I really don’t know what forum this belongs in. Eventually, I hope we get a factual answer, but for now, informed speculation will have to do.
I’m aware Seymour Hersh is relying on a retired intelligence official. I’m also aware Peter Bergen says Hersh’s narrative doesn’t pass the smell test, based on physical evidence he saw at the compound immediately after.
I’m trying to understand the issue. Why would Obama’s administration lie about it? What would the larger implications be? How likely is it that Hersh is right?
AFAICT [ol][li]If Obama lied, it was about whether or not the Pakistanis told him where bin Laden was, because the Pakistanis wanted to avoid pissing off their own radical, pro-bin Laden citizens (and military), and [/li][li]who cares?[/ol][/li]Regards,
Shodan
I hate t say it, having great respect for some of his earlier work, but this one sure smells foul. The proposed conspiracy and justifications for it make no sense.
So what? The bit about us lying about the Pakistanis? No shit? Governments lie about this sort of thing all the time to protect people/assets/whatever.
Yeah, that’s kind of where I’m at…why WOULD they lie about this? I mean, what’s in it for them to do so? I have no trouble with conceiving of governments or politicians lying, but there has to be a reason, and I’m not seeing it or what the point would be.
Outside of (I assume) some fodder for the Republicans I don’t think there are any…at least I’m not seeing them. Maybe someone will explain what this means…I’m with Shodan’s comment of ‘who cares?’ at this point.
I’m going to say ‘not very likely’ bordering on ‘snowballs chance in hell’ at this point…but that’s based on one CNN article I skimmed this morning, so who knows?
If you listen to random conservative Internet commenters (and I don’t recommend that you do), the “larger implications” are that this demonstrates how little Obama is to be trusted on any topic whatsoever, and it apparently casts doubt on the idea that he had anything to do with bin Laden’s death at all (or or or maybe he’s not even really dead…?).
They may have lied about how much, if any, information the Pakistanis gave them about bin Laden’s whereabouts and situation. This was to allow the Pakistanis to deny any involvement and avoid pissing off their local radical Islamists, who would be upset that the Pakstanis helped kill bin Laden, who they admired. Or perhaps/as well they wanted to protect resources in the area who helped and might be the subject of attacks from radicals.
I strongly doubt if Obama lied in order to grab credit for himself, or anything like that.
If Hersh were correct, that Pakistan had been holding bin Laden in detention in '06, that could mean one of two things. Either the Bush administration knew about it and was so inept at negotiation that they could not convince Pakistan to give him up; or Pakistan disliked Bush so much that they kept bin Laden a secret until Obama’s team were able to talk them into handing him over. Either scenario would translate to not a huge difference in the greater picture. But, of course, he had to put in the part about callously defenestrating the pieces of the body, perhaps as a sly way to discredit his own report amongst reasonable people. Hersh seems to be wrapping himself in his own false-flag.
Not to put too fine a point on it, ObL was not universally recognized as a Bad Guy®. Any sane person in Barrak’s boots would have wanted only two bits of evidence to be incontrovertible: 1) ObL is dead, and 2) at the hands of the US Military. You can bet that LOADS of intelligence sources and collection techniques were employed in the operation–a responsible intel mission would want to compromise as little of that as possible. An extra layer is the political climate in the area, and allowing different organizations to have plausible deniability of culpability in the action. It would be the height of irresponsibility to eliminate any murk at all from the operation and tell the world in provable, concrete terms who did what and with who’s help.
And even if the Pakistanis had him in custody for a while, that doesn’t mean Bush II dropped the ball. It just means “Good, someone’s got him by the neck and I don’t need to worry about him.” It could very well be the case that W made a deal with Pakistan: let us know when you’re done with him, we’d like to handle the disposal." In which case: win for Bush II, and Obama must, reluctantly, take credit because disposal happened on his watch.
Well, not really a data point, exactly. It’s just Hersh saying that he trusts his sources but he’s not really giving any new information on why we should trust them, too. He doesn’t address the weakness of his arguments, the internal inconsistencies, the irrationality or the pointlessness of it all.
It’s true that the attacks on him because of the weakness of his recent work is argumentum ad hominem, but that’s only a small part of the issues that many people are having here. Hersh doesn’t address the larger problems or provide any new information.
I don’t think Hersh made up his statements, he is likely quoting his sources, but he doesn’t have any other evidence to back up the claims. His language doesn’t reflect the uncertainty here. Even if these claims prove out it’s poor journalism.
There’s a difference between saying that elements of the Pakistani government knew where ObL was vs. they captured him and the whole operation was faked so America/Obama could look good.
I thought the awkwardness was that parts of the Pakistani government were supposedly protecting ObL, but Hersh is saying all that factionalism and U.S./Pakistani friction was faked over years for the press. :dubious:
If this story is true, it also states that the so-called proper burial at sea didn’t happen. I can *totally *see politicians lying about that, in order not to enrage Muslims at large. Were we lied to about Pakistan’s knowledge/involvement? Pakistan and the U.S. have myriad reasons to, and not to, lie about that. Lying politicians concerning national security issues on a global stage? Say it ain’t so! The end result here is: Is obl a dead man?