I believewe have not been told the truth. Eventually we will know, but not yet.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The New York Times Magazine has a new article out confirming much of Hersh's reporting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/magazine/the-detail-in-seymour-hershs-bin-laden-story-that-rings-true.html

Most importantly, this author of this article has independent sources telling him that Pakistan did have bin Laden under house arrest and that he was turned in to the US by a Pakistani.

What that means is that the entire "Zero Dark Thirty" story about tracking a courier was a myth. Torture played no role.

Wow, Jeff, your summary of Carlotta Gall's blog post (not a NYT magazine article btw) is pretty deceptive (and another btw, she's a she, not a him as you seem to presume) . Gall explicitly states "I cannot confirm Hersh’s bolder claims — for example, that two of Pakistan’s top generals, Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the former army chief, and Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the director of the ISI, had advance knowledge of the raid. But I would not necessarily dismiss the claims immediately."

Which means that one NYT reporter believes some aspects of Hersh's story, but not others. That's hardly confirmation.

You got me on the gender. I had confused the author with someone else (going by last name). But, I wrote that "much" was confirmed. You agree that "some" was confirmed. We can debate that difference between "much" and "some", but I doubt that you will disagree that Gall confirmed the two most important points:

1) bin Laden was under house arrest, not hiding;
2) bin Laden's location was revealed by a "walk in" rather than through US intelligence efforts.

If those two points are true, whether or not two generals knew about it hardly matters.

Out of curiosity, why did you write your post in the manner that you did? Are you simply taking the opportunity to jump on me, or are you trying to dismiss Hersh? I mean, seriously, you called my post "pretty deceptive" because I got the author's gender wrong and we may disagree about the difference between "much" and "some'? What's that all about?

jsteele wrote:The New York Times Magazine has a new article out confirming much of Hersh's reporting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/magazine/the-detail-in-seymour-hershs-bin-laden-story-that-rings-true.html

Most importantly, this author of this article has independent sources telling him that Pakistan did have bin Laden under house arrest and that he was turned in to the US by a Pakistani.

What that means is that the entire "Zero Dark Thirty" story about tracking a courier was a myth. Torture played no role.

Wow, Jeff, your summary of Carlotta Gall's blog post (not a NYT magazine article btw) is pretty deceptive (and another btw, she's a she, not a him as you seem to presume) . Gall explicitly states "I cannot confirm Hersh’s bolder claims — for example, that two of Pakistan’s top generals, Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the former army chief, and Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the director of the ISI, had advance knowledge of the raid. But I would not necessarily dismiss the claims immediately."

Which means that one NYT reporter believes some aspects of Hersh's story, but not others. That's hardly confirmation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody gave a crap about whether bin Laden was dead or alive unless it affected the $$$ in their pockets. Let's be honest about it. What is more concerning is the Saudi-Bush connection. Both would sell out the average American in a heartbeat.

People did care - see the silly 'celebrations' in the streets when it was announced.

Agreed on the saudi-bush connection.

Sunni muslims are not our friends. Do not take their side over the persians. The smart method is to let each other balance themselves in the ME without taking sides.

Seems like invading Iraq was the absolute wrong move.

of course it was. Which is why HRC is not fit to lead.

Bin Laden set a trap and we fell for it - to the tune of trillions of dollars and thousands of american lives and set the ball rolling in sparking political polarization.

Strategically he won. It isn't even close. He was playing star trek 3-dimensional chess (or Go) while we played tiddlywinks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody gave a crap about whether bin Laden was dead or alive unless it affected the $$$ in their pockets. Let's be honest about it. What is more concerning is the Saudi-Bush connection. Both would sell out the average American in a heartbeat.

People did care - see the silly 'celebrations' in the streets when it was announced.

Agreed on the saudi-bush connection.

Sunni muslims are not our friends. Do not take their side over the persians. The smart method is to let each other balance themselves in the ME without taking sides.

Seems like invading Iraq was the absolute wrong move.

Anonymous wrote:Nobody gave a crap about whether bin Laden was dead or alive unless it affected the $$$ in their pockets. Let's be honest about it. What is more concerning is the Saudi-Bush connection. Both would sell out the average American in a heartbeat.

People did care - see the silly 'celebrations' in the streets when it was announced.

Agreed on the saudi-bush connection.

Sunni muslims are not our friends. Do not take their side over the persians. The smart method is to let each other balance themselves in the ME without taking sides.

Nobody gave a crap about whether bin Laden was dead or alive unless it affected the $$$ in their pockets. Let's be honest about it. What is more concerning is the Saudi-Bush connection. Both would sell out the average American in a heartbeat.

PP here - please don't tell me intelligent washingtonians (and americans else where) really believed the fully truth of this 'operation'.

Some people are so gullible.

The New York Times Magazine has a new article out confirming much of Hersh's reporting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/magazine/the-detail-in-seymour-hershs-bin-laden-story-that-rings-true.html

Most importantly, this author of this article has independent sources telling him that Pakistan did have bin Laden under house arrest and that he was turned in to the US by a Pakistani.

What that means is that the entire "Zero Dark Thirty" story about tracking a courier was a myth. Torture played no role.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the story yet, but agree that it's unlikely we as the American public have heard or will hear the whole truth on this. So much spin, so much gray area, so much dicey diplomatic maneuvering. There are probably very few people who know the REAL truth, whatever that is.

That said, having had some interesting political, ethical and journalism-related conversations with Sy Hersh personally, I have a very hard time believing he made this up or engaged in questionable sourcing. He is very astute, he is very critical, he is outspoken and he is a skilled and hard-nosed reporter. He has been at this for a VERY long time and knows the ins and outs of the Washington machine better than just about anybody. I tend to believe what he says and writes.

Glad you are so impressed with the man but he has blown stories before and the evidence he presents is backed up by one anonymous source who doesn't know anything but heard the same rumor. Shoddy.

The story has advanced since his article ran. Even in Hersh's article, he had multiple sources. Since then, NBC and AFP have found sources. It's looking more and more like Hersh was correct about bin Laden being under house arrest a Pakistani insider (either from ISI or a related agency) revealing it to the US. If that is true, the rest of the official story falls apart.

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the story yet, but agree that it's unlikely we as the American public have heard or will hear the whole truth on this. So much spin, so much gray area, so much dicey diplomatic maneuvering. There are probably very few people who know the REAL truth, whatever that is.

That said, having had some interesting political, ethical and journalism-related conversations with Sy Hersh personally, I have a very hard time believing he made this up or engaged in questionable sourcing. He is very astute, he is very critical, he is outspoken and he is a skilled and hard-nosed reporter. He has been at this for a VERY long time and knows the ins and outs of the Washington machine better than just about anybody. I tend to believe what he says and writes.

So why do you think the New Yorker didn't bite on this bombshell story?

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the story yet, but agree that it's unlikely we as the American public have heard or will hear the whole truth on this. So much spin, so much gray area, so much dicey diplomatic maneuvering. There are probably very few people who know the REAL truth, whatever that is.

That said, having had some interesting political, ethical and journalism-related conversations with Sy Hersh personally, I have a very hard time believing he made this up or engaged in questionable sourcing. He is very astute, he is very critical, he is outspoken and he is a skilled and hard-nosed reporter. He has been at this for a VERY long time and knows the ins and outs of the Washington machine better than just about anybody. I tend to believe what he says and writes.

Glad you are so impressed with the man but he has blown stories before and the evidence he presents is backed up by one anonymous source who doesn't know anything but heard the same rumor. Shoddy.

I haven't read the story yet, but agree that it's unlikely we as the American public have heard or will hear the whole truth on this. So much spin, so much gray area, so much dicey diplomatic maneuvering. There are probably very few people who know the REAL truth, whatever that is.

That said, having had some interesting political, ethical and journalism-related conversations with Sy Hersh personally, I have a very hard time believing he made this up or engaged in questionable sourcing. He is very astute, he is very critical, he is outspoken and he is a skilled and hard-nosed reporter. He has been at this for a VERY long time and knows the ins and outs of the Washington machine better than just about anybody. I tend to believe what he says and writes.

Anonymous wrote:Well, if it's true, it seems weird that some rogue SEALS were off writing books trying to claim credit and sell out the president.

This was my first thought too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the whole article yet (will go read it when I have a chance, but thanks for the summary) - but that rings very plausible to me. It sounds like the journalist had multiple sources.

I think there is likely a lot of "creative narration" about many things out of all administrations that will paint them in the best light. Why wouldn't there be?

It doesn't really bother me if we weren't told the truth about how it all went down, I don't think. It seems like there were international relation issues at play.

I like the way you think. Kinda tired a standard for politics and foreign relations that only considers the black and white of things. The world isn't black and white nor an academic exercise.

That's interesting to read on this forum. I'd be curious of yours and PP's opinion of Vice President Cheney.

Nah. I'll stay on topic on this one. That is the context of my comment.