MSNBC: Only One Person Armed at Osama bin Laden Compound

By Jeralyn, Section War on Terror
Posted on Wed May 04, 2011 at 06:09:52 PM EST
Tags: Osama bin Laden (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Update: MSNBC reports only one person at the compound in Abbottabad where Osama bin Laden was killed was armed, the "courier", and he was in the guest house, not the main house. He and his wife who was with him were killed first, before a second team of commandos even entered the compound.

None of those in the main house were armed, including Bin Laden's son, who was killed coming down the stairs as the commandos were going up. The account is so different from all the versions the White House and Panetta have provided, you really need to read it. There was no firefight inside the house, the only people with guns and shooting were the commandos.

Osama was in his pajamas. There were 22 women and children in the house. Original post below:[More...]

Earlier Post: ABC Reports Weapons Seized at Osama bin Laden Compound

Finally, someone reports on whether weapons were seized from the compound in Abbottabad where Osama bin Laden and others were killed. Via ABC News:

In addition to the digital media and paper documents, the Navy SEALs also took guns and a number of other items from the Abbottabad, Pakistan, compound. Those guns have been checked for fingerprints, which will be run through a huge intelligence database that culls fingerprints from terrorist safe houses and the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.

But MSNBC says:

3 of 4 men killed in assault on bin Laden compound were unarmed, never fired shot, officials tell NBC News

And CBS says:

When Navy SEALs tried to burst through a door at Osama bin Laden's compound, they found a brick wall behind it and had to blast their way through it. On the first floor they found two couriers and a woman, all of whom were killed in a hail of gunfire
...Bin Laden was unarmed but the SEALs later found a pistol and an AK-47 in the room.

ABC says DNA was also extracted from the dead and wounded:

DNA evidence was taken from some of the killed and wounded who were guarding bin Laden.
"We want to know who has been there and where else they may have been," one official said.

And CBS says:

When Navy SEALs tried to burst through a door at Osama bin Laden's compound, they found a brick wall behind it and had to blast their way through it. On the first floor they found two couriers and a woman, all of whom were killed in a hail of gunfire
...Bin Laden was unarmed but the SEALs later found a pistol and an AK-47 in the room.

ABC says DNA was also extracted from the dead and wounded:

DNA evidence was taken from some of the killed and wounded who were guarding bin Laden.
"We want to know who has been there and where else they may have been," one official said.

< WH Frustrated With Torture Talk | Wednesday Night Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

MSNBC: Only One Person Armed at Osama bin Laden Compound | 73 comments (73 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I may have missed it in all the news (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Edger on Wed May 04, 2011 at 08:11:03 PM EST

but this was a military assault that took place on Pakistani territory. Did Pakistan's government invite and/or authorize it?

No/no (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by ruffian on Wed May 04, 2011 at 08:14:49 PM EST

Ruffian, you're right -- (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by brodie on Wed May 04, 2011 at 08:52:00 PM EST

in an official sense.

But I don't think we know at this point the full behind the scenes story re the two countries coordination, or lack thereof, or partial cooperation. Both sides have an interest in fibbing and spinning and outright lying about whatever they may have agreed upon privately -- or the total unilateral aspect of this action, whichever is true.


: True- I should have said they have (none / 0) (#17)
by ruffian on Wed May 04, 2011 at 08:59:31 PM EST

said in public they did not authorize or have prior knowledge. I hope we know what really happened soon. I know there are still journalists willing to take the official story only as a starting point.

Thanks... (none / 0) (#6)
by Edger on Wed May 04, 2011 at 08:16:52 PM EST

There are contradictory reports (none / 0) (#16)
by BackFromOhio on Wed May 04, 2011 at 08:52:09 PM EST

about this. Read Juan Cole's initial report.


Here's his assessment (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by brodie on Wed May 04, 2011 at 09:04:38 PM EST

from May 2:

Ironically, Obama had to admit that Pakistani intelligence helped the US develop the lead that allowed the US to close in on Bin Laden. So the operation was not unilateral, and young candidate Obama was too over-confident. The US story that the Pakistanis were not given prior notice of the operation is contradicted by the Pakistani news channel Geo, which says that Pakistani troops and plainsclothesmen helped cordon off the compound in Abbotabad. CNN is pointing out that US helicopters could not have flown so far into Pakistan from Afghanistan without tripping Pakistani radar.

My guess is that the US agreed to shield the government of Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and President Asaf Ali Zardari from al-Qaeda reprisals by putting out the story that the operation against Bin Laden was solely a US one. And it may be that suspect elements of the Pakistani elite, such as the Inter-Services Intelligence, were kept out the the loop because it was feared they might have ties to Bin Laden and might tip him off.


: Well.... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by ruffian on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:32:45 PM EST

Pakistani intelligence helped the US develop the lead that allowed the US to close in on Bin Laden.

That can cover anything that happened in the last couple of years and not have anything to do with the actual raid.
Just playing devil's advocate. I have no idea who knew what when. Everyone's words need to be parsed pretty carefully here.

: The problem is that (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by gyrfalcon on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:53:51 PM EST

the stuff coming out of Pakistan, especially sourced back to ISI, has even less credibility than what the White House says.

: The Helicopters (none / 0) (#44)
by MKS on Thu May 05, 2011 at 01:28:31 PM EST

may have had radar evading stealth technology, or such has been the speculation given the odd looking helicopter parts left in the compound.....
As to Pakistan and the ISI--anything is possible. One scenario could be the ISI helped but does not want to admit it publicly because the madrassa crowd would erupt in fury. Who knows....
Managing the Pakistan relationship is tricky business.
I would give Obama and Hillary the benefit of the doubt on Pakistan.....Armchair quarterbacks have less ability here than anywhere else in the world to productively second guess......

Do you really think (none / 0) (#32)
by weltec2 on Thu May 05, 2011 at 04:19:52 AM EST

the Pakistani government would have authorized it if politely asked?


: Would they have a choice? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by kdog on Thu May 05, 2011 at 10:12:24 AM EST

They're on the payroll.
What I think would have happened if we notified the Pakistanis is they would have said "sure, no problem boss" out one side of their mouth, and got Osama on the horn with the other side tellin' him to find another safehouse.

: He would have been tipped off so fast (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 05, 2011 at 10:21:57 AM EST

the only left in that compound would have been a little puff of dust :)

: They might have but if so (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by MKS on Thu May 05, 2011 at 01:29:40 PM EST

..they might never be able to publicly admit it....
We may never know the full story...

While its important to look into this... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by magster on Wed May 04, 2011 at 09:43:53 PM EST

...don't forget that we didn't just lob a bunch of cruise missiles into the neighborhood. Missiles that would have taken out ALL the women and the children in the compound who were spared, as well as probably saved many people from death or injury in the neighboring houses.

The Seals are military operating under the rules of engagement with a presumption of kill or be killed. And while these guys may have been unarmed at the time, I doubt there isn't some f'ed up stuff on their resumes.

also (simplistic thought) (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by nycstray on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:42:09 PM EST

it's the middle of the night and they (the unarmed) had gotten away with living there for quite awhile . . . guard down? This seems to be one 'mission' where they didn't 'just miss' the target, and 'supposedly', they weren't 100% sure the 'target' was there.

I just wish the WH had their sh*t together on the back end of this before going public . . . .


Some reporter this evening (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by gyrfalcon on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:57:16 PM EST

pointed out that with all the military installations, helicopters are going back and forth around that area all the time-- which is something bin Laden's security types didn't think through the ramfications of.

They probably didn't realize the helos were actually coming for them until it was way too late.

The fact that they were mostly unarmed certainly explains why the U.S. team didn't get so much as a scratch, which I'd been wondering a bit about.


According to guy living close to the compound, it (none / 0) (#46)
by jawbone on Thu May 05, 2011 at 01:38:51 PM EST

was highly unusual to hear a helicopter in the wee hours of the morning. It was so unusual he went to look at what might be happening (roof? I can't recall), then things quieted down until an explosion from the helicopter...which failed, not clear how.

So, no, per this eye witness, people in the neighborhood were not at all accustomed to helo traffic coming and going.

At least, not at that time of the night.


: Link for Al Jazeera video of neighbor (none / 0) (#50)
by jawbone on Thu May 05, 2011 at 02:23:11 PM EST

He and friend went up to the roof -- heard explosion at 1:15.
Here is Twittering thread from guy who said helos overhead very unusual at 1AM.
I had confused his tweets with video interview, but together provide good context.

Evening news reports the helos were new stealth (none / 0) (#69)
by jawbone on Thu May 05, 2011 at 07:43:14 PM EST

versions with special rotors to keep the whup-whup sound quieter.

Interesting.

Also, since the tail end wasn't burned or blown up, the secret is now out.


When technology began to allow us to get (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Anne on Thu May 05, 2011 at 07:17:24 AM EST

news as events were happening, we became impatient and demanding consumers of the news, and that, I think, is fueling a great deal of this; since we weren't being informed as the raid was happening, we now expect someone to lay it all out for us as if we had been. At the same time, while we have come to accept that "conflicting reports" are always a consequence of getting news of a major event as it's happening, we expect that if we're being informed after the fact that those conflicts will, for the most part, have been resolved. Instead, the conflicts appear to be growing, not diminishing.

Since there is no way the administration could have sat on this long enough for all the after-action reports and debriefings to be completed - regardless of whether the mission was successful or a disaster - the least the major players here could have done is exercise extremely tight message control. Either everyone should have been handing out the same information, or one person should have been designated to be the spokesperson, or a panel of those involved should have held a press conference.

And they certainly should have anticipated and planned for the likelihood that "conflicting reports" were going to start appearing in the foreign press, and been prepared to respond; bin Laden was someone with a global reach, and the events surrounding this mission have a global audience: what "our people" are saying isn't only being heard or read by American ears and eyes - the entire world is watching.

This isn't 1941; the world simply will not take any collective deep breaths and wait for the dust to settle; there's really no excuse for the administration to have been so unprepared and all over the place.

imo, Anne, Obama and his people are not stoopid. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 05, 2011 at 11:37:15 AM EST

I think all this talk of "they shoulda done this" "they shoulda anticipated that" is absolutely ridiculous when it comes from anyone except Obama and his people, ie., the people who were actually involved.

I think without question there was soooo much more going on behind the scenes that all of us are so completely ignorant of, such that all of our Monday Morning Quarterbacking is laughable beyond measure.

btw, this is not directed specifically to you, this is directed at all of us know-nothings, it's just your comment that I felt motivated to respond to this AM.


I'm not saying they're stupid, either; (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by Anne on Thu May 05, 2011 at 02:27:19 PM EST

this isn't about the intelligence of those involved, but I do think there are enough smart people there that someone - or a group of someones - ought to have been dedicated to message control.

Think about it for a second. Until Sunday night when there was an annoucement that the president was going to speak to the nation that night, none of us knew anything. A lot of people I know had already gone to bed, and didn't hear this news until the next morning. I can't speak for you, but I would rather they had taken that window of opportunity - that it was fairly late in the evening - to prepate a coordinated message perhaps via a multi-participant press conference on Monday mid-morning, than to be picking through and being bombarded by so much conflicting information for four days now.

I don't mean to suggest that conflicting details might have been avoided altogether, but there's something about having control of the message that reassures people that all is well in hand; what's been happening instead is people getting a feeling of disarray - and they can't quite decide what that means.

Sure, some people might have asked, "why'd they wait so long to tell us this news?" but most people would be satisfied by being told, "this was a big operation, there were a lot of people involved, and we thought it best to make sure we provided the American people, and the world, with the best, most factual and verified information."

I know we're looking back in hindsight, but I can tell you that it would have worked for me had they waited until they were all on the same page.


: Fair enough. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 05, 2011 at 03:38:50 PM EST

it would have worked for me had they waited until they were all on the same page.
Me too.

After Action Reports (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by MKS on Thu May 05, 2011 at 02:16:55 PM EST

Pursuant to military protocol going back to at least WWII, officers in combat prepare and send out written After Action Reports....I have heard these are only now coming in.

There is a reason why it is called the fog of war....

Apparently members of the adminstration were initially going on (apparently undigested) verbal reports....and not the After Action Reports....Good debriefing will weigh and sift through the various accounts and assemble the After Action Reports....

What the admin could have done is say virtually nothing until the dust had settled....But that would have been unacceptable...

Too easy to second guess here. Real time accounts from SEALS in the same unit could vary considerably. Not to mention the hearsay involved of trying to convey that up the chain of command....

This is not some economic policy summit where tight message control is easily achieved.....

The key facts that needed to be convyed accurately on the day of the mission, were in order of importance:
(1) Our guys are safe. No casualties.
(2) It was Bin Laden. He was killed.
(3) Other info (computers etc.) was obtained from Bin Laden compound.

The details on whether Bid Laden was armed or who fired etc rounds....are not that important....

I think it's important (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Jeralyn on Thu May 05, 2011 at 11:40:51 AM EST

to chronicle the changing stories. All the disparate media reports claim they are coming from unnamed officials. That the information is so disparate is important.

Capture (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by star on Fri May 06, 2011 at 08:23:04 AM EST

definitly a big bonanza for US. It would have worked to let his minions know that we have their head and might have worked as a deterrent against any attack they might be planning.
Also the latest news is that OBL was heavily involved in the operations of AQ. he was not just a figure head. so having him alive really would have provided vital Intel.

I am not surprised to see (none / 0) (#1)
by Ga6thDem on Wed May 04, 2011 at 07:10:30 PM EST

that they had guns and was surprised that they reported them not being there at first.

I wonder how they blasted through the wall. Explosives maybe?

det cord (none / 0) (#2)
by jeffinalabama on Wed May 04, 2011 at 08:10:05 PM EST

probably, used as a shaped charge.


In (none / 0) (#7)
by Ga6thDem on Wed May 04, 2011 at 08:22:42 PM EST

the article that Jeralyn linked to it said something about a gun with a grenade blaster or something. I guess that's what they used.


: Oh, well in that case, (none / 0) (#37)
by jeffinalabama on Thu May 05, 2011 at 10:07:09 AM EST

it would be either an M-203 40 mm grenade launcher or, IIRC, Special Operations get to pick and choose from the arsenal, including weapons out of service for regular line troops, an M-79, also a 40 mm grenade launcher that looks like a single shot short barrelled shotgun.

Sounds like confusion in the wording (none / 0) (#4)
by ruffian on Wed May 04, 2011 at 08:14:17 PM EST

somewhere along the line. To me, you can have guns and still be unarmed at the moment. Did they have guns? Yes. Were they unarmed? Yes.

I swear I don't know why the WH did not immediately put out a detailed written account instead of multiple incomplete statements. It did jot have to be this confusing. Really bad.


I think (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Ga6thDem on Wed May 04, 2011 at 08:24:19 PM EST

the problem is that they started talking too early. How long does it take to debrief the seals? I have heard something like 48 hours and that probably means that they didn't get them debriefed until this morning. Now the stories are starting to be a lot clearer this evening.


Yup. I would have had the Seals (none / 0) (#9)
by ruffian on Wed May 04, 2011 at 08:27:17 PM EST

story written up and in my hands before I started giving any details.


But then we know the Dems would not (5.00 / 8) (#11)
by ruffian on Wed May 04, 2011 at 08:28:54 PM EST

know a standardized talking point if it burst into their bedroom at 1 am.


They (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by Ga6thDem on Wed May 04, 2011 at 08:32:33 PM EST

used to but the "New Dem" party sure doesn't know how to do it.

I remember the 90's when everybody was on the same page and the GOP would whine that the WH had faxed them their talking points but I guess the GOP was just jealous.


True. I think George Stephanopoulus must have (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by ruffian on Wed May 04, 2011 at 08:37:35 PM EST

taken the FAX machine to ABC.


Ha Ha Ha (1.00 / 1) (#21)
by Politalkix on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:19:40 PM EST

Just look up the screw up in WACO or how the bombing of the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan unfolded and how many versions the WH put out before trying to convince people that the Clinton WH functioned better......
Save all your tall stories for kids born after Pres. Clinton left office....


Haha (5.00 / 4) (#33)
by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2011 at 05:58:52 AM EST

you have a selective memory. As far as Waco, I remember Janet Reno stepping up and saying that "the Buck stops with me".

Of course, if you believe what you are saying, then you should really be upset with Obama's post-partisan strategy of giving the GOP credit for stuff they didn't even do.


Always elevating Clinton and bashing Obama (none / 0) (#53)
by MKS on Thu May 05, 2011 at 02:26:22 PM EST

Have you ever, just once, said anything complimentary about Obama?....

I know in March 2009 you were saying that you thought the American people might demand Obama resign.....in 2009.....


Yes (none / 0) (#58)
by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2011 at 02:35:35 PM EST

but you weren't around here when I was doing it apparently.

The WH has been caught flat footed once again. It's annoying. The WH SHOULDN'T have let the conversation devolve into a discussion on whether torture works or not.

I'm sorry but I like people that are willing to draw a line in the sand and am tired of all the caving.


a line in the sand (1.00 / 2) (#68)
by jondee on Thu May 05, 2011 at 03:47:41 PM EST

like when Bill sanctioned rendition..

Had did that influence "the conversation"?


I have been here since early 2008 (none / 0) (#61)
by MKS on Thu May 05, 2011 at 03:27:37 PM EST

I am one of the few here who supported Obama in the Primary......The vast majoirty here did not. In fact this site became a refuge for Hillary supporters......Many moved on.....many did not.

The White House should not have allowed the conversation to devolve into a discussion about torture? And just how were they going to do that? By shutting up Cheney? Really?

By commenting on torture the White House would certainly have elevated the issue--and perhaps that could be a good thing, but it would not have just gone away.


They need (none / 0) (#62)
by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2011 at 03:35:41 PM EST

a "war room" that is prepared to counter what the GOP is saying. They haven't had that or at least they don't have a decent one so the GOP gets to continually control the message be it getting OBL or HCR or whatever.


You know how battlefield reports (none / 0) (#65)
by MKS on Thu May 05, 2011 at 03:41:31 PM EST

should be communicated to the public? Do tell....


You (none / 0) (#67)
by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2011 at 03:46:46 PM EST

could have waited until the seals had been debriefed. Right?


: But then you would be reacting wildly (none / 0) (#72)
by Politalkix on Thu May 05, 2011 at 09:15:08 PM EST

to messages coming out from Pakistan (the ISI version), Europe etc that would fill the gap and be faulting the Obama administration of losing control of the "message".
Most people are not really bothered with the "message" (and "war rooms", etc) froth that intoxicates hyperpartisan people such as you and media pundits. People understand that some initial information from combat zones can be faulty and are OK with corrections as more facts become available.

Delusional or seduced (none / 0) (#75)
by Rojas on Fri May 06, 2011 at 08:27:38 AM EST

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume incredible amount of credulity must flow through you veins.
There is no doubt from the "messaging" standpoint Himler himself would have stood in awe of Reno's performance. Let's not forget that on April 19 Ms. Reno assured us that they acted because Koresh was inside diddling little girls while an emasculated FBI was held at bay. Of course none other than the Director of the FBI walked that one back the next day. But from the effective messaging standpoint I suppose Ms. Reno certainly should be considered a master of the art.


Yeah, I was thinking more of the campaign (none / 0) (#24)
by ruffian on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:42:10 PM EST

WH was just as bad. Maybe it's a harder job than I think it should be. I didn't find Bush's people very convincing either, actually. Maybe they all told the same lies more often, but they were obviously lies.


Chinese embassy bombing in Belgrade (none / 0) (#28)
by Politalkix on Wed May 04, 2011 at 11:09:28 PM EST

during the Kosovo War. You may want to check out how many different versions the WH put out. link


Are you basically trying to imply (5.00 / 5) (#30)
by nycstray on Wed May 04, 2011 at 11:41:15 PM EST

because there were f-ups in the past, O should be given a pass? Mister Change/Hope? and all that BS? How far back in history are you willing to go to say that O has learned no lessons from the past, smart guy that he is?


: No, I think the response was to (5.00 / 0) (#55)
by MKS on Thu May 05, 2011 at 02:27:03 PM EST

the assertion that the Clintons did it so much better.......

Nah the GOP is just (none / 0) (#14)
by brodie on Wed May 04, 2011 at 08:49:04 PM EST

awfully brazen at projecting onto their political opponents, and making them feel defensive, that which they do routinely themselves.

Whatever, whoever the Obama admin person in charge of putting out info in a coherent way is -- Jay "Chili Con" Carney or whoever it is -- needs a good tongue lashing after this one.


: Of course (none / 0) (#34)
by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2011 at 06:02:18 AM EST

they are and the WH got caught flat footed once again. I think that's kind of the point everybody is making.

Come on (none / 0) (#51)
by MKS on Thu May 05, 2011 at 02:23:14 PM EST

The Dems in the 90s weren't trying to relay details of battlefield engagements in close to real time.....


This isn't the (none / 0) (#54)
by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2011 at 02:26:25 PM EST

first time the messaging has been bad that's why I'm saying it. Remember the horrible messaging on HCR? I can understand that information is changing rapidly here and would have not said anything has this not become a pattern.


No, you said how wonderful the clintons were (none / 0) (#57)
by MKS on Thu May 05, 2011 at 02:27:56 PM EST

--your message discipline of the 90s....


The (none / 0) (#59)
by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2011 at 02:37:21 PM EST

message discipline WAS better. Hindsight being 20/20 the WH should have waited to talk about this saying they were still gathering the details or whatever. Now all this has allowed the GOP to grab control of the message. You should be upset by that.


Here (none / 0) (#60)
by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2011 at 03:01:27 PM EST

is how the message has been taken away from the WH:

This is the new storyline the media is shopping:
here

Now if you're happy with this kind of stuff go ahead but it's eternally frustrating to me that once again the GOP has taken control of what should be a really good moment for Obama simply because the WH message machine was caught flat footed.


You considered it a good moment for Obama? (2.00 / 1) (#64)
by MKS on Thu May 05, 2011 at 03:39:14 PM EST

Really?

You were looking to find fault from the get-go.

As to your link. Halperin? He says the admin should not have allowed the discussion to veer into Afghanistan, Pakistan and the photo? Good grief. And he says more credit should have been given to Bush.

There will always be critics (like you.) I think the admin is doing just fine on Bin Laden....


No (none / 0) (#66)
by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2011 at 03:45:35 PM EST

you are reading into my comments what you want to read. I found no fault with what Obama did regarding getting Bin Laden. Some people didn't like it but I had no problem with it. If you had paid attention, most of criticisms have been directed at his abysmal domestic policies. And I ahbor the post partisan unity crap because it just continually gives the GOP an opening to do what they are doing now.

The problem isn't that Halperin is saying it so much as it's the media narrative now. How do you let a success turn into that? It shows poor work on the part of his message shop.


"I found no fault" (1.00 / 1) (#71)
by MKS on Thu May 05, 2011 at 08:40:01 PM EST

That is not even damning with feint praise.

Gingrich gave Obama more praise than you did. You have more antipathy towards Obama than Gingrich....

It just kilss you to. Admit that did a good job and so you scour the news for something anything to criticize. Truly sad .


You (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 06, 2011 at 06:21:48 AM EST

are making things up. Whatever. You seem to think that you can read my mind. Why is this so personal with you? You always devolve into personal attacks aimed at me instead of the issues and the facts.


: Your record speaks for itself (none / 0) (#76)
by MKS on Fri May 06, 2011 at 09:29:17 AM EST

Pointing out your bias.....

The conflicting reports (none / 0) (#25)
by gyrfalcon on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:52:22 PM EST

might have been much, much worse in the absence of official statements, is probably what they figured, so better get out front with their own version-- which would have been fine if they'd stuck to only what they knew for sure, which they didn't.

I was truly shocked that Brennan so authoritatively provided so much information that turned out to be flat-out wrong within hours.


: Brennan probably accurately relayed (none / 0) (#49)
by MKS on Thu May 05, 2011 at 02:21:39 PM EST

what he had been told by others....perhaps even a senior SEAL officer.....
so it could appear authoritative and still be a wrong account....

Agree -- or just put out a bare (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by brodie on Wed May 04, 2011 at 08:28:36 PM EST

minimum statement and leave the non-essential details for later when everyone had the correct info (or "stories straight" depending on how you view this thing).

Some of the glow of success of the first 24 hrs is greatly dimming because someone forgot to take care of the telling of the story part.


THanks for posting (none / 0) (#19)
by BackFromOhio on Wed May 04, 2011 at 09:27:15 PM EST

this info.

Whether legal or not (none / 0) (#29)
by MiamiGuy on Wed May 04, 2011 at 11:14:14 PM EST

Eric Holder said it was legal for a number of reasons.

Great column about the Osama (none / 0) (#36)
by Harry Saxon on Thu May 05, 2011 at 08:18:13 AM EST

photo controversy in Salon:

Why won't President Obama release a photo of Osama bin Laden in hell?
When will Barack Obama finally release, to the American people, the photographic proof of Osama bin Laden in hell, with Ken Cuccinelli and the rest of his "Virginans"? Look, Mr. President: 61 percent of Americans already believe Osama bin Laden is in hell. All we're asking is for you to prove that you stand with a majority of Americans, and officially make that belief true.
The world must see bin Laden roasting in the lake of fire, in order to discourage future would-be terrorists from taking up arms against us. How can Americans feel any sense of closure, at all, without the image of the al-Qaida leader suffering eternal torment at the hands of the devil? Until we have definitive evidence of bin Laden weeping and gnashing his teeth for all eternity, tortured forever by the Beast, we will never prove to those conspiratorial and superstitious Muslims that he has been punished for his wicked deeds.

NY Times -- OBL had guns (none / 0) (#40)
by Michael Masinter on Thu May 05, 2011 at 11:28:28 AM EST

Without vouching for accuracy (I wasn't there), note this from the latest NY Times report:

When the commandos reached the top floor, they entered a room and saw Osama bin Laden with an AK-47 and a Makarov pistol in arm's reach. They shot and killed him, as well as wounding a woman with him.

: which is very different than (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Jeralyn on Thu May 05, 2011 at 11:48:06 AM EST

than CBS which says "Bin Laden was unarmed but the SEALs later found a pistol and an AK-47 in the room." (link in my post.)
The weapons may have been within his reach, but if they didn't see them or know they were there until after he was killed, they weren't a factor in their decision to kill him.

Kill or capture...kill or capture...hhmmm.... Why (none / 0) (#70)
by jawbone on Thu May 05, 2011 at 07:48:24 PM EST

bother to capture?

Answer of the Day, from Robert J. Foley in Trial by Hit Squad:

Instead of killing Bin Laden, the U.S. should have captured and interrogated him. Think how much information we could have gained! If alleged low-level members of Al Qaeda are thought to have information important enough for our government to lock them up at Guantanamo for almost 10 years, then wouldn't it have been smart to ask Bin Laden a few questions instead of shooting him? He's been called the "mastermind" of 9/11 and all things Al Qaeda. (My emphasis)

Ya think?

Via antiwar.com