By far my favorite MSM reporting on the raid is the WSJ article by Siobhan Gorman and Julian Barnes, "Spy, Military Ties Aided bin Laden Raid". Google for the title and you can read the full version from Google's cache.
If the article is to be believed, Barack Obama's role in the planning is quite impressive. He choose the riskiest of the options offered to him; the military consensus was leaning toward heavy bombing that would have guaranteed civilian casualties, but would minimize exposure to U.S. personnel. Apparently, Somalia still looms large in the memories of military leadership.
Obama took the bombing option off the table completely, and told them to do it the Hard Way -- sending commandos 128 miles into Pakistan's interior. But the best part is that Obama explicitly equipped the SEALs to blast their way out if the raid went bad and Pakistanis showed up shooting. That as opposed to throwing up their hands and surrendering, and then letting the diplomats try to arrange their release in the ensuing months (or maybe years; it took us months to get back one single CIA contractor arrested earlier this year). From the article:
"Mr. Obama directed Adm. McRaven to develop a stronger U.S. escape plan. The team would be equipped to fight its way out and would have two helicopters on stand-by in case of an emergency."
Now that, my friends, is risky. The ways in which this thing could have gone bad are almost too ugly to contemplate. How could Obama & co. possibly not have crapped their pants watching the raid live from the white house?
Dichotomy? What dichotomy?
While the Saudi rulers have a good relationship with the Bin Laden family, they despised Osama Bin Laden. They thought that Osama was a threat to their leadership. Osama criticized them and wanted their overthrow. And Osama thought that the Saudis were American puppets.
And Re: Pakistan. It's a hard-to-tread situation. The most powerful in the Pakistani government are dispersed into groups of "Love the Taliban/Al Qaeda"/"Love the Americans ('s money)/"We just want to be left alone. And nobody from one group wants to piss off someone in another group, so it's this cloak and dagger situation.
Did the Saudi government have any interest in taking the body? “Your plan sounds like a good one,” the Saudi replied.
Yeah right. The only reason his body was dumped into the sea is because if they had paraded it around, everyone would be able to see that OBL isn't the same as the guy in the video who claimed credit for 9/11.
Oh well, I guess that's government projects for you.
You're missing what I'm saying. Assuming the body the recovered was actually OBL, then any high-res photographs and videos released could have potentially proven that the evidence used as a pretext for the large-scale invasion of Afghanistan was fake.
Before that video, there were less than 1,000 Americans in Afghanistan. Today there are 90,000. Is it really that difficult to see why this matters?
The U.S. government told us in 2001 that they found a video of OBL claiming credit for 9/11. Given the evidence, is it really that unreasonable to ask whether or not that video is actually authentic? Is it really that unreasonable to expect the government not to make unavailable critical evidence in the matter?
How come HN gets pissed off at the sort of people who say that evolution is fake without looking at the evidence, but when I ask for evidence that this video is actually authentic I get downmodded over 40 points?
And I believe the reason that you are being down-voted is 1) you sound like a wingnut, 2) your claims are unclear. It is quite hard to work out what exactly you are trying to suggest.
And comparing rolling eyes at 9-11 conspiracy theories with denying evolution probably isn't helping you either...
The US captured hundreds of enemy combatants and interrogated them all. A lot of them mention and talk about UBL and the role he played pre and post-911.
Try reading wikileaks.
Can you link me to where on the web it is that the U.S. government has outlined the main evidence that OBL was behind 9/11? Because the official FBI page does not even list him as a suspect in the attacks:
Yes, it is. Even the craziest wingnut can plausibly say that the US was after Iraqi oil, but a conspiracy theory to blast into Afghanistan and stay there for a decade seems like it would have little benefit for the US.
All the tinfoil you can handle: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=...
Again, don't downvote the messenger, I don't agree or disagree with any of these theories personally.
The photos are highly classified, and they've stated why they don't want to release them. If Osama was shot with a high caliber bullet in the face, you probably can't even recognize him anyway.
Did any of the news outlets ever confirm the photo released was actually from the government? I haven't seen any of them say "we obtained this photo from the government," I have only seen one station run the single photo, and they explicitly said it was unconfirmed.
The reason why I'm asking for the facts is because I don't know the facts. That's the whole point. If I already knew the facts then I wouldn't be asking for them.
Very confusing comment.
Yes. The only video 'evidence' linking OBL to 9/11 was a video of someone who looks nothing like him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41UAnkQARFs
If the government had released actual high res photos and videos of the body it would be clear that the 'fat osama' in the video above wasn't really him, and therefore that the only evidence that OBL was behind 9/11 was completely fabricated.
bonus tip: linking to youtube videos called "9/11 CONSPIRACY: THE BIN LADEN TAPE IS A FAKE!" marginalizes yourself, no matter the content.
Edit: seriously now. I'm not getting this. The public thinks that osama is tall and thin, regardless of whatever video bush was pointing at or whatnot. If they shot a tall thin guy, nobody would think anything of it (except perhaps the people that are predisposed to making "CONSPIRACY" videos on youtube...) If they shot some fat guy (which wouldn't even make sense to do, since the public doesn't recognize him as the guy...), then that should just match up with this apparent evidence video.... which is no big deal?
Explain this to me, if you are going to downvote me.
I do think they shot a skinny guy, which would show that the video from 2001 was almost certainly fake.
And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.
http://english.aljazeera.net/archive/2004/11/200849163336457...
edit: rewritten for clarity.
For me it's really not important at all because that's how the world evolves...
- distrust of Pakistan runs high
- the article is almost coy about how OBL's safehouse was so close to a military academy and the contacts with another group tightly linked to ISI; this says to me the sources did not want to discuss anything more than was already public. (And do keep in mind that this sort of article is usually a tissue of deliberate leaks, so what is not said is almost as interesting as what is said. If one were particularly cynical, one might read this into the general downplaying of the downed chopper, the one major flaw of the operation.)
- the Pakistani retaliation with the newspapers was very interesting indeed
- the dumping-the-body-at-sea thing had precedent! I had not known that. The Saudi refusal to take the body was also interesting, but in line with the general public/private dichotomy of their behavior.
- the bombing suggestion would have been... interesting. All things considered, the SEAL team does seem like a better idea.