Posts Tagged ‘assassination’

Dramatic images that media claimed represented Obama and Clinton watching live assassination of Bin Laden revealed to be a PR stunt

In addition to images of President Obama’s address to the American public on Sunday night, it has emerged that the dramatic photos of Obama, Biden, Hillary Clinton and members of the White House security team watching the assassination of Bin Laden “live” were in fact completely staged, casting further doubt on the ever-changing official account of the operation.

On Tuesday, the White House released provocative images that purported to show, “US President Barack Obama watching live footage of the operation that killed Osama bin Laden.”

In one particularly dramatic photo, Hillary Clinton is seen with her hand anxiously clasped over her mouth as if reacting to a crucial event. Other photos show Obama and his staff with stern faces as they discuss the operation while it unfolds.

The photos were described by many as having “historical significance,” forming a “captivating” record of Obama’s greatest success and being the “defining moment” of his Presidency.

We were also told by the media that, “The leader of the free world saw the terror chief shot in the left eye.”

“US president Barack Obama along with his high-level team, watched live coverage in the White House, as the commandos gunned down the world’s most wanted terrorist Osama Bin Laden Via a video camera fixed to the helmet of a US Navy Seal,” it was also reported.

US chief counter-terrorism advisor John Brennan claimed that the head cameras that fed audio and video back to the White House, allowed Obama and his staff to track the operation “on an ongoing basis”.

But the claims have been proven to be completely fraudulent.

it has emerged that Obama, Clinton and their staff saw virtually nothing whatsoever of the mission that allegedly led to the assassination of Bin Laden, because according to CIA director Leon Panetta, there was a 25 minute blackout of the live feed which was cut off before the US Navy SEALS even entered the building.

A photograph released by the White House appeared to show the President and his aides in the situation room watching the action as it unfolded. In fact they had little knowledge of what was happening in the compound,” reports the London Telegraph.

In an interview with PBS, Mr Panetta said: “Once those teams went into the compound I can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes where we really didn’t know just exactly what was going on. And there were some very tense moments as we were waiting for information.

The notion that Obama “saw the terror chief shot in the left eyelive on video is a total fabrication. At best, the photos were cynically misrepresented by the White House and the mainstream media, at worst, they were completely staged to add a contrived dramatic spin to the unfolding wall-to-wall press coverage of the Bin Laden fable, which is becoming more convoluted with each passing day.

The key image that clearly indicates the photos were staged is the shot of Hillary Clinton with her hand over her mouth. Clinton looks shocked as if she has witnessed something disturbing, obviously implying that she is watching a live shootout or someone being assassinated, when in fact she saw nothing of the kind because the feed was cut before the SEALS entered the compound. The White House was careful to not describe this image as representing the moments during which the SEALS stormed the building, but the implication was clear, and the establishment media did the work for them, reporting that the picture depicted Obama and Clinton, “watching intently as the raid takes place,” another total falsehood.

Former top spymaster Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik, a man who worked under five different US Presidents, has been proven correct in his assertion that the photos were “Nonsense….total make-up, make believe,” and proof that Americans were being held captive to a “theater of the absurd”.

We truly have entered the “theater of the absurd” when, even as the narrative of the Bin Laden fable crashes and burns, the establishment media that helped manufacture this work of fiction are still claiming that anyone who even questions the blaring inconsistencies of the official account are merely conspiracy theorists engaging in “black helicopter fantasies”.

Source: PrisonPlanet

Advertisements

Jared Lee Loughner allegedly tried to assassinate Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords at a meeting with constituents in Tucson, Arizona, on Saturday. In the wake of the attack, the 22-year-old Loughner has been called everything from “crazed” to “unhinged.” What he’s not been called, however, at least by the media, is a terrorist.

According to the United States Law Code, terrorism is “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” New evidence alleges that Loughner possibly planned for years to assassinate Giffords, a prominent politician. Sounds a lot like terrorism to me. But a whole host of major media outlets seem to disagree.

The Wall Street Journal today says Loughner “raged against the government” and “discussed terrorism,” which, when you actually think about it, is a vague, nearly meaningless sentence (who hasn’t discussed terrorism in the past decade?). In the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the main story is that Loughner was denied entry into the military because he failed a drug test, while the only talk of terrorism comes in a confusing quote from a blog posting from Loughner himself: “If you call me a terrorist then the argument to call me a terrorist is ad hominem.” And, in the Los Angeles Times’ lead story on Loughner today, the word “terror” doesn’t appear once.

Compare this nebulous coverage to that on Nidal Hasan in November 2009. If you’ll remember, Hasan is the only suspect in the Fort Hood shooting in Texas that left 13 people dead and 30 more wounded. Hasan is also Muslim, a fact every news outlet won’t let you forget, while also speculating about his terrorist ties.

Four days after the attack on Fort Hood, the Wall Street Journalpublished two stories suggesting that Hasan was a terrorist, one of which included the assertion that it was a terrorist act because Hasan spoke Arabic while he shot. The Los Angeles Times spoke to counterterrorism experts for this piece on Hasan. And, in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, blogger Kyle Wingfield actually gave credence to a Forbesargument claiming that Hasan “went Muslim.”

Some will argue that Hasan’s terrorist intentions were proved by communications he had with radical cleric Anwar al Awlaki, but, in fact, experts who reviewed the pair’s e-mail exchange deemed it totally innocuous.

It should be noted that the FBI Director Robert Mueller has said he’s not ruling out terrorism charges against Loughner, but nothing’s certain yet. And today in Dubai, Hillary Clinton called Loughner an “extremist,” though, like the media, she stopped short of calling him a terrorist. From the sidelines, the message this sends is pretty obvious and very insidious: When a white man executes a political attack, he’s likely crazy; when it’s a Muslim doing the shooting, he’s likely a terrorist.

 

Source