Obama (Chickened Out) Cancelled Missions to Kill Laden 3 TIMES Until Hillary Clinton Stepped In

Full title of Article:EXCLUSIVE: Obama 'cancelled missions to kill bin Laden THREE TIMES after getting cold feet - until Hillary Clinton stepped in', claims explosive new book

Barack Obama cancelled three operations to kill Osama bin Laden before finally going ahead with the mission at the insistence of Hillary Clinton, according to a new book.

The explosive allegation is contained in an expose by journalist Rich Miniter, who argues that the White House’s carefully-crafted narrative of Obama as a decisive leader who dispatched the al-Qaeda leader despite the doubts of advisers is a myth.

The killing of bin Laden is at the centre of Obama’s re-election campaign and is likely to be highlighted yet again by his aides on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks next month. Obama has already come under fire from former SEALs for trumpeting his role in the raid.

Miniter portrays Clinton as the main force behind killing bin Laden and contends that the prevaricating Obama has been in thrall to a number of dominant women – Clinton, top adviser Valerie Jarrett and his wife Michelle.

It was Jarrett, a long-time Chicago ally, he reports, who urged Obama to cancel the first three operations to kill bin Laden.

Miniter writes that Clinton’s alliances with Leon Panetta, then CIA director and now Pentagon chief, and David Petraeus, then head of US and Nato forces in Afghanistan and now at the helm at the CIA, were critical in bringing bin Laden to justice.

At the start of his presidency, Miniter writes, Obama was ‘studiously undecided’ about whether to kill the mastermind of 9/11.

In January, 2008 Hillary sat I think it was 60 minutes. oh so prissy, brimming with bawlsy chutzpah, bloviating so cockily about how she was the only one eligible for the Democratic nomination for president.

The amazing thing was that she had the characteristics, moxie if not having the bonafide credentials of, as president, you could have heard a pin drop in all political circles that she was right about the Democratic nomination being hers, acknowledging she had to work hard to get it, to get the nominating magic number but it was never a question of if but when. After all, she had the best campaigner ever in the guise of former President Clinton who was going to give it all to become first Husband, First Man, whatever, historic in its own right. And they would rule the nation for eight beautiful years as America's first husband-wife despots.

It was all set. Hillary felt it, Bill did,too. The White House was theirs. But along comes this unknown outsider, speaking gloriously in 'teleprompter' and indeed usurped the presidency from the Clintons like taking candy from a baby.

Bill did erupt on several occasions over Obama but in the end he had no choice but to be politically congenial, even helpful as a fellow Democrat, former president.

Were the Clintons' mad that Obama stole what they believed with all their heart was politically, rightfully theirs? Mad? Livid, enraged, infuriated hardly begins to describe it.

We all know the Clintons' penchant for dirty politics, nothing ever being too dirty. The Clintons hate Obama more than is possible to convey for what they believe he so viciously stole from them. Of course it was the Clintons behind all of this. And I would say we haven't begun to see how Clintonesque things are going to get for the Big Fat Zero as time goes on.

I've always believed senior U.S. officials knew bin Laden’s location shortly after he relocated to the Abbottaba compound in 2006. U.S. intelligence had sources in the Pakistani ISI and the army. There was a huge bounty on bin Laden’s head. I think the reason the Bush Administration didn't act was because of drawn out negotiations with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia who was paying the Paks to keep bin Laden under house arrest. With U.S. troops in Afghanistan and their primary logistical route controlled by Pakistan Bush had to weigh the safety of U.S. soldiers against justice for bin Laden. The Saudis didn't want Osama interrogated because he could implicate his Arab financiers.

I think the official story about the CIA identifying and tracking bin Laden’s courier is true but it was done to further confirm bin Laden’s location and to determine if bin Laden still had any operational influence on al Qaeda or if he was “on ice” like the Saudis claimed.

During the presidential primary debates Obama said repeatedly he wouldn't hesitate ordering an armed incursion into Pakistan to get bin Laden. He was so strident and cavalier on this point that he was criticized for harming relations with Pakistan. It's possible a partisan source in the State Department or National Security Council leaked information to the Obama camp about bin Laden’s hideout.

I think by the time Obama took office a solution to the Saudi problem had been worked out—Osama couldn't be taken alive. With the Paks it was more complicated. Bin Laden had been a “guest” of Pakistan for five years during which time more and more people in the military, the government and Islamist groups knew about it. If Osama was killed on Pakistani soil or simply disappeared the consequences could be riots, destabilization, a military coup or all the above.

The longer secret negotiations went on the greater the chance everything would leak out to the world press resulting in diplomatic chaos and “alot of ‘splain to do.” Or bin Laden’s confederates might spring him from Abbottaba and hide him in the mountains.

Whatever the dialog was between the White House, State, and the Pentagon, Obama may have wanted to stage the raid as close as possible to the 2012 elections. The Joint Chiefs would likely urge caution with the prospect of the Port of Karachi being closed to U.S. supply ships and the ISI fomenting even more bloodshed in Afghanistan. Hillary I think would also urge caution and continued negotiation rather than risk further alienating Pakistan. A hostile incursion into Pakistan, an operation that Obama would shout to the world, could set off a chain of events leading to insurrection and Taliban control of the government and its nuclear arsenal.

Obama, the “smartest guy in the room,” may have ruled—in the absence of a deal with Pakistan—to execute the raid in 2012. At that point Hillary, Panetta and the Pentagon may have demanded that Obama act immediately before the Paks got wind of the plan and moved bin Laden.

I’ve always said that if you looked at the picture of the command center in the white house during the Osama raid and were asked (if you did not know who any of these people were) which one of these people would you say was the President. Obama is the last person you would geuss was in charge.

That's because whoever photoshopped Obomba's image into that picture didn't scale him properly, so he looks much smaller than anyone else in the room. If he was actually there when the picture was taken, he would be in the fancy chair that the general is sitting in. King Barry was probably still on the golf course when that picture was taken.

Wouldn't that imply that the OPSEC guys' sources on SEAL Team 6 either didn't recognize UBL, or lied about it? To me, that seems even harder to believe.

Ask Jessica Lynch. Ask the brass who spat upon every Silver Star winner by awarding one to Pat Tillman for his heroism in a firefight that they knew never happened.

And how could they "recognize UBL"????

I'm not saying one should trust every Pentagon flack who is pushed out onto the stage, but that the simplest explanation for the facts is the best place to start. I don't start with the official story of killing Obama; I start with the fact that the SEALs and the intelligence veterans were furious enough to make a video about it. Since the video makes Zippy look like a posturing loser, I doubt his administration put them up to it. If there was no raid, they wouldn't be mad; if it wasn't UBL, they'd have no reason to say it was. Woo-hoo! Revealing the truth about that would the the ultimate payback to Zippy. And a false target ID was not one of the SEALs' objections.

How could they recognize UBL? I don't see why not. They had pictures, videos, and physical descriptions of the guy, including accounts by local spies who knew he was there. And unlike the SEALs, UBL was in his PJs instead of battle-rattle. In every other raid I've read or heard about, training every team member to recognize the target, other threats, known family members, and likely innocent bystanders is as much a part of the preparation as memorizing the layout of the compound. I don't see why—unless shown otherwise—the basic rules wouldn't apply here as well.

In the Lynch and Tillman cases, there was an obvious motive for the initial false accounts: The truth made the Pentagon look incompetent. Jessica Lynch's actual experience makes it clear why girl soldiers are a farcical idea. Tillman's death was one in a long history of friendly-fire disasters that have been fibbed about since the cave men.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.