May 09 2011
Update: Reader WWS notes the latest propaganda effort regarding the March hesitation by the President to go after Bin Laden is also riddled with factual errors:
The reason this was such a good hiding place for bin Laden was that predators were specifically forbidden from getting anywhere near it, under official threat of being shot down by the Pakistani AF. This was a protected military zone, not some wild borderland. No predators allowed, *ever* …
Yep – we have another false rewrite of history from this wayward administration. - end update
The entire show surrounding how Osama Bin Laden was brought to justice has really been a disturbing series of misinformation, errors and clumsy cover up. It has been so bad it has turned a national moment of victory into a real moment of crisis. Just as we take out an enemy who killed many more innocent humans than the 3,000 people mass murdered on 9/11/01, we are facing a crisis of confidence regarding our leaders and their propaganda puppets in the news media. We have been bombarded with a continuous series of untruths and corrections on the most basic of matters. And it is rattling the majority of people who exist in the political center.
As I noted when the news broke, there was a very fishy element to the original narrative that was physically ridiculous:
Sources tell ABC News that in March President Obama authorized a plan for the U.S. to bomb Osama bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound with two B2 stealth bombers dropping a few dozen 2,000-pound JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) on the compound.
But when the president heard the compound would be reduced to rubble he changed his mind.
The point is Obama hesitated on killing Bin Laden in March, the details attempt to explain why.
As I showed later in that first post, two B-2′s with 24+ 2,000 lb JDAMS is a ridiculous amount of ordnance for Bin Laden’s small compound (each JDAM creates a 50 ft crater, 30 ft deep). Two of these would be over kill, 24 is idiotic. This part of the story was so ridiculous it was obvious that someone with no military or physics background just made the entire thing up out of thin air. It was clear this came from a liberal propagandist who was trying to cover ‘something’ up. Apparently that ‘something’ was President Obama’s terminal case of paralysis in terms of authorizing action against Bin Laden.
Not to fear, another narrative was produced and passed to liberal propaganda puppet Bob Woodward, who pliantly wrote it up in a Washington Post piece:
Obama and his advisers debated the options, officials said. One option was to fire a missile from a Predator or Reaper aerial drone. Such a strike would be low-risk, but if the result was a direct hit, the pacer might be vaporized and officials would never be certain they had killed bin Laden.
Oh my, see how the story has changed! I mentioned in my previous post a Predator drone would be sufficient fire power. Seems someone took notice and fixed the narrative. How Orwellian can you get? And no, even a predator will not ‘vaporize’ a human being in a concrete structure such as the house Bin Laden haunted. Plenty of DNA would be available, once you could sift through the wreckage.
If you could sift through the wreckage. That has been a major problem with other aerial strikes – how to ID the targets. If you wanted to make a solid narrative, that would be the question – not vaporizing. Seems those people putting out this junk have watched way too much TV.
Woodward’s piece had other elements which made it more Orwellian than usual. For example:
When U.S. intelligence officials learned of this exchange, they knew they had reached a key moment in their decade-long search for al-Qaeda’s founder. The call led them to the unusual, high-walled compound in Abbottabad, a city 35 miles north of Pakistan’s capital.
“This is where you start the movie about the hunt for bin Laden,” said one U.S. official briefed on the intelligence-gathering leading up to the raid on the compound early Monday.
No, the ‘movie’ starts with interrogation and learning about the courier with the moniker ‘al-Kuwaiti’. As we painfully now, the left don’t want to start this story at its beginning, with the Bush administration and enhanced interrogation. Another obvious ‘tell’ this is propaganda, not reporting.
Woodward’s ‘movie’ also skips over the months of delay waiting for the mythical perfect intel. A delay which could have easily pushed some in the administration to flex their legal muscle and force a frozen President to act. Here is what we get in Woodward’s version of history with regards to all the rightfully tough discussions about what threshold was sufficient to claim this was Bin Laden’s lair:
Panetta said that point had been reached, arguing that those tracking the compound were seeing the pacer nearly every day but could not conclude with certainty that it was bin Laden, officials said. Panetta noted that there was no signals intelligence available and contended that it was too risky to send in a human spy or move any closer with electronic devices.
There was incredible dissension inside the White House about whether we had enough evidence to act. Forget about the method of acting, there were people pushing back on acting at all! Where is that story in Woodward White Wash? Here it is:
Officials said Obama’s national security advisers were not unanimous in recommending he go ahead with the McRaven option. The president approved the raid at 8:20 a.m. Friday.
Yep. One of the toughest decisions a President will ever make, and Woodward just gives it a drive-by mention. It is worthy to know the arguments on both sides, the factors weighed, the unknown risks assumed. Mainly because we face these decision all the time when we decide to hit target in Pakistan or Yemen. We are working WAY outside the legal bounds established over humankind’s history. We are sending out hit squads on individuals. It is important to understand what triggers such questionable and troubling acts.
In the case of self-professed mass murderers like Bin Laden, Hitler, and Yamamoto I am not as concerned. In the case of American-born cleric Al-Awlaki, I think we have crossed a line when we can order the assassination of a US citizen without a trial and verdict of guilty. When did we give the power to assassinate Americans to the President of the United States? I don’t recall that being on the campaign issue list.
Everything surrounding these acts has been shown to be mostly fiction. The White House has had to stop talking about Bin Laden for fear it is running out of semi-plausible BS. Even more laughable is the left wing effort to paint Obama’s actions as heroic! How heroic is it to take out someone so universally hated as Bin Laden? Face it, the left is just ecstatic Obama did not channel his inner liberal and do nothing. Powerline captured this ‘hey, we did not screw up” euphoria brilliantly:
All of this praise is due to the fact that Obama approved, rather than nixing, the killing of bin Laden. A good decision, to be sure. But is there a single person, anywhere, who doubts that George W. Bush would have made the same call? Or John McCain, if he had won in 2008? Of course not. The Democrats’ jubilation results from the fact that their guy didn’t wilt under pressure, but rather lived up to the standard that George W. Bush and John McCain easily met. For this, he is called “courageous” and “gutsy.”
Yep, it really is a case where Obama finally stood tall. Or did he? As we know, there is a lot of rumbling behind the scenes on how critical mass for the act on Bin Laden was finally obtained. We do know the intel was solid as it was going to be for many months. The real story is what happened to overcome the paralysis and resistance inside the White House.
But instead of exploring this news-worthy subject, we get barraged by more and more glowing rewrites. Have we hit a point where politicians lie with such ease and regularity those ‘journalists’ living high on the hog with the political elite have just decided to be well-paid patsies and apologists? Where are the true journalists who want to discover and communicate the harsh truth, no matter which side takes a hit?
My fear is they have gone extinct, replaced by social cling-ons whose focus is being with the ‘in crowd’ instead of being a force for good. DC power, paychecks and social events have corrupted tens of thousands over the years, so this is no surprise. Apparently, we have finally reached Nineteen Eight-Four