INVESTIGATIVE reporter Seymour Hersh has charged in
the London Review of Books that the White House
narrative of the May 2, 2011, killing of the al-Qaeda
leader Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, is
largely “false.”
In a 10,000-word account, Hersh wrote that when bin
Laden was slain by U.S. Navy Seals he had been a
prisoner of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency
(ISI) since 2006 and that top Pakistani military officials
knew of the raid in advance and were complicit in bin
Laden’s execution by removing their guards from his
compound and ensuring airspace access for attacking
U.S. helicopters.
President Obama said bin Laden and two of his men
were killed in the firefight during the raid, as well as a bin
Laden wife used as a human shield. He added that “no
Americans were harmed.” (It’s a rather strange
“firefight” when all the dead and wounded are on one
side.)
Moreover, the idea that bin Laden was killed when he
resisted the assault force, suggests that the ISI guards
allowed their prisoner and his aides to have weapons,
also dubious. And the U.S. claim that Obama was not an
ISI captive is undercut by the location of bin Laden’s
compound, in a Pakistan military and intelligence
community.
ISI was holding bin Laden hostage, threatening Taliban
and al-Qaida leadership with turning him over to the U.S.
if they ran operations contrary to ISI interests, Hersh
said.
“Some of the Seals were appalled later at the White
House’s initial insistence that they had shot bin Laden in
self-defense,” a Hersh source told him. “Six of the Seals’
finest, most experienced NCOs, faced with an unarmed
elderly civilian, had to kill him in self-defense?” the
source scoffed.
Hersh pointed out that “The White House press corps
was told in a briefing shortly after Obama’s
announcement that the death of bin Laden was ‘the
culmination of years of careful and highly advanced
intelligence work,'” when, in fact, the U.S. learned of his
whereabouts from a walk-in informer. This man was an
ex-Pakistani intelligence officer “who betrayed the secret
in return for much of the $25 million reward offered by
the U.S…”
Then there’s the matter of Obama’s alleged burial at
sea. Although Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette said the
funeral service followed “traditional procedures for
Islamic burial,” Hersh pointed out “there was no
indication of who washed and wrapped the body, or of
which Arabic speaker conducted the service.”
What’s more, the Navy refused to make the carrier’s log
of daily events available to reporters and skipper Bruce
Lindsey told them he was unable to discuss the burial.
And Rear Admiral Samuel Perez, commander of the
carrier group’s strike force, told reporters “the crew had
been ordered not to talk about the burial.” Sound a bit
fishy? Maybe that’s because two “longtime consultants”
to Special Operations Command(SOC) told Hersh,”the
funeral aboard the Carl Vinson didn’t take place.”
Over and again, we find the Administration ordering its
officials not to talk about the raid. As Hersh pointed out,
every member of the Seals hit team and some members
of the Joint SOC leadership “were presented with a
nondisclosure form drafted by the White House’s legal
office; it promised civil penalties and a lawsuit for
anyone who discussed the mission, in public or private.”
Readers attempting to decide which account of bin
Laden’s death to believe might also consider that the
Administration shifted its story on key points.
“Within days (of the raid),” Hersh said, “some of the early
exaggerations and distortions had become obvious and
the Pentagon issued a series of clarifying statements.
No, bin Laden was not armed when he was shot and
killed. And no, bin Laden did not use one of his wives as
a shield.” The fact that bin Laden had no weapons adds
strength to the argument he was an ISI prisoner, not a
free man shielded by guards bristling with guns.
White House National Security spokesman Ned Price,
brushed off the Hersh article with, “There are too many
inaccuracies and baseless assertions in this piece to fact
check each one.” (So how many did he fact check?) And
a CIA official dismissed the Hersh account as “utter
nonsense.” (This from an agency with a track record for
lying stretching from Viet Nam to Iraq.)
In point of fact, while Obama has built a reputation for
lying and breaking his promises, Hersh has a reputation
for honesty and repertorial excellence. He won a Pulitzer
Prize for breaking the My Lai massacre story in 1969.
He’s also won two National Magazine awards and five
coveted Polk awards. Plus UK’s prestigious George
Orwell Award for political writing.
By contrast, numerous observers have concluded that
President Obama lies systematically to the public.
Attorney John Whitehead, President of the non-profit
Rutherford Institute, of Charlottesville, Va., a defender of
civil liberties, writes:
“When it comes to the NSA, Obama has been lying to the
American people for quite some time now. There was the
time he claimed the secret FISA court is ‘transparent.’
Then he insisted that ‘we don’t have a domestic spying
program.’ And then, to top it all off, he actually insisted
there was no evidence the NSA was ‘actually abusing’ its
power.”
Pacifist writer David Swanson, author of “War No More:
The Case for Abolition,” found no fewer than 45 lies in
Obama’s September 24, 2013, speech to the United
Nations. Just one example: Obama said, “we have …
worked to end a decade of war.”
To the contrary, Swanson says, “Obama expanded the
war on Afghanistan. Obama expanded… drone wars.
Obama has increased global U.S. troop presence, global
U.S. weapons sales, and the size of the world’s largest
military. He’s put ‘special’ forces into many countries,
waged a war on Libya, and pushed for an attack on
Syria. How does all of this ‘end a decade of war’?”
We also need to consider how much Obama had to gain
if he could show voters he could “get” bin Laden. In his
2012 re-election bid, the Obama campaign milked the bin
Laden slaying for all it was worth, even making a video
narrated by actor Tom Hanks about it. The “Huffington
Post’s” Ben Feller at the time wrote an article headlined,
“Obama Campaign Using Osama Bin Laden Killing As
2012 Campaign Tool.”
If the Hersh account is accurate, and bin Laden was
unarmed, it begs the larger question of why the Pentagon
ordered an elite unit to assault his compound with guns
blazing when he could have been taken prisoner? Isn’t
there a question or two the American people might have
liked to ask bin Laden about the 9/11 massacre?
In retrospect, the Obama White House achieved its goals.
President Obama improved his re-election chances by
killing bin Laden rather than bringing him to justice, even
if he had to stamp out the truth to do it. In the process,
he fixed things so the Seals can’t talk, the sailors can’t
talk, the admirals can’t talk and, above all, Osama bin
Laden can’t talk.

b

whatever, he still remains dead

Broda na me n u go read this ur textbook

If all this people can't talk






Then way asking or telling us?


Me too can't talk