Hersh - The Killing of Osama bin Ladin

Seymour M. Hersh · The Killing of Osama bin Laden · LRB 21 May 2015

Anyone see this? Nothing on the major news sites yet. Pretty explosive stuff if even half true.

 

According to some sites, he relied primarily on one anonymous source.

No word if anyone was raped on top of a broken table.

 

Critique of it is now front page of CNN.com. Hersh's peice was a really engrossing read and seemed plausible, but as Peter Bergen points out, there are questionable assertions, particularly about Saudi Arabia. But I don't know, for it to carry water, it means an awful lot of people actively lied, especially Obama. Also means Zero Dark Thirty was a steaming pile.

Was the bin Laden killing story a lie? - CNN.com

 

Like others mentioned, I wish there had been more attributed sourcing, but given the nature of the subject, you're probably not going to get it.

Accordingly, this is one of those pieces where the reporter asks the reader to believe what he wrote based on his credibility and his body of work, and Sy Hersh has some pretty good credentials. If the future of journalism lies in a reporter's or an organization's demonstrated trustworthiness — and I believe it does — this might prove to be a good litmus test.

Still, it was a compelling, detailed read.

 

While Hersh has undoubtedly lost his fastball from My Lai, would it really surprise anyone if bin Laden was already in custody and given up by an intelligence official for the $25 million reward?

 

Didn't read the link yet. How does he explain away the secret helicopter that was blown up after the hard landing?

 

I wouldn't describe much of that story as "explosive," especially not this long after the fact.

I wasn't surprised by much of it. The part that bothered me most was the fact of how much the Pakistanis were in the United States' back pocket, and how much the U.S. was in the Pakistanis' back pocket, and according to this article, Pakistan "let" the U.S. just come in and assassinate bin Laden. But many of the lies and inconsistencies surrounding the events were acknowledged and addressed not long after the raid, hence all the various versions of the facts and the story.

And, the SEALS couldn't live with killing bin Laden, whether he was defenseless or not? Somehow, I doubt that. This was not some random helpless elderly man who "wasn't operationally important" anymore. It was Osama bin Laden. And as to whether he presented any danger to the SEALS, well, I don't know how anyone can argue that if they were in the same room as bin Laden, they weren't in danger. Again, that goes whether he had or fired a gun, or not. This was Osama bin Laden.

I generally don't like the idea of our president lying, and I don't just think the end justifies the means, no matter what. But this case is different as far as I'm concerned. I'm not saying it's right to lie. But I'm also not sure how much any non-jihadi person really cares about lies told in the pursuit of Osama bin Laden, or his death.

 

really, you wouldn't describe it as explosive? He's alleging that at least three governments -- Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, U.S. -- were in cahoots to conceal the real circumstances surrounding the capture and death of the guy who orchestrated 9-11. This isn't ancient history. The same PODUS is still in office, and the woman who was secretary of state at the time is the presumptive frontrunner to be the next PODUS.

After reading Vox's take down of the piece, I'm a bit more skeptical.

The many problems with Seymour Hersh's Osama bin Laden conspiracy theory - Vox

Apparently David Remnick and the folks at the New Yorker had repeatedly rejected the piece for publication, which helps explain why it ended up in the London Review of Books.

 

PODUS?

 

Yeah, President of Dah United States.

/actually was a typo. POTUS.

 

For 25 million? Yeah, I can believe he'd been got for that kind of money. Not out of the realm of possibility and probably a pretty strong possibility.

 

You can't believe governments were or are in cahoots with each other? Come on, that's all anybody asserts or complains about with governments anymore.

You can't believe somebody in Pakistan or its government knew where Osama bin Laden was, particularly if he was, in fact, in their country, "hiding," or being held captive, in what counts for a vacation area there?

You can't believe somebody in Pakistan wouldn't hand bin Laden over, particularly years after he was supposedly pertinent anymore, for millions of dollars, or that the U.S. might pay for that to happen, or that the whole thing couldn't have been staged, even? That seems kind of naïve and overly idealistic of you, and doesn't sound at all out of the realm of possibility to me.

And you can't believe President Obama -- about as smooth an operator when it comes to a public persona and as good a public-speaking politician as this country has had in decades -- could have pulled it off without blinking? Or that he wouldn't have wanted to do so, particularly once he was certain that the individual in question was, in fact, Osama bin Laden?

Come on...as I said before: This was Osama bin Laden.