W.H. Insider Says Panetta Ordered The Attack, not Obama

Nmysys wrote: If I didn't copy and paste what I find each day, you Liberals would have nothing to complain about. I have watched the boards when I don't post and there is very little going on.

Within five minutes of getting the link to this posting, I received 9 more copies of the same thing from others I correspond with.

Since you are waiting for me to comment on it, I will wait awhile just to make you stew awhile Archer. I will post my feelings about it after I get the responses from all you America Hating Progressives first.

Ah, now I understand...you don't know what to think until a liberal posts and tell you what they think so you can take the opposite view. Or, until FOX gives you some conservative talking points.

Got it!

Stop hating America Archer!! If you disagree with Nym, you must hate America!

I'd guess that Obama may have decided as his commie mommie taught him, collective decision making. So it is possible the remaining Party faithful chose to go with the mission and overruled him.

towermonkey wrote: Stop hating America Archer!! If you disagree with Nym, you must hate America!

How can I disagree with nmysys? He's afraid to give his opinion . I guess FOX hasn't weighed in on this rumor yet. I was surprised he would admit he was unable to form his own opinion.

The fact that Nym doesn't know what to think until some right-wing blog, and/or FauxNews tells him what to think, is well-known.

Archer:

For an old broad you sure haven't learned anything in all those years of being on the earth.

If you don't like what I post then don't read it! I don't have to do a damn thing to please you or any of the other Liberals that can't wait to pounce on what I post. You haven't had any opinions of your own, just attacks on me so why don't you go back on your meds!!! You sure can't survive without jumping on everything and anything that I post. So now I won't give you the satisfaction of my opinion.

Nmysys wrote: Within five minutes of getting the link to this posting, I received 9 more copies of the same thing from others I correspond with.

Just a suggestion?

You might consider broadening your circle of correspondents.

If I recieved 9 cloned emails telling me how to think every day I'd have a hard time telling thought from propaganda, too.

You are assuming that I received cloned copies of an e-mail. What I received was 9 e-mails giving me the link.

I don't need advice or suggestions from you or anyone else on the left, since you are all drinking too much :Koolaid: but thank you, any way.

I also don't need your advice on who to vote for, but you all seem to be telling us.

It is pretty difficult to say anything about this matter unless you have additional information from truly knowledgeable sources, that NONE of us has. The only thing guiding a discussion here is unabridged biased political position. So, we have the usual attacks and counter attacks and meaningless dribble for the most part. At least towermonkey

"Overruled" and "acted without authorization" are two different things. One is illegal and treasonous and the other gives Obama that arm's reach in case things go sour. Sounds to me like that's what he was looking for - plausible deniability.

provided some significant distinction that need be considered especially if there is any credibility to the story itself. Considering the onset of political election jockeying, I see less and less that can actually be believed as truth reaching the media. Obviously, you political experts are far better at seeing through the veil of BS, so I will sit back and watch your analysis. It should be entertaining and hopefully at some point there will be an element of truth exposed. Just a hope.

Here is a Reuters story which has a few points similar (though not nearly extreme) to the one first posted. But it also gives Obama a lot of credit. Interesting read...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110512/wl_nm/us_binladen_kill

Even in ordering the risky Navy SEAL raid on May 1, Obama made allowances for Pakistan's sensitivities. The raid was carried out by the U.S. military but under CIA legal authorities and command, partly for deniability if something went wrong and partly because the United States is not at war with Pakistan, a U.S. official said.

The first story says it was under the CIA so Obama could blame Panetta if it went bad. This story soothes it more into a deniability issue.

Obama was presented with four scenarios, some of which evoked the 1993 "Black Hawk Down" fiasco in Somalia: The team gets cleanly in and out with bin Laden. The team gets cleanly in and out, but bin Laden is not there. There's a messy situation on the ground, with fighting and casualties, and bin Laden is there. Worst of all was scenario four: the same as scenario three, but with no bin Laden in sight.

"There was discussion of catastrophic -- that was the word we used -- catastrophic outcomes where you had dead or injured U.S. personnel or a hostage-taking," the senior official said.

Obama left the room saying he had not yet made a decision, but a close aide knew that he had. "I knew with 100 percent certainty that he was going to decide to do this because I've worked for him for four years. I just knew. He said he'd do this."

Three days later, the group gathered in the White House Situation Room to monitor the raid as it unfolded. A mood of "tense silence" filled the room as Obama and the advisers waited for the next pieces of information. Then Panetta spoke the words U.S. officials had hoped to hear for years: "Geronimo" -- a code phrase meaning bin Laden had been found -- "EKIA." Enemy killed in action.

This second quote makes it unclear if Obama ever made a decision. The first story said he never did.