home

John Brennan's Oopsies: What Are They Hidng?

By Jeralyn, Section War on Terror
Posted on Tue May 03, 2011 at 06:38:07 PM EST
Tags: Osama bin Laden (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

How could John Brennan have gotten so many things wrong yesterday? Today we learn not only was Osama bin Laden not armed, he wasn't shielded by his wife (she "rushed" his attacker); she wasn't killed (she was shot in the leg and survived); the Osama son who was killed wasn't Khalid but Hamza (Update: the White House has changed the transcript and it's back to Khalid who was killed); and most importantly, there were no guards at the compound.

Was John Brennan not in the Situation Room Sunday? If he was, he would have seen the action with his own eyes and known what happened. If he wasn't, why not? Did the White House not invite him?

If Brennnan wasn't part of the "inner circle", why did Obama send him out to give yesterday's press conference? Because he had such little knowledge he couldn't give anything away?

I don't care about seeing the photo of Osama bin Laden's body, or his burial at sea, but I sure would like to see the video from the cameras on the helmets of the commandos (as Jay Carney called them today.)

This was an attack carried out in a foreign country without that country's knowledge, in a private residence, with young children present. Was it legal? It's seeming more and more like an assassination raid and extra-judicial killing with no due process. Even Nazi war criminals received trials.

Vengeance is not justice. What else are they hiding. Let's see the videos.

< She Said It | Tuesday Night Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    John Brennan's Oopsies: What Are They Hidng? | 94 comments (94 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    All politicians are the SAME. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Tue May 03, 2011 at 06:46:08 PM EST
    People laughed at Bush with his "Mission Accomplished."

    People will laugh at Obama with his "Mission Report."

    Politicians have such pressure to get out there first and act like they are in control and know the whole story, that they almost invariably screw the whole thing up, and then they have constant "Re-dos."

    Our men did well.  They did their job.

    I don't think anyone was/is hiding anything (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:14:50 PM EST
    I think they sent someone out who didn't know the details to give the first press conference and I don't know why.

    We'd (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:19:47 PM EST
    all like to see that video but the closest we'll probably ever get towards seeing it is when the Jerry Bruckner movie comes out in a few years.

    heat of the moment (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by souvarine on Tue May 03, 2011 at 09:11:54 PM EST
    A defense lawyer is surprised that eyewitnesses are wrong? That's a new one.

    It was a chaotic, violent situation in the middle of the night. It will take a while to figure out exactly what happened, even with video. The administration is trying to get information out as quickly as possible, and is also going back to correct the record even when it makes them look bad.

    I'm willing to give the administration time to describe the circumstances before judging the legality. But the facts are heavily on the Administrations side. Al Qaeda has continued attacks around the world, and no one involved in those attacks disputed bin Laden's command. bin Laden insisted that the United States was his primary target.  The only Nazis who were tried at Nuremberg were those who surrendered, those who fought were killed.

    Thanks Jeralyn (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by john horse on Tue May 03, 2011 at 10:39:04 PM EST
    for reminding us what our country is about or what it should be about.    

    This was an attack carried out in a foreign country without that country's knowledge, in a private residence, with young children present. Was it legal? It's seeming more and more like an assassination raid and extra-judicial killing with no due process.  Even Nazi war criminals received trials. Vengeance is not justice.

     

    Nazi war criminals (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 04, 2011 at 01:11:30 AM EST
    were officers and officials of a nation-state that had completely capitulated, surrendered, and admitted total defeat.  The officers who were tried had personally surrendered.

    Do you imagine that Hermann Goering, for instance, would not have been shot on the spot if he hadn't?

    Thank you J (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by star on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:37:41 AM EST
    This post really enhanced my faith in you and this blog. I am relieved like all Americans that the chapter of OBL is over and he cannot harm another soul anymore.
    This operation was brilliantly executed by the brave seals and my thanks and kudos to them. But we have Democrat president and administration. it is not too much to expect some amount of transparency . I do not want my president to do anything that I hated Bush for.
    This WH needs to get coherent message out. Wait it out.. take a day or so.. then release complete and comprehensive report of the operation . why have Brennan goof so much followed by Carney? Why assume Americans cannot handle full truth ( that I thought was how republicans treated public). In this age of information leaks and communication, stuff will come out sooner or later.

    Alan Dershowitz, (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by brodie on Wed May 04, 2011 at 12:04:00 PM EST
    on public radio today, while approving taking out OBL, disagrees strongly with the move to quickly dispose of the body as per Sharia law which he finds actually didn't require such hasty disposal in this case, and in any event we shouldn't have been so concerned about adhering to religious sensitivities in the case of the head of a mass murdering terror organization.  

    Also the quick burial at sea will only lead to further doubts in the Muslim world about how he was killed, and whether it was justified, as now the best evidence (the body) is gone.  This could easily lead to the unintended martyrization of Ben Laden which could have been stymied with a complete autopsy which could show he, for instance, wasn't shot from the back.  But now, the body gone, such openings to speculate are available.

    He's going to be some kind of martyr (none / 0) (#75)
    by tigercourse on Wed May 04, 2011 at 01:24:32 PM EST
    anyway. I don't see the point of angering up the crazies more by not burying him in a timely manner.

    Parent
    Or let the family do so (none / 0) (#81)
    by Nemi on Wed May 04, 2011 at 02:00:13 PM EST
    And about this "not burying him as not to make his grave a shrine for worshippers" - are there any prior examples of this happening? And if so has it caused any kind of, I don't know, mass "uprising"? Anything to be worried about?

    (The only example of a grave as "shrine" I can come up with off the top of my head is ... Princess Diana's. Not exactly some kind of threat.)

    Parent

    The (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 04, 2011 at 01:24:50 PM EST
    fact that we're even talking about this speaks of political malpractice.

    Parent
    Today Show parenting segment-How to indoctrinate (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by jawbone on Wed May 04, 2011 at 05:14:43 PM EST
    children on the necessity of extra-judicial killings.

    Question from mother of 3 girls, oldest 12, who asked their mother why OBL had not been taken to jail "where all the bad people go."

    Psychiatrist(?) said it was tricky because we're taught that's how the justice system works in the country, but parents can tell children that:

    "While this guy was alive, people were frightened of what he could do next no matter where he was, so the people who are in charge of the safety of this nation made a decision that he couldn't be alive." (Rush transcription) (My rush transcript of this answer)

    Teach your children well..... And they will learn this lesson.

    Haven't yet watched the video (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by sj on Thu May 05, 2011 at 05:17:04 PM EST
    (although I will.  probably) but I find this very disturbing.  

    What the "psychiatrist" is doing is teaching all parents how to indoctrinate their children into the party line.  

    The parents should be uncomfortable.  And the kids should find that unsatisfying -- and remember it being so.

    Parent

    International law, of course (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by diogenes on Wed May 04, 2011 at 06:50:31 PM EST
    "This was an attack carried out in a foreign country without that country's knowledge, in a private residence, with young children present. Was it legal? It's seeming more and more like an assassination raid and extra-judicial killing with no due process. Even Nazi war criminals received trials."

    What President Obama should have done was to tell the president of our highly trustworthy and good friend Pakistan where Mr. Osama was hiding so that Mr. Osama could immediately be arrested and then extradited to the US to face trial in the USS Cole bombing.  I'm sure that the Pakistanis would have rushed to comply and to allow due process.

    Is there a source or link for this tidbit? (none / 0) (#2)
    by BTAL on Tue May 03, 2011 at 06:51:05 PM EST
    ...there were no weapons or guards at the compound.
    Just google (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 03, 2011 at 06:59:32 PM EST
    it. I think ABC news has this tidbit along with the fact that Obama wasn't buried at sea and that the government has his body.

    Parent
    Obama? (none / 0) (#19)
    by magster on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:20:19 PM EST
    Do you write chyrons for Fox News? lol

    Parent
    Oh, gosh (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:21:29 PM EST
    I'm sorry. I didn't catch that.

    Parent
    Oh sorry (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:01:12 PM EST
    I misread your comment. I don't know where that came from. Everything I have read said that there were guards OUTSIDE the compound but not in it.

    Parent
    Thank you. (none / 0) (#7)
    by BTAL on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:01:47 PM EST


    Parent
    on no guards (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:35:29 PM EST
    Here

    Other details about bin Laden's compound suggest the Al Qaeda figurehead felt relatively secure in his posh surroundings. There were no guards on site, according to a senior U.S. official.


    Parent
    The courier and the son could have had guns (none / 0) (#28)
    by magster on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:38:58 PM EST
    I suppose....

    Parent
    My understanding is that they (none / 0) (#3)
    by lilburro on Tue May 03, 2011 at 06:58:19 PM EST
    were monitoring it live but not actually watching video.  So...I dunno...they only just yesterday/today watched the video?  I dunno...I would like to know why there were so many discrepancies as well.

    Per NYT via FDL (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:05:00 PM EST
    The principals in the Situation Room did not watch video of the event as it unfolded. They watched Leon Panetta narrating the events from CIA headquarters in Langley. link


    Parent
    I dunno. (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:06:58 PM EST
    That look on Hillary's face sure didn't look like she was looking at Panetta narrating the mission.

    Parent
    Don't know when that picture was taken (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:13:04 PM EST
    It could have been taken when Panetta relaid the fact that one of the helicopters was out of commission and people were hoping that this wouldn't be a replay of previous failed missions which involved helicopters. I'm sure there were other tense moments where people were unsure of how it would play out that would have caused the look on Hillary's face.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:15:22 PM EST
    that would make sense considering the other things that really have happened with helicopters and not good things at that.

    Parent
    That makes perfect sense, (none / 0) (#77)
    by Nemi on Wed May 04, 2011 at 01:32:17 PM EST
    but anyone else wonder about how it looks like Obama has arrived late and thus haven't secured a place at the table? To me it somehow signals "Hey, we're buzy, someone give that man a chair". ;)

    Parent
    he was playing golf that day (none / 0) (#85)
    by loveed on Wed May 04, 2011 at 03:35:38 PM EST
    and he went right to the meeting without changing.

    Parent
    How can (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:02:01 PM EST
    you be monitoring it live and not be seeing what's going on? I'm not understanding that.

    Parent
    Obama's (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 03, 2011 at 06:58:31 PM EST
    team couldn't message their way out of a paper bag apparently. I mean who could screw up such a feat as getting OBL?

    if you are only posting (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:09:49 PM EST
    to bash Obama whatever he does, please stop.

    Parent
    I have been (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:11:45 PM EST
    very complimentary towards him regarding this mission. I think it was a job well done but the messaging has been horrible and has allowed the GOP to get an untruthful message out.

    Parent
    Obama's team vs. Obama himself (none / 0) (#33)
    by Towanda on Tue May 03, 2011 at 08:20:30 PM EST
    are two different things, as I think we have seen before as well.  I get what you're saying -- and I agree that Obama did well in being "the decider," but his team at times cannot seem to decide what is their job.  (So I think that you and Jeralyn are saying the same thing, actually.)

    Parent
    I would only add (none / 0) (#90)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed May 04, 2011 at 09:13:19 PM EST
    that the messaging mishaps appear to be rooky mistakes -- the team seem so relieved that the mission went as they had hoped, that no one took the time to think through all the issues that had to be addressed (or not) in the announcements, etc.  Perhaps 'they' should have refrained from making comments about how the mission went down and who was armed, resisted, etc.  Less is often more.

    Parent
    That would be quite a change in story (none / 0) (#17)
    by MKS on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:18:26 PM EST
    I would think there would have been some resistance by someone around OBL....

    No one in the entire compound gave armed resistance?  Wow,  that would be interesting...

    I don't think that's what's being said (none / 0) (#50)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 04, 2011 at 01:02:54 AM EST
    just that there weren't security guards per se.  Unless you want to believe that U.S. troops went in and just mowed down a whole bunch of unarmed people (in which case I don't know why it would have taken 40 minutes), there were armed people in that compound who fought back.


    Parent
    Yamamoto would be a precedent (none / 0) (#20)
    by MKS on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:21:03 PM EST
    ...that would support the raid on bin Laden....

    He was an enemy general targeted by the military, would be the argument.

    He was not a head of state.  Was he just a criminal?

    as well, (none / 0) (#36)
    by cpinva on Tue May 03, 2011 at 09:15:49 PM EST
    hitler was targeted multiple times, by the allies and his own people. one could make the legal argument that OBL, having declared war on the US, made himself a legitimate target for assassination, even though congress never declared war on either afghanistan or iraq.

    Parent
    Yamamoto (none / 0) (#45)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 03, 2011 at 10:12:45 PM EST
    was an admiral.  The commander of all Japanese naval forces.  He was instrumental in the attack on Pearl Harbor.  It was his basic idea to strike at Pearl Harbor to destroy our fleet in order to give Japan a free hand in the Pacific. The details of the assault were left to others.

    It was a very big deal to bring down Yamamoto and your argument, IMO, is appropriate.

    Parent

    One thing I'm not doing (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:21:14 PM EST
    is I'm not going to listen to or take anything seriously on this event that comes from anyone under the generic heading of government officials :)  When I asked my husband who in the most secretive areas of the military in Afghanistan would have known about this mission before it took place he said almost nobody.  He said that even in that environment this event would have been heavily compartmentalized to avoid any "accident" that would have tipped anyone off and damaged the mission.

    I wonder when the SEALS were told (none / 0) (#27)
    by MKS on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:38:24 PM EST
    who their target was....Was it while they were in the air?

    Parent
    No, they would have been told well (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:48:25 PM EST
    before they left.  But they do this for a living, going after high value targets....they aren't who we would have to worry about leaking anything.  There is much more to a mission like this though, they having everyone working their logistics too and trying to manage their assets while they are performing this mission.  All of that would have been very compartmentalized with very few people knowing until it was underway, and then everyone would just show up to do their job that they do on every other mission.  Whoever has been investigating and tracking the comings and going of that compound have been super compartmentalized too, for good reason.

    Parent
    or it was Shephard Smith (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:28:15 PM EST
    at Fox News, I switched channels when commercials came on. It was one of the two and they said there were no guards at the compound and no weapons recovered.

    The rundown of Carney's press conference (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by magster on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:32:07 PM EST
    was that there was a firefight.  I guess there could be a one-sided firefight, but I would take Carney's statements to mean that there was gunfire returned.

    Parent
    FOX news? you are joking, (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by cpinva on Tue May 03, 2011 at 09:19:02 PM EST
    right jeralyn? if they declared the sky to be blue, i'd want independent, third-party confirmation. i'm astonished, with their history, that you'd take anything from them without the requisite 50lb. sack of salt.

    i think i'll wait for the cliff's notes version.

    Parent

    I was switching between (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 03, 2011 at 09:22:56 PM EST
    Fox and CNN on Sirius driving back from the jail. I think Shep Smith is a good reporter.

    Parent
    My husband watches everyone these days (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 03, 2011 at 09:36:43 PM EST
    He flips from CNN, MSNBC, FOX.  I hate FOX.  But he says I must accept that I need to know my enemy well if they are my enemy.

    Parent
    Long ago I got that (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by brodie on Tue May 03, 2011 at 09:44:05 PM EST
    Fox was my political enemy and that they lie on a daily basis.  I don't need to keep re-learning those basic facts.

    No need to give them any more of my time or add to their strangely, even suspiciously gaudy numbers with the ratings people.  I haven't tuned over there for longer than 2 minutes probably since the 2000 election, and I don't date anyone who seems to be a regular Fox viewer.

    Parent

    Agree (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 03, 2011 at 10:23:28 PM EST
    It's also important that we all understand that Fox News is nothing more than a propaganda machine, it's their raison d'etre.

    Parent
    Aren't they all? ;) (none / 0) (#78)
    by Nemi on Wed May 04, 2011 at 01:36:04 PM EST


    Parent
    I heard that Mika on MSNBC got everything (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 03, 2011 at 09:40:46 PM EST
    totally flubberlicious on the codenames today though.  But someone was ticked off because who is leaking friggin codenames?  Anyhow, Osama was Geronimo before they got him.  He is codename Jackpot after they get him.  But because someone out there has a big fat mouth I guess they'll have to come up with a new codename for an attained target now...their codename for an acquired target has been compromised.

    Parent
    That stupid code name is an insult (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Towanda on Tue May 03, 2011 at 10:14:26 PM EST
    -- the use of Geronimo -- to Native Americans I know, and they are angry about it.  And correctly so, I think.  Did no one in the federal government know that the rest of the country has been getting rid of culturally insensitive names for teams, mascots, etc.?

    Parent
    Everything is sensitive to someone (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 04, 2011 at 08:46:27 AM EST
    It is only a name.  There are dogs and horses named Geronimo too....it's a name.

    Parent
    Happens (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by sj on Wed May 04, 2011 at 11:11:43 AM EST
    it's a relative's name.  Using the Spanish pronunciation.  I'm deeply offended as well.  It's NOT just a name in this case.  There is nuance behind its selection.  And I don't like that nuance.  If they had used Fido (which as far as I know has no historical reference) then your comment would be appropriate.

    The name "Geronimo" has historical reference.  It is SO not "only a name".

    Parent

    Let's nominate, as the next code name (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Towanda on Wed May 04, 2011 at 01:23:03 PM EST
    for a villain and mass murderer, oh, "MilitaryTracy."  It's only a name, and not even a name but only a pseudonym.  So no one will be in the least offended.

    Parent
    That comment, sorry to say (none / 0) (#61)
    by Towanda on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:12:10 AM EST
    sums up the problem -- and precludes even attempts at even the simplest of solutions.

    So, in the "sticks and stones" philosophy, you would be fine with a code name of, oh, the N-word?

    Parent

    They should have code-named him (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by observed on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:14:23 AM EST
    "Rummy"

    Parent
    I don't know of anyone (none / 0) (#67)
    by CST on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:36:37 AM EST
    who's actual name was the "n"word.

    Plus, frankly, wasn't this supposed to be a secret?

    Parent

    Okay, how about (none / 0) (#73)
    by Towanda on Wed May 04, 2011 at 01:21:03 PM EST
    the code name MLK?  Or Malcolm or Stokely or. . . .  

    Parent
    let me put it this way (none / 0) (#83)
    by CST on Wed May 04, 2011 at 02:26:20 PM EST
    they could use the "long form" of CST and I really wouldn't care.

    It's a secret name designed to disguise that which they are talking about.  In other words, if they called him Hitler, you'd probably have a good idea of who they meant.

    Parent

    Apache chairman sent letter to Obama about use of (none / 0) (#87)
    by jawbone on Wed May 04, 2011 at 05:24:45 PM EST
    Geronimo.

    Copy and paste was a mess, so click through to read the tribe's concerns about tying the name of Geronimo to Osama bin Laden.

    Parent

    thank you (none / 0) (#94)
    by sj on Thu May 05, 2011 at 05:01:45 PM EST


    Parent
    Rachel Maddow on tonight's show (none / 0) (#42)
    by brodie on Tue May 03, 2011 at 09:45:50 PM EST
    ran a useful and often funny segment on the OBL takeout which showed how quickly many of the facts have morphed about the story in the past 2 days, including the flubbery about Geronimo-Jackpot.  Worth watching just for that segment.

    Parent
    Maybe they are going to retire (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 03, 2011 at 09:49:29 PM EST
    the Jackpot codename since they got the Jackpot of all Jackpots, like a football or basketball number or something :)  The media on all this has been a mess though.

    Parent
    Pretty sure (none / 0) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 04, 2011 at 01:07:07 AM EST
    "Geronimo" was in one of the WH briefings, Carney or Brennan.

    Parent
    Geronimo was his codename (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 04, 2011 at 08:45:20 AM EST
    before he was taken into custody, now that he is no longer a target the name is retired.  Jackpot is the codename during a mission to indicate that a target has been aquired.  It still had uses, but maybe someone with the authority to retire it decided to retire it for the purpose of being able to release more information.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#65)
    by star on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:26:18 AM EST
    Shep smith is a reasonable reporter. Way better than some of the cartoons in MSNBC actually. and I think fox is as much a propoganda machine as Msnbc is. actually there is not many left in MSM who I would trust these days. Everybody is on an agenda. If it is 'OUR' agenda we like em, if opposing one we name call them. that seems to be the only difference :-)

    Parent
    A quick Google indicates only a Fox story (none / 0) (#25)
    by BTAL on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:34:40 PM EST
    Other details about bin Laden's compound suggest the Al Qaeda figurehead felt relatively secure in his posh surroundings. There were no guards on site, according to a senior U.S. official. And according to the official, bin Laden had a "treasure trove" of electronic material on site -- more than one would expect from a terror leader worried about getting caught.

    Link

    If true, again if true.  What will be the implications?

    Parent

    "no guards"? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by MKS on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:39:40 PM EST
    Hard to believe....

    Until the fog of war lifts, I will take everything that is reported with a hefty grain of salt.

    Parent

    Yes, define "guard" (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Towanda on Tue May 03, 2011 at 08:22:40 PM EST
    We may mean paid mercenaries.  Others may mean followers, unpaid, ready to fight to the death.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:42:16 PM EST
    it's possible that they may not have appeared to be guards. I don't know but maybe having guards surrounding his house would raise suspicions?

    I still can't believe that he was found living in an expensive house in Pakistan. Raises a lot of questions about Pakistan doesn't it? Of course, I never bought into Pakistan being our "ally" in the WOT. I always thought it was fishy that every time we would complain about something with them, they would cough up a "terrorist".

    Parent

    I think their point was (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 03, 2011 at 08:01:10 PM EST
    Osama felt secure there, there were a lot of children there. If he had lived there for years with no incidents, maybe they didn't feel the need to be armed.

    With all the reports about what they've seized, I can't recall any saying weapons were recovered.

    Parent

    No weapons (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by star on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:23:11 AM EST
    That is what is being reported in Indian , pakistani and UK papers.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383106/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-Wife-watched-die-White-House-re veals-WASNT-armed.html

    There was no "firefight" as described earlier and OBL was killed in front of his 12 yr.old daughter.

    Wish they had avoided all ambiguity and made accurate statements from Day 1.

    Parent

    From the quote: (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Nemi on Wed May 04, 2011 at 08:22:49 AM EST
    "posh surroundings"? Really? Looks pretty simple, actually astonishingly so, to me.

    Parent
    It was in a very good neighborhood (none / 0) (#71)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed May 04, 2011 at 12:09:21 PM EST
    so that description might not refer to the inside of the compound but the area as a whole.

    Parent
    But still (none / 0) (#72)
    by Nemi on Wed May 04, 2011 at 01:20:20 PM EST
    from what I've seen, the neighbourhood looks quite bleak, and even if, by Pakistani measures, it's a "good" neighborhood, I still wouldn't describe it as "posh".

    Parent
    The compound cost (none / 0) (#82)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed May 04, 2011 at 02:10:39 PM EST
    1 million US Dollars to purchase and construct, so that leads me to believe that 'posh' is more than likely a good description of a neighborhood less than a mile from the Pakistan equivalent of West Point.

    The LA Times description of the neighborhood sounds posh:

    The sprawling compound is hemmed by a forested ridge and a quiet neighborhood of pastel-colored homes adorned with columns and terrazzo porches -- a far cry from the caves or rough tribal lands where most people thought the Al Qaeda leader might be.

    The city of Abbottabad itself is known not for any connections to Islamic militants but for its mountain breezes, well-kept avenues and educational institutions, including Pakistan's most renowned academy for military officers.

    LA Times Link

    Parent

    There are (none / 0) (#48)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 03, 2011 at 10:31:39 PM EST
    any number of implications:

    Since no one hung around long enough to take an inventory of consumer electronics could Fox be trying to put a wedge between 'liberals?'

    Could it be he felt comfortable because Pakistan's ISI is corrupt, that he was in safe territory?

    Who was the senior US official?  Which administration?  What is (or was) his position.

    Parent

    Why (none / 0) (#44)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 03, 2011 at 09:58:29 PM EST
    would an assault team, with limited time, in a foreign country that had been, at the very least, undependable, stop to collect their adversary's weapons?

    Parent
    Yah, you're right (none / 0) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 04, 2011 at 01:09:17 AM EST
    out guys just went in there and killed everybody in sight, even though they were unarmed.

    Just one question.  Why would they do that?


    Parent

    From all reports (none / 0) (#92)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 05, 2011 at 03:05:38 AM EST
    "our guys" did NOT kill everyone in sight.

    Bin Laden did NOT surrender. Since he had not surrendered he was an active combatant whether or not, as some people have said, he was in semi-retirement.  He was still issuing instructions to an international organization that has made war on us and whose ambition is to continue to make war on us.

    Our commandos made a raid in a nation that has been undependable, that cannot be fully trusted.  That unit likely had assignments in order of priority. Hanging around to collect weapons may have allowed time for counter forces to become active possibly resulting in more bloodshed.  It would have been foolish to have stayed one second longer.

    This was not a SWAT team busting into a grocery store in the friendly confines of an American city.

    Parent

    Because they stopped to (none / 0) (#79)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 04, 2011 at 01:51:43 PM EST
    collect the computer evidence. Collecting the weapons used to shoot at the forces would be proof they were shot at. And the identity of the weapons might be a clue as to where the weapons came from and might provide links to weapons used in other attacks. Just a thought.

    Parent
    In a potentially (none / 0) (#91)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 05, 2011 at 01:55:01 AM EST
    hostile environment I get the essentials and get out fast.  The essentials were bin Laden and any info available.

    Parent
    Was the Purpose of This Attack (none / 0) (#54)
    by john horse on Wed May 04, 2011 at 07:13:12 AM EST
    to capture Bin Laden or to kill him?  I say this because another option that Obama could have used was to used was a drone missle attack against bin Laden's home.  

    Whats the difference between taking Bin Laden out in manned operation versus taking him out by a drone?  Regarding drone attacks,if you don't provide a person the opportunity to surrender then the arguement that the person didn't surrender seems kind of silly, doesn't it?  

    It was a kill mission (none / 0) (#55)
    by Romberry on Wed May 04, 2011 at 07:59:08 AM EST
    I think Osama would have had to have been naked and prostrate at the moment the SEAL team arrived to have had any chance at surrender, and I'm reasonably certain that he would have been killed even then. This was a kill mission from the start. Careful parsing of the president's words -- and where Barack Obama is concerned, one should always parse very carefully -- pretty much reveals that to be so. The president did not say that Bin Laden was killed in a firefight, he said there was a firefight, and then Bin Laden was killed.

    I honestly don't think the US government wanted Bin Laden alive. Ever. Bringing Bin Laden to trial would have been potentially very, very embarrassing for the official narrative of the war on terror.

    Parent

    Unnamed national security official: (none / 0) (#56)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 04, 2011 at 08:12:47 AM EST
    The U.S. special forces team that raided Osama Bin Laden's secret Pakistani compound Sunday was under orders to kill the al-Qaida leader, not capture him, a national security official told Reuters Monday.

    Reuters: " 'This was a kill operation,' the official said, making it clear there was no desire to try to capture bin Laden alive in Pakistan."

    Still, U.S. officials have told reporters that, in the end, Bin Laden had a choice to surrender but refused. link



    Parent
    Weren't there children in the compound? (none / 0) (#64)
    by nycstray on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:24:09 AM EST
    Seems to me a drone would have killed the children and women there. Less "collateral damage" using a kill team vs a drone when trying to justify their actions?

    Parent
    Positive Id (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by star on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:30:44 AM EST
    seems to be the objective of sending in SEAL team. also reliable intel that the compound is NOT heavily guarded might have made a commando raid viable.

    I doubt collateral damage is that much of a consideration. Drones have killed children and innocents a number of times in pakistan and Afganistan. As recently as last week, Gaddafi's son's house was bombed out killing children.  

    Parent

    Obama chose a raid to ensure enough bodily materia (none / 0) (#88)
    by jawbone on Wed May 04, 2011 at 05:29:11 PM EST
    for a DNA test. The fear was bombing might be too destructive of OBL's flesh and render it useless for DNA testing.

    Per reports, if they can be trusted.

    It was not concern for collateral damage, it appears.

    Parent

    What about booby traps? (none / 0) (#60)
    by observed on Wed May 04, 2011 at 09:52:12 AM EST
    The longer the attack took, the more likelihood that some bombs could have been set off.
    Unlikely to be booby traps (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 04, 2011 at 01:52:45 PM EST
    with that many kids in the house who might have set one off.

    Parent
    It was (none / 0) (#93)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 05, 2011 at 03:21:02 AM EST
    a multi-building compound.  SEALS may not have been sure other combatants weren't nearby.  The longer they stayed the more risk of possible intervention and more bloodshed.

    I believe what's missed here is that this operation was NOT a SWAT team busting into a target in the middle of an American city.

    Parent

    no fear of a drone attack (none / 0) (#84)
    by loveed on Wed May 04, 2011 at 02:56:02 PM EST
    the children,in a good nieghborhood. Any ground attack would have been spotted. also OSBL protection came from the pakistan army (is there any doubt this is true).It's also evident that someone in the pakistan goverment was involved (how else could they land helicopters so close to this base and be there for 45mins.without detection).

    John Brennan's Oopsies: What Are They Hidng? | 94 comments (94 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment