Friday, December 14, 2012

Did president lie to America about Osama raid?

Government's own evidence undermines timeline

by Bob Unruh / WND
A persistent critic of Barack Obama claims in a report that the president lied to the American public about the U.S. military raid in Pakistan in which Osama bin Laden was killed, basing her allegations on evidence released by the U.S. government itself.

The report by Pamela Barnett, who was a plaintiff in legal cases challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility, first was published by the Western Center for Journalism, although both AP and Judicial Watch also have reported on the release of the emails.

Critically important is one of the redacted military emails regarding the bin Laden death that references plans for a burial, dated April 29, 2011.

Under a subject line of “burial,” Samuel Perez, commander of Carrier Strike Group One, said, “Do I need any special religious/ceremonial preparations?”

But it was on May 1, 2011, that Obama announced to the world that the mission “today” had killed bin Laden.

“Obama lied to every American and the rest of the world about the date of the alleged Osama bin Laden killing,” Barnett charged in the report. “According to a live speech … given to the country late night on May 1, 2011, Obama stated, ‘Today at my direction the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound … in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.’”

Barnett said the “emails in my possession received directly from the Department of Defense as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request for Osama bin Laden’s killing and burial related documents, reveal that the mission to allegedly ‘kill Osama’ occurred April 28, 2011, or earlier, not May 1, 2011, as Obama claimed.”

Critics say Obama has withheld key details about the mission from the American public yet reportedly allowed classified details to be handed over to moviemakers.

Images of the bin Laden “burial at sea” have been withheld, and the administration hasn’t explained why only a handful of members of the military among the thousands aboard ship were allowed to witness the burial.

In a post at, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton suggested the email evidence means “preparations for receipt of bin Laden’s body were considered three days before the raid, which as Catherine Herridge at Fox News notes, ‘raises an interesting question over whether the administration’s statement that it was first and foremost a capture mission was accurate.’”

Barnett, in an interview with WND, noted that Obama twice stated on May 1 that the bin Laden attack happened “today.”

And she has her own perspective on why the statement was made on that date.

“So why did Obama lie about the date that Osama was killed? Was it timed to further control the media by giving them a new, sexier story than a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hearing the next morning in Pasadena, Calif., that confirmed that Obama’s real, unforged constitutional credentials had/have NEVER been vetted by any court or anyone in any state or federal government agency?”

She said the court “eventually ruled that no one had standing after the 2008 election, except possibly a candidate; and Ambassador Allen Keyes was not running for president again, so the case was dismissed.”
Barnett and other plaintiffs pursued several cases in both state and federal courts over Obama’s 2008 election. All were rejected by courts up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Over the course of the arguments in the cases, it was, however, revealed that there is a precedent for removing a top elected official from office. In the 1930s, the Supreme Court of North Dakota removed a governor after it was discovered he did not meet the state constitution’s residency requirements.

The facts undermined the repeated arguments by the Obama administration, as well as many court decisions, that the courts had no authority to intervene in an election regarding a candidate’s eligibility.

Many similar arguments are being raised again following the 2012 election.

Barnett noted that prior to the bin Laden statement from Obama, the “major news networks were going to cover an actual court hearing on Obama’s ineligibility and fraud crimes the very next morning.”

“Obama and his operatives saw this coming and wanted to further keep the American people and media in the dark regarding his ineligibility, forged documents, and use of a Connecticut Social Security number never assigned to him,” Barnett said in her report.

Her report also noted a military leader, Rear Adm. Charles Gaoutte, was included in the released emails with a statement from him explaining the “paucity” of records on bin Laden reflected the “security” surrounding the mission.

A short time later, Gaoutte was unceremoniously dumped from his command.

“Was [he] relieved from command because he did not like that the U.S. military and Obama were lying to the American people?” Barnett questioned. “Was the admiral being set up by the Obama administration for not wanting to keep the Osama lie quiet?”

Barnett said the circumstances of the mission and the lack of information being released show that Obama and those surrounding him, “including high members of the military, are willing to go to any lengths to put Obama in a good light.”

The scenario is reflective, she said, of someone intent on being all-powerful.

“He’s completely grabbed the reins of control. [In the coming term], I expect Internet controls coming down the line. I expect more unconstitutional actions on hyper drive,” she said.

“Also, the judiciary is completely being unaccountable. … They’ve gotten away with hiding Obama’s ineligibility by making tyrannical rulings not based in fact or law. … I feel like I live in a banana republic right now.”

In one of the released military emails, the sea burial was described:

Traditional procedures for Islamic burial was (sic) followed. The deceased body was washed (ablution) then placed in a white sheet. The body was placed in a weighted bag. A military officer read prepared religious remarks, which were translated into Arabic by a native speaker. After words were complete, the body was placed on a prepared flatboard, tipped up, whereupon the deceased’s body slid into the 

But commentators note that the “religious remarks” never were released, and there appears to be no record of them.

In the Breitbart report, Fitton wrote that if Navy regulations were followed, Islamic remarks for a funeral could have included the prayer, “O Allah, forgive him, have mercy on him, pardon him, grant him security, provide him a nice place and spacious lodging, wash him with water, snow, and ice, purify him … make him enter paradise and save him from the trials of grave and the punishment of hell.”

“I can imagine that this prayer might upset more than a few Americans,” Fitton said.

No comments:

Post a Comment