The Killing of Osama bin Laden

[Mr. Desmond]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Disagree.

The economy was a helluva lot better in 2012 than 2009... everything was on the uptick despite partisanship bickering. During the election, Bin Laden was not much of an issue ... basically it was an election about getting out the vote, and no one does that better than Obama in a Presidential year. When Dems get out the vote, they generally can win. When they don't, they don't. There are a helluva lot more Dems than Pubs, but Pubs vote, and Dems are fickle voters.

The story has always been that the US could not trust Pakistan to keep a secret, too many in Pakistan's Intelligence Agency hated us, and the reason most sources believe Pakistan was not told about the raid.

You can disagree but it doesn't change the facts.  According to articles posted after the election the raid of the OBL compound was a major victory for Obama's approval rating.

There are many factors in an election - OBL was killed 1.5 years before the election. Certainly, one can't ignore it, but a major factor? I don't think so. The Pubs certainly did not want to talk about it -- they made it a referendum on Obamacare, and with a candidate who had founded state health care in Mass ... a weak candidate.

Fact in point: George Bush was President during Desert Storm and had a huge favorable approval rating -- it was 1.5 years before the election. He lost.

As Clinton said in 1992, "It's about the economy..."

Same with Obama -- he not only could point to the Pub boogeymen but had a recovering economy, and got out the vote. OBL's death was a favorable factor but not a major factor at all.

As Bush's loss shows, the American public has short memories, and it's "what have you done for me lately."

As to Hersh's book, I think it will be discredited. In fact, it goes against many facts. But people will believe what they want.

From Forbes, you would think a rather conservative publication -- Why Obama Won - 2012

Short Story: He got out his vote, appealing to a younger voter and minority voters..

"President Obama won re-election primarily because he did so well with two key, and expanding, constituencies: Hispanics and members of the Millennial Generation. Throughout the campaign, Democratic pundits predicted that these two groups would be the key difference makers. They were right.

Let’s start with Hispanics, arguably the biggest deciders in this election. Exit polling shows Obama winning this group — which gave up to two-fifths of their vote to George Bush — by over two to one. In 2008, Obama improved his winning margin with Latino voters from 67% in 2008 to 69% in 2012. And for the first time they represented 10% of the overall electorate.

Obama and the Democrats went after this constituency hard, taking some risks along the way of sparking a backlash among whites. Obama’s move to not deport young illegals if they came to this country as a child and met certain other criteria blurred any negative impact from a still weak economy. In contrast, Romney’s platform of more or less making life so horrible that illegals leave canceled out all of the GOP candidate’s credible economic and social proposals that might have appealed to this group."

[GolfLug]

The first, most obvious, question I'd ask of the author would be:  Why in the world would they make all of that up instead of just telling the truth?  What are they gaining by telling us the "Zero Dark Thirty" story instead of just saying "Pakistan held him and handed him over to us and we killed him?"

The story we've been told, which has been generally corroborated by several different people involved, including at least two of the actual Seals

OR

This story, put together by one guy with only anonymous sources.

If those are my only choices, then I'm going with door number 1.  Not going to put much stock behind it, because like @dsc123 , I certainly don't know anything about this, but common sense has me leaning that way for now.

Good post and I agree 110%. Exactly what I wondered about while reading the account. I guess the only thing that might be a revelation is Pakistan was supposedly promised a report of no involvement but were thrown under the bus when the operation took a detour when the helicopter went down in the compound. Honestly not a revelation either to anybody who understands the politics of that part of the world. They will get over it.

[Golfingdad]

Doesn't the fact that the story changed so many different times from the point that the news first came up until the last version came out from the government enough to persuade you that there is probably an alternate story that actually took place? The government doesn't care about the small percentage of free thinking Americans, but rather the masses that sill believe the first story told.. They can tell what ever story they want at fest and that's what is going to stay in people's mind.. Then they can retract as they wish later on because that will only reach a fraction of the people that heard the original headline story.. This is typical stuff here IMO..

How much did it really change though?  A serious question, I don't remember.  Small details may have been added, subtracted, or changed as time went on, but the general story was pretty much the same.  For example, the ZDT guy had his account, and then there was another SEAL who had a slightly different account.  That kind of stuff actually makes me believe the real story even more.  If there was some giant conspiracy to make up a totally different story, then why wouldn't those guys be put on the same page?

To hear a story from one author with a couple of anonymous sources and, most importantly, NO CORROBORATION, that complete contradicts the previous story, and just choose, on a whim to buy that??  Sorry, that is a stretch.  Conspiracy theory thinking.  "Hey look, there is this one tiny piece of unexplained info (or explained, but not to my satisfaction) - lets come up with an unsubstantiated and unscientific reason to explain it and then extrapolate from there."

And when people convince themselves of this stuff, they always refer to the government as a single entity.  As if there aren't thousands upon thousands of people working in the government, all with different personal views, and as if they are ALL corrupt.  The amount of people that would have to be on board with and go along with these types of conspiracies to make us believe it is usually enough to convince me that it's more likely that something a lot closer to the official story is what is true.

As a reminder:  I'm not saying I'm 100% on board with the official story, I'm simply saying that all the information added together at this point has me leaning that way.  I'm not burying my head in the sand or plugging my ears, I'm just evaluating all (ALL) of the information at hand, and going from there.  I am more than willing to believe something else happened, but only if and when the preponderance of evidence tilts that way.  At this point, its really not even close though.

You can disagree but it doesn't change the facts.  According to articles posted after the election the raid of the OBL compound was a major victory for Obama's approval rating.

I agree with that. It was a huge deal.  But "it" was simply the killing of Osama Bin Laden.  It's the idea that the specific nature of the killing mattered enough for them to completely fabricate a story about how it happened that I think is presumptuous.

[Mr. Desmond]

I think many people are making the argument for Hersh because they want to believe the OBL killing was a "major" factor in the election, and if the official story was falsified, it means Obama won on a lie, and it fits their belief that he should not be President, or his presidency lacks credibility.

I could say that all elections are won on lies, and I'd probably not be far from the truth.

But the last election, like most elections, are about the economy and how you feel about your pocketbook.

[saevel25]

As a reminder:  I'm not saying I'm 100% on board with the official story, I'm simply saying that all the information added together at this point has me leaning that way.  I'm not burying my head in the sand or plugging my ears, I'm just evaluating all (ALL) of the information at hand, and going from there.  I am more than willing to believe something else happened, but only if and when the preponderance of evidence tilts that way.  At this point, its really not even close though.

I agree with that. It was a huge deal.  But "it" was simply the killing of Osama Bin Laden.  It's the idea that the specific nature of the killing mattered enough for them to completely fabricate a story about how it happened that I think is presumptuous.

I am in agreement with you on this.

To me there is no big deal to this. If Washington's story is true, then ok. If the article story is true, then Ok the government tried to cover it up. Then I just say, so what?

The article makes it sound like there this huge thing because the story wasn't 100% accurate from the government. When in reality its a lot of hot air.

US went into Pakistan. They killed Bin Laden. End of Story. Clearly Pakistan didn't make a stink about us going into their country. I am sure if they were upset about it they would totally make a play as us being the bad guys to try to get more financial support from us in terms of trade. Besides that the specifics don't matter to me. It doesn't matter if he was brandishing a weapon or not. It doesn't matter if he was a feeble old man or not. It doesn't matter if Pakistan basically offered him up on a silver platter.

I could say that all elections are won on lies, and I'd probably not be far from the truth.

But the last election, like most elections, are about the economy and how you feel about your pocketbook.

Elections are won on half truths and trying to make yourself seem centrist in politics versus hard left or right. Honestly I don't remember talking about the killing of Bin Laden. The election was probably 90% about the economy.

[Golfingdad]

According to articles posted after the election the raid of the OBL compound was a major victory for Obama's approval rating.

I think many people are making the argument for Hersh because they want to believe the OBL killing was a "major" factor in the election,

But the last election, like most elections, are about the economy and how you feel about your pocketbook.

Honestly I don't remember talking about the killing of Bin Laden. The election was probably 90% about the economy.

This whole argument is a strawman (on both sides.)  How much of a factor the killing of Osama Bin Laden was in the election 2 years later has no bearing on the credibility of these stories about how he was killed.

Playing devils advocate here, all that would matter is what the people conspiring together thought at the time they came up with the alternate story.  Whether they turned out to be right or wrong 800 days after the fact would be completely irrelevant.

[Mr. Desmond]

I need to avoid these threads.

OBL is dead ...

[bubble]

I dont understand much.

Koweit was a part of Irak pretty much before whities design borders after WW, anyway hussein takes it back and US goes to war for that, or saying weapons of mass destruction are there but finally there is nothing everyone agrees but we still dont know why these missing weapons of mass destruction were invented to justify war ?!?.

Anyway oil goes way up so major producers like the US are happy in a way maybe, so are orther countries of the EAU.

Then the TTs go down by who knows who yet the enemy is OBL, so back to irak ? wtf ?

[turtleback]

Because politics is about timing and story.  At the time, the economy wasn't great, Obama had a pretty low approval rating and the country needed a "pick me up".  The truth as Hersh reports wasn't very heroic or newsworthy compared to the "Zero Dark Thirty" story.  Don't you ever wonder why certain events or news reports occur when they do?  The government knows how to use the media to provide misdirection to get the headlines and mindsets focused someplace else.

I don't know how much of what Hersh said is correct but I don't believe for a second that we'd execute a mission like we did in Pakistan without their approval.

I 100% believe you reacted that way, but I think you were in the minority.  If it was just about Bin Laden being dead then there'd be no reason for all the detailed accounts and in fighting among the SEALS over who got the credit for the "kill".  It was a big military coup at the time.

I think many people are making the argument for Hersh because they want to believe the OBL killing was a "major" factor in the election, and if the official story was falsified, it means Obama won on a lie, and it fits their belief that he should not be President, or his presidency lacks credibility.

I could say that all elections are won on lies, and I'd probably not be far from the truth.

But the last election, like most elections, are about the economy and how you feel about your pocketbook.

Do I really need to link to the many many stories in which the government patted itself and Mr. Obama on the back for the incredible courage ordering the operation took?  How they put the decision to kill Osama right at the top of the list of the Obama Admin's accomplishment in the campaign?  I won't, but a simple google search on "courageous decision osama" will bring it all up.  That is the great thing about the internet - stuff doesn't go away.

It is also kind of funny that Sy Hersch was the darling of the left when he was revealing things like the My Lai massacre and the Abu Graib abuses but becomes evil incarnate when revealing a peccadillo on the left?  (Kind of like Kraft applauding the appointment of Wells, who is now being trashed by Pat apologists because they don't like the result)

But that said, by policy I give no credibility to any press story based on a single anonymous source no matter who the reporter is or which side of the political spectrum it favors.

[dsc123]

Even if Obama scored points by killing OBL...why would this alternative version be any less valuable in that regard?  I haven't read the article yet--just summaries of the article--but isnt the crux of it more like the Pakistani Gov't gave OBL to us?

[phan52]

Seymour Hersh used to be a respected investigative journalist who has broken some of the more significant stories of our time. I always used to read his pieces in the New Yorker with great interest and anticipation. Sadly, in recent years he has become a bit of an conspiracy theorist and the New Yorker rejected this story among others in recent years. I hate to see him being relegated to crazy person status, as it affects the credibility of decades of great work.

[Phil McGleno]

http://coreypein.net/blog/2015/11/05/hersh-vox-bin-laden/

[newtogolf]

I think many people are making the argument for Hersh because they want to believe the OBL killing was a "major" factor in the election, and if the official story was falsified, it means Obama won on a lie, and it fits their belief that he should not be President, or his presidency lacks credibility.

I could say that all elections are won on lies, and I'd probably not be far from the truth.

But the last election, like most elections, are about the economy and how you feel about your pocketbook.

You're putting words in my mouth, I discussed Obama's low approval rating and never mentioned anything about the election in my initial posts.  I don't believe OBL had anything to do with Obama winning the election but you seem to just want to defend his victory.  Reread my posts and stop basing the discussion on what you want to debate versus what I wrote.

[Mr. Desmond]

You're putting words in my mouth, I discussed Obama's low approval rating and never mentioned anything about the election in my initial posts.  I don't believe OBL had anything to do with Obama winning the election but you seem to just want to defend his victory.  Reread my posts and stop basing the discussion on what you want to debate versus what I wrote.

Wow.

[Dave2512]

I just assume that anything political has some spin on it, because it does. Put me in the who cares camp for this one. The only thing that mattered to me at the time was OBL was done I didn't care about the details and I still don't.

[turtleback]

Even if Obama scored points by killing OBL...why would this alternative version be any less valuable in that regard?  I haven't read the article yet--just summaries of the article--but isnt the crux of it more like the Pakistani Gov't gave OBL to us?

Because there is a big difference between

"Pakistan gave him to us and we executed him"

and

"Obama courageously risked his Presidency by sending in Seals with no assurance of their success."

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/03/13/biden-obama-risked-reelection-to-kill-bin-laden/

[saevel25]

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/navy-seal-who-says-he-killed-bin-laden-refutes-118783904096.html

Hmm, conflicting articles.

[newtogolf]

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/navy-seal-who-says-he-killed-bin-laden-refutes-118783904096.html

Hmm, conflicting articles.

We won't ever know the truth, Hersh could be wearing a tin foil hat for all we know.  It's ridiculous to believe O’Neill would speak out or dispute something the Commander and Chief stated, they might as well have asked Biden for a comment too.