Nothing To See Here: Capitol Police Chief Who’s Been Stonewalling For Reid, Resigns

Embattled U.S. Capitol Police Chief Kim C. Dine has submitted a letter of resignation to the Capitol Police Board, according to RollCall, citing “multiple sources with direct knowledge of the situation.”

It is not currently known whether the letter has or will be accepted by the three-member board, made up of the House and Senate sergeants-at-arms and the Architect of the Capitol. Multiple attempts to secure a comment from Dine were unsuccessful.

Dine has been under fire lately for refusing to release the Capitol Police event report of the New Year’s Day incident that resulted in Senator Harry Reid’s egregious facial injuries and cracked ribs.

Via the Las Vegas Badger:

The leadership of the troubled, 1,800 person Capitol Police force is withholding information about the circumstances surrounding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) gruesome New Year’s Day injuries.

Breitbart News poked holes in Reid’s story that the injuries resulted from a home exercise accident that occurred when the exercise band that he attached to the shower door in his bathroom “broke and spun me around and I crashed into these cabinets and injured my eye,” as he claimed.

Breitbart News has also reported that virtually all of the information concerning the events surrounding the New Year’s Day injury and Reid’s subsequent hospital treatment that day has originated from Reid’s office. It insists the senator’s Capitol Police security detail was with him at his Henderson, Nevada home when the injuries occurred on New Year’s Day and transported him from his home to St. Rose Dominican Hospital in Henderson for treatment.

As RollCall notes, Dine has also been under scrutiny for a number of other snafus:

…the handling of a car chase the night of the State of the Union, which ended without an arrest despite the fact that the suspect was driving without a license. Members of Congress also grilled Dine after the October 2013 fatal shooting of Miriam Carey, as well as the decision to call back officers from the September 2013 Navy Yard shooting.

You can read Poweline’s latest theory as to what happened to Reid on New Years Day, here. (It definitely doesn’t involve exercise equipment.)

Case Not Closed: Questions Remain on DHS Ammo Purchases (Video)

Although  we’re told that nothing unusual is going on,  DHS’s extraordinary level of ammunition purchases in recent months continues to cause consternation and concern among many on the right.

Fox News tried to separate fact from fiction in this recent report that purports DHS has made even larger ammo purchases in past (Obama) years, although the numbers are substantially lower than the 1.6 billion rounds we’ve been hearing about.

Senator Tom Coburn concluded that this is much ado about nothing.

In a Forbes oped, Ralph Benko wrote, 1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security? It’s Time For A National Conversation:

It confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security has issued an open purchase order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition.  As reported elsewhere, some of this purchase order is for hollow-point rounds, forbidden by international law for use in war, along with a frightening amount specialized for snipers. Also reported elsewhere, at the height of the Iraq War the Army was expending less than 6 million rounds a month.  Therefore 1.6 billion rounds would be enough to sustain a hot war for 20+ years.  In America. Add to this perplexing outré purchase of ammo, DHS now is showing off its acquisition of heavily armored personnel carriers, repatriated from the Iraqi and Afghani theaters of operation.

***

It is utterly inconceivable that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is planning a coup d’etat against President Obama, and the Congress, to install herself as Supreme Ruler of the United States of America.  There, however, are real signs that the Department bureaucrats are running amok.  About 20 years ago this columnist worked, for two years, in the U.S. Department of Energy’s general counsel’s office in its procurement and finance division.  And is wise to the ways.   The answer to “why would DHS need such a vehicle?” almost certainly is this:  it’s a cool toy and these (reportedly) million dollar toys are being recycled, without much of a impact on the DHS budget.  So… why not?

Investors Business Daily reported that fifteen members of Congress have written a letter to the Department of Homeland Security demanding to know what’s going on.

Freshman California Republican Doug LaMalfa and 14 of his House colleagues, who signed on to his March 5 letter, are asking the Department of Homeland Security to explain why it is buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition of various calibers. They aren’t happy with explanations provided so far in the press by lower-level officials, answers meant to debunk “unfounded” concerns.

As we have noted, DHS has been buying lots of ammo, enough by one calculation to fight the equivalent of a 24-year Iraqi War.

Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Ga., told the Associated Press that the training center and others like it run by the Homeland Security Department use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.

The massive purchases are said to be spread out over five years and due simply to the best practice of saving money by buying in bulk what comes down to five rounds of ammo for every man, woman and child on the U.S. That’s a lot of practice and training.

But Richard Mason, a former  told reporters with WHPTV News in Pennsylvania recently the hollow-point bullets being purchased by DHS are not generally used for training because they are more expensive than standard firing range rounds .

“We never trained with hollow points, we didn’t even see hollow points my entire 4-1/2 years in the Marine Corps,” Mason said.

Homeland Security has also acquired a number of Mine Resistant Armored Protection (MRAP) vehicles which have been retrofitted for possible service on the streets of the U.S.

They were formerly used for counterinsurgency in Iraq. These vehicles are specifically designed to resist mines and ambush attacks.

As we noted in a recent editorial, DHS is also seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56-by-45-millimeter NATO “personal defense weapons” — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians.

If there are plausible explanations for all this, some congressmen would like to hear them.

Maybe DHS can answer Congress’ questions in a series of bullet points.

At CPAC a little over a week ago, Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change, asked Congressman Timothy Huelscamp about the large ammunition purchases made by the DHS. Huelscamp said that the Regime refuses to “let us know what’s going on.” (start at 1:12):

Fox News  reported that local law enforcement agencies across the country are facing an ammo shortage, as gun owners across the nation stock up on firearms and bullets.

Meanwhile, according to CNSNews.com, Rep. Timothy Huelskamp, R-Kan., said he still hasn’t heard back from the Department of Homeland Security on why it’s buying 1.6 billion rounds.

The Homeland Security Department, though, has said it needs the bullets for law enforcement agents in training and on duty.

Published federal notices about the ammo buy have agitated conspiracy theorists since the fall. The government’s explanation is much less sinister.

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Ga., and others like it run by DHS use up to 15 million rounds a year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.

More than 90 federal agencies and 70,000 agents and officers used the department’s training center last year.

The rest of the 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition would be purchased by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal government’s second largest criminal investigative agency.

Pentagon Halts Production of Drone Cyberwarfare Medal

The Pentagon has stopped production of the Distinguished Warfare Medal, nicknamed the Drone Strike Medal or Drone Cyberwarfare Medal, after a barrage of criticism and complaints from veterans and lawmakers.

Via Fox News:

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has ordered a review of the Distinguished Warfare Medal, which was to be awarded to troops who operate drones and use other technological skills to fight America’s wars from afar. Announcement of the review is expected at a Pentagon news conference later Tuesday.

Lawmakers and veterans groups have complained that although troops can get the new medal for work far from the battlefield, it has been ranked above medals for those who served on the front line in harm’s way, such as the Purple Heart given to wounded troops.

Kudos to Chuck Hagel for listening to the concerns veterans had about this medal.

By the way, there is a petition posted on the White House website asking the administration to lower the precedence of the Distinguished Warfare Medal that I would urge you to sign.

When I posted my story about the medal, yesterday, the petition had 81,790 signatures with 18,210 more to go to reach 100,000 before the March 16 deadline.

When I refreshed the page, it had 81,786 signatures.

I refreshed again, and it was 81,783. Last night, in bed, I checked again, and it was down about 20 more.

As of right now, the number is 81,633.

Is someone from the White House going through and removing duplicates, and fake names? Would they have been doing that at 2:00 a.m. Eastern, last night? Does it seem just a little weird and petty that someone would be up late at night removing names from this petition on an issue veterans feel so strongly about?

UPDATE:

Fifty minutes later, the number stands at 81,617.

UPDATE II:

Oh, NEVERMIND… I was reading the numbers backwards! DERP.

Why Didn’t the Turkish Consul Warn Ambassador Stevens About the Amassing Jihadis Outside the Consulate on the Night of 9/11?

Turkish PM Tayyip Erdoğan and Barack Obama  (Photo: Cihan)

Clare Lopez is an intelligence expert with a focus on the Middle East, national defense and counterterrorism. She served for 25 years as an operations officer with the CIA and now writes for RadicalIslam.org. I’ve been linking to her reports not only because they’re intelligent and informative but in some cases, like this one – breaking news. I don’t know of anyone else who’s noticed that Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, who had been  meeting with Ambassador Stevens the evening of the attack, was able to leave the consulate without incident even though the area outside the compound was swarming with jihadis setting up checkpoints.

If reporting from the Washington Times is accurate, it looks like the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin was in on the plot to attack the U.S. mission in Benghazi. According to an October 27, 2012 report, Libyan witnesses from the Benghazi neighborhood where the U.S. compound was located told reporters from the Associated Press (AP) that “150 bearded gunmen, some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants began sealing off the streets” leading to the facility “around nightfall.”

The Department of State “Background Briefing on Libya,” provided by telephone to reporters on October 9, 2012 states that Ambassador Christopher Stevens held his last meeting of the day on September 11 with the Turkish diplomat from 7:30pm to 8:30pm and then escorted him out to the compound gate to bid farewell. At that point, the briefing states, “Everything is calm at 8:30 p.m. There’s nothing unusual.”

But the AP witnesses said that, “The neighbors all described the militants setting up checkpoints around the compound at about 8 p.m.” The checkpoints were described as being manned by bearded jihadis in pickup trucks mounted with heavy machine guns and bearing the logo of the Al-Qaeda terror franchise, Ansar al-Shariah.

That means that the Turkish Consul General would have had to pass out through the blockade as he departed the American compound and left the area. There is no record that he phoned a warning to his American colleague, the one he’d just had dinner with, Ambassador Stevens. Given the description of the blockade around the American compound and of the jihadis and their trucks that were manning it, it seems unlikely that the he somehow just failed to notice. “[N]o one could get out or in,” according to one neighbor interviewed by the AP.

Except for the Turkish Consul General, it would appear.

Keep reading. The implication here is the Turkish government is at least somewhat complicit in this attack.

And Obama, it should be noted, describes the Turkish Prime Minister Erdoğan as one of the five foreign leaders with whom he is most friendly.

Michael Rubin of Commentary made note of the oddity, last July:

Given Erdoğan’s anti-American and anti-Semitic rants, and his repeated support for not only Hamas terrorists, but also an Al Qaeda financier, perhaps it is time for Obama to describe why he embraces Erdoğan above most others.

Yes, indeed.

Doug Ross has more on this story: FAST AND FURIOUS IN BENGHAZI: Timing of Attack Hints at Double-Cross of White House Gun-Running Operation by Turkey:

What was the subject of the discussion between Stevens and Akin? Malta Today offers some context that hints at some strong possibilities.

A Libyan-flagged vessel which last year was used by a Malta-based humanitarian organisation in supplying a lifeline to rebels in Misurata, has been implicated in a covert US arms smuggling operation to Syrian freedom fighters, which may also be linked to murdered US ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi last month.

The ship ‘Al Entisar’ which was chartered last year by I-Go Aid Libya, then run by businessman Mario Debono, has been reported to be linked to last September’s attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

A Fox News investigation revealed that shipping records confirmed that the Al Entisar entered the Turkish port of Iskenderun, some 35 miles from the Syrian border, just five days before Ambassador Chris Stevens, and three other US officials were killed during an assault by more than 100 Islamist militants on the US Consulate compound in Benghazi.

Another report, this time appearing on the Times of London, said that the Al Entisar was carrying 400 tons of cargo. Some of it was humanitarian, but also reportedly weapons, described by the report as the largest consignment of weapons headed for Syria’s rebels on the frontlines…

SEE ALSO:

Radical Islam: Why Was Security Stripped in Benghazi?

Data points continue to accumulate about the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya. The picture that is beginning to emerge from connecting those dots is deeply concerning on multiple levels. Two related issues dominate this analysis: The stripping of security protection from the Benghazi mission prior to the 9/11 anniversary attack and the refusal to send or even permit local help on the night of the attack.

As Fox News Bureau Chief of Intelligence Catherine Herridge suggested on the “Mike Huckabee” show on Oct. 27, both of these critical subjects may have been driven by a perceived need to cover up the existence of the role being played by the U.S. mission in Libya to serve as a command hub for the movement of weapons out of Libya to Syrian rebels fighting to bring down the Bashar Al-Assad regime.

Flopping Aces: Why the AC130s were grounded: Obama didn’t want voters to find out that he had armed the jihadists with SAMs:

It’s simple logic. In Libya there is only one possible threat to an AC130 gunship: surface to air missiles. Thus this is the only way Panetta wasn’t lying when he said that it was lack of information about the threat environment that kept him from sending defenders into “harm’s way” in Benghazi. He must have been afraid that the jihadists were lying in wait with surface to air missiles, and he had good reason to suspect such a ploy.

A primary task of the Libyan mission was to round up the war materiel of the deposed and decomposing Moammar Ghadaffi and funnel it to chosen opponents of Assad in Syria. Which part of the Syrian opposition has Obama been choosing to supply? Al Qaeda:

“Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats,” the Times reports.

The paper quotes one U.S. official as saying, “The opposition groups that are receiving the most of the lethal aid are exactly the ones we don’t want to have it,” adding that “officials, voicing frustration, say there is no central clearinghouse for the shipments, and no effective way of vetting the groups that ultimately receive them.”

According to Adm. James A. Lyons (retired), the Libyan arms that have been funneled to the jihadists include substantial numbers of surface to air missiles:

Blackfive: Rumors of General Officers Arrested, Relieved, or Resigning in Protest:

On back channel, there has been talk that GEN Ham is actually being relieved for another mission – one that was denied airspace access by a sovereign nation, and that GEN Ham intentionally violated airspace rules/laws in order to complete a mission (not Benghazi).  There is also talk that GEN Ham is resigning in disgust of the chain of command – literally, with the Commander in Chief – and that he is trying to do so as apolitically as possible (and Ham is seen as being one of “the President’s guys”).  One would think that someone would wait for an election just days away to be over before resigning in protest (because you might have a new CinC), but who knows?  On Monday, GEN Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declared that GEN Ham’s departure was part of a planned rotation in the works since July.  Hhmmm…

Then, we have an up and coming Rear Admiral being relieved of command of the Stennis carrier group.  This is significant as it is not due to conduct unbecoming, personal conduct, or for incompetence, but for “inappropriate leadership judgment“.  What?!

Jihad Watch: Libyan Leaks: Secret Document reveals Al-Qaeda ‘brother’ put in control of U.S. Embassy in Tripoli:

The Benghazi scandal just keeps getting worse. Clearly Obama wanted to protect the illusion that the U.S. had supported a democratic uprising in Libya, but even Obama keeps saying the al-Qaeda is the enemy — and now this. “Libyan Leaks: Secret Document reveals Al-Qaeda ‘brother’ put in control of U.S. Embassy in Tripoli,” by Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack, October 31:

A treasure trove of secret documents has been obtained by a Libyan source who says that secularists in his country are increasingly wanting to see Mitt Romney defeat Barack Obama on November 6th. This charge is being made despite Muslim Brotherhood losses in Libyan elections last Julywhich resulted in victory for the secularists. One of those documents may help explain this sentiment.

It shows that in supporting the removal of Gadhafi, the Obama administration seemed to sign on to an arrangement that left forces loyal to Al-Qaeda in charge of security at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli from 2011 through at least the spring of 2012.

The National Transitional Council, which represented the political apparatus that opposed Gadhafi in 2011 and served as the interim government after his removal, made an extremely curious appointment in August of 2011. That appointment was none other than Abdel Hakim Belhaj, an Al-Qaeda ally and ‘brother’. Here is a copy of that letter (translation beneath it)…

Gateway Pundit: Classified August Cable Signed By Ambassador Stevens Warned Benghazi Consulate Couldn’t Withstand ‘Coordinated Attack’:

A classified cable on August 15 warned the Obama Administration that the Benghazi consulate could not withstand a “coordinated attack.”
The cable was signed by Ambassador Chris Stevens who was later murdered on 9-11.

Also Via Gateway Pundit”:

FOX News foreign policy analyst Catherine Herridge told Greta Van Susteren Wednesday,
“From what I see the State Department has culpability in the death of the US Ambassador and three Americans.”

Linked by Michelle Malkin, thanks!

Mexican Authorities Detain Man Accused of Killing Brian Terry – Was He One of the Detainees the ATF Let Go on the Night of the Murder?

EFE/SSP/SOLO USO EDITORIAL

Brian Terry is the best-known victim of “Fast and Furious,” the Obama administration’s “de facto conventional-weapons proliferation program,” as Delroy Murdock aptly called it.

Between November 2009 and January 2011, Team Obama arranged for licensed firearms dealers to sell guns to straw buyers, who transferred them to known violent criminals in Mexico. Among these firearms, two AK-47s were found near Rio Rico, Ariz., where suspected smugglers fatally shot Terry, a 40-year-old former Marine, on Dec. 15, 2010.

While Terry epitomizes those whom Fast and Furious has harmed, he is not its sole casualty.

In another Obama administration “gun-walking” escapade, in February 2011 in San Luis Potosi, Mexico, members of Los Zetas drug gang ambushed two U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Jaime Zapata, 32, was fatally shot and Victor Avila was wounded.

Largely overlooked is this plan’s calamitous impact on Mexico, its people and U.S.-Mexican relations.

“Our federal government knowingly, willfully, purposefully gave the drug cartels nearly 2,000 weapons — mainly AK-47s — and allowed them to walk,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told NBC News recently. These arms were supposed to lead federal agents in Phoenix to the Mexican thugs who acquired them. Instead, Fast and Furious guns melted into Mexico.

Approximately 300 Mexicans have been killed or wounded by Fast and Furious guns, estimates former Mexican attorney general Victor Humberto Benitez Trevino.

Today, via Gateway Pundit, Mexican authorities announced that they have detained a man accused of fatally shooting Brian Terry back in 2010.

Reuters reported:

Mexican police detained a man accused of fatally shooting a U.S. Border Patrol agent almost two years ago in Arizona in a botched U.S. operation to track guns smuggled across the border, the government said Friday.

Federal police detained Jesus Leonel Sanchez Meza on Thursday in Sonora state, which borders Arizona, where agent Brian Terry was shot dead in December 2010, the Public Security Ministry said. The Mexican Attorney General’s Office plans to extradite Sanchez Meza to the United States, the ministry said in a statement.

Two guns found at the scene were traced to a botched U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) sting operation called “Fast and Furious” that allowed weapons to slip across the border. It was not clear, however, if those weapons fired the fatal shots.

Four others have been accused in the shooting, the ministry said. Officials did not say if they were also being detained.

Reuters managed to resist resorting to hackery in order to run interference for the regime, but ABC sure didn’t, as Andy from AoSHQ bitterly notes:

In Operation Fast and Furious and at least three earlier probes during the administration of President George W. Bush, agents in Arizona employed a risky tactic called gun-walking …

Guess whose names they don’t mention in the entire article.

Also, conflating these various operations is complete bullshit. If you’re going to call OF&F “botched”, you need to be able to explain how it was supposed to work.

In one of the operations not run by Barack Obama and Eric Holder, we used GPS trackers in the guns and suspended it when the trackers didn’t work. And in all of the operations not run by Barack Obama and Eric Holder, Mexican officials were working with us so we actually had an effin’ plan to track the guns on the other side of the border that didn’t involve recovering them from crime scenes.

….After they had murdered people! We get so sick of having to point that out.

Last July, the DOJ unsealed the indictments against five men for the murder of Brian Terry. A week later, Town Hall’s Katie Pavlich, having read the incident report, discovered that four men had been detained by the ATF on the night of Terry’s murder, one was gunshot, and has remained in custody – three were let go.

Guns from Operation Fast and Furious were left at the scene. Four of the men indicted are on the run and believed to be in Mexico. Those men are Jesus Rosario Favela-Astorga, Ivan Soto-Barraza, Heraclio Osorio-Arellanes and Lionel Portillo-Meza. Manuel Osario Arellanes was shot on the night Terry was killed and has remained in custody since. His brother, Rito Osorio-Arellanes is also in custody and has been charged not for Terry’s murder, but for other related crimes.

BORTAC shooting incident report 11 TCANGL 121570000077, obtained by Townhall, indicates authorities had four suspects in custody at the time of Terry’s murder and let them go. Multiple updates in the report show “four men in custody,” one of the men in custody being wounded, with another at large but “spotted.” Five men in total. It has been confirmed multiple times that there were five bandits in Peck Canyon, Ariz. the night Terry was killed.

No, the names don’t match up exactly. Not sure what the deal there is.

With Sanchez’s arrest, three suspects in Terry’s death still remain at large.

RELATED:

Something positive that came out of this whole mess, via KVOA News Tucson:

On Thursday, the Terry family and Jim Click launched the First Annual Brian Terry Foundation Benefit Dinner. It is set for Monday, September 17 at the JW Marriott Starr Pass Resort and Spa in Tucson. The proceeds will help the Brian Terry Foundation continue it’s work. The website raises funds to help families of fallen U.S. Border Patrol Agents, establish educations scholarships and it raises awareness for border security issues.

To kick things off Thursday, the Jim Click Automotive Team presented the foundation with a $25,000 check.

Obama passed on the Bin Laden kill three separate times at Jarrett’s Urging (Update: DC Report up now)

Some Call Him Gutsy

Just passing along a fascinating web rumor I saw via Doug Ross, who says, stay tuned to The Daily Caller tomorrow for a blockbuster story based on a new “book bombshell”..

If true, the story would partially or perhaps fully confirm what a blogger published on his site, The Ulsterman Report, shortly after the raid, based on intelligence provided by the enigmatic “White House Insider” .

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.

Q: What changed the president’s position and enabled the attack against Osama Bin Laden to proceed?

A:  Nothing changed with the president’s opinion – he continued to avoid having one.  Every time military and intelligence officials appeared to make progress in forming a position, Jarrett would intervene and the stalling would begin again.  Hillary started the ball really rolling as far as pressuring Obama began, but it was Panetta and Petraeus who ultimately pushed Obama to finally act – sort of.  Panetta was receiving significant reports from both his direct CIA sources, as well as Petraeus-originating Intel.  Petraeus was threatening to act on his own via a bombing attack.  Panetta reported back to the president that a bombing of the compound would result in successful killing of Osama Bin Laden, and little risk to American lives.  Initially, as he had done before, the president indicated a willingness to act.  But once again, Jarrett intervened, convincing the president that innocent Pakistani lives could be lost in such a bombing attack, and Obama would be left attempting to explain Panetta’s failed policy.  Again Obama hesitated – this time openly delaying further meetings to discuss the issue with Panetta.  A brief meeting was held at this time with other officials, including Secretary Gates and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but Gates, like Panetta, was unable to push the president to act.  It was at this time that Gates indicated to certain Pentagon officials that he may resign earlier than originally indicated – he was that frustrated.  Both Panetta and Clinton convinced him to stay on and see the operation through.

What happened from there is what was described by me as a “masterful manipulation” by Leon Panetta.  Panetta indicated to Obama that leaks regarding knowledge of Osama Bin Laden’s location were certain to get out sooner rather than later, and action must be taken by the administration or the public backlash to the president’s inaction would be “…significant to the point of political debilitation.”  It was at that time that Obama stated an on-ground campaign would be far more acceptable to him than a bombing raid.  This was intended as a stalling tactic, and it had originated from Jarrett.  Such a campaign would take both time, and present a far greater risk of failure.  The president had been instructed by Jarrett to inform Mr., Panetta that he would have sole discretion to act against the Osama Bin Laden compound.  Jarrett believed this would further delay Panetta from acting, as the responsibility for failure would then fall almost entirely on him.  What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him –and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound.  Basically, the whole damn operation was already ready to go – including the specific team support Intel necessary to engage the enemy within hours of being given notice.  Panetta then made plans to proceed with an on-ground assault. This information reached either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates first (likely via militarycontacts directly associated with the impending mission) who then informed the other.  Those two then met with Panetta, who informed each of them he had been given the authority by the president to proceed with a mission if the opportunity presented itself.  Both Gates and Clinton warned Panetta of the implications of that authority – namely he was possibly being made into a scapegoat.  Panetta admitted that possibility, but felt the opportunity to get Bin Laden outweighed that risk.  During that meeting, Hillary Clinton was first to pledge her full support for Panetta, indicating she would defend him if necessary.  Similar support was then followed by Gates.  The following day, and with Panetta’s permission, Clinton met in private with Bill Daley and urged him to get the president’s full and open approval of the Panetta plan.  Daley agreed such approval would be of great benefit to the action, and instructed Clinton to delay proceeding until he had secured that approval.  Daley contacted Clinton within hours of their meeting indicating Jarrett refused to allow the president to give that approval.  Daley then informed Clinton that he too would fully support Panetta in his actions, even if it meant disclosing the president’s indecision to the American public should that action fail to produce a successful conclusion.  Clinton took that message back to Panetta and the CIA director initiated the 48 hour engagement order.  At this point, the President of the United States was not informed of the engagement order – it did not originate from him, and for several hours after the order had been given and the special ops forces were preparing for action into Pakistan from their position in Afghanistan, Daley successfully kept Obama and Jarrett insulated from that order.

This insulation ended at some point with an abort order that I believe originated from Valerie Jarrett’s office, and was then followed up by President Obama. This abort order was later explained as a delay due to weather conditions, but the actual conditions at that time would have been acceptable for the mission.  A storm system had been in the area earlier, but was no longer an issue.  Check the data yourself to confirm.  Jarrett, having been caught off guard, was now scrambling to determine who had initiated the plan.  She was furious, repeating the acronym “CoC” and saying it was not being followed.  This is where Bill Daley intervened directly.  The particulars of that intervention are not clear to me beyond knowing he did meet with Jarrett in his office and following that meeting, Valerie Jarrett was not seen in the West Wing for some time, and apparently no longer offered up any resistance to the Osama Bin Laden mission.  What did follow from there was one or more brief meetings between Bill Daley, Hillary Clinton, a representative from Robert Gates’ office, a representative from Leon Panetta’s office, and a representative from Jim Clapper’soffice.  I have to assume that these meetings were in essence, detailing the move to proceed with the operation against the Osama Bin Laden compound.  I have been told by more than one source that Leon Panetta was directing the operation with both his own CIA operatives, as well as direct contacts with military – both entities were reporting to Panetta only at this point, and not the President of the United States.  There was not going to be another delay as had happened 24 hour earlier.  The operation was at this time effectively unknown to President Barack Obama or Valerie Jarrett and it remained that way until AFTER it had already been initiated.  President Obama was literally pulled from a golf outing and escorted back to the White House to be informed of the mission.  Upon his arrival there was a briefing held which included Bill Daley, John Brennan, and a high ranking member of the military.  When Obama emerged from the briefing, he was described as looking “very confused and uncertain.”  The president was then placed in the situation room where several of the players in this event had already been watching the operation unfold.  Another interesting tidbit regarding this is that the Vice President was already “up to speed” on the operation.  A source indicated they believe Hillary Clinton had personally made certain the Vice President was made aware of that day’s events before the president was.  The now famous photo released shows the particulars of that of that room and its occupants.  What that photo does not communicate directly is that the military personnel present in that room during the operation unfolding, deferred to either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates.  The president’s role was minimal, including their acknowledging of his presence in the room.

Keep reading, here.

The crazy thing about The Ulsterman Report is that  just when you want to dismiss it as so much hokum–something he reported weeks, months, or even a year and a half  before anyone else, turns out to be true. He’s hit the nail on the head too many times to be dismissed.

If this new bombshell pans out, it would make Keith Koffler’s mocking White House Dossier  Fawning Interview with Obama from 5/9/2011 even funnier:

WHD: Now, How did you handle the incredible tension in the Situation Room the day you took out Bin Laden?

Obama: It’s all part of being a leader, of being, you know, basically a badass.

WHD: Yes, absolutely

Obama: And I was there for the others. I noticed Hillary about to collapse, and I comforted here with a hug and a shot of tequilla. But me, you know, I have to admit, it was tense. But I can handle it. I just can.

WHD: Is the story true that your national security aides were divided on this, but you just knew what had to be done?

Obama: Yes, some of my advisers were sissies. They were wringing their hands, and pissing on themselves.

Me, I knew we only had a 50-50 shot. It could have gone either way. But I just said, “Sometimes, folks, you just have to go for it. You have to trust your gut. You have to say, ‘Danger? Risk? Bring it on! Tension? Uncertainty? I eat if for breakfast!’ America needed to bag this dude. And so I sad, ‘Go for it, punk. Make my day. A man has to do what a man has to do.’ And so forth.”

WHD: Wowwww.

Obama: Would you like a glass of water?

WHD: No, I’m OK. And what did you say after you knew you’d killed Bin Laden?

Obama: I was as taciturn and cool as John Wayne putting his gun back in his holster. I just said, “We got him.”

WHD: Hot damn!

UPDATE:

The Daily Caller report is now up: Book: Obama canceled Bin Laden ‘kill’ raid three times at Jarrett’s urging:

At the urging of Valerie Jarrett, President Barack Obama canceled the operation to kill Osama bin Laden on three separate occasions before finally approving the May 2, 2011 Navy SEAL mission, according to an explosive new book scheduled for release August 21. The Daily Caller has seen a portion of the chapter in which the stunning revelation appears.

In ”Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him,“ Richard Miniter writes that Obama canceled the “kill” mission in January 2011, again in February, and a third time in March. Obama’s close adviser Valerie Jarrett persuaded him to hold off each time, according to the book.

Miniter, a two-time New York Times best-selling author, cites an unnamed source with Joint Special Operations Command who had direct knowledge of the operation and its planning.

–

We’re laughing at you,Newsweak…

–

Flashback to April 30 of this year: Video: Obama Doubles Down on Disgusting Bin Laden Slam Against Romney:

After Scripted Question From Reporterette Moves Courageous Leader of the Free World to Smirk, Gloat, Taunt, and Spike the Football During Press Conference, After Lengthy End Zone Dance, Navy SEALs weighed in: Yeah, Obama Should Probably Shut Up About bin Laden Now:

A serving SEAL Team member said: ‘Obama wasn’t in the field, at risk, carrying a gun. As president, at every turn he should be thanking the guys who put their lives on the line to do this. He does so in his official speeches because he speechwriters are smart.

‘But the more he tries to take the credit for it, the more the ground operators are saying, “Come on, man!” It really didn’t matter who was president. At the end of the day, they were going to go.’

Chris Kyle, a former SEAL sniper with 160 confirmed and another 95 unconfirmed kills to his credit, said: ‘The operation itself was great and the nation felt immense pride. It was great that we did it.

‘But bin Laden was just a figurehead. The war on terror continues. Taking him out didn’t really change anything as far as the war on terror is concerned and using it as a political attack is a cheap shot.

‘In years to come there is going to be information that will come out that Obama was not the man who made the call. He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn’t allowed to speak out against the commander- in-chief so his secret is safe.’

MORE:

It is not a coincidence, I’m sure that two Special Op super PACs have formed to defeat this pathetic,  preening, grandstanding SCOAMF…

Special Ops for America

and

Special Operations Speaks

Linked by Doug Ross and Michelle Malkin, thanks!

–

UPDATE II:

–

For those of you having trouble getting into The Daily Caller, @DailyCaller reports on Twitter, that they came under malware attack. They claim to have ” turned back the enemy & reclaimed our land. Site is safe to visit. Thanks 4 your patience.”

–

I’m still seeing the Attack Site notice, however.

–

There are no coincidences is politics, folks.

UPDATE III:

–
The Ulsterman Report: Truth About Obama Confirmed AGAIN Year AFTER White House Insider First Told Us…

What some deemed a prepostorous fabrication is once again being proven accurate – a new book details how Barack Obama called off the Bin Laden mission no less than three times due to the demands of senior adviser Valerie Jarrett – a book being published over one year AFTER our own  White House Insider gave the very same details.