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

You just validated my point.

I just don't understand why you rag on Nmysys about his posts when you post very few OP's yourself. There are no TOS rules , it's just an observation of mine. If you were an original posting maniac then I could understand your rant, but seriously, he's right. This place is as much fun as watching paint dry when the opposition stops posting.

That's all.

Trouble wrote: You just validated my point.

I just don't understand why you rag on Nmysys about his posts when you post very few OP's yourself. There are no TOS rules , it's just an observation of mine. If you were an original posting maniac then I could understand your rant, but seriously, he's right. This place is as much fun as watching paint dry when the oppositon stops posting. That's all.

Well, that made no sense. Are you trying to say that if I don't start a lot of threads then I don't have the right to comment on someone elses thread? really?

Are the conservatives so insecure that they don't want any liberals to comment on their posting style? Are they so insecure that if you ask them for their opinion you are out of line because they don't want to give it? or don't have one?

When did asking someone for their opinion become a rant?

and....when did you become the sole member of the posting police?

Validation. Again.

I keep waiting for the libs to start threads about all the wonderful things the Obama administration is doing.....in 2 1/2 years, "we got Bin Laden!!!" How many years until the next good thing?

Nmysys wrote: 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 .

Read More:
http://socyberty.com/issues/white-house-insider-obama-hesitated-panetta-issued-order-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/4/

So if I decide to fully believe what you have posted you are telling me that Gen Petraeus, violated the UCMJ, violated is oath as an officer. Somehow I do not think so. Gen Petraeus would not go there and endanger his outstanding career. He follows the orders given him and knows who those officers are. One being The President of the United States. The other two being Chairman Joint Chiefs and Chief of staff of the Army Gen Dempsey. Isn't interesting that neither one of those two were named. So when there is some facts to back that up, I'll go with the I don't think so.

Trouble wrote:

archer wrote: nmysys....once again a copy paste without comment. You love to post this stuff and see what happens. How about you give us YOUR take on this rumor before the thread heads off into another direction. Will you put yourself on record as to your judgement on it's veracity?

Funny that once again the very one that complains about this post and its author seldom if ever authors an original post. Whatever.

I think both are deflections and are used as a substitute for anything of substance. No one is obligated to originate threads or to give personal comment on threads they originate. To suggest ether is petty and ignorant.

Who cares, he's dead we need to move on and get the rest of them so the troops can come home.

Wow....it never occurred to me that asking someone for their opinion on an article they themselves posted, could cause such an uproar.

archer wrote: Wow....it never occurred to me that asking someone for their opinion on an article they themselves posted, could cause such an uproar.

It is what it is. Difficult to understand. It's just an opinion, so why the games? Even if you have no opinion, you can state that too.

A few possible takes:

a) Plausible deniability (per Towermonkey)
b) Panetta and Clinton are working to run Obama out of office. Remember Panetta is a Clinton loyalist (conspiracy theory)
c) Conservative commentators are looking for gossip that will effectively neutralize the President's recovering approval rating.

The death of OBL will go down in history as one of the President's few accomplishments (along with his inspiring, but ineffective speeches).