Obama, Military Leaders Lied About Osama’s Death Date

Osama bin Laden SC Obama, Military Leaders Lied About Osama’s Death Date

Wagging The Dog (media, citizens) Operation Confirmed

By CPT Pamela Barnett, USA Retired* (Author Obama Never Vetted:The Unlawful President) Copyright 2012

Obama lied to every American and the rest of the world about the date of the alleged Osama Bin Laden killing, according to recently released Department of Defense emails.  (Email redactions by DOD) According to a live speech (White House link and alternate link) 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 (where Osama allegedly was) 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 fire fight they killed Osama Bin Laden and took custody of his body.”

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.

perez 150x150 Obama, Military Leaders Lied About Osama’s Death Date      In one of the emails with a date time of April 29, 2011, 4:58 AM,  Rear Admiral (Lower Half) Samuel Perez asks an unidentified email sender (Redacted) regarding the “burial”: “Do I need any special religious/ceremonial preparations?”  Email strings that were released concerning the alleged burial of Osama go back to April 28.  This means that “Osama” (or possibly someone else) was killed April 28, 2011 or earlier.

 Early Morning Email From RDML Samuel Perez Asking About Burial April 29

PEREZ EMAIL Obama, Military Leaders Lied About Osama’s Death Date

Email From Rear Admiral Kurt Tidd Morning Of April 28 to RDML Perez Regarding BurialWith Daily Update (27 APR 2011) Subject Header

OSAMA TIDD EMAIL Obama, Military Leaders Lied About Osama’s Death Date

 Obama continued to lie to the American people two other times in his speech that Osama was killed that day – May 1, 2011.

At 6.13 minutes, Obama stated “Tonight I called President Zardari and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations,” stated Obama.

At  8.37 “Today’s achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country,” stated Obama.

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, CA, 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?  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.  This video is very important in understanding how the federal courts continue to fraudulently weasel out of hearing Obama ineligibility cases and how the federal courts have taken away our right to petition the federal court regarding unconstitutional issues.

For the first time, 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 the media in the dark regarding his ineligibility, forged documents, and use of a Connecticut social security number never assigned to him.  (See related story Was “Osama Killing” Obama Wagging The Dog?)

Surprisingly, or not surprisingly, Rear Admiral (Lower Half) Samuel Perez and other high level military and other government officials let the lie on Osama’s alleged day of death stand.  What else is being lied about by Obama and military officials regarding the alleged death of Osama Bin Laden?

On a boat of over 6,000 sailors, only a handful of witnesses?  Where were all of the on-duty sailors?

Did those unnamed men in leadership even look in the body bag?  Anything or anyone could have been in the bag.

gaouette photo 150x150 Obama, Military Leaders Lied About Osama’s Death DateAlso, the Department of Defense, in their Freedom of Information Act response, stated that the USS Carl Vinson (the carrier in which Osama’s body was allegedly dumped) had no documentary evidence of Osama’s burial.  However, in the released emails RDML Charles M. Gaouette stated: “The paucity of documentary evidence in our possession is a reflection of the emphasis placed upon operational security during the execution of this phase of the operation.”

Paucity means a small amount.  So the military leadership in coordination with Obama’s DOD stated that there is no documentary evidence (a lie), even though RDML Gaouette had said there was a “paucity” of evidence.

Email Where RDML Gaouette Stated That Documentary Evidence of    “Osama’s Burial” Existed

OSAMA GAOUETTE EMAIL Obama, Military Leaders Lied About Osama’s Death DateOSAMA GAOUETTE EMAIL 2 Obama, Military Leaders Lied About Osama’s Death Date

Was Rear Admiral (lower half) Charles Gaouette relieved from command because he did not like that the U.S. military and Obama were lying to the American people? Was the admiral being set up by the Obama administration for not wanting to keep the Osama lie quiet? From mynorthwest.com.

Navy Admiral kicked off his ship, sent back to Bremerton. Why?

A man who climbed the Navy’s ranks over a long career has been unceremoniously removed as commander of the USS Stennis Carrier Strike Group and sent back to the homeport in Bremerton.

A U.S. Navy spokesperson is not giving an explanation for the change, other than to say that questions had arisen about Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette’s “leadership judgment.” …….

……..NBC News interviewed Neal Zerbe, a retired Navy Captain, who says, “The particular commander being relieved, and you know translating that to just moving him back to a continental U.S. base while the investigation continues, is unlike anything I’ve ever seen before.”

If you plan on going to see the new Osama killing movie Zero Dark Thirty this weekend, citizens of this country and the world should consider taking the movie more as a work of fiction to prop up Obama than a work of non-fiction.  The Obama administration’s lies continue.

*Use of military rank is NOT  an endorsement by the Department of Defense or Department of the Army.


Related posts:

  1. Cartoon Of The Day: 14 Cartoons On Osama’s Death Flush with the news that Osama bin Laden had been…
  2. Will Osama Bin Laden’s Death End Up Being A Liability For President Obama? It would be the ultimate irony if the one courageous…

Video: GOP Congressman to Obama, Stop Lying About Social Security Checks

Book: Obama’s Father Considered Putting Him up for Adoption


A new book out next week claims that President Obama’s father considered putting him up for adoption when he was a child, according to The Hill.

The book, by Boston Globe reporter Sally Jacobs, cites documents in the “alien file” of the senior Barack H. Obama to make the adoption claim in her book, “The Other Barack: The Bold and Reckless Life of President Obama’s Father.” She obtained the documents from the Department of Homeland Security using a Freedom of Information request…

“Miss Dunham is making arrangements with the Salvation Army to give the baby away,” according to the immigration file.

Read more.

Issa: Holder May Have Lied Under Oath

Fred Lucas, CNSNews.com

House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) says he does not believe Attorney General Eric Holder gave accurate testimony when Issa questioned him in the House Judiciary Committee on May 3.

In that testimony, Holder told the Judiciary Committee he had “probably” heard only in the “last few weeks” about the Justice Department’s “Operation Fast and Furious.” Issa told CNSNews.com he is convinced—“absolutely”—that Holder knew about the operation earlier than he claimed…

on Jan. 27, 2011, Senate Judiciary Ranking Member Charles Grassley (R.-Iowa) wrote a letter to ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson asking him to explain Operation Fast and Furious in light of the weapons found at the scene of Terry’s murder. Five days after that, on Feb. 1, 2011, the story of Operation Fast and Furious broke in the press—with multiple reports referencing Grassley’s letter to Melson. By Feb. 3, 2011, the operation, its link to the murder of Border Patrol Agent Terry, and Grassley’s inquiry to the ATF about it, had been reported in USA Today, The Arizona Republic, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Associated Press.

Yet, three full months after these public news reports, at a May 3 Judiciary Committee hearing, Attorney General Holder, under questioning by Issa, testified that he had “probably” only learned about Operation Fast and Furious in “the last few weeks.”

“We believe that he was aware of it much earlier than he said in his testimony and questioning before the Judiciary Committee,” Issa told CNSNews.com in an interview.

“Are we confident that Eric Holder knew it much earlier? No,” said Issa. “Did he know it earlier than he testified? Absolutely.”

Read more.

Washington Post: Obama Lies Through His Teeth About Economy

Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post

“Chrysler has repaid every dime and more of what it owes American taxpayers for their support during my presidency.”

President Obama, June 4, 2011

With some of the economic indicators looking a bit dicey, President Obama traveled to Ohio last week to tout what the administration considers a good-news story: the rescue of the domestic automobile industry. In fact, he also made it the subject of his weekly radio address.

We take no view on whether the administration’s efforts on behalf of the automobile industry were a good or bad thing; that’s a matter for the editorial pages and eventually the historians. But we are interested in the facts the president cited to make his case.

What we found is one of the most misleading collections of assertions we have seen in a short presidential speech. Virtually every claim by the president regarding the auto industry needs an asterisk, just like the fine print in that too-good-to-be-true car loan.

Let’s look at the claims in the order in which the president said them.

“Chrysler has repaid every dime and more of what it owes American taxpayers for their support during my presidency — and it repaid that money six years ahead of schedule.  And this week, we reached a deal to sell our remaining stake. That means soon, Chrysler will be 100 percent in private hands.”

Wow, “every dime and more” sounds like such a bargain. Not only did Chrysler pay back the loan, with interest — but the company paid back even more than they owed. Isn’t America great or what?

Not so fast. The president snuck in the weasel words “during my presidency” in his statement. What does that mean?

According to the White House, Obama is counting only the $8.5 billion loan that he made to Chrysler, not the $4 billion that President George W. Bush extended in his last month in office. However, Obama was not a disinterested observer at the time. According to The Washington Post article on the Bush loan, the incoming president called Bush’s action a “necessary step . . . to help avoid a collapse of our auto industry that would have had devastating consequences for our economy and our workers.”

Under the administration’s math, the U.S. government will receive $11.2 billion back from Chrysler, far more than the $8.5 billion Obama extended.

Through this sleight-of-hand accounting, the White House can conveniently ignore Bush’s loan, but even the Treasury Department admits that U.S. taxpayers will not recoup about $1.3 billion of the entire $12.5 billion investment when all is said and done.

The White House justifies not counting the Bush money because, it says, that money was completely spent when Obama was making a tough political decision on whether to extend another loan. In other words, a decision to do nothing at the time would have resulted in the immediate loss of the $4 billion that Bush had extended.

This is chicanery. Under the president’s math, Chrysler paid back 100 percent of Obama’s loan and less than 70 percent of Bush’s loan….

Read more.