation. We know he waited 16 hours to make a call that should have taken minutes once armed with all the requisite information. So I want to know what he was doing during that period.

    Also, I can see Panetta making that type of call. CIA always adapts and overcomes and our military always has a back-up plan. Plus there is no doubt Obama talked to Jarrett. But again, the story line seems to be a convenient stretch.

    • ss396

      I agree with you. But..
      .
      I cannot see how this would shield Obama against negative fallout. On the one hand, Obama’s speech was full of the I’s: I did this, I monitored that, I approved this, I directed that. His notorious self-promotion aside, this hard refrain of his I’s cannot be dodged. Even if someone else wrote the speech and ‘forced’ him into delivery, he still delivered it. On the other hand, I have trouble seeing how the story presented in this article is somehow better for Obama than negative fallout. The only element for which that could be true would be the threat for Obama to be brought up on charges of Crimes Against Humanity for the targeted assassination. But I don’t see that happening, either.

      We are told on every side: If it’s too good to be true, then it probably is.

      • Marcus_Traianus

        That is one of this administrations favorite tools. Not effective, in y mind, but nonetheless favorite.

        These types of elements obfuscate the issues and make it easier to take credit or deny culpability.

  • Ann_W

    I’m pretty skeptical that someone with that much access in the administration could be leaking without being discovered very quickly, based on which pieces they knew.

    It’s a great story.

  • johnstoirvin

    we have seen what happens with Obama’s involvement and, assuming this article is correct, we have now witnessed what can happen without it. That being the case, I much prefer Obama’s non-participation in any decisions of national importance.

  • Common_Cents

    Panetta announces yesterday photos will be released. HRC confirms.

    Obama announces today, photos will not be shown.

    Let the fireworks and leaks begin!

  • red923

    if Hillary herself (anonymously, of course) leaked the info. It definitely has a ring of truth to it. I found this piece yesterday at Atlas Shrugs and then the original socyberty article. We’ll see if more comes out, but that war room picture speaks volumes.

  • red923

    if Hillary herself (anonymously, of course) leaked the info. It definitely has a ring of truth to it. I found this piece yesterday at Atlas Shrugs and then the original socyberty article. We’ll see if more comes out, but that war room picture speaks volumes.

  • hrreed

    Hello America,

    With the taste of sour grapes in my mouth I give green light credit where it is due. It was bound to happen. In the near 2 1/2 years the Bama has been in the White House he had to get a least something right, Lord knows he has gotten everything else terribly wrong.

    It takes a team to organize and carry out what happened Sunday evening our time. The hard part of that endeavor goes to former Clinton aid Leon Pannetta and the CIA personnel who painstakingly laid the intelligence ground work so the hard part that the military took part in could prove once and for all that our military are the most adept at blowing up things and killing people.

    I wonder how Osama is faring with the this or that number of doe eyed virginial beauties . . . that in reality are indescribably horrifying demons that will torment him through eternity. I say that in jest since Islamic leadership are probably smart enough to know that age old concocted story only works on the crotch mentality Muslims.

    As a former retired military type and red white and blue patriot I do not like the idea that this Jimmah Carter in black face that resides in the peoples house is breathing. Not that I want him pushing up daisies mind you. With every breath he takes as POTUS he continues to spread his poison to do near irrevocable harm to our ‘land of the free and home of the brave’. If he has to breathe, let it be far, far from the White House . . . a collective prayer that this will happen next year would be great my fellow Americans.

    That the Valerie Jarrett, Chicago slumlord story has any credence . . . who knows. If the mans time in the White House is any indication . . . probably. That he surrounds himself with the likes of Ms. Jarrett tells me a whole lot about his character . . . or lack thereof. What the Bama seems to be the most adept at is taking vacations with the fam on the taxpayers tab.

    It doesn’t even matter if he asks former POTUS Bush to stand with him at Ground Zero next Thursday. He won’t because he is a one man show, and the American people have already given high poll ratings to former President Bush for his unceasing dogging of terrorists in general, particularly the late Osama ‘Yo Momma’ bin Laden.

    It also doesn’t matter that an in extremus hypocritical Obama and his Obamaniacs approved an enhanced interrogation technique technique, they demonized the Bush folks for using, namely waterboarding just proves how two faced these people truly are.

    I believe that in most Americans world, any interrogation technique that gets these cutthroat barbarians to spill their guts is fair game, including tainting them with pig to ensure they know beyond doubt they are going to Hell. I mean pig or no pig these animals are doomed to the ‘lake of fire’ described in the New Testament.

    Until ‘We the people . . .’ remove the PC crowd from politics, full respect for the Islamic culture, such as their burial traditions will be adhered to. Satan has to be getting a belly laugh off these foolish people that are so easily led by the nose.

    Thank you Mr. President for finally growing the cajones to just say no to V. Jarrett and get er done. Don’t think though, that this one America first act is going to carry you back into the White House next Election Day . . . far from it dude.

    The Turban Torpedo

  • Common_Cents

    The lies aren’t even good anymore. The level of arrogance is astounding.

    This should be proof positive that all those elites in DC think the rest of us are a bunch of fools.

    That she could look into the camera and say that is just disgusting.