PDA

View Full Version : Obama Panetta was "gutsy" not Obama-The Inside Story-And it appears....


Chiefshrink
05-23-2011, 08:53 PM
that Valerie Jarrett is Obama's brain and decision maker or lack of decision making however you want to interpret it.

Very interesting read and not one bit surprised:rolleyes:

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

May 3, 2011"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.

What happened from there is what was described by me as a “masterful manipulation” by Leon Panetta. Panetta indicated to Obama that leaks regarding knowledge of Osama Bin Laden’s location were certain to get out sooner rather than later, and action must be taken by the administration or the public backlash to the president’s inaction would be “…significant to the point of political debilitation.” It was at that time that Obama stated an on-ground campaign would be far more acceptable to him than a bombing raid. This was intended as a stalling tactic, and it had originated from Jarrett. Such a campaign would take both time, and present a far greater risk of failure. The president had been instructed by Jarrett to inform Mr., Panetta that he would have sole discretion to act against the Osama Bin Laden compound. Jarrett believed this would further delay Panetta from acting, as the responsibility for failure would then fall almost entirely on him. 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. Basically, the whole damn operation was already ready to go – including the specific team support Intel necessary to engage the enemy within hours of being given notice. Panetta then made plans to proceed with an on-ground assault. This information reached either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates first (likely via military contacts directly associated with the impending mission) who then informed the other. Those two then met with Panetta, who informed each of them he had been given the authority by the president to proceed with a mission if the opportunity presented itself. Both Gates and Clinton warned Panetta of the implications of that authority – namely he was possibly being made into a scapegoat. Panetta admitted that possibility, but felt the opportunity to get Bin Laden outweighed that risk. During that meeting, Hillary Clinton was first to pledge her full support for Panetta, indicating she would defend him if necessary. Similar support was then followed by Gates. The following day, and with Panetta’s permission, Clinton met in private with Bill Daley and urged him to get the president’s full and open approval of the Panetta plan. Daley agreed such approval would be of great benefit to the action, and instructed Clinton to delay proceeding until he had secured that approval. Daley contacted Clinton within hours of their meeting indicating Jarrett refused to allow the president to give that approval. Daley then informed Clinton that he too would fully support Panetta in his actions, even if it meant disclosing the president’s indecision to the American public should that action fail to produce a successful conclusion. Clinton took that message back to Panetta and the CIA director initiated the 48 hour engagement order. At this point, the President of the United States was not informed of the engagement order – it did not originate from him, and for several hours after the order had been given and the special ops forces were preparing for action into Pakistan from their position in Afghanistan, Daley successfully kept Obama and Jarrett insulated from that order.

This insulation ended at some point with an abort order that I believe originated from Valerie Jarrett’s office, and was then followed up by President Obama. This abort order was later explained as a delay due to weather conditions, but the actual conditions at that time would have been acceptable for the mission. A storm system had been in the area earlier, but was no longer an issue. Check the data yourself to confirm. Jarrett, having been caught off guard, was now scrambling to determine who had initiated the plan. She was furious, repeating the acronym “CoC” and saying it was not being followed. This is where Bill Daley intervened directly. The particulars of that intervention are not clear to me beyond knowing he did meet with Jarrett in his office and following that meeting, Valerie Jarrett was not seen in the West Wing for some time, and apparently no longer offered up any resistance to the Osama Bin Laden mission. What did follow from there was one or more brief meetings between Bill Daley, Hillary Clinton, a representative from Robert Gates’ office, a representative from Leon Panetta’s office, and a representative from Jim Clapper’s office. I have to assume that these meetings were in essence, detailing the move to proceed with the operation against the Osama Bin Laden compound. I have been told by more than one source that Leon Panetta was directing the operation with both his own CIA operatives, as well as direct contacts with military – both entities were reporting to Panetta only at this point, and not the President of the United States. There was not going to be another delay as had happened 24 hour earlier. The operation was at this time effectively unknown to President Barack Obama or Valerie Jarrett and it remained that way until AFTER it had already been initiated. President Obama was literally pulled from a golf outing and escorted back to the White House to be informed of the mission. Upon his arrival there was a briefing held which included Bill Daley, John Brennan, and a high ranking member of the military. When Obama emerged from the briefing, he was described as looking “very confused and uncertain.” The president was then placed in the situation room where several of the players in this event had already been watching the operation unfold. Another interesting tidbit regarding this is that the Vice President was already “up to speed” on the operation. A source indicated they believe Hillary Clinton had personally made certain the Vice President was made aware of that day’s events before the president was. The now famous photo released shows the particulars of that of that room and its occupants. What that photo does not communicate directly is that the military personnel present in that room during the operation unfolding, deferred to either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates. The president’s role was minimal, including their acknowledging of his presence in the room.

At the conclusion of the mission, after it had been repeatedly confirmed a success, President Obama was once again briefed behind closed doors. The only ones who went in that room besides the president were Bill Daley. John Brennan, and a third individual whose identity remains unknown to me. When leaving this briefing, the president came out of it “…much more confident. Much more certain of himself.” He was also carrying papers in his hand that quite possibly was the address to the nation given later that evening on the Bin Laden mission. The president did not have those papers with him prior to that briefing. The president then returned to the war room, where by this time, Leon Panetta had personally arrived and was receiving congratulations from all who were present.

In my initial communication to you of these events I described what unfolded as a temporary Coup initiated by high ranking intelligence and military officials. I stand by that term. These figures worked around the uncertainty of President Obama and the repeated resistance of Valerie Jarrett. If they had not been willing to do so, I am certain Osama Bin Laden would still be alive today. There will be no punishment to those who acted outside the authority of the president’s office. The president cannot afford to admit such a fact. What will be most interesting from here is to now see what becomes of Valerie Jarrett. One source indicated she is threatening resignation. I find that unlikely given my strong belief she needs the protection afforded her by the Oval Office and its immense powers to delay and eventually terminate investigations back in Chicago, but we shall see.

http://socyberty.com/issues/white-house-insider-obama-hesitated-panetta-issued-order-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/#ixzz1NEbG308T

Jenson71
05-23-2011, 09:00 PM
Washington D.C. Insider! LMAO

Chiefshrink
05-24-2011, 07:30 AM
Washington D.C. Insider! LMAO

Jenson71! LMAO

Jenson71
05-24-2011, 07:31 AM
You still chasing the real, real, real birth certificate?

Chiefshrink
05-24-2011, 08:11 AM
You still chasing the real, real, real birth certificate?

I chase nothing and never have. I only critique what is and and is not presented in real hard facts of any facet of life apart from this whole SSN/BC issue of "O poser".

Conspiracy loons do not.

You see a good therapist is also a good detective as well asking all the hard possible questions they can in order to fill in the holes so that they can make sense of the behavior/emotional pain and then address accordingly. Likewise good detectives learn to be good therapists to get info as well. This means that good therapists can spot BS liars a mile away when the numbers don't add up. Sometimes the clients know they are lying and sometimes they don't.

There are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many unanswered questions about "Obama" that have not been adequately and truthfully answered and as time goes on we see that "O" is becoming more of a "sociopathic liar" than Bill Clinton ever was as the facts come out.

I see you are still chasing "Marxist Utopia":rolleyes:

patteeu
05-24-2011, 08:18 AM
Good story. Sorry that I have to be ultra-skeptical.

mlyonsd
05-24-2011, 08:26 AM
Good story. Sorry that I have to be ultra-skeptical.Yeah until FOX picks up the story and digs out all the details I am too. After all even the WH says they are fair and balanced.

Chiefshrink
05-24-2011, 08:33 AM
Good story. Sorry that I have to be ultra-skeptical.

Based on what we have seen with past behavior of "O" these last 3yrs (leading from behind-which really means no leadership at all-a la letting others lead and refuses to make decisions-remember the sitting on hands about sending more troops to Afghanistan for months on end among other issues?)

It is a good story to you because it is very plausible based on past behavior regardless the source. Your intuitional critical analysis is honest.

thecoffeeguy
05-24-2011, 08:58 AM
http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=46960&Cat=1&dt=5/14/2011


http://www.wabcradio.com/FlashPlayer/default.asp?SPID=33447&ID=2179285

FishingRod
05-24-2011, 08:59 AM
I would hope this is not a true story. If proven false some heads should roll. If proven true even more heads should roll. Those that “over ruled” the POTUS would need a serious butt kicking for circumventing the chain of command and Obama should resign in disgrace. I’m leaning strongly toward disingenuous dirty politics from either the Right or those on the Left that never got over Hilary not being the president.

Jaric
05-24-2011, 09:15 AM
Good story. Sorry that I have to be ultra-skeptical.

This.

ROYC75
05-24-2011, 09:50 AM
Good story. Sorry that I have to be ultra-skeptical.

I have to agree, this is either one good story to stir up a confrontation or in the event it is true we have MAJOR issues on Capital Hill.

Taking a wait and see approach.

vailpass
05-24-2011, 10:08 AM
Washington D.C. Insider! LMAO

Haven't seen you around here for a while. Where you been?

ROYC75
05-24-2011, 10:12 AM
Haven't seen you around here for a while. Where you been?

:doh!: Ouch.

patteeu
05-24-2011, 12:55 PM
Based on what we have seen with past behavior of "O" these last 3yrs (leading from behind-which really means no leadership at all-a la letting others lead and refuses to make decisions-remember the sitting on hands about sending more troops to Afghanistan for months on end among other issues?)

It is a good story to you because it is very plausible based on past behavior regardless the source. Your intuitional critical analysis is honest.

Right. The story is good because it's built on the basis of a truth we have come to know about Obama, but it takes that truth to an extreme that makes it difficult to believe. Particularly since it comes from an anonymous source that inexplicably decided to leak it to an obscure web page instead of a media outlet people have heard of.

Jaric
05-24-2011, 01:27 PM
Right. The story is good because it's built on the basis of a truth we have come to know about Obama, but it takes that truth to an extreme that makes it difficult to believe. Particularly since it comes from an anonymous source that inexplicably decided to leak it to an obscure web page instead of a media outlet people have heard of.

More of "this."

Chiefshrink
05-24-2011, 09:26 PM
Right. The story is good because it's built on the basis of a truth we have come to know about Obama, but it takes that truth to an extreme that makes it difficult to believe. Particularly since it comes from an anonymous source that inexplicably decided to leak it to an obscure web page instead of a media outlet people have heard of.

I would seriously bet the Mainstream Marxist Press already knows this story and refuses to run with it because they are the ones who got this President elected(by not vetting and asking the hard questions because Obama's worldview is their worldview of Progressive Marxism) and they must save face for themselves by saving Obama at every turn regardless of how incompetent he appears. Fox is even getting soft IMO to some degree.

KC native
05-24-2011, 09:31 PM
I would seriously bet the Mainstream Marxist Press already knows this story and refuses to run with it because they are the ones who got this President elected(by not vetting and asking the hard questions because Obama's worldview is their worldview of Progressive Marxism) and they must save face for themselves by saving Obama at every turn regardless of how incompetent he appears. Fox is even getting soft IMO to some degree.

:LOL: You are a seriously deranged individual.

Jenson71
05-24-2011, 10:10 PM
I see you are still chasing "Marxist Utopia":rolleyes:

How much do you donate to Family Radio per year?

Chiefshrink
05-24-2011, 10:18 PM
:LOL: You are a seriously deranged individual.

Deranged? Seriously?

Lets see:hmmm:

1. Unemployment at 9%(a la TARP fails)
2. 5$ a gal gas around the corner
3. Rising food prices
4. Housing market in complete 'shambles'
5. Obama's own Libyan War
6. Obama took office when the debt was 5 tril only to knock up it to 14 tril in just under 3yrs.

And yet 'nary a word' from the Marxist Press !!

If this were Bush in office or any Republican you think they would be quiet?

HELL NO!!! They proved this already back in 2007 when gas hit $4.50 a gal.

Now who is deranged?????????????????:shrug:

Chiefshrink
05-24-2011, 10:19 PM
How much do you donate to Family Radio per year?

How much do you donate to Soros?

Jenson71
05-24-2011, 10:22 PM
Deranged? Seriously?

Lets see:hmmm:

1. Unemployment at 9%(a la TARP fails)
2. 5$ a gal gas around the corner
3. Rising food prices
4. Housing market in complete 'shambles'
5. Obama's own Libyan War
6. Obama took office when the debt was 5 tril only to knock up it to 14 tril in just under 3yrs.

And yet 'nary a word' from the Marxist Press !!


I will bet you I can find articles from the NYTimes addressing all of those topics in the past month. Want to take that bet?

Jenson71
05-24-2011, 10:26 PM
How much do you donate to Soros?

You strike me as the type of person who would drop everything to preach about the world ending on May 21/October 21. Did you not donate to Harold Camping?

Jenson71
05-24-2011, 10:44 PM
Haven't seen you around here for a while. Where you been?

It was pretty funny to see who came out as being a reporter (the mods, by the way, made a principled decision that deserves no repudiation). Instead of saying, "I told on Jenson71 because I don't like him" you end up saying "I was worried about the family-friendly atmosphere of the board." Your pretext for reporting me was that other people (people who could certainly PM the mod themselves if they were offended) might be offended about what I said.

Of course, those who ordinarily would be offended by what I said, would more than likely have supported my overall message and purpose of what I was doing.

You are an unprincipled hack. And I say that without any hard feelings about what happened.

Chiefshrink
05-24-2011, 10:47 PM
You strike me as the type of person who would drop everything to preach about the world ending on May 21/October 21. Did you not donate to Harold Camping?

Go read Matthew 24:36 and you will have your answer:thumb:

Chiefshrink
05-24-2011, 10:50 PM
I will bet you I can find articles from the NYTimes addressing all of those topics in the past month. Want to take that bet?

How they address those issues makes all the difference in the world. Wanna bet they don't go after Obama like they did Bush?

Jenson71
05-24-2011, 10:52 PM
How they address those issues makes all the difference in the world. Wanna bet they don't go after Obama like they did Bush?

Excuse me, you said that the Marxist Media said "nary a word" on the topics. Are you changing your words, now?

Chiefshrink
05-24-2011, 11:00 PM
Excuse me, you said that the Marxist Media said "nary a word" on the topics. Are you changing your words, now?

Okay let me clarify since you are splitting hairs here like a good soon to be ACLU lawyer.

I should have said "very little negative attention" directed to Obama. More like, "These problems are bigger than we thought" (a la- to incompetent to handle so let's pass the buck back to Bush)

Captain Obvious
05-24-2011, 11:03 PM
I'm waiting until we get confirmation from WND.

Chiefshrink
05-24-2011, 11:09 PM
I'm waiting until we get confirmation from WND.

Captain Oblivious my man!! How have you been brother? You still in the dark?:thumb:

Jenson71
05-24-2011, 11:14 PM
Okay let me clarify since you are splitting hairs here like a good soon to be ACLU lawyer.

I should have said "very little negative attention" directed to Obama. More like, "These problems are bigger than we thought" (a la- to incompetent to handle so let's pass the buck back to Bush)

And by splitting hairs, you mean differentiating between a factual statement and a completely biased opinion you hold.

Chiefshrink
05-24-2011, 11:26 PM
And by splitting hairs, you mean differentiating between a factual statement and a completely biased opinion you hold.

Please go and find a sh**load of links from the Mainstream Marxist Press(TV,Internet,Print) that seriously goes after Obama in a very negative light(actually blaming "O"'s policies and legislation for continuing this recession) on all the national issues I posted earlier and we'll see if my biased opinion holds any water?

Ugly Duck
05-25-2011, 01:59 AM
Washington D.C. Insider! LMAO

Washington D.C. Insider has all kinds of blockbuster "secret info" from unnamed sources that even Faux News won't embarrass themselves with - and thats saying a lot! Its The Onion of right-wing Obama haters...

White House Insider: Obama Battling Severe Depression

White House Insider On Obama: President Losing It

Washington Insider: Obama Member of Chicago Gay Man’s Club

http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/gayday-by-bob-keyser4.jpg?w=500&h=281

patteeu
05-25-2011, 05:47 AM
I would seriously bet the Mainstream Marxist Press already knows this story and refuses to run with it because they are the ones who got this President elected(by not vetting and asking the hard questions because Obama's worldview is their worldview of Progressive Marxism) and they must save face for themselves by saving Obama at every turn regardless of how incompetent he appears. Fox is even getting soft IMO to some degree.

Come on. You can't really believe this. Just because you want it to be true doesn't mean it's likely to be true. There are a lot of members of the mainstream media who will spin to protect the administration, but you can't believe that everyone would spike this story completely. Someone would break it if there was any truth to it.

patteeu
05-25-2011, 05:50 AM
Deranged? Seriously?

Lets see:hmmm:

1. Unemployment at 9%(a la TARP fails)
2. 5$ a gal gas around the corner
3. Rising food prices
4. Housing market in complete 'shambles'
5. Obama's own Libyan War
6. Obama took office when the debt was 5 tril only to knock up it to 14 tril in just under 3yrs.

And yet 'nary a word' from the Marxist Press !!

If this were Bush in office or any Republican you think they would be quiet?

HELL NO!!! They proved this already back in 2007 when gas hit $4.50 a gal.

Now who is deranged?????????????????:shrug:

They might sometimes try to put a happy face on some of this and they might not trumpet it in the way they would if a Republican was in office, but you can find quite a bit of coverage of all of those things in the mainstream media today.

patteeu
05-25-2011, 05:53 AM
Please go and find a sh**load of links from the Mainstream Marxist Press(TV,Internet,Print) that seriously goes after Obama in a very negative light(actually blaming "O"'s policies and legislation for continuing this recession) on all the national issues I posted earlier and we'll see if my biased opinion holds any water?

This isn't about a "negative light". This is about complete silence on the story in your OP. Complete silence.

Chiefshrink
05-25-2011, 07:59 AM
They might sometimes try to put a happy face on some of this and they might not trumpet it in the way they would if a Republican was in office, but you can find quite a bit of coverage of all of those things in the mainstream media today.

And that is my point, you may find coverage but not with "near the negative intensity" if any "negative intensity" at all compared to what Bush experienced. And I am no Bush fan.

mlyonsd
05-25-2011, 08:11 AM
And that is my point, you may find coverage but not with "near the negative intensity" if any "negative intensity" at all compared to what Bush experienced. And I am no Bush fan.

Forward the story to Hannity. He'll get to the bottom of it for you.

Chiefshrink
05-25-2011, 08:16 AM
Come on. You can't really believe this.

Patt, I get your point. But, even you would have to admit you have never seen the MSM press 'this corruptedly bias' and a WH admin being their(MSM) true rudder of the selected narrative as opposed to honest objective journalism regardless of politics. I get there has always been some form of corruption in the media as well as with every WH administration to some degree, but not like it is now. So that is why I don't put anything past this Marxist Media and WH:shrug:

I mean hell, you have Stephanopolus and a few others from the media that meet every a.m. for a conference call from the WH as to what the narrative will be for that day.

Jaric
05-25-2011, 08:21 AM
Come on. You can't really believe this. Just because you want it to be true doesn't mean it's likely to be true. There are a lot of members of the mainstream media who will spin to protect the administration, but you can't believe that everyone would spike this story completely. Someone would break it if there was any truth to it.

Get out of my head!

Pedro
05-25-2011, 08:36 AM
I chase nothing and never have. I only critique what is and and is not presented in real hard facts of any facet of life apart from this whole SSN/BC issue of "O poser".

Conspiracy loons do not.

You see a good therapist is also a good detective as well asking all the hard possible questions they can in order to fill in the holes so that they can make sense of the behavior/emotional pain and then address accordingly. Likewise good detectives learn to be good therapists to get info as well. This means that good therapists can spot BS liars a mile away when the numbers don't add up. Sometimes the clients know they are lying and sometimes they don't.

There are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many unanswered questions about "Obama" that have not been adequately and truthfully answered and as time goes on we see that "O" is becoming more of a "sociopathic liar" than Bill Clinton ever was as the facts come out.

I see you are still chasing "Marxist Utopia":rolleyes:
You'd be better off saying "Even a blind pig stumbles across an acorn every now and then". It makes you look obsessive when you take the one success of the Obama administration and insist that Obama had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Give the guy the credit he is due, then vote against him in 2012 because of his failures and bad policy decisions. That's what I intend to do.

NewChief
05-25-2011, 11:04 AM
http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/small/0911/insanity-dubai-insanity-satire-demotivational-poster-1259627173.jpg

Ugly Duck
05-25-2011, 06:09 PM
Now who is deranged?????????????????:shrug:

Well....

BucEyedPea
05-26-2011, 07:50 AM
Based on what we have seen with past behavior of "O" these last 3yrs (leading from behind-which really means no leadership at all-a la letting others lead and refuses to make decisions-remember the sitting on hands about sending more troops to Afghanistan for months on end among other issues?)

It is a good story to you because it is very plausible based on past behavior regardless the source. Your intuitional critical analysis is honest.

Well, at least he knew that we're technically not legally in a state of war making such an act one of extra-judiciary execution. I mean declaring war allows us to use the tools of war. I wonder when conservatives will actually support the US Constitution. ;)

Chiefshrink
05-26-2011, 08:21 AM
http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/small/0911/insanity-dubai-insanity-satire-demotivational-poster-1259627173.jpg

Voting for Obama again in 2012?:shrug:

Chiefshrink
05-26-2011, 08:36 AM
and insist

Really?? I insisted? Nah, just stated it is very plausible based on past behavior of "O" and how the MSM will sit on negative damaging stories i.e. to Obama.

Stated, "I would seriously bet". Based on past behavior of both entities("O" and MSM) that is a good bet IMO.

Welcome to the board "NOOB"!

Chiefshrink
05-03-2012, 11:56 PM
Good story. Sorry that I have to be ultra-skeptical.

No reason to be skeptical now. Did you see Obama's re-election campaign infomercial on this BL takedown they have been showing on TV? It stated he only played 9 holes that day.

Limbaugh was all over it these past 2 days and has a very well respected source not within the regime but someone who he would not say that said literally Obama had no real role in any of this and that he had to be yanked off the golf course once BL was killed for the quick photo op and the phony story of this was all Obama:rolleyes: