Seymour Hersh report: WH lied about Bin Laden raid

Right. And people are mischaracterizing this in an attempt to rationalize it. I can't tell you how many times I've seen something along the following lines: "Of course the White House can't tell us everything that goes on in covert ops, nor should they!"

Which no one would rationally disagree with, of course.

Which is also not the issue here. The issue is whether the White House affirmatively lied. So people should stop trying to misdirect.

Someone I know from here wrote somewhere yesterday something like, "I don't care if this story is accurate. We killed Bin Laden. That's all I care about."

I responded: "The President shouldn't lie to the American people."

His response: A link to a Vox article debunking Hersh's story.

Of course, his initial post had presupposed the truth of the Hersh article.

Those goal posts. Always keep 'em moving.

 

There was always skepticism about the WH version of events, in part because there were some inconsistencies.

And/but Hersh's story is almost perfect for the administration because he goes to far, and they can simply knock it down as false.

If NBC's story had come out first, there would be some real questions to answer. Now, it gets lumped in with Hersch's.

It's almost enough to make you think the WH knew some of this was going to come out, and used Hersh, knowing that as the most gullible reporter out there, he would go to far.

 

It's not unreasonable to think Hersh, not the president, is the one who's lying.

 

Of course.

But if the President did lie, that's a problem. That's all I'm saying.

 

Why would we assume that only one of them was lying?

Hersh might be wrong. (And, he probably is in regards to some aspects.) But, that doesn't mean the President ins't involved in putting out a false story.

 

So, everyone is lying except the WH/CIA?

The NBC News sources who confirm that a Pakistani intelligence official became a "walk in" asset include the special operations officer and a CIA officer who had served in Pakistan. These two sources and a third source, a very senior former U.S. intelligence official, also say that elements of the ISI were aware of bin Laden's presence in Abbottabad. The former official was emphatic about the ISI's awareness, saying twice, "They knew."

And, I wouldn't be surprised if in an effort to confirm the report we tracked everyone who came in and out of that compound, including "couriers".

 

That must be it!

 

The only thing I readily assume is that every president in the history of our country has lied about something.

That said, while I'd be predisposed to believe a story like this, a reporter, preferably one with a better reputation, would have to come at it much harder than Hersh did to get me on board.

 

It's not unreasonable to assume that the administration would prefer to put out a story that could be easily knocked down and/or proven to be inaccurate. It makes it easy to dismiss the whole thing.

 

However, it's not reasonable -- in fact, it's tin-hat, lunatic-fringe, fruit-cake, conspiracy-theorist thinking -- to suggest that the White House set up Seymour Hersh for that purpose.

 

Eh. If the story is true (and it does seem more plausible than having Bin Laden hiding out in a top secret lair with the ISI having absolutely no clue where he is,) than Obama really can't tell the truth. We invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban wouldn't give him up. We let Pakistan slide for pretty much the same thing?

No, if the official version was a cover story, than it let's everybody save face.