The one thing that 99.9% of people who are at this elite level would never do is profit from doing their job. They take great pride in knowing that they do what 99.9% of the people would never dream of doing. It is like a very tight group that live a life that they wanty to keep to themselves and leave it at that. I would read the book but I do not want to give any money to this guy, I would rather buy dinner for two of my friends that are SEALS and their families.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this is not a major point, but it sounded like the first shooter had blown off the top of Bin Laden's head and he sounded like he was almost dead. So I'm not sure that I believe he could be described as Bin Laden's killer.

I agree. But, I don't think anyone described him that way.

I forgot another point I wanted to make. In the book, the author is very critical of the leaks about the raid because he feared that his name and the names of other team members would become public. Ironically, the release of this book has led to the publication of his name (Fox News revealed it almost immediately). I assume that it would be trivial for those who wanted to figure out additional team member identities. So, either the author's fear of being identified has dissipated or it previously was simply a handy excuse for opposing the leaks.

Maybe this is not a major point, but it sounded like the first shooter had blown off the top of Bin Laden's head and he sounded like he was almost dead. So I'm not sure that I believe he could be described as Bin Laden's killer.

I just finished the book last night and have been waiting to finish before posting in this thread. Here are a few points that I would add to the discussion:

1) the author did shoot Bin Laden. He just wasn't the first one to shoot him. He was the second man up to the third floor. The first guy up shot someone who was peeking out of a doorway. Both men then entered the room and shot that man several additional times. That turned out to be Bin Laden.

2) I do feel the author has a financial motive, though I don't begrudge him that. A lot of other people have made or will make money off the raid. There is no reason he shouldn't as well.

3) The author talks a great deal about being part of a team and the importance of teamwork. Yet, he fails to see that the President is ultimately part of the team. Had the raid failed, the President would have taken the blame and any sitting president would have obviously taken just as much, if not more, credit for the raid's success. His animosity towards the president -- which doesn't seem all that strong anyway -- appears a bit misplaced. Being in the computer field, I am familiar with individuals that have very strong technical skills who hold all "suits" in great contempt and do not consider them to add any value to a project whatsoever. I get the same sort of vibe from the book's author.

4) The book is fairly interesting and a quick read, but as stated above is not all that revealing of special forces tactics. I enjoy books of this genre and have read several. I much prefer Mark Bowden's "Black Hawk Down".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because he wants the story told. I want the story told. I was fascinated by it. Why is it for the military alone to tell? No one would release pictures, body was dumped out at sea. This was a huge event for American as a whole. Why can't we have details? Having listened to him I can't image that anything he told was so secret it could put future military operations in jeapordy. The only casualty is him-- his career, plus I am sure the crazies will be out to kill him.

I'm curious, too. But it's not "his" story to tell in as much as the one special ops person I know of (and I think he's in Delta, if that's the right name) doesn't say boo about where he's gone or what he's done, nor should he. This sick git is doing it for the money and the fame, and I think he went into the wrong line of work if he needs his ego stroked.

Whether or not he has a right to tell what he did is up to the court. They can legally prevent him from disclosing classified information, but they can't stop him from telling the story that the government gleefully announced to the press.

Anonymous wrote:Because he wants the story told. I want the story told. I was fascinated by it. Why is it for the military alone to tell? No one would release pictures, body was dumped out at sea. This was a huge event for American as a whole. Why can't we have details? Having listened to him I can't image that anything he told was so secret it could put future military operations in jeapordy. The only casualty is him-- his career, plus I am sure the crazies will be out to kill him.

I'm curious, too. But it's not "his" story to tell in as much as the one special ops person I know of (and I think he's in Delta, if that's the right name) doesn't say boo about where he's gone or what he's done, nor should he. This sick git is doing it for the money and the fame, and I think he went into the wrong line of work if he needs his ego stroked.

Anonymous wrote:It's been pointed out that he was not the lead SEAL so technically may not have seen whether or not Bin Laden was resisting.

And "majority" of proceeds does not equal all. He's in it for the $$ and I think it's disgusting.

You are just speculating.

He did see. He was moving up the staircase with the man on point. Bin Laden poked his head out of the door and they shot him then. THey entered the apartment and he was dying of a head wound and so they put two bullets in the chest.

It's been pointed out that he was not the lead SEAL so technically may not have seen whether or not Bin Laden was resisting.

And "majority" of proceeds does not equal all. He's in it for the $$ and I think it's disgusting.

Having read the book, I'd like to point out a few things:

1. He didn't shoot Bin Laden. He was on the assault but he was not on point.

2. Bin Laden didn't resist. Make of that whatever you will. But the author says that he found two weapons over the door to the apartment, and Bin Laden did not draw either of them.

3. His claim is that he wants the story to be told correctly. He claims that he is bothered by the misreporting of events, that he sees stories in the press that are not correct. He did leave the service and so that brings up the question of financial motive. He states as his intention that the majority of the proceeds are to be given to charities, and rather than reassure me of his motives it suggests some awareness that financial gain is something that people will question. After all, he could have sat down for three weeks of interviews with Woodward and Bernstein or some similar reporter of great stature, with the intention of a serial news article or a book written by them. BTW he does not seem to like the idea that politicians are going to benefit from this, and he gives the strong impression that he is not a fan of Obama. So pure political motivation is unlikely.

FWIW I bought the book because I want to know. I think the public has a right to know about a major political event. I did not think that it contained information that is sensitive or classified, although there were a few tactics that were new to me and therefore could conceivably be classified information. But I have no way of knowing how obvious those particular details are to foreign combatants. For instance I had not heard of the practice of marking cleared rooms with infrared glow sticks and that sounded like giving away a secret. But now I google them and I find web sites that sell "tactical infrared glow sticks" all over the place.

And to answer the OP's original question, his story does seem to contradict written accounts that I read, and it contains quite a bit more detail about the planning and execution, as well as the unfolding of the events of that day.

Because he resisted.

Why did he have to be shot?

I believe it's called money.

Because he wants the story told. I want the story told. I was fascinated by it. Why is it for the military alone to tell? No one would release pictures, body was dumped out at sea. This was a huge event for American as a whole. Why can't we have details? Having listened to him I can't image that anything he told was so secret it could put future military operations in jeapordy. The only casualty is him-- his career, plus I am sure the crazies will be out to kill him.

Is he retiring and needs money?

I can't figure out his motive for writing that book? His narrative wasn't much different than the official story, and I think the anger
at the raid being politicized is silly. The mission was a success the president got credit as any sitting president would. I just don't
get why "Mark Owen" or anyone especially someone from a military background would tell the world the details of this raid.