Pages: 1 2

Photo Credit: Geoff Livingston Creative Commons

The media are salivating that Osama bin Laden’s death will seal Barack Obama’s re-election. But detailed reports show that the process that led to the event Democrats are calling Obama’s greatest triumph should be tantamount to a disqualification for holding the nation’s highest office. Delving into the details reveals that Obama proved as weak-kneed and indecisive about getting bin Laden as he has about every presidential decision that does not involve spending America into oblivion, advancing fundamentalist Islamic interests, or harassing middle Americans who oppose his agenda.


Advertisement


Analysts confirmed beyond any doubt that Osama bin Laden was on the premises of the Abbottabad compound months ago. This New York Times story notes that Obama asked his key defense advisers for options – on March 22. The Times passes over everything that unraveled in the ensuing month. Outgoing CIA Director Leon Panetta pushed for a response in a meeting held last Thursday. Three reporters at the NYT record Obama’s response: “I’m not going to tell you what my decision is now – I’m going to go back and think about it some more. I’m going to make a decision soon.”

Obama finally came to a conclusion – a mere 16 hours later.

Media Matters excoriates the “right-wing media” as “desperate” for pointing this out, but it seems apropos to note the leader of the free world, charged with keeping the homeland safe and meting justice out to international criminals, could not decide whether the man who planned 9/11 should be killed for two-thirds of a day.

What accounts for this indecision? Some bloggers have highlighted the anonymous tale of an alleged White House “insider” posted here. According to that account:

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. (Emphasis added.)

It is possible this account is genuine, although proof to that effect is underwhelming. It certainly conforms to what we know about Obama and Jarrett. If true, it proves that Obama/Jarrett fret that even the assassination of Osama bin Laden might be an evil act of U.S. aggression.

Pages: 1 2


Don't Miss Out. Subscribe By Email Or Facebook

Email

Facebook