SO WHY DID OBAMA, "NEED" OSAMA, DEAD?

The more time that passes by since the successful "removing" of bin Laden from this planet, the more information comes out that, I feel, raises many more questions than it provides much in the way of any plausible answers. Apparently, it has been reported that in the weeks before Barry, "the military genius," was finally able to come to a decision and then order Navy SEALs into Pakistan in pursuit of bin Laden, administration officials weighed a number of various options ranging from the using of American warplanes to obliterate the terror mastermind’s fortified compound from the sky to the actual sending in of commandos on a high-risk mission to assault the structure from the ground. I can only assume that Barry eventually decided on the latter because he wanted to possess some level of certainty, that if the opportunity to kill bin Laden did present itself, verification of his demise would be easier to obtain. Now I know why I, and millions of other Americans, wanted bin Laden dead. But might Barry have possessed a different motive for wanting bin Laden dead? What makes the decision to kill him more than a little dubious is the fact that it just seems to me it would have made more political sense to take him alive perhaps maybe even at all costs. Because we all know that politics and perceived political benefits form the basis for all of Barry's important decisions. Because had bin Laden been taken alive Barry could then have presumably, milked it for so much longer, using it as practically a never-ending means of distracting attention away from a floundering economy and skyrocketing gas prices. He could have trotted him out whenever needed. But instead, he wanted bin Laden dead. I dunno, it's just one of those things to ponder.

Barry's chief counterterrorism adviser, a rather odd individual by the name of John Brennan, on Monday described to us the rules of engagement as being that our U.S. military operatives were prepared to capture bin Laden alive but were "absolutely" ready to kill him if he fought back. "If we had the opportunity to take him alive, we would have done that," Brennan said during a rather surprisingly candid exchange with reporters at a White House briefing. But that scenario seems to contradict what has now come to light in that the present story which states that the one option that Barry "Almighty" appears to have never seriously considered at any time, which was that of taking bin Laden alive. Barry wanted him DEAD! So which story is it that's the correct one? Were we looking to take him alive or to simply kill him if we were fortunate enough to find him? Which is it? Adding a bit more confusion to the whole "story" was yet anther revelation about Sunday’s raid, one in which the White House disclosed on Tuesday that bin Laden was completely unarmed when the SEALs shot him in the head and chest, killing him instantly. The administration had said that bin Laden resisted capture, but yet there has been absolutely no evidence presented in any of its public comments that would suggest that the SEALs were in any immediate danger when they opened fire on bin Laden during their assault on his compound. So, we can't waterboard terrorist, even on a very limited scale, but we can blow their heads off. Kinda makes you wonder if there might have been a reason Barry wanted to make sure that bin Laden was silenced. I know, now I'm a conspiracy nut.


So initially we have a storyline that first painted the leader of the terrorist group as being soft, a coward in the end who hid behind a woman's skirts like a little girl, having grown accustomed to living in luxury in a mansion "Thinking about that from a visual perspective, here is bin Laden, who has been calling for these attacks, living in this million dollar-plus compound, living in an area that is far removed from the front, hiding behind women who were put in front of him as a shield," Brennan told the world from the White House podium Monday. "I think it really just speaks to just how false his narrative has been over the years." There was a firefight and the al-Qaeda leader was "killed in that firefight," Brennan said. There was a woman who was used "to shield bin Laden from the incoming fire." The woman killed in the raid was bin Laden's wife, Brennan said: "She was positioned in a way that indicated that she was being used as a shield." And bin Laden was killed because he resisted capture. "If we had the opportunity to take him alive, we would have done that," Brennan told reporters at the briefing. "Looking at what bin Laden was doing hiding there while he's putting other people out there to carry out attacks again just speaks to, I think, the nature of the individual he was," Brennan said. But now apparently the facts regarding the events that really took place don't really jibe with the story as it was initially told.


The claim that bin Laden was living in a mansion, as opposed to just a big house, aren't exactly accurate either. All that's needed to debunk that description is some pictures of the house. A Wall Street Journal reporter went to the scene and gave this eye-witness account, concluding there was nothing mansion-like about it: "The size and fortress-like nature of the compound stood out in the area, though many of the houses in Abbottabad, built by ex-servicemen and business people, also have high walls. Homes are separated by empty plots where people grow crops like potatoes and wheat. The top two floors of bin Laden's three-story house are visible above the high perimeter walls. The house, built in 2005, appears run-down. Grass grows off a ledge below the roof. The outside walls are scarred with damp and mold. A hand-painted advertisement for Jamia Girls College, in Urdu and English, decorates one of the outside walls of the compound. One of the awnings on an outdoor window hung down at an angle, perhaps after being damaged during the attack. Otherwise, the house stood intact, with few signs a major firefight only two days earlier. There were no visible air-conditioning units to keep residents cool through the Pakistan summer. At the back of the house was a small, private triangular garden with a towering fir tree, where bin Laden could have gotten air without being seen by outsiders." I'm just not thinkin this place was much of a mansion. Now I suppose compared to living a cave somewhere then, yes, I suppose you could call it a mansion.


Going all the way back to that dip wad Carter, I've never been very confident when it came to being able to figure just whose side the Democrats were, or are, really on when it comes to fighting and killing these murdering religious terrorist thugs. I didn’t know then, and I still don't know whose side "BJ" Clinton was on, and that same sense of uncertainty persists today, because when it comes to Barry "Almighty" I damn sure don't know whose side he's on. Since before this guy was elected it has been very difficult to pin him down regarding just where his allegiance may lie in this ongoing conflict. Is it with the American people or with the ragheaded terrorists? And quite frankly, I'm just not sure. Which only causes me to wonder all the more why Barry was so determined to make sure old bin Laden took one right between the eyes. Since we now know that the SEALs’ decision to fatally shoot bin Laden, even though we now know that he didn’t even have a weapon, wasn’t an accident but was what they were under orders to do. The administration had made clear to the military’s clandestine Joint Special Operations Command that it wanted bin Laden dead, at least according to a senior U.S. official with knowledge of the discussions. A high-ranking military officer briefed on the assault said the SEALs knew their mission was not to take him alive. Why? I suppose we'll never know the truth, or at least as long as Barry is president.


In what all sounds like that old Abbott and Costello routine of Who's on first, What's on second, and I dunno is on third, here are just some of the White House contradictions and corrections that have emerged so far:


White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan told reporters Monday that bin Laden’s son Khalid was killed in the raid. When the White House released a transcript of Brennan’s briefing, the name had been corrected to that of another son, Hamza.


Brennan said bin Laden’s wife died while shielding the terrorist leader from U.S. gunfire. Carney said Tuesday that the wife hadn’t died and was merely shot in the leg, although another woman did die. But it wasn’t clear that either of them was trying to shield bin Laden.


Brennan and other officials suggested that bin Laden was holding a gun and even firing at U.S. forces. Carney said Tuesday that bin Laden was unarmed.


Officials have offered varying accounts of how President Barack Obama and his team in the White House Situation Room were able to monitor the raid. Without providing details on the technology involved, Brennan said that “we were able to monitor in a real-time basis the progress of the operation from its commencement to its time on target to the extraction of the remains and to then the egress off of the target.”


CIA Director Leon Panetta told PBS on Tuesday that “Once those teams went into the compound, I can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes that we really didn’t know just exactly what was going on.”


The night of the raid, administration officials held a telephone briefing for reporters. “During the raid, we lost one helicopter due to mechanical failure,” one of the administration officials said. Later in the same call, another official contradicted that: “We didn’t say it was mechanical.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, clarified Tuesday that the explanation was more technical: The air temperature in the compound was hotter than expected and the helicopter was too heavy to stay aloft under that condition.