Certain features of the White House story about the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound were irresistible to the media: A fierce firefight. The feared terrorist leader crouching behind his wife as the Navy SEALs approached, before resisting or possibly even reaching for a weapon. And on and on.
Of course, those details have been substantially altered by the White House, if not scrapped altogether. And thus we started to see headlines like this one in the New York Times: “Raid Account, Hastily Told, Proves Fluid.” As that story put it:
a classic collision of a White House desire to promote a stunning national security triumph–and feed a ravenous media–while collecting facts from a chaotic military operation on the other side of the world.
If by “classic,” the Times means to say that the government often misleads or lies about its accomplishments–well, no argument here. And demonstrating their sense of humor, the Times account included this:
“There has never been any intent to deceive or dramatize,” a military official said Thursday, asking that he not be named because of ground rules imposed by the Department of Defense. “Everything we put out we really believed to be true at the time.”
We never meant to mislead anyone–but don’t quote me on that!
Judging by what some reporters are saying, early accounts are often simply wrong. On CNN‘s Reliable Sources (3/8/11), host Howard Kurtz and former CNN Pentagon reporter Jamie McIntyre had this exchange:
KURTZ: And there was a conference call with White House officials, and you’re trying to assemble as much as you can. You assume these people know what they’re talking about.
MCINTYRE: But you know, Howard, this was an avoidable misstep, because anyone who has covered the military for any period of time, or anyone who is briefed on military operations, knows that initial details on an operation are almost always wrong. And if they had simply been cautious about caveating the fact that they didn’t have all the details, or that they might change, and by the same token, if the reporters are careful to say in the past, we know that often these initial details are not right, it wouldn’t have looked nearly as bad.
So reporters either “assume these people know what they’re talking about,” or just know that “initial details on an operation are almost always wrong.” If it’s the latter, it would seem to me that most reporters carry that knowledge around without sharing it with readers or viewers. In fact, a network correspondent once told me almost exactly the same thing that McIntyre is saying here. I remember being shocked, because the reporter’s work betrayed no such skepticism towards official claims.
This was a well-planned assault, closely watched by elite planners at Washington. For reasons that are entirely unclear, they delivered a highly misleading account to reporters and the public. They’ve made their corrections–or at least adjustments–but think about how often this might be happening, in Afghanistan or elsewhere. An airstrike reportedly kills civilians; the Pentagon issues a denial. How often do reporters treat those denials with sufficient skepticism?
Just what’s “entirely unclear” about the reasons for these lies?
The initial version was the wet dream of gummint propagandists, with the ubermensch SEALS firefighting their way toward the ultimate confrontation with The Evil One, finally killing him in a blazing exchange of fire.
Golly, what’s to be skeptical about?
That an unarmed and undangerous bin Laden was offed with a couple of slugs to his head in what could only be termed an assassination … well, that just doesn’t fit the PR criteria, does it?
That there’s been backtracking, after the full effect of such Hollywoodismo has been realized, likely reflects concern about the actual facts being made known. Not concern as regards the corpress, as they’ve made abundantly clear that the facts should never get in the way of a good story, but that many folks around the world (and maybe a few here) might see the original version for the manipulation that it was.
But why FAIR wants to cut ’em some slack on this is – as well as the lack of skepticism toward the party line on just when and how the man’s whereabouts became known – is indeed a bit of a mystery, and one I’d like to understand.
Give the folks running this improvisational theater company a big hand!
Mr. Obama, take a bow.
Everybody knows opening nights are apt to be rough.
A few more run throughs, a little work on the dialog, and you’ll be ready for prime time.
The show must go on.
A few years ago, the Israeli army planted a landmine (definitely a terrorist weapon) that was a known pathway for Palestinian children on the way to school. The purpose of the mine was to kill Palestinian terrorists, or so it was claimed. But of course the intended target was missed and five children lost their lives en route to school. The Israeli army denied planting the land mine, then later modified its story and admitted they had planted the mine. This is a familiar pattern. Many people never get pass the first announcement. On a different but related topic, yesterday I was watching a movie called “Salt” (Angelina Jolie in the starring role) with my kids. Frankly I couldn’t watch such Hollywood propaganda. The movie started with the North Koreans waterboarding dear Angelina. Well, maybe the North Koreans use waterboarding, don’t really know. But whether its “Rambo” or “Salt” or some other Hollywood movie, somehow the facts get twisted around and it’s only the enemy that resorts to these inhuman method. Unfortunately, like the White House’s initial press releases, that’s what far too many people take away as the truth. It’s kind of like watching John Wayne at the Alamo and really believing that’s a history lesson. I know one person who thinks that the tiger cages used for torture were operated by the North Vietnamese. It’s amazing that with a bit of sleight of hand a whole story can be inverted and you can have people line up to drink from the well and come back begging for more.
While no one outside the Beltway could possibly know what went on, it does appear that old pro counterterrorism chief John O. Brennan (one of the few who can actually speak Arabic) felt requited to lie — comme d’habitude — about the capture of Ben Laden, and concocted the story about him hiding behind a woman pretty much on an ad hoc basis. You’re a spook, you lie. Right? That’s what you do for a living. Implications schmimplications.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/osama_dead.php
But I prefer to believe the Whamo! Bam-bam! Got the commie — I mean, Muzzy terrorist made-for-TV-news story.
Unless the famous photo of Obama et al. watching events live was also a lie, of course the White House knew there was no firefight. And numerous other security forces were also watching through numerous cameras, microphones, sensors etc.
But you let this gang off the hook: “For reasons that are entirely unclear, they delivered a highly misleading account …” What’s unclear? They wanted him dead, not alive to testify.
This was an Israeli-style targeted murder intended to avoid any hint of accountability (why else did they dump the body?). Just as Bush II refused the Taliban government’s 2001 offer to extradite Bin Laden to an international court — if the U.S. provided evidence implicating OBL in 911 — Bush III (known as BHO) is afraid of accounting for his actions.
I was curious why the Navy was operating in land-locked Afghanistan, though perhaps it has the bad-assest executioners and they happen to be based on a ship. Also curious as to why the CIA was in charge of a military operation (unremarked in anything I’ve read so far). Is the Pentagon untrustworthy, or is it that the CIA is more experienced in small-scale illegal assassinations?
Osama Bin Laden Dies Again:
There is evidence that there was a military operation against someone’s house (compound). It is hard to find any reliable evidence, though it is easy to believe, that anyone was killed. They allege that OBL was killed but then they hide or destroy all evidence that would prove the deed was done.
I would submit that with a little research you could find more evidence that OBL has been dead for about 10 years. This leaves most of what the media is saying about OBL more resembling a novel than news.
The word “allege” should be used much more often when there is a government pronouncement. Alleged gives a little warning “lets wait and see.”
This will get you started on a little research:
The Many Deaths of OBL
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15601
Osama bin Laden’s Second Death
by Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts302.html
Questions about the Obama Osama Drama from a Pakistani attorney:
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/593
Top US Government Insider: Bin Laden Died In 2001, 9/11 A False Flag (confirmed!)
http://tinyurl.com/3wo6phf
This may sound stupid, but we’re lied to all the time, so here goes: is there any externally verifiable evidence that they did indeed kill bin Laden?
The closest thing I can think of is that they must have because it would be really embarrassing for him to turn up alive and send everyone a video next week saying hi.
I kind of suspected, for a long time before this happened, that he might be dead already. Presumably the videos they said they captured will disprove that particular theory.
But assuming the story is true up to the point where they raided the house and he was unarmed, why bother assassinating him? Why not just capture and torture him like they do others? If he’s in a dark enough hole, they could reap the propaganda benefits of proudly announcing they murdered him and carry on trying to extract information. With no body and just the word of the US government, that doesn’t seem that far-fetched.
Oocytes is the first one on this blog to raid the question of who was killed. I will go even further to question the entire story. The Egyptians printed a report of OBL dying in 2001 and buried with a peaceful funeral in Afghanistan. The article was scanned and put online in English last week. A video, tongue in cheek, cited the annual reportage of his death for 9? straight years.
Do we really think that a man with kidney failure, requiring dialysis (Dubai hospital report 2000-01) was running around the Mid-east without being found? Much less that he survived with the stress in his life, both physical, mental and emotional (watching yourself dying has got to carry some emotion even for people in OBL’s position).
But what the hey–with a securely dumbed down public, one can say anything and people will react. Remember Bush talked on a 4th grade level because that is how he/his administration saw the public–a bunch of overgrown silly children. Obama speaks with a bit more maturity, but his advisors are sure to convince him to talk down to us because once the lie is told and it is a sensational lie, the little children will eat it up and hold onto it even when the truth comes out.
What we’re left with is: how many Americans trust their government any more (all 3 branches)?
I for one do not and anything out of their mouths needs to be taken with a ton of suspect.
As far as I can see those mis-speaks in the first 24 hours were probably intentional… the psy-opps know that ‘justification’ must be given to the majority of Americans to hold their allegiance to the government actions. What better than to concoct a story of Osama with a weapon and using a woman as a human shield!
Remember the concoction of Hill&Knowlton with Nayirah and the Iraqi soldiers pulling babies out of incubators before the vote for the first Gulf War?
Now the question is: which PR firm has been handling the ‘unfolding’ of events in this latest US immoral assasination of Osama Bin Laden?
Interesting how the handling of Bin Laden’s assassination is priming the media pump for taking out Gadaffi next. He is not likely to make it to a court trial, in Libya or anywhere else.
Another question: why did they let the story change so conspicuously, and so rapidly (and hide the evidence at the end)? Did they not want to be believed? It’s not like they don’t have a well-oiled and sophisticated PR machine. How did they do such a pathetic job with story control?
Is it not just possible that the ugly business of shooting a man in the eye ,with his brains blasted out, is on one hand mission accomplished( hoo-ah);and on the other- a very hard thing for a civilized government to talk straight about?At least in real time?
It’s weird.
They didn’t have such timidity with Hussein’s sons, for instance.
And “civilized”? That’s a loaded word, and used merely for approbation, it’s quite inappropriate.
It’s likely it’s all spin. Bin Laden’s death was very close to exactly 10 years from when he would have likely sent the final order to proceed with what became the 9/11 attacks, after the muscle hijackers had arrived in the U.S. It wouldn’t surprise me if it were exactly 10 years to the hour from some kind of a final order. The “exactly 10 years” thing is useful for intel gathering and dissuading similar attackers. It’s very unlikely that they weren’t monitoring couriers’ email at the net cafes. I wonder how many killings that we didn’t hear about took place the same night.
What was wrong with the comments from the White House
immediately after the successful raid, was that they were made
at all. The only response that shoud have been made is that
the members of the Special Ops team were being debriefed, and
there would be no statement until further notice. Over and out.
It is notable that the initial stories are inevitably more glamorous, salacious, and advantageous to the administration, than the versions that eventually emerge.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me every night, you’re in the media.