The " Politics " of Bin Laden.... NOT A CELEBRATION Thread!
- Thread starter The Other Side
- Start date
trplnkl
555
Actually all you have done is state your point. I saw [-]0bama [/-] 0 proof of anything.
Sore losers. Enjoy his re-election.
Peace.
Peace.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
more on just who ordered the military action on ubl.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130701232638/http://emergingcorruption.com/2011/05/4762/
Updated: White House ‘Coup’ over Osama According to ‘Insider’
Ulsterman serves to point out how this report is corroborated by facts later revealed: “The Ulsterman Report: Obama’s Ground Zero Hypocrisy,” 5/5/2011.
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.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130701232638/http://emergingcorruption.com/2011/05/4762/
Updated: White House ‘Coup’ over Osama According to ‘Insider’
Ulsterman serves to point out how this report is corroborated by facts later revealed: “The Ulsterman Report: Obama’s Ground Zero Hypocrisy,” 5/5/2011.
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.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
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.
trplnkl
555
To date, just another opinion not proven.
klein
Für Meno :)
I'm 99% certain you won't blame Obama after his second term for leaving a huge debt, right ?
He won't be there, so blame it on the newcommer ! - I wish him/her good luck !
(but alot of times I'm 1 % wrong)
Nimnim
The Nim
I'm 99% certain you won't blame Obama after his second term for leaving a huge debt, right ?
He won't be there, so blame it on the newcommer ! - I wish him/her good luck !
(but alot of times I'm 1 % wrong)
klein, if whoever follows Obama just increases instead of decreases, or at least doesn't have a plan that shows they want to reduce the debt, then I'd blame them too. From me Bush gets some blame for the current debt, but Obama seems to have no concern about stopping the runaway train he's now conducting.
klein
Für Meno :)
I would normally agree with you, but Bush was running a 1.2 Trillion deficit a year, I believe, with the lowest unemployment numbers , ever !
Had a housing boom, too.
But, still lost !
Obama comes in, biggest recession in our life time, does a stimulus program, and still has to deal with the 1.2 Trillion deficit it would have been in good times. (under Bush).
Now, I need to set another Canada example : We also had stimulus, gave money to GM, too, and ran into deficit spending.
The good thing is, the stimulus program has stopped, and now we can await budget surpluses soon, again.
Compared to the US, that's just not good enough, the US needs to go back to the Clinton ages, and demolish that spending Bush has put in place, like Medicare part B and tax cuts.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Klein, just to clarify your already over confused mind. Bush NEVER ran against bhos. He served his two terms as POTUS ( the max. allowed ) and retired.
curiousbrain
Well-Known Member
Under these two threads of logic, though, isn't 9/11 entirely Bush's fault?
That is not to say that I think it is, but if you two believe strongly that Obama is to be held to task for every event since he took the White House, why should his predecessors not be held to the same standards?
edit: One might also add the economic collapse to the list of things that happened while Bush occupied the White House.
Last edited by a moderator:
trplnkl
555
Bush is already being blamed for that.
curiousbrain
Well-Known Member
By the purveyors of the two aforementioned threads of logic?
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Also using that same logic, Bush get's all the blame for not capturing OBL and Obama and Obama alone gets all the credit.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
Keeping with this theme, would this mean that Reagan gets all of the credit for the release of the Iranian hostages on his Inauguration Day?
Similar threads
