Secretary of Defense Panetta Regrets Expense of Weekend Trips Home

What about when he was CIA Director?  Did he also take weekend trips home?  Why take a job in DC when you know you are going to return home every weekend when you are asking the US taxpayers to foot the bill?  We are not talking about going to Virginia or Maryland for the weekend, we are talking flying over 3,000 miles one way each weekend at taxpayers expense.  Yet the members of Congress who are blind to DoD expenses say they shouldn't be cut.  VIP travel has always been a big budget item for the Air Force because reimbursement is so small compared to the cost of travel.  First class ticket from National to San Francisco is $1,608.80.  Seems the reimbursement people are leaving off $1,000.  Anyone knows that head of agencies always fly first class.

This is a public relations nightmare that Panetta returns home every weekend and the actual cost is $860,000 not the $17,000 he has reimbursed.  I understand he has to stay in contact but he does not have to take trips back to California every weekend.  That is beyond ridiculous.  Saying he makes trips to military bases on Thursday and Friday near California is just taking boondoggles so he can be closer to home for the weekend. Know how that works -- planned enough VIP official visits over time to coordinate with private events that were happening to know how the system works.

Why was Panetta made Secretary of Defense is probably the best question because he has no credentials but then he had none for the CIA either.  His credentials to be CIA Director and Secretary of Defense:

Among his credentials are tours as White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under Bill Clinton. A former nine-term California lawmaker, Panetta also is well-connected on Capitol Hill, and is expected to win easy confirmation as DoD chief

His credentials when looked at were who he knew.  Now we have a SecDef who must return home every weekend.  Just maybe he should have stayed in California when asked to serve.

Leon Panetta Regrets Expense Of Weekend Trips Home        
LOLITA C. BALDOR 04/16/12 04:55 PM ET, AP

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Monday he regrets the cost to taxpayers for his weekend trips to his California home, but says it's important "just to get your mind straight and your perspective straight." 

Panetta said he'd try to find some savings, with each round trip costing approximately $32,000.
"I regret that it does, you know, that it does add costs that the taxpayer has to pick up," Panetta said during a Pentagon briefing Monday, speaking publicly for the first time about the flight costs. "A taxpayer would have to pick up those costs with any secretary of state or secretary of defense. But having said that, I am trying to look at what are ... the alternatives here that I can look at that might possibly be able to save funds and, at the same time, be able to fulfill my responsibilities, not only to my job, but to my family." 

The Associated Press earlier this month detailed the costs of the 27 roundtrip flights home Panetta has taken since he became Pentagon chief last July, as well as the amount he has reimbursed the government for the trips. 

Panetta is required to travel on military aircraft so he can remain in constant, secure contact with the White House and other top civilian and military leaders. And he routinely works, makes phone calls and, when necessary, travels a short distance for secure video conferences while he is at home at his family's walnut farm. 

His bill for the travel is calculated according to reimbursement formulas dictated by longstanding federal policies using what a full-fare coach trip would cost. And the Pentagon says it costs about $3,200 per flight hour to operate the small plane he usually uses for the 10-hour round trip. 

He has reimbursed the Treasury about $17,000 for the travel, based on a government formula, or about $630 per round trip. 

Based on fuel and other operating expenses for his Air Force plane, the 27 trips have cost the government as much as $860,000. 

Typically Panetta flies on an Air Force C-37 – somewhat comparable to a Gulfstream jet – which is the lowest-cost aircraft that can carry the necessary communications equipment.
Panetta did not detail what alternatives he may be looking at in order to find some savings.
Panetta's two predecessors didn't make such frequent, long trips home. Robert Gates spent most weekends in the nation's capital, but traveled occasionally to his family home in Washington state. Donald H. Rumsfeld also lived in the D.C. area, but often spent weekends at his house in St. Michaels on Maryland's Eastern shore. 

(snip) 

On nine occasions so far, Panetta has scheduled domestic trips to bases and other events on Thursdays and Fridays, allowing him to travel part way across the country for business, then fly the rest of the way to California for the weekend. In those cases he reimburses the government for the difference between the cost of the full trip minus the cost of flying directly to the base or official event location and back to Washington. 

Excerpt:  Read More at Huffington Post

The Hill: Lawmakers say base closures DOA

The question of whether the Secretary of Defense Panetta is using the threat of a Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) in order to cut the force is rearing its ugly head in this article.  Looks like Panetta is not serious about another round of base closings even though it is suggested in the budget because no numbers have been tied to the process of the BRAC.

Mackenzie Eaglen, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said that by not attaching a dollar figure to the BRAC round, it appeared unlikely that the Pentagon was that serious about pushing for it. 

As Panetta announced the cuts Thursday, he said the Pentagon “did not want to tie any savings to it because, very frankly, we need the Congress to authorize it.” 

“If we had put numbers in there and then Congress didn’t do it, it would have undermined our whole budget,” Panetta said. 

Is Panetta an honest broker for the Department of Defense?  No is the answer by many people I have talked with who are associated with the DoD.  He is a political animal and will do what is best for the Democrat Party and his boss, Obama.  The cuts in force structure play right to the liberal base of the Democrat Party.

Today we have National Guard and Reserves on almost full time active duty with deployments in and out of the Middle East like they are regular Army.  That is not their mission but the regular military has already sustained so many cuts that they cannot fight a war like in Afghanistan without the reserves and Guard.  How many states have had Guard deployed in the Middle East who return from deployment and six months later are getting set to deploy again?  How many deployments have our regular Army had in and out of the Middle East?  Some are up to six or seven deployments.

The handling of Afghanistan is getting worse not better as more deaths are happening to the military deployed in country.  If we are not in this war to win, then get out.  Sick and tired of a group of politicians and some political generals who refuse to listen to those on the ground who have to do the fighting.  The powers at be sit in their glass houses patting themselves on the back while our military are serving numerous deployments under adverse conditions with one hand tied behind their back due to the Obama Rules of Engagement (ROE).   General Petraeus vowed to "clarify" not change the  ROEs when he was appointed to head the Afghanistan operation before being moved to the CIA and Panetta to Secretary of Defense.  Note it was "clarify" not "change" which means he caved to the Obama faction.

We met a soldier at the Insight Bowl who was home between deployments and would be headed back to Afghanistan as part of his multiple deployments.  His wife had testified before Congress on how the families are being affected and the high incidence of suicide following the deployments.  Under this Administration the families are being left out of the equation.  It is one thing to be an active duty wife with the support around from the base your husband is assigned, but it is another whole story if your spouse is in the reserve or guard and has another job they have to leave to go on active duty.  The Reserve and National Guard were there to supplement not become active duty more than they are not.

The DoD saves money because the Reserves and Guard do not have benefits of the regular service unless they have been activated and are on active duty.  That leaves many families without a true support system.  Does Panetta want more of this with the plan to reduce the active duty force structure?

There is no doubt there is a huge waste of tax dollars in the DoD.  Look no further than the major aerospace companies to find the waste and then in the halls of Congress.  The cuts have to be done with always the thought in mind of what is best for our troops.  McCain put a hold on the new tanker for years which has led to a potential disaster which has not happened due to Boeing and Tinker AFB ensuring that our tanker fleet stays in the air and is well maintained.  That tanker is now more expensive and has created more money being poured into maintaining an aging tanker fleet then should have happened.  In the end it is going to cost the Air Force much more money thanks to one Senator who has it out for the Air Force.

That is a small example but one that is repeated over and over again.  When Congress should take action with the DoD budget, they usually don't but then interfere with contracting and operations when they shouldn't.

Congress needs to get back to being the representatives of the people not special interest.  That would go along way to turning this country around.  Being beholden for campaign contributions to large corporations like Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, Wall Street, unions, or special interest groups has given us members of Congress who put the wishes of their donors first instead of what is good for the Country as a whole.  It is on both sides of the aisle.  No way so much money should be spent on campaigns.

It is time to look at the DoD budget through common sense glasses not the rose colored ones that DoD is always right or the black ones that DoD is always wrong and we can save a ton of money for social engineering programs.  Honesty by the DoD and members of Congress would be a good first step.

Lawmakers say base closures DOA
By Jeremy Herb - 01/30/12 07:51 PM ET 

Lawmakers from both parties are signaling they will do everything in their power to stop the Obama administration from launching another round of military base closures in the United States. 

The plan, included in the Pentagon blueprint for cutting $487 billion that was released last week, calls for another round of the Base Realignment and Closures Commission (BRAC), an independent, all-or-nothing approach to closing military bases that was last used in 2005.
The opposition to another BRAC was swift, as lawmakers from Alaska to Maine voiced opposition.  

Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) put out a joint statement calling the new BRAC round “dead on arrival.” 

Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-Mass.) staff convened a meeting last Thursday on BRAC with aides from seven Northeastern congressional offices, according to congressional sources. 

And the Alaska delegation joined with their governor to pre-emptively denounce any move to close the state’s bases. 

“I’ll be using my position on the Senate Armed Services Committee to demonstrate the enormous strategic value of Alaska’s military bases, and oppose any misguided attempt to close them,” said Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska). 

Lawmakers opposing BRAC have pointed to the 2005 round as an example that base closings don’t demonstrate a clear savings and can cost a lot up front.  

But there’s a regional component at play as well. 

The BRAC proposal highlights the underlying tension between Congress and the Pentagon over the $487 in budget cuts, as a reduction of manpower, bases or weapons contracts means job losses in someone’s congressional district or state. 

“Any member of Congress that has military bases in his district, he or she needs to be extremely conscious and aware of the discussion and the debates that are forthcoming,” Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) told The Hill. “You want to make sure that you can be part of the debate if you see a cut coming that you think is not in the national security interest in this country.” 

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) suggested there were plenty of overseas bases to close before getting to domestic ones, a sentiment multiple senators echoed after Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced the cuts. 

It’s not just the base closings that have the attention of Congress. The plan also calls for a reduction of 100,000 troops and cuts to weapons programs. 

Some critics of the cuts have said their concerns are tied to national security and maintaining the strength of the U.S. military. The most strident critics have warned of a hollowed-out force. 

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) said that Virginia, along with California, Texas and Florida, would likely be hit the hardest by the cuts to the Pentagon, as they are the biggest military states.
In Virginia, the new strategy could lead to a carrier and ships leaving Virginia’s shores, Forbes said. 

He emphasized that he’s concerned about the national-security implications of the military cuts first, and the regional concern is tied to that.

“The reason I’m concerned about regional impact is sometimes I don’t think we do a very good analysis,” Forbes said. “We say we’re doing something for economic reasons, but we don’t realize the huge economic impact it’s having and the problem the impact is creating.” 

Anticipating the reaction in Congress, Panetta said the effect of the new Pentagon budget, which would cut $259 billion in the next five years, would be felt from coast to coast. 

“Make no mistake: The savings that we are proposing will impact on all 50 states and many districts, congressional districts, across America,” Panetta said.  

A former congressman, Panetta said he had been through BRAC before. “I know its weaknesses and its failings,” he said. “But I have to tell you — there is no more effective process to make it happen than using the BRAC process.” 

(snip)

As Congress debates both the Pentagon cuts and the potential BRAC round, some lawmakers and analysts said they didn’t expect regional arguments to have much weight, because they would be coming from every part of the country. 

“There may be some folks who go at it purely on a regional basis, but I think those arguments are going to fall pretty flat,” Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) told The Hill. “If you can couch them in terms of what’s best for defending the country, then the regional stuff will take care of itself.”   

Excerpt:  Read More at The Hill

Washington Whispers: SEALs Angry at Attention, Want it Stopped

From the beginning we have been shocked at the amount of information leaked to the media from Obama and his staff in the White House.  Obama and every person in that situation room agreed to Secretary Gates' demand that nothing be leaked about the operation.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said President Obama's national security team initially agreed to keep details of the bin Laden raid secret, but that didn't work out so well. 

"Frankly, a week ago Sunday, in the Situation Room, we all agreed that we would not release any operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden," Gates said during a town hall with Marines at Camp LeJeune, N.C. "That all fell apart on Monday -- the next day."

Took less than 24 hours and the Counterterrorism Chief Brennan was out shooting off his mouth along with the Press Secretary Carney, and Vice President Biden about details of the operation followed by a some info from Secretary of State Clinton and Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA).  CIA Director Panetta has been giving the facts to counter misinformation that Obama and his minions keep providing the media in their rush to prop up Obama during the week after Bin Laden was killed. The amount of information leaking including now showing the helmet cams of the SEALS where you can make out who they are is beyond disgusting.  Believe now that some members of the Obama media will write and print anything without one thought to who it might harm if it makes Obama look good.

Obama and his minions exposed how our special operations operate, have not protected the location of our SEALS along with their identity with releasing video from the helmet cams, or the data they risked their lives to retrieve from this operation.  This Administration has put the NAVY Seals and all other special operations people at risk with their leaking details of the operation to boost Obama politically.

It goes from the disgusting to the bizarre as Disney is now seeking to trademark "Seal Team Six."  What right did they have to trademark that name?  Then we have the Hero Makers Obama SEAL doll complete with a machine gun for the man that wants gun control.  That action figure may backfire on Obama if the comments on various websites are any indication.  Everyone knows he was playing golf on Sunday afternoon and they had to bring him in from the golf course not to mention he had been dithering on taking out Bin Laden since August 2010 when CIA Director Panetta told him of Bin Laden's whereabouts.

This was a special ops mission that our people could have been killed and Obama, his minions, and now toy makers treat it like it is a movie not reality.

Sad of state of affairs when you cannot trust the occupant of the White House to keep secrets.  Why is Obama so quick to leak what is obvious classified information in violation of his agreement to Gates but keeps anything about himself secret.  He is the most secretive President ever with the biggest mouth when it comes to other people.  He quit protecting the SEALS when he had them fly to Fort Campbell, an Army, base to meet with him and all the leaks have added to the worry about their safety and that of their families.  Obama and his people are providing the Islamic terrorists with a blueprint on how our special operations forces work.  WHY?

Obama has always been about politics and his reelection from day one but this time he has crossed the line putting our military and their families at risk.  If this leaking from the White House keeps up, then we can safely assume Obama and his people could care less about protecting our military who he had such disdain for before he was elected.

SEALs Angry At Attention, Want It Stopped 

By Paul Bedard

Posted: May 13, 2011 

U.S. Navy SEALs, like the teams that killed Osama bin Laden, are grateful for nation's show of support but are growing angry with the continued focus on their operation, tactics, and tools, claiming it could jeopardize future raids and their safety. 

"My friends in the community tell me they're very glad for the bit of attention they got," said former Pentagon deputy undersecretary Jed Babbin, "but at some point the best way to help them is to stop. You guys in the press have done a good job, but stop for God's sake, stop." 

[See photos of the reaction to bin Laden's death.] 

The latest straw came when CBS revealed that the members of Special Warfare Development Group, formerly SEAL Team Six, wore helmet cams into bin Laden's lair. For many, that was a detail too far and could lead those being targeted by the military to somehow deploy countermeasures. 

And Washington Whispers this week reported on two blogs that identified the type of gun the SEALs likely used to kill bin Laden, the HK416 . 

"Anything further that comes out," added Babbin, a sponsor of the Special Operations Warfare Foundation, "could damage their operational security, maybe reveal tricks of the trade or even endanger their families."

Rob Curtis, who writes the Gear Scout blog for Military Times, said that there are concerns that the focus on the bin Laden raid has distracted the special operations world. "There are still plenty of HVTs [high-value targets] out there that Joint Special Operations Command is hunting and according to my sources close to and inside of SOCOM this story has become a huge distraction for the community."

[Check out political cartoons about the War in Afghanistan.] 

What's more, he adds, "It's my feeling that the administration has aimed a spotlight into one of the darkest corners of our national security apparatus without regard for the damage it might do to its ongoing operations."

Of course, President Obama led the SEALs parade, even visiting with many after the killing in Pakistan. What's more, the public has a huge appetite for what some call "SEAL porn," stories about every little detail on how the special operations warriors operate. 

Source: US News and World Report

Once again Paul Bedard of US News and World Report has brought the facts that Obama and the leakers from his Administration along with the Obama media have put these men and their family at risk with their big mouths.  Because they have also revealed the details of how this operation went down including with the choppers, they are putting other special operations forces at risk as well.

The more we read from various sites the more we find other people share our opinion about all the leaking harming our special ops missions by telegraphing how missions go down and what tactics are used.  Is it all to prop up Obama for his reelection or is it something more sinister?  We frankly don't know.  What we do know is that it is time for this White House led by Barack Obama to quit playing political games when it comes to the safety of any of our military.

Patton: Thank You, Mr. President

This article is one of those gotcha articles -- headline of the article leaves you wondering what happened to Doug Patton and then you read the story finding out it is President Bush not Obama.  Now you can breath a sigh of relief that you world has not turned upside down.

What would have happened if Obama had not kept a lot of the Bush foreign policy in tact?  Reminder it is same foreign policy he relentlessly attacked during the 2008 Presidential campaign.  The Obama foreign policy has been a disaster for the Middle East as we now we are facing the prospect of the Muslim Brotherhood taking over Egypt.  The same Muslim Brotherhood who Obama's people said we didn't have to worry about.  Slowly a sense is growing in Egypt that they may end up having more freedoms under President Mubarak then what they are starting to see under the new regime.  Good chance the Muslim Brotherhood will be running Egypt with Shariah Law implemented.  In Libya we chose the side of the rebels without bothering to check them out with some rebels coming from Al Qaeda.

Patton: Thank You, Mr. PresidentBy Doug Patton May 9, 2011 7:14 am
The world's foremost terrorist is dead, and it seems that thanks are in order. When a leader is deserving of praise, it is only right that those of us who opine on the nature of such things should give credit where credit is due. So I would like to say thank you, Mr. President. Yes, that's right. I would like to say thank you to the man responsible for getting Osama bin Laden. That man is George W. Bush.
....
As for the foreign policy decisions Obama himself has made, they have all been wrong. He has tried appeasement with the mullahs in Iran, backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, turned his back on Israel, insulted our closest ally in Europe — Great Britain — and cozied up to dictators like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
....
All politicians use the advantages handed to them for political gain. They would be foolish not to exploit those things that enhance their reputations. But the double-standard applied to this president versus his predecessor is staggering.

On May 1, 2003, President Bush copiloted a Lockheed S-3 Viking aircraft onto the deck of the carrier Abraham Lincoln as it returned from combat operations in the Persian Gulf. After posing for pictures in his flight suit with members of the ship's crew, the president gave a speech with a banner behind him that read "Mission Accomplished." The Left and their dutiful lackeys in the media went crazy. They called it a stunt.They said Bush was using it to get re-elected; and to this day they will not let go of that image and the message they believe it conveyed. 

Fast forward exactly eight years to the day — May 1, 2011. Osama bin Laden is dead, which is good news for civilized people everywhere. After calling Bush to give him the news, it was all photo-op time for Obama in a week calculated to maximize the perceived PR victory he thought he had just won for himself. 

These shameless "look at me" plugs for the reelection of Barack Obama culminated in an odd, wreath-laying ceremony at Ground Zero, as if it were suddenly September 11th again and it was vitally necessary that he be there. He tried to get former Presidents Bush (43) and Clinton to join him, but to their credit, they declined. 

Then, to cap off his week in the limelight, Obama flew to Fort Campbell, KY, to incorporate the troops into his campaign efforts. 

All this after telling us he would not release photos of a dead Osama bin Laden because "we don't spike the ball." Uh huh. 

So as Barack Obama basks in the sunshine of his imagined personal victory, I say to George W. Bush, "Thank you, Mr. President. You protected our country during your tenure and you put us on the trail of the biggest human cockroach on the planet. Your successor, wearing your large shoes, just happened to step on him." 

Excerpt: Read More at GOP USA

The double standard by Obama knows no end.  A lot of people in this Country are getting fed up by the I, I, I of Obama when he speaks and the adoring Obama media members who cover for him over and over again.

When are members of the Mainstream Media going to start questioning Obama on why it took him from August 2010 when CIA Director Panetta told him they were sure Bin Laden was in the compound where he was found until May 1st to take him out?  CIA put the compound  under surveillance waiting months for orders to take out Bin Laden.  All these months of dithering on the part of Obama could have led to Bin Laden going back into the mountains again. If Panetta had not issued the order to execute the raid on Sunday was there a possibility Bin Laden with cash on hand could have disappeared again.  Why was Obama on the golf course when this mission was going commenced?  It seems like such a simple question that should be asked by the media but we hear crickets.

It was very telling that Presidents Bush and Clinton refused to participate in the Ground Zero wreath laying in front of 50 specially chosen 9/11 families.  This was all about Obama this past week and no one else.  The White House media could very easily question the picture of Obama watching the raid when it was a blank screen, but we have our doubts they will say a word choosing to continue to cover for Obama.

Will someone please tell us why Obama went to Fort Campbell instead of to Norfolk NAS to meet with the SEALS?  It is Navy SEALS not Army SEALS.  How can one President and his White House Staff get so many facts wrong in such a short period of time?  

Larry Elder: Bush Led, Bin Laden Dead

It was a good feeling this morning to read this article by Larry Elder which reinforces our discussions that Bin Laden would not have been found and killed without the investigative techniques used by the Bush Administration following 9/11. Obama has closed some of those interrogation camps which we think is a wrong move. At one time AG Holder and Obama wanted to close GITMO (probably still do) and try the terrorists in the United States after giving them Miranda Rights. Since when do we give terrorists the rights of US Citizens?

It is still hard to believe that Obama ordered that Bin Laden be buried in a Muslim ceremony before being lowered into the sea. Why? Is his Muslim heritage why he had so much trouble making a decision to send a 'kill' team to Pakistan to take out Bin Laden? Maybe it is time for the non-natural born, ineligible to be President Obama to admit he is way over his head as President and step down. But then that would mean giving up the perks. What happens if terrorists hit this Country again with Obama as President? Will he cower in the closet? It is a sad day for America to have a President who cannot make up his mind and has people working for him that even tried to spin this action to make him look better.

With so many wrong stories out of the White House on the action, we have to believe that Obama was not involved in the planning or in giving his approval since it seems he and Valerie Jarrett were opposed to the mission no matter what manner they used.

If the rumors coming out of the White House are true (we believe they are), the actual mission was ordered by CIA Director Panetta, Secretary of Defense Gates, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with Panetta leading the mission. We are very thankful to those three for standing up and ordering a 'kill' mission to take out Bin Laden. We see no problem with the order since the Executive Order signed by President Bush after 9/11 was still in place.

President Bush and his team led the way to get Bin Laden which even former Speaker Pelosi recognized with her call to the former President to congratulate him.

Elder: Bush Led, Bin Laden Dead
By Larry Elder May 5, 2011 6:30 am

Osama bin Laden was a) killed by a unit overseen by what New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh denounced as Vice President Dick Cheney's "executive assassination ring," which was b) sent into action based on intel derived from the now-outlawed "enhanced interrogation techniques," which were c) used on detainees captured during the George W. Bush administration, who were d) being held in now-outlawed "secret prisons" or in the intended-to-be-closed Gitmo.

President Obama's deputy national security advisor, John Brennan, confirmed that the death of bin Laden resulted from "a mosaic (of intelligence) appearing over time and by ... people who have been following bin Laden for many, many years." This explains why 81 percent of Republicans give former President George W. Bush "at least some of the credit" for bin Laden's death. U.S. security forces tracked and were able to kill bin Laden through the use of the discredited, maligned, and -- in some cases -- the discontinued terror-fighting policies and practices of Bush.

So how much credit do Democrats give Bush?

Not much. Only 35 percent of Democrats, according to The Washington Post, believe that Bush deserves "at least some of the credit." Yet Obama took advantage of policies the left attacked -- at least under Bush -- as wrong, illegal and immoral.

"Enhanced interrogation techniques" -- The Washington Post's associate editor and foreign affairs columnist, David Ignatius, writes, "Some of the detainees (who gave information that led to bin Laden's location) were subjected to 'enhanced interrogation techniques,' the CIA's formal name for what is now widely viewed as torture."

Gitmo and secret prisons, aka "black sites" (now closed by Obama) -- "The revelation," writes The Associated Press, "that intelligence gleaned from the CIA's so-called black sites helped kill bin Laden was seen as vindication for many intelligence officials who have been repeatedly investigated and criticized for their involvement in a program that involved the harshest interrogation methods in U.S. history."

Rendition, the practice of moving a detainee to a country with more severe interrogation policies -- "Current and former U.S. officials," according to The Associated Press, "say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, provided the nom de guerre of one of bin Laden's most trusted aides. The CIA got similar information from Mohammed's successor, Abu Faraj al-Libi. Both were subjected to harsh interrogation tactics inside CIA prisons in Poland and Romania."

Bush-Cheney "executive assassination ring" -- Navy SEAL Team Six is part of the Joint Special Operations Command. Two years ago, The New Yorker's Pulitzer prize-winning Hersh denounced the JSOC by calling it Bush-Cheney's "executive assassination ring": "It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days ... they reported directly to the Cheney office. ... Congress has no oversight of it. It's an executive assassination ring, essentially. ... That's been going on, in the name of all of us."

Excerpt: Read More at GOP USA

Who ordered the Mission to Kill Bin Laden?

The first article comes from Roger Simon at the Pajamas Media Tatler site. Roger Simon who heads Pajamas Media is honest and has integrity which is a rare commodity these days in journalism.

Found the Simon link after the original link was forwarded last night that was posted at Socyberty.com. Then after that discovered another site with further information about the Bin Laden mission that plus details of the ongoing fight between Valerie Jarrett and Clinton installed Chief of Staff Daley. Those reading who don't think Clinton installed Daley, then I have swampland for sale in Arizona.

All of this makes total sense and could be why the stories keep changing on almost a hourly basis out of this White House. If it is true, the media need to quit covering for Obama and tell the truth for a change. Since he is not a 'natural' born citizen this could all be over with him stepping aside and not running for office. We thought it was out of character for him to order this action especially after it came out he took 16 hours to make a decision.

He is in his golf clothes in the picture below so this makes sense he was called in while playing golf after the operation had commenced. Rumor has it that Jarrett and Obama scrubbed the mission the night before due to weather when the weather wasn't a factor. Could that be why he was so arrogant and snarky at the correspondent's dinner -- he scrubbed the mission. Obama goes golfing the next day figuring everyone has lined up behind him and he was wrong.

Will some reporters in DC actually do the investigation into these alleged rumors? Why do the media keep defending Obama? Just use the natural born and get him out of office. Having someone like this who even thinks of playing golf on this weekend, is frightening to most Americans.

Do we have another Deep Throat like we had for Woodward and Bernstein who couldn't take it any more and started leaking who is in the White House?

Leon Panetta, not Obama, issued order to kill bin Laden?

Was it Leon Panetta – not a waffling Barack Obama, supported in his indecision by Valerie Jarett – who finally ordered the assassination of bin Laden. We don’t know the truth of this. We weren’t there. But a “White House insider” quoted on Socybrty says the following:

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.

There’s more of this astounding report at the link. Who knows? But it would account for why this took so long to happen.

Source: Pajamasmedia.com Tatler

After reading the above late last night and sending around for more opinions, I stumbled across another site pretty much saying the same thing:

Did Senior Military/Intelligence Officials Overrule President Obama Regarding Mission to Kill Osama Bin Laden?
Published by Ulsterman on May 2, 2011 in US Politics

A reluctant American president who was ultimately overridden by senior military and intelligence officials to finally take out terrorist Osama Bin Laden…

Note: This communication came from our long time D.C. Insider and details previous and ongoing conflicts surrounding the decision to assassinate terrorist Osama Bin Laden. This has been reproduced here as originally communicated to us.

__________

Please get this out ASAP. Want specific people to know we know.


RE Osama Bin Laden. Significant push to take him out months ago. Senior WH staff resisted. This was cause of much strain between HC and Obama/Jarrett. HC and LP were in constant communication over matter – both attempted to convince administration to act. Administration feared failure and resulting negative impact on president. Intel disgusted over politics over national security. Staff resigned/left. Check timeline to corroborate.


The Ulsterman Report: Obama Parties and Golfs Shortly Before Killing of Osama Bin LadenWe Need a Winning Formulae in Nigeria – Politicians » Now Intel already leaking to media facts surrounding how info obtained. Namely from enhanced interrogation efforts via GITMO prisoners. Obama administration placed in corner on this. Some media aware of danger to president RE this and attempting protection. Others looking for further investigation. We are pushing for them to follow through and already meeting with some access.


Point of determination made FOR Obama not BY Obama. Will clarify as details become more clear. Very clear divide between Military and WH. Jarrett marginalized 100% on decision to take out OBL. She played no part. BD worked with LP and HC to form coalition to force CoC to engage.


IMPORTANT SPECIFIC: When 48 hour go order issued, CoC was told, not requested. Administration scrambled to abort. That order was overruled. This order did not originate from CoC. Repeat – this order did not originate from CoC. He complied, but did not originate.


Independent military contacts have confirmed. Stories corroborate one another. This is legit.


The killing of Osama Bin Laden was in fact a Coup within Obama WH.


Speaking with additional contacts RE info.


Stay safe.

________________

HC = Hillary Clinton

BD = Bill Daley

LP = Leon Panetta

CoC = Chain of Command/Commander in Chief

DATE: JUST RELEASED PHOTO OF THE WHITE HOUSE “WAR ROOM” DURING THE OSAMA BIN LADEN ASSASSINATION OPERATION SHOWING A SEEMINGLY ANGRY BARACK OBAMA STILL WEARING HIS GOLF ATTIRE AND BILL DALEY, HILLARY CLINTON, AND ROBERT GATES ON OPPOSITE SIDE OF ROOM. THIS PHOTO APPEARS TO FURTHER SUPPORT THE DESCRIPTION OF THAT DAY’S EVENTS BY INSIDER…

Source:  Newsflavor.com

Computer screens are blank and a one star Air Force General is sitting in the President's Chair?  It was released by Panetta that they did not witness the shooting of Bin Laden so why did chief of counter terrorism adviser John Brennan  say that Bin Laden's wife was put in front of him as protection when they never saw the video or that Bin Laden had a gun and then didn't have a gun.   This whole deal has stunk from day one.  The great news is that Bin Laden is dead.

We expect to get more details in the days ahead but if this turns out to be true, then Panetta, Gates, and Hillary Clinton were acting under the EO signed by former President Bush and the joint resolutions by Congress authorizing all means to get Bin Laden and we applaud the three for standing up.

As for Valerie Jarrett and her ongoing war with Chief of Staff Daley she needs to tell Obama that the fight is over and the two of them along with Michelle ride off into the sunset. Don't care what excuse Obama uses including the Constitutional Law professor didn't realize he wasn't eligible to run.  I will buy it as long as he is out of the White House and takes Jarrett with him.

Guess my sources were right that Jarrett was in charge of the White House which I have been alluding to for some time after Emanuel left. In fact would bet that Bill Clinton sized up Obama for what he was, and why Bill Daley is Chief of Staff to run things. Rumors keep surfacing that Obama is having trouble concentrating so it is time to end the charade and tell the American people the truth. Country came before Party with Republicans when they told Nixon he had to resign and Country should come before Party with Obama. Are Democrats finally going to go to Obama and tell him he needs to leave?   Is this why Pelosi called President George W. Bush to congratulate him?

Are there no Woodward and Bernstein journalists who want to do our Nation a service?  The American people have a right to know the truth if the Insider is giving us the facts. We don't see anything to be gained by someone leaking this except to put an end to the Administration of a man who is unable to handle being President which we have already figured out. We have been guessing for a long time who was pulling the strings. Recently I was sure it was Jarrett long before all this came out. More on Valerie Jarrett in the days ahead.

Byron York: Admiral: U.S. studying Libyan rebels -- after going to war on their behalf

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sent our military into a wartime situation on the side of the rebels when  they had no clue who they were. Senator Inhofe needs to keep pressing this issue because if Gadhafi falls, the chance of Al Qaeda supporters taking control in Libya seems very high.

In 2007, after a military study of the The Libyan Fighting Group (LIFG), it was determined that they had become an Al Qaeda affilitated terrorist organization and put on the State Department list of terrorist organization.  All the Administration had to do was google in 'libyan terrorist group' to find plenty of sites about the LIFG, including their own State Department site. Various sites detail when the LIFG joined Al Qaeda and the fact some of their leaders were in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting against the United States.

Now we have an Admiral saying there are "flickers" of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups who are part of the rebels. Well according some embed reporters with the rebels, it is more than a "flicker" and one of the heads of the rebels fought against the United States in Afghanistan after 9/11. Senator Inhofe asked the question in the hearing on Libya and gets a weasel word answer that there are "flickiers" and they are still investigating. Why didn't they bother to investigate before this wartime effort was launched? What was the rush to war?

Can any terrorist group can now call themselves rebels and expect support from the United Stateswith no checking into who they are? Have witnessed first hand ineptness out of the Government but this is beyond inept, this is negligence at the highest level.

What an absolute mess this Administration has gotten this Country in and all those people on both sides of the aisle that rushed in that we needed to be in Libya seems to have no clue just who the rebels are in Libya.  Looks like our military or the CIA doesn't have a clue about that either.

When did our intelligence agencies become so inept? Starts at the top and putting Leon Panetta at CIA has been a disaster. In fact, putting so many Clintonites in the Obama Administration in addition to Obama Czars and their staffs has been an imitigated disaster.  No one has yet to determine who Gadhafi was after with his march on certain cities. Gadhafi said it was against Al Qaeda and the drug smugglers. What if Gadhafi was right? Who provided the intelligence on Libya and Gadhafi -- Al Qaeda informants still on the side of Al Qaeda? Wish someone would ask that question!


The United States has no vested interest in Libya and it is not a threat so why was anyone for going into Libya without checking out the rebels? Why aren't more members of the mainstream media asking just who are these rebels. If they are indeed Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbolla as many are now saying openly, why are we or NATO in the skies of Libya helping out the rebels?

This is the reason all Administrations need to go to Congress for approval before launching any attack for any reason except for immediate retaliation when we have been attacked. No President has the right to commit to military action when we have no vested interested like Obama did with Libya. His speech last night certainly did not change my mind that he violated the War Powers Act plain and simple.

Admiral: U.S. studying Libyan rebels -- after going to war on their behalf
By: Byron York 03/29/11 11:37 AM
Chief Political Correspondent http://twitter.com/ByronYork

Admiral James Stavridis, commander of NATO and overall chief of U.S. and coalition forces in the Libyan war, says American intelligence agents are "examining very closely" the rebel forces for whom U.S. forces have gone to war. So far, Stavridis says, the U.S. has discovered "flickers" of the presence of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, although Stavridis calls the opposition leadership "responsible."

Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Stavridis was asked by Republican Sen. James Inhofe to comment on "reports about the presence of al Qaeda among the rebels, among those with whom we are associated." "As you can imagine, we are examining very closely the content, composition, the personalities, who are the leaders in these opposition forces," Stavridis responded. "The intelligence that I am receiving at this point makes me feel that the leadership I am seeing are responsible men and women who are struggling against Colonel Gadhafi. We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al Qaeda, Hezbollah, we've seen different things, but at this point I don't have detail sufficient to say that there is a significant al Qaeda presence or any other terrorist presence in and among these folks. We'll continue to look at that very closely. It's part of doing due diligence as we move forward on any kind of relationship."

Stavridis' testimony raises two questions. One is the extent of al Qaeda and other terrorist presence; what is a flicker? The second question is why the United States did not complete its "due diligence" before, and not after, going to war. "I don't say this critically of you, because you didn't make this decision," Inhofe said to Stavridis, "but wouldn't that have been a good idea to find out before we took the steps we are taking?"

"I think that from the moment this crisis unfolded, there has been a great deal of intelligence applied to this," Stavridis responded.

The lack of knowledge about the Libyan opposition has become a major question in the Libya conflict. At Monday's Pentagon briefing, Fox News reporter Jennifer Griffin asked another top official, Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, a very simple question: "Do you know who the opposition is, and does it matter to you?" "We're not talking with the opposition," Gortney responded. "We have -- we would like a much better understanding of the opposition. We don't have it. So yes, it does matter to us, and we're trying to fill in those gaps, knowledge gaps." Gortney's answer was another suggestion that the U.S. is doing critical due diligence on the fly in Libya.

Excerpt: Read more at the Washington Examiner

When you read that Fox News Reporter Jennifer Griffen asked a Vice Admiral "Do you know who the opposition is, and does it matter to you?  She gets a reply that they are not talking with the opposition and would like a better understanding.  As I said before he can google in 'libyan terrorist group' and find out who some members of the opposition are who took advantage of unrest of the younger people in Libya and now have taken over.

Bottom line is Obama and Clinton sent our military into war without knowing who the rebels were and with NO approval from Congress as there is no vested interest for the United States in Libya as stated by the Secretary of Defense.  This Administration violated the War Powers Act and when are they going to be held accountable? 

The Administration claim that NATO is in charge has to be the biggest spin yet as the United States is providing most of the weapon systems involved and even more with the C-130 gunships and A-10's now being into Libyan skies.  That doesn't even include that the United States funds NATO costs more than France and Great Britain together.  The NATO person in charge reports to two Americans including the American who heads NATO.  So who is really in charge?

America needs a restart in January 2013 with a new Administration who puts America first!